Nancy Pelosi's Not-So-Secret Support for Obama
Whatever her official posture, Nancy Pelosi is not neutral in the Democratic primary.
Typically, for instance, someone who is neutral wouldn’t say that victory by one of the candidates would be “harmful.” That’s essentially how Pelosi, the supposedly impartial House Speaker, has characterized the prospective nomination of Hillary Clinton.
“If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what happens in the elections, it would be harmful to the Democratic Party,” Pelosi said in an interview for ABC’s “This Week” that was taped late last week.
That just so happens to be the only plausible scenario under which Clinton could still get the Democratic nomination from Barack Obama, who will close out the primary season ahead in the pledged delegate race and, almost certainly, in the popular vote count – even if do-overs are held in Michigan and Florida. The Clinton campaign itself has all but acknowledged this, pursuing a strategy that is designed to incite intra-party panic over Obama’s general-election prospects and to foment a mutiny by superdelegates that would deny him the nomination.
In effect, Pelosi has now said on national television that Clinton will hurt the party if she succeeds. And lest anyone think Pelosi would be willing to grant Clinton some wiggle room should she manage to surpass Obama in the popular vote count (but not the pledged delegate race), Pelosi also made her position clear on that score as well: “It’s a delegate race.”
This might be surprising if Pelosi really were neutral. But by all measures, she isn’t – and hasn’t been for a long time. She was somewhat cool to Clinton and her campaign from the very beginning of the 2008 cycle, and over time began sending clear signals that Obama is her candidate. When George Miller and Anna Eshoo, fellow House Democrats from California through whom Pelosi often telegraphs her wishes, endorsed Obama a few months back, the hand of the Speaker was apparent.
There are both philosophical and pragmatic factors underpinning Pelosi’s preference for Obama – and lack of enthusiasm for Clinton.
Any assessment of Pelosi’s motives, for instance, must consider the Iraq war. While much of her party’s leadership (and rank-and-file) capitulated, Pelosi – as the House minority whip – was the highest-ranking Democrat to oppose the war resolution in the fall of 2002. In the aftermath of that vote, she ran for minority leader (to replace the departing Dick Gephardt), and was opposed by Texas’s Martin Frost, who had voted for the resolution and who warned that the party “will not win the next election” by formally opposing the war and George Bush’s foreign policy.
Pelosi won that leadership fight but has never forgotten the frustration of having so many of her fellow Democrats turn a deaf ear to her warnings about the perils of invading Iraq. And it’s a frustration that she has revisited frequently during her first 14 months as Speaker, as it’s become clear just how difficult un-doing the 2002 war vote really is.
On this level, Obama, who spoke out against the war in the fall of ’02, is the natural choice for Pelosi, especially compared to Clinton, one of the many congressional Democrats who sided with the White House. When it comes to ending the war, and to avoiding similar entanglements in the future, Pelosi can reasonably conclude that she’d have a far more reliable partner in a President Obama than in a President Clinton.
The pragmatic impetus for Pelosi’s pro-Obama posture may be even stronger. On Iraq and so many other issues, she has experienced the limits of a barebones House majority. But there is a clear opportunity this year for Democrats not just to maintain control of the House, but to tighten their grip substantially. Generic polls show the party outpacing the G.O.P. And Republicans have been beset by a wave of retirements – many in House districts that are not out of reach for the right Democrat – and crippled by the anemic fundraising that generally accompanies minority-party status.
Key to seizing this opportunity is fielding a presidential candidate whose top-of-the-ticket presence will boost, or at least not severely hurt, down-ballot candidates. And Pelosi surely realizes that, much more than Clinton, Obama fits this bill.
Sure, a handful of critical House races – marginal seats that Democrats are defending and open seats that they are eyeing – are in Pennsylvania and Ohio, states where Clinton has been touting her supposed superiority over Obama. But her strength in these states is among Democratic primary voters. Polls in both states show Obama running no worse – and, in many cases, marginally better – than Clinton in general election match-ups with John McCain. So even in Clinton’s strongest primary states, there is little reason to think her presence in the fall will be any more beneficial to House candidates than Obama’s.
But there are many states that are critical to the Democrats’ House strategy in which Obama dramatically outperforms Clinton.
Consider Kansas, a state whose importance has been denigrated by Clinton and her campaign, who argue that it’s off-limits to Democrats in the fall. But this is only half-true. The state would be a lost cause for Clinton, who trailed McCain there by 24 points in one recent poll and who would write it off much the way past Democratic candidates have.
But it would not be so off-limits to Obama, who trailed McCain by only six points in that same poll (and who thrashed Clinton by 40 points in the state’s February caucuses). It seems unfathomable that Obama would seriously compete for and win such a staunchly Republican state, but his appeal to independents and Republicans would, at the very least, make for a much closer fall race.
And that would trickle-down to the House level, particularly in the state’s 2nd District, where Democrat Nancy Boyda upset Jim Ryun, who had been one of the House’s most conservative members, in 2006. The 2nd District voted for George W. Bush by 20 points in 2004. If it favored McCain by that margin in the fall, Boyda would need to run 21 points ahead of her own party’s presidential candidate to preserve her House seat. But if McCain’s top-of-the-ticket margin could be cut to single digits – or, dare it be suggested, actually erased – the Democrats’ odds of retaining the seat would be significantly enhanced.
Pelosi, more than anyone, knows that there are a many districts like Kansas’ 2nd all across the country, in states that Clinton – like John Kerry and Al Gore before her – is already prepared to cede to the G.O.P. without a fight. That alone is reason enough to weigh in on Obama’s behalf.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
well, it doesn't take a genius to realize that the over 60 year olds voting for clinton aren't going to be around for that many more elections.
the young, blacks and independents are the voters of the future... who would you want to turn off if you were pelosi?
I'll take Nancy Pelosi's skillful, calm judgement and management over Hillary Clinton at ANY time. No hysterics. No drama. No egomania. As in New York State today, turn the page and get REAL WORKING POLS in Office -- who are there to serve AMERICANS, not foreign interests or CORPORATE DEALS.
-------------------
REASON? Pelosi knows what is good for the democratic party. The Clintons are embarassing the party.
-----------------
With Billary's half-exposed baggage at home (the rest is still buried but reaching for sunlight) and her low appeal outside the borders on the world stage, and Obama's high appeal in both worlds... there's no contest for level-headed Democrats, and they'll soon be putting a sock in Hillary's mouth before the party splits. November is coming very quickly, and we're all getting tired of this expensive game.
NANCY PELOSI SHOULD GET NEW DENTURES! AND EASE UP ON THE PLASTIC SURGERY.
SHE IS FOR OBAMA BECAUSE THE IDEA OF A SMARTER WOMAN ABOVE HER FREAKS THE BITCH OUT. PELOSI IS A CUNT.
Hillbilly's your candidate, Dems. No way the party elders hand the nomination over to someone who needs the highly unreliable "youth vote" to win (they've been there, done that, got the "we lost 49 states to that bum Nixon" T-shirt). Save yourselves the continued divisive haranguing. Submit.
Hillary should beat Obama on the merits alone. Either way, they both fall to McCain in the Fall.
As far as Pelosi goes, she is a San Fransicko liberal putz. She deserves to be thrown out. She has ZERO leadership skills. She couldn't lead a whore to bed.
Turn the page on Democrats. How many of their 2006 promises have come true???
SHALL LIBERAL OBAMA BE OR NOT BE MOST TRUSTED BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO SERVE GOD AND CONSTITUTION FOR THE NEXT FOUR DARK YEARS
Better educated than Neo-Lib Hillary and much better educated than Neo-Con McCain …
Superior intelligence than Neo-Lib Hillary and far superior intelligence than Neo-Con McCain, as judged by education and accomplishments …
Far superior emotional self-control than either Neo-Lib Hillary or Neo-Con McCain
Far superior family values than either Neo-Lib Hillary or Neo-Con McCain …
Far higher ethical standards than either Hillary or Neo-Con McCain, as judged by conspiratorial relationships with powerful domestic and foreign lobbies, devious political propaganda, and hate-baiting attacks based on race and culture …
Far superior unifying ability in work with Reagan Conservatives and Kennedy Liberals, compared to the notorious contentious divisiveness of Neo-Lib Hillary and Neo-Con McCain …
Far superior patriotism and humanitarianism, consistent with the letter and intent of the Constitution, than Neo-Lib Hillary and Neo-Con McCain who supported the un-constitutional and foolish sacrifice of the wealth and blood of the American People in the Iraq War on behalf of Israel …
Superior grasp of immediate priorities, as shown in the focus on using precious time and tax money to try to solve America’s crucial energy, unemployment, recession and inflation, and defense problems instead of foolishly squandering it in imperialistic bloody military interventions in affairs of small nations, while continuing to participate democratically as a member of the United Nations government …
Broader support from Reagan Conservatives and Kennedy Liberals, and overwhelming support by members of the World community …
Promising future governmental accomplishments, in contrast to the predictably future governmental accomplishments of Neo-Lib Hillary and Neo-Con McCain …
The only presidential candidate who exceeds Obama in every way, except for youthful energy, is the intellectual leader in the Cultural War for the American Reformation, Ron Paul, whose integrity, experience, intelligence, emotional balance, and adherence to strict Constitutional libertarian principles is un-excelled. Not surprising, like Obama, his worldwide popularity overwhelmingly surpasses that of the notoriously ugly Americans, Neo-Lib Hillary and Neo-Con McCain …
Google: Mearsheimer Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy; Stricherz Why the Democrats are Blue; Ron Paul Human Events Interview; , Who Would the World Elect
Nancy, jealous much?
Yeah.
THE CLINTON’S FRAUD CASE HAS UPCOMING HEARING DATE TO SET A TRIAL DATE 3 DAYS AFTER THE PENN PRIMARY. THEY HAVE NOT DISCLOSED THIS. OF COURSE THEY WANT EVERYONE TO CHILL OUT! THERE WILL BE A HEARING ON APRIL 25, (2 DAYS AFTER THE PENN PRIMARY) TO SET A TRIAL DATE. She has not disclosed this. Gov Rendell has will be called as a witness by the Plaintiff.
Why won't she disclose her Earmarks? Why won't she release 2000-2006 Tax Returns? Why aren’t the Clinton Library Donor Lists being released (2000)? It could be that they are protecting their legal position in their Fraud Trial.
Here's some of what I have found, you will need to research it:
Background: Sen. & Pres Clinton assisted in organizing a combined fundraiser for her 2000 Senate Campaign (which is illegal) and raising funds for Pres Clinton's Library. They didn't properly report the money raised and still hasn’t. They returned a $2,000 check to Promoter Peter Paul and the FEC found that he actually spent 1.2 Million on this fundraiser. Her campaign was fined $35,000 and she was found not to have any knowledge. Peter Paul now has been granted an appeal based on new videotape evidence which he says contradicts both their previous testimony. His side of the story can be found if you Google "Hillary Uncensored." Watch the video, look at how many stars were there; they are being deposed and giving testimony under oath now. They will also have Chelsea Clinton testify as she was at the fundraiser and afterward at the home of Barbara Streisand discussing the event. Anyway, he is appealing the case which was thrown out by a Judge Matz, appointed by Pres Clinton and will get his day in court.
DON'T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT. Go to www.lasuperiorcourt.org (Los Angeles Superior Court) and look in the CIVIL Column, then Click on CASE SUMMARIES then enter these numbers in the box BC304174. It is an active case and has been since January. Sen. Clinton he has not disclosed it. Even after bringing up Rezko and calling Sen. Obama "Ken Starr". I think, before we go any further, she needs to disclose this.
Nancy needs to quit dying her hair.
It's obvious that she's older than dirt.
She's not fooling anyone.
At all.
Nany IS jealous of Hillary. I cannot believe she's still supporting Obama after all has come to light. He hates America and he hates white. Period. Sorry -- it's blunt, but it's true.
Hillary Clinton is the one to lead this country right now. Obama is nothing but a LIAR, a HATER. A FAKE.
Why is it that people who don't agree with someone (in this case, Nancy Pelosi) always resort to immature name calling and insults? For instance:
"Nancy needs to quit dying her hair."
"It's obvious that she's older than dirt."
"She couldn't lead a whore to bed."
"NANCY PELOSI SHOULD GET NEW DENTURES!"
and my all-time favorite:
"PELOSI IS A C*NT."
I add the asterisk because I refuse to use that word, and cannot and do not respect anyone who uses it. It never surprises me that people who resort to this sort of tactic NEVER have an facts or basis to back up their hatred of someone. Personally, I don't like John McCain or Hillary Clinton, but I do not and will not ever resort to tactics such as these in the place of evidence to support my views. To those of you who resort to such teen-aged tactics I say this:
I would love to engage you all in a battle of wits, but I make it a habit never to fight an unarmed opponent.
Nancy is a dog. You people supporting Obama/Wright are disgusting.
We are who we surround ourselves with. You can BET McCain will win it when this traitor of women who put her where she is, makes comments like this.
Obama WILL NOT WIN with the Wright fiasco. You will never convibce the majority of us to over look that GD Amerkkka remark.
IN YOUR DREAMS NANCY!!!
Nancy holds the most powerful position that any woman has ever had in our govt., and she doesn't want to lose that distinction to Hillary. It's a "woman thing". Of course she wants the man to win. It wouldn't matter what man,as long as she keeps her keep her position as "top woman"!
I sincerely hope the superdelegates see thru' her feminine envy and vote their consciences. I think they will.
If pelosi goes against Clinton. She is goign to loose my vote next election. Not only my vote, but approval rating of congress is going to pull her down anyway. IS Nancy thinking of running herself on DEM Presidential ticket in 2012?
It has to be Clinton on Democrats ticket in 2008 ELSE Mccain is going to win in genral election.
WAKE UP Nancy!! Please do not dream of getting DEM nomination for yourself in 2012 for first female president.
Hillary Clinton as the Dem nominee is the Republican's best chance at the Presidency.
Wow, look at all these dirty comments!
What is wrong with people?
I thought the purpose of life was to enjoy it, not to be angry little people.
Just goes to show you don't need to point out the problems with America- all you gotta do is point to the deranged Americans...
PELOSI WANTS TO BE PRESIDENT..BUT SHE'LL SETTLE FOR VEEP..
PELOSI WANTS TO BE PRESIDENT..BUT SHE'LL SETTLE FOR VEEP..
You know as I read more and more posts on the various blogs it is becoming more and more apparent that what's wrong with America has nothing to do with gender, race, religion or the political parties. What's wrong with America is the people populating it. The level of vitriol, uneducated comments and hateful speech which I have read of late is heart breaking. I wonder if this is what Rome sounded like before it collapsed?
I suggest before you scream and rant about which church a candidate attended and what was aid or not said in that church. Or scream and rant about the other candidate's tax returns, fund raising etc etc you get your own house in order. America is on the verge of collapse. It is about to become an also ran on the world stage. Oil is going to continue to sky rocket and the Euro is going become the dominate currency. The US day in the sun is fading and fading fast. I don't think any of the candidates can reverse it, because I think a lot of the rest of the world now looks at us and says who cares what you think or what you want. As a country you are morally and socially bankrupt. And looking at the comments here they may well be right!
Personally I'll I can hope for is that the next president who ever he or she maybe can ease the pain we are all going to feel playing second fiddle to China.
Jealousies?
Pelosi is THE top female in US government...she can't let Hillary one-up her...
Poor thing. painfully transparent...
Don't all of you understand that Republicans and Independents who voted for Obama in the primaries will vote for McCain in the fall? The Republicans fear Hillary, and they have voted for Obama in droves. Also, Obama has won mainly caucus states while Hillary has won most of the big primary states. I nearly lost my false teeth to find out that Obama's big victory in Alaska consisted of 2,500 voters showing up statewide for caucuses. Small numbers have shown up in other states to given Obama delegates. All the while, Hillary's supporters--the true Democrats--are working in restaurants, factories and nursing homes making a living and don't have time to spend 3 hours at a caucus. Better listen to me, Democrats, or John McCain will carry 45 states in the fall against Obama.
Don't all of you understand that Republicans and Independents who voted for Obama in the primaries will vote for McCain in the fall? The Republicans fear Hillary, and they have voted for Obama in droves. Also, Obama has won mainly caucus states while Hillary has won most of the big primary states. I nearly lost my false teeth to find out that Obama's big victory in Alaska consisted of 2,500 voters showing up statewide for caucuses. Small numbers have shown up in other states to given Obama delegates. All the while, Hillary's supporters--the true Democrats--are working in restaurants, factories and nursing homes making a living and don't have time to spend 3 hours at a caucus. Better listen to me, Democrats, or John McCain will carry 45 states in the fall against Obama.
Blah...blah...blah. The level of your discourse pretty much sums up your candidate Clinton.
Pelosi should be voted out of leadership, as she has shown none since 2006. I was so "hopeful" when Democrats took over congress, but under Pelosi's leadership they have not dared to try anything that Bush might veto.
I fully bet there will be a democrat backlash against Pelosi for not standing firmly neutral. She is a bad politician and frankly a very weak person more interested in how successful her record looks than willing to try to get the real change mandated in 2006 to the president's desk.
Pelosi, your job in the house is to pass the legislation we all asked for, it doesn't matter if Bush vetos it.
Obama should not have ran yet with all his baggage. He should have cleared it up, made changes where needed and ran next time.
I believe he was arrogant in thinking the main stream media would be Chicago-like in its coverage of him.
I don't hang out with convicts, cheaters, drug addicts, bar droolers or anti- Americans. Why? - I do not have anything in common with them and I LOVE AMERICA!
We surround ourselves with friends we have something in common with.
It is bad judgement. Period. He cant be President with friends like Wright - let alone a mentor.....
I guess it would take one to know one.
These hrc supporters are getting out of control.
Here is another link for the trial.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56868
Between the republicans, the Obama haters and the hrc supporters, it is hard to tell who is worse.