Pelosi: Super-Delegates Can Vote Their Conscience
Nancy Pelosi weighed in on the ongoing super-delegate controversy, in an interview aired today on Good Morning America. When asked about the angry letter that she received from some high-profile Clinton supporters about her objections to super-delegates appearing to override the voters, Pelosi affirmed that supers do indeed have the right to vote their conscience:
Pelosi also encouraged the campaign to keep going, not joining in on any calls for Hillary Clinton to drop out: "I think that for all that I have said about respecting the will of the people that the inference to be drawn from that is that we have to continue the election in terms of hearing from the people."















She also said the nominee would be chosen in June.
April 1, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Voting their conscience is one thing, overturning the people's choice is another. I think she is saying that they shouldn't be necessary forced on an individual basis based on who their constituents voted for, but as a whole she has been clear that they shouldn't override the people.
April 1, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is she kidding me.
Supers should vote their conscience.
Supers should vote with the math.
Hillary should keep running.
It's good for the party for this to go to the conventions.
It should should end in June.
Hillary contributors are irrelevant.
All of that in one NPR interview.
April 1, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, she's not kidding. Drop the cynicism for a sec and you'd understand.
April 1, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
The NPR interview was also very telling. Regarding the letter from Hillary's donors: "Unimportant"
April 1, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why everyone keeps appealing to SDs' conscience ? Why, don't they have one ?
April 1, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, most of them are politicians. What does that tell you?
April 1, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
She totally caved. Ugh..I am so disgusted. Nancy please pick a postition and stay there.
3 days ago:
Then she gets a nastygram from Top Hillary Donors
with this gem:
Nancy's current comments did not need to be so involved. All she had to do was say
YES MASTER
April 1, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've never subscribed to the notion that superdelegates should be expected to chain themselves to the delegate count (or the popular vote). Of course they should vote their conscience for the best candidate for the party and the best candidate for the nation--which in this case, I expect, happens to align with the will of the people.
I support Obama because I think he's the right candidate for the job, and I firmly believe the superdelegates will arrive at the same decision.
April 1, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ok. Nancy, Where Are Your Tax Returns ???
April 1, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, she also says Hillary can overtake Obama.
She's playing a balancing act, but not playing it very well.
It does sound like after June 3, leaders of the party are going to step in and say, "It's over."
April 1, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pelosi was a stooge before when she couldn't end the war -- even with a majority in Congress. And she's a stooge now for caving in to Clinton's Democratic Fat Cats.
Pure BS!
April 1, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well Pelosi caved.
Looks like it is a foregone conclusion that Hillary will be the nominee.
The system is rigged.
Obama is going to get ROBBED.
Look even at what Cuomo said on CNN to Campbell Brown yesterday. He said that both candidates should pledge to agree to accept the VP position if they are not the nominee. What type of sucker punch is that? It is all about face saving.
If Obama accepts the second place on the ticket they can save face, if he agrees to that bargain make no mistake he will NOT be the nominee. This is a shakedown for real.
They really want Obama to relinquish frontrunner status so that they do not have to show their true colors.
The Clintons are vowing to expose everyone's dirty launder if Hillary is not the nominee.
Trust me. You heard it here first. Obama is going to get robbed.
He is not the establishment candidate and Hillary is bought and paid for. Our system of government and politicians are too corrupt to allow for Obama's candidacy. He will not be beholden to special interests and that is simply not allowed in our fascist government.
Obama is a huge threat to the corrupt powers that run Capitol Hill and the Presidency. Billary sold their sold to the devil for 50pieces of silver long ago. Obama can't be bought so he must be co-opted or all chances of him being a nominee must be wiped out forEVER.
Thus we will here more and more racist militant black nationalist cronies stories about him. They can only smear him by association because he is indeed clean.
The powers that be are desperate and the letter to Pelosi is just the most tip of the iceberg to how truly desperate they are having documented it in a letter.
Are Americans going to stand for this? Are we going to allow these corporate meisters, bankers and elite ruling classes to continue to run our government or will we once again vote our RACIAL fears? In 04 it was terrorism FEARS ...but fear it is.
We need to vote our hopes not our fears.
Pelosi caved.
damn.
April 1, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
sounds like you believe in a vast left wing conspiracy...
April 1, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree 100%. I just wonder when it will be. Will it be on April 23rd when he loses by PA by 8pts? Or will it be May 7th, after losses in IN and NC? And even though he'll still be in the lead, the Clinton's will whine as always and put forth some psychotic lie to prove that she's viable. We'll watch it before our very eyes and the party leadership will sit there just like with Bush and act as if nothing is really happening.
April 1, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
What the hell are you going on about? The superdelegates will vote their conscience, and that conscience will be for Obama. Why would they vote against the interests of the party?
April 1, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously. I mean, the last couple days' of endorsements sure seem to indicate a mass exodus away from Obama. I'm pretty sure that his current lead in superdelegate support amongst all elected positions (Senators, Reps, Govs) is also an indicator that the Democratic Party is turning away from him.
Hillary has a lead amongst DNC superdelegates, most of whom pledged to her before voting began. And Hillary has donors, and party loyalists. All of these people are important, and necessary for winning the general election. But they are not enough. And if they really want to fight for a "us versus them" with Obama supporters, they will lose, because there simply aren't as many of them any more. The old guard has been outnumbered, and they don't like it. They are still vital members of the party, but they don't get to call all the shots anymore.
And Pelosi isn't "folding" - she's being diplomatic. The Clinton donors' bully letter ended up being a great last-minute fundraiser for the DCCC (and right before the March 31 FEC filing deadline). Right now, everyone is trying to play nice so that Hillary supporters have time to lick their wounds and get on board with the imminent Obama nomination. It's important for her supporters, too that this not be seen as a party/superdelegate coronation of the candidate, so Pelosi, et al have to walk a very thin line.
April 2, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
You forgot to mention the most important part!
"they [superdelegates] also then should get involved in the campaigns and make their power known there,"
For the people that have difficulties reading between the lines:
She is telling the superdelegates to declare their endorsements as soon as possible. That's the strongest declaration of a prominent democrat since the start of the campaign.
From the comments I'm reading, it seems people don't get it: she is making Obama a favor. A huge one!
April 1, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure it galled her to have to say it. She's been opposed to Hillary for years, ever since Hillary refused to support one of Pelosi's pet projects. Now I hope Pelosi shuts up. Maybe she could just come out and endorse Obama and quit pretending to be neutral.
April 1, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
What pet project is that?
April 1, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I'm with you on that..what project?
Maybe it was bimbo patrol, or continued funding for the war.
April 1, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm amazed that "voting your conscience" is synonymous with voting for Hillary. I think that's a bit of sleight of hand on the part of the Clinton campaign. If the assumption is that any super-delegate voting their conscience would deem the loser in the pledged delegate race the nominee, then there truly is a serious problem with the party. Luckily, I believe enough super-delegate's conscience will be to award Obama's high-road campaign and his lead in pledged delegates with the nomination.
April 1, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree SDs should vote their conscience/judgment. I seriously doubt the judgment of these politicians (primarily) will overturn what the voters have done.
April 1, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Deadalus,
The reason vote your conscious is synonymous with vote for Hillary is because the political process is corrupt and many of these SD's owe their political lives to the Clintons...see how that works?
Politicians are a den of thieves and vipers..it is one big vipers nest and that is why Carville made such a huge deal about castigating Richardson as a JUDAS. To let the others know that there will be a price.
That is the conscious they are being asked to respond to.
Recall, Richardson said that it was difficult that he knew was grateful for the opportunities that he had under Bill Clinton? Then he added but he decided that he did not owe the Clintons that he had SERVED his COUNTRY and paid his debts.
Those are the type of issues that folks are grabbling with in terms of coming out in support of Obama.
The only reason Obama has got this far is because he has developed an entire new network for campaign funding that is independent of the fat cats who have a stranglehold on our party and who wrote that letter to Pelosi. Prior to what Obama has done, no one could even run for office without those donors. Big donors who the Clintons have sown up sufficiently to prevent any politician from challenging Hillary. But Barack did it. He showed the politiicans how to.
Now they all are looking at that and wondering if they too can do it. They are wondering if they can get off the crooked teat that has been their way of survival for so long. If they should, the Clintons and Caravilles are saying there is a price and Pelosi is saying 'vote your conscious'.
I hope they have a conscious with God and not just a political conscious, like Richardson found he had...or else this country is doomed.
April 1, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see this in one of two ways:
1. Pelosi caved to the pressure of the donor letter, which wouldn't really be too surprising.
2. She is intentionally towing this line to stop the perception that people are calling for Hillary to drop out of the race. Any comment perceived to be indicating Clinton should drop out is immediately seized by her campaign and used as a rallying point.
Hmm.
April 1, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's more #2 than #1. When fundraising figures come out, I suspect we'll see that the DCCC made serious bank from small contributors pushing back against "those who pay get to say" politics.
April 2, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everyone needs to watch this again...
She never says that the Supers should override the pop vote.
She says Clinton may overtake Obama, and if she does, she'll be the nominee.
Well, we all know the only realistic chance for Hillary to win is if she gets 70% of the Supers to vote for her.
Pelosi just tactfully ended Hillary's campaign.
April 1, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
A man hears what he/she wants to hear and disregards the rest, SC. Goes for me and you as well as the rest of the human race.
Here's how it goes. At the convention, the call the roll. Alabama! Then Alabama, followed by the other states casts its votes. As soon as one candidate gets a majority, they become the nominee. There are no rules for casting votes by either pledged or super delegates outside the convention. Unless one of the candidates concedes before then, the delegates cast their votes at the convention.
What part of that are you having trouble with?
April 2, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, just watched it AGAIN.
She adds a little addendum to the "vote your conscience" line.
If the supers decide to do that, they need to do it NOW and join a campaign.
I read that to say: "No stealing the election at the convention."
It's interesting some see this in a totally opposite way. I guess Pelosi did her balancing act better than I thought.
April 1, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is anyone talking yet about getting rid of the superdelegates by the 2012 primaries? If not, allow me to be the first.
April 1, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Certainly I agree the Supers need to be scaled back a bit.
But I read somewhere that one reason they were originally formed was so that elected officials wouldn't have to compete against citizens in order to have a say (and thus, cause ill-will among their constituents).
I don't know all the history about Superdelegates, and I don't think they should have the amount of influence they have. But there could be some reasonable reasons to have SOME Superdelegates.
April 1, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
dojo23 said:
2. She is intentionally towing this line to stop the perception that people are calling for Hillary to drop out of the race. Any comment perceived to be indicating Clinton should drop out is immediately seized by her campaign and used as a rallying point.
Hmm.
I think this is what it is. Dean and Pelosi (and Obama for that matter) have been "encouraging favorable treatment" for Hillary simply in order to quell any suspicions that may arise that HRC got a rough deal when the nomination is wrapped up (hopefully by July 1). It has been demonstrated that Hill is perfectly happy to claim victimhood as a result of "being taken out early" (what a crock is that?), and therefore, moving to get her out before she's good and ready will just lead to more divisiveness and to Hill exercising the nuclear option of making this a bitter ending for the party as it was in 1980.
IOW, I think Pelosi et al are just giving Hill enough rope.
April 1, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
The supers should vote their consciences. That's the reason they were created separate from the elected delegates. Otherwise, they have no reason for being. Having said that, we have to dump the leadership we have in Congress. It's been one cave after the other with this crowd. they are so afraid of offending this group or the other, that they constantly shrink from doing the right thing that they were elected for...shut off this war. They have backed down to Bush on issue after issue. They failed to filibuster the Alito nomination out of fear of Republicans invoking the 'nuclear option'. Kerry's failure to fight in Ohio is another example. We need a leadership with some spine.
April 1, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's about time youo face-lifted hag. The rules are Super Delegates choose who they want. PERIOD.
April 1, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pelosi did partially cave, but all of the superdelegate movement has been in Obama's direction lately.
Unless Clinton suddenly racks up huge victories in the remaining states, the supers aren't going to be impressed.
She'll probably win PA, but then she'll lose NC by a large margin.
April 1, 2008 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
ROFL. When I told the echo chamber that Pelosi would fold on this one, I was shouted and scoffed at. I told you she was facing Cindy Sheehan, and even one of those fat cats could make her life miserable. Scoffed at me you did. Now eat your words!
April 2, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink