Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Pelosi prepared to "step in," or "step in it"?

Sheesh:

Pelosi predicted Wednesday that a presidential nominee will emerge in the week after the final Democratic primaries on June 3, but she said "I will step in" if there is no resolution by late June regarding the seating of delegates from Florida and Michigan, the two states that defied party rules by holding early primaries.

C'mon, Nance. Let the democratic process play out.

Haven't we had enough vote suppression already?

Go throw a bag over Steny Hoyer's head before he teabags another Blue Dog, wouldja?

0
No votes yet

Comments

Pat J's picture
Submitted by Pat J on

is this the same Nancy Pelosi who refused to stand up to Bush that is going to "straighten things out"?

Is this the same Nancy Pelosi who promised "a new day" in politics in 2006?

Is this the same Nancy Pelosi who is in the tank for Obama and will never, ever, cede one vote to Hillary if she can help it?

Just checking because I am admittedly very confused if we are talking about the same Nancy Pelosi.

Can't be.

SunnyLC's picture
Submitted by SunnyLC on

She has been such a disappointment. She stay out of this, as an Obama supporter. A real leader stays NEUTRAL at this point...

Besides, with Clinton's momentum and vote counts and states won, it seems Pelosi approves ENABLING an unvetted, inexpererienced candidate over a woman who has had such a long public career??

Give me a break! This reminds me of how I trained a young guy and guess who got the promotion?? (Not me...)

Man, I'm so sick of the crap! Pelosi should know better...she's not THAT much older than I am!

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Lambert, can you please explain:

Why you think the primary nomination process is "democratic"? Note that I am not asking why you think it should be - I agree with that proposition - but why you think that it currently actually is.

If the current process is not inherently democratic, and it is not, how and in what way is that the fault of Nancy Pelosi and what, in the moment, should she do to change that?

How, or in what way, does Pelosi "stepping in" after the primaries are over contribute to, support or encourage voter suppression?

What exactly is it about settling the FL and MI disputes and seating their delegations - in some reasonable form - that would constitute "voter suppression" or be "undemocratic"?

As we've discussed here many times, Pelosi, Reid and Dean have repeatedly said they will step in and sort out the superdelegate allocations to select a presumptive nominee no later than the first of July. How is this statement any different from what has been previously stated?

We all know, Pelosi included, that the nomination will not truly be settled until the final gavel of the convention at the end of August. However, getting the tactical part of the process concluded does allow the Party apparatus to switch entirely from primary mode to general election mode. The point of that would be to make certain that the Republicans are defeated in November; thereby saving democracy, which we all agree would be further imperiled if McCain wins. Isn't that supporting the democratic process?

I'm all for bashing Pelosi when she screws up. Wrong, I believe, to paint her as anti-democratic for exercising her appropriate role within the Democratic Party's internal non-democratic processes. Most upsetting to me, accusing her of the heinous act of voter suppression is, IMNSHO, completely unfounded, way over the line of decency and – well, speaking frankly – beneath you. Both of those false accusations should be retracted.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

Most upsetting to me, accusing her of the heinous act of voter suppression is, IMNSHO, completely unfounded, way over the line of decency and – well, speaking frankly – beneath you. Both of those false accusations should be retracted.

she's telling voters that their votes don't matter -- that the decision for the nomination is HERS. That's vote suppression.

The fact that she's obviously claining the right to intercede on behalf of Obama just makes it worse.

willyjsimmons's picture
Submitted by willyjsimmons on

but naw homie.

The 'fix' is in, and Pelosi is certainly playing along.

Deliberately?

Whatevs.

What authority does Pelosi have to 'step in' before the convention? And I'm simply asking. If someone can get to the short and sweet of it.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Not dealing with mindreading, outside of my core competency. Just dealing with the actual words, and the context.

The votes of the voters in fact don't matter, never did - that's the truth.

The decision on the nomination is in fact for her to make; her and Reid and Dean - that's the truth.

Ascribing to her those truths, as you have Paul, seems to me makes her admirable; about damn time they got said. If telling the truth is now unacceptable and condemned, because it isn't as sweet as the lies you've been told before, then we've all got real serious problems.

The voters can vote; no suppression is happening here. Their votes don't matter, because it was never a democratic process to begin with. You can't have taken away something you never had.

More truth, please.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

The bigger problem for the democrats is the anger that so many now feel about the party and its leaders. It didn't have to be this way. The party elders could've stepped in and brokered a solution to MI/FL instead of letting it fester (revotes, perhaps?). The party leaders could've spoken out against the misogyny without endorsing Clinton. The party leaders could've stepped in and talked to Obama to get him to stop doing divisive shit that's sure to hurt the party in November (like the RFK lie).

But instead, they've decided to periodically make statements to the press about how they have it all under control without doing a damned thing to actually keep the party from splintering. So far, Nancy Pelosi's biggest contribution to the primary process has been to declare Hillary Clinton's gas tax holiday DOA in the House (funny how GOP ideas never are declared that) and then assure everyone that the really important green bills will be passed because she's going to attach them to the Iraq War Supplemental. Well, thank god because that's exactly why I gave the Democrats money and supported them in 2006, so they'd attach good stuff to the Iraq War Supplementals they're passing.

Leaders lead and so far, I haven't seen any leadership on any issue coming from the Democratic Party. If Democrats want the benefit of the doubt from me at this point, they're going to have to earn it. I'm out of patience with the lot of them and not just because of the primary.

RedQueen's picture
Submitted by RedQueen on

And then she became speaker and dashed them. She's failed the poor and working class at every step. She backed away from any talk of impeachment. And now she wants to ignore democracy entirely so she can play king maker. Fine.

Voter disenfranchisement is a Republican tool. Don't be a Republican tool!

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Is in whenever the Party leadership decides to use it. That's how the system works. If you believed otherwise, willyj, sorry to be the one to tell you but you've been conned. Now mind your wallet and your watch before it happens again.

What authority? She's the current titular political head of the Democratic Party. She's the Chair of the Democratic Party Convention. She's the fricking Speaker of the United States House of Representatives. What authority? The authority of power.

Pelosi has the power and thus the authority - short and sweet.

willyjsimmons's picture
Submitted by willyjsimmons on

She’s the Chair of the Democratic Party Convention.

So Nancy has the authority to what...

call the convention earlier?

Cancel it and declare Obama the winner?

If you believed otherwise

Ha! Okay!

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

In theory, you're right. She can step in and "end" it in the sense that she and other "leaders" can line up SDs behind their choice.

But that's not the same thing as truly having power. She doesn't truly have it in that I don't think voters will see her as someone who must be followed or whose decision must be respected. If you can't get people to vote for your guy in November, then ending the primary isn't much of an accomplishment.

My original reaction to this wasn't anger, it was laughter. The idea that Nancy Pelosi could step in and single-handedly solve anything or that anyone (meaning voters) would automatically accept her resolution as legitimate is funny. You earn that kind of leadership role and she hasn't. To be fair to her, none of them have. The Democrats are politically weak, have been for years, decades. They cave on little things, they cave on big things. Even as we write, some of them are working to cave on telecom immunity even though there's hardly any screaming for it coming from the American people. They're scared of their own shadow and I'm supposed to believe they're going to step in and do the right thing and that will be that? It may be in terms of deciding the nominee, but it's meaningless in terms of uniting the party, which presumably is what Pelosi is talking about doing before the convention.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

Ascribing to her those truths, as you have Paul, seems to me makes her admirable;

Nancy Pelosi is not telling the truth -- she's not coming out and saying to voters "don't waste your time voting, because I'm going to make the decision, and you are irrelevant." That would be "admirable" in terms of telling people the truth -- and it would mean the end of her career as a public figure.

Instead of actually SAYING the truth, she's sending the same message -- she's involved in vote suppression in a manner that is underhanded and "not admirable".

Sorry, but Pelosi is slime. If she actually SAID to the Hispanic/Latino community "the votes of hispanics/latinos in Puerto Rico don't matter" she probably couldn't set foot in a whole lot of cities and states in this country ever again -- including Washington DC.

leah's picture
Submitted by leah on

I don't like the tone of that comment either, but I would point out that anyone who has the ear of super delegates, i.e.,another super delegate, or maybe we have to consider Pelosi a super duper delegate, is free to try to persuade other delegates of the need for closure - that in itself is part of a democratic process, at least in the terms laid out for the process as per the Democratic Party, whose means of coming to agreement on such matters is essentially democratic.

I'm not trying to nitpick, but I think to suggest that what she is about right now is to delegitimize an Obama win, which one hears as a gathering anti-Clinton charge, does a disservice to Clinton and her campaign, and to whatever possibilities may present themselves after mid-June to heal the party not at the expense of the Clintons, and to open up the widest range of possibilities for Hillary to contribute to the GE campaign and assume a role afterward that makes the best political use of her talents - and yes, winning the nomination and being president would be fine with me, although that seems less and less likely.

Submitted by lambert on

... and I had to write it.

And what, pray, is so controversial about letting the process play out?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

willyjsimmons's picture
Submitted by willyjsimmons on

Is that what I asked?

Anywayz...

Obama aides telling on him again @ Talk Left

No Healthcare Reform For You:

Obama aides, however, say their approach will work because most voters are looking not for a new vision for expanding health care but rather for a reformed political system such as the one Obama calls for, one that would solve problems rather than resort to bickering.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

I'll be happy to explain the powers that come with being Convention Chair but not now. If you can't wait, go read the rules.

BDBlue, agreed that many things are all screwed up. Happy to discuss the whys and hows of what has happened in the House since January 2007, but not now.

Here and now, I raise two issues:

What is the justification for the charge that Pelosi is engaged in voter suppression? That's a nasty charge, and one that should not be made lightly.

What is the justification for accusing Pelosi of being anti-democracy? Another nasty charge that shouldn't be made without clear evidence.

captainjohnbrown's picture
Submitted by captainjohnbrown on

I was actually responding to a question by Aeryl. Should have made that clearer.

Those statements in the Jeralyn post are completely taken out of context. Obama's point is that Democrats haven't lacked for good ideas, they've lacked the ability to implement good ideas. I whole-heartedly agree with that.

Cap'n John Brown

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

W.O.R.M. would turn up

of course, Obama didn't say what you claim -- he said that the problem was "old politics", as if he has some kind of "new politics" that he's gonna pull out of his butt (and its gotta be up his butt, because if he's got it, he sure isn't showing it to anybody.)

the reality is that the problem isn't 'old politics', its the GOP, pure and simple. Its not as if the Democrats have been partisan firebrands for the last seven years -- they rolled over for Bush before they got back Congress, and they are still rolling over for him. If THAT what Obama means by "old politics", and he's gonna kick ass and takes names later, I could praise it....but that isn't what he's offering.

Face it, Obama is the political equivalent of Seinfeld... "the candidate about nothing"

willyjsimmons's picture
Submitted by willyjsimmons on

Obama’s point is that Democrats haven’t lacked for good ideas, they’ve lacked the ability to implement good ideas.

captainjohnbrown's picture
Submitted by captainjohnbrown on

What Obama Really Did Say -- I like that acronym better.

Here is the actual quote contained in Jeralyn's post: "We've had plenty of plans, Democrats." "Every four years, somebody trots out a white paper, they post it on the Web."

Nothing wrong with that, now is there? Everything else in her post is paraphrased, glossed and spun to distort the intended meaning.

Cap'n John Brown

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

Harry Reid, too, http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/...

"This is down now to the superdelegates. And probably, simple math indicates that, next Tuesday, after we get the results from Puerto Rico on Sunday and South Dakota and Montana on Tuesday, Obama will probably have the necessary number at that time anyway," he said.

I guess they really don't want a lot of people showing up in PR or Hillary to win SD or MT do they? And, BIO, before you scream, yes I do think announcing that a decision will be made and essentially what that decision will be is basically the same as telling people not to bother voting because it won't matter. I was willing to give you Pelosi, but now we have both of them talking to the press and doing so instead of waiting until next week or even after the 5/31 meeting, I wonder why? What could be the rush? If they aren't sending a signal, why do it? It couldn't be that they're afraid Clinton will put them in a fix by taking a clear lead in the popular vote if turnout surges in PR? Or she could embarrass Obama by upsetting him in SD (I think MT is a given for BHO)?

The only problem is that by not showing any leadership, they've allowed Obama to run amuck with this RFK crap. So now, what should end it, won't. At least for me. Because now I'm not sure I can vote for Obama. That's no longer some threat to get the party's attention. I mean it.

captainjohnbrown's picture
Submitted by captainjohnbrown on

"I have learned that when you are campaigning for as many months as Sen. Clinton and I have been campaigning, sometimes you get careless in terms of the statements that you make," Obama told Radio Isla in Puerto Rico, where he and Clinton stumped in advance of the June 1 primary. "And I think that is what happened here.

"Sen. Clinton says that she did not intend any offense by it and I will take her at her word on that," Obama continued.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics...

What a jerk!

Cap'n John Brown

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

Obama's folks peddled the RFK story for more than 24 hours before he came out and said that. And then they continued to push it.

From the Daily Howler:

STEPHANOPOULOS: The Clinton campaign clearly thinks that the Obama campaign are part of that group that is deliberately misinterpreting her statements. And in fact, your campaign's original statement on Friday afternoon said that Senator Clinton made an unfortunate statement that has no place in this campaign. Do you think it would have been better to give her the benefit of the doubt?

AXELROD: Well, in fact, she—a few minutes after we issued that statement seemed to say she herself felt it was unfortunate and was misinterpreted. We accepted that, as Senator Obama said yesterday. She said, you know, that's not what she meant, and we take her at her word and, you know, it's—we're beyond that issue now, so certainly we're not trying to stir the issue up.

Hmmm—that’s wasn’t quite an answer. So Stephanopoulos tried again, two more times:

STEPHANOPOULOS (continuing directly): Senator Obama did say that we should move on. You say you're not trying to stir the issue up. But a member of your press staff yesterday was sending around to an entire press list, I have the e-mail here. Keith Olbermann's searing commentary against Hillary Clinton. So that is stirring this up, isn't it?

AXELROD: Well, Mr Olbermann did his commentary and he had his opinion. But as far as we're concerned—

STEPHANOPOULOS: But your campaign was sending it around.

AXELROD: As far as we're concerned, George, as far as we're concerned, this issue is done. It was an unfortunate statement, as we said. As she's acknowledged. She has apologized. The apology, you know, is accepted. Let's move forward.

He even tried a different fourth question. No direct answer there, either:

STEPHANOPOULOS (continuing directly): So your campaign won't be sending around any more commentaries like that?

AXELROD: As I said, as far as we're concerned this is—this issue is done. There's so many important things going on in this country right now, George, that people are interested in that we're not going to spend days dwelling on this.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

If Pelosi was “messaging” the truth and was heard and understood, then she was in actuality clearly communicating the truth.

If Pelosi was “messaging” the truth and not being heard, then no harm was done.

If Pelosi is “messaging” the truth and you are the only one able to hear her “message”…well, let’s don’t go there.

None of that, nothing she has ever said, constitutes “voter suppression.” By your definition, anyone who expresses the opinion that a contest is functionally over is “suppressing” votes; that’s ludicrous. Pelosi didn’t even say that; she said, here, she would step in to settle the FL&MI mess and get them seated. How is that “voter suppression”? It is not. She’s also said she would see to it that the presumptive nominee was settled on no later than the end of June, while primary voting will be finished on June 3. How is that “voter suppression”? It is not.

“Voter suppression” is a nasty act; charging it when it isn’t true is also a nasty act. We’ve far too many false accusations flying around already. Adding to that flow of sewage is not helpful; it is harmful.

And then there’s this: “she probably couldn’t set foot in a whole lot of cities and states in this country ever again — including Washington DC.” Why is that? Fears for her personal safety? Do believe we’ve also had enough already this year of intimation that others would contemplate acts of violence against our elected officials. Suggesting that scary brown people, angry over being told the truth, (you know how crazy those ‘Ricos are) would make it impossible for Pelosi to travel freely – including preventing her from carrying out her constitutional duties – is indeed the kind of language that has no place in civilized discourse. For shame, Paul.

But then if you believe that Nancy Pelosi is “slime” perhaps her worth as a human being is no longer a consideration.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Thanks for paying attention to it. Throws out one line of crap after another, somebody bites and there goes the neighborhood. Ignore it; it'll go somewhere else.

Nancy Pelosi.

Voter supression.

Anti-democracy.

C'mon, all you brave Pelosi-haters; where's the beef?

captainjohnbrown's picture
Submitted by captainjohnbrown on

My girlfriend and I are both big Obama supporters and we were both very embarrassed by Olbermann's "Special Comment" on RFK. If an Obama aide was circulating that clip, it probably wasn't the best idea, but I'd hardly call that "running amuck." You and several other Corrente Wire bloggers and regular commenters need a reality check. You are working yourselve up into absolute hysterics over nothing. Obama is a good Democrat, he's the presumptive nominee and there is no reason for you all to keep sliming and attacking him.

Cap'n John Brown

captainjohnbrown's picture
Submitted by captainjohnbrown on

I would indeed be a sad one after your stinging and unfair rebuke bringiton.

Cap'n John Brown

TonyRz's picture
Submitted by TonyRz on

There's an ongoing process. It has every right to end at the August convention ("when the balloons drop", as someone said). It's not hers (or Reid's) to draw to a premature conclusion, especially when time (and heavy turnouts) clearly favor one candidate over another, and that candidate in this case isn't the teacher's pet.

The ONLY way to conclude this early is a concession/bow-out from someone, and who that someone 'should be' has been "telegraphed" loud and clear for months now. How can you hint that someone is mental for hearing what's been telegraphed night and day in every possible forum and medium?

Just to make it crystal clear, Reid himself has made it clear who he thinks that someone should be.
This is at least the 2nd round of diktat from the Dean/Nancy tagteam that it must be done by June.

Part of voter suppression is discouragement and psyops. Why these people haven't turned their Jedi mindtricks on, you know, REPUBLICANS these past 2 years and done things for the American people is beyond me.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Dean, Pelosi and Reid stared taliking about not letting the contest drag on all the way to the convention for a long time ago. Started way back when nobody could have seen how the primaries would fall, or how the polls would go, or how the politics would play out. None of this is new.

If the voters in PR are so wimpy they don't vote because Pelosi says she'll see to it that FL&MI are settled and seated for the convention and that the presumptive nominee is settled on after all the primary voting is over, then they are hopelessly confused.

I don't think they are. I think they're smart enough to see that Pelosi said nothing at all that should make them decide to not cast their already meaningless vote. I believe they will show up in record numbers because this is the only way they have to make their voice heard; that it has no practical effect is beside the point.

You've muddle together here a lot of separate issues; tease them apart, and then by all means get pissed off at and attack the ones that actually are wrong.

And I haven't shouted at all; I may start, though, if you keep encouraging cjb

TonyRz's picture
Submitted by TonyRz on

I don’t think they are. I think they’re smart enough to see that Pelosi said nothing at all that should make them decide to not cast their already meaningless vote.

Your faith in the voting populace is inspiring. But your confidence doesn't excuse what she and Harry are doing.

It is precisely the heavily-tuned-in, high-information, smart, and influential voters and figures she's talking to, not the peasants.

How much simpler, no, if she'd simply say "Get out there and VOTE, and we'll see y'all in August?"

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

"telegraphing"? "messages"? Seriously?

I don't hear anything of the sort. Maybe I'm too stupid to fall for Jedi mind tricks; they don't work on plants, apparently.

You, and others, are hearing what you want to hear, because it fits your pre-existing narrative. Bring me quotes; anything less is empty conjecture.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

Am I not to think it odd that one week before voting ends, when Clinton is near to being able to put the democratic party in the uncomfortable position of being ahead in the popular vote that suddenly Reid and Pelosi both give interviews in which they not only say that it will be over next week (something I had no problem with other than to find it hilarious that Pelosi thinks she can impose unity when they can't impose anything else, see above), but then Reid basically adds Obama will be the nominee. Why do this when they've already said it would be over in June? What could be the point? It certainly cannot be concern over party unity because I don't think this shit enhances party unity.

I'm sorry, BIO, as I said, I was willing to give you Pelosi's comment (I figured she was just playing to her hometown paper), but the coincidence of both of them doing it within, like, a day? I'm supposed to believe that's a coincidence? Although again, I think to some extent it's beside the point. The real point, from my standpoint, is that I do not trust any Democratic "leader." I fully believe them to be capable of trying to convince people that their votes aren't important to get them not to cast them because I believe the party has been shown to be weak and corrupt. I do not believe the primary has been a fair fight. I do not believe they particularly care about winning in November. And this isn't because they are going to nominate Obama, it's because of how they've gotten to nominating Obama, of what they've sanctioned or at least sat silently while it occurred.

As for messaging, my mother who is a smart woman that pays attention to things (but is not obsessive about it) told me a week ago that Obama had clinched the nomination. Because that was what everyone was saying. Did I mention my mother lives in Florida? And is more than a little pissed at the Democratic Party right now? You'd think Nancy and Harry and all those "leaders" might care about the messaging my mother was hearing since it goes to whether her vote gets counted which goes directly to who she votes for in November. But they apparently couldn't be bothered.

The party could not have fucked this mess up more if it tried.

TonyRz's picture
Submitted by TonyRz on

If Pelosi is “messaging” the truth and you are the only one able to hear her “message”…well, let’s don’t go there.

You're apparently never going to apologize for this, but the larger point here is that you do apparently accept the whole concept of "messaging" - you just think we should count how many people hear it.

I guess I'm thinking in reverse: I'm asking how many people do NOT hear the daily and relentless exhortation for Hillary to GTFO. Because I think you're the only one not getting that message/telegraph/dog-whistle/whatever you choose to call it.

Bottom line, there's a nearly tied contest, where time and voter participation clearly favor one candidate over the other, and party elders clearly want less of both those things.

Furthermore, this awful, distasteful candidate has only 2 chances at this point: either the SDs all show their hands NOW, in public, in view of the whole world, or... it goes to August.

And Nancy has stated that she's not letting it go to August. She's explicitly slapping/slowing down three of the four paths HRC has to victory.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

"It is precisely the heavily-tuned-in, high-information, smart, and influential voters and figures she’s talking to, not the peasants."

Holy Hopping Jeebus. "The peasants"?

Would that we had a whole lot more of those "heavily-tuned-in, high-information, smart, and influential" voters. How ever many we do have, I'm thinking, are as a consequence of those very virtues intelligent enough to know how this all happens and able to decide what to do about voting +/- whatever Dean, Reid and Pelosi might say, even if they did actually say anything about short-circuiting the process - which they carefully have not.

The role of the superdelegates, and especially the super-duper-super-delegates, is to control the process and select the nominee. That is their role. All nice and fine of them to wait until after the primary voting to do that, but it doesn't change the fact that all of the primary caucuses and balloting is just a charade. I know that. The people of Puerto Rico, for damn sure, know that; even the peasants. You need to accept it too, and move on.

The powers in the Democratic Party select the nominee. Always have, always will; this year is just more obvious than it has been recently, that's all.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

The role of the superdelegates, and especially the super-duper-super-delegates, is to control the process and select the nominee. That is their role. All nice and fine of them to wait until after the primary voting to do that, but it doesn’t change the fact that all of the primary caucuses and balloting is just a charade.

the super-delegates have never before been in the position of choosing the nominee -- since the creation of 'superdelegates' as such, every Democratic nominee has won sufficient pledged delegates during the primaries to win on the first ballot.

The role of the superdelegates only comes into play when there is no consesnus in the party as to whom the nominee should be. That is what Hillary Clinton is talking about when she says that Bill didn't win until June....it was in June that he finally got to the Super-Majority of pledged delegates necessary to ensure a first ballot victory. Well before June, everyone knew that Clinton would be the nominee, because he'd dominated the Super Tuesday primaries, then won in NY and Wisconsin in April.

TonyRz's picture
Submitted by TonyRz on

Would that we had a whole lot more of those “heavily-tuned-in, high-information, smart, and influential” voters.

I'm talking here about several things, but in part party and political officials (in PR, etc) with a future to think about. They are the ones who are going to have influence over the "low-information" voters", and they read the radar from DC.

And once you stop clutching your pearls over "peasants", can you please please please sic Keith Olbermann on me? I'd be honored. (Oh, man, I'd love to see a website with a Keith Olber-rage generator. Plug in your name and city, and get your own personal, frothing "special comment".)

whatever Dean, Reid and Pelosi might say, even if they did actually say anything about short-circuiting the process - which they carefully have not.

Yeah, except when Nancy said she's not letting it go to August, and Reid said the prize is Obama's for the taking.

Sure. Whatever you say.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

The party could not have fucked this mess up more if it tried.

Will Rogers had something to say about that, oh so many years ago.

The fucked-upedness, however, is not anywhere near all The Leaders fault; those dear sweet earnest folks in FL and MI had their hand in it too, just from the other end of the stinky stick.

This primary has been, in every possible sense of the word, a collaborative effort. SNAFU, for sure. FUBAR? Guess we'll see. If the fight is indeed between Obama and McCain and it turns out to be a real struggle, that's a good thing right? Nobody wants to see a coronation...or am I confused again?

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

I drafted this while you were posting, BIO, so now I've edited it.

And Nancy and Harry and Howard don't get to have it both ways. If they're the leaders responsible for selecting the nominee, then they are ultimately responsible for the fucked up process that got us there. That some states did not cooperate is not a reason to let them off the hook. You don't get the good without the bad. Ultimately the national party is responsible for making sure the primary process comes up with the best candidate and puts that candidate in the best position to win. Regardless of the outcome, I think it's safe to say, the national party has failed at this task. And as the Michigan Democrats reminded the DNC, this started in part by NH breaking the rules and the DNC refusing to say whether or not they would be punished. See http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/5/29/...

TonyRz's picture
Submitted by TonyRz on

So they can exercise their “leadership” and select their nominee, but that ain’t going to make him president. I don’t care how soon they do it.

Obama's charms wear thin after a short while, as is borne out by the numbers. Pretty much the only chance he has of winning POTUS is if HRC finally concedes on Halloween. No room for a debate, and people won't have a chance to catch their breath and put him up against the doddering old man for more than a week.

orionATL's picture
Submitted by orionATL on

pelosi has a race of her own to win this fall.

here she's just blowing smoke

in hopes that "it" will be settled by june 3.

then, this fall, she can tell the folks back home that she was really instrumental in solving dem conflict.

of course, if obama loses the presidency,

(which almost all democratic leaders clearly believe is impossible)

then in a mere two years from now, 2010,

pelosi will be up a creek without a paddle.

then she'll retire.

orionATL's picture
Submitted by orionATL on

bdblue

at 17:16

and 18:07

these are comments that i can relate to.

you've described very well sentiments that i share.

the axelrod campaign is notorious for interfering with clinton's fund raising, voting, and publicity about triumphs (e.g., see edward's p.r. stunt of an endorsement). i'd guess he learned this from watching karl christain rove.

vote suppression is very likely some of what this was about; that and nancy making some political hay for herself to munch on in the fall.

OxyCon's picture
Submitted by OxyCon on

Not one of them lifted a finger and tried to defend the Clintons from the Obama lead smear campaigns against them.
Make a mental note of this fact and remember this the next time any of these people are up for reelection.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Wandering way off topic again, but quickly:

The Rules for this election were settled on, or at least the process that derived them was settled on, during the 2004 Convention. Terry McAuliff was DNC Chair, and Kerry was the new Party leader. Dean had nothing to do with it, and Reid /Pelosi were only involved to the point of pushing for a reworking of the primary process to make it more participatory across a broader range of the electorate – they wanted more minorities early on which is what lead to Nevada (Hispanics) and South Carolina (AfAms). The goal was to dilute the influence of two 95% white states.

For a raft of reasons, some well-intentioned, some not, MI and FL jumped the queue. They got told to get back in line where they belonged. They refused. They got punished. NH and IA both moved up to stay in front of MI and FL. The clear intent of the Democratic Delegate Selection Rules was that IA would be the first caucus state and NH would be the first ballot state, so their moving up as a result of FL and MI intransigence was not a cause for punishment by Rules and Bylaws. FL and MI broke the rules, in both the letter and the spirit. They got spanked. They got a time out. Now they’ll be allowed to come back to the table and sit down for the big feed at the Party party. BFD.

Rules and Bylaws had full autonomy and complete authority on all of it; the decision of which states went when, the punishment for breaking rules, etc, and they still do. Dean has no direct authority over the R&B process. Pelosi and Reid have had no direct authority over the R&B process. Now, having dragged on to the point of embarrassment and badly needing sorted, Reid and Pelosi and Dean have stepped in using political muscle to broker a deal and see to it that it gets implemented.

Dean, Reid and Pelosi aren’t trying to have it “both ways” at all. They didn’t make the mess. Trying to blame them because they are now cleaning it up is, well, just silly. If you want more of this, by all means, but not on this thread – start a new one.

Back on topic. Where is the proof of Nancy Pelosi engaging in voter suppression?

Where is the proof of Nancy Pelosi engaging in antidemocratic tactics?

As for any of them voicing an opinion of how the process is playing out, or who they think should be the nominee, this is not antidemocratic nor is it voter suppression. I want my elected representatives to speak their minds when they can. I want to know openly what they think, what their goals are, what they’re planning.

I don’t care in a subservient way what they think in terms of making up my own mind, I'll take care of my own thinking even if I am a peasant; if others are that weak-willed, then that’s just the way it is. Not enough reason, in my mind, to demand that the most senior Democratic Party leadership needs to STFU.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

I'm talking about accountability, responsibility. You know, old fashioned things nobody actually seems to put into practice any more.

Here's the deal - you head the party, you get a lot of perqs, including picking the nominee. But you also have ultimate responsibility and accountability for things that go wrong. It sucks, but that's life in the big leagues. The Democratic nominating contest has been a clusterfuck. Those ultimately responsible and accountable are the heads of the party. That underlings or others might have also made mistakes or contributed to the problems is not an excuse. If you don't want to take the hits, stay a back bencher. But Nancy doesn't get to announce she'll step in and resolve everything and then disclaim any responsibility for the clusterfuck. You're either a party leader - and responsible - or not. You don't get to take the good and blame the bad on Donna Brazile (even if it's her fault).

As for voter suppression, I'll explain it one more time and then I'm done. We have two party leaders who appear to have given coordinated interviews that basically said the election is over and told who won. I don't think one has to be a cynic to believe that such actions could affect voter turnout, especially for the "losing" candidate or that it's crazy to think that seasoned politicians would know this. Could I give them the benefit of the doubt and presume some sort of coincidence where they both just happened to give reinforcing interviews a few days before the last primaries? Sure. But they haven't earned such benefits, IMO, and I refuse to give faith and trust to people who haven't earned it, especially when said people are politicians.

orionATL's picture
Submitted by orionATL on

go read btd at talk left.

he has several posts up about the dnc rules.

i think they are very informative.

they go into details.

they don't just stay at the level of generalities.

read them.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

so I don't have to explain it all to you here myself...like the fact that Michigan acted only AFTER NH and SC accounced that they were going to violate the rules, and asking the DNC if they were going to enforce the rules against those two states...and getting no response.

orionATL's picture
Submitted by orionATL on

speaker pelosi may have some power to influence the nomination conflict.

how much depends on how many of the UNCOMMITTED superdelegates are members of the house of reps.

if that number is high, she might actually have some leverage.

even then, all she would tell her flock ( i hope) is "state your preference" by june 3

with the understanding that that is an implied threat (or you'll never get that coveted committee assignment next year).

of course if she were to insist on a vote for one candidate over another that would be another matter.

keep in mind

that speaker pelosi's district, if i am recalling this correctly, includes silicon valley, where obama's fund raising prowess is centered.

obama is a hot property among the newvoux rich there.

in the wilds of silicon valley, the presidency,you understand, is as easy "to do" as a start up.

duck soup as the marx brother might say.

what made me think of them i wonder?

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

acting as party elders, and expressing confidence that the party will be unified by the end of June.... and then excisizing what power they have to settle on a nominee, IF they were to use that power in the interest of the Party and the nation.

And there is simply no question that on both fronts, Hillary Clinton wins hands down. She's a sure bet to win the nomination, and a sure bet to at least be a competent President.

So its obvious that Reid and Pelosi are acting in their own interests -- which comes as no surprise. Obama doesn't really care whether he accomplishes anything, like Bush he wants to be President because he wants to be President -- its seems like something he'd enjoy being, so why not be it. So that means that the Nancy and Harry will get to set a large part of the egenda, which means that they both will have far more power than they would otherwise.

Its all about Power for these two craven slimebuckets. They've spent the last 17 months racking up an impressive record of failed leadership, and this is just another incident.