Pelosi to superdelegates: Don't overrule the voters

Endorsement? (0.00 / 0)

I don't think you should see this as some kind of half-endorsement, or nudge in Obama's direction on Pelosi's part.  I think this is a) good politics, and b) an attempt by the Democratic establishment to reassure Democrats they aren't going to steal the process, however it may result.  

a) this is sensible for Pelosi, because a lot of the people in the activist community and the blogosphere who are most worried about superdelegates are also people who have been unhappy with her and the Dem Congress.  Clearly, this isn't going to resolve those issues, but it's an opportunity for her to remind concerned folks that everyone shares certain values.

b) I think that Democratic powers-that-be are getting concerned by all the talk suspicious that they may through the election to Sen. Clinton.  (Incidentally, I think a lot of the superdelegates know enough to realize that if Obama goes into the convention in the lead, it would rip the party apart to give the nomination to Clinton.  I just don't have evidence.)  By having Pelosi, the highest ranking Dem in office, stand up and say, "No, this needs to be a Democratic process," they can take steps to allay those fears.  It also allows Dems to push back against some of the BS from talking heads who are getting such a chuckle out of the "anti-democratic" Democrats.  

It does of course benefit Obama, if things stay they way they are now. (As a Clinton supporter, I think the Obama wave is going to continue) However, I think this statement shouldn't solely be seen in the context of the horse-race.  

---

by: slowpitch @ Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 17:32:15 PM CST

Rep. George Miller (0.00 / 0)

Actually, if you're looking for a sign that Speaker Pelosi is leaning Obama, the best indication would be Rep. George Miller's endorsement of Obama. Nobody is closer to the Speaker than Rep. Miller, and one would think that they discussed the subject once or twice.

I'm proud to work for Kamala Harris for AG, but my opinions are entirely my own.

---

by: Brian Leubitz @ Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 17:34:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

As has Anna Eshoo (0.00 / 0)

And a number of other California Dems who are close to Pelosi.  Some have also endorsed Clinton.  

Pelosi may well support Obama, I have no idea, I was just observing that I think there is a different way to read this.  

---

by: slowpitch @ Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 18:59:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

"The People"? (0.00 / 0)

Does Speaker Pelosi mean the Democrats that have voted for the nominee of their party, or the Independents/DTS-for-a- day voters that participated in our party's primary in some states but not in others?

---

by: sacguy @ Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 17:52:02 PM CST

Good question (0.00 / 0)

"The People" could be people in the district, people in the state, or people in the country.

But since you bring it up, are you saying that the CDP should not have held an open primary?

I'm proud to work for Barbara Boxer

---

by: Lucas O'Connor @ Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 17:58:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Dems for a day (0.00 / 0)

You sound just like John Fleishman.

---

by: doughnut70 @ Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 22:16:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

No Pelosi means.... (0.00 / 0)

........the millions of Americans she told to STFU about impeachment. The folks who voted the Dems a majority in 2006 only to see the arrogant Miss Nancy laugh in their faces.

She won't be laughing when Cindy Sheehan gets done with her....

---

by: A.Citizen @ Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 18:02:23 PM CST

As a constituent of Speaker Pelosi (0.00 / 0)

I can tell you with a high degree of confidence that people in the district are going to re-elect Pelosi with a comfortable margin. I've seen Cindy Sheehan around once or twice, but she doesn't seem to have gained any traction in the district with the bulk of the voting public. All the Democratic Clubs will be doing endorsements in the next month or two, and SF is one of the only cities where that seems to matter. I'll definitely post something when the endorsements from CA-08 come in, but I'd expect Pelosi to pick the bulk of them.

By the by, Pelosi did say that impeachment was off the table before the election.

I'm proud to work for Kamala Harris for AG, but my opinions are entirely my own.

---

by: Brian Leubitz @ Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 18:27:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Just as an addition (0.00 / 0)

I don't think her having said that means that it was right. We've certainly had enough to certainly begin impeachment proceedings since that time, but she did say that it was off the table before 11/06.

I'm proud to work for Kamala Harris for AG, but my opinions are entirely my own.

---

by: Brian Leubitz @ Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 18:31:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

not the only Pelosi (0.00 / 0)

Calitics user, Super Delegate, and daughter of the Speaker, Christine's thoughts on Super Delegates also hit today.

---

by: Bob Brigham @ Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 18:31:13 PM CST

superdelegates are people too (5.00 / 2)

There's a TREMENDOUS amount of misinformation and disinformation running around about superdelegates, mainly by people who like to see conspiracies in everything.  There's exactly no chance that superdelegates, who are either elected politicians or party activists of the kind that swept Howard Dean into the chairmanship in the face of the dreaded "insider establishment," will actively participate in the destruction of their own party.  It's simply not going to happen.  And we do the party a disservice by harping on it.  We create this extremely wrong notion that there are these party bosses who exist to subvert the will of the people.  There aren't.  This is largely a media creation, in an attempt to set Democrats against themselves.  I think that MoveOn and DFA are making a huge mistake here.

---

by: David Dayen @ Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 18:58:14 PM CST

I agree with you Dave (0.00 / 0)

that this is largely a media issue, because of the way that they have been counting the delegates, including the supers in their count.  However, much of this push-back is in response to Penn making the argument that supers should vote for the person they think would be the best president.  That is very much the insider smoke-filled room notion.

There is also a significant difference from the super delegates who are DNC members and who are not directly subject to the wrath of voters.  They have a much different calculus than do elected officials.

---

by: Julia Rosen @ Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 19:20:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

but (0.00 / 0)

>And we do the party a disservice by harping on it.

Maybe no harping is needed, but I think it needs to be discussed because it's become a story. Just today alone I had three family members ask me about it, and they were all worried that it could flip the nominee to someone other than the person who got the popular vote. There's not a lot of trust out there these days that the Democratic Party wouldn't do something stupid and self-destructive.

---

by: tface1000 @ Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 20:44:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

it needs to be discussed in the context of (0.00 / 0)

what an overblown piece of crap it all is.  People are coming up to me too.  It's a bunch of nonsense and the media is hyping it, with a nice push from MoveOn and DFA.

I know that Penn and Wolfson essentially started this thing so it's undeniable, but they've had so many superdelegates switch away from them probably due to those remarks that they know better not to bring it up again.  It's a bunch of bullshit.  Pure and simple.  If people ask you about it, be clear and direct.  This would never ever ever happen.

---

by: David Dayen @ Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 21:54:39 PM CST

[ Parent ]

that isn't how it happened, not at all (0.00 / 0)

...superdelegates, who are either elected politicians or party activists of the kind that swept Howard Dean into the chairmanship...

Uh, no. I was involved in that fight to the point the runner up threw a punch at me after he was spanked and I am very confident in saying that isn't a realistic assessment of the situation. Dean didn't win by the delegates, the base that wasn't a DNC delegate proved all the other options to be totally unacceptable. That is the exact same successful model that Moveon and DFA are using now.

Dean is DNC Chair because he was the last man standing after the institution (i.e. super-delegates) had every other option of subverting the 50 state strategy denied.

Moveon and DFA are using a proven model of not letting those opposed to a fifty state strategy get back in charge of the DNC and what they are doing is critical. Last time it resulted in us finally winning seats and the inverse should be expected if we don't learn this lesson and instead embark on the Guiliani model in the general like Penn has done in the primaries.

If the super delegates would have had their way, Tim Roemer would be chair, not Howard Dean.

---

by: Bob Brigham @ Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 23:38:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't disagree with you (0.00 / 0)

but I disagree with you.  The state party DNC members were all very much for Dean, almost uniformly united by the time they got to West Palm Beach.  You're talking about electeds.  There's a huge difference.  It bubbled up from the roots, but the DNC members who get elected by their fellow party activists were plugged into that, and actually part of that.  

Some state party chairs were resistant (though not Torres), and electeds were terrified, but the "unelected party insiders" that media loons are railing about were Dean's base in that fight.

MoveOn and DFA are over-reacting.

---

by: David Dayen @ Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 00:12:03 AM CST

[ Parent ]

superdelegates are people too (0.00 / 0)

The MSM is indeed fanning the flames as part of their prediliction for the horserace.We do ourselves no good by harping on their themes.Julia is  also absolutely correct as to DNC members having a different calculus than elected officials.

Judy Cohen Hotchkiss
"It does not take a majority to prevail. Just an irate, tireless minority,setting brushfires in peoples minds." Samuel Adams

---

by: jhotchkiss2 @ Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 21:49:37 PM CST

superdelegates are people too (0.00 / 0)

and like the rest of us regular people, they ought to have the same right to vote in a primary election, and have that vote fairly counted.

i know the rules we have now are the ones we play by, but i can see no good reason, as a voter, why there should be any superdelegates in the nominating process.

the democratic party needs to learn to trust the democratic process, and its own voters, to make the right decision. superdelegates are an institutional sign that the party is afraid the people might make the wrong choice.

which, in a democracy, is absurd on the face of it. whatever choice the voters make is the right choice, by definition.

surf putah, your friendly neighborhood central valley samizdat

---

by: wu ming @ Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 02:42:29 AM CST

This seems to me a manufactured controversy (0.00 / 0)

The Superdelegates as the Boogeyman waiting to steal democracy!   I'm not sure if this was invented by the media or the obsessive cultists and passed to the media.  The supers will watch the constituents in their home States and Districts. They all have networks and local offices.  They'll be right careful, they'll have to.  Too much Convention spotlight.

---

by: rolfyboy6 @ Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 20:37:01 PM CST