home
What Pelosi Has Sown | 201 comments (201 topical)
Having big money (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by MKS on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:22:05 PM EST
people threten Pelosi is a real problem....

It is that kind of bullying from people with money that has hurt Democrats in California.  Ahnold was elected via re-call of Gray Davis because of Davis's perceived sell-out to special interests....and use of money goons to threaten various people.

Many pooh-pooh a concern about process and money and lobbyists....It matters here on the West Coast.  Hillary is behind McCain in Oregon by a significant margin for the second straight poll, and she leads McCain by only 3-4 points in California....It is hard for a Democrat to screw up a lead in California--that typically only happens when the Democrat is perceived as tainted by money and special interests a' la Gray Davis....

[ Parent ]

Gray Davis was an easy target (5.00 / 0) (#32)
by oculus on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:26:32 PM EST
due to his rigidity and lack of charisma.  

[ Parent ]
Irrelevant IMO (5.00 / 1) (#100)
by squeaky on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:51:24 PM EST
California is [was] still demanding that FERC order the energy companies to refund the state $8.9 billion for overcharging the state for electricity during its yearlong energy crisis.

Arnie met with Lay, Milken 2 years earlier to discuss the recall. The governor has the ability to negotiate a settlement to the tune of 10 cents on the dollar, or less. That is not small potatoes when the number owed is $8.9 billion.

[ Parent ]

It was definately (5.00 / 1) (#134)
by eric on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:11:09 PM EST
a take-down job.  They could have tried to tempt Davis with high-priced call girls, but this way Enron was able to bilk CA for a ton of money.  All the better for Bush's former buddy, the Late Kenny Boy Lay.

[ Parent ]
Have you nothing at all to say (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:31:21 PM EST
about what Pelosi has done?

It is attitudes like yours which will threaten Obama's ability to win in November.

[ Parent ]

Catch 22 (5.00 / 0) (#88)
by MKS on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:45:38 PM EST
if she stays neutral and does nothing, then she is not exercising leadership....If she steps forward and gives an opinion on the process, then she is now taking sides....

There is a significant amount of reporting that many superdelegates are not happy with Hillary's kitchen-sink campaign.  Cantwell tends to reflect that...

The party leaders should not try to short-circuit the process...but if the campaign is not a clean one, then the Superdelegates, who will ultimately decide this, may decide to do so sooner rather than later....  

[ Parent ]

BS!!! (5.00 / 3) (#92)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:47:48 PM EST
What leadership is she exercising now? She is a discredited figure for half the PArty. What nonsense.

She does not get to decide when this race ends. It is folly to think she does. I think she believed it the idiot that she is.

[ Parent ]

Timing (none / 0) (#96)
by MKS on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:50:14 PM EST
At some point, the party leaders need to step in....The agrument I suppose is that she acted too soon....

[ Parent ]
Nooo (none / 0) (#121)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:00:39 PM EST
The party leaders should NEVER step in.

Mostly because their intervention is ineffectual and harmful.

[ Parent ]

what? (none / 0) (#140)
by tsackton on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:15:45 PM EST
Everybody pretty much agrees that the nomination is going to be ultimately decided by party leaders, i.e. superdelegates, right?

So how can they both decide the nomination and also NEVER step in? That doesn't make sense to me. Of course the party leaders have to step in at some point. We can have a reasonable disagreement about when that point should be, but not that it will happen.

[ Parent ]

Hint (5.00 / 2) (#156)
by Warren Terrer on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:23:37 PM EST
It should be AFTER the voters have voted.

[ Parent ]
You must be joking (none / 0) (#161)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:26:13 PM EST
Are you comparing Super Delegates endorsing to Pelosi pretending she is neutral and saying all these divisive things? Did you NOT read me saying Pelosi should just endorse Obama and be done with it?

I detest this type of commenting.

I am willing to engage in an honest exchange. If you want to play games, go do it with someone else.

I have no respect for your type of BS.

[ Parent ]

Just because (5.00 / 2) (#102)
by nell on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:52:16 PM EST
Just because the mainstream media claims Hillary is throwing the kitchen sink does not make it so. Obama's campaign has been HORRIBLE towards her and they have been hell bent on tearing her and Bill down in the most personal terms possible. Have you listened to the conference calls his campaign hosts? They made me almost want to vomit. I have NEVER talked about anybody, even someone I hated, in such destructive terms.

Just because the media lets him get away with it, does not make it okay and it does not mean that no one has noticed. He is going to have to work REALLY hard for my vote if he is the nominee and everyday that he keeps up this lie that only she is negative that she has some kind of character gap he makes it less and less likely that he will ever get my vote.

By the way, many Clinton supporters have followed up with Cantwell and were told that Cantwell still backs Clinton enthuiastically and that she mentioned pledged delegates in a list of other factors, including the popular vote and electability. My guess is she said what she said to get Obama supporters who were harrassing her like they do every other superdelegate off her back.

[ Parent ]

the Clinton campaign (5.00 / 1) (#143)
by tsackton on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:16:54 PM EST
started with the "kitchen sink" rhetoric. There is a lot the media has done wrong this election cycle, but it is hard to blame them for that one.

[ Parent ]
I Think It Was The Media (none / 0) (#195)
by flashman on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:58:12 PM EST
I never heard the Clintons use that term, and I've been listening pretty carefully.  If the media put the words into her mouth, it certainly would not be the first time.

[ Parent ]
not the Clintons, but her campaign (none / 0) (#207)
by tsackton on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:17:38 PM EST
Here is the relevant article, claiming the term was put out there by a Clinton aide.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/us/politics/26clinton.html?sq=

Admittedly not a direct quote, but I doubt the NY Times would have led off the article with it if it wasn't actually said by an aide.

[ Parent ]

The (none / 0) (#126)
by Claw on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:05:26 PM EST
Reason the media uses the "kitchen sink" term is because the Clinton camp came up with it.  I think this goes to my point above about why we can't trust the media to cover this thing responsibly.  

[ Parent ]
Add here I thought that Pelosi (5.00 / 3) (#136)
by Anne on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:12:27 PM EST
really should have her hands full in the House, attending to the difficult work of crafting a successful legislative agenda, and working with the DCCC to make sure Democrats are positoned well to perhaps increase our numbers in the House, but apparently, she has plenty of free time and thinks it is best spent elbowing her way to the microphone to make sure we all know what she thinks about the delegates and superdelegates and the nominating process.

If she were a real leader, her precious little free time would be better spent reminding the people that the superdelegates are supposed to follow their own conscience in deciding for whom to vote, as opposed to instructing them on what she thinks they should do.

I'm sorry, but I don't know why anyone would follow the advice of the "leader" who took impeachment off the table, and gave the Bush administration the all-clear to continue its activites with impunity.

What a disappointment.

[ Parent ]

She Was Right (none / 0) (#150)
by squeaky on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:20:34 PM EST
About taking impeachment off the table. Considering that impeachment cannot happen after a Prez leaves office, imagine the distraction and blame that the Dems would face in nov 08 after having wasted all the time and money on an empty gesture.

Can you imagine that circus going on now as well. The Iraq war (what Iraq war?) has fallen off the radar.

[ Parent ]

ditto! (none / 0) (#154)
by thereyougo on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:22:26 PM EST


[ Parent ]
ditto! (none / 0) (#155)
by thereyougo on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:22:46 PM EST


[ Parent ]
Really? (5.00 / 2) (#51)
by squeaky on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:32:21 PM EST
Ahnold was elected via re-call of Gray Davis because of Davis's perceived sell-out to special interests....and use of money goons to threaten various people.

Seemed like GOP gaming the system to me. The 12% of voters needed for a recall seems like good gaming material to me.

The 2003 recall movement against Governor Gray Davis was spearheaded by the People's Advocate, the anti-tax group founded by Paul Gann, and now headed by his associate, Ted Costa, and by a group of Republican Party activists including Shawn Steel, outgoing state Republican Party Chairman, and Sal Russo, a leading GOP strategist.

link

[ Parent ]

Gray Davis (5.00 / 3) (#64)
by eric on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:35:03 PM EST
was taken down by a big money smear campaign combined with the horrific power problems that Enron caused when it screwed CA.

Nobody thought Gray Davis was tainted by money and special interests....they just thought he was weak and couldn't keep the lights on.

[ Parent ]

I was living in CA when this happened (none / 0) (#84)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:42:31 PM EST
I think it was a lot more complicated.
the republicans basically bought a special election in which Arnold could run and win because of the california republican partys inability to nominate a candidate who could win.
Davis was the worst candidate ever.  almost anyone could have beaten him. except the extremist loser the republicans nominated. Arnold could not win a republican primary.
solution: buy a three ring circus freak show in which he can run and win.
it was one of the saddest political spectacles I have ever ever seen.  I had like being in california until then.

[ Parent ]
Well, I don't see why Pelosi... (5.00 / 1) (#138)
by Jerrymcl89 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:13:37 PM EST
... should simply be able to take for granted that big donors will keep pouring money into a party that disregards their interests. You can decry the influence of money, but if you take away the influence, you can expect to also lose the money.

[ Parent ]

What Pelosi Has Sown | 201 comments (201 topical)

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft