Prepared To Step In And Do What?

What is Nancy Pelosi contemplating?

In an interview with her hometown newspaper, the San Francisco Chronicle, the California Democrat said she is prepared to "step in" if the presidential race does not resolve itself by the end of next month. "I will step in," Pelosi told the paper. "Because we cannot take this fight to the convention…It must be over before then.

Step in and do what? At least this article gives us a good laugh:

Pelosi . . . has largely stayed on the sidelines during her party's prolonged primary race.

Heh. Thanks for the laugh CNN.

by Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Thursday Morning Open Thread | Do Dems Want To Win In November? The Unity Ticket Is the Answer >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    The side lines??? (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by masslib on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:27:14 AM EST
    Can they please stop with this crap?

    Ha!ha! Nancy Pelosi stopping Hillary? (5.00 / 5) (#90)
    by felizarte on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:17:56 AM EST
    If Nancy keeps talking this way, it is 200% certain that Hillary will see her at the convention.

    I just heard a saying on NPR that applies here (5.00 / 0) (#142)
    by cymro on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:47:59 PM EST
    The difference between genius and stupidity is that stupidity has no limit.

    Pelosi and the rest of the party insiders are certainly demonstrating the truth of this saying.


    you know the outcome is predetermined when... (none / 0) (#162)
    by moll on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:16:13 PM EST
    it is almost as if they want us to view the election as fixed or rigged.

    Heh (none / 0) (#95)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:23:02 AM EST
    Harry Reid had also gotten in front of the media cameras not that long ago stating they had a plan to step in and this should have been over already.

    She and Harry and Howard and Donna just love to hear themselves talk like they have some extra special powers.

    Nancy should hope no one challenges her for the democratic slot on the ballot for her re-election. She's been a giant failure.


    If I am not mistaken, Cindy Sheehan has (none / 0) (#124)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:33:24 PM EST
    filed papers to run against Nancy Pelosi this next election cycle.  Am sure Nancy feels her seat is safe, but the way things have gone, one never knows for sure.

    Cindy would be better than Pelosi (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:44:12 PM EST
    She's got a bit of Hillary's ability to let the media criticisms roll right off her back :)

    I love the work Pelosi has gotten done in congress (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by dotcommodity on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:45:47 PM EST
    the list of good decent Democratic bills passed in the House is long. No she hasn't stopped the WH psychopath, and of course, cannot...

    However, she is on the wrong side of this, if she thinks someone should walk any Democrat into a room and only one person come out.


    can we please give Pelosi a scare by donating to (none / 0) (#185)
    by suzieg on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:01:50 AM EST
    cindy sheehan who is runnin against her? Wouldn't it be great if she had to go home and work for her district for once instead of taking her voters for  granted?

    Sheehan's site: cindyforcongress.org


    Whats wrong if it goes to the convention? (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by Saul on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:28:37 AM EST
    Can someone tell me what's wrong if it gets to the convention.  I thought that's what conventions were for to discuss your difference and in the end you come up with the best candidate. So it gets rowdy so what.

    Secondly who is Pelosi to tell the rest of us I don't want this to go to the convention.  Like she has some power or something to stop it.

    No, it is bad if it goes (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:29:32 AM EST
    to the convention. And no, conventions are no longer to determine the nominee.

    It used to be good (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by Kathy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:33:44 AM EST
    to have it go to the convention.  I remember watching them unfold on TV when I was a kid.  It was riveting and exciting and it made you feel like you were part of the process even though you weren't.  In some ways, it was better than watching a football game.  My whole family used to pile around and watch (and look for my dad in the audience because he was a delegate and an alternate delegate during some conventions)

    Heck ya... (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:34:51 AM EST
    that and Watergate was the only reality tv we used to get.

    It would be good again (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:35:06 AM EST
    this year, because the SDs' votes are not final until the convention.

    And as we know, the SD's will determine the nomination this year.


    Nothing To Fear (5.00 / 6) (#57)
    by flashman on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:51:36 AM EST
    about going to the convention.  There is no reliable data to make the case that the convention would be detrimental to the Dem's cause.  I've heard all the arguments, and they are all baloney.  Pelosi's irrational fear only demonstrates her weakness.  She's probably watching too much NBC news.

    wrong (5.00 / 6) (#61)
    by ccpup on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:57:57 AM EST
    it will be detrimental to HER cause i.e. Obama being the Nominee, ergo it MUST BE STOPPED!

    but the war and poverty and lack of health care and a lawbreaking Administration committing war crimes on a daily basis are free to go on.

    Look!  Organic yogurt!


    It's the only food (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:06:41 AM EST
    the Unity Pony will eat! :-)

    gotcha (none / 0) (#78)
    by ccpup on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:08:57 AM EST
    no wonder he's got the Trinity Church/Electoral Nightmare Waiting to Happen trots.

    I hope Nancy, Dean and Donna know how to shovel 'cause I AIN'T cleanin' THAT up.


    Well there is the reliable data (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:27:55 AM EST
    that the last time that a party had a convention fight and won the general election was 1920.  

    Seriously? (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by flashman on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:41:48 AM EST
    Convention fights are rare.  There is simply no analog to this campaign in modern party history from which to draw those conclusions.  The more that the Dem. officials wanted to truncate the process in THIS campaign, the more the voters pushed back.  The only way to legitimize the eventual candidate is to let the process play out.

    Off the top of my head, Kennedy in 1960 (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by eric on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:41:49 AM EST
    didn't have the delegates locked up.  He even had Johnson and Stevenson challenge him with 0 delegates, because they didn't even run in the primaries.

    There were questions about Kennedy and the nomination did go to the convention.


    Here's the 1956 Dem convention info: (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by derridog on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:55:14 PM EST
    Stevenson's major opponents at the 1956 Democratic Convention were Averell Harriman, governor of New York, and Estes Kefauver, a senator from Tennesee. The critical issues of the time were civil rights and school integration, and the Stevenson-Kefauver debate on these topics during the primaries was the first one aired on national television.

    Kefauver pulled out after a poor showing in the California primary on August 1, 1956, leaving a strong Stevenson to battle a weak Harriman. Then Harry Truman unexpectedly endorsed Harriman two days prior to the opening of the convention. Eleanor Roosevelt countered this surprise by throwing her support and admiration to Stevenson. Once the convention started, Sen. John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts nominated Stevenson, who went on to win on the first ballot with 905½ votes. A motion was made and passed to make the nomination unanimous.

    Stevenson then did something unprecedented--he threw the decision of his running mate to the convention. The leading contenders for VP were Kennedy, Kefauver, and Hubert Horatio Humphrey. On the third ballot, Kefauver won with 755½ votes. His nomination was made unanimous.


    There wasn't (none / 0) (#116)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:23:16 PM EST
    really a convention fight LBJ made some threats and got himself on the ticket but I don't believe there was any disunity by the time of an actual vote.

    she wants the money Obama promised her and it (none / 0) (#186)
    by suzieg on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:03:36 AM EST
    can't happen until he's the official nominee!

    Like it or not, the nominee will be determined (5.00 / 4) (#132)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:43:09 PM EST
    at the convention....conventional wisdome says so and pretending it isn't, I think is a mistake.  I believe many of us are in agreement.  If I hear one more person say "the party is being torn apart", "we need a nominee".  I think I will scream.  The best thing that could happen would be for the party to be torn apart and built from the ground up.

    I agree about this year needing to go to (5.00 / 0) (#141)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:47:27 PM EST

    The SDs need to show us that they have exercised judgment that puts the weaker candidate on the ticket, and then deal with the blowback.

    The members of the party need to see the strength of their party as it currently stands.


    It's bad when it goes to convention... (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by masslib on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:37:06 AM EST
    and they pick the loser.  I, for one, want them held accountable.  They like this guy so much, vote for him.

    Wow it's a small world (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:43:23 AM EST
    you mean we watched your dad out in Calif when the whole immigrant mob watched and loved the preambles to the different states.  Now the convention is just a junket for party people.  
    "Let my delegation go"  Willie Brown, now that was a speech.  Maxine Waters speech...wow.  

    the roll call (none / 0) (#118)
    by Kathy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:24:27 PM EST
    always gave me chills.  When they said Georgia, it was, like, "wow."  I mean, we never heard Georgia mentioned on TV.  I remember when I was in Australia a few years ago, the Simpson's episode that shows an Australian kid was going to be on that week, and there were banners in front of all the pubs and "Watch Parties" to see the episode, and the whole nation, it seemed, was proud.

    That's how we felt when they said "the honorable State of Georgia!" at the convention.  We all cheered and whooped and whistled.

    We just felt like we were part of something, ya know?  Part of the process, part of the outcome.


    yeah, but.... (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by p lukasiak on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:39:40 PM EST
    didn't you get the exact same rush when Bert Parks announced "Miss Georgia" at the Miss America pageant? ;-)

    and heartburn when he sings...."here she (none / 0) (#135)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:44:50 PM EST
    comes blah, blah, blah..."

    well, duh (none / 0) (#170)
    by Kathy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:49:54 PM EST
    Yes, we did that too.. (5.00 / 0) (#89)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:17:34 AM EST
    sometimes we would go out to my grandparents' to watch it. My grandfather had been in the WH press corps and was a long-time journalist with good political chops. Between him, Uncle Walter and the team of Huntley/Brinkley, we got a great commentary on the political process. And the part I always loved was the first ballot when many of the states would nominate a "favorite son" for President, and give all the delegates to them. It was a great way of being uncommitted while honoring a home-state politician for good service. Then on the second ballot they got down to business and looked at the serious candidates. I am interested to see what happens this year. Hopefully, it won't disintegrate into a reprise of '68.

    One (none / 0) (#133)
    by tek on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:43:14 PM EST
    of the biggest problems with this country is that once a negative event happens people start using as a gauge for anything similar.  Like Viet Nam.  We surrendered so then any military intervention was too scary no matter how different the circumstances for years.  Now it's 1968.  So, some hippies demonstrated and gave the Chicago cops trouble  Now we're afraid to have a floor fight at a convention?

    The truth is the 1968 thingy was as much about the hippies hating the Chicago police as anything else.  Also those people were always looking for opportunities to commit violence.  


    "Those people?" (none / 0) (#164)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:22:41 PM EST
    I was one of those people and the last thing we wanted was to clash with the cops. We were demonstrating against the war and the cops attacked us. We fought back. Some of us are still anti-war and still fighting. Fortunately, many of us have grey hair now and the cops think twice before swinging at us.

    And if the Obama supporters carry out their threat of "blood in the streets" if Obama is not nominated, this convention could very well turn into another '68. And it will all be Hillary's fault for winning the nomination.


    Revisionist history (none / 0) (#178)
    by echinopsia on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:02:20 PM EST
    The truth is the 1968 thingy was as much about the hippies hating the Chicago police as anything else.  Also those people were always looking for opportunities to commit violence.  

    That's not what happened.

    It was more of a police riot than anything else. I remember my brother, who was a newspaper reporter in NYC, being incensed at what Mayor Daley did to the protesters. He sent Daley a telegram that read "Heil Daley."

    You must be very young.


    True (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by BDB on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:34:44 AM EST
    Bad if it goes to the convention, but the convention isn't until August.  Plenty of time to make people in the party uncomfortable.   The Dems are weak when it comes to politics, might as well use that to our advantage for once.

    I also think that (5.00 / 5) (#29)
    by Kathy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:36:24 AM EST
    seeing the process play out, watching the votes be counted, might be the only way to make the winner legitimate after all that has been said and done.

    Because I don't think there is anyone here right now who thinks that FL and MI will be handled in a fair manner.


    Sorry (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by cal1942 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:08:31 AM EST
    andgarden, I have to disagree. There isn't one sound reason to prevent the nation from watching Democrats.

    When I was a kid I watched gavel to gavel.  The whole family watched.


    I can think of several sound reasons (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:31:26 AM EST
    1980, 1976, 1972, 1968, 1952, 1948.

    Um....I think there is a logical fallacy in (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by derridog on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:02:30 PM EST
    your argument.  Just because two things are associated in some way (ie. having a convention and being defeated in the GE) does not mean there is cause and effect involved.  There are a whole lot of other variables involved (ie., sitting president from the other party, whether or not your nominees are good at campaigning --see John Kerry, whether they are popular and whether the other party fights dirty -well duh).  I'm sure there are many more than I mentioned.

    The thing is, that the Republicans, in the instances you cite, also had conventions and they WON.  So, are you saying that taking the contest to the Convention only hurts Democrats?


    1948? (none / 0) (#180)
    by cal1942 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:17:42 PM EST
    We won in 1948.  My earliest memory of politics.  My father worked our precinct for Harry Truman.

    We also won in 1976 but that was after the McGovern commission.

    Try getting the history right flyerhawk.


    Well, they seem determined (5.00 / 5) (#86)
    by blogtopus on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:15:25 AM EST
    to do everything possible to force Hillary to take it to the convention. If the DNC won't listen to their constituents, then Hillary has to make the case directly.

    And, in the meantime, the Obama campaign will have to deal in a direct manner with their supporters; loud boos and other childish behavior during Hillary's speech at the Convention, thuggish intimidation tactics and just plain tantrummy kids will be on every Cable News show for a full week.


    Any other (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:25:07 AM EST
    year I would agree with you. However, it's looking like we're probably going to lose in Nov. anyway so we might as well get some issues resolved and the power struggles stopped in the party.

    The caucus system needs to go (5.00 / 4) (#139)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:47:04 PM EST
    This makes it all the more obvious.  I don't know how the party is going to allow the caucus system to evolve without feeling the pain.  When you have a race this close and no clear winner by the established standards we have no choice but to go to convention.  This is real life in the big leagues.

    no the real threat is losing legitimacy (5.00 / 3) (#165)
    by moll on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:23:37 PM EST
    No, it is bad if it goes to the convention. And no, conventions are no longer to determine the nominee.

    You seriously think the "threat" of it going to the convention, with all the imagined horrors, is worth creating the illusion that fair play has been thrown out the window, that the Democratic party does not care about the will of its membership or the votes of its voters, and that the election is 'fixed'?

    If you do not think this election looks rigged, you should come to my part of the world and talk to some of the people around here. What I see are people who believe that the reason this can't go to the convention is because if it went to the convention there would be no way to hide or cover up the fact that the people want Hill. And Nancy Pelosi and her ilk want Obama, and intend to have what they want - even if it means destroying the party to do it.

    But, hey, it's all good, because we're all so totally inconsequential that nobody has to listen to us - we'll come around in November. And we're all so dumb that our itty bitty attention spans wouldn't last that long anyway, even if we were really upset.

    It's not just a question of Hill vs. Obama. It's a question of legitimate vs. rotten, stinking, and putrid.


    Going to the Convention (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by IzikLA on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:43:52 PM EST
    I certainly understand the arguments against going to the convention, however, if there were any year and any situation where it should go to the convention it would be this one -- 1) A race has never been this close before, and 2) the situation with FL & MI, at this point, has not been resolved...

    Just because some party insiders want it to be over is not reason enough for it to be so...


    To me, (5.00 / 7) (#25)
    by Grace on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:35:13 AM EST
    it seems like she is trying to circumvent the process.  

    She almost seems like a little kid when she talks like this:  "If you don't do what I want, I'm going to hold my breath until I turn blue!!!!"


    fine (5.00 / 15) (#38)
    by ccpup on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:39:12 AM EST
    holding her breath until she turns blue might be one way to help us remember she's a Democrat.

    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by flashman on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:47:39 AM EST
    That was a good one! :)

    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by blogtopus on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:11:10 AM EST
    That was a good one.

    I think instead we should be holding our breath (and our votes) until the DNC turns blue.


    ROTFLMAO (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:21:37 AM EST
    That's a good one! I wish I could give you 15 fives for that!

    Damn... (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by carrienae on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:45:44 PM EST

    or a smurf.... (none / 0) (#138)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:46:47 PM EST
    Right. It will work as well, (none / 0) (#153)
    by derridog on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:31:36 PM EST
    I'm sure, as when she does it to Bush and the Rethugs when there is an important Democratic issue at stake.

    What I want to know is how she thinks (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:09:36 AM EST
    she can "step in"? I see nowhere in the rules of either the DNC or the GE that say that the Speaker of the House has any power to "step in" at all. She can only influence the outcome, other than by running her mouth, if the election ends up in the House. Why does this woman keep pretending she has power she doesn't have? She should be careful. If she "steps in", she may find that she gets stepped on in her next election.

    She presides over the convention (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:11:49 AM EST
    And if she tries to infulence it in Obama's (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by americanincanada on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:22:22 AM EST
    favor she can kiss her house seat goodbye. her people are already upset if the comments on that story are any indication.

    And she thinks she can step in (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:27:14 AM EST
    and make the convention moot?? That woman has some nerve..no guts, but a lot of nerve.

    She can (none / 0) (#113)
    by rnibs on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:59:42 AM EST
    preside all she wants in August, but I'd be really surprised if the DNC rules would allow her to actually end it before then (as much as she might want to).

    She should remember (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by IzikLA on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:29:20 PM EST
    That she is an elected official of CA, a state that went overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton.  I'm a good Dem in CA and if she doesn't start to let the process play out the way it was meant to I will certainly be looking for someone else to vote for when the time comes.  Enough with the hooey about SD's must follow the pledged delegate leader.  This is absolutely false and clearly states her bias.  She needs to stay out of it.

    Well, if there's no democratic president (none / 0) (#102)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:32:07 AM EST
    and that would be the party leader, the Speaker of the House must be at the top of the heap.

    Seems to me too many hats are put on the heads of the top level of politicians, but if it's worked for this long, who am I to question.


    No one (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by cal1942 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:19:44 AM EST
    can actually tell you what's wrong because there isn't anything wrong.

    Some people are wringing their hands because they see high level party people wringing their hands.

    The reasons I've heard are nonsense.  It's what they're not saying that could be a clue.


    Yes. They are so afraid that, if Hillary (5.00 / 3) (#154)
    by derridog on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:37:27 PM EST
    continues, the weaknesses of their favored candidate will be more and more apparent to everyone.  Obama is such a flawed candidate that he can't stand up to scrutiny and comparison with a competent rival.  That's the real reason for  WWTSBQ.

    The only question I have is WHY do they want him so much?  What does he have that they want or what is he giving them or promising them behind the scenes?  Why is the MSM selling him like the Iraq War? Why do they ignore all the Rezko corruption evidence?  Where does he get all his money?

    I wish someone would answer THESE questions.  Im beginning to think that Nader was right. We have two corrupt parties.


    LIberal Guilt and Opportunism (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by SamJohnson on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:57:34 AM EST
    I have heard this reasoning very early on. Wealthier white liberals love him because he is not really going to effect their financial or social status, and supporting the favorite son of an entire race can only assuage some level of guilt. They want Hillary out because they want to frame Obama their way, and mold him, because Hillary is already fully molded and ready to go. Despute the seemingly progressive stands taken by Obama, he hasn't actually taken any that can't be quickly batted down by a dominant House and Senate who will tell him just how far he could push on any given issue.

    I don't want to call him the perfect telegenic, demographically cherished strawman, but I think I just did. What the kids don't know about the nasty bloodthirsty politics behind the whole politics things just may be better for them not to know. Corrupt? Venal? I don't know. Just really repulsive and not a democracy or a Democratic Party that makes me feel warm and cozy. Obama himself has made several telling comments about what he believes is possible to achieve, especially regarding health care. He really lost my respect on that.

    I now wait not for Obama, but for Hillary to make the speech of our lifetime, defining for her supporters what it means to her to be a Democrat. Even if she is conceding, the boys would parse, attack and gloat for months anyway. We do not control corporate interests, especially the media. But we are many of us convinced that we have the better, electable candidate in Hillary. I wish it didn't feel like it's some kind of pyrrhic victory. I want it to be a real victory.


    It's a prime time media circus. (5.00 / 3) (#172)
    by wurman on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:18:00 PM EST
    The network coverage is a few hours of FREE time in the homes of millions of viewers.

    The Dem leaders want it to be a coronation, just like the claptrap of Sen. Kerry reporting for duty.  I groaned hit the remote off-button & my wife (now an ex-) said, "Better get ready for another term of Bush Inc" as what I was later told turned out to be dreary nonsense droned on for hours.

    The clowns in charge absolutely don't want the USA general public to see several boring hours of caucusing on the floor, cellphone yakking as bribes (sorry, incentives) are offered, the vice-presidency is pandered, cabinet posts are traded like Monopoly(®) properties & the Big Dog roams around working the room(s) like Pres. Lyndon B. Johnson on a really good day.

    At the convention, the Rules & By-Laws Committee, to which either candidate can appeal the MI & FL decision, changes members to become the Standing Committee configuration & adds 161 members from the floor--no superdelegates--and can impose any decision one the rooolz.  Similarly, both Credentials & Platform change & grow so that all 3 have 186 members & 181 can vote.  [D. Brazile & her ilk are not in the room, at all.]

    Presumably, these 3 committees reflect the split or the proportions of the delegates "pledged" to the candidates.  Each state will caucus & assign some delegates to these tasks.  And this is where Sen. Obama goes down the rabbit hole.

    All of Sen. Obama's "little" states may get 1 member put on a particular committee & it may or may not be an Obama delegate sent to Rules.  Sen. Clinton's "BIG" states will add 2 or 3 floor delegates to a committee & 1 or 2 of them will be her advocates.  CA will have about 16 members on each committee

    So . . . you see why the leaders have to stop Sen. Clinton.  You can also see why she has no problem with going to the convention & why she continues to make every effort to close the gap & gain on Sen. Obama in floor delegates.

    Sen. Clinton's nuclear option will be to micromanage Rules at the convention, seat FL & MI, take away all of Sen. Obama's FL delegates, etc., toss out the MI "undecided," etc.  Her delegates can simply impose all of the plans that are regularly discussed here at Talk Left as the best methods to settle the problems--completely in her favor.

    The majority on the floor doesn't prevail; the majority in the standing committees will make all the decisions.

    And, yes, Sen. Obama & his supporters will whine, scream foul (to no known referee) & behave like . . . ?


    just who is this woman to do this? (none / 0) (#163)
    by moll on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:17:28 PM EST
    who is Pelosi to tell the rest of us

    that's a good question.


    Her biggest claim to fame (5.00 / 11) (#3)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:28:54 AM EST
    is organic yogurt in the House cafeteria.

    Anything else is too much of a struggle for her, apparently. I'm not too worried.

    HAHAHAHAHAHA (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:29:27 AM EST
    oh, those San Francisco values! :-)

    But no peach/mint yogurt (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by RonK Seattle on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:21:39 PM EST
    Instead of putting impeachment (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:28:58 AM EST
    on the table, Pelosi is intent on serving Hillary for dinner.

    And I don't mean as a guest.

    What a dumb, dumb woman.

    Good question (5.00 / 8) (#6)
    by lefty lawyer on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:29:29 AM EST
    what power does Pelosi have to do, well, anything?

    I supposed she could put pressure on wavering House members who are superdelegates, but beyond that, what?

    In the immortal words of the schoolyard:  "Yeah?  You and what army?"

    CNN is really, really pathetic lately, and this is just one example.

    Supposedly (none / 0) (#27)
    by BDB on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:36:11 AM EST
    there are SDs lined up with Reid, Pelosi and Dean.  

    She's Speaker of the House (none / 0) (#41)
    by Exeter on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:40:23 AM EST
    I would say she is arguably the fifth most influential Democrat in the country, behind Bill Clinton, Hillary, Obama and Gore.  She definitely has a loud voice, but not enough to drown out Bill and Hill.

    What is Pelosi's Authority (none / 0) (#54)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:49:27 AM EST
    To stop Florida and/or Michigan State Party's from taking their delegate question to the Credentials Committee at the Convention? The only way to stop "this" is by agreeing to seat the entire delegations on Sat., May 31.  Or am I missing something?

    She controls a powerful PAC (none / 0) (#119)
    by Llelldorin on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:26:09 PM EST
    Nancy Pelosi is one of the party's most effective fundrasers. Pelosi PAC funds a lot of other Democratic pols. If she started using the threat of cutting of funding to supers who don't do what she wants, she could be devastatingly effective.

    When your banker makes ominous threats, it's worth not blowing them off.


    If only (5.00 / 12) (#9)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:30:53 AM EST
    Pelosi were this forceful regarding the Iraq War.

    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:31:15 AM EST
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by BDB on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:33:22 AM EST
    It's the gas tax holiday all over again.  It's DOA, but don't worry, I'm going to attach all the important green bills to the Iraq War Supplemental so it will be sure to pass.  

    or impeachment (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:34:32 AM EST
    I don't get it (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:31:47 AM EST
    If Precious has the SD votes, Pelosi should just call a press conference with all the SDs that choose Precious and end it now.  

    Oh. Excellent point! (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by derridog on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:10:14 PM EST
    She wouldn't be saying this if she didn't feel the need to threaten people and she wouldn't be feeling that need if she thought she already had it in the bag.

    Oooh, ooh, I know (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Lahdee on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:32:13 AM EST
    she's going to take impeachment off the table!

    The SDs want a free pass (5.00 / 13) (#14)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:33:00 AM EST
    They want Hillary to make it easy for them, I want them to be accountable for choosing a loser.  

    No shock that I am with you, Stellaaa (5.00 / 10) (#23)
    by Kathy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:35:06 AM EST
    go on record for backing the sure loser in the ge.  If they think it's such an important thing to stop the democratic process, then they should have to sign their names on the dotted line.

    I want all those cowards (5.00 / 10) (#39)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:40:13 AM EST
    to stand up and vote against their constituents.  Each and every one of them.  No free pass.  

    I want to see every SD... (5.00 / 8) (#59)
    by NotThatStupid on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:54:04 AM EST
    ... stand up in front of a microphone at the convention and announce who she/he is voting for.

    I also want every delegation to announce its votes individually.

    If there's still a provision to have every delegation polled, I want that to happen, too.

    No nomination by acclamation!

    Every delegate should be held accountable.


    As long as Hillary remains in the race (5.00 / 4) (#65)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:01:42 AM EST
    they can't fall back on "he was our only choice" when he loses the GE in a landslide. With that on their records, they won't be able to ask what happened when they are out of a job.

    Best scenario would be they don't even win the nomination of their party when they want to run for re-election.


    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by blogtopus on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:25:35 AM EST
    I think Hillary is doing everything she can to separate any implosion from her campaign. She will take it as far as she can go, up until there is no doubt that she had no choice in the matter.

    I wonder about Pelosi's clout....on the 101st (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:49:26 PM EST
    day after taking over as speaker...she fizzled out.

    Perhaps she meant... (5.00 / 12) (#18)
    by ricosuave on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:34:12 AM EST
    ...that she would "step in it"?  She does that quite well.

    Prepared to step in it, ... (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by RonK Seattle on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:17:59 PM EST
    ... and track it all over the peoples' House, and teh fabric of Democratic unity, I'll bet.

    Heh (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by Steve M on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:35:11 AM EST
    She will bang the gavel.  Twice if necessary.

    nah, she has to check (none / 0) (#28)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:36:15 AM EST
    with Steny Hoyer first.

    Haha (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Kathy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:37:44 AM EST
    I have been thinking about this, though--what's the mix of undeclared now?  (I mean really undeclared, not Brazile undeclared).  Are they elected?  Are they party loyalists?

    I mean, who out of them will listen to Pelosi?  None of them listened to Dean.  How many times has he called for them to declare and there have been crickets?

    They are waiting for something.


    You might find the info here (none / 0) (#76)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:08:02 AM EST
    Most of the undeclared (none / 0) (#105)
    by blogtopus on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:35:55 AM EST
    are DNC members only, no senators or reps. People who are probably being browbeaten every day by the leaders of the DNC to vote for Obama, and have no accountability. Why WOULDN'T they go for Obama? (aside from the fact that he's destroying their party's viability for years to come, but that's better left unsaid.)

    Actually (none / 0) (#111)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:48:35 AM EST
    of the committed SD's, most party insiders have come out for Hillary and the elected ones for Obama.

    Hillary got herself a super (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by americanincanada on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:49:13 PM EST
    today. Washington State Dem Party Vice Chair, Eileen Macole

    That's saying something (none / 0) (#120)
    by blogtopus on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:29:52 PM EST
    Fundraising capability?

    The one thing you can't (none / 0) (#48)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:45:24 AM EST
    blame Pelosi for is Steny Hoyer.

    She did everything she could to get Jack Murtha in there instead. The freshman Dems loved Steny and gave him the edge because he raised them so much $$$$$ in their campaigns.


    Wine track vs. beer track (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Jim J on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:37:19 AM EST
    Version 207.0. Same as it always was. FDR made a national party out of something that probably shouldn't have been.

    Wine track (BO), beer track (HRC), beer truck (JM) (5.00 / 3) (#151)
    by RonK Seattle on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:26:32 PM EST
    John McCain, driving off with the Reagan Dem's again, in a fleet of Cindy's dad's beer trucks.

    I think Pelosi hates Hilary and is Jealous of her (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Saul on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:37:47 AM EST
    and fears that she would be more powerful than her since she is the first woman in charge of the House of Rep.

    Considering that Pelosi (none / 0) (#55)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:49:54 AM EST
    is third in line for POTUS at this point, that jealousy thing is just weird...tho' it makes sense--HRC's a much stronger personality than Pelosi.

    I said days ago on the post about (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by zfran on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:06:52 AM EST
    vp choices that she might be considered. The conventions of today are not like the ones of yesterday. Today they want slick, smooth, glitzy, glam and succinct. No surprises...we live in an American Idol world.

    my theory... (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by p lukasiak on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:50:10 PM EST
    my theory is that Pelosi wants to be President, and the only way to accomplish that is if she makes Clinton angry enough to do a third party that results in an Electoral College deadlock.  That throw the election into the House, and Pelosi herself Elected the "compromise" President.

    ick (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:26:42 PM EST
    Slight numerical correction (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by wurman on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:39:15 PM EST
    (no offense intended) Speaker Pelosi is 2nd in line, first Cheney, then her.

    She is the 2nd most powerful, even though the Speaker is described first in the US Constitution.

    Some Speakers may have been more powerful than some presidents who attempted to work against them.


    Okay... (none / 0) (#176)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:30:40 PM EST
    guess I was thinking that Bush was 1st and then down the line...without really remembering that he was already POTUS.

    Can I say it's been a loooong week?

    On the bright side, I finally figured out how to knit a basic cable pattern.


    Of course in this peculiar administration (none / 0) (#177)
    by wurman on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:50:22 PM EST
    there may be a secret clause in the so-called Patriot Act that references a secret presidential finding that alters the succession amendment in the Constitution during time of war, threats from terra, or dry powder congressional insouciance on impeachment.

    Thus, if Bu$h xliii & Buckshot are deceased or incapacitated within a few days of each other, the Dir. of National Intelligence takes over.

    I'm sure Vice-Admiral Mike McConnell would run a tight ship, even though he may never have commanded one.

    Speaker Pelosi & Majority Leader Reid would point out that the Patriot Act trumps the Constitution all the time, everywhere.

    Impeachment?  Off the table.


    Pelosi (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:37:53 AM EST
    sounds like the Bill Cosby skit, when his kids would not sleep:  "don't make me come up there".  

    I got an invitation to a bundling event for her and sent it back with regrets that I could not attend this year because of her and the party's conduct in the primary.  I got a phone call asking me what, and I told them.  I guess  I was effective.  Should have gone, given money so I can have a say.  Pay and play.  But instead I got huffy.  

    Nah (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by BDB on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:38:52 AM EST
    So long as they get the check they don't care if you're happy.  If they don't get the check, then they care.

    Supporting Likeable vs Competent Candidates (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:58:02 AM EST
    I think we saw in 2000 and 2004 how far you get with candidates picked primarily on the basis of whether we "like" them.  I, for one, want a candidate who is competent.  I think there are now very few branches/agencies of the Federal government that operate effectively -- so much is being farmed out to "temps" and "no-bid" contracters and no one is accountable. We need someone as President who knows how to get the government working again -- & pronto.

    But I don't like Obama so I get neither this year? (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by samanthasmom on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:12:30 AM EST
    What's the GD rush?! (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by goldberry on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:38:02 AM EST
    Is it because Obama is running out of money so he has to start raising some for the general?  Wow, this really IS the story of the ant and the grasshopper.  As I understand it, Clinton has a stash for the GE.  So, she can afford to stick this out until August.  
    Maybe Nancy would have better luck resolving the issue if she urged the RBC to seat all of Florida and Michigan's delegates rather than the paltry half they are trying to pass off on us.  
    If she doesn't want a messy floor fight, she's going about this all the wrong way.  

    I think the rush is that Obama keeps (5.00 / 5) (#43)
    by zfran on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:42:02 AM EST
    bleeding and they can't plug it up as fast as it's coming out and so they want to solidify the nom.

    Why? So he can (none / 0) (#97)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:25:28 AM EST
    bleed out during the GE?? Not the best plan, IMO.

    Nothing has stopped him (none / 0) (#114)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:13:58 PM EST
    from raising money for the GE.  That is what's confusing.  Why aren't his new loyal Dems donating to his GE and the DNC?  It's very odd.  Unless his people are sheep and he has them holding off by his mandate not to donate to anyone but him.  Creepy.

    The thing that gets (5.00 / 6) (#40)
    by frankly0 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:40:22 AM EST
    me about politicians like Pelosi is how they just can't seem to manage to keep their, well, stuff together when it comes to Hillary.

    There's an incontinence in their hatred that's just breathtaking for a professional politician. They just seem completely out of control.

    I've always been struck by how in contrast the vast majority of Hillary supporters in politics seem at least to muster up some self discipline.

    The funny (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:33:05 AM EST
    thing is they should feel that way toward Bush but they don't. What is wrong with these people? They treat the winners in the Dem party like trash but cave to people like Bush.

    Lord help us, has there ever been a party led by more idiots? I have to wonder.


    Speaker Steny Hoyer (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by BDB on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:40:52 AM EST
    If they go with Obama and he loses, I suspect Ms. Pelosi will be out of a job.  Not that I particularly want to contemplate life under Speaker Hoyer and President McCain.  Worse and Worser.

    Ugh (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:44:04 AM EST
    It will be like a reversion to the 1980s.

    She will step in......On whose authority? (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by BarnBabe on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:42:16 AM EST
    What will she do except to make sure NO Hillary supporters will be there in November. And remember, it is one thing to not vote for President, vote for McCain, or do a write in, BUT if voters stay home disgusted, then the rest of the ticket suffers. I suggest she does not try a power play and make deals with SD's in Congress. She is not very good at it to begin with, and it is a total slap in the face to ALL voters if they find out that was the case.  It reminds me of the USA wanting free elections in a new liberated country. Then the country votes for the bad guy who was not the chosen one and the USA is up in arms condemming the new leadership. <BRW>I went for the hope and change in 2006. It hasn't worked out well, at all.

    I believe (none / 0) (#69)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:03:51 AM EST
    Pelosi presides over the convention, so she probably gets to decide who gets the floor and such.

    Nice (none / 0) (#104)
    by BarnBabe on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:34:58 AM EST
    They really do want to lose their base, don't they. Just when you think they can not put any more nails in the coffin, they find a blank spot. It is all about getting the Clintons out and not about winning the GE. I believe that they think they can control Obama more from the legislative branch and not necessarily with Hillary. The bottom line, the people really do not have a say in this pre-arranged primary. We WILL have a say in the GE.

    Perhaps (none / 0) (#125)
    by tek on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:35:03 PM EST
    but she's talking about "ending the race before the convention."

    The Democrats really are behaving as undemocratically as the neoCons have in last two elections.  No difference.


    She'll step in and start playing "Nearer my (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by tigercourse on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:43:32 AM EST
    God to thee".

    Ugh. (none / 0) (#68)
    by ccpup on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:03:48 AM EST
    Okay, that MIGHT make me consider voting for Precious.  That or Chinese Water Torture ... but I think Pelosi's "Nearer My God to Thee" would make me crack quicker than the drip, drip, drip of water.

    And then I'd feel shame.  Pure, unforgivable shame.


    Ha! (none / 0) (#106)
    by tree on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:38:48 AM EST
    More and more the August DNC convention is resembling the deck of the Titanic.  

    She'll announce that a floor fight (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by stillife on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:45:50 AM EST
    is off the table.

    And everybody will quake in their boots.

    Maybe She Will Send Out Sternly Worded Letters (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:57:20 PM EST
    The Dem's letters always made the Republicans quake in their boots out of fear. Or was that laughter?

    It begs the question (5.00 / 6) (#50)
    by eric on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:46:11 AM EST
    if this "must be over before [the convention]" then why have the convention?  I understand that in recent elections it has been largely "over" before the convention because there has been a nominee that appears to have the nomination locked up, but the convention is still a convention, right?  You know, the kind where there are delegates that vote?

    I watched the Libertarian Convention on CSPAN last weekend.  It took six ballots to select their nominee.  Maybe Pelosi should have watched to refresh her recollection.

    Did Bob Barr (none / 0) (#53)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:49:23 AM EST
    emerge victorious?

    Yes, but it was (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by eric on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:56:01 AM EST
    very close.  There was a woman named Mary Ruwart who really gave him a run all the way to the sixth ballot.  It was exciting, actually.  At the fifth ballot, one candidate named Wayne Allyn Root threw his support to Barr.  In return, Barr agreed to support Root for the VP slot.  That sealed it for Barr.

    I wanted Barr to win because I do think he can get take some votes from Republicans.


    Yes (none / 0) (#64)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:01:32 AM EST
    How do you think the Libertarians (none / 0) (#58)
    by independent voter on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:52:30 AM EST
    will fare in this election? Maybe when you know getting 1% of the popular vote is the best result you can hope for, it is not so urgent to nominate your candidate early in the process. The irony is that the Libertarian candidate is nominated before the rest of us are done having primaries.

    'bout as well as Nader (none / 0) (#63)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:58:53 AM EST
    Nancy? (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:48:29 AM EST
    Try decaf ;-).

    Absolutely Silly (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by cal1942 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:50:30 AM EST
    party's prolonged primary race

    Prolonged?  It's as long as it has to be. The race is too close to invent some kind of 'mercy rule' to end it early. OR. Maybe they're frightened that some of the Obama crowd will riot in Denver.

    I wonder if Pelosi was one of the Democrats in Congress that tried to get Al Gore to concede in 2000.

    A virtual tie among "pledged delegates" (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by katiebird on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:01:55 AM EST
    And an August Convention makes this a prolonged process.  If the Democratic Leadership hadn't decided to game the system by shoving the Convention to the end of summer, this WOULD be over in June.

    And, I'm guessing (we'll never know for sure) that if the Convention had been scheduled for early July that Obama might have pulled it off.

    As it is, Pelosi can rant and rave.  Obama can declare victory.  NBC can crown him the "Presumptive Nominee".

    But after The Summer of Revelations?  Hillary will be the nominee.

    How did (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Andy08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:04:32 AM EST
    we end up with these people  as "leaders" of the DNC?

    (I am biting my tongue real hard to avoid the stronger  characterization they deserve in respect to  the rules of the blog).

    Dreading the General Election Campaign (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by HenryFTP on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:04:58 AM EST
    If Ms Pelosi's comments are any indication of what we can expect from the Party Elders for the general election campaign, we're in big trouble. I can understand her saying something like this privately in the House Cloakroom -- but blurting out this sort of "inside baseball" stuff in public is incredibly damaging to the Party and the Nominee Presumptive.

    You've already got a flawed nomination process where the nominee requires superdelegate votes to get a majority, with all the "smoke-filled room" connotations of that. For Pelosi to be announcing that she intends, in fact, to convene a "smoke-filled room" to determine the nominee will undercut the legitimacy of the Party's nominee and give the media gasbags free ammunition to blast away at the Party leadership and the Convention as well. Has all of our Washington-based Party leadership gone completely native?

    I just sent Nancy an e-mail... (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by Shainzona on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:05:31 AM EST
    and ask how, if she can't end the war or end the crap that Bush does she thinks she has any right to step in and end the nomination process.

    I also told her no $$ to the DNC and never a vote for Obama.

    The Dem Part has turned into a bunch of idiots.  Seriously.  I'm happy to find out as it's saving me a ton of money in support to those losers.

    If you haven't already, you might (none / 0) (#79)
    by zfran on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:09:01 AM EST
    get an email back, as I did a while back, that unless you live in her jurisdiction, she cannot receive your mail. Please call at 202 225-4965.

    I sent it via her Speaker site... (none / 0) (#112)
    by Shainzona on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:55:52 AM EST
    not her representative site - I know some will throw your e-mails out - but as Speaker...maybe we can get through.

    If (none / 0) (#126)
    by tek on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:38:21 PM EST
    you're not from CA she won't read your e-mail.  The weird thing is, CA went for Hillary  and Nancy's county went for Hillary.  Only 4 countie in CA went for Obama.  Closest one to Pelosi was Marin County.  The other three were in RED parts of CA.

    Posted this on the open thread, because I was (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Anne on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:12:20 AM EST
    too slow to realize there was a Pelosi thread up:

    What I'm starting to hear when Pelosi speaks is noise.  I should be appalled at what she is saying, but then again, this is the same person who categorically took impeachment off the table because it wouldn't be good for the country; am I to understand that she thinks subverting the election process is good for the country?  Someone needs to publicly ask her that very question.
    Please.  Pelosi wants her very own gold-plated ATM card to use at the Bank of Obama and thinks helping him to short-circuit the process will do the trick.  Wouldn't surprise me one bit to find out that she is using threats of non-support to strong-arm however many still uncommitted SD's there are in Congress.  It has noting to do with the actual principles involved and everything to do with power; she must believe Obama will be the next president and will punish her somehow for not being on the bandwagon.  Yeah, things sure will be changing in Washington if Obama is elected, huh?

    For my money, you could put Pelosi, Harry Reid and all the other jello-spined Dems on a large raft and set it adrift in the middle of the ocean, with nothing but transcripts of their weak and wishy-washy speeches to entertain themselves with.

    what I think (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by ccpup on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:22:13 AM EST
    is that Pelosi's statement indicates she sees SDs drifting back to Hillary (under the radar) and the Nomination for Barack in real danger of being lost.

    So, she clumsily inserts herself and broadcasts her own concern and worry by attempting to thuggishly strong-arm the process into something she wants.

    But her speaking out clearly indicates to me what I've suspected for a long time (and what my political DC friends have been saying for weeks):  the SDs are waking up from their temporary Obama Love and are scared sh*tless over having him as the Nominee, so they're preparing to trend back to Hillary and now have her Primary wins, Popular Vote and Electoral Map strength to provide clear-as-day cover for their decision.

    And Nancy ain't happy.

    Why else would she threaten to attempt to close this down early?  Shades of Florida 2000.


    Nancy==concern troll? (none / 0) (#140)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:47:11 PM EST
    ugh (none / 0) (#167)
    by moll on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:37:42 PM EST
    this is the same person who categorically took impeachment off the table because it wouldn't be good for the country; am I to understand that she thinks subverting the election process is good for the country?  

    Sometimes I wonder if the problem isn't competence but...loyalty.


    Sounds like she may be comtemplating ... (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Robot Porter on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:19:07 PM EST
    the Hokey Pokey.

    Pelosi is a sham (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by cymro on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:23:56 PM EST
    She doesn't have a fraction of Hillary's expertise or leadership ability, and she is posturing -- again. Nobody votes until the convention, so how's she going to "step in"?

    Science Fiction (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by fctchekr on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:32:04 PM EST
    Lip-biting drama-queen goes bizerk...

    Where's comedy central? Is this supposed to be intimidation or just a lead in for a new Saturday Night Live skit?

    By all means let's stick to the rules, the process..what rules? let's not allow the public to know the truth or allow the votes and the outcome to proceed to their natural course..

    Ooh.. is Nancy "undeclared" too? (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by MarkL on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:41:35 PM EST
    You GO, girl!

    you don't understand.... (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by p lukasiak on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:56:17 PM EST
    Pelosi is entitled to step in because... (wait for it)

    her father was a Congressman and she's white. ;-)

    Her Buddhist self (none / 0) (#8)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:30:18 AM EST
    cannot handle conflict.

    Don't Blame It On Buddhism (none / 0) (#13)
    by BDB on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:32:14 AM EST
    This is all her.

    I was snarking (none / 0) (#16)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:33:34 AM EST
    I Know (none / 0) (#26)
    by BDB on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:35:24 AM EST
    Unfortunately, I figured it out after I posted. :-)  Still early on the West Coast.

    So Nancy is the choice (none / 0) (#30)
    by mogal on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:36:34 AM EST
    rioting in the streets or losing the election?

    Nancy will WHAP her (none / 0) (#67)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:03:43 AM EST
    with one of those styrofoam fingers that permanently say "The One".  Oh and the styrofoam will be RED, just for the extra effect.

    Who thinks that Nancy is NO MATCH for Hillary.  

    a styrofoam finger? (none / 0) (#73)
    by ccpup on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:05:56 AM EST
    oh, the humanity!  And Hillary thought the Media and Barack's race baiting was bad.

    Sheesh.  I don't know how she'd survive one of Nancy's Giant Finger WHAPS.

    God have mercy on her Soul.



    Well (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:10:35 AM EST
    HRC survived Barack's finger, so I say, she could take Nancy.

    she could take Nancy (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by ccpup on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:16:10 AM EST
    in her sleep with one arm tied behind her back.

    Nancy knows this, so best to get the guy she CAN control in Office.

    Sad thing is the Electoral Math doesn't add up and their DC bubbles are too thick to let daylight and reality in.


    Well, then I hope Nancy likes (none / 0) (#107)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:39:11 AM EST
    the taste of foam. Heh.

    Pelosi will step in and... (none / 0) (#88)
    by Dadler on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:16:41 AM EST
    ...organize one of three way to resolve this race: a cage match with full mixed martial arts rules; a game of potato man; or the always reliable "eanie, meany, meiny, moe, catch a tiger by the toe..."

    Pelosi is useless.

    Impeachment back on the table? (none / 0) (#110)
    by ineedalife on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:42:28 AM EST
    If Clinton wins and gets the Presidency is Nancy going to put impeachment back on the table? She'll be the leader of the loyal opposition then.

    We (none / 0) (#122)
    by tek on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:33:05 PM EST
    need to put impeachment back on the table--IMPEACH NANCY PELOSI!  What an egregious person.

    Pelosi's always prepared to step in it, isn't she? (none / 0) (#123)
    by kempis on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:33:21 PM EST

    She lives in a constant state of preparedness (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:39:17 PM EST
    which would be destroyed if she ever really did step in.

    Most days I wish she'd step into something (none / 0) (#129)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:41:07 PM EST
    I'd even settle for a cow pie, I don't recommend stepping into a fight with Hillary Clinton though.  Exactly what would her beef with Clinton be at this point?  I don't like you?

    She's an idiot. (none / 0) (#146)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:50:49 PM EST
    But then we knew that already.

    If I was HRC I wouldn't worry Pelosi intervention (none / 0) (#168)
    by pluege on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:43:40 PM EST
    if Pelsois' bang-up job ending the Iraq War after her mandate in 2006 to do just that is any indication, Pelosi's ability to end the nomination process is under no threat to actually end.  

    Speaker Pelosi is in a powerful CA position. (none / 0) (#174)
    by wurman on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:00:08 PM EST
    The Honorable Representative from San Francisco can absolutely damage Sen. Clinton's campaign by messing around with the CA delegation, which is presently lined up at 204 Clinton, 166 Obama, 71 uncommitted.

    If Pelosi can take control of the leadership within that delegation, she has quite a bit of influence that may (or may not) cause Sen. Clinton to avoid a floor battle at the convention.

    The Speaker may also have considerable clout with members of the house who have endorsed Sen. Clinton in their roles as superdelegates.  Just now, it wouldn't take a whole lot to put Sen. Obama over the 2026 or the 2118 thresholds.

    Whether that means anything is a guess.

    I may have to leave this party (none / 0) (#175)
    by bmc on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:10:03 PM EST
    Madame Speaker has got a good case of the fatheads if she thinks that is appropriate, or will be acceptable to Democrats.

    What an insulting thing to say, Madame Speaker. But, thanks for letting us all know, precisely how you feel about democracy and democratic processes. Same as SCOTUS IN 2000 apparently.

    STFU, Nancy. n/t (none / 0) (#179)
    by echinopsia on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:11:10 PM EST

    SEXIST DNC (none / 0) (#181)
    by dlkincaid on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:03:07 PM EST
    The Democratic Party is a disappointment, but Nancy Pelosi is even a greater one. I do not understand women who try and destroy other women, understanding that they are merely taking the side of men who hate women and could possibly turn on them at any time.

    I do not have any respect for the DNC - most of all Nancy Pelosi. She rode in on the back of several women and have tried to destroy Hillary. If anyone thinks this woman hasn't chosen a nominee is ludicrous. Ted Kennedy is very ill and the disappointment I feel toward him is only surpassed by the last statement I heard him say about Hillary.

    I will never vote for a republican, but I have no respect for any of the democrats who have actively tried to destroy the Clintons. Obama is a joke - he has not been able to even speak to a Black issue.

    Obama did not win in Kentucky. Edwards has endorsed him and only a 'white man can come and ensure this'. Is it possible that just like Lyndon Johnson helped King with the civil rights act of '65 - 'It takes a white man to come and rescue the Black (excuse me African American) man.

    'Edwards came out to help Obama with the white vote in Kentucky.' That is what I heard last night when the great white hope came out and endorsed Obama.

    Well, I won't worry anymore - it is going to be ok.

    1st - Obama threw his father under the bus
    2nd - Obama threw Michelle under the bus
    3rd - Obama threw Blacks (African Americans) under the bus
    4th - Obama threw Martin L King under the bus
    5th - Obama threw his grandmother under the bus
    6th - WHO WILL BE NEXT?

    I wouldn't trust this guy - for anything - You people cherish and vote for him. He doesn't need nor want my vote. THAT'S GOOD he would never get it anyway. Before everyone get up in arms and call me a RACIST - let me inform you. RACISM has a definition, it is RACE PREJUDICE plus POWER. I am an older Black (and proud) female. I marched, was hosed by Bull Connor and called the N word by the best of you - and DO NOT HAVE THE LEAST BIT OF POWER. If I did - Chris Matthews would have been fired long ago and Obama would not be the democratic front runner (another inexperienced male going into the white house).

    Start funding Cindy Sheehan (none / 0) (#182)
    by DaleA on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:31:50 PM EST
    That's one way to get her attention. Send bucks to Cindy and a note to Madam Speaker explaining why you are doing so. Might get her attention.

    Thank You to all (none / 0) (#184)
    by SamJohnson on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:04:39 AM EST
    I really want to express my deep respect and gratitude for BTD and Jeralyn, as well as all the thoughtful, insightful, good people who post here. It's an oasis where I can at least think outb loud and not get my head ripped off. Sad that that is not the case everywhere, but life is often like that. But thanks to all of you for keeping it civil and supportive. Keep the faith, and your ideals. From a deeply pessimistic corner I have been backed into, I know something good will come out of this.