Pelosi: Super-Delegates Should Not Intervene In Dem Race Right Now
Some super-delegates, such as Donna Brazile, are suggesting that the time soon may be ripe to intervene in the Dem primary if it gets nastier, but the ultimate super-del -- Nancy Pelosi -- is warning against such a precipitous move.
In a conversation with reporters today, Pelosi said: "I think the electoral process has to work its way. There are still many voters unheard from yet, and I think that our candidates both have the capacity to inspire, to bring out a big vote that will hold us in good stead in November, and I think that now is not the time for anybody to weigh in."
Pelosi added that she was "never among those who believed this would be resolved by now."
The comments from Pelosi are significant, because they could persuade super-dels who might be thinking of swinging behind a candidate now to hold their fire.
Pelosi has also made it clear in the past that she doesn't believe that the super-dels will end up defying the will of the people at the end of the day.
A quick note: The above quotes come from CNN. We're told that Pelosi said some other stuff that's equally significant, or even more so. As soon as we can get a full transcript we'll bring you the rest.
Good for you, Nancy Pelosi.
Is it just me, or does somebody need to tell Donna Brazile to stuff it? If she want to come out for Obama, fine, but she really needs to stop her crusade to, as she says, save the party from itself.
The race is close both in delegates and in popular votes. Votes are yet to be cast. Exit polling yesterday confirmed the Washington Post survey reported yesterday morning: Democratic voters are content to continue the race.
It's unfortunate that no campaign will hire Brazile. That, at least, would get her off TV.
March 5, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Face the facts: Hillary can't catch Obama's lead in pledged delegates.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/4/162042/3056
"I ran the numbers for winning all 82 races (70 CDs + Guam + the 11 statewide splits) by a whopping 24.9%. Her gain? Only 110 delegates. Obama still leads by 50."
She simply can't win the remaining races by large enough margins. Nancy Pelosi is confused if she both wants to continue the race and not have super delegates overrule pledged delegates because the choice of the pledged delegates is already clear and is not going to change, regardless of the results of the remaining races. Are we the anti-math party or something?
Since that is the case, prolonging the race only wastes a lot of money that would be better used against John McCain, and allowing the Clinton camp to continue with gutter politics damages our eventual nominee.
March 5, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fact: She can catch him in popular vote. You know, like when Gore had the popular vote over Bush. I guess you're satisfied with the 2000 election.
March 5, 2008 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
S1 -- You are correct. Donna Brazile should not be on the air.
She is not impartial. For example, she twisted Bill Clinton's remarks concerning Obama's record on Iraq, and incredibly, implied that he was racist.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Brazile_on_Bill_Depressing.html
Bill Clinton appointed more blacks and women to high government positions and the federal bench than anyone in history. Nobody -- especially DB -- has the right to point a finger at him on this subject. Her comments were shameful and inaccurate and profoundly damaging to Bill and Hillary.
She is in the tank for Obama.
"Barack Obama is a metaphysical force in American politics," Democratic strategist Donna Brazile, said on CNN.
What are her credentials? She was Al Gore's Campaign Manager -- and managed to convert a sound economy, international harmony, and a strong Clinton-Gore legacy into a loss for Al Gore. One of the worst blunders in history.
Her latest "save the party" rant is proof of her bias. Let's give Obama a pass. Let's suspend the rules for him. Let's not vet him too closely because it might hurt him in the general election (as if the Republican 527's would similarly refrain). Its like ending a football game after the third quarter (as a NY Giants fan, we know that's a bad idea).
March 5, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Donna is an activist. Nancy "Impeachment-Is-Off-The-Table" Pelosi is a passivist. No surprises here.
March 5, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
March 5, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stephanie Tubbs Jones is on MSNBC right now, saying "meet us in pennsylvania." Nora O'Donnell had to remind her that Wyoming and Mississippi were coming up before Penn. Why do they consistently run the same technique, expecting a different result.
The American Psychological Association has a word for that...
And Nora O'Donnell totally smacked Jones just there. Congresswoman got pissed....=)
March 5, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does this mean we're going to be subjected to seven more weeks of Stephanie Tubbs-Jones? God help us all.
Just remember it was Ohio who foisted this on us. Not just our little ongoing primary problem, but Rep. Tubbs-Jones. I'm not sure which is the more unforgivable sin.
March 5, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. I'm all for a 50-state strategy, but all this preening over the enlightened states of (I'm not making this up) OHIO, TEXAS, and RHODE ISLAND?
March 5, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
About time someone called them on their blatant attempts to decide which states do or do not matter.
March 5, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because nobody fucking lives in Wyoming. That's why it doesn't matter. As for Mississippi, it doesn't belong in the Union. It is an uneducated, racist state.
March 5, 2008 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
We're suppose to listen to the Speaker that can't seem to even stand up to the current President when it comes to getting things accomplished? Yeh right?
March 5, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, this is more spine than I've seen from Pelosi since she became madam speaker, great timing.
I don't really care about superdelgates, obviously I don't think they should decide it for Obama or for Hillary, but I think it is fine if about 50 more add to Obama's side to even it out, so the numbers will quit being distorted by Hillary's superdelegate lead.
Nothing wrong with even.
March 5, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe Pelosi should start facing off with Bush rather involving herself in this race.
March 5, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
From your mouth, Nancy, to Donna's ears.
The remaining Democratic races, I am afraid, will continue to be back and forth, 50/50 splitting. I'm an Obama supporter so I want him to sharpen his campaign and figure out how to keep females and older voters consistently in his column. I don't know what the remaining states will show in terms of Latinos but fire up (or fire) your damned campaign staff who are not moving these numbers one damned iota.
Hillary shook her staff up and got this last result. Maybe it's time for an Obama campaign staff shake-up. Start with the Latino outreach as well as your ad agency (or agencies) who are simply FAILING at their jobs.
March 5, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dead on. I'll add that I think this is exactly the test Obama needs if he wants to face the Repubs in November. (I'm an Obama supporter, BTW.) Clinton, despite what some of the more sensitive types might think, is playing Obama fairly gently. Now, despite Clinton's claims that she's already been "vetted", I also think Clinton needs to face the same test from Obama, which Obama hasn't done to her yet. Some think that ratcheting up the campaigns another notch and having the two candidates mix it up would be bad for the Dems. I think the opposite: not only is it a test to see who can best handle the heat, mud, blood and nastiness, it could vet the candidates before McCain has a chance. Come this fall, if Clinton and Obama have done their jobs, the winner will have scars but there won't be any mud left for McCain and the R's to throw. It will be old news. (Obama in another robe... so what? Clintons have money and connections to less than saintly rich people - well, duh!) Like most carnivores, the media and public prefer their meat warm and fresh. With the Dems meat cold and moldy by October, the fairly untouched McCain platter will look mmmm, mmmm, tasty! So, sit back, relax, and enjoy the hors d'oeuvres.
March 5, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some think that wasting tens of millions of campaign contributions in a pointless-yet-inevitable slugfest and slime toss will alienate the softer support that each candidate enjoys from moderates and make it impossible to galvanize that support into a coalition to mobilize in the battleground states. A substantial bloc of Republican voters will be barely following the next seven weeks and a fair number of them will tune out until well into the fall, now that McCain is the nominee.
Can you think of a better 527 ad campaign than using sound bites of an also-ran from the same party saying that McCain has more relevant experience to be president than the Democratic nominee? Shit, I can't. There will be dozens of such made-to-order clips generated in the next month and a half as each campaign attempts to keeps its candidate tucked into the current news cycle. They will register only briefly, if at all, on the GOP voters' radar, but they'll be precious treasure to cement the Red states and make inroads into the purples.
If you can justify the existence of the superdelegates at all, their purpose must be to prevent anomalies in the primary / caucus system from unduly damaging the party. Making needless war on pretend enemies is the province of the current president -- and it's a losing strategy here, too. Agree or disagree, it's the system that's currently in place, and it ought to function as designed until someone proposes a better one (for use in a future election cycle).
March 5, 2008 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we're going to have much more of a pissing match than inspiration in the next few weeks thanks to HRC and Mark Penn.
BTW- Donna Brazile is a close Clinton friend, and is the godmother to Chelsea I'm told. In this case I don't think she is actually shilling for the Clintons or Obama but worried about the repurcussions of a permanent disaffection of the African American community and other Obama supporters, (like myself) with the Clintons and the Dem. party if there is a destruction campaign waged in the remaining weeks.
March 5, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Donna has been shilling for Obama ever since she declared "fairy tale" a racial slur, the opening shot in Obama's race war.
To deny that she is an Obama surrogate is just silly.
March 5, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Donna brazile started the race war! she was the first one to twist a completely fair point made by bill clinton about the iraq war into a race related issue! it was right after the new hampshire victory, Donna was upset and she decided to throw the mud at clintons!
March 5, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Donna brazile started the race war! she was the first one to twist a completely fair point made by bill clinton about the iraq war into a race related issue! it was right after the new hampshire victory, Donna was upset and she decided to throw the mud at clintons!
She did not. It was the MSM who originally reported it.
March 5, 2008 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure McStain will play nice with Obama too. I guess that's what "hope" is all about. Gee, I sure "hope" the public doesn't swallow the swift-boating of Kerry. Oh yeah, they did!
March 5, 2008 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a good description from Chuck Todd on the math and the politics of the improbability of the Clintons overtaking Obama on delegates. Obama is holding the cards here. He simply needs to get the word out that there is no deal on any option other than ratifying the nomination of the person with the most pledged delegates at the end of the process. And anything other than that means the party going over the precipice.
March 5, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whoops! forgot that link to MSNBC's Chuck Todd on delegate math:
http://www.obamaiswinning.com/
Click on video upper center left
March 5, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sadly, despite the Obama fantasists fond dreams, Hussein still does not make the rules for the DNC.
Suppose HRC should hold the lead in popular votes but not elected delegates?
When it comes to super delegates, why should elected delegates be any more "the voice of Democrats" than actual counted votes?
And of course something will be done about FL and MI other than not seating their voting delegations.
If it were as simple as so many fans seem to think it is don't you think that Dean and the DNC would have figured that simplicity out by now?
March 5, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Sadly, despite the Obama fantasists fond dreams, Hussein still does not make the rules for the DNC."
Neither does Hitlery Clinton. My guess is that they will be going with the rules established before the nomination started drifting away from Hillary Clinton. Or, as you suggest, they could always change the rules so that the Clintons can win??? Personally I don't know why this is even discussed. People have always expected Florida and Michigan to be seated, but only if it did not affect the result. With all of Clinton's advantages, if she could not win the election without changing the rules, and the DNC decided to give her the nomination anyway.... the green party would have a better chance at winning the general election than the Democratic(would they have to change the name?) party.
March 5, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hm, very interesting development, this. Thanks for reporting it.
March 5, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pelosi is great in NOT intervening in anything. Iraq, FISA, Gitmo, etc etc etc.
March 5, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's for sure.
Her tenure as Speaker has been one long string of disappointments. Sometimes I seriously wonder whether there was any point in voting a Democratic majority into Congress in 2006.
March 5, 2008 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Clinton_administration_controversies
99 entries
mmm experience. Thats just the Clinton admin.
March 5, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I LOVE THAT!!!! The Obama camp should send it to everyone in America!!!
March 5, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, good grief, ohio. No SD's should be endorsing ANYONE right now. It seems obvious that our primary result is going to be roughly 50/50. That's not a good spot for us.
And it means that party leaders--like Nancy--will have to broker a settlement before the convention that Hillary and Barack will agree to. Then they can all come out into the public sunshine all smiley about how they are joining up as a winning ticket.
Look, this is how this race will be settled. I expect Hillary and Barack to do some damned hard bargaining. And, no, I don't know who will be Prez and who will be VP. But that's what is coming. The SD's need to not endorse right now because the party leaders need those withheld votes as a blunt instrument (figuratively speaking, of course).
Now, if Obama doesn't want this, then he needs blow outs in the remaining races, particularly PA. Same goes for Hillary.
And, yes, both would step up and combine a ticket to serve the country, the party, and liberalism.
March 5, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
wow, cube3u... this is a first. i agree with you completely!
maybe we're in the same party after all!
March 5, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I appreciate the "undemocratic" nature of the superdelegate system, this is the system that the party put in place in the early 80s precisely as a means of tempering the "far left" of the Democratic party (ie the people) and giving party insiders/leaders a larger say in who their candidate will be. The whole point of the superdelegate system is to make the process less democratic and more of a "representative democracy." Right or wrong, this is the system that the party thought was best and it hasn't changed it yet.
Yes, I am a Hillary supporter, but it doesn't really matter, because either candidate will need the superdelegates to win the nomination under the rules that were set up by the party. I just think it would be somewhat unfair to either candidate to basically say "yeah, we know we set up this system for superdelegates which has nothing to do with the popular vote/pledged delegates (and was intended to be so), but now that it looks like one candidate is going to win a majority of pledged delegates, but not enough to win the nomination without superdelegates, we think the superdelegate system is 'undemocratic.'"
Winning the support of the superdelegates is something separate and apart from winning the pledged delegates. Both candidates were aware of that going in and are certainly aware of that now. And both candidates should focus on winning pledged delegates in the primaries/caucuses and also separately focus on winning superdelegates (however they win them) in order to attain enough total delegates to be nominated, and not whine that the system is "undemocratic." I agree that it is somewhat undemocratic, but these are the rules of the game as set up by the party.
March 5, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
You do know this story is about Pelosi telling super delegates not to come out in large numbers endorsing Obama and telling Hillary its time to go right?
March 5, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
exactamundo
March 5, 2008 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, those of us on the left may not be tempermentally disposed to voting for a candidate forced down our throats by party hacks. Makes me downright nostalgic for 1968.
March 5, 2008 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not only should Super Delegates not intervene in the Dem race right now, they should not exist at all.
March 5, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. I hate to think what candidates might be promising in return for SD votes. It's spoils at its worst.
March 5, 2008 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whether or not superdelegates should exist, and regardless of who you support, two thirds of the Dems who voted yesterday think they should not buck the will of the people expressed through the pledged delegates.
This argument that they "should" pick someone trailing in popularly chosen delegates is thus an airy theory debate that is about as useful as asking who would win a fight between Superman and Aquaman.
The practical facts are these: (1) a superdelegate trump of the pledged delegates would cripple our party in the general because of the broad public perception of illegitimacy it would engender; (2) it would cripple our party for far longer than that if we take the first viable black Presidential candidate, and give her the nomination, alienating a very important and loyal part of our party's base. Anyone who argues with these basics, or is made angry by them, needs to drink less coffee and chill on their passions about this.
Her not seeing that is pathetic narcissism. The Clintons have a desperate situational morality, in which she told Iowans she opposed Florida and Michigan competing in January, then said to New Hampshire NPR she was leaving her name on the Michigan ballot because it wouldn't mean anything, and then asked for the delegates to be seated 53% for you, the rest uncommitted.
That is such indefensible bullshit. Bush v. Gore was the victory of process over substance, gaming the system over the popular will. The fact that people go tone deaf on that truth the minute it might help a candidate they're partial to is wrong. I'm a proObama lawyer, and I refuse (and have been asked) to go work the polling places in the hopes of ginning up crap issues to fight over. I have no toleration in my camp or HRC's for gaming the system, which all of this lawyering bullshit is, and which this superdelegate bullshit is too. None of us should tolerate this. You win, or you lose. And that's that. She can stagger around and set the drapes on fire, but she will be done absent a superdelegate coup d'etat.
With all love and respect to my fellow Democrats, enough of the Clintons. It's time for them to go.
March 5, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess you want those 13 million votes she has amassed to just "go away" as well. This isn't like Huckleberry and McStain. Obama and Clinton are neck in neck. If Clinton has bigger balls than Obama, well, maybe Obama isn't ready for prime time just yet.
March 5, 2008 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see how we can fairly ask Brazile to throttle her own opinions and let the Clintonistas have the stage to say whatever they want about the role of the superdelegates.
Clinton stalwarts Ickes and Lanny Davis have pretty much been able to say whatever they want about the supes without critical examination by the press, but when Brazile has something so say, we want to shut her up?
Ickes even had the arrogance to say that he was one of the Credentials Committee members who voted to negate the MI/FL delegates, but now he has changed his mind and says the DNC should seat the delegates. You could look it up.
Richmond says Brazile is not impartial. And Ickes and Davis are fair and square? C'mon folks!
March 5, 2008 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, fact: Delegates, not popular vote, decide the nominee. Whether you like it or not, those are the long-established rules.
March 5, 2008 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Donna Brazile is not an Obama puppet. Infact, she advised Bill Clinton's campaign for the presidency in 1992 and for re-election in 1996... so she's got a track record for winning. Two wins, one tie does not equal a losing record.
I just think that Brazille is a lot like so many other former members of the Clienton administration. They got sick of being lied to, having to look like liars themselves for defending lies, and they felt that the poll driven triangulation that became doctrine during the Clinton administration was a betrayal of all they fought for. They especially hated doing their jobs in an ethical manner, only to face the backbiting attacks -- and occasional screaming rants -- of Hillary Clinton, because they weren't willing to sacrifice their principals happily enough.
Anyone who has read Dee Dee Myers or Stepanopoulus' account of the Clinton White House would justifiably be very concerned about a letting the Missleader be in charge of this country.
Seriously... if she wants to get negative, Barack Obama may be too nice a guy to do it, but I'm not opposed to helping independently fund some appropriately hard, scatheing attacks on Hillary, because, frankly, the Republicans were factually correct about a whole host of their attacks against the Clintons.
She deserves it. Really. Absolutely. She has yet to be vetted, and we all deserve to see that she is, because, contrary to her repeated assertions, there *IS* a clear ethical difference between her and Obama.
March 6, 2008 1:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
"...Pelosi has also made it clear in the past that she doesn't believe that the super-dels will end up defying the will of the people at the end of the day..."
Hey! but you don't TELL the whole story...
Our DLC/AIPAC Majority Leaders Steny Hoyer DOES want to defy the will of the people! Nice to know we have Democrats that have such a love for fair play and Democracy. This should be good for the Party we can ALL be republicans now!
March 6, 2008 2:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
A really good question that everyone should be asking themselves is this...
Why are so many former Clinton White House people extremely critical of a Hillary Clinton presidency?
Brazille greatly prefers Obama. Stepanopoulus has been critical and completely nailed her on healthcare until she admitted that she was looking at "going after people's wages". Richardson has repeatedly refused to endorse her, and has said that if she couldn't make up the delegates in TX and OH, superdels should intervene. Federico Pena is an Obama co-chair. Former Labor Sec. Robert Reich has repeatedly blown huge holes in her healthcare program, and says Obama's would insure more people. Al Gore definitely dislikes Hillary Clinton. Norm Mineta endorsed Obama.
The fact is, if you look at all the former CLinton cabinet members, more of them are Obama supporters than Hillary supporters! Maybe they know a few things that Hillary's supporters don't??!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_administration#Cabinet
March 6, 2008 2:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whose opinions have less significance, those of George W. Bush or Nancy Pelosi? In my estimation they are both monumental embarassments and would do their respective parties a favor by being quiet.
March 6, 2008 5:16 AM | Reply | Permalink