Pelosi willing to ‘step in’ to end Democratic nominating process

May 29, 2008

Yesterday, Democratic Party lawyers explained that the party’s Rules and Bylaws Committee, poised to meet on Saturday to consider whether to seat some delegates from Michigan and Florida, does not have the authority to do what the Clinton campaign wants the committee to do — reverse last year’s punishment and honor the results of the non-binding primary.

For the Clinton campaign, this creates another challenge. Clinton has argued that the Florida and Michigan delegations must be seated in full, and nothing less would be acceptable. If the Rules and Bylaws Committee can’t do that, even if it wanted to, and Clinton wanted to press the matter, she’d have to take this to the Credentials Committee — which meets in August on the first day of the Democratic National Convention.

Yesterday, Speaker Pelosi said she’s unwilling to let that happen.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she will step in if necessary to make sure the presidential nomination fight between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama does not reach the Democratic National Convention — though she believes it could be resolved as early as next week.

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

“Because we cannot take this fight to the convention,” she said. “It must be over before then.”

It’s not altogether clear what Pelosi would do if and when she “stepped in,” but presumably it would include some effort involving superdelegates, more than a fourth of which come from the House caucus Pelosi leads.

And under the circumstances, it seems relatively safe to assume that Pelosi would resolve the nominating fight in Obama’s favor, though the House Speaker has been neutral throughout the process.

As for what happens next, Pelosi sounds cautiously optimistic.

“For now, 2,026 is the magic number” of pledged and unpledged delegates needed by a candidate to win the party’s presidential nomination, she said, but “if they decide to seat (Florida and Michigan) this weekend, there will be a new magic number.”

While saying she believes those two states’ delegates should be seated, Pelosi added that it must happen ”in a way that is not destructive to any sense of order in the party.”

“If you have no order and no discipline in terms of party rules, people will be having their primary in the year before the presidential election,” she said. “So there has to be some penalty.”

She said the party committee will come up with a formula that is “fair and accepted by both campaigns,” perhaps allowing the states 50 percent of their delegates. But “if the resolution is not appropriate, then it remains for the (Democratic National Convention) credentials committee to resolve it,” she said. Then, “it will have to happen by the end of June” or she will intervene, she said. […]

Pelosi said she has not been in contact with the Clinton or Obama campaigns on the matter because “I think it is all going in the right direction” and will be resolved “in an orderly fashion” as early as next week.

Stay tuned.

She doesn’t have to take sides to step in. Whatever consequences she has in mind, she just has to force superdelagates to make a decision promptly. They can still be free to decide however they wish. Just no whenever.

  • It’s not altogether clear what Pelosi would do if and when she “stepped in,” …

    I was thinking something similar: What could she do? Is she some sort of super duper supreme delegate or something?

  • She said the party committee will come up with a formula that is “fair and accepted by both campaigns

    What is fair and accepted to someone who has no sense of fairness?

    Pelosi added that it must happen ”in a way that is not destructive to any sense of order in the party

    In other words, it can’t change the results.

    It’s not altogether clear what Pelosi would do

    If they actually has any influence, she, Reid, and Gore could convince Supers to coalesce in order to avoid an absurd outcome in August.

  • A second thought. If Obama wanted to propose this, it might just end this mess:
    There are 152 delegates between Florida and Michigan, of which the R&B Committee can seat half, 76.

    Of the 152 delegates, Clinton had 105, Obama 33, and Edwards 14 (yes, I know the elections weren’t right. Nevermind that for a moment). So Clinton is +72 over Obama.

    The R&B Committee can seat half the delegates, or 76. So give 72 to Clinton and 4 to Edwards – Obama asks for zero since that’s what he pledged to do originally. So Clinton is officially +72 over Obama, where she says she should be. Edwards pushes his 4 Obama’s way, presumably. None of this is remotely fair; that’s not the point. But now if Clinton wants to take this to the convention, to seat everyone, it won’t change her lead at all.

    So from Obama’s point of view, he’s now bending over backwards to give Clinton all the advantage she feels entitled to. By taking zero delegates he can say he’s keeping his word. And it doesn’t make a darn difference; he’s still going to win.

  • The unfortunate side effect of sadly necessary statements like this is that they feed into the Hillary as victim meme she’s created.

  • At this point, they need to let the remaining states (and not states) get their primaries in. It rarely comes down to the final primaries and at this stage of the game it makes little sense to not let June 3rd play out to their conclusions.

    What can Pelosi do? She can and will hammer the supers to finally take that shit and get off their respective pots. And that, make no mistake, will be that.

  • About time – not only is clinton lying about electability, “catapulting” rove’s talking point and making a mocker of the process by accepting support from rush limbaugh’s “operation chaos”, she is lying about her fundraising!

    She actually raised LESS THAN HALF of the 10 million she claimed in the 48 hours after Pennsylvania primary

    http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2008/M5/C00431569/A_DATE_C00431569.html

    We DO need to pile up on her because:

    (1). Obama needs to stay focused on mccain

    (2). She is carrying the lies that will be used to justify a stolen election in 2008 (voter caging has already been done to pave the way)

    (3). She has shown herself to be unqualified and unfit for the White House and is only disgracing herself, bill’s legacy, the party, and progressive ideals.

  • It’s absolutely disturbing to think Pelosi is going to do what ever “She” wants to do to make a selection on the Presidential nominee. It is very wild to think about some of the delegates are a little more then minors. Anyway many in fact are so young they breach the knowledge threshold of knowing what judegment should be in deciding who should be president.

    For me a delegate should at least the same age as required by the president. When one looks at the delegate rules one could barf at the limitations and guidelines. Then Democrats wonder why elections are lost.

    For my view it would a good thing to see a civilized debate “without any” media commenter’s controlling the questions and answers. Actually it is the gathering of a convention that should determine a direction. Even new ruling to be permissible at the gathering is a Democratic function in progress.

    Ladies and Gentlemen of America our Congress does this all the time on the floor of our government. Everyday of operation is a function of rules that change. Ladies and Gentlemen of America it is called being a Republic to make the rule and with a Democratic majority to vote on the rule. America we do this ever day calling it the “legislative process”.

    For some body to butt in to stop the process is an out rage. Here, Pelosi falls and shows the reason why impeachment is off the table. Perhaps Pelosi is nothing more then some one like Joe Lieberman parading as a Democrat yet will to throw the Democrats under the bus. I think American Democrats have been had with Pelosi being the speaker, she really is a Republican for there is so much outrage nothing is being done and felons are runing the country like a wild fire that can’t be put out. Pelosi is a joke.

  • So just who is bankrolling her campaign? Remember the slimy money ralph took from republicans to run his campaign in swing states?

  • Say what you want about pelosi – I agree that she has failed us.

    BUT AT LEAST RUSH LIMBAUGH AND KARL ROVE DON’T PROMOTE HER!

  • I’m guessing she’s thinking of an Independent run ala her buddy from Conn, Joementum.

    We are seeing shades of the Conn Primary. The only “viable” Repub is a loser. Will Hilz take the plunge?

    Except unlike Conn 2006, Barack’s a better campaigner than Lamont was.

  • I’m pleased to hear her say this. She’s right — if the Clinton camp gets its way and the punishment is fully rescinded, we’ll have primaries the year before the election. States will begin leapfrogging each other in their desire to be first and there will be no end to it.

    It’s increasingly obvious that Hillary’s threats of a confrontation at the convention are purely ego-driven. I could almost understand it if there were some hugely major policy difference between her and Obama — say if Hillary wanted to stay in Iraq and Obama didn’t — but the policy differences between them are negligible.

  • Pelosi is such a wimp. Isn’t she an undeclared superdelegate herself? She needs to declare her support for one or the other and publicly call for all other undeclared supers not from S. Dakota and Montana to do it as well.

    I can’t stand her idea of herself as a wizened elder above the fray. She’s been part of the problem in this process, and now after today’s statement, she’s still part of the problem.

  • Nancy Pelosi is the Chair of the convention. In addition, she is Speaker of the House and one of the most powerful Dem leaders. She can manage this. She will endorse the [person leading in pledged delegates, as she said she would, probnably on June 4,and several other supers will follow. She also sets the agenda of the convention and makes rulings from the Chair on rules etc. This will all be over soon.

  • Can we agree that there are no “magic numbers”? Sheesh. -Michael Carpet

    No.

    What in the world is your point?

  • Maybe I spoke too soon. If the NYT report is true, that’s better:

    In an interview Thursday on a San Francisco talk radio station, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, said he had spoken with Speaker Nancy Pelosi earlier in the day, and they had agreed to take steps to avoid a contest that extends into the convention in August.

    “We are going to urge folks to make a decision quickly – next week,” said Mr. Reid on station KGO.

    I still think she should declare.

  • Doubtful:

    Simply that there is a required number of delegates to win the nomination. There is no magic involved.

  • Pelosi has already said that she’ll support the candidate with the most pledged delegates, which everyone knows will be Obama. I don’t see anything wrong with her trying to maintain some pretense of neutrality so as to remain above the fray until the end of the primaries and therefore able to exert some influence on undeclared superdelegates who might otherwise lean toward Clinton.

  • More over, let’s vote to have a recorded video vote of all the delegates at the convention.

    One wants to see those delegates go down in history, yes go down as idiots in history that vote for Obama.

  • Nancy Pelosi’s statements are quite provocative, because they reveal that she and her colleagues at the DNC feel that they are the decision makers, not the voters. Do people understand this? The DNC does not want people to vote anymore. They want to disenfranchise Puerto Rico, Montana, and South Dakota.

    Whichever candidate they support, democrats should be concerned that this nomination is being stolen. Obama does not have the majority of the popular vote. Neither does he have enough pledged delegates to declare victory in the absence of people like Pelosi. Why does he represent us?

  • If Pelosi can step in… good on her.
    If she can’t. I am okay with that too.

    Here’s why:
    After Barack’s two victories on Tuesday there will be major shift in perception.
    I can already sense vraisemblances of this sea change now:

    The Clintons are sore losers. The worst the party has seen in decades.

    Quite frankly, I love the possibility of that meme going mainline and becoming a chorus. I want to see the Clinton machine utterly destroyed.
    No more Lanny…
    No more Terry…
    No more Bill…
    No more Shrill…
    Double-flush the whole foul bowlful. So a part of me hopes they go nuclear. They are the ones that will end up as road kill. No one respects sore losers. And after Tuesday: Sore losers they will unmistakably be.

    So I don’t mind putting it in reverse for a bit… The pleasure of having Clinton carapaces under-tread again is delightful. And perhaps arguably, even necessary for the future of the party.

  • Megalomania (9):It is very wild to think about some of the delegates are a little more then minors.

    Tell me, does it bother you that your candidate and her surrogates are trying to buy these young votes?

  • Yvonne – how can you be so full of shit and still breathe? Pelosi is calling for supers to declare themselves AFTER the last elections – next Tuesday.

    And some of the rest of you who are always spouting about the rule of law. People who are in high official positions can easily undermine their authority by shows of favoritism or faction. Pelosi will be much better able to render judgments about credentials issues, etc. if she has demonstrated to all sides that she has not in deed or public word tried to influence the outcome. It’s beyond ridiculous to call for her to endorse before the elections have run their course.

    She’s still full of shit about impeachment and tables, however.

  • Sockpuppets like yvonne make me retch because they’re so heavyhandedly dishonest. Neither Pelosi nor the DNC calling for SD, MT and PR not to vote, of course. What part of “after the final Democratic primaries on June 3” is so hard to understand? That post wouldn’t fool the lowest-info voter.

    Megalomania made me laugh with his or her suggestion that delegates be 35 or older. That would, of course, be 10 years older than the minimum age for a U.S. representative and 5 years older than the minimum age for a U.S. senator. But since you later concede that you’re just pissed that the delegates are going to choose Obama, Meg, why not just argue for a minimum delegate age of 65? Wouldn’t that solve Hillary’s problem?

  • Pelosi will be much better able to render judgments about credentials issues, etc. if she has demonstrated to all sides that she has not in deed or public word tried to influence the outcome. It’s beyond ridiculous to call for her to endorse before the elections have run their course.

    She’s still full of shit about impeachment and tables, however.

    Absolument on both counts.

  • Nancy Pelosi is obviously a misogynist.

    Do you think women can’t be misogynists? All women know other women whose self-hatred and unwillingness to see other women as successful as they are result in vicious attacks designed to keep other women down. Nancy Pelosi is quite obviously one of these. Her insistence on going by the delegate majority is just using the silly rationalization of “party rules and established process” as an excuse to hurt another woman. She pretends to care about the good of the whole party, but she’s clearly motivated by jealousy of Hillary. It’s too bad that she’s chosen to betray her gender this way, but as I am always pointing out, people from San Francisco are not like the rest of Californians.

  • Rules are rules but Hillary doesn’t follow the rules. I mean, do we really want Bill and Hillary back in the White House again? Let’s take a look here at some things they have said which reflect their character:

    Bill: “I have never had sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.”

    Hillary: “I was under Bosnian sniper fire.”

    Bill: “I put it to my mouth but I never inhaled.”

    Hillary: “I regret mentioning the RFK assassination but I was thinking about Ted Kennedy lately.”

    Bill: “I can’t understand why the media is so mean to Hillary.”

    Hillary: “I care about party unity.”

    Please …. why don’t the super-delegates end this now and pledge their votes to Obama. The man has presidential campaigning to do.

  • If Nancy wanted to be the first woman president she should have impeached Cheney and then Bush.

    As it is, being that she is a wimp, she shouldn’t try to interfer in Hillary’s bid for the Presidency.

    I don’t have a problem with the Super Delegates declaring themselves next Wednesday. I just don’t think it is necessarily going to happen.

    The last one to make the decisive move is going to get his pet projects/policies into the General Campaign. That’s quite an incentive to hang tough.

  • According to the lawyers, only half of FL and MI delegates can be seated (or all seated with half a vote). With Obama’s current lead, this will not significantly change the outcome. If Hillary gets any more than this, propriety will be called into question!

    Please Super-Delegates, Pelosi, somebody end the madness!

    Hillary, the Queen of Spin and a Legend in Her Own Mind!

    http://klintons.com

  • Why is Clinton trying to disenfranchise Michigan voters?

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080529/ap_on_el_pr/primary_scramble_michigan_13;_ylt=AlgdI_5U_oodvQQJJtov2Uth24cA
    “Obama… took his name off the Michigan ballot after the DNC said it would strip the state of its delegates… The Clinton campaign has maintained that Obama should not get any Michigan delegates even though many of his supporters voted for “uncommitted.””

    In fact, it is a widely held opinion that the 40% who voted for “uncommitted” were voting for Obama or Edwards, neither of whom appeared on the ballot.

    And in Florida, many stayed home since they assumed their vote would not count.

    What the heck is WRONG with Hillary “let’s just break all the rules to win” Clinton??? I’m am simply flabbergasted by her gall.

  • #33 to add: Oh, yeah, and Hillary Clinton, back before the primaries were held, agreed that that FL and MI should not be seated for breaking party rules. That was when she thought she’d have the nomination wrapped up on Super Tuesday.

    Now she wants to break the rules simply to win.

    I am not only flabbergasted, but disgusted.

  • She said the party committee will come up with a formula that is “fair and accepted by both campaigns…

    Nancy, Nancy, Nancy. Have you learned nothing about compromising with spoiled brats to whom compromise means the other side capitulates? There is no compromise here that will be acceptable to both sides unless one side (Obama) goes 9/10 the distance or more. And if that happens, it will be a pragmatic decision having nothing to do with fairness.

  • Those who wonder “what can she do?” forget the power of the Speaker of the House in granting careers to members of her Party who are Congressmen – about 40 of whom have yet to make a decision. All she has to say is “Do you like the committee assignment that helps you back home? Get off the pot!” The spineless ones could end up with No Future.

  • ” … it seems relatively safe to assume that Pelosi would resolve the nominating fight in Obama’s favor, though the House Speaker has been neutral throughout the process.”

    It’s hard to see how she has been “neutral” when it can so easily be predicted that she would resolve the nominating fight in Obama’s favor.

    I’m not sure strong arming House members is any way to resolve this process.

    BAC

  • This isn’t over until the convention. It is ludicrous for Pelosi to suggest it should be. Her supposed neutrality is also ridiculous when she has obviously been an Obama supporter for some time now — witness her repeated calls for Clinton to drop out. It troubles me greatly that so many supposed progressives here cannot stand to let our democratic process play out. Clinton is as viable as many candidates who have gone into a convention without anyone calling for them to give up. Obama needs to win this fair and square, not by elbowing Clinton out of the race before the convention has a chance to vote on its nominee.

    The voting doesn’t take place in the form of public announcements of support from superdelegates, nor are the primaries and caucuses binding. The only votes that determine the nominee occur at the convention. It would be swell for Obama and his supporters if he could win without competition, but that isn’t going to happen.

    As I was watching Recount the other night, it struck me that Clinton might have noticed that Al Gore let the election slip through his fingers by refusing to fight for the presidency as energetically as Bush’s team. Many of us were disappointed in Gore for that, especially when later recounts should that he was the legitimate winner. Clinton cannot be expected to make that same mistake in this situation. She has every right to fight for her spot at the convention and to win or lose based on what happens there. It is outrageous for Pelosi to claim that this conflict cannot go to the convention — this is exactly what conventions are for! It sickens me that members of my own party would think it is OK to try to steal a nomination this way.

    By the way, did you notice that Rupert Murdoch has endorsed Obama? That should take the wind out of your guilt-by-association criticisms of Clinton’s funders. Murdoch is as scummy as they come.

  • I am from Michigan, we were told that our votes did not count before the primary so many people did not vote, so how is it fair to Michigan voters to change the rules now. Counting these votes is not fair to Michigan voters who could not vote for their candidate because of the sanctions, We were informed about 48 hours before the primary that that write in votes for Obama would be considered invalid, and that we should vote non-committed, and let someone else control our vote. ( this is after absentee ballots were already mailed) I think not. The DNC should stick to what they told Michigan in the beginning, many people did not vote because they could not vote for Obama since he followed the rules. Now Hillary is desperate and thinks she should control the michigan and florida votes even though neither election results truely represent either state.

  • That should take the wind out of your guilt-by-association criticisms of Clinton’s funders. Murdoch is as scummy as they come.

    He certainly is, and I’d hate to see Obama hang out with him. By the way, why weren’t you criticizing him when he was hosting fundraisers for Hillary? Was he not scummy then?

    I am not sure it’s possible for someone to be more hypocritical than you are, Mary. You are one big, flabby, walking bag of situational ethics. There just isn’t any moral compass in you at all.

  • A few articles for review (copy and paste the links- if two lines, then paste each carefully to combine):

    MI and FL SHOULD be counted, and the following link helps to explain why:

    http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/80993

    (If the DNC knew of this prior to the candidates agreeing to the ‘sanctions’, then that IS a travesty and Senator Clinton should keep fighting for the votes to be counted).

    Two concerns I have with Senator Obama:

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-galesburg_obama_webfeb01,0,7138122,print.story

    And, from JerseyGirl345 (Topixforum.net):

    “Exelon, a nuclear energy giant in Illinois, is Obama’s sixth largest donor.

    In fact, Exelon employees have donated over $269,100 to his federal campaigns and over $194,750 in 2008.

    These donations are significant, for Obama wrote legislation on Exelon’s behalf while serving in the US Senate. Constituents of Obama in Will County, Illinois, complained of nuclear waste surfacing in the area’s groundwater. They mobilized the support of Obama, who promised to write legislation requiring corporations such as Exelon to disclose radioactive leaks to surrounding communities. But Obama failed. Indeed, he allowed Exelon and Senate Republicans to dilute the bill. Instead of requiring companies to disclose information regarding radioactive leaks, the bill Obama wrote with Exelon lobbyists merely offered guidance for how to report a leak if those corporations chose to disclose such information. Obama’s consituents were not pleased.”

    ((So if the constituents within his own state are not pleased, job losses and corporate interests having more preference than the people, how will we, THE PEOPLE, benefit under his presidency? I want results more than eloquent speeches…))

    And the 2008 Democratic race in general:

    http://www..thecityedition.com/Pages/Archive/Winter08/PDFfiles/2008Election.pdf

    Oh, if you wanted the reference for the YouTube teacher apprentice link:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VeKppnBJ6U

    here is the full article from The Atlantic (copy and paste the link as well):

    http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/200712/clinton-obama

    Thank you for the opportunity to post.

  • Pelosi, Reid, top Democrats and angry Republicans should focus on beginning Impeachment hearings for the current administration, in light of McClellan’s new book.
    We have been lied to for seven years and Congress will be considered guilty by association of the crimes of this administration if they don’t act fast and begin hearings.
    Pelosi, Reid… Impeach the President and Vice President now!

  • Ugh, I have said repeatedly here that I don’t care who donates money to a candidate. That is YOUR concern, not mine. I am pointing out the hypocrisy here about it. I have been consistent in my position about campaign financing, which is that while campaigns require huge media buys there must be sources of big money and that does not come from everyday citizens or bake sales. I have also said that I do not believe taking money from a large donor is the same as a quid pro quo, which involves doing some favor in exchange for the donation. Large corporations and other unsavory donors tend to support both candidates, as they will McCain against whichever Dem is nominated. I dislike Scaife but I think it was smart for Clinton to make peace with him. I don’t believe that makes her his agent. Similarly, Murdoch is evil, but no more or less so than many greedy capitalists who don’t care what they do to others as long as they make money.

    Your guy, however, has portrayed himself as a different kind of candidate and you all state that you support him because of that. When he is revealed to be the same kind of candidate as everyone else, you need to acknowledge that, instead of stating that anything Clinton does is OK for Obama too. Clinton has never claimed to be a different kind of candidate. Obama has, but he then secretly goes against his own stated principles. Clinton has claimed that she can take money from these people without necessarily doing their bidding. I believe that is highly likely because she has shown considerable independence of character, if only by persisting in this race in the face of widespread calls for her to step down. I can readily imagine her saying no to one of her donors when they ask for some add-on to a bill. I cannot imagine Obama doing so, largely because he is a cautious people-pleasing sort of man who waffles under pressure. I can see him saying yes to everyone and then doing whatever is expedient. That isn’t what I want in a president. Of course, you clearly have other preferences.

    Bottom line is you cannot excuse every Obama frailty by saying…but Hillary did it too. That’s WATB stuff. I have few illusions about who and what Clinton is and I support her anyway because of her many strengths. There are no perfect candidates and you pick the one with the flaws you can live with and the strengths that will get the job done. That isn’t Obama, for me. You have many illusions about your guy. You need to wipe the stardust out of your eyes and see him realistically and then make a choice on that basis. Blindly defending him makes you look silly.

  • I have few illusions about who and what Clinton is and I support her anyway because of her many strengths. There are no perfect candidates and you pick the one with the flaws you can live with and the strengths that will get the job done.

    What a reasonable statement. Unfortunately, while it characterizes the posts of other Clinton supporters here, it most certainly doesn’t describe your behavior. Not one of your posts has ever acknowledged Clinton wrongdoing–not once, Mary. On what planet is believing that someone’s every error can be denied, swept over or blamed on someone else healthy behavior? It’s the emotional reaction of a small child: “She didn’t steal the cookies; what cookies; cookies aren’t important anyway; the upstart black man made her take the cookies.”

    Honestly, sane grownups don’t act like this. In your apparent line of work, teaching psychology (and you can correct me if you don’t teach psychology), there are names for this stuff, you know.

    Which leads me to this masterpiece of projection:

    Blindly defending him makes you look silly.

    I’ve never seen Ugh blindly defend Obama, and he assuredly didn’t do so above. If you have evidence of him doing so elsewhere, provide links.

    • Comments are closed.