home

Pelosi Damages Democrats

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:22:31 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only.

I have to wonder what in blazes Speaker Pelosi was thinking when she says this:

Thinking a Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton ticket sounds too good to be true for Democrats? The Speaker of the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California says you're right. "I think that ticket either way is impossible," Pelosi told NECN's Alison King shortly after an environmental event in Waltham, Massachusetts today.

But for hopes of a Clinton-Obama dream team, there's no subtlety. "I wanted to be sure I didn't leave any ambiguity," she said.

What an irresponsibly stupid thing to say. My gawd is she bad.

< Yes, Virginia, There are Hillary Bloggers (And Open Thread) | The Reasonable Obama Supporters Of Mississippi >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Pelosi Damages Democrats | 122 comments (122 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Nancy hasn't said much of anything worth (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:28:02 PM EST
    a bucket of snot in over a year ;)  As a rule I don't make any wagers based on what Nancy says.

    nancy, we know you don't care about the (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by hellothere on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:31:53 PM EST
    average american, so we don't much care what you think.

    I'm in that "we" (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:33:01 PM EST


    Parent
    Me too. (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by tek on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:14:39 PM EST
    A millionaire winery owner, and that's just one of the family businesses.

    I wonder if Nancy doesn't want another first for women while she's enjoying being the first woman Speaker of the House.

    Parent

    A lot of pols (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Paladin on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:32:56 PM EST
    are making outlandish statements on all fronts and from all persuasions.  If I were them, I wouldn't touch the subject, at least not until this plays out a few more weeks.

    Nancy has said many stupid things (none / 0) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:34:09 PM EST
    since being promoted though, why stop there ;)

    Parent
    So now, in addition to Kool-Aid (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by NJDem on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:33:37 PM EST
    we have Democrats drinking stupid juice?  I'm sorry, I'm still really PO'd from the ridiculous 60 Minutes issue, the even more outrageous (and false!) 3am/KKK thing, Dodd's 50/50 comment, and now THIS!  

    What is going on?  Seriously.  Why on earth would she say this?

    Lost the eye of the tiger (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:37:02 PM EST
    I guess.  Power corrupts, or at the very least  starts knocking off I.Q. points.

    Parent
    Let's not forget (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by litigatormom on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:42:07 PM EST
    "impeachment is off the table."

    Otherwise known as "Bush's License to Kill [the Constitution]."

    Parent

    one tidbit (none / 0) (#75)
    by CST on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:53:45 PM EST
    Just remember, the day Bush gets impeached Dick Cheney becomes president... There is nothing that would terrify me more, so I'll let her slide on that one.

    Parent
    They both have to be impeached (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by litigatormom on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:25:12 PM EST
    They've both committed crimes.

    Parent
    I wish (none / 0) (#110)
    by CST on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:45:03 PM EST
    There is no precedent for impeaching a vice president.  Would he have to break the law as president first?  I'm not arguing that this wouldn't be awesome, I'm just wondering, logistically, how it would even work.

    Parent
    You can impeach the president, (none / 0) (#117)
    by litigatormom on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:00:51 PM EST
    the vice-president, judges and other federal officers.

    We can impeach the Dick right now.

    Parent

    Is that Stupid Juice ... (none / 0) (#22)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:43:54 PM EST
    on the rocks or straight up with a twist?

    Parent
    You'd never guess from her comment (none / 0) (#84)
    by Daryl24 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:17:34 PM EST
    that she REALLY IS Tommy Delesandro's daughter.

    Parent
    Well said. (none / 0) (#102)
    by tek on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:16:12 PM EST
    Paul Loeb keeps writing to me telling me that Obama's camp did not contact Canada but Hillary did.  He has an article he's sending out entitled:  Did Hillary win Ohio on a lie?  What sleaze.

    Parent
    Outrageous (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:38:29 PM EST


    They are really afraid of 2 for 1 voters. (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by ineedalife on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:43:25 PM EST
    Obama must be terrified of the 2 for 1 idea taking hold, and he has polls to show that it is. Vote Hillary,  let Obama get some on-the-job seasoning as VP. He can always accept the VP later but letting the idea mature will kill his chances right off.

    Pelosi should not be injecting herself into this so that is a sign of how powerful they think the idea is.

    Did they ask her the follow-up question, "How does the party come together without a joint-ticket?"

    For comic relief (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:46:23 PM EST
    I think I'll go visit some of the "A-list" blogs and watch them defend Pelosi.

    I could use a good laugh.

    Is it just me ... (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:48:51 PM EST
    or has Obama killed all of the positive messages of his campaign in the last two weeks?

    Unity.  Change.  Hope.  New Politics.  Not old Washington.  Chane we can believe in.

    What's he left with?

    "racist!" (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Kathy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:54:10 PM EST


    Parent
    Perhaps ... (none / 0) (#42)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:56:30 PM EST
    any positive message he's left with?

    Parent
    Hmmmm (none / 0) (#73)
    by 1jane on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:46:12 PM EST
    Obama's even temperment, open-minded approach, willingness to listen to all views, clarity of vision, ability to inspire, his courage and convictions..how's that for 30 seconds of keyboarding...that's what Obama is left with.

    Parent
    Well, you got me to laugh, anyway. (none / 0) (#118)
    by MarkL on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:02:46 PM EST


    Parent
    For once I'd like to be surprised by (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by tigercourse on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:50:30 PM EST
    a Democrat turning out better then I thought they would, not worse. Spitzer, Pelosi, Patrick, Reid (who I didn't expect much out of to begin with). I'm just glad I never had a high opinion of Webb, Tester or McCaskill.

    I hate to admit agreement with that statement. (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Teresa on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:56:52 PM EST


    Parent
    What is wrong with (none / 0) (#37)
    by Wile ECoyote on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:52:08 PM EST
    Tester?

    Parent
    He's not terrible or anything, but he's (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by tigercourse on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:56:59 PM EST
    your average conservative Dem. Progressive Punch has him down at the 42nd most progressive. Alot of people seemed to think he'd be a progressive champion.

    Actually, I should say that I've been surprised in a good way by Ben Cardin, who is a good deal more liberal as a Senator then he was as a Representative.

    Parent

    At Least Tester Votes Correctly On FISA (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:22:29 PM EST
    Unlike the blog darling Webb, who votes with Republicans on Iraq and FISA.

    Then we have my Senator McCaskill who votes like Webb and brags constantly about how bipartisan she is and how much the Republicans like her.  

    Parent

    A good omen (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Prabhata on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:54:37 PM EST
    I think that Pelosi's statement is a good omen to mean that and Obama/Hillary or the other way will not happen and talk about the ticket stops.  Let the nominee choose a vp that makes sense and win on its own merits.  I'm hoping that HRC is the nominee and Obama gets busy and succeeds in the U.S. Senate through unity and hope.

    I'm hoping the opposite (none / 0) (#49)
    by JJE on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:00:31 PM EST
    That Obama is the nominee and Clinton goes back to the Senate and continues to capitulate and pander - oh sorry, i mean "fight" - on all the major issues.

    Parent
    It is stupid! (1.00 / 1) (#70)
    by 1jane on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:40:45 PM EST
    Oh yeah, if I were Barack Obama I'd love to serve under Hillary and Bill. This is just more attempts to marginalize Barack Obama and make it appear like the 2nd place Clinton is being magnanomous. Magnanoumous or just continuing in her coldly calcualting campaign mode? Can any one see a Clinton playing second banana to anyone. Good for the Speaker of the House. She read the absurd and demeaning suggestion correctly.

    Parent
    Al Gore (none / 0) (#76)
    by eleanora on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:57:25 PM EST
    did just fine as the VP under Bill Clinton, even though he and Hillary were promoted as "two for the price of one." Clinton gave Gore a weighty portfolio and real authority over government reform, and he performed beautifully and used it his successful run for President in 2000, even though he was denied the office. Gore is commonly considered the most powerful VP compared with everyone who came before him.

    I believe Hillary would be similarly respectful of Senator Obama as her VP, just as I hope he would be if she agreed to run with him.

    Did John Kerry demean John Edwards by offering him that spot in 2004? I didn't hear any Democrats saying so back then.

    Parent

    Al Gore got screwed (none / 0) (#111)
    by diogenes on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:55:37 PM EST
    Al Gore's career got ruined by being Bill's VP for eight years, and Obama's would also be ruined as Hillary's VP.

    Parent
    Thoroughly Ruined (1.00 / 1) (#114)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:30:41 PM EST
    Destitute, a hermit, and a nobody with no friends. Can you believe how much he suffers today because of what the Clintons did to him?

    Oh wait..... news flash coming in.....

    Guess you can't believe anything a Republican says these days.

    Parent

    What more can we expect (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by standingup on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:57:45 PM EST
    from someone who would come out of the Democratic win in 2006 with "impeachment is off the table?"  I have come to expect little in the area of strategy and leadership from Pelosi.

    Is it just me? (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by cmugirl on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:03:14 PM EST
    Does anybody else think that Hillary's comment about Obama being her VP was NOT for him, but a shot across the bow?  She gets to look "above the fray" and like a "uniter", while his predictable response (which he has shown) shows that he is petulant and his whole schtick is just that, shtick?  I think it's a message to the SD's and maybe some voters.

    I bet she's laughing herself silly with his response.

    What bothered me was what she said right before (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by honora on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:03:46 PM EST
    the quote above.  Pelosi states that the 'Clinton campaign' already ruled that out by saying that Mc Cain was better as cic.  Of course, Mr. Hope and Light never does anything wrong!! He, in fact, is the one that has ruled out a joint ticket.  I think the powers that be have decided that Obama is our nominee and they are getting a little annoyed that we keep insisting on having a say.  

    Obama Talking points (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:16:15 PM EST
    Regurgitated loyally.
    Clinton/Obama It Is (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by BDB on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:21:55 PM EST
    I was unconvinced until I saw that Nancy Pelosi say that it was impossible. This is the same woman who said that the Democrats would end the Iraq War, right?  

    And About That War (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by BDB on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:23:15 PM EST
    The most damaging thing done to any future President Clinton or Obama is the failure to end that fricking war.  Hey, why pin a disaster on the Republicans when a Democratic President can inherit it?  

    Gawd, sometimes Democrats are stupid.

    Parent

    Hah! (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by ajain on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:26:20 PM EST
    It can be only one of two things. Either she is trying to become Obama's VP, which will be a loser ticket, or she has gone stark-raving-mad and wants to tear the party apart.

    I can't believe she would say that.

    I don't think (none / 0) (#79)
    by BlueMainer on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:04:03 PM EST
    she's gone mad, I think she's trying to benefit from Obama's popularity in just about any way she can.

    Parent
    The more I hear from (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by talkingpoint on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:28:09 PM EST
    Obama and the other democrat party heads, the more I feel like becoming an independent.

    Right now Pelosi thinks of (3.50 / 2) (#66)
    by Marguerite Quantaine on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:28:33 PM EST
    herself as the most powerful female Democrat in the nation.

    When Hillary Clinton becomes President, she'll no longer be able to make that questionable claim.

    Let's all send her a box of Meow Mix and move on, shall we?

    heeheehee

    Just a thought.

    Since the HRC campaign (1.00 / 1) (#56)
    by BlueMainer on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:16:37 PM EST
    isn't serious about a joint ticket, what's the big fuss about?

    Are you sure? (none / 0) (#119)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:10:57 PM EST
    Why do you say that? Assuming Hillary gets the nomination (big IF mid you) I think they know they must re-assemble our broken in two party. And I have to say its probably the only way it would happen.

    My fear is that Obama is just not willing to do this if it came to that.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#1)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:26:08 PM EST
    Really unnecessary for Pelosi to weigh in on this silly issue, particularly since she has taken pains to remain studiously neutral.  Maybe the unity ticket will happen, maybe it won't, but why should Nancy Pelosi get into the business of throwing cold water on it?

    Well she is not studiously neutral at all (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:28:01 PM EST
    But the point is she should not be saying that period.

    Parent
    I have see nothing much of her (none / 0) (#14)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:38:27 PM EST
    who is she for do you think and why?

    Parent
    She is for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:46:00 PM EST
    because all her closest family and allies are.

    She has made many statements on issues that are basically Obama talking points. I have no problem with that.

    I have a problem with THIS statement.

    It is supremely stupid and damaging.

    Parent

    I have a problem (none / 0) (#120)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:11:51 PM EST
    With her ending the statement CLAIMING to be neutral and undecided. Now that is misleading, considering what she said and why she said it. Pretending not to be a partisan...

    Parent
    George Miller (none / 0) (#16)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:39:18 PM EST


    Parent
    She has said the pledged delegate (none / 0) (#98)
    by MKS on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:09:37 PM EST
    leader should win the nomination.....She holds the gavel at the convention....

    Parent
    I get the feeling (none / 0) (#2)
    by felizarte on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:27:36 PM EST
    that she does not want to see another woman exceed her achievement so far as the highest ranking woman in U.S. Govt. being the Speaker of the House. As far as I know, she has not uttered any encouraging words for Hillary's candidacy.
    Oh we all know she is for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:28:47 PM EST
    That is no secret. But she still can not say what she said.

    It is an outrageous thing to say.

    Parent

    I don't see why Pelosi should have (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Boston Boomer on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:41:10 PM EST
    veto power over who is on the ticket.  Is there some rule that I don't know about that gives her that power?


    Parent
    Perhaps it is part of (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by litigatormom on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:42:57 PM EST
    the DNC Roolz, which must not be changed.

    Parent
    She does not actually (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:44:42 PM EST
    All she does is hurt Democrats with this.

    I do not respect her intellect. She thinks she helped Obama with this. She does not.

    IF this is attributed to Obama, it hurts him.

    He rightly says, no matter what he really thinks, that Hillary would be on his short list for VP.

    Parent

    Iraq War (none / 0) (#71)
    by 1jane on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:43:16 PM EST
    What hurts is the Iraq War.

    Parent
    Why, yes. Yes, it does. And . . . ? (nt) (none / 0) (#81)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:12:07 PM EST


    Parent
    Pelosi's talk (none / 0) (#57)
    by diogenes on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:21:36 PM EST
    She is the Speaker of the House, and as such the highest ranking elected Democrat, third in line to the White House.  Isn't what she says pertinent?  Or is it only pertinent if she favors Hillary?  
    Maybe you should ask why people like Pelosi and Gore haven't weighed in in favor of Hillary.  Maybe they know something we don't about what she'd be like as president.  Gore observed her first-hand--if she were so good, surely he'd have endorsed her by now.

    Parent
    Hm (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:27:35 PM EST
    Last I checked, they haven't endorsed Obama either - even though Obama supporters seem to float rumors of a Gore endorsement every week on the blogs.  Why haven't they weighed in in favor of Obama?  [insert sinister rhetoric here]

    Parent
    Gore and Obama (none / 0) (#112)
    by diogenes on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:00:11 PM EST
    Gore has no personal knowledge of Obama's many skills--so why should he endorse him?  Gore has very intimate knowledge of Hillary's many skills, so if he were overwhelmed with her positive qualifications, surely he would endorse her.

    Parent
    Wow (none / 0) (#116)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:57:29 PM EST
    Your spinning talents are pretty much wasted here.  You should look for a venue where you can employ them professionally.

    Parent
    Because Gore blames Bill (none / 0) (#61)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:25:39 PM EST
    For Gore running away from Clinton's favorable rating/scandals and not embracing Clinton's job approval rating.

    Clearly at this point, they don't want to make an enemy of either camp.  At least officially.

    At least Gore isn't out there regurgitating Obama's talking points.

    Parent

    Don't think so, and hope not. (none / 0) (#108)
    by ghost2 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:17:17 PM EST
    It's true that for awhile after 2000, they weren't even talking to each other, until 9-11, when Gore came from Europe to Bill's place, and they talked all night.  

    I really respect Gore's character more than Kerry/Daschle/Kennedy combined.  And I don't think Gore will join Obama crowd and start advocating ignoring Florida.  Or that he would just ignore the elephant in this campaign, which has been the atrocious behavior of the press (brings back memories of what they did to him in 2000).  Gore is a stateman now, and repeating politicians' talking points is a sure way to throw out a fine lagacy that he has worked for and earned.  


    Parent

    Queen bee syndrome. (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:29:08 PM EST
    Didn't her daughter, the Super-D, make a comment recently favoring Obama?

    Parent
    She may dislike Hillary (none / 0) (#8)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:32:41 PM EST
    But it assumes too much to suggest that it fits some catfight storyline.  The parallel to speculating that Pelosi resents Hillary because she is a woman is speculating that such-and-such person doesn't like Obama because he's black.

    Parent
    It's more like: Pelosi is for Pelosi (none / 0) (#24)
    by felizarte on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:44:21 PM EST
    and she is definitely not for Hillary, for reasons that only she would know for sure.

    Parent
    But if Obama and other supporters of his (none / 0) (#31)
    by felizarte on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:47:19 PM EST
    reject the idea too vehemently, they are actually doing Hillary a favor by not having to offer the VP slot except to her own choice.

    Parent
    Unity Unity (none / 0) (#17)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:39:57 PM EST
    Was her message in the clip..... You would think from the buildup and her repeated claims of being neutral, that when asked about a unity ticket, she would say something vague like:

    We'll see.... I can't really give an opinion on that...

    Instead she slammed Hillary for slamming Obama and said in essence that the two could never share a ticket because there is no unity in the Democratic party.  

    What an idiot. And obviously not a fan of HRC.

    Great theme for the GE, Nancy (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by litigatormom on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:44:21 PM EST
    "There is no unity in the Democratic Party."

    What a disappointment she's been.

    Parent

    What does the quote actually mean? (none / 0) (#26)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:44:54 PM EST
    Impossible to get elected?  Or impossible that they'll be running together coming out of the election?

    The latter (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:46:30 PM EST


    Parent
    We all remember (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:51:23 PM EST
    how impossible it was for Reagan and Bush to run together after the "voodoo economics" comment.

    Lord knows no nominee in history has ever questioned the capabilities of their running mate during the primary.  Sheesh.

    Nothing wrong with Obama making the "this proves they don't really mean the criticisms of my experience" argument, but it's still just a political argument.  No point in Pelosi making the argument as if it's actually a valid point.

    Parent

    I tend to think it's rather. . . (none / 0) (#41)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:56:19 PM EST
    less than more likely that it will happen.  And I think Jeralyn has expressed considerably stronger doubt that it will happen.

    What's so bad about Pelosi's statement?

    Parent

    Stupid to say but true in all likelihood (none / 0) (#30)
    by JJE on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:46:38 PM EST
    I can't see either one accepting the VP.

    hey, y'all (none / 0) (#32)
    by Kathy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:48:20 PM EST
    if the United States Senate doesn't care what Pelosi says, why should we?

    Another (none / 0) (#34)
    by Wile ECoyote on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:50:09 PM EST
    reason to back Cindy Sheehan for congress!

    Count me in!

    Do tell me. (none / 0) (#39)
    by Arbitrarity on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:54:29 PM EST
    What about her statement is false?

    It's not false (none / 0) (#52)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:11:12 PM EST
    But it is bad PR.  And while we sense that it's true for right now, what about it makes it definitively true after June 7th?


    Parent
    What makes it so damaging? (none / 0) (#86)
    by Arbitrarity on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:22:09 PM EST
    Hasn't everyone pretty much accepted that HRC will not play second fiddle to BO?  So why is it so unacceptable that he will not do the same, and that everyone recognise it?

    Parent
    I Don't Know (none / 0) (#90)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:32:45 PM EST
    I posted that before I actually saw the video.

    Projecting an air of unity (despite some obvious enmity) would seem to be better PR, but I admit you are right.

    I didn't know this before.

    I now know Pelosi is an Obama supporter.


    Parent

    What's sad about this comment (none / 0) (#53)
    by frankly0 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:11:14 PM EST
    is that there can be little question, I think, that the combined ticket would be the most powerful one possible.

    I guess Pelosi no longer really cares about whether the Democratic ticket wins in November. She obviously has scores to settle instead.

    Some Democrat.

    I don't know (none / 0) (#69)
    by JJE on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:38:33 PM EST
    I'm not all that confident in the wisdom and good faith of the American voter.  My cynical side says that either one may need a white guy as VP.

    Parent
    Geesh (none / 0) (#54)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:13:06 PM EST
    She said that the Clinton Administration has ruled that out because she would rather see McCain as.......  

    She almost said VP.

    Feel the hate.

    Attack Pelosi but not Clinton for this mistake? (none / 0) (#62)
    by Independence33 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:25:41 PM EST
    Where is all the outrage against Clinton for saying this nonsense in the first place. Every true democrat on this site should be furious that one of our fellow democrats said John McCain was more suited to be CIC. Of course Obama has attacked Clinton but he has yet to say that McCain is more qualified than her. Ask McCain what he thinks about the 3am commercial. One of his aides made the comment that they love them and keep them up. For all the flack that Obama gets for not being good for democrats he has yet to make an outlandish statement like this and Pelosi has every right to make this comment. More people should be.

    That's not really what she said (none / 0) (#65)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:28:18 PM EST
    That's the talking point.


    Parent
    Yes Pelosi (none / 0) (#68)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:31:59 PM EST
    Should not be repeating either BHO or HRC talking points, at least  not in the same breath where she positions herself as Democratic leader preaching about Unity.

    Her subtext is that once Hillary is out then we will finally be able to see some unity.

    Parent

    Nancy's comment (none / 0) (#67)
    by wasabi on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:30:38 PM EST
    I think that Pelosi would rather have Obama on the ticket because she thinks if Clinton was the nominee (or even on the ticket as VP), the number of Republicans voting will be increased.  She wants low turnout in the fall so that she can get more Dems downticket elected.  Same with all the Republican governors going for Obama.

    Could she be angry that Clinton did this? (none / 0) (#72)
    by Independence33 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:43:44 PM EST
    I love all this speculation about sinister reasons for Pelosi to do this. My guess is that she is angry that a Democrat would push a Republican over another Democrat in such an obvious way. This is unheard of in politics. Mitt Romney and John McCain hate each other but they didnt go out and say that Barack Obama was a better option than the other. I have been disapointed with the Clinton campaign in the past but this takes the cake and is indefensible. I thought it might be a gaffe the first time she said it but then she repeated it standing in front of all those generals. How can Obama seriously consider asking her to be his VP when she endorsed the other candidate. Also, BTD, is the previous post about sending Pelosi some "meow mix" okay with you because it def. is not okay with me. Right or wrong she is a woman who deserves respect just like Clinton.

    She didn't push McCain over Obama (none / 0) (#74)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:46:30 PM EST
    Here.  Rank the following Politicians in order of the quantity of experience they have?

    Obama
    McCain
    Clinton.

    Now rank the same politicians according to quality of their judgment.


    Parent

    Has it occurred to you that this isn't opinion? (none / 0) (#77)
    by dianem on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:59:02 PM EST
    Pelosi has an inside track to both Clinton and Obama. Obama may not just be saying he won't consider taking a VP position, he might actually mean it. And he might have ruled out having Clinton as his VP.  He certainly hasn't suggested that he would consider it, unless I've missed recent news (life keeps interfering with my web surfing). And Clinton hasn't explicitly said she would be VP if it were offered. It is possible that Pelosi is saying that this is impossible not because the THINKS it isn't possible, but because she has spoken with the principles and KNOWS that it can't happen.

    It wouldn't surprise me if Obama flat out refused to run as VP. He is likely to get the nomination, and if he doesn't then he has other options. He could stay in the senate or run for governor of Illinois. In 4-8 years he could run again with the same qualifications and without his major disadvantage - lack of experience. He's young. He has time.

    VP (none / 0) (#78)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:04:01 PM EST
    Is great for getting experience.


    Parent
    But would he do it? (none / 0) (#92)
    by dianem on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:37:47 PM EST
    He is acting like the Presidency is his by right. He has the most delegates, he has won more votes... will he accept 2nd best? I'm beginning to wonder if Obama doesn't actually buy his own hype.

    Parent
    If he was smart he would (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:43:10 PM EST
    He has a lot to learn.


    Parent
    VP is not so great (none / 0) (#113)
    by diogenes on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:03:06 PM EST
    It didn't do Nixon or Gore any good.  George HW Bush only won because Dukakis was a twit.

    Parent
    Its a different matter. (none / 0) (#82)
    by ajain on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:14:22 PM EST
    This isn't about what is the truth and what isn't. There is no reason for her to smash Clinton while pushing an Obama talking point.
    This just gives more fuel to the chatter about the democrats being in a divisive mess. She should have stayed away from that.

    Also I don't think this helps Obama very much. If Obama is trying to make dent in Clinton's stronghold of women, and other Clinton-loving groups he and his surrogates have to stop brazenly attacking Clinton and look mean and arrogant while doing it. That is exactly what pisses off those voters and rallies them to Clinton.

    Parent

    He's focused on the primary (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by dianem on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:35:52 PM EST
    He isn't looking past it. It's like playing a game of chess without thinking beyond the next couple of moves. Clinton is running as a Presidential candidate, even though she's behind. Obama is running as if he is behind and has nothing to lose, even though he is ahead. I don't think he's thinking beyond the next couple of chess moves. He has said too many things that will turn off voters he needs to win the presidency.

    Parent
    This was a shot across the bow... (none / 0) (#80)
    by mike in dc on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:07:12 PM EST
    ...to Clinton, over the "Commander-in-Chief threshold" shinola.  She's basically saying that unless Clinton backs off the mud-throwing, Pelosi(and, presumably, more than a handful of SDs) will weigh in more directly, and not on her side.  There was another comment she made which reinforces this message for me, to the effect of "these things usually don't resolve themselves on their own, it takes outside forces".

    Sexist comments here (none / 0) (#83)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:17:27 PM EST
    surprise me.  I guess I'll have to lower expectations again.

    Just because a politician who happens to be a woman says something perceived as not favorable to another politician who happens to be a woman -- this does not mean it's because one is jealous, envious, etc.

    There is a comment, for example, that comes darn close to Obama's comment that Clinton's "claws were coming out."  And we talk that way here, now, too?

    BTD, we are not ready.

    Insofar as they are inaccurate (none / 0) (#85)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:21:33 PM EST
    guesses at Pelosi's motivations, she is nothing more than an Obama surrogate in this episode.

    Parent
    How is that relevant (none / 0) (#87)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:24:59 PM EST
    to what I wrote?  

    Parent
    Relevance is what one makes of it (none / 0) (#89)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:30:41 PM EST
    If you are saying the remarks in question are sexist, I'm not disagreeing, I am adding to that the observation that the remarks are also inaccurate, there may be some relevance there.

    The more accurate assessment of her real motivations here merely seems logical to point out at that point.


    Parent

    Aha, got it; thanks -- (none / 0) (#103)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:17:49 PM EST
    I seem to be a tad upset today with self-destructive behavior of the Dems again.  I will calm down and be capable of reading comprehension again.  Cheers.

    Parent
    Please (none / 0) (#96)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:59:12 PM EST
    do not bring that sort of rhetoric here.  Good God.

    I deleted it (none / 0) (#106)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:33:35 PM EST
    and that commenter is warned.

    Parent
    Which plane of Hell? (none / 0) (#97)
    by chemoelectric on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:59:30 PM EST
    Is it the 8th plane of the Inferno where political fraudsters go?

    In any case, even though I am barely controlling a simmering rage towards Hillary Clinton, that wouldn't stop me from having her as running mate. I'm a grown-up, I have a very resilient mood (an excellent thing to practice), and the advantages of that ticket are obvious, not just electorally, but also psychologically.

    (Speaking of psychological aspects, Thom Hartmann of AAR has used an idiotic theory of marital relationships to argue idiotically that a Clinton-Obama pairing is a bad idea. What really bothers me about that is that he is spreading an idiotic, divorce-inducing theory of marital relationships; but it does show there are good people out there arguing against a "dream ticket", not just fraudulent losers like Nancy Pelosi.)

    Speaking (none / 0) (#99)
    by tek on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:11:58 PM EST
    of anti-Clinton people, I now have received three e-mails in one day from Paul Loeb, whom I asked to remove me from his list, and in this one he informs me that he has no respect for Taylor Marsh.  So I told him where to get off.  I can't believe this guy would carry on this way with a person who is just an average, (wo)man in the street, baby boomer simply because I'm not supporting Obama.

    You would think that one the most powerful women (none / 0) (#105)
    by moonheart on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:28:20 PM EST
    in Washington would be willing to share the lime light.  Maybe she just isn't ready.

    Now (none / 0) (#115)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:35:44 PM EST
    . . . let's say it was said by Harry Reid.  Would you write:

    You would think that one of the most powerful men in Washington would be willing to share the limelight.  Maybe he just isn't ready.

    Parent

    How is this damaging? (none / 0) (#107)
    by s5 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:59:37 PM EST
    She's stating the obvious. A joint ticket has never been in the cards from either side.

    I think there is an element (none / 0) (#109)
    by ChrisO on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:32:51 PM EST
    of anger over Hillary's remarks about McCain. I think it has been portrayed in a twisted way, but the fact remains that Hillary went pretty far out on a limb.

    That and the Ferraro remarks really bother me, and they're so unnecessary. The downside is so much greater than any benefit from it.

    I like to think I can recognize when my candidate has made a misstep.

    That said, I hate it when people like Pelosi, Clyburn and Brazile pretend to be neutral whiule carrying water for one of the candidates.

    Wait? (none / 0) (#121)
    by Raheem on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:51:47 PM EST
    Pelosi is damaging the party but not Hillary saying that u must either vote for me, or vote for McCain?

    Saying the republican is a better candidate? But Pelosi criticizing those actions is the real damage... I never thought this blog would go this far into the world of the strange, but this thread confirmed it...

    Wrong (none / 0) (#122)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 11:14:21 PM EST
    HRC was roundly criticized for that remark here. Do you think that Pelosi was unifying BHO and HRC supporters,  by repeating the remark and then claiming that because of it a unified ticket is now impossible?

    Did she help unite the party or reinforce the divide?

    Parent

    pelosi's right, (none / 0) (#124)
    by cpinva on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 11:59:37 PM EST
    an obama-clinton, or clinton-obama administration would be disasterous. sorry, someone needed to point out that the emperor isn't wearing any clothes.

    obama's made it clear that his head is wayyyyyyyyyyyyyy too big to be VP, i agree. clinton would have far more power back in the senate than as VP, she'd be a fool to take the job.

    whatever her "real" motivations in stating the obvious, it is obvious to any thinking person.

    Disastrous? (none / 0) (#125)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:06:37 AM EST
    Did you see the video? She did not say disastrous she said impossible.

    Parent
    nice to not even bother (none / 0) (#126)
    by dc2008 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:43:36 AM EST
    Nice to put this up without bothering to include or even mention the reason Pelosi gave for her comment, the McCain vs. Obama commander-in-chief comparison. BIAS. Give people the relevant facts, provide your take on the facts if you want to, and then let the readers decide, but don't bias the story by omitting critical facts from the beginning. Shame on you today, BTD.

    this is what Im saying (1.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Raheem on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:19:15 AM EST
    They dont point to why she said it, they say Pelosi is the one who is destroying the party... not what Hillary said...

    This site is turning into a Bill O'Reily-styled blog... its shocking... ur pro-Hillary to the scary depths...

    Im curious... how many of you all will vote McCain when Obama gets the nomination?

    Parent

    BTD (none / 0) (#128)
    by sas on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:43:36 AM EST
    You are so right when you said "My gawd is she bad."

    Yes, this comment is awful.

    This election has really caused me to see how bad the Democrat party leaders and the leaders of the DNC are.  

    I am really thinking of becoming an independent.  

    That does not mean I am pro-Republican by any means.

    I actually (none / 0) (#129)
    by Raheem on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:47:24 PM EST
    agree with being independent... altho I came to this conclusion during this current term of ineptitude in Congress...

    In saying that, blaming Pelosi for Hillary's words is shocking

    Parent

    Pelosi Damages Democrats | 122 comments (122 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment