What Pelosi Has Sown

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:01:43 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This:

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only.

I have written many times of Speaker Pelosi's utterly irresponsible behavior during this Democratic presidential nomination campaign. She claims to be neutral when everyone knows she is for Obama. She claims to have to maintain neutrality because she is co-chairman of the Democratic National Convention. But she has repeatedly made statements betraying that neutrality, including saying a unity ticket is impossible and that the super delegates should overturn the popular vote in favor of the pledged delegate count. She argued against revotes in Florida and Michigan.

Her behavior has predictably led to outrage from Clinton supporters. It has also helped lead to the view that a nominee with a popular vote advantage could be an illegitimate nominee. Pelosi has tried to walk back her statements in her response to the disgruntled Clinton supporters:

Speaker Pelosi is confident that superdelegates will choose between Senators Clinton or Obama -- our two strong candidates -- before the convention in August. That choice will be based on many considerations, including respecting the decisions of millions of Americans who have voted in primaries and participated in caucuses. The Speaker believes it would do great harm to the Democratic Party if superdelegates are perceived to overturn the will of the voters. This has been her position throughout this primary season, regardless of who was ahead at any particular point in delegates or votes.

Clearly Pelosi is trying to walk back her statements, particularly her dismissal of the popular vote. But the damage has been done, particularly to Pelosi's credibility as a neutral party elder. She has been as divisive and harmful as any other Democrat in this contest. She should do the honorable thing and formally announce what we all know - she is an Obama supporter. She also should step down as co-chairman of the Democratic National Convention. And she should be quiet for a while. She has done enough damage already.

NOTE - Comments closed.

< Hillary Says Obama's Economic Plan Mirrors Hers but Lacks Specifics | Gene Lyons On The Democrats' MI/FL Problem >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

What Pelosi Has Sown | 209 comments (209 topical)

I agree (5.00 / 4) (#4)
by CognitiveDissonance on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:09:07 PM EST

Good points, BTD. I'm beginning to wonder if we have any Democratic party leaders who have a lick of common sense. Or if they have all been in their ivory towers so long that their brains no longer comprehend the realities of the real world.

It's not a good idea to tell voters that their votes aren't as important as the RULZ, or undemocratically elected delegates. It is especially not a good idea to tell the whole world that FL and MI don't count, particularly since it is a suicidal stance in the General Election.

I'm beginning to wonder if they really want to win this election or not. Their actions seem to belie that.

I dunno (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:20:21 PM EST

I am convinced Pelosi lacks it though.

[ Parent ]

I (none / 0) (#70)
by Claw on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:36:53 PM EST

Think they WANT to win but they're sure making it look like they don't. Dean has been bad, Pelosi perhaps even worse. If it does come down to Clinton as the nominee, I really would like her to have a fairly large pop. vote lead or a more modest one and be within (or very, very close to within) 100 delegates. The reason is that it's so easy for the press to pounce on the story if she isn't very close in delegates, or doesn't have a pretty big pop. vote lead, or (nightmare scenario) both. I can honestly see Wolf Blitzer saying something like "Obama leads in delegates but was not the nominee; has the will of the people been thwarted?" Then we cut to two Obama supporters and one, possibly pretend, Clinton supporter. This will happen. "When we come back we'll have more on just how the smoke filled rooms work." It would be SO bad.

[ Parent ]

And... (none / 0) (#137)
by Aye B2 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:13:20 PM EST

What are the mathematics that have Hillary Clinton winning w/out the superdelegate swing? When did her winning become the foregone conclusion again?

[ Parent ]

And where is the mathematics (5.00 / 1) (#182)
by Marvin42 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:49:23 PM EST

That show Obama winning without the super-delegate swing?

I am SO sick of this sophistry at this point. Its either just delusion or purposeful misstatement.

[ Parent ]

My gawd (5.00 / 1) (#184)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:50:56 PM EST

Please bring back jgarza!!!

[ Parent ]

: Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! (none / 0) (#196)
by waldenpond on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:58:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Having big money (5.00 / 2) (#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 / 1) (#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 / 1) (#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.


[ 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 ]

I was amazed at the diary on the dkos (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by jes on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:10:09 PM EST

wreck list that had no idea that Pelosi was walking back her prior statement. They thought this was a shout out STFU from Pelosi to Clinton. I checked about 100 comments and saw not a single comment that suggested otherwise.

That community (5.00 / 3) (#9)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:14:21 PM EST

is not worth paying attention to.

[ Parent ]

That's the Clinton postition, isn't it (5.00 / 1) (#52)
by PaulDem on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:32:32 PM EST

Any community/state/age range that doesn't support Clinton is not worth paying attention to.

[ Parent ]

Nooo (5.00 / 1) (#61)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:34:25 PM EST

THAT community is not worth paying attention to.

But act the idiot if you like. Pretend it is filled with good information and analysis and not populated by idiots.

think that my view is based on the fact they it supports Obama. I am sure it makes you feel better.

Idiots get comfort in their own ways.

[ Parent ]

BTD-populated by idiots (none / 0) (#164)
by mikecan1978 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:28:35 PM EST

Thats a bold statment from a former frontpager there. I think you probably recognize my handle, and from that know I post at dailykos.

mcjoan, M Blades kid oakland etc etc are all people I bet you don't find to be idoits.

As for Pelosi, I think her comments regarding super delegates was not bad. It is true that you have a delegate system for picking the nominee not a popular vote system. Perhaps thats why Pelosi said what she said. I agree that if it is close and the popular vote was in Hillaries favour it would be an arguement, but not the only one.

One thing I find surprising is that when Obama won those 11 states in a row alot of them where caucases....now if they had been close I could see you point that primaries might have had different totals. But he won by 15-25% in many of them. Those would have added more votes in the popular vote column for him even if he only won the primaries by 5%.

I know you will point to Texas where CLinton won by 3% in the primary and lost by 8% in the causus. Well I imagine that 10% swing would still leave Obama with at least a 5% voter edge in states he won the caucuses by more then 15%.

It's a tricky issue and I feel like Florida and Michigan should have re-votes. It's my feeling that Hillary can't catch up in either case.

[ Parent ]

: As for your discussion (5.00 / 1) (#183)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:49:51 PM EST

of caucuses and primaries and what the effect would have been, I find yopur arguments ill informed.
Primaries always favored Clinton. Always. NEver would Obama do better in a primary than he would do in a caucus.

[ Parent ]
: The FPers are not idiots (none / 0) (#181)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:48:33 PM EST

The community has become overrun by idiots.
My gawd, do you really deny it Mike?
No EVERYONE is an idiot, but the proportion of idiots at daily kos is markedly above what it ever was before.
The community is supremely stupid now. But not all are stupid.

[ Parent ]

Heh (5.00 / 2) (#93)
by badger on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:48:36 PM EST

A few months ago, Pelosi was the devil incarnate because she "took impeachment off the table" and couldn't end the war single-handedly, and made nasty comments about bloggers.

Now that she's born again in Obama, she's been rehabilitated.

[ Parent ]

An excellent example of the.... (5.00 / 2) (#97)
by ACitizen on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:50:18 PM EST

......'Obama Effect' where everything he or his campaign touchs turns to shit.

The introduction of religion into the campaign re: The ReThuglican playbook...right.

Disenfranchisement of voters.....check.

That there 'wave election' Miss Nancy is so happily waiting for from The Magic Man's 'coattails....er, not so much...

Everywhere you look you see Obama and his supporters happily wrecking whatever seemingly opposes his ascension to being 'Leader'.

I shudder to think what he would do with Boosh's wiretap capability.

[ Parent ]

You must not have seen my comment (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by magster on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:19:19 PM EST

I said I thought she backpedaled.

With that said, Pelosi is right to lean Obama since he is the presumptive nominee and Hillary is out to destroy him. To have all these non-Democratic Democrats leveraging there gobs of money at the expense of Democratic congressional candidates and a larger Democratic congressional majority is inexcusable, and speaks volumes about Clinton's true motives if she played any part in the letter being sent. And, I'm sure you've seen that a sizable numbers of these letter signers donated to Lieberman and/or slept in the Lincoln bedroom. That last nugget should keep Edwards from ever endorsing her.

[ Parent ]

Right to lean Obama? (5.00 / 3) (#36)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:27:19 PM EST

A "neutral" elder statesman of the Party? Do any of you actually care about unifying the PArty?

[ Parent ]

can we talk about Dean (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:30:30 PM EST

and his feigned impartiality next?

[ Parent ]

Dean has made bonheaded moves (none / 0) (#55)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:32:52 PM EST

but he has been good of late.

He is not why there are no revotes in FL and MI.

that is Obama's doing.

[ Parent ]

I dont believe for a second (5.00 / 1) (#58)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:33:49 PM EST

he is impartial

[ Parent ]

: I do not either (none / 0) (#63)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:34:58 PM EST

But he has acted the part quite well imo. Unlike PElosi.

[ Parent ]

"Good of late" too late with Dean (nt) (none / 0) (#81)
by Cream City on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:41:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]

BTD (none / 0) (#199)
by Same As It Ever Was on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:09:22 PM EST

Respectfully, I'm in Florida as you may recall and familiar with the efforts to secure a revote. While I cannot say what level of culpability the Obama campaign may have had with respect to the Michigan revote, it had nothing to do with the failure of the Florida Democratic Party to get it's act together.

The fact of the matter is that while there was a valiant effort by some in the Florida legislature and even the state party leadership to make it happen, there was overwhelming opposition to the idea among influential Florida Democrats, including the Florida delegation to Congress. Most these are Clinton supporters as Obama does not have a great deal of support here. The leading pols in the state party generally want the Florida delegation seated pursuant to the January 29 primary vote and are daring the national party not to seat the delegation. In fact, Nan Rich is proposing legislation to remove the nominee's name from the November ballot if the delegation is not seated. A ridiculous gesture, but indicative of the posture of leading Florida democrats.

Without support from Florida democrats, the revote proposal was doomed before it ever got the DNC.

[ Parent ]

Nonsense RO (none / 0) (#203)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:13:03 PM EST

If Obama had backed it a way to hold it would have been found.

Your support for Obama is clouding this obvious fact.

[ Parent ]

: I'm sorry that you feel that way. (none / 0) (#210)
by Same As It Ever Was on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:26:46 PM EST

And you may be right that an agressive campaign by Obama to ensure a revote might have had some impact.
But I think you underestimate the degree to which Florida pols are willing to force the DNC's hand here. Many are indignant that the DNC would dare even threaten not to accept the result of the January primary and are enthusiastically playing chicken.
And unfortunately I can't name names but I am aware of one major player in the Orlando area who actively opposed the notion of a revote because he/she was felt that Obama would improve over his result in January.
There is a mix of factors here that led to Florida not having a revote. Could an Obama push have made a difference? Perhaps with an acceptance of a questionable mail in ballot process.
But I don't think so. He is not so well thought of by the people in a position to move the process forward.
My sense is though that Michigan is different and that he bears greater culpability there.

[ Parent ]

Your facts are inconvenient (none / 0) (#206)
by Alien Abductee on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:16:37 PM EST

Away with them!

[ Parent ]

It takes two sides to unify a party (5.00 / 1) (#76)
by magster on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:39:00 PM EST

and if one side (Clinton) has effectively declared they have no interest in unifying the party vis-a-vis double teaming with McCain to tear Obama down, then the party leader needs to not be neutral anymore.

[ Parent ]

Such nonsense (5.00 / 6) (#86)
by Cream City on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:43:06 PM EST

Clinton has talked, from day one in Iowa and repeatedly since, about DEMS winning.

Your candidate talks about himself winning.

[ Parent ]

It takes a leader (5.00 / 7) (#87)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:43:57 PM EST

to unify two opposing sides.

Pelosi is now disqualified from being in that leadership group.

She is now among the factions that need to be unified.

This is so simple I do not see how it escapes you.

[ Parent ]

Let's map this out then (5.00 / 1) (#111)
by magster on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:56:05 PM EST

If Obama loses PA but wins NC and IN by big enough margins that he increases his delegate and popular vote lead relative to where he is now, should she still stay neutral? If Clinton continues to call Obama a novice on foreign policy compared to McCain while pledging a convention floor fight?

It would be one thing if Clinton chose to double team with Obama against McCain with a McCain-bad, Obama-good, Clinton-better campaign, but that's so obviously not happening that neutrality is not tenable as a leadership position any longer.

[ Parent ]

Absolutely yes (none / 0) (#117)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:59:12 PM EST

She should have remained neutral throughout.

Now she should declare the obvious - she is a ferocious Obama supporter.

[ Parent ]

Do you anticipate Obama would agree (none / 0) (#123)
by oculus on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:02:31 PM EST

to do the same, and then do it?

[ Parent ]

obama's lead is shrinking in NC (none / 0) (#189)
by thereyougo on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:55:55 PM EST

its now O -47 to C40 3 weeks away an eternity in politics. The more we know the less he's liked.

[ Parent ]

: Is that a recent poll? (none / 0) (#205)
by magster on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:15:39 PM EST

The only poll I saw matching that result was on 3/6/08. If so, three weeks is definitely an eternity, as three weeks later, PPP had Obama ahead by 21 pts.

[ Parent ]

It's never a good idea.. (5.00 / 1) (#89)
by Jerrymcl89 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:45:41 PM EST

.. for party leaders to act partially and pretend impartiality. If Pelosi want's Obama to win, she should just say so, and let her influence on the process be viewed accordingly.

[ Parent ]

And if Obama's campaign (5.00 / 1) (#173)
by hookfan on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:39:06 PM EST

continues to diss, ignore, and disenfranchise clinton's supporters the result will be. . .???

[ Parent ]

Everyone knows Clinton's (none / 0) (#49)
by oculus on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:31:47 PM EST

supporters will fall in line. <snark.>

[ Parent ]

Yeah but they don't know which line. nt (5.00 / 2) (#54)
by Maria Garcia on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:32:46 PM EST

: J says to label "snark"! (none / 0) (#68)
by oculus on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:35:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]

That you added <snark> (none / 0) (#116)
by magster on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:58:51 PM EST

at the end shows that unity is not an option.

[ Parent ]

Oh, I think it is. But you've probably (5.00 / 2) (#122)
by oculus on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:01:05 PM EST

noticed quite a few women here stating they really don't like being taken for granted.

[ Parent ]

Not taking you for granted (none / 0) (#139)
by magster on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:14:12 PM EST

But short of Obama bowing out of the race, and assuming Obama is nominated, what can Obama do to win your vote? Are bridges burned? Will the ice-shelf falling off of Antarctica, a recession, Iraq, FISA, torture, Supreme Court, health care be enough for you to hold your nose when you vote for Obama? I've read too many times on this site that it's not enough, and so I hope Pelosi, Reid, Dean whoever just advocates publicly or privately a superdelegate shut-down of Hillary's campaign.

[ Parent ]

: I'm not actually one of those who (5.00 / 1) (#153)
by oculus on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:22:20 PM EST

states she will decline to vote for Obama as nominee. SCOTUS appointments are too important too me, and I must trust Obama, if elected, to nominate the appropriate people and work hard to get those nominations confirmed.

[ Parent ]
: First it would be nice..... (5.00 / 1) (#160)
by Maria Garcia on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:26:05 PM EST

...to be treated as if we were NOT the enemy. But I think that's the way Obama and Axelrod like to play it. Unity is always at the expense of those which must be excluded. I really don't understand why it is bothering Obama supporters so much. But try to understand this, we feel marginalized, ridiculed, and mocked. Would a simple I'm sorry be out of the question. You'd be surprised how far that can go.

[ Parent ]
: Voters be damned. (5.00 / 2) (#190)
by Lysis on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:56:35 PM EST

For all the talk about how superdelegates must honor the will of the voters, it doesn't make much sense to then argue that they "shut down Hillary's campaign" while millions of voters have yet to be heard.

[ Parent ]
: Short of knee-capping me, I'm not sure what (none / 0) (#144)
by MarkL on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:16:59 PM EST

he could do, at this point.

[ Parent ]
: The result would be (none / 0) (#168)
by hookfan on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:32:43 PM EST

of course, a disaster in the GE. But I guess winning that election really doesn't matter. All hail King McBush!

[ Parent ]

i will not EVER fall in line behind obama...sorry (none / 0) (#128)
by sickofhypocrisy on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:07:18 PM EST

my contempt for his supporters has pushed me to mccain.

[ Parent ]

Good (5.00 / 1) (#141)
by magster on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:15:46 PM EST

We'll replace you with ten college kids who just turned 18.

[ Parent ]

let's hope they're better at turning up to vote (5.00 / 1) (#151)
by pukemoana on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:21:32 PM EST

than Obama girl

[ Parent ]

Now, that's funny (5.00 / 2) (#158)
by Cream City on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:25:56 PM EST

as I teach that age group. And I love 'em. But perhaps you would like to know their rate of reliability for showing up for class on time.

I just gave a test and 25% didn't get there.

(Btw, most of those who get there will be our future leaders -- and they're Clinton supporters, by the buttons they wear.)

[ Parent ]

10 college kids eh? (5.00 / 1) (#175)
by nycstray on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:41:30 PM EST

let's 'hope' they'll still be around in Nov. I don't have faith in his 'new voters' for having much of a backbone. It's going to get ugly out there and he doesn't have the Dem base.

[ Parent ]

Please delete above comment (none / 0) (#148)
by magster on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:19:32 PM EST

and tell me to calm down.

[ Parent ]

: I gave you a 1 (none / 0) (#157)
by waldenpond on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:24:44 PM EST

until someone can come in and clean up :)

[ Parent ]

that and the fact that he is WWW (none / 0) (#129)
by sickofhypocrisy on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:07:57 PM EST

wishy-washy-whiny

[ Parent ]

McCain is not a healthy candidate. (none / 0) (#193)
by thereyougo on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:57:38 PM EST

: Meaning his health or ours? (none / 0) (#200)
by hookfan on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:09:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Oh, so they like Pelosi now? How sweet. nt (5.00 / 2) (#47)
by Maria Garcia on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:30:50 PM EST

some even suggested her for VP (none / 0) (#80)
by jes on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:41:17 PM EST

goodness. Rewarding Pelosi's bad behavior is now a reason for her rehabilitation.

[ Parent ]

The real smokefilled room will be... (none / 0) (#105)
by Maria Garcia on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:52:50 PM EST

...all the so-called Dem leaders slugging it out for the VP spot. I'm sure the job has been hinted at to many.

[ Parent ]

: Yeah (none / 0) (#130)
by ineedalife on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:08:32 PM EST

I wonder about that too. Just how many people has Obama promised the VP-slot to?

[ Parent ]

Politico title (none / 0) (#67)
by waldenpond on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:35:23 PM EST

'Pelosi Stands Up to Clinton Group.' I guess that will be the media spin.

[ Parent ]

You can either (5.00 / 1) (#74)
by demsforlife on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:38:41 PM EST

stand up or sit down.

And she's not sitting down.

[ Parent ]

: She did sit down (5.00 / 3) (#152)
by Davidson on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:21:36 PM EST

She refused to stand up for the Democratic party and democracy itself (MI, FL) with her overt attempt at manipulating the nomination in favor of one candidate, regardless of any damage to the party.

[ Parent ]

It is not necessarily (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by MKS on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:10:09 PM EST

an Obama position to say that the leader in pledged delegates should get the nomination.

Maria Cantwell, who is a Hillary supporter, has said she would vote for the leader in pledged delegates at the convention. Perhaps this is her way of switching over to Obama....but taking this position does have merit aside from raw partisanship for Obama.

IT certainly is (5.00 / 3) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:13:45 PM EST

especially when you make it when everyone knows Obama is almost certain to be the pledged delegate leaders.

Look, if you like what Pelosi has said, I wager you are an Obama supporter. Clinton supporters detested it.

More than that, Pelosi was telling falsehoods in that the rules allow for that which she said was wrong.

Pelosi has been as harmful and divisive a figure as we have seen in this race.

Her performance as an "elder statesman" has been atrocious.

[ Parent ]

: I like Pelosi for (none / 0) (#57)
by MKS on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:33:26 PM EST

her trip to Tibet....
Sure, I am an Obama supporter. I do tend to fade into the woodwork at times....
Pelosi does seem more West Coast than East Coast....
A lead in pledged delegates has always been the most important metric....Now, other measures have been suggested....

[ Parent ]

Since neither will have enough (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Cream City on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:17:02 PM EST

pledged delegates, and since the count still is soft for Obama from caucus states such as hers, with so many more re-caucusing steps to go . . . it's probably a wishy-washy statement that can be walked back, too.

[ Parent ]

Cantwell's (none / 0) (#16)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:18:31 PM EST

IT is virtually meaningless.

Here is how you prove it - ask her if she will vote against the POPULAR VOTE leader.

[ Parent ]

Why are we making determinations... (none / 0) (#71)
by demsforlife on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:37:37 PM EST

when in reality the opposite is true. She IS NOT the popular vote leader.

If she doesn't obtain a significant lead in popular vote after PA then will you agree she should drop out.

Or is a 1+ vote in the popular vote enough to overturn the nomination.

[ Parent ]

: not overturning the nomination (5.00 / 2) (#99)
by honora on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:51:18 PM EST

After all the primaries are held, neither candidate will have enough delegates to secure the nomination. The SD will then have to decide which candidate they feel will be the strongest in November. If a SD decides that the candidate with a +1 in the popular vote is the one whom they wish to support, that is not "overturning the nomination". They are free to base their decision on any criteria that makes sense to them.

[ Parent ]
: EXACTLY (none / 0) (#85)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:42:44 PM EST

Let the voters decide. You and I are in agreement.

[ Parent ]
: popular vote leader is a good metric (none / 0) (#104)
by DandyTIger on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:52:49 PM EST

And so when all of the states have voted and have been counted, whoever has that lead, is good to go, and legitimate. If MI and FL have been disenfranchised then a reasonable metric would be that Obama has to win the popular vote by at least 500K to make up for that. And by the way, if you count MI and FL now, she is the popular vote leader.
I like how you've moved the goal post with that "significant lead" bit. So Obama can win if he's only a bit behind in the popular vote. Does that mean you were happy with the 2000 selection process then.

[ Parent ]

Agree (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by squeaky on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:11:50 PM EST

She also should step down as co-chairman of the Democratic National Convention.

In order to spend more time with her family, then endorse Obama and go on the campaign trail for him.

Precisely (none / 0) (#15)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:17:29 PM EST

The problem is the dishonest claim of neutrality.

Kerry has said what she said., I have no bones to pick with him.

[ Parent ]

I do (none / 0) (#37)
by Step Beyond on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:27:25 PM EST

I have a bone to pick with Kerry. Ok it's actually a "Count Every Vote. Every Vote Counts." sign that I would like to use to beat him about the head and shoulders.

But it's not related to superdelegates so I shall so no more about it in this thread.

[ Parent ]

True that (5.00 / 1) (#45)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:30:20 PM EST

but your bone is with Barack Obama more so than Kerry.

[ Parent ]

: Actually (5.00 / 1) (#56)
by Step Beyond on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:33:10 PM EST

I have a whole list of people. I only named Kerry because his name was brought up. :D

[ Parent ]

Pelosi could really create a mess. (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by ajain on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:15:45 PM EST

She should be careful. If she pisses off these big donors there will be a problem for the Democratic Party in the long run. There is excitement this year because George Bush is president. Once the Dems get to govern the excitement will die down, if not turn on them, and they will need these big money donors.
She should watch out.

Heh (5.00 / 2) (#24)
by Steve M on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:20:52 PM EST

There is this silly notion out there in the Obamasphere that we can tell all these big-money types to go pound sand, because Obama has unearthed the Rosetta Stone of grassroots funding.

While I have plenty of issues with the Democratic Party's big donors, many of whom have objectionable agendas, the reality is that these people have funded many of our wins year after year. The idea that we should ditch them under the assumption that all the people sending $10 to Obama will continue doing so for every Democratic candidate from here to eternity is just silly.

[ Parent ]

The don't have to pound sand (5.00 / 1) (#62)
by AF on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:34:37 PM EST

But I don't approve of their trying to throw their weight around in broad daylight. Stuff like that is better in smoke-filled rooms.

[ Parent ]

Well (none / 0) (#75)
by Steve M on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:38:56 PM EST

I don't think you or I know how the press got their hands on the letter. It was not an open letter.

[ Parent ]

: It's pretty obvious (none / 0) (#187)
by AF on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:55:28 PM EST

That it was written for public consumption.

[ Parent ]

What about transperancy? (none / 0) (#114)
by Joan in VA on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:57:05 PM EST

Particularly... (none / 0) (#41)
by Angry Mouse on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:29:05 PM EST

when so many of those supporters are now claiming they won't vote for the Democratic nominee unless it's Hillary.

And that many of them are first-time voters who are only participating in this election because they love Obama.

Loving a candidate helps, but let's face it, most of the time, we have to run with candidates we don't like much. Where will all those enthusiastic online donations be the next time we run with Dukakis or Mondale or Kerry?

[ Parent ]

Sorry (5.00 / 2) (#44)
by AF on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:29:24 PM EST

But I am not particularly concerned about the delicate sensibilities of big Democratic donors.

I agree with BTD that Pelosi is not neutral, but I don't approve of the threat to sell out the Democratic party because the Speaker of the House isn't being sufficiently neutral.

[ Parent ]

Acdftually (5.00 / 1) (#82)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:41:55 PM EST

what you or I care here is irrelevant.

Pelosi should care about the Dem Party however and if maintaining a modicum of formal neutrality is too much for her, she must shed her party elder statesmen label.

Certainly no Clinton supporter accepts her as such and thus she does not have that role anymore.

[ Parent ]

: Obama's "Dems for a day" (5.00 / 1) (#170)
by Josey on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:36:47 PM EST

in Philly paper today -
>>>Imagine the Democrats' outrage if the GOP-backed Democratic nominee wins the nomination - and then goes on to lose to McCain in November.
http://tinyurl.com/23523g
Hopefully, the superdelegates will consider how Obama became the presumptive nominee.
It certainly doesn't seem to bother Dem leadership.

[ Parent ]

I hope you disagreed (none / 0) (#95)
by waldenpond on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:49:49 PM EST

when the Obama camp was threatening to withdraw support (money) from superdeez for their re-elections and they were being threatened with harm if they didn't switch from Clinton to Obama.

[ Parent ]

Indeed (none / 0) (#18)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:19:04 PM EST

Pelosi (5.00 / 4) (#22)
by demsforlife on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:20:10 PM EST

should not back down to clinton donors who

What Pelosi Has Sown

The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

Menu

Premium Ads

Blog Ads

Search

Login

Creator and Principal Author

Contributors

TL Alumni

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections

Site Credits

Legal

Stats