A Subtle Pelosi Nod To Obama?

by: Matt Stoller

Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 22:28


It looks a bit that way.

Delegates from the disputed Florida and Michigan primaries shouldn't decide who wins the party's presidential nomination, said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the chair of the Democratic National Convention.

That's not particularly good for Clinton.  Pelosi also discussed superdelegates.

Pelosi dismissed concerns that uncommitted party officials known as superdelegates would vote against the will of the majority of Democratic voters, and said if they did, that may cause troubles for the party.

``It's not just following the returns; it's also having a respect for what has been said by the people,'' Pelosi said. It would be ``a problem for the party if the verdict would be something different than the public has decided,'' she said.

There are many reasons she could have made these statements, and it's possible she's just being a good party steward.  That said, her close lieutenant George Miller has already endorsed Obama and she did not have to step out on this stuff.  She just chose to.  

Matt Stoller :: A Subtle Pelosi Nod To Obama?

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
A Subtle Pelosi Nod To Obama? | 24 comments
So What? (0.00 / 0)
California has already voted, mostly early voted.

The Speaker is very well respected.  Obama and the country needs her to make real change.  Obama won't make the same mistake with Pelosi that Jimmy Carter made with Tip O'Neil.  Let's just give her a break.  She is a power broaker, but maybe she just believes in democracy.  She is smart enough to know that this thing is in the hands of the voters.

I have long been making an argument about coattails (0.00 / 0)
I just found this over at daily kos that shows Obama carries more than double the competitive house seats that Hillary does.  That in and of itself shows why Pelosi wants to endorse Obama, or at least why she should.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo...

Obama is the best hope to pass progressive reforms without any major concessions.  Once elected superdelegates get the sense he can win in November, they'll flock to him.

http://www.politicalinaction.com

Good News (4.00 / 4)
I've always thought that Pelosi generally gets a bad rap from the netroots.  The one thing I really do think she did wrong was sweeplingly declare "impeachment is off the table."  And that's a big one, no doubt about it.

But she often gets attacked for taking steps that I think, unfortunately, are largely due to a very unreliable caucus--not to mention none-to-loyal underlings named Rahm and Steny.

I think it's quite significant that she has spoken out like this.  Matt's 100% correct that she did not have to speak out.  And thus, the fact that she did speak out is, I think, going to be regarded very seriously.

What's more, look at how she did it.  She's not overtly telling superdelegates how to vote.  She's highlighting both a sense of respect for the voters, and a very pragmatic observation that superdelegates would be brining down a lot of grief on themselves if they don't show that respect.

Less is more.  This is good leadership.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

I've always wondered if things would be different (0.00 / 0)
If Murtha had defeated Hoyer for majority leader.  That seems to have been her moment of overreach which showed that she did not have the loyal backing of the entire Democratic caucus.  Since then, she's been forced to govern like a prime minister heading a minority government.  I am curious if she had to back Al Wynn in the primary in order to shore up her support among the Congressional Black Caucus.

I'd like to see Pelosi and Edwards and Gore and a few others endorse the winner of the most pledged delegates (assuming there is a clear winner) after the primaries and well before the convention in order to help head off the potential doomsday scenario that people like Chris Bowers fear.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
The Murtha Fight WAS Important (4.00 / 1)
But I don't think I'd call it "over-reach" just because she lost. Had Murtha been elected, I think we'd be on our way out of Iraq right now. Supporting him was supporting the message of the voters in 2006.  That's precisely what a Speaker should do.  What I think it did was illustrate the tensions between Pelosi herself and the political body she inherited.

Usually--no, inaviably--the rank-and-file House members are more in touch with the people, and the Speaker is much more insulated.  With Pelosi, the roles are reversed.  It's really quite striking, and highly unusual.

Finally, regarding pre-convention endorsements, Pelosi is chair of the Convention, so she wont't endorse.  It just isn't done.  That would be over-reach.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
It's overreach (0.00 / 0)
In the sense that it just wasn't a close vote.  She spent a lot of political capital and it failed.  Was it a loss that possibly limited how far she could lead the party?  I think it was, but it was also a gamble that few politicians seem willing to make and I salute her for being willing to take a risk, even if it probably cut off her ability to take similar risks.

I don't think the blogosphere is influential enough to have made a difference, but I do feel a bit of resentment at the short-sighted lefty bloggers who were squeamish about Murtha over things like abortion instead of supporting Pelosi.

Didn't know that about Pelosi regarding the endorsement.  I still think that Edwards, Gore, and others making pre-convention endorsements might be a good idea.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
I Still See It Differently (0.00 / 0)
I think that Pelosi lost very little.  I don't think it was ever going to be easy to stop Bush, and getting Murtha in place was her best shot to do it.  The fact that she fell short simply showed right up front how difficult it was going to be.  And the margin of the vote is hard to interpret for outsiders like us.  These leadership fights often swing on just a handful of influential people, so the raw vote is not always a reliable indication of how close a contest it may have been.

"Overreach" implies a secure position of power that you imperil by trying to extend your power too far.  But a new Speaker coming to power in a situation like this is simply engaged in relatively normal politicking to pass the agenda she sees as best for her party and country.  It's particularly important to consider Murtha's age here.  Clearly, Pelosi was not trying to annoint a future successor.  This significantly limited the impact of her actions, and focused it on the immediate objective of withdrawal from Iraq, which clearly was a core element in the electoral mandate that made her Speaker.

As for the endorsements, I agree that it would be a good idea.  I'm just saying that having the official position she does, it would be highly irregular for Pelosi to endorse.  And she's the sort of person who would certainly criticize such a move, were someone else to make it.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Nancy P is a good leader (0.00 / 0)
Especially considering what she has to work with.  Much better than Hoyer or Emmanuel would be.  Much better.

Something else we can agree on!

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
Pelosi statement (0.00 / 0)
Pelosi:  

"Delegates from the disputed Florida and Michigan primaries shouldn't decide who wins the party's presidential nomination, said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the chair of the Democratic National Convention."

No shit.  That ought to be the default position of the Democratic Party.  I've been hoping that Howard Dean would come out and say the same thing, and make it perfectly clear that neither candidate is going to benefit from this rules snafu.  It would turn our Party upside down.

This is a good sign (0.00 / 0)
Multiple party elders/leaders are coming out on record about this, which is great.  It suggests they will not tolerate an attempt to stretch out a losing cause to indulge the wish of one campaign to "steal" the nomination via backroom deals at/before a brokered convention.

So now we just need clarity on who will win the pledged delegate totals.  IMO, I already know the answer to that (explained here), but it's certainly not clear yet.  It will be clear on March 5th or maybe the 11th, though, and that will be that.  I don't think this goes past that point.

Kudos to Nancy (0.00 / 0)
Good job, Nancy! No changing the rules more than halfway through the game. This is grade school stuff. And you've chosen a winner for a candidate. So do your stuff!
pelosi has made no secret of her support of obama (0.00 / 0)
this is just the most blatant example....

but on the day kennedy endorsed obama (the day of the SOTU speech)
she said she couldn't take her eyes off the t.v. in her office
and was mesmerized by it....

she will remain neutral until the race is essentially decided and then endorse
the candidate with the most elected delegates...

The number of voters for each candidate should matter (0.00 / 0)
This is just as viable and democratic a standard as the delelgate total.  Nancy is a politician who knows what her words mean...and don't by any means assume it means only pledged delegates.  She is leaving it quite open and leaving herself room.

For example

If she wins big states like Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania by reasonable margins....maybe not the 20-25 points she needs to blow out a lopsided delegate total, whe will get lots of votes from real people and given the large number of voters in these contests...they add up to real numbers

She could conceivably be leading in the popular vote----counting or not counting Florida and Michigan, who may have no delegates but whose voters went to the polls thinking their votes matter just as much as anyone else....

So if she has the popular vote and he is still ahead in delegates but not enough to get to the magic number...it is not only as valid but maybe even more valid that the Superdelelgates make their choices based on the total numbers of people who voted for the candidate.

Actually I continue to disagree with Chris that the superdelelgates have any obligation to anything other their conscience and political sense.  That's what they were put in for.  Admit the impulse behind superdelegates was to rein in some sensibilities that were thought to not bein the interest of thier party....however they defone it.

This focus on the superdelegates being undemocratic does not acknowleldge that there are many other parts within the rules of the delegate selection process that are also undemocratic.  Caucuses leave out lots of voters who would like to vote.  The proportional representation rules have even splits of delegates even if one wins by a landslide, you need 62.5% and a 25 point lead to gain an extra delegate. That created high Obama numbers in big states even though he lost big.  That's not democratic either.  

Why focus on the superdelegates alone?

.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

You're not making much sense (4.00 / 1)
It's impossible to get a clear understanding of the popular vote in a race like this. It's not like fifty states held uniform elections on the same day. Most caucus states do not tabulate a popular vote. Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan, so we'd have to either ignore it or use unreliable exit polls. As the primary season drags on, the election sways from one candidate to the other as enthusiasm waxes and wanes. Edwards supporters who weren't ready to vote for Obama or Clinton on 2/5 might be ready to on 3/4, for example.

The best measurement we have of the will of the people is the elected delegate count. It's the only one recognized by the DNC and previously agreed to by all parties before one side started losing and complaining. Ignoring the pledged delegate count and awarding the nomination based on some other random factors would cheapen the laws of the party and create an illegitimate nominee.

And, please, don't dump the Goldilocks and the 50 Bears talking point on us. It's just painful when Clinton and her supporters complain about a state being too black, too Republican, or too full of activists. Until we have mandatory voting, every election, whether they are a caucus, a primary, or the general election, will favor the activists. Only half of the eligible voters cast their ballots in a hotly contested Presidential election. It's a fraction of that in a primary contest.

If you can, could you show us numbers that show that caucuses uniformly favor the independently wealthy?

Lastly, where did Obama get blown out? He lost by 17 in NY, 15 in MA, 10 in NJ, and 9 in CA. Compare that to Clinton losing by more than 25 in SC, GA, VA, MD, IL, MN, and WA...and those are just the big states Obama blew her away in!

[ Parent ]
Did you read what I wrote? (0.00 / 0)
1. Every argument you make about timing, enthusiasm and the variability of the popular vote applies equally to delegate voting as they are based on the popular vote via some formula.  Everyone of them....so therefore logically if you think that denies the legitimacy of the popular vote it also denies the legitimacy of the election of delelgates.

2. The reason I asked if you read what I wrote was I never said she blew him out....I said she would need to blowout (future tense ) in the bg states to make up the for delegates.

3.I made no Goldilocks arguments and indeed I am not even sure what you are talking about.

"And, please, don't dump the Goldilocks and the 50 Bears talking point on us. It's just painful when Clinton and her supporters complain about a state being too black, too Republican, or too full of activists. Until we have mandatory voting, every election, whether they are a caucus, a primary, or the general election, will favor the activists. Only half of the eligible voters cast their ballots in a hotly contested Presidential election. It's a fraction of that in a primary contest."

"If you can, could you show us numbers that show that caucuses uniformly favor the independently wealthy? "

I made no arguments to which this would constitute a reply....maybe it's an argument you have in your own head.

4. I made the case that if neither candidate makes the magic number, they both only have a plurality, then the popular vote is a very legitimate factor to take into account...an one on which there is easily understood, common measure and ....esp. if the number of delegate difference is small between them .

I think voters matter just as much as delegates.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
Did you read what you wrote? (0.00 / 0)
Maybe you should re-read your post?

1) The point is that there is no popular vote tally. Caucus states, for example, do not report the popular vote. There's a reason why Chris Bowers has to have four difference versions of the popular vote. Do you have numbers of votes each candidate received in the caucuses?

2) I must have misunderstood you when you said "That created high Obama numbers in big states even though he lost big." I was pointing out that Obama hasn't "lost big" in any big state.

3) I must have misunderstood you when you said "Caucuses leave out lots of voters who would like to vote." I thought you were implying that caucuses were "undemocratic" and, as the Clinton campaign says, favor activists.

4) Since anyone can make up a popular vote number to reflect their own personal preferences, I highly doubt many of the currently undecided Super Delegates will cite the "popular vote" for their reason for voting the way they do. It is much more likely that they will vote for the person with the most pledged delegates, as they have done at every convention since the McGovern reforms.  

[ Parent ]
You did misunderstand (0.00 / 0)
And yes caucus voting is no more inherently democratic or undemocratic than Superdelelgates. They do not get at the universe of all voters who want to vote.

It is perfectly possible to have a reasononable enough estimate of votes in caucus states.  There is a total turnout which is known and knowable as those are records that are kept.  Second it is possible to come up with percentages of the vote.  Which is exactly what hapened on Iowa caucus night for example.  The 37% Obama got and the 30% Edwards got or the 29.95% Clinton got were estimates of the votes.  Their actual delegate numbers did not correspond to that vote..Obama 16(15?), Clinton 15or 14%) and Edwards got one less than Clinton.

So yes figuting out caucus numbers is eminently doable.

Are you ceding the first point that every demerit you cite against th epopular vote is equally valid for delegates.

Actually i think in the real world and the media world that the popular vote will matter in people calculations.  What if it's your candidate's, are you going to still argue that only delegates matter?  I'll hold you to it.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
This thread exemplifies the disaster that the focus on.... (0.00 / 0)
....the Presidential race is becoming for the progressive 'sphere.

Pelosi, her district just a stone's throw away from where I sit typing, is an utter disaster as  Speaker. She's trashing the Dem brand and is responsible, along with the execrable coward Reid, the continuing dive in Congressional approval.

She's far more upset at Code Pink exercising their 4th amendment rights than she is in the utter disaster in Iraq which she almost single-handed has helped Boosh pursue.

Yet, because of the her supposed effect on the imagined super-delegate scandal she finds supporters here in the 'sphere due to the delusional idea that she might help one or the other of Senators TweedleDee or TweedleDum claw their way into office.

Have any here researched her political background. Who she really is politically? In her antecedents and experience she's very like Mr. Decider which, I believe, explains some of reason they get on so well.

Seems doubtful anyone here has studied her and were she comes from given the willingness to stick one's head in the sand evinced here.

Wake the fuck up!

She is the enemy. She has nothing but contempt for progressive activists and values and would really prefer if we all just....

Dropped dead.

I'm going to be posting regularly about her in the hopes Sheehan can get some traction.

She's just as much of a Bush Bitch as Shuler is a Bush Dog and folks here should be looking to hit her were it hurts; not whining for her support in the Presidential Kabuki.

The House is where our movement will either succeed or fail and as long as she's roadblocking there we won't be able to make the change the citizens are clamoring for. The progressive movement will not deliver on it's promise until such as she are gone.

We need to stop dithering and oppose her. Going after The Rabbit would be good tactics also.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

Apropos of nothing... (0.00 / 0)
   Had dinner last night with my far-right parents. My father, who has never so much as glanced at a liberal blog in his life, recited to me the Chris Bowers argument (chapter and verse) about the Democrats screwing themselves for a generation if they allow Hillary to gain the nomination through insider games.

  I replied that I have no problem if Hillary wins it cleanly. But I agreed that, yes, we're about to find out if the Clinton axis is willing to destroy the party for personal ambition.

 And short of convincing people to support Obama, I'm at a loss as to what to do about it.

   

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

Dunno... (0.00 / 0)
While it's true that Pelosi is enjoying somewhat of a flush of victory for having stuffed Bush on the PAA this week, honestly I think on balance she's failed to significantly impress dems to the point that she somehow has enough clout to seriously damage Clinton in the superdelegate controversy.  

Don't get me wrong, I wholeheartedly endorse the notion that the voters--and the voters alone, supers be damned--should pick the nominee; I just don't think she carries all that much weight with your typical Democrat.  You may have noticed that Congress is still a great deal less healthy in approval ratings than Bush himself.  Although possibly not Cheney.

The Wages of Sin is about $5.15 an Hour.

[ Parent ]
Dammit, sorry (0.00 / 0)
That was supposed to be an independent post, not a reply to the post above.  

The Wages of Sin is about $5.15 an Hour.
[ Parent ]
This may also be a pre-emptive strike (4.00 / 2)
A bunch of MI and FL members of Congress are drafting a letter calling for their states' delegates to be seated. While I doubt all of those states' MCs will sign, that letter, if it does include a lot of MCs will ratchet up the pressure to seat all the delegates.

Of course, many of those same MCs are the people who got us into this clusterfuck in the first place, and many of them have pledged for Hillary, so I'm not sure how much credibility it would have.

I will dissent (0.00 / 0)
I'm sorry I have real issue with the DNC not counting Florida and Michigan, period.  I don't care about the politics or the damn rules, people voted, count 'em.  end of message.

That "decision" to "punish" to major states, one who is leading in the future direction of the US economy (Michigan) the other where it's razor close and can decide the general, it's just beyond rude to me and the ultimate politicking.

What is it with this "schedule" of primaries to influence other primaries.  Have a national primary, all 50 states, same damn day or what?  Quit trying to sway the general plus have the primaries cost so much money with these timed state events.

I mean everyone is talking about "fair" well, the whole damn process is rigged from the get go so how could it ever be make fair now?  So, count the votes, all of 'em.

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

Best of Barack (0.00 / 0)
Great entry! You should check out this AMAZING new website - http://www.digobama.com - which was created so people like you can submit your favorite articles, videos and podcasts about Barack and vote on them. This site is extremely new (created Monday, February 13th) and is already gaining momentum in spreading Barack's message. There are already 41 users, 97 articles, and 323 votes! With your help, this website can play an important role in helping Barack become the clear People's Choice as the next President. Thank you and Yes We Can make a difference!!!
A Subtle Pelosi Nod To Obama? | 24 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox