Nancy Pelosi May Have Just Put an End to Hillary Clinton's "Scorched Earth" Campaign
BUZZFLASH EDITOR'S BLOG
Mark Karlin
Editor and Publisher
![]()
March 17, 2008
Of all the political statements and punditry that burst at the speed of light through an overburdened news delivery system, so many important statements get lost in the rush.
And that may be the case in the comments last week of one Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives -- and the "commander-in-chief" of the House Democrats. To put this in context in terms of the slimmest of hopes -- hanging by a scorched-earth policy of trench warfare for Hillary Clinton -- remember that every Democratic member of the House of Representatives is a Superdelegate to the Democratic Convention. And if you recall, that's well over 200 of the 750+ superdelegates. In short, while she doesn't control the House superdelegate votes, she does indicate which way the wind is blowing.
That is why much attention should be paid -- in a week when Obama gained 14 delegates on Clinton in states where primaries had already been conducted -- to a statement made by Speaker Pelosi last week. We will quote a large chunk of the Associated Press story so that you can get a feeling for the full potential impact of Pelosi's unambiguous, clear dictum:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says it would be damaging to the Democratic party for its leaders to buck the will of national convention delegates picked in primaries and caucuses, a declaration that gives a boost to Sen. Barack Obama.
"If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what's happened in the elections, it would be harmful to the Democratic party," Pelosi said in an interview taped Friday for broadcast Sunday on ABC's "This Week."
The California Democrat did not mention either Obama or his rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, by name. But her remarks seemed to suggest she was prepared to cast her ballot at the convention in favor of the candidate who emerges from the primary season with the most pledged delegates.
Obama leads Clinton by 142 pledged delegates — those delegates picked in nomination contests to date, in The Associated Press' count.
Barring an unlikely string of landslide victories by the former first lady in the remaining states, he will end the primary season with a delegate lead, but short of the 2025 needed to win the nomination.
That gives the balance of power to the so-called superdelegates, prominent Democrats who are automatically entitled to attend the convention because of their status as members of Congress or other leaders. Clinton leads Obama for their support in the AP count, 249-213.
Pelosi's comments could influence other House Democrats who are neutral in the presidential race and will attend the convention as superdelegates.
In her interview, Pelosi also said that even if one candidate winds up with a larger share of the popular vote than the delegate leader, the candidate who has more delegates should prevail.
"It's a delegate race," she said. "The way the system works is that the delegates choose the nominee."
Note that not only does Speaker Pelosi strongly endorse the candidate with the most pledged delegates; she also throws cold water on the Clinton strategy of trying to pass Obama in the popular vote (which he now leads) and then claim that the popular vote -- and Obama is likely to still end up leading in that category, too, barring some Clinton campaign-Bush 2000 like shenanigans such as using the race card to drive out the "Archie Bunker" vote to vote for "Hillary, the Great White Hope" -- supersedes the importance of pledged delegates.
Pelosi pretty much repudiates the Clinton campaign's hope of running up the negatives on Obama and praying hard for Obama to trip over himself with some mortal gaffe. Speaker Pelosi firmly announced, in translation: forget about the miracles, Hillary. I'm letting my House delegation know that I don't condone this divisive, unlikely low road to the Democratic Party nomination.
Indeed, Obama has climbed from around a 100 superdelegate deficit to just 30, and while he has incrementally been increasing his superdelegate count, Clinton has staid static for weeks.
Furthermore, Pelosi threw cold water on the Bill and Hillary Clinton phony enticement to undecided voters that Obama might make a good vice-president (even though Clinton has declared several times that John McCain is fit to be commander-in-chief -- a glaring error in judgment on Clinton's part -- but Obama isn't). Of the "Dream Ticket" gambit, Pelosi dismissed it with a wave of her hand: "It's not going to happen." In fact, her exact words were, "It's impossible."
So among all the top Democrats in Congress who have indicated in one way or another that Clinton should "hit the road, Jack," the most devastating blow may have been dealt last week by Speaker Pelosi.
It didn't hit the news big time -- what with all the controversy about Ferraro and Wright -- but you can be sure that uncommitted members of the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives heard it loud and clear.
BUZZFLASH EDITOR'S BLOG
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
Buzz this on Buzzflash.net




Technorati Tags:
What Archie Bunker vote?
you will get the president you deserve
Thanks for background info.
We can still choose
Nancy Pelosi May Have Just Put an End to Hillary Clinton etc
Did you understand the article?
Time to lead, Nancy
Control of Congress is more important than the White House.
Unfairness
Are you saying Obama has not been campaigning negative?
You say Hillary is no different from McCain and Lieberman? Tell me how Obama is different, then. After all, it was Obama, not Clinton, who supported Joe Lieberman against the Democratic candidate, Ned Lamont, in his last Senate race.
I'm tired of hearing people complain because Clinton is not making it easier for Obama to beat her. Too bad. As long as he hasn't met the delegate threshold, he hasn't won, and it's about time people accepted that. Whatever I may think of Clinton, she has no less a right to take advantage of the process than Obama does.
And it just might be that there are issues she cares about. If he goes to the convention without enough delegates, she may have the power to pin him down on some of the domestic issues she has spent her career on that he has shown no interest in.
This is how it's done. There are a lot of people who want to push Obama to be more of a progressive on issues than he's been, and Hillary is about the only person left who is in a position to do it.
So quit dissing her and start asking yourself how you are going to push Obama to be more progressive.
AC
More liberal media at The Sideshow
No more lies, please
"He's [Obama} used a number of underhanded tactics, not least the one that suggests that those of us who supported other candidates only did so because we are racists."
That's a lie. Sen. Obama never did any such thing, nor did his campaign. Avedon is full of elephant crap.
Avedon says:
"After all, it was Obama, not Clinton, who supported Joe Lieberman against the Democratic candidate, Ned Lamont, in his last Senate race."
That's another couple of lies. Hillary and Bill Clinton also backed Lieberman against Lamont in the primary. And neither the Clintons nor Obama supported Lieberman against the Democratic candidate, Ned Lamont in the 2006 Election.
My mistake
But if you haven't noticed the race-baiting coming from the Obama campaign, you're being willfully blind, askolnick.
AC
More liberal media at The Sideshow
Clinton Also Campaigned for Lieberman
"Wilfully blind" = tells the truth
Bill Clinton ALSO campaigned for Lieberman. And Hillary Clinton gave her endorsement for use in a campaign letter Lieberman mailed out.
Hillary backers are shameless.
I'm not a Hillary backer.
But Obama's big thing is supposed to be that he's the anti-war candidate, he's the guy with judgment. And he supported Lieberman.
So he's no better than Clinton, as far as I can tell.
Which is why it's so sickening to see people pretending that there's something extra-evil about Clinton. She's no worse than Obama, so just cut it out.
AC
More liberal media at The Sideshow
It's not all about lieberman
He's done no more to stop the occupation than she has.
He also voted against the 30% interest cap for the bankruptcy bill. He's had a number of below-the-radar anti-progressive votes on amendments and procedure that worry progressives.
And although he wasn't part of the Gang of 14, he did speak out publicly against filibustering Roberts and Alito.
For Democrats, they're both pretty conservative. I would have been a lot happier if the primaries had gone in another, more progressive direction, and given us a truly progressive front-runner, as the times demand - someone who would speak up for liberal values.
But if we are going to defeat the conservative agenda, we are all going to have to support the nominee, whichever one it is, and hope that we can push them to be progressive.
I worry, though, that a lot of people who can bring out crowds and raise money are going to have trouble campaigning for the nominee after all this bitterness and smearing. Both sides in the campaigns now regard the other as deserving to lose. Where do you go from there?
AC
More liberal media at The Sideshow
Hypocritical Hype
Your protest that "both sides in the campaigns now regard the other as deserving to lose," is hypocritical nonsense.
Hillary Clinton's campaign has condemned Obama as not as fit as John McCain to be this nation's Commander in Chief.
Obama has NEVER characterized Clinton in any way that suggests she is a poorer choice for President than John McCain.
If Obama becomes the Democratic nominee, as seems likely, the Repugnicans are going to be using video of Clinton's endorsement of McCain against the Democrats.
So please spare us more of your deceptive and hypocritical anti-Obama arguments.
Hey Nancy
Aw, you got my hopes up.
Alas, just more jockeying.
You know, I disliked Clinton enough to hold my tongue at first when I noticed how unfair everyone was being to her, but I'm beginning to wonder what y'all have been smoking that you jumped on the bandwagon to demonize the Clintons just because Hillary had the temerity to campaign against her opposition.
Obama has not yet earned the nomination. Stop trying to rush the process and turn this into a hatefest. Hillary is not evil, and this treatment of her is hurting the whole party.
Meanwhile, isn't anyone worried about the continual suggestions that the Democratic women who just don't happen to be in love with Obama are a bunch of raving racists? I see some bridges that Obama's team needs to mend before we can hope to win the general election.
AC More liberal media at The Sideshow
What's worrying us are the race-baiters
Avedon, what worries most Democrats is what Clinton's race-baiting is doing to the Democratic party.
And your claim -- that Clinton's critics are suggesting "Democratic women who just don't happen to be in love with Obama are a bunch of raving racists" -- is another of your dishonest arguments.
That's not what any of Clinton's critics have been saying. And you know it. You're not going to persuade anyone here with such blatant mendacity.
Yes, we all worry about the race-baiters.
You have to be stupid to imagine that the Clintons don't know that they absolutely can't have race-baiting of any kind coming from their campaign - they need the black vote and they know damn well they'd notice that kind of crap. Which is exactly why the Obama campaign went out of its way to smear the Clintons as race-baiters.
You know, I really, really didn't want this woman to run in this race, but attacking the Clintons as race-baiters is the most destructive thing anyone's done in this campaign. It hurts the whole party. Stop it.
AC
More liberal media at The Sideshow
Enough of your lies, Avedon
"I worry about the campaign that put out a memo falsely claiming that Andrew Cuomo said Obama was shucking and jiving,"
Enough of your shameless lies, Avedon. It's well documented that Cuomo said that outrageous racist comment and it was clear that he meant Obama and not Clinton, the candidate he's supporting.
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-uscuom115533466jan11,0,3011306.story
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/10/hillary-supporter-cuomo-_n_80914.html
The rest of your repugnant apologetic utterly misrepresents the repulsive acts and statements from the Clinton camp.
Good to see...
slooowly the mouse turns toward the cat
Impeach Pelosi
Good Riddens
Madam Speaker
Off the table
I think Pelosi was primarily sending a message to the Clinton camp, informing them which way the Congressional wind is blowing and politely warning them not to go too far over the line.
Hillary's pod-people here need to watch which way the super-delegates are turning. They are the weather vane and they're turning to Sen. Obama in increasing numbers.
That sure must be taking the wind out of Clinton's sails in her plan to turn super-delegates against the will of the voters.
In other words, Hillary like impeachment is off the table.
BTW, check out Clinton's web site. You can't find an account of the primary/caucus results. Hardly surprising, since she's urging everyone to forget about how Democrats have voted and to pick her instead.
So what's left for Clinton? Ask the Supreme Court to stop the voting and appoint her nominee? That would not surprise me, since she's followed virtually every other page in the Bush-Rove play book.
That may not be so far fetched. She has already filed suit challenging the results in the Texas caucuses.
Polite My Patoot
No more Darth Vaders!
Why would any progressive want to install another secretive, power-mad Darth Vader in the VP office?
Also, putting Clinton a heart beat away from the President is a terribly risky thing to do. I don't want to see Air Force One's wing falling off or Obama slipping on a bar of soap and falling out of a White House bathroom window to his death.
Pelosi is absolutely correct when she said there will be no such preposterous ticket.
McCain is too weak
Carrie Ann is right
That would split Democrats and drive black voters from the party. With the party in disarray and black voters staying home in protest, McCain would be able to stroll into the White House.
Nope
The polls ....
... show that Hillary is down by one-half of one percent against McCain, at the moment. http://tinyurl.com/39guh8 So you make the unqualified declaration that Hillary will lose? "Hillary will lose to McBush. The polls are showing this already." Or, as you state in your other post, "It's been known for a long time that Clinton simply can't win against the GOP." Really? Heck, if you had posted yesterday before the Rasmussen poll was released, she was UP by 1.5%. Would you have claimed yesterday that she would win? Please ... we're almost 8 months away from the election.
As far as "stealing the election," it can't happen. The superdelegates will decide the nominee, and are far more likely to go Obama's way. It's a stupid system, but those are the rules.
BTW - Obama is down by 1% vs. McCain. Does this mean he will lose even worse than Hillary?
Really??
"Zogby Poll: McCain Bests Both Obama, Clinton in 3-Way General Election Tests
Independent candidate Ralph Nader wins 5%, taking more support from Democrats"
"In the McCain-Clinton-Nader match-up, McCain leads mainly because of a significant advantage among independents. Among those voters, he wins support from 45%, compared to 28% for Clinton and 15% for Nader. McCain wins 79% support from Republicans, while Clinton wins 75% support from Democrats.
...In the McCain-Obama-Nader match-up, the independent candidate is having the same effect. Nader wins 15% support among political independents nationwide."
The hardcore Clinton bashers will hold their noses and vote for McCain simply because they remember how much they still rabidly hate all things Clinton, even if Clinton herself, and far too many democrats, have completely forgotten.
Hey. It's not like the democrats don't know how to screw up a sure thing.
Unfortunately, regardless of any important points nader may try to raise, if the Dems lose all that will be remembered is the following conversation:
"Did not."
"Did too."
"Did not."
"Did too."
Draft Gore.
Seriously, the Dems usually pick up a lot of points at the convention, so I wouldn't really go by those polls. Whoever makes the acceptance speech at the convention will probably get a big fat bump.
Of course, we still have the voting machines and the caging and all that to worry about. We'll probably need 60% of the countable vote to beat them.
AC
More liberal media at The Sideshow
Nader
Nader
Delusionial Thinking
1) Obama will not win, therefore voting for Nader
2) Obama is the same as Bush
3) Democrats are a replica of Republicans
4) All because American Idol is so popular
5) America seems to be a lost cause
Only if they believe the above.
Delusional Thinking
just another...
Obama Another Bush??