home

Obama Supporters Back Pelosi's Divisiveness

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:44:12 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Obama supporter Jonathan Singer cites approvingly to the news that Obama supporters are backing Speaker Pelosi's divisive comments:

[S]everal major Obama donors called Speaker Pelosi and DCCC chair Chris Van Hollen asking how they could be helpful. . . . Mark Gorenberg, a member of Obama’s national finance team, and a long-time DCCC fundraiser, met with Pelosi last Friday.

Unlike Singer, I am bothered by the fact that Obama supporters have backed Pelosi's divisiveness. It is incredibly shortsighted. We will need a united Party in November and Pelosi has been as harmful a Party Elder as we have seen. Her reaction is predictable:

Two sources close to Pelosi said that the Speaker did not appreciate being called out by the Clinton campaign so publicly. “I I can tell you she’s been disturbed about some of the Clinton campaign’s comments and tactics the last two months . . .

There goes Pelosi again, with the enthusiastic support of Obama supporters. The intent to divide the Party seems unshakeable for Pelosi and some Obama supporters. It seems simply idiotic to me.

< Chris Dodd Steps Back, Now Says Race Should Continue | Rendell: Olbermann The Most Biased News Reader In The World >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama Supporters Back Pelosi's Divisiveness | 87 comments (87 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I am less and less optimistic that we (5.00 / 8) (#1)
    by Joelarama on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:47:26 PM EST
    will have a united party in November, or at least an enthusiastically united party.

    I wonder what this does to (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by Kathy on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 03:59:19 PM EST
    BTD's Obama electability argument?  Even with the media's support, if half the base stays home, O hasn't got a chance.

    I have been voting for dems since I was 17 (birthday voter), sat on my daddy's knee stuffing envelopes for Carter as governor and president, and have never missed an election, even when tookie little sales tax initiatives were on the ballot.  I can promise if Obama gets the top of the ticket, I will stay home.  I am in Georgia, an unalterably red state (though some Obama supporters foolishly think it might turn blue) so my vote won't matter, but it will matter to me.  I have stopped sending money to the party and I no longer consider myself a yellow dog.

    O and his supporters have torn the party asunder.

    Parent

    Pelosi (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Tmo78759 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 04:52:52 PM EST
    How is pledging to give more money to the Democratic Party divisive.    A group of donors threatened to take their money out of the party if the Speaker of the House of Representatives didn't do as they said.  In polite circles, that's called extortion.  These new and returning donors have only said that they will make up the difference AND increase party coffers.  Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't that what we want?  More money, more victories and control of the Congress and White House?

    Parent
    What happens if O does not get the nom (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Kathy on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 04:58:56 PM EST
    Then where do those fair-weather dems go?  

    I'm not sure I understand the logic of tossing away long-term, reliable dem supporters, but of course some seem to think so long as it benefits Obama in the short-term, it's good for all.

    The problem these donors had (and the problem I have) is that someone high up in the leadership who could very well be called on to make an informed decision is implicitly choosing sides.

    Like Gore, Pelosi should remain neutral.  She loses all credibility by not doing so.  It would have cost her nothing to remain quiet.  By opening her mouth, she could very well have lost more than many realize.

    Parent

    Extortion? (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by dianem on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:29:33 PM EST
    "We respect those voters and believe that they, like the voters in the states that have already participated, have a right to be heard. None of us should make declarative statements that diminish the importance of their voices and their votes. We are writing to say we believe your remarks on ABC News This Week on March 16th did just that."

    You should not need to threaten the party with withholding funds in order to get them to give voter's their say. Period.

    Parent

    The more I support Dems, the more I get screwed (none / 0) (#67)
    by Ellie on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:44:25 PM EST
    It's to the point that I have to look hard for a reason to support them.

    They don't represent me or the core Dem interests I cherish. They don't aggressively, efficiently, honestly serve as an opposition party applying checks and balances. They don't promote progress. They don't uphold and defend the Constitution.

    All they manage to do is vacuum in obscene amounts of money to f*ck up elections they should be winning handily, and return the same perma-losers like Donna Brazile to power.

    With the Dems getting "my back" the last eight years, I'm not even a person any more. Hell, even my vote within the party wouldn't count.

    I totally see where Kathy's coming from. There are better ways to promote change and equality than putting "our" version of a shallow, Bush-like marketing cartoon character. The Dems are a joke.

    Parent

    sadly, I'm beginning to feel like this too (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by angie on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:54:49 PM EST
    I actually feel lost -- I've been a Democrat so long, putting my money & time where my "mouth" is with donations and volunteering, being heartbroken when Gore & Kerry lost.  And now I look at the fiasco the DNC, Pelosi, et al have made of this election and I don't think I'm a Democrat any more. At least not if being a Democrat means that the votes in FL & MI don't count just because the DNC says they don't and members of my own party, including the guy who wants to be my nominee, justify it. It wasn't ok with me when Bush & the USSC did it 2000 and it's not ok with me now. Honestly, this feeling is not because I support Hillary -- if it was her blocking FL & MI revotes,  she would lose my support.  I always said I would vote for whoever the Democratic nominee was, but now I actually don't know what to do. I know I'm physically incapable of voting for a Republican. But, if Obama gets the nomination with FL & MI not counting (or whatever Obama's story is about this now), I actually don't think I can vote for him either.  It will be the first time in 20 years I haven't voted in an election, and I feel like I've lost a part of myself.  Sorry for this long post, but I had to get this off of my chest.  Thank god for this site and the sanity and maturity here.  

    Parent
    Hallelujah. Tried so hard to refrain from posting (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Ellie on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:15:54 PM EST
    I swear, since '04 and esp. after '06 I tried so hard to give Dems every chance to meet me at least half way on the very routine laundry list I posted.

    I felt I was becoming a rote Dem scold, disappointment after disappointment, sellout after sellout and didn't want to clutter partisan, but overall fair and ethical sites I liked and respected with my Dem Rehab talk.

    I still followed a few of my favorites and refrained from posting at all for months and months. I'm just at my wits end. I still like and admire some individual candidates, and will always support causes I care about with body  heart and soul.

    I just feel like an idiot now for having given so much to the Dems during my adult life demanding so little in return.

    In closing,

    RUN HILLARY RUN! Run like the wind! :-)

    And if any of the Dem-istocracy are listening -- HAH!, the bigots outside my ob/gyn's office get more respect -- that's a deal-breaker!

    Parent

    Well Jonathan (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by rooge04 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:03:03 PM EST
    also thought that having Republican Chuck Hagel on the ticket with Obama wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. That would have been a surprise last year. This year, not so much.

    Tit for Tat (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by waldenpond on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:03:33 PM EST
    for what?  Some money says it will walk if Pelosi doesn't stay neutral on allowing people to vote, Moveon complains, other money steps forward to say it's ok to tip towards Obama and MYDD thinks this is a good thing.   Round and round it goes.

    I am wondering how little it takes to unify some voters.  There are many instances that are already over my threshold for tolerance and the only hope for the party is that they don't push some of us even farther away.  I will focus on electing the person I believe can best accomplish some of the policy changes I would like to see.  Unity has ceased being an issue for me.  

    Heh (5.00 / 6) (#4)
    by Steve M on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:04:02 PM EST
    Singer's post is ridiculous.  Obama's supporters have no problem with Pelosi's pro-Obama comments, which proves... that they are more focused on building the party?  Uh, no, it means they support Obama.

    Singer even notes that some Clinton supporters who didn't sign the letter have contacted Pelosi to assure her that the DCCC will get its funding, but he blows right past the implications of that fact.

    It is silly.  I don't support the threats those Clinton supporters made to Pelosi, but I don't sit here deploring them either.  Rather, I acknowledge the reality that when people take sides, some feathers will be ruffled.  That is precisely why Pelosi was publicly neutral and should have stayed that way.

    Yep (1.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:05:13 PM EST
    PELOSI is the problem, not some Clinton or Obama supporters.

    Parent
    Let's forget a united Party . . . (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Marguerite Quantaine on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:06:05 PM EST
    . . . and concentrate on a United States.

    As long as Hillary wins the popular vote to attain the nomination and then presidency, that can now be our clear and present hope.

    Pelosi has been just lousy. But, like rats running from a sinking ship, she'll eventually seek to endear herself in the manner of Dodd, Leahey, Richardson and the rest.

    To paraphrase A. R. Adams:

    Don't stay away from Obama because there are so many hypocrites. There's always room for one more.

    "He can't win" (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by magster on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:07:50 PM EST
    As long as she's in, these messages come out (I know the Clinton campaign is trying to turn this around on Richardson, but I don't buy it -- I think she said it).  These messages do more harm to Obama then a pretense of unity.

    And if Hillary said "he can't win" Obama can't have her as a VP on a unity ticket.  He needs someone who believes he will win, not going through the motions.  

    Since "she can't win" (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:14:49 PM EST
    has been part of the Obama appeal since the beginning, how is pointing out the electoral college votes unfair?

    Parent
    The difference? (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by wasabi on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:18:10 PM EST
    What is the difference between Obama saying "she can't win" and Clinton saying "he can't win"?

    I'd like to know.

    Parent

    He's the likely nominee (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by magster on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:22:22 PM EST


    Parent
    but not the nominee (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:24:35 PM EST
    it may have escaped your attention, the campaign is still going on.

    Parent
    I get it now (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by wasabi on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:28:58 PM EST
    You just have to be the first to CLAIM that someone is unelectable.  Then if you are ahead, you get to whine about how mean the other player is.  I get it now...

    Parent
    Because he is not ready to be (none / 0) (#59)
    by MichaelGale on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:10:06 PM EST
    President.  If he cared about the Democratic Party, he would have waited until he had "some"experience and some toughness for god's sake. He and his supporters are victims, just as this release states. Good.  Let them donate 24 million. The man's already spent 40 million. He could have rebuilt  south Chicago with that kind of money.

    I thought this guy was a "community activist" and wanted to help the poor.

    Parent

    Gallup poll (none / 0) (#68)
    by RalphB on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:52:20 PM EST
    shows that lots of people have concerns about his qualifications.

    Nearly 4 in 10 of those who least want to see Obama elected (39%) say they believe he is "inexperienced" or "not qualified" to be president.


    Parent
    Here's what Obama said in january (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by wasabi on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 03:55:17 PM EST
    Jan 30, 4:33 PM (ET)

    By NEDRA PICKLER

    DENVER (AP) - Democratic White House candidate Barack Obama on Wednesday said rival Hillary Rodham Clinton is too polarizing to win the presidency and she has taken positions shared by President Bush and Republican candidate John McCain for political expediency.


    Parent

    His quotes from that article: (5.00 / 0) (#51)
    by Alec82 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 04:27:30 PM EST
    "Democrats will win in November and build a majority in Congress not by nominating a candidate who will unite the other party against us, but by choosing one who can unite this country around a movement for change," Obama said, speaking as rival John Edwards was pulling out of the race in New Orleans, leaving a Clinton-Obama fight for the Democratic nomination.

    "It is time for new leadership that understands the way to win a debate with John McCain or any Republican who is nominated is not by nominating someone who agreed with him on voting for the war in Iraq or who agreed with him in voting to give George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran, who agrees with him in embracing the Bush-Cheney policy of not talking to leaders we don't like, who actually differed with him by arguing for exceptions for torture before changing positions when the politics of the moment changed," Obama said.

    "We need to offer the American people a clear contrast on national security, and when I am the nominee of the Democratic Party, that is exactly what I will do," he said.

     Nowhere in the article does he say "Clinton is too polarizing to win."  He certainly implies she will have a tougher time of it, but there is no direct quote to that effect.  The writer took liberties, but I guess the press is fair when it takes liberties with Obama's words. ;-)

    Parent

    Then how about this? (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:20:57 PM EST
    From last fall:

    "If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, then we have a repetition of 2000 and 2004," he said. "There's no change in the political map. I'm not making predictions specifically about which way Ohio or Florida will go, but what you do know is that 45 percent of the country will be on one side and 45 percent of the country will be on the other. . . . There's not going to be an expansion of the electorate. I don't think anybody would claim that Senator Clinton is going to inspire a horde of new voters. I don't think it's realistic that she is going to get a whole bunch of Republicans to think differently about her."

    (This article also has some good stuff about the names he was calling her six months ago.)

    I mean, this stuff isn't hard to find.  Obama (and others) were saying Clinton was unelectable for months - that she was too divisive and would fire up Republicans, etc, etc.  

    Parent

    Umm... (5.00 / 0) (#73)
    by Alec82 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:07:05 PM EST
    ...he specifically said in that article he was not predicting who would win, just that the map would remain unchanged.

    Parent
    nice try (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:53:29 PM EST
    He said he wouldn't try to predict florida and ohio - not the entire election.  Overall he said that it would be the same as 00 and 04 and the dems lost both of those.

    I'm sure you can WORM this out a little more, but just do a google search - obama was making the case all last fall that clinton couldn't win a ge because she was too divisive (other candidates were too).  It's not a debateable point and moreover, it's another example of how clinton is held to different standards (in private conversations no less!) than obama.

    Parent

    She is firing up all right. (none / 0) (#71)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:02:53 PM EST
    She has fired up some of my Republican friends to vote for her. Mostly the women. So You Go Girl!

    Parent
    source? (none / 0) (#24)
    by VicAjax on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:35:59 PM EST

    I haven't seen this before... can you point me to where Obama said Hillary couldn't win the GE?

    I've always personally been of the mind that whomever wins the Dem primary would be well-equipped to win the GE.  it's just been my opinion that Obama  would help more with state and congressional dem races.

    Parent

    check wasabi's post (none / 0) (#46)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 03:59:38 PM EST
    'cuz I'm feeling lazy.

    You could also google.

    Parent

    one is about the primary (none / 0) (#63)
    by Tiparillo on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:24:41 PM EST
    and looks at delgate counts and likely super delegates no realistic path to victory, and one is a canard based on vague electibility arguments for the general election.

    You are comparing apples to oranges here.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#66)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:37:52 PM EST
    Obama and other were talking about the general - saying that Clinton was too divisive to win against the Republicans.  This was an attack on her for months last fall.

    Parent
    It was the entire basis (none / 0) (#69)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:56:39 PM EST
    of the original argument against Hillary being the nominee before the primaries started.

    To argue he didn't say it is absurd.

    Kind of the foundation for why he got into the campaign in the first place.

    Parent

    That and a lot of DC elders (none / 0) (#75)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:11:21 PM EST
    are still carrying grudges against Bill and don't want her to win because 'HE' will be back in the WH. I don't think she made so many enemies in her DC years to warrant the elders putting up a candidate against her. And it could have been a slew of others. No, they put a candidate up against her who could take away a lot of her base. As for Pelosi, I wouldn't want her to be President even if I would like to see a woman President. She has been tested and is failing right now. Maybe next semester.

    Parent
    I would like to see a woman President, but ... (none / 0) (#87)
    by cymro on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:14:11 AM EST
    ... that woman has to be a competent leader and manager. Since she became speaker, Pelosi has been proving she is neither. Instead, she seems to be demonstrating the truth of the Peter Principle. Howard Dean is another example. Obama is likely to become another, I believe.

    Parent
    I don't really (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by rooge04 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:33:37 PM EST
    understand how that is a problem. If she said that to a superdelegate, it makes sense, since that is the whole point..making your case that you are more electable. The fact that Richardson spoke to someone about it and it made it into the papers is the problem.  That is the entire point. Convincing the super-ds you can win while the other one cannot.

    Obama himself has said he has a better chance since HRC has such allegedly negative numbers.  

    Parent

    Maybe... (none / 0) (#41)
    by Alec82 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 03:45:00 PM EST
    ...the lesson should be that they both can't win, so the party should just choose someone else?

     If that's not the case, then the only reasonable measure is either popular vote or pledged delegates.

    Parent

    Not following (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:08:46 PM EST
    your thought process there.

    Parent
    I read Pelosi's statements (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by magster on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:21:05 PM EST
    as an endorsement of the theory that a protacted and quixotic challenge by Clinton does Obama irreperable harm in November.  You believe the party leaders should stay publicly neutral so that Clinton's supporters will be more mollified to rally around Obama when he finally wraps the nomination up.

    Yesterday, when it was reported that Clinton was stating "He can't win, Bill" to Richardson in that awkward call, the message came out again from Clinton (albeit, not meant to be made public) that Obama is unelectable.  This message would not come out from Clinton if she was not in the race anymore.  This continued message does more damage to Obama in November than what you fear, IMO. This is why I don't mind Pelosi's statements.  And, further, I do not believe true unity will happen at this point.

    And the last point was that your long held stance that the Cuomo doctrine should be adopted, there's no way Obama should name Clinton to that position if she truly does not believe he can win.  

    Parent

    but...... (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:23:50 PM EST
    the standard matra from Obama has been for months, her negatives are too high. She can't win.

    So, is turnaround fair play, or divisive when it cuts against your candidate?

    Parent

    Pelosi harmed Obama and the Party (5.00 / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:26:45 PM EST
    You should be as upset about her statements as anyone.

    Parent
    Just to be clear... (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:31:03 PM EST
    I just need a refresher on Clinton/Obama Rules:

    Clinton cannot say that Obama can't win even in a PRIVATE conversation?  

    And

    It was fine for Obama to say that Clinton couldn't win last fall when she was the presumptive nominee?  

    Parent

    She, for all intents and purposes, just ... (5.00 / 0) (#30)
    by magster on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:59:02 PM EST
    ...made it public.

    Rough transcript per MSNBC:

    Q: Did you say "he can't win"?

    Hillary: Well, in this campaign, there's phone conversations, and well it's a complicated... you know. So, it's like, you know, oh, ... I don't talk about the contents of private conversations. Yeah, that's it.

    Parent

    Uh (5.00 / 6) (#33)
    by Steve M on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 03:06:05 PM EST
    It was already public.  It was on the front page of the paper today.  It doesn't somehow become her fault because she refuses to lie about it now that it's already public.

    Parent
    Fair enough. Lying's worse. (5.00 / 0) (#36)
    by magster on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 03:16:14 PM EST
    But her non-denial denial was kind of funny.  She wasn't ready for the question.

    Parent
    magster wrote: (none / 0) (#53)
    by Tortmaster on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 04:36:58 PM EST
    "But her non-denial denial was kind of funny.  She wasn't ready for the question."

    The reporter should try asking that question again at 3 a.m.     ; )

    Speaker Pelosi is in a tight spot. Some want her to exercise "leadership," and some want her to exercise "discretion." What you want her to do seems to depend on who you support in the Democratic Primary.

    I hope she continues to exercise her "leadership" on the issue.  

    Parent

    You repeatedly include (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by waldenpond on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 03:31:10 PM EST
    only portions convenient to your positions. Where is the whole item?  Don't cut off the totality of questions and quotes.  It was much longer than that and you know it.

    Sometimes I don't get people.  It's not like the rest of us can't view this at some point or another.

    Parent

    Funny you say that because you're actually right (none / 0) (#54)
    by magster on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 04:37:08 PM EST
    I just saw a post on Kos that showed that MSNBC cut off her last statement of "So that's a no" to make it look like a non-denial denial instead of an outright denial (of course the Kos diarist implied MSNBC was guilty of editing out an outright Clinton lie to protect her).

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 5) (#20)
    by Steve M on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:31:58 PM EST
    The only person who harmed the party was the one who leaked the conversation to the press.

    The notion that if someone has concerns about Obama's electability, they can't even bring it up in a private conversation, is just silly.  Not that anyone has been bashful about attacking Clinton's electability in public, Obama included.

    Parent

    Your opinion that she can't win (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:34:36 PM EST
    doesn't mean she can't.

    How few Obama supporters seem to grasp that simple fact.

    Parent

    She'll win if there's a major meltdown by Obama (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by magster on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:52:23 PM EST
    but yesterday, Obama got two more supers and probably Pres. Carter.  Today, a 2nd poll showing Obama and Clinton virtually tied in PA, Corzine hedging, and Obama doubling Clinton's $ in March 40 mil - 20 mil. I like Obama's odds.

    Parent
    Your opinion. (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:57:51 PM EST
    I completely disagree. Wright makes Obama unelectable, he has yet to win a big swing state in a primary, and the next few elections will show that he can't get the demographics he needs. The SD's will be looking at everything very carefully and could just as easily pick Clinton as Obama.

    But at least I know that it's my opinion and that the election is not yet over.

    Parent

    The Carter's story is old news (none / 0) (#48)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 04:02:10 PM EST
    he said that about his granddaughter months and months ago.

    I always find it interesting how AP comes up with new articles using old quotes.

    Parent

    How 'bout his odds in the GE? (none / 0) (#77)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:19:04 PM EST
    I don't think his odds are so good there and in the end that is what is going to matter. You can't have a 50/50 and expect it to be 100%. It will not happen.

    Parent
    IACF (none / 0) (#9)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:11:46 PM EST
    ;-)

    Parent
    HRC (none / 0) (#58)
    by magisterludi on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:02:24 PM EST
     was asked about the "he can't win" alleged quote and denied it pointblank. SHE said she stressed to BR she could win over Obama, not that he couldn't win. Believe her or not.

    It occurs to me- what would be so wrong with her saying that, in confidence, to a purported "old friend"? She could very well believe that BHO can't win the GE. I know I do.

    Parent

    Obama doesn't seem to worry (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by Kathy on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:21:01 PM EST
    about trashing Clinton vis-a-vis her chances in the ge.  He has called her desperate, unelectable, divisive, negative...the list is endless.

    And yet she says one thing off the record to a friend--allegedly--and she gets blasted.  Why is there  a double standard here?

    Parent

    Delete me (none / 0) (#76)
    by waldenpond on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:18:37 PM EST
    because someone is getting a pony (gift) at the end of all of this and I want to know who it is because every time that pony walks across my front yard, it's doing it's business and leaving burn marks on my lawn (vote.)

    Now in honor of that Unity pony I am going to go finish making up my own game of horse that uses the letters m.c.c.a.i.n.

    M: Personal attacks such as untruthful, disingenuous, will say anything,
    C: DNC/FL/MI/using attorneys in Il and again in MI
    C: experience has been sacrificed to new, criticizing UHC, undemonstrated commitment to policy.
    A: Wright, Obama supporters, inflated resume, etc.
    I:


    Parent

    Does Pelosi not get the (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by frankly0 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:17:48 PM EST
    point that her previous comments, which were of concern to the Clinton supporters who sent her a threatening letter, were of concern precisely because they made it clear that she was not an honest broker, and, in her position of responsibility, it's absolutely essential that she remain an honest broker as much as possible?

    All Pelosi ever had to do to do right was keep her mouth shut about the matters she kept weighing in on. She had no reason to say anything one way or another about them. Mostly, Howard Dean has managed, or at least has attempted, to do so, so far as I can tell.

    But Pelosi couldn't keep her mouth shut -- it's as simple as that.

    How do you ever recover a reputation for being an honest broker -- which the House Speaker certainly should have among Democrats -- after a display like this? I don't see how you do.

    DCCC donations up since Pelosi letter (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by indy33 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:32:49 PM EST
    For all the nastiness directed towards Pelosi, it would seem that the angry letter sent by the fat cat Clinton donors has backfired. There has been a spike in contributions to the DCCC since they tried to bully her. All she said was that the pledged delegate leader at the end of the primaries should get the support of the SDs. It has been asked in an earlier post when pledge delegates became the "holy grail" of the primary? I would say that from the start it was the ONLY way that we were supposed to have a nominee. Until it became such a close race, now some want the parameters changed. I agree that a pure winner take all primary where the popular vote is the deciding factor would be perferable but that argument only could be made before the process started not after Feb.5

    Actually (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:40:19 PM EST
    That is not the way to think about it. But if you want to live with a divided Party, go for it.

    Parent
    She has every right to be upset (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by indy33 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:50:23 PM EST
    I think the one statement that put Pelosi over the top was Clinton saying John McCain would be a better commander in chief than Obama. I completly understand her arguments that Obama could lose the GE and I understand all her policy disagreements and saying he is inexperienced. I would say that it is pretty much unheard of though for another Democratic candidate to not only say the opponent will be weaker than the Republican but to actually use McCains name and say that he has passed some imaginary threshold that Obama hasnt seems to have really angered Pelosi. To me you could just as easily make the case that she was promoting more party unity not less. She has every right to endorse Obama and has yet to do so these accusations seem a little unwarranted.

    Parent
    too bad she never said that. (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 03:09:01 PM EST
    she said he had crossed a threshhold that Obama had not.

    Parent
    What... (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Alec82 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 03:39:48 PM EST
    ...is the implication from that?  Does that mean that Senator McCain is more fit than Senator Obama, or does it "just" mean that Senator Obama "is not quite ready in 2008, but John McCain is" or some other such nonsense?

    Parent
    What it means (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Steve M on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 03:44:42 PM EST
    is that the public sees McCain as qualified for the CiC job, but is not sure about Obama yet.

    It has nothing to do with anyone's actual qualifications for the job.  The "Commander-in-Chief threshold" is about whether voters can picture you in the job, nothing more.

    Parent

    I see no difference... (none / 0) (#42)
    by Alec82 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 03:51:27 PM EST
    ...between them on this point, or any reason to believe that is true.  It certainly cannot be years in the senate, because Americans clearly haven't perceived senators as fit for the job for some time.

    Parent
    Okay (5.00 / 0) (#49)
    by Steve M on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 04:05:36 PM EST
    So you disagree.  That's fine.  Hardly means Hillary said McCain would be a better CiC than Obama, which is what we were talking about.

    Parent
    It's about McCain's experience (none / 0) (#44)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 03:57:49 PM EST
    and perceived "strength on national security," IMHO.

    Parent
    Except all of those people who have voted for him (none / 0) (#60)
    by Tiparillo on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:19:55 PM EST


    Parent
    she said Obama should explain how he met (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Kathy on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 04:01:16 PM EST
    the threshold.

    Obama's answer was along the lines of, "Wahh!!!  She said I wasn't qualified."

    No, she said ask him what his qualifications were.  Absent any, he chose to attack.

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by digdugboy on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 04:28:39 PM EST
    Obama's response was the question was about judgment, not experience. He responded correctly and persuasively. He didn't cry. Those kinds of false allegations do not take our debate forward in any way.

    Parent
    Correct (none / 0) (#55)
    by Steve M on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 04:42:42 PM EST
    It's his supporters who have been crying, falsely claiming that Hillary endorsed McCain, and otherwise detracting from the debate.

    I've noticed this pattern repeatedly, where Obama makes a strong response to something on the merits, but his supporters fail to take the cue and go around whining about what an unfair attack it was.

    Parent

    It happens on both sides (none / 0) (#70)
    by digdugboy on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:00:31 PM EST


    Parent
    So you would say... (none / 0) (#50)
    by Alec82 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 04:21:02 PM EST
    ...she said Senator McCain is more qualified, implicitly?

    Parent
    he said Obama's supporters were (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by RalphB on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:35:41 PM EST
    whiners and you prove his point.  implicitly  :-)

    Parent
    Just not... (5.00 / 0) (#72)
    by Alec82 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:06:26 PM EST
    ...sore losers. ;-)

    Parent
    heh (none / 0) (#78)
    by RalphB on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:42:00 PM EST
    this is a political race, and it's a contact sport.  i'm not upset that Obama has said Clinton is divisive, a liar, and not electable because of it.  i am also not upset that Clinton has said Obama is not qualified to be potus and he's unelectable.

    in fact, i wish Clinton would pull the pin on any grenades she's got and go at him.  all this wussy complaining about tactics is silly.


    Parent

    His gloves... (none / 0) (#80)
    by Alec82 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:30:23 PM EST
    ...are still on.  He won't take the gloves off, of course, because he is not waging the same campaign that she is.  But if he did take the gloves off Clinton partisans would go nuclear.

    Parent
    the "implication" is that Obama has less (none / 0) (#81)
    by esmense on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:30:50 PM EST
    ...experience. Which is true. Neither McCain nor the voters need Hillary to tell them that Obama has pretty much zilch foreign policy experience while McCain has many years of such experience including leadership experience in the military.

    It's pretty obvious she was talking about electability "threshold" -- not recommending the guy for the job she wants. She never said that McCain would "be a better Commander in Chief," she merely pointed out that both she and McCain had the kind of experience that voters take into account when making a presidential decision.

    The Obama camp makes "electability" arguments all the time. And they obviously question her own foreign policy experience and judgement. I presume you don't consider that some kind of dastardly betrayal of the Democratic party when they do?

    Inexperience is Obama's Achilles Heel. He will either find a way to win despite that shortcoming or he won't. But pretending it doesn't exist, and acting victimized every time an opponent points it out, probably isn't the best way to overcome the experience argument.

    Parent

    Clearly the voters don't expect it... (none / 0) (#82)
    by Alec82 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:38:26 PM EST
    ...because we haven't initially elected someone with foreign policy experience in twenty years.

     Moreover, I don't honestly believe that was what she was saying.  The closest senators have come to three am phone calls or significant foreign policy experience in recent years is Iraq, and I doubt she was referencing that.  None of them have foreign policy experience.  The only one in the race who did was Governor Richardson, and that clearly didn't pan out.

    Parent

    I think you are putting a bit of spin on history (none / 0) (#88)
    by esmense on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:29:09 PM EST
    Over the period from WWII to the fall of the Berlin wall foreign policy experience was always an issue -- and nearly every presidential candidate had some military experience to run on. Bill Clinton, the first Boomer president, managed to win despite attacks on his lack of foreign policy or military experience because it was a 3 man race and because the country felt that with the fall of communism we could afford to focus on domestic affairs. Bush II benefitted from those feelings of peace and prosperity AND his father's reputation in terms of foreign policy. The fact that he would bring the foreign policy "grown ups" back to the White House was a selling point of his campaign.

    Then 9/11 happened, the war, etc. That has put issues of foreign policy and military experience back on the front burner -- although actual military experience is not as important as it was to the WWII generation. In the post draft era very few national leaders, or voters, have such experience.

    I'm not suggesting, and neither was Clinton, that McCain's experience means he will automatically beat Obama. I'm only saying that these issues will be important and, lacking experience, Obama will have to find some effective counter arguments.

    Parent

    From another perspective (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by PaulDem on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 03:00:25 PM EST
    Isn't it nice if we finally see the end of the ridiculous sway a small number of rich donors has held over the Democratic Party for a generation.

    Ms Pelosi has decided (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by alsace on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 03:30:40 PM EST
    to put unity off the table, where it has some company.

    Obama is not for unity (1.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Prabhata on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:54:11 PM EST
    I think there is enough evidence to show that Obama does not care about a united Democratic Party.  To threaten black delegates publicly committed to HRC to switch to Obama is extremely divisive.

    Skex (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 03:06:42 PM EST
    You are suspended. Comment no further today at this site.

    Academics vs. Jacksonians (none / 0) (#74)
    by stevenb on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:07:46 PM EST
    Has anyone read this article:
    http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/4/2/reviewing-the-primary-results-academics-versus-jacksonia ns.html

    I think the article really hits the nail on the head: the division isn't between race and sex as it is between the intellectual leaders versus the blue-collar classes.  

    The Democratic Party will divide...but then we maybe will grow into a 3+ party system, which is just fine by me.

    -------------------------------------------------
    http://questionbarackobama.blogspot.com

    Why are FLA & MICH penalties a surprise? (none / 0) (#79)
    by MSS on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:12:34 PM EST
    Didn't everyone agree that the Dems would follow campaign rules and NOT have early campaigns?

    Didnt you see the Fla Democrats laughing as they pretended to beg the Republicans to hold a later primary, according to the rules?

    So Obama did not campaign in Fla at all, took his name off the ballot in Michigan, according to the rules.

    And now -- surprise, surprise -- Clinton supporters say that the Michigan and Florida votes (which were not done according to the rules, remember) should be counted, after all.

    Huh?

    I'm sorry, but I can't take this anymore (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by angie on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:24:59 PM EST
    RULES RULES RULES -- this isn't the Constitution of the United States of America we are talking about here.  These are rules made up by the DNC and the DNC can, and have, amended the rules as they see fit -- for example, Obama bought national ads on CNN that ran in FL when they were supposedly not campaigning there, and the DNC amended the RULES to allow it.  Furthermore, it was not a RULE that Obama take his name of the MI ballot -- he chose to take his name off on his own accord and to benefit himself politically in IA -- anyone who has been reading this site (or kos for that matter at the time MI was taking place) should know that.  You have ever right to support Obama, but please, please, enough with the RULES argument.  

    Parent
    Obama Supporters Back Pelosi's Divisiveness | 87 comments (87 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment