home

What Pelosi Has Sown

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:01:43 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only.

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

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

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

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

NOTE - Comments closed.

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

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    What Pelosi Has Sown | 201 comments (201 topical)
    I agree (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:09:07 PM EST
    Good points, BTD. I'm beginning to wonder if we have any Democratic party leaders who have a lick of common sense. Or if they have all been in their ivory towers so long that their brains no longer comprehend the realities of the real world.

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

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

     

    I dunno (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:20:21 PM EST
    I am convinced Pelosi lacks it though.

    Parent
    I (none / 0) (#70)
    by Claw on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:36:53 PM EST
    Think they WANT to win but they're sure making it look like they don't.  Dean has been bad, Pelosi perhaps even worse.  If it does come down to Clinton as the nominee, I really would like her to have a fairly large pop. vote lead or a more modest one and be within (or very, very close to within) 100 delegates.  The reason is that it's so easy for the press to pounce on the story if she isn't very close in delegates, or doesn't have a pretty big pop. vote lead, or (nightmare scenario) both.  I can honestly see Wolf Blitzer saying something like "Obama leads in delegates but was not the nominee; has the will of the people been thwarted?"  Then we cut to two Obama supporters and one, possibly pretend, Clinton supporter.  This will happen.  "When we come back we'll have more on just how the smoke filled rooms work."  It would be SO bad.    

    Parent
    And... (none / 0) (#137)
    by Aye B2 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:13:20 PM EST
    What are the mathematics that have Hillary Clinton winning w/out the superdelegate swing?  When did her winning become the foregone conclusion again?

    Parent
    And where is the mathematics (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:49:23 PM EST
    That show Obama winning without the super-delegate swing?

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

    Parent

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

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


    Parent
    Having big money (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:22:05 PM EST
    people threten Pelosi is a real problem....

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

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

    Parent

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

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

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

    Parent

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

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

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

    Parent

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

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

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

    Parent

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

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

    Parent

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

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

    Mostly because their intervention is ineffectual and harmful.

    Parent

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

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

    Parent

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

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

    I detest this type of commenting.

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

    I have no respect for your type of BS.

    Parent

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

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

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

    Parent

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

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

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

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

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

    Parent

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

    Parent
    Add here I thought that Pelosi (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:12:27 PM EST
    really should have her hands full in the House, attending to the difficult work of crafting a successful legislative agenda, and working with the DCCC to make sure Democrats are positoned well to perhaps increase our numbers in the House, but apparently, she has plenty of free time and thinks it is best spent elbowing her way to the microphone to make sure we all know what she thinks about the delegates and superdelegates and the nominating process.

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

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

    What a disappointment.

    Parent

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

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

    Parent

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


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


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

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

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

    link

    Parent

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

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

    Parent

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

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

    Parent
    I was amazed at the diary on the dkos (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by jes on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:10:09 PM EST
    wreck list that had no idea that Pelosi was walking back her prior statement. They thought this was a shout out STFU from Pelosi to Clinton.  I checked about 100 comments and saw not a single comment that suggested otherwise.

    That community (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:14:21 PM EST
    is not worth paying attention to.

    Parent
    That's the Clinton postition, isn't it (5.00 / 0) (#52)
    by PaulDem on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:32:32 PM EST
    Any community/state/age range that doesn't support Clinton is not worth paying attention to.

    Parent
    Nooo (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:34:25 PM EST
    THAT community is not worth paying attention to.

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

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

    Idiots get comfort in their own ways.

    Parent

    BTD-populated by idiots (none / 0) (#164)
    by mikecan1978 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:28:35 PM EST
    Thats a bold statment from a former frontpager there.  I think you probably recognize my handle, and from that know I post at dailykos.

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

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

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

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

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


    Parent

    As for your discussion (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:49:51 PM EST
    of caucuses and primaries and what the effect would have been, I find yopur arguments ill informed.

    Primaries always favored Clinton. Always. NEver would Obama do better in a primary than he would do in a caucus.

    Parent

    The FPers are not idiots (none / 0) (#181)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:48:33 PM EST
    The community has become overrun by idiots.

    My gawd, do you really deny it Mike?

    No EVERYONE is an idiot, but the proportion of idiots at daily kos is markedly above what it ever was before.

    The community is supremely stupid now. But not all are stupid.

    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by badger on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:48:36 PM EST
    A few months ago, Pelosi was the devil incarnate because she "took impeachment off the table" and couldn't end the war single-handedly, and made nasty comments about bloggers.

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

    Parent

    You must not have seen my comment (5.00 / 0) (#20)
    by magster on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:19:19 PM EST
    I said I thought she backpedaled.

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

    Parent

    Right to lean Obama? (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:27:19 PM EST
    A "neutral" elder statesman of the Party? Do any of you actually care about unifying the PArty?

    Parent
    can we talk about Dean (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:30:30 PM EST
    and his feigned impartiality next?

    Parent
    Dean has made bonheaded moves (none / 0) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:32:52 PM EST
    but he has been good of late.

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

    that is Obama's doing.

    Parent

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

    Parent
    I do not either (none / 0) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:34:58 PM EST
    But he has acted the part quite well imo. Unlike PElosi.

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


    Parent
    BTD (none / 0) (#199)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:09:22 PM EST
    Respectfully, I'm in Florida as you may recall and familiar with the efforts to secure a revote.  While I cannot say what level of culpability the Obama campaign may have had with respect to the Michigan revote, it had nothing to do with the failure of the Florida Democratic Party to get it's act together.

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

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

    Parent

    Nonsense RO (none / 0) (#203)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:13:03 PM EST
    If Obama had backed it a way to hold it would have been found.

    Your support for Obama is clouding this obvious fact.

    Parent

    I'm sorry that you feel that way. (none / 0) (#210)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:26:46 PM EST
    And you may be right that an agressive campaign by Obama to ensure a revote might have had some impact.  

    But I think you underestimate the degree to which Florida pols are willing to force the DNC's hand here.  Many are indignant that the DNC would dare even threaten not to accept the result of the January primary and are enthusiastically playing chicken.

    And unfortunately I can't name names but I am aware of one major player in the Orlando area who actively opposed the notion of a revote because he/she was felt that Obama would improve over his result in January.

    There is a mix of factors here that led to Florida not having a revote.  Could an Obama push have made a difference?  Perhaps with an acceptance of a questionable mail in ballot process.

    But I don't think so.  He is not so well thought of by the people in a position to move the process forward.

    My sense is though that Michigan is different and that he bears greater culpability there.

    Parent

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

    Parent
    It takes two sides to unify a party (5.00 / 0) (#76)
    by magster on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:39:00 PM EST
    and if one side (Clinton) has effectively declared they have no interest in unifying the party vis-a-vis double teaming with McCain to tear Obama down, then the party leader needs to not be neutral anymore.

    Parent
    Such nonsense (5.00 / 6) (#86)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:43:06 PM EST
    Clinton has talked, from day one in Iowa and repeatedly since, about DEMS winning.

    Your candidate talks about himself winning.

    Parent

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

    Pelosi is now disqualified from being in that leadership group.

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

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

    Parent

    Let's map this out then (5.00 / 0) (#111)
    by magster on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:56:05 PM EST
    If Obama loses PA but wins NC and IN by big enough margins that he increases his delegate and popular vote lead relative to where he is now, should she still stay neutral? If Clinton continues to call Obama a novice on foreign policy compared to McCain while pledging a convention floor fight?

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

    Parent

    Absolutely yes (none / 0) (#117)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:59:12 PM EST
    She should have remained neutral throughout.

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

    Parent

    Do you anticipate Obama would agree (none / 0) (#123)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:02:31 PM EST
    to do the same, and then do it?

    Parent
    obama's lead is shrinking in NC (none / 0) (#189)
    by thereyougo on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:55:55 PM EST
    its now O -47 to C40  3 weeks away an eternity in politics. The more we know the less he's liked.

    Parent
    Is that a recent poll? (none / 0) (#205)
    by magster on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:15:39 PM EST
    The only poll I saw matching that result was on 3/6/08.  If so, three weeks is definitely an eternity, as three weeks later, PPP had Obama ahead by 21 pts.

    Parent
    It's never a good idea.. (5.00 / 0) (#89)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:45:41 PM EST
    .. for party leaders to act partially and pretend impartiality. If Pelosi want's Obama to win, she should just say so, and let her influence on the process be viewed accordingly.  

    Parent
    And if Obama's campaign (5.00 / 0) (#173)
    by hookfan on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:39:06 PM EST
    continues to diss, ignore, and disenfranchise clinton's supporters the result will be. . .???

    Parent
    Everyone knows Clinton's (none / 0) (#49)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:31:47 PM EST
    supporters will fall in line.  <snark.>

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


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


    Parent
    That you added <snark> (none / 0) (#116)
    by magster on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:58:51 PM EST
    at the end shows that unity is not an option.

    Parent
    Oh, I think it is. But you've probably (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:01:05 PM EST
    noticed quite a few women here stating they really don't like being taken for granted.

    Parent
    Not taking you for granted (none / 0) (#139)
    by magster on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:14:12 PM EST
    But short of Obama bowing out of the race, and assuming Obama is nominated, what can Obama do to win your vote?  Are bridges burned?  Will the ice-shelf falling off of Antarctica, a recession, Iraq, FISA, torture, Supreme Court, health care be enough for you to hold your nose when you vote for Obama? I've read too many times on this site that it's not enough, and so I hope Pelosi, Reid, Dean whoever just advocates publicly or privately a superdelegate shut-down of Hillary's campaign.

    Parent
    I'm not actually one of those who (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:22:20 PM EST
    states she will decline to vote for Obama as nominee.  SCOTUS appointments are too important too me, and I must trust Obama, if elected, to nominate the appropriate people and work hard to get those nominations confirmed.

    Parent
    First it would be nice..... (5.00 / 0) (#160)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:26:05 PM EST
    ...to be treated as if we were NOT the enemy. But I think that's the way Obama and Axelrod like to play it. Unity is always at the expense of those which must be excluded. I really don't understand why it is bothering Obama supporters so much. But try to understand this, we feel marginalized, ridiculed, and mocked. Would a simple I'm sorry be out of the question. You'd be surprised how far that can go.

    Parent
    Voters be damned. (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by Lysis on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:56:35 PM EST
    For all the talk about how superdelegates must honor the will of the voters, it doesn't make much sense to then argue that they "shut down Hillary's campaign" while millions of voters have yet to be heard.

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

    Parent
    The result would be (none / 0) (#168)
    by hookfan on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:32:43 PM EST
    of course, a disaster in the GE. But I guess winning that election really doesn't matter. All hail King McBush!

    Parent
    i will not EVER fall in line behind obama...sorry (none / 0) (#128)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:07:18 PM EST
    my contempt for his supporters has pushed me to mccain.  

    Parent
    Good (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by magster on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:15:46 PM EST
    We'll replace you with ten college kids who just turned 18.

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

    Parent
    Now, that's funny (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:25:56 PM EST
    as I teach that age group.  And I love 'em.  But perhaps you would like to know their rate of reliability for showing up for class on time.

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

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

    Parent

    10 college kids eh? (5.00 / 0) (#175)
    by nycstray on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:41:30 PM EST
    let's 'hope' they'll still be around in Nov. I don't have faith in his 'new voters' for having much of a backbone. It's going to get ugly out there and he doesn't have the Dem base.

    Parent
    Please delete above comment (none / 0) (#148)
    by magster on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:19:32 PM EST
    and tell me to calm down.

    Parent
    I gave you a 1 (none / 0) (#157)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:24:44 PM EST
    until someone can come in and clean up :)

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

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


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


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


    Parent
    some even suggested her for VP (none / 0) (#80)
    by jes on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:41:17 PM EST
    goodness. Rewarding Pelosi's bad behavior is now a reason for her rehabilitation.

    Parent
    The real smokefilled room will be... (none / 0) (#105)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:52:50 PM EST
    ...all the so-called Dem leaders slugging it out for the VP spot. I'm sure the job has been hinted at to many.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#130)
    by ineedalife on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:08:32 PM EST
    I wonder about that too. Just how many people has Obama promised the VP-slot to?

    Parent
    Politico title (none / 0) (#67)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:35:23 PM EST
    'Pelosi Stands Up to Clinton Group.'  I guess that will be the media spin.

    Parent
    She did sit down (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by Davidson on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:21:36 PM EST
    She refused to stand up for the Democratic party and democracy itself (MI, FL) with her overt attempt at manipulating the nomination in favor of one candidate, regardless of any damage to the party.

    Parent
    It is not necessarily (5.00 / 0) (#6)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:10:09 PM EST
    an Obama position to say that the leader in pledged delegates should get the nomination.

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

    IT certainly is (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:13:45 PM EST
    especially when you make it when everyone knows Obama is almost certain to be the pledged delegate leaders.

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

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

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

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

    Parent

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

    Sure, I am an Obama supporter.  I do tend to fade into the woodwork at times....

    Pelosi does seem more West Coast than East Coast....

    A lead in pledged delegates has always been the most important metric....Now, other measures have been suggested....

    Parent

    Since neither will have enough (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:17:02 PM EST
    pledged delegates, and since the count still is soft for Obama from caucus states such as hers, with so many more re-caucusing steps to go . . . it's probably a wishy-washy statement that can be walked back, too.

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

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

    Parent

    not overturning the nomination (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by honora on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:51:18 PM EST
    After all the primaries are held, neither candidate will have enough delegates to secure the nomination. The SD will then have to decide which candidate they feel will be the strongest in November.  If a SD decides that the candidate with a +1 in the popular vote is the one whom they wish to support, that is not "overturning the nomination".  They are free to base their decision on any criteria that makes sense  to them.

    Parent
    EXACTLY (none / 0) (#85)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:42:44 PM EST
    Let the voters decide. You and I are in agreement.

    Parent
    popular vote leader is a good metric (none / 0) (#104)
    by DandyTIger on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:52:49 PM EST
    And so when all of the states have voted and have been counted, whoever has that lead, is good to go, and legitimate. If MI and FL have been disenfranchised then a reasonable metric would be that Obama has to win the popular vote by at least 500K to make up for that. And by the way, if you count MI and FL now, she is the popular vote leader.

    I like how you've moved the goal post with that "significant lead" bit. So Obama can win if he's only a bit behind in the popular vote. Does that mean you were happy with the 2000 selection process then.

    Parent

    Agree (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:11:50 PM EST
    She also should step down as co-chairman of the Democratic National Convention.

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

    Precisely (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:17:29 PM EST
    The problem is the dishonest claim of neutrality.

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

    Parent

    I do (none / 0) (#37)
    by Step Beyond on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:27:25 PM EST
    I have a bone to pick with Kerry. Ok it's actually a "Count Every Vote. Every Vote Counts." sign that I would like to use to beat him about the head and shoulders.

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

    Parent

    True that (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:30:20 PM EST
    but your bone is with Barack Obama more so than Kerry.

    Parent
    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Step Beyond on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:33:10 PM EST
    I have a whole list of people. I only named Kerry because his name was brought up. :D

    Parent
    Pelosi could really create a mess. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by ajain on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:15:45 PM EST
    She should be careful. If she pisses off these big donors there will be a problem for the Democratic Party in the long run. There is excitement this year because George Bush is president. Once the Dems get to govern the excitement will die down, if not turn on them, and they will need these big money donors.
    She should watch out.

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:20:52 PM EST
    There is this silly notion out there in the Obamasphere that we can tell all these big-money types to go pound sand, because Obama has unearthed the Rosetta Stone of grassroots funding.

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

    Parent

    The don't have to pound sand (5.00 / 0) (#62)
    by AF on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:34:37 PM EST
    But I don't approve of their trying to throw their weight around in broad daylight.  Stuff like that is better in smoke-filled rooms.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#75)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:38:56 PM EST
    I don't think you or I know how the press got their hands on the letter.  It was not an open letter.

    Parent
    It's pretty obvious (none / 0) (#187)
    by AF on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:55:28 PM EST
    That it was written for public consumption.

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


    Parent
    Particularly... (none / 0) (#41)
    by Angry Mouse on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:29:05 PM EST
    when so many of those supporters are now claiming they won't vote for the Democratic nominee unless it's Hillary.

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

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

    Parent

    Sorry (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by AF on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:29:24 PM EST
    But I am not particularly concerned about the delicate sensibilities of big Democratic donors.    

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

    Parent

    Acdftually (5.00 / 0) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:41:55 PM EST
    what you or I care here is irrelevant.

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

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

    Parent

    Obama's "Dems for a day" (5.00 / 0) (#170)
    by Josey on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:36:47 PM EST
    in Philly paper today -

    >>>Imagine the Democrats' outrage if the GOP-backed Democratic nominee wins the nomination - and then goes on to lose to McCain in November.

    http://tinyurl.com/23523g

    Hopefully, the superdelegates will consider how Obama became the presumptive nominee.
    It certainly doesn't seem to bother Dem leadership.

    Parent

    I hope you disagreed (none / 0) (#95)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:49:49 PM EST
    when the Obama camp was threatening to withdraw support (money) from superdeez for their re-elections and they were being threatened with harm if they didn't switch from Clinton to Obama.

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


    Parent
    This isn't a strong enough statement from her. (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Iphie on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:23:13 PM EST
    Oh the irony that she was prodded into a statement professing her respect for
    the decisions of millions of Americans who have voted
    by a group of big money donors threatening to turn off the financial spigot.

    How about a statement of support for both the democratic and Democratic processes?

    So how much money have you given to the DNC (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:24:01 PM EST
    ...or to congressional candidates. Hope its a lot cause they are going to need it.

    Trust me dear.... (5.00 / 0) (#110)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:55:10 PM EST
    It isn't I who pander to them. Why do you think Pelosi is backpedaling.

    Parent
    Obama funding Congressional races? (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:26:29 PM EST
    No?  Well, then, the big donors to the Dems do matter.  Especially if she wants to stay speaker of her part of Congress, huh?
    Well, he is as to Super Ds. (none / 0) (#125)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:04:12 PM EST


    Parent
    No leadership in the Democratic Party (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Prabhata on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:27:04 PM EST
    The so called leaders of the Democratic Party made a mess of FL and MI.  Pelosi has become tangled in the Democratic nominee.  Instead of providing leadership they have become obstacles to what should have been an easy election for the Democrats.

    more old 1990s battles (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:27:14 PM EST
    from republico, um, I mean politico;

    . . . it might have its roots in the 1990s.
    One key piece of evidence for that theory can be found in Clinton's book, "Living History." It turns out that back in 1995, as Clinton was preparing for a landmark trip to Beijing to deliver a speech to the United Nations Conference on Women, Pelosi called and implored her to stay home to protest China's human rights abuses.
    "The presence of the first lady," Pelosi argued publicly at the time, "would give the Chinese regime an unprecedented propaganda victory."
    Clinton made the trip anyway.

    Women's issues (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:54:30 PM EST
    was Pelosi's desired bailiwick.  She was unhappy Clinton went on multiple levels.  Again, I said it before, I'll say it again, a female President would take away from her legacy as speaker.

    Parent
    yep, she went to China and (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by RalphB on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:02:35 PM EST
    chewed them out about human rights.  Darned good speech and Pelosi looks like a complete fool for that statement of hers.

    Pelosi seems like the typical passive-aggressive democrat.


    Parent

    I think you (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by leis on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:29:14 PM EST
    might be surprised just how many Clinton supporters that letter speaks for.  If you call the "establishment" people that have consistently voted Democrat, then I am one of them and I cheered that letter. I'm no big money donor but I am 'Clinton establishment'

    Donors and FL and MI? (5.00 / 0) (#60)
    by Foxx on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:34:20 PM EST
    I was delighted to see some donors finally put their feet down. Pelosi has been outrageous. But then so has Dean.

    We've got a system of checks and balances here. The donors are one factor and it is past time they weigh in. They are on the right side this time.

    Now why can't they assert influence over the MI and FL issue?

    I Could Be Wrong... (5.00 / 3) (#133)
    by AmyinSC on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:10:40 PM EST
    But it seemed to me that the donors were simply asking Pelosi to FOLLOW THE RULES about superdelegates, and to stop trying to circumvent the primary process.  Is that not correct?

    As for her being an "elder statesPERSON/WOMAN," I am extremely disappointed in her leadership thus far, and not just in this process.  She mostdefinitely should have remained neutral in the primary because that was REQUIRED of her.  I remember being so happy when she became Madame Speaker, and now?  Not so much...

    Parent

    When Pelosi Ascended to the Speakership, (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by bob h on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:38:16 PM EST
    David Brooks commented that she was "not too bright".  I was offended by this, but her behaviour suggests that he was right.

    The walkback (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:53:08 PM EST
    The Obama argument on how the SDs should vote has been disingenuous of course (not that he's had any corner on disingenuousness in this campaign), and Pelosi should have maintained strict neutrality on the issue. While the contest itself is for delelgates and not popular vote, the SDs themselves should be looking at all the factors that impact the short and long term prospects of the party when making their decisions. But the way Pelosi backed off her position because of these big money donor threats is awfully unseemly. The co-chairman of the convention should be maintaining strict neutrality out of principle, not because the big shots can intimidate her. Ah Nancy, one more in a long string of disappointments from you....

    good comment (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:57:12 PM EST


    Parent
    Pelosi (5.00 / 0) (#118)
    by Fredster on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:59:16 PM EST
    has so pissed me off that when I got an email from the DCCC, I sent it back (naturally if you reply it goes to "no-reply@..." so I sent it to Speaker), anyway, I wrote back and said no soup for you because of disenfranchising the voters of FL and MI and the fact that B.O. is blocking the possibility of the revote.

    Maybe they need Jamie Rubin to get on teevee and slap her silly too.  ;-)

    Isn't that what Obama asks Repubs to do? (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:00:02 PM EST
    Dems for a day? Some of us, mind you I don't pretend to speak for all, are just not buying the guilt trips anymore....not when the source from which they come doesn't pass the hypocrisy smell test.

    Dems are much less (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:37:30 PM EST
    guilt prone than ever.  Some of us won't take it from Repubs or Dems.

    Parent
    For the good of the party (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:08:36 PM EST
    There was one front runner who was going to sweep to the be the Democratic candidate. She had the base votes and she had the Super Delegates. Then, some enterprising politicians decided, for whatever self service reasons, that they would get someone else to run against her. Kerry flopped early so he was out. But they needed a someone young, fresh, good personality and with little baggage. They also needed someone who could steal some of the base voters. Just a guy could not move the women, but a AA candidate could. And then they moved him forward with the help of the media. They contained Bill by making his every remark seem racist. The list goes on as far as Dem for a Day, caucuses, and mirroring her issues very closely.It has been a brilliant idea and it should have worked easily against the Hillary. But, not everybody fell for it. And now they have sown this problem we are having. A Nancy of the world would want someone she could mold and convince of her agenda. But she is not neutral and it shows. I lost some respect for her 6 months ago. And she is a heartbeat away from being the first woman President herself. My logical ideas only. No tin foil.

    There's always been (5.00 / 2) (#192)
    by mm on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:57:14 PM EST
    There's always been alot of supposed Democrats who've been stabbing Bill Clinton in the back for a long time.  They are absolutely determined not to let WJC anywhere near the WH again.  These are very small self-centered people.  Obama is their tool to kill the King.

    They're so committed to this now that they simply can't turn back.  When you strike at the king you must kill the king.

    I feel like I'm in the twilight zone when I hear some of these people talk about Obama as the only One who can bring this country together.  A man who was in the Senate little more than a year before he began his run for the WH.

    I'm sorry, but I will not take a high dive into this dark and shallow pool.

    Parent

    i was pretty tickled (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by cpinva on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:26:39 PM EST
    when rep. pelosi assumed the speaker's position. it's been kind of downhill since then. i have no clue what her problem is, but it's having an adverse affect on the party, and ultimately the country.

    she's certainly free to express her opinion, but not simultaneously claim neutrality; the two are polar opposites and can't be reconciled.

    the only honorable course for her is to step down from her co-chair position of the DNC.

    anything else labels her a fraud.

    IMO irrational hatred as expressed (5.00 / 0) (#171)
    by Joan in VA on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:36:51 PM EST
    on the formerly sane blogs is more damaging to the party than some donors using their money to try to neutralize the playing field in this nomination process. I would not give my money to any organization that wasn't using it in what I considered a proper manner.

    Pelosi is only a very small part of the problem (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by Richjo on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:55:28 PM EST
    I agree with BTD that Pelosi's behavior is terrible and irresponsible, but there is a much bigger problem. That problem is many people, including BTD, have essentially be able to delegitimize the system of rules under which the primary is operating.

    The existence of superdelegates as part of the process means that the process is not meant to be a contest of pure popular vote. It is one of primarily popular vote because it is more than possible for a candidate to win the nomination without the support of any superdelegates, but the opposite is not the case. (Even though the extent to which this is a true popular vote is questionable because one could have more pledged delegates but less popular votes, but that is another issue.) The process is grounded in the popular vote of the people, but it is not intended to be soley based on that vote. Where the popular vote of the people is clear and favors one candidate it is decisive and cannot be overriden. Anyone who gets enough of the popular vote will get enough pledged delegates that they cannot be denied the nomination. When that does not occur the nomination winds up being decided by superdelegates who are intentionally designed to not be directly tie to a popular vote. That is what is supposed to happen when the process is inconclusive- the independent judgment of representatives of the party are meant to reign. (Just like in the electoral college when no one has a majority the House of Representatives decides.)

    Those who have argued that the leader in the pledged delegates, or the popular vote for that matter, is the only legitimate nominee have essentially through their sucess in getting people to accept this argument, changed the rules in the middle of the game. They have basically suggested that the process as designed is illegitimate, and while that may be true, if that was the case then this should have been brought up long before the point when engaging in these type of arguments would inevitably become tanamount to advancing the electoral prospects of a particular candidate. The real problem is that the by accepting these arguments about the importance of having more pledged delegates or popular votes, the very system itself has been rendered illegitimate. The way the system is set up having more popular votes or pledged delegates means little to nothing if you don't have a majority of delegates. Having elevated such a lead to some sort of decisive significance has essentially rendered the intended role of the superdelegates moot and is therefore tanamount to changing the rules in the middle of the game. This will not be lost on the supporters of the candidate who loses, and hence the winner will be seen by many as having extorted the nomination out of the party via threats of tearing the party apart if they don't get their way.

    There is no presumptive nominee. No one has a legitmate claim to the nomination until they 2024 delegates in their colum. I might agree that someone with 2022 or such could make a pretty darn strong claim that if they don't get the nomination that it would be illegitmate, that is not going to be the case in this election. Both candidates will be well short of the 2024 and will need superdelegates to put them over the top. Whoever is leading is by no means a deciding or binding factor for the superdelegates decision. If any candidate had a statistically significant lead then they would have the nomination secured, or they would be so close to it that there would be no doubt they could secure the few superdelegates needed to win. That is not what is going on here. The superdelegates will decide. They may want to pretend that is not the case and try to avoid having to take any accountability for their choice by defaulting to the leader in the race, but ultimately that is still their choice, and if the nominee they choose loses a general election, or winds up being a weak president they should, and I am sure will, be held accountable for that.

    The proper course of action for both Obama and those in the media would have been to simply say that both candidates should work towards obtaining the delegates needed. If they fail to do that, they should appeal to the superdelegates making their strongest argument as to why they would be the best nominee or president. They could certainly use the vote and delegate totals as evidence for their arguments, but any insinuation that those things consitute decisive factors is inappropriate. The candidates should bot be willing to acknowledge that the superdelegates are free to exercise their own independent judgment, and that they will respect the outcome no matter what happens. They should state that if they failed to get the proper number of delegates or convince the superdelegates to support them then they have not earned the nomination, and that no one should feel that they are entitled to it based upon a lead that falls short of the required majority needed to win. The superdelegates themselves should make clear that they have chosen who they did based on their strenght as a candidate and their confidence in that person's ability, not simply weasle out of having to take responsibility for the consequences of one's choice by claiming they simply defaulted to the leader. I would accept one saying that they could not see any significant difference between the two candidates, that they had full confidence in both, but for that reason they defaulted to the leader in whatever category. (I would find this very hard to believe and would prefer they not do this, but I think such a position is at least defendable.) What seems to be the prevailing mindset in many circles however, where the superdelegates must defer to this, that, or the other is simply an attempt to change the rules of the process and how it functions, which being done in the middle of the process is totally unacceptable.

    I would also contend that this is one of the major reasons why the race is becoming so negative. People who have bought into this false story about Obama's lead cementing him the nomination have made it such that the only way for Clinton to win is for their to be a total Obama collaspe. Hence Clinton has to go after Obama strongly. This supposedly causes some of the superdelegates to become upset by the tactics of the Clinton campaign, yet it was those very same people who have imposed this narrative about Obama's lead being sacrosant. They have left Clinton only one path to the nomination, and then they get upset when she attempts to follow it. This is nothing but rank hypocrisy because these are the very people who have the power to shut off that path to the nomination by coming out for Obama. They will not do this because then they will be seen as deciding the nomination, something which inevitably they will do, but which they are hoping to decieve people into believing otherwise. If the superdelegates don't want the race to get too negative then they need to either line up beyond Obama and end this now, or they need to come out and make it clear that the race is still up for grabs and that they are planning on waiting till the voting is done before making an independent judgment about who is the best candidate, not simply running out the clock to rubber stamp Obama's insignificant lead. At that point the race would be heated, but both sides would have good reason to constrain themselves in a way that does not exist now.

    This is the part I don't like: (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:06:22 PM EST
    Speaker Pelosi is confident that superdelegates will choose between Senators Clinton or Obama -- our two strong candidates -- before the convention in August.

    Why even hold a convention?

    I disagree (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:16:26 PM EST
    I think it would be great if it was decided in June.

    Here's the thing though, I betcha Pelosi would not be happy if it was decided in favor of HILLARY in June.

    Parent

    I think the only reason to decide (none / 0) (#30)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:24:02 PM EST
    in June, as opposed to at the convention in August, who will be the nominee is to preclude further diminishment of Obama's positive image between June and August.  

    Parent
    Another reason would be to start (none / 0) (#40)
    by independent voter on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:28:36 PM EST
    focusing on defeating John McCain

    Parent
    Agreed (none / 0) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:32:01 PM EST


    Parent
    Smoke-filled room. (none / 0) (#53)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:32:45 PM EST


    Parent
    Nonsense (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:46:28 PM EST
    There are no contest between June and August. There is no reason not to decide in June as opposed to August.

    That makes me think of something else. If the PA and IN and NC, et al primaries were scheduled earlier, then there would be less of this nonsense about stopping the race. In future, we should sechdule all primaries before May.

    Parent

    Rezko, Wright, what else? (none / 0) (#103)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:52:42 PM EST


    Parent
    Tenn Gov (none / 0) (#101)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:51:26 PM EST
    keeps suggesting an open meeting, even televised.

    Parent
    Good idea. C-Span (none / 0) (#107)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:53:10 PM EST


    Parent
    Didn't realize it would be open and (none / 0) (#113)
    by jes on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:56:57 PM EST
    televised. If so, I'd remove my objection to it.

    Parent
    Let's be real (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:31:21 PM EST
    If you have ever watched a city council work, they stand in their office area, negotiate what the end result is going to be, and then decide who can get away with voting ya/nae and then walk in to the public chambers, hold a fake debate, and then have a predetemined vote.

    The deals will happen and then they will come out and put on a show for the cameras. sigh

    Parent

    Personally, I like her statement (none / 0) (#2)
    by Trickster on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:06:55 PM EST
    I would describe it as "appropriately chastened."  It's inarguably a step back from her last statement about pledged delegates.  I don't mind her saying that "the will of the voters" shouldn't be overturned.  That's a pretty ineffable standard, supportable even from a neutral perspective, and really she can't turn 180 degrees and say that anything goes.  She has to save face, too.

    So long as she keeps her big trap shut from here on out, I'm willing to forgive her for what's gone before.  She should consider herself on notice, though.

    Too little too late (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:15:31 PM EST


    Parent
    The problem for her is that things have changed. (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:19:08 PM EST
    When she made her overturning the will of the people remark she only thought that it would apply to superdelegates voting for Clinton over Obama. But now she has a boatload of angry Clinton voters who would feel the exact same way if they strongarm Hillary Clinton into conceding before PA and before the rules committee has to render a decision about MI and FLA so that the will of the people can appear to apply only to Obama.

    Parent
    The other thing that has changed (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Iphie on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:28:35 PM EST
    is that Clinton has made it clear that she is not about to be strongarmed by anybody, if her interview with Greta van Susteren is any indication. That should've been a message Nancy received loud and clear; if you want to talk about "perceptions" let's talk about the perceptions that the Democratic party doesn't care about the voters in MI and FL.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#3)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:08:02 PM EST
    Observe the ridiculously disingenuous responses to this comment regarding Pelosi.  Why, did you know her statements were utterly neutral and unobjectionable?

    The commentariat at that place is starting to remind me more and more of DK each day.

    I amazed you venture into the silly worlds (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:15:19 PM EST
    one encounters out there.

    I write about them here of course, to expose them. But not to "exchange views."

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:18:32 PM EST
    I hadn't been to OL in a little while.  Chris sometimes has interesting things to say.

    Virtually everything on MyDD is worthless these days except the front page.

    I find I get more work done during the day due to the suckitude of the blogosphere.

    Parent

    Present blog excepted of course . . . (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:19:41 PM EST


    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:22:53 PM EST
    This is quickly becoming my lone must-read.

    Parent
    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by eric on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:23:59 PM EST
    I read a couple of good posts over there today.  One was by Jerome who discusses Obama's weakness in Missouri and some other states.  He is getting clobbered by McCain in the polls...

    Second, there was a guest post by a PA blogger who explains why Clinton is doing well there (the economy) and how Obama needs to do better.

    FWIW, MyDD is still on my list.

    Parent

    Me too. (none / 0) (#59)
    by Iphie on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:34:18 PM EST
    Though I agree with the point about the front-pagers. And Jerome is often reason enough for me to at least check in over there.

    Parent
    As I said (none / 0) (#69)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:36:28 PM EST
    there's still good stuff on the front page!

    Most of the diaries from both sides of the primary are truly execrable.

    Parent

    She should be quiet, b/c this is all moot. (none / 0) (#34)
    by halstoon on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:27:12 PM EST
    If Hillary Clinton manages to take the popular vote lead, that would mean she was most likely within 50 delegates, in which case the SDs could justify picking her. If Obama keeps a 100+ lead, it will most likely mean he has kept a popular vote lead, and the SDs will push him over the line.

    Now, if the above is true (Obama leads by 100+ and in PV) but Clinton's FL & MI votes would put her over the top in popular vote and the SDs pick her on that basis, the party will split and almost certainly lose in November. That kind of victory for her would have a huge legitimacy problem.

    Precisely (none / 0) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:29:13 PM EST
    If she believes that is the case, then why says what she has? It is idiotic of her.

    Parent
    Wow. (none / 0) (#65)
    by halstoon on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:35:04 PM EST
    You actually agreed with something I said. I'm done for the day to enjoy the glow.

    ;o)

    Parent

    A neutral Party elder (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:28:27 PM EST
    does not take sides, not even if what she says makes sense to you. Some of you are truly clueless.

    There is no such thing as neutrality at this point (none / 0) (#66)
    by Faust on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:35:07 PM EST
    short of keeping one's mouth shut entirely. Expressing any opinion whatsoever about delegates vs popular vote, or MI and Florida, will immediately be siezed on by one side or the other as evidence of betrayal or support.

    If Pelosi suddenly came out and said "the popular vote is the only thing that counts" Clinton supporters would be giving her a standing ovation for her wisdom, even if she didn't officially endorse either candidate with said words.

    Your objection is not to her faux neutrality (and I agree It's false) but the fact that she is weighing in primarily for Obama. Can you seriously dispute that? Do you SERIOUSLY claim that if she came out with positions that supported ur own beliefs while still claiming neutrality you would have a problem with that?

    Of course not.

    There you go (none / 0) (#72)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:38:03 PM EST
    Based on what you believe BTD would do in a situation that has not happened, he's clearly a hypocrite!  Good argument.

    Parent
    Interestingly (none / 0) (#77)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:39:52 PM EST
    I think I would criticize her for saying anything right now.

    She does not get to air her opinion on this - that is part and parcel of being a "neutral elder statesman" now.

    Parent

    Fair enough (none / 0) (#142)
    by Faust on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:16:41 PM EST
    It really is the only way to remain neutral at this point. This race has gotten so polarized and the positions so entrentched that having any opinion whatsoever about the key issues is essentially weighing in for one candidate or the other in terms of public perception.

    Parent
    Just out of curiosity (none / 0) (#165)
    by Faust on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:28:54 PM EST
    At what point do you think that the delegates should be allowed to shed their neutrality? June? or August? Are there only particular delegates that should sit it out? Or should they all be "frozen" at this time?

    Parent
    Anyitme they choose (none / 0) (#204)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:13:51 PM EST


    Parent
    You must have sold your soul. (none / 0) (#79)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:40:33 PM EST
    BTD tepidly supports Obama.

    Parent
    Search "tepidly." Here's (5.00 / 0) (#94)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:49:24 PM EST
    a start:

    TEPIDLY

    Parent

    Obama is the Dem establishment candidate (none / 0) (#91)
    by Josey on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:46:42 PM EST
    But it was noted last summer that Hillary's and Obama's major donors consisted of old vs new money.
    This created a perception that Obama's "new money" equaled a "progressive" candidate. sigh
    Totally ignoring the fact that money is money!
    No difference (none / 0) (#112)
    by badger on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:56:55 PM EST
    There's no difference at all. Goldman-Sachs and Sumner Redstone are among the top 10 donors for both candidates. Jay Pritzker signed the letter to Pelosi- his sister Penny is Obama's finance chair.

    Parent
    Steadfastly partial? (none / 0) (#120)
    by Joan in VA on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:00:38 PM EST


    Pelosi's stupidity (none / 0) (#127)
    by Lena on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:06:43 PM EST
    is now something Obama will be saddled with if he "wins" the nomination.

    In fact, the very fact that she's covertly supporting him is another nail in his coffin. The short-term gain from her support is obvious, but when it comes to the party choosing a nominee, all his illegitimate advantages - no delegates from Florida or Michigan, backing by supposedly neutral party bigwigs, and a complicit media - will serve to delegitimize his campaign, and hence, his chances in November. If he is the nominee.

    I guess he can always blame Hillary Clinton.

    Everyone will. (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by tigercourse on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:19:33 PM EST


    Parent
    Pelosi may have argued against (none / 0) (#132)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:09:30 PM EST
    re-votes, but Obama has stepped up.....

    Representatives with Barack Obama's presidential campaign have reached out to Michigan and Florida Democrats to begin a "dialogue" about how to seat the delegations at the nominating convention that will be held in Denver later this summer.

    "As we've said consistently, we think there should be a fair seating of the Michigan and Florida delegates. The Clinton campaign has stubbornly said they see no need to negotiate, but we believe that their Washington, my-way-or-the-highway approach is something voters are tired of," Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said.

    It's Clinton's fault.

    sometimes the level of hypocrisy (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by RalphB on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:19:06 PM EST
    surprises me, and i didn't think that could happen at this point.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#135)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:12:12 PM EST


    Parent
    Depends on what you think is fair. (none / 0) (#159)
    by Step Beyond on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:26:01 PM EST
    Before anyone gets too excited

    Barack Obama Campaign manager David Plouffe today repeated his suggestion that splitting the delegations evenly would be fair, but called that idea " a place to start from" in terms of working out a deal. "We're hoping that more urgent negotiations will take place. We certainly would like to be party to a settlement,'' Plouffe said. "When we wrap up this nomination, if (Florida and Michigan) are unsettled, we'll settle them. But I think it will be in everybody's interest to try and settle this over the next period of weeks so that there's some certainty about the delegations' participation in Denver."

    They are talking about negotiating a splitting of the delegates. I'll hold off on excitement until they make it clear they are talking about basing how they apportion delegates on a vote rather than a formula they deem fair.

    Parent

    how would you propose splitting MI? (none / 0) (#176)
    by tsackton on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:43:30 PM EST
    I think that many people would be able to agree that seating the Florida delegation as is is at least somewhere in the neighborhood of being fair. The Obama camp might not be too happy about it (and would probably prefer something like Ben Nelson's suggestion that each delegate get only half a vote), but there was an actual election held in Florida, and even though no one campaigned it isn't like the candidates were unknowns.

    Michigan, on the other hand, is a serious problem. Since a revote seems out of the question now, seating the results as is, where Obama gets 0 delegates, is extremely unfair to Obama. Splitting the Michigan delegates 50/50 is probably the fairest solution. Do you have a better idea?

    If I were the Obama camp, I would initially offer to split all the FL and MI delegates 50/50, and if the Clinton camp offered to split MI but seat FL as it, I'd take it in a second. Now maybe I'm just projecting based on what I'd like to see Obama do, but this interpretation is perfectly consistent with the statement quoted above.

    Parent

    Um (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:48:06 PM EST
    Even if you gave Obama every last uncommitted delegate, he still would not get to 50/50.  How can that be the fairest solution?  I do not understand how people manage to convince themselves that splitting the delegates 50/50 is somehow different from not counting the state at all.

    Parent
    Hint: (none / 0) (#188)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:55:53 PM EST
    It's a negotiating position.

    Parent
    Incorrect (none / 0) (#197)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:00:04 PM EST
    The post I responded to said: "Splitting the Michigan delegates 50/50 is probably the fairest solution."

    Not "a negotiating position."  "Probably the fairest solution."

    If you're going to jump in to defend someone else's comment, you need to defend what they actually said, not what you might have wanted them to say.

    Parent

    It's the Obama team (none / 0) (#198)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:07:44 PM EST
    negotiating position, imo. I take no responsibility for what any random supporter might make of that position. Silly of you to think I would.

    Parent
    Silly of you (5.00 / 0) (#209)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:20:55 PM EST
    to jump into a conversation with a non sequitur, then.  I was responding to a specific comment.

    Parent
    Of course it's Clinton's fault (none / 0) (#163)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:28:10 PM EST
    She nixed the caucuses that were MI's Plan B if their jump-the-queue primary got them stripped of delegates.

    And anyway, there wouldn't have been a revote in any case because of this ruling yesterday that prevents the release of the lists of who asked for which ballot, keeping Dems from excluding those who voted in the R primary from participating in a revote.

    But bringing up these points here is kind of reminiscent of discussing something with Talex...things just don't seem to quite get through...

    Parent

    Bad comment (none / 0) (#178)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:44:33 PM EST


    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#179)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:46:13 PM EST
    OK, Talex.

    Parent
    So are you ever going to (none / 0) (#201)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:09:53 PM EST
    stop kicking Obama long enough to incorporate those facts into your analysis?

    Parent
    Why? (none / 0) (#208)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:19:55 PM EST
    Other than the lack of citations?

    Did she not nix the caucus?

    Didn't the recent ruling prohibit the releas eof voter lists?


    Parent

    References (none / 0) (#211)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:30:42 PM EST
    See this article from USN&WR, March 7, Clinton Says `No' to a Caucus Do-Over and this thread for discussion of it here.

    Parent
    In past Presidential primary seasons, (none / 0) (#166)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:29:01 PM EST
    has the Speaker of the House mainted neutrality through the convention?

    If Pelosi actually openly endorsed... (none / 0) (#174)
    by mike in dc on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:39:31 PM EST
    Obama, it would be an unmitigated disaster for Clinton's chances of being nominated.  She would bring at least a couple dozen more SDs Obama's way, and the media would play that up for a week.

    The pool of available uncommitted SDs would shrink further, and her path would become more improbable.  

    Not to mention the possibility it would push more major players off the fence, toward Obama.
    She is doing Clinton a huge favor by not openly endorsing Obama.  Yes, I agree, she has tipped her hand a bit, but that's a far cry from what an open endorsement would do.
    It was unbelievably stupid for those Clinton backers to send such a disrespectful letter with an implied threat to the most powerful elected Democrat in the country.  

    Whaaat!!!! (5.00 / 3) (#177)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:43:54 PM EST
    This is the silliest comment of the day. George Miller and Pelosi's daughter endorsed Obama. EVERYONE knows who Pelosi is for.

    The disaster would be for Pelosi of course, not for Clinton.

    What a ridiculous comment.

    Parent

    Yes, we know she supports Obama... (none / 0) (#185)
    by mike in dc on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:53:08 PM EST
    ...but she hasn't openly endorsed him, BTD.  This is a very important distinction, actually.  An open endorsement means a lot more than an implicit one.  Her open endorsement would bring a significant number of other SDs with her, since she is the leader of the House Democrats, and about 80 of them are still uncommitted (one third is a reasonable estimate, in my opinion).  To pretend that Pelosi wouldn't bring more SDs to Obama through a public endorsement is foolish.

    Thanks again for reading my posts as though I said what you wished I had said.

    Parent

    Believe me (5.00 / 0) (#191)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:56:50 PM EST
    BTD was being too kind.  The idea that Pelosi is refraining from openly endorsing as a favor to Clinton is completely silly.

    Parent
    Absurd (none / 0) (#194)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:58:04 PM EST
    Simply not worthy of response.

    Parent
    typical BTD... (none / 0) (#202)
    by mike in dc on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:12:50 PM EST
    when you can't actually formulate a rational rebuttal, just say it's not worthy of response.

    Open endorsement(public ceremony) by Pelosi = huge benefit to Obama. In strict terms of gaining superdelegates, this is irrefutable.

    If you want to argue she harms her standing in the party by not being strictly neutral, I have yet to see this in any tangible way, and long term I just don't see it happening.  
    If you want to argue it would be a disaster because it would appear that the establishment was trying to hand the nomination to Obama, this line is at least minimally plausible, but again, I don't think it would have any long term impact on either of them.  Why not?  Well, for one thing, Obama IS the frontrunner, and it IS pretty late in the race, and people ARE talking about how this is starting to harm our prospects in the fall.  So, the counterargument would be, "it was clear the prolonged race was starting to harm the party for the fall, so someone had to step up and close this thing out".  

    But she hasn't endorsed Obama publicly ala Richardson, which means there's been no mass movement of remaining congress critters towards him.  That benefits Clinton, irrefutably so.  That she has said there probably won't be a unity ticket given the level of acrimony was a warning to Clinton to knock that "John McCain would be a better CiC than Obama" implication stuff off.  That she has said the superdelegates shouldn't vote against the pledged delegate leader was a pretty firm position, one which she has softened to an implication they shouldn't vote against the popular vote leader.  

    Did you read the actual letter, BTD?  They wanted Pelosi to say that BOTH the superdelegates AND pledged delegates were free to 'vote their consciences' at the convention (as sure a formula for a party meltdown as I can think of).  Unreasonably enough, she didn't do as they requested.  

    Parent

    Clinton called (none / 0) (#212)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:52:23 PM EST
    to renounce insinuation of the letter sent to Pelosi on MSNBC.  It can be viewed as intimidation.  

    Per MSNBC..... 'Some' talking head said 'some' superdeez are
    upset with the Clinton's tactics.  'Some' think 'some' are too rough, religious flap, some Dems trying to go there, etc. etc...

    Clinton's strong arm tactics against Pelosi have cost Clinton her female base....

    One more time, it's Clinton's fault.  sheesh, it never ends.

    What Pelosi Has Sown | 201 comments (201 topical)