The Brits have a term for it.  

They call it cheek.

Americans have words for it, too, it's just that most of them are unprintable.

It seems the Clinton's donors have sent a letter to House Speaker Pelosi chastising her for arguing that the superdelegates (of which she is one) should follow the will of the people and elect the one with the most pledged delegates.

They found it "inappropriate" that she had the audacity to make an argument for why the superdelegates should (note: should, meaning nomative) vote in a particular way.

She did not say that the superdelegates should be abolished or that they had no role to play.  She did make a reasoned argument as to how she thinks the superdelegates should act.

One you (and the superdelegates) are free to agree or disagree with.

Clinton donors found this objectionable because superdelegates should (again, note: normative) vote their conscience and ignore the will of the voters of their state. 

So objectionable that they insinuated they may not provide necessary funding for continued democratic congressional success.

To review.  Clinton donors are mad because Pelosi made an argument about how superdelegates should act.  This is inappropriate.

Appropriate action is to threaten to cut funding for congressional campaigns unless you agree with our argument that superdelegates should make an independent decision based upon their individual evaluation of the arguments.  (Presumably this evaluation is sans the threat of witholding campaign funds)

So persuasion is bad, but bullying is okay. 

Seems to pretty much sum up the difference between the two campaigns.