Nancy Pelosi May Have Just Put an End to Hillary Clinton's "Scorched Earth" Campaign

BUZZFLASH EDITOR'S BLOG

Mark Karlin

Editor and Publisher

np

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 

Technorati Tags:

What Archie Bunker vote?

The only Archie Bunkers that the folks at FauxNews, CNN, et al appeal to are those rich dopes in the Republican Party. I think their Zionist-led attacks on his race and minister are actually getting him more voters.

you will get the president you deserve

From the very beginning of this contest Obama has been grouping everyone into the "Same Old Politics" (read between the lines) who's attacking who? Obama has voted simula to Hillary and he does Take Money fro War Contractors. [quote] the defense project was overseen by General Dynamics, one of the nation's largest military contractors. Obama's Illinois finance chairman, James S. Crown, serves on the company's board of directors and his family holds a sizable stake in the company. Crown and his wife, Paula Crown, are members of Obama's National Finance Committee and have raised more than $200,000 for the Obama campaign, according to a list of fundraisers posted on Obama's campaign website.[/quote] http://theflatlandalmanack.typepad.com/versus/2008/03/meet-the-new-po.html There is little differnce between the two in policy, this is nothing more than a beauty contest. If this was about capability Bidden or Dodd would have risen to the top. If Obama is the nominee McCain will win the presidency. You all will get the president you deserve.

Thanks for background info.

Seeing Obama is so closely linked to a weapons contractor is a big worry....and no real surprise. Anyone not on the take from some major sectoral interest is weeded out of the candidate selection process well before most Americans even begin to pay attention. The best candidates for president have already dropped out. In a United States with any sense, people like Dennis Kucinich, who have devoted their lives to REAL public service, would be the only sort of person on the ballot. Instead, you get "dynasties" and people who are little more than puppets for the same groups who annointed the past 5 or 6 presidents - whichever party won. The voting doesn't matter if you've selected both the major candidates. You win either way.

We can still choose

Even if it's only the lesser of two evils. Pick the one who's least like a Republican.

Nancy Pelosi May Have Just Put an End to Hillary Clinton etc

What happened? Is she the new decider? No more asking ALL the people to vote?

Did you understand the article?

Your comment makes no sense. Pelosi is saying the people who voted are the deciders.

Time to lead, Nancy

"As someone in regular contact with major superdelegates in Congress, let me explain why there is a near-panic among the supers which I predict will lead to a major move to Obama fairly soon." This is a quote from Brent Budowsky in an article posted on Buzzflash today which seems to be aligned with what Pelosi is saying. One thing the Democratic leadership has been consistent in is maintaining and increasing their majorities in the House and Senate. If they don't get this one right and the party self-destructs, good riddance.

Control of Congress is more important than the White House.

Obama has a better chance to maintain and increase Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. Clinton is too close to McCain in ideology. The economy is the most important aspect of the election this year. Bush and the Republicans are acting like Herbert Hoover in thinking that government action isn't needed to restore the financial markets. McCain admitted a couple weeks ago he really doesn't understand economics. We need a President who is willing to listen to experts and act in ways that might not be popular but right. Obama has proven he can think on his own (Speech against Iraq war!) while Hillary checks the political wind (Vote to allow Bush to invade Iraq, Iran vote in support of Bush/Cheney, and vote to allow use of cluster bombs!) before voting.

Unfairness

Are you saying that you want Obama to follow Hillary's example of campaigning? Are you saying Obama doesn't follow her example because he doesn't have the temerity? I am hoping that Obama continues to reject the methods of the neo-fascists like Delay, Gingrich, Rove, and others which are being so used by the Clintons to destroy him and his movement. If she does get nominated, she will most likely lose to McCain because she isn't much different. If she gets elected, she will face a deadlocked Congress, because she will not sweep Democrats into lesser offices like Obama could. I understand why people who have a bright future assured, and who see the future continuation of the Bush Administration's policies as a good thing, would support the election of Hillary, McCain, or Joe Lieberman as president. But to those of us who sense great danger for democracy out there if their policies are not stopped, their vision of the future is not aborted, and their political methods are not discredited, we hope and pray that Obama will be nominated and elected.

Are you saying Obama has not been campaigning negative?

Obama came out swinging hard with personal attacks, he's been characterizing Hillary as dishonest, divisive, and destructive since he first entered the race. He's 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.

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

Avedon says:
"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

That's right, Obama campaigned for Lieberman in the primary, not the election. Be that as it may, he campaigned for Lieberman against the anti-war candidate.

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.

I'm not fond of either one of them.

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

Both Obama and Clinton supported Liebrman for whatever reason, I don't know. But Barrack did not support the Iraq war, cluster bombs, or naming the army of Iran terrorists. Hillary did so you cut it out.

He's done no more to stop the occupation than she has.

He votes for funding. There are a few votes where she's been worse, and a few where he's been worse. Oh, and he avoided having to vote for Kyle-Lieberman by not voting at all.

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

Now that you have decided to stick your adjusted nose into something you really should stay neutral about how about getting back to work and stop funding the war, put impeachment back on the tabel...you know DO YOUR JOB! I don't know how many soldiers have dies since you came to town saying you were going to stop the war?? 1000 or so.

Aw, you got my hopes up.

I thought you were going to say that Pelosi had announced that impeaching Bush/Cheney was back on the table, thus preventing them from continuing to weasel their way out of everything while simultaneously holding out the hope of our first female president!

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.

I worry about the campaign that put out a memo falsely claiming that Andrew Cuomo said Obama was shucking and jiving, falsely suggesting that it's racist to use the word "spadework", falsely claiming there is something racist about mentioning Jesse Jackson, falsely claiming that Clinton was dissing MLK by saying that King's work had to be completed with a president's signature, and so on.

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...

someone is still thinking clearly...Well said, Avedon...

slooowly the mouse turns toward the cat

One does get the feeling lately that Pelosi is sensing just a whiff of a clue that as a figurehead of the do-nothing Democrats she is not universally loved.

Impeach Pelosi

Considering how Ms Pelosi has aided and abetted the corrupt bush administration, I wouldn't give a hoot what she says about anything, especially after looking at that glassy-eyed picture of her that you included with this propaganda. Wonder what she is sipping? I think she should be impeached and removed from Congress for her assistance to this corrupt administration. I wonder whatever caused the people of California to vote for this fraud?

Good Riddens

Someone has to finally show the guts to drive a stake through the heart of Clinton's suicidal March to the sea. But this in no way makes up for, the Negligence of Duty and cowardice that she has shown in assisting in the destruction of the Rule of Law by taking Impeachment Impeachment Off of the table and leaving on the dirty floor

Madam Speaker

May not be my most favorite person in the world, but what Nancy Pelosi has learned, in all her years in politics, is how to separate the wheat from the chaff. I've been disappointed that she hasn't done more to end the war. I've been disappointed that she takes lightly, her oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution." I was disappointed that "impeachment" was immediately "off the table." What I do not think Nancy Pelosi will allow Hillary Clinton to do is destroy the Democratic Party, in the process of Clinton trying to irreversibly damage Barack Obama. What I do not think Nancy Pelosi will allow Hillary Clinton to do -- is remove her from the Speaker's Chair. Madam Speaker will not allow Hillary Clinton to do to the Democrats what Bill Clinton did. She will not allow Hillary Clinton to once again make the Democratic Party, the minority party, in either the House or the Senate. While she was making statements about "no dream ticket" and the delegate allocation, Harry Reid was making comparable "not widely reported statements" on how well the caucus system works in Nevada, thereby shooting down the Clinton theory that they are not reliable. These two Majority Leaders, in the House and the Senate, are not going to let Hillary Clinton relegate them, and the Democratic Party, back to Minority Status. I just wonder what took so long.

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

She and the other party leaders should sit down with everyone and put a stop to this scorched earth crap. While McBush is happily campaigning for November, Dems are ripping each other apart. I'm ready to take an Obama/Clinton ticket, even though I don't think at this point that Clinton deserves it. But this has to stop. She's going to continue slashing and burning just because she thinks she's entitled to the nomination, even though the people think otherwise. Yes, it's a close race, which means that the majority of Dems would accept the joint ticket. I'm not a fan of a joint ticket, mind you, I just think we need to end this horrible brawl.

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

With two very strong Democratic candidates (It should have been more.) it was inevitable that the primaries would be aggressive. I am not too worried about the general election. Either one will beat McCain. The once independent-minded 72 year old sellout is not who the American people will want. Parties switch power when the economy takes a slide. This one is in a long plunge with the growing realization that privatization is just a method of robbing the taxpayers and the next generations. The US dollar has not been this weak since before WW II. The ONLY way that McCain would win is through a combination of computer hacking, voter disenfrachisement and another bout of Supreme Court interference. Of course, that is quite possible given the 69,000 plus precincts now taking and counting votes with no paper trail and the make up of the Supreme Court. But with huge voter turnouts and significant vote spread, it gets harder to cover the evidence or manipulate the law. Pat Williams

Carrie Ann is right

Carrie Ann is right. The only way Hillary could be the Democratic nominee is by an all-out slash-and-burn sleaze-o-rama, blackmail, and theft.

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

I disagree -- Hillary will lose to McBush. The polls are showing this already. And don't forget -- if the party steals the nomination from Obama, the black vote is gone for a generation, ensuring a GOP victory. Remember, these are all the folks who voted for GW Bush, and they'll toss the country to the wolves again. The Dem party needs to stop this bloodshed internally and start focusing on the general election and beating McBush.

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.

Just kidding. Although if things go on like this....

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

I'm tempted to think that the folks who say they're voting for Nader are people who, had Nader not entered the race, would have said "undecided" or "not voting" when the pollsters called. Maybe it's wishful thinking that it can't possibly be true that anyone, today, after all that's happened, would still vote for Nader, even as a protest vote.

Nader

On Friday of last week, I officially became an independent. The new Democrats and progressive have sealed their fate. Obama will not win and I for one will go for Nader. The smear campaign against all other candidates other than Obama, reminds me of the blacklist area of not so long ago. If Nadar had not entered the race, no one would have gotten my vote. Having Obama in will be another 4 years of another Bush! The young and foolish select on star power, that is why American Idol, is so popular. America today seems to be a lost cause. Pelosi is another corrupt and eager politician to keep her status, above all else. The Democrats are a replica of the Republicans. Elect either one and you get the same!

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

You have just made my point. You sound just like the Bush supporters that see no evil in Bush or never recognize anything bad about him. The Bush gang and the Obama gang. Just another Bush except it is a democrat. Hands off the golden boy because he offers you dreams and hope! He is another politician that has an answer for everything. I didn't know Rizo was corrupt and I didn't know what my minister was saying. What a crock!

just another...

ahh, yes, cynicism on the cheap..He's just another (____)!!!!...whatever, dude, you can feel smart by shoving everything up that sphincter...Karl Rove and the GOP thank you for your uber-edgy observations

Obama Another Bush??

That's just too incredible for words.