Top Leaderboard, Site wide
November 28, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!






The Chain


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Ear to the Ground

Pelosi Tells Superdelegates to Back Off

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Mar 5, 2008

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has once again warned superdelegates to stay out of the nominating process until they are needed: “The electoral process has to work its way.” Hillary Clinton has a strong advantage among superdelegates, but Barack Obama is rumored to have a large group prepared to announce for him.


The Hill:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) expressed confidence Wednesday that Democratic primary and caucus voters will settle on a presidential nominee before the Democratic convention in August, with no need for party leaders to weigh in.

“The electoral process has to work its way,” Pelosi said in a session with reporters Wednesday morning. “I was never among those who thought this would be resolved by now.”

Read more

More Below the Ad

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
TAGS:


Get truth delivered to
your inbox every week.

Previous item: Bush Backs McCain

Next item: Aid Groups Slam Gaza Blockade



New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Ken, April 8, 2008 at 12:14 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

If you believe these party Super Delegates should consider the voice of rank-and-file Democrats, go tell them so… by using http://www.LobbyDelegates.com.

LobbyDelegates.com is the first and only 1-stop portal for grassroots lobbying of Super Delegates in your state. 

The website is strictly impartial and is not affiliated with any political party, candidate, campaign or advocacy group.  LobbyDelegates.com was created as a public service under the auspices of the nonprofit StateDemocracy Foundation.

Report this

By Maani, March 6, 2008 at 10:16 pm Link to this comment

Cyrena:

“But of course for those of us who know Pelosi, (who is more cunning than she is scrupulous) we know that she’s frantically working behind the scenes on behalf of Hillary.”

Oh really?  You “know” her?  How is she?  How does she like her coffee?  Does she play a good game of Scrabble?  What does she think of the Giants?

You are so full of it that it is hard to take you seriously any more.

RdV:

“Your post is deceptive MAANI because you suggest that the superdelegates are some elite sinister group, when they are actually Democratic party activists, officials, politicians. The superdelegates in themselves are not sinister…So it was you who actually spun it to make it appear that Obama was contributing to these secret super delegates, when he may’ve been helping others political campaigns get off the ground.”

Fair enough.  But then I don’t expect to hear the opposite about Hillary.  That is, if Obama is not “paying off” the superdelegates, than neither is Hillary.  I hear blatant hypocrisy of that type FAR too often on this site not to be wary of it.

Peace.

Report this

By laughoutloud, March 6, 2008 at 3:42 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

those who support clinton are either wealthy or daft.

Report this

By Maani, March 6, 2008 at 3:31 pm Link to this comment

Aegrus:

“May I remind everyone again Barack Obama has received far more donations from individual donors and small donors than Hillary Clinton.”

I challenge you to support that statement.

Hillary and Obama have both brought in ~$200 million now.  Of that amount, BOTH of them have brought in ~40 million in “special interest” money (e.g., energy, telecomm, law firms, security and investment companies, real estate, health care, etc.).  That represents fully one-fifth og EACH of their campaign income.  Hillary has taken less than $1 million in “lobby” money (as defined by Obama, who took none) and only $38,000 in PAC money (Obama took about $4,000).  Thus, in the great scheme of things - as a percentage of their total intake - “lobby” and PAC money represents a moot percentage, and special interest money represents an equal percentage.

Which means (in case you can’t do the math yourself) that BOTH of them have taken in about the same amount in “donations from individual donors and small donors.”

Nice try.

Peace.

Report this

By laughoutloud, March 6, 2008 at 2:23 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

i couldn’t agree more.  pelosi is a sham.  she is a wolf in sheeps clothing who plays the left like a fiddle while bowing to the right.

she should be reviewed and removed from her office for failing the american people miserably.

Report this

By Louise, March 6, 2008 at 9:01 am Link to this comment

Of course I can only look in my Crystal Ball, which seems to be a little foggy. [Hillary’s people must have gotten to it] But I think the more important issue is who GAVE money to the candidates? Not who did the candidates give money too!

Congressaurs have a long standing tradition of helping fellow candidates running for election/re-election, with financial aid. If that’s a problem, then the disgruntled grumblers need to come together and actually demand a reform of the whole system.

Yeh, like that’s going to happen.

In the over-all scheme of things, the financial demands on a presidential wannabee are such that whatever money goes to whichever running fellow congressaurs has to be tempered with the real financial drains everything else puts on their campaign.

And guess what, even though it requires Windex my Crystal Ball says in the final analysis, that money will not affect most super-delegates decision. At least the ones who are running for election/re-election for anything, anywhere.

For example, if a Mayor is running for re-election and she knows the overwhelming majority of folks in her city voted for Obama, she’ll give her Delegate vote to Obama, cause she wants the folks in her city to re-elect her!

Likewise, if a Senator is running for re-election in a State where the majority vote went to Obama, even if he’s been helped financially with his campaign by Hillary, he’ll likely give his Delegate vote to Obama because he wants the same folks who voted for Obama voting for him.

Pretty simple actually. Don’t really need a crystal ball. Don’t even need to be a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

The wild card is the group of Super Delegates who aren’t running for anything. And don’t plan too. Those are the ones we need to wonder about. Because even some of them don’t have a clue what to do.

I watched one of them being interviewed a while back. Seems he was a Super-delegate because of some campaign work he did in previous elections. He not only did not know what he was going to do ... he wasn’t even sure why he was a Super-delegate. But he certainly realized the significance of that when the phone calls and visits started coming in from the Clinton and Edwards camps. The reassurance came when he said “I’ll probably vote for whoever wins in my State.” Because as it turned out, his State voted for Obama.

The fact remains, the majority of Super-delegates have not pledged. And most likely wont until the clear winner from the caucuses and primaries is established. And even then most wont until they get to the convention. And some will abandon their pledge and switch to the candidate who won in their State. We have already seen that happen. Particularly over to the Obama side.

So, I think focusing on the money needs to be re-thought.

I think the more important issue is who GAVE money to the candidates? Not who did the candidates give money too!

Besides, Hillary ran short of money a few weeks back, while Obama was doing fine in that department. That wasn’t because of a huge influx of money from corporate America to Obama, or in Hillary’s case a drop-off of financial donations.

Hillary’s shortfall was the result of bad management. While Obama’s camp was doing fine.

Personally, I don’t want someone running the country who cant keep track of a few million “free” dollars.

When the “free” money runs into the hundreds of trillions, I want a good money manager in charge!

Report this

By DennisD, March 6, 2008 at 8:40 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

For failing to uphold the Constitution by not bringing impeachment charges against Bu$h/Cheney for crimes against the United States of America.

She has utterly failed the citizens of this country.

Report this

By Aegrus, March 6, 2008 at 8:35 am Link to this comment

These are nonsense statistics. John Edwards got money from a PAC too. It’s called ActBlue, and it is still donating money to many Democratic and Progressive candidates via small donors. PACs aren’t inherently evil if they are used as forces for groups of independent small donors to consolidate funding.

May I remind everyone again Barack Obama has received far more donations from individual donors and small donors than Hillary Clinton (whose list of donors almost all spent the maximum amount, and she has DEFENDED corporate lobbyists and corporate PACs.)

FAR DIFFERENT THAN INDEPENDENT, SMALL-DONOR, INDIVIDUALLY EMPOWERED PACS, MAANI.

Get off your soapbox, please.

Report this

By Aegrus, March 6, 2008 at 8:30 am Link to this comment

Let’s not get out the tinfoil just yet, Purple girl. Pelosi is suspicious, but I agree with the official stance of the DNC. Let the race sort itself out. We have two good candidates (though I still know Obama is the better of the two) which have plenty of ability to turn this campaign in one way or another. We don’t know how things will turn out, but I think intervening with the natural democratic process would be playing god and add to the idea votes don’t count and disenfranchisement. Just don’t give up, no matter who your candidate is.

..... OBAMA 08!!!!!!.....

Report this

By RdV, March 6, 2008 at 8:30 am Link to this comment

Your post is deceptive MAANI because you suggest that the superdelegates are some elite sinister group, when they are actually Democratic party activists, officials, politicians. The superdelegates in themselves are not sinister, although the reason for their rise to power may be.
  So it was you who actually spun it to make it appear that Obama was contributing to these secret super delegates, when he may’ve been helping others political campaigns get off the ground. I have read many of his donations to others were while he was in the Illinois senate before his presidential bid was even on the horizon AND just today I read that Bill Clinton has been criticized for harboring PAC money and campaign funds for his own ambitions rather than helping the party.

  With the Clintons, it is all about the Clintons.

Report this

By RdV, March 6, 2008 at 8:10 am Link to this comment

that Pelosi set up the playing field to benefit the Right.
  After all, her claim that pursuing impeachment would “divide the Country”

    How pathetically lame.
  May history recall that you didn’t do your job according to that contract—the constitution.

Report this

By rbrooks, March 6, 2008 at 8:08 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

who, if memory serves, is the little helper who took impeachment off the table before she was even SEATED, this has the moral weight of a dull thud.

If you’re going to listen to anyone, listen to the voters who are sending you to the convention.

Pelosi, of all people, has no absolutely no credibility left. She is one of the last politicians in the Democratic party who should be advising Democrats.

Report this

By C.P.T.L., March 6, 2008 at 5:46 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Oh heavens! that the process might not work “its way.” Oh that things might become steered from their proper course.


I mean, we wouldn’t want the Superdelegates to begin circumventing law or anything. We would deplore their use of signing statements, or dismantling oversight agencies, or falsifying accounts, destroying records… rewriting laws, lying about everything, lying their country into war…


Oh wait, did I mix things up? get my wires crossed?


Or did I?


What a comfort The Princess of Process is on the case with an all important pronouncement. Something Pelosi can manage her way: talking. You know: casting, recasting… some might call it ‘spin.’


I too “was never among those who thought” the wrong stuff, and now am reassured. Not to put words in Nancy’s mouth or anything, but I think I can safely say that we are both disappointed at times at “those” with wrong thinking “among” them.


Their thinking will be straightened out when everything starts going her way, that is to say, when everything stars going our way. When the realpolitik wisdom of it all breaks over us like… hmmm, like… well…


our very own Morning in America.

Report this
Purple Girl's avatar

By Purple Girl, March 6, 2008 at 5:21 am Link to this comment

Yes my Friend As A Michigander who voted in that rigged primary I will be outraged if delegates are counted off that scam.
Interesting tidbits about Our Primary.
Not only was the date changed becasue it would set this ‘backlash’ in motion (the first slight of hand of Pocketing an Ace), then claim non campaigning is the “honorable’ thing to do (reduce the wild cards), Shuffle the deck ( Names on ballots- some Alphabetical, some not) then feed them in to Alphabetized pre programmed ‘Scam’Trons. then come back and Cry Foul, and Voila- Drop the Aces, take the pot.
I have a number of the Michigan Dem Party on my list of ‘Public Servants’ who have been at the very least Derelict in their Duties! Brewer, Granholm, Levin,Stabenow, Kildee, Land… and of course their coworkers on the’other side’. Those who have proven their allegience to the Corp’s. They have handed OUR Constitution over as collateral to continue racking up their Gambling Debts. We pick up the ‘Marker’ and the beating. Michigan has always been th eCanary in the Coalmine, we fell over gasping about 35 yrs ago and are ‘circling the drain’.
I’ve been Conscious (conscience) for over 35 yrs- and I think they were nothing to brag about. In fact find the some of the most vile in our Nations History. Criminal acts at the highest levels- not just against Our country, but mankind and Nature.Even though I’m basically an Atheist- I see these as Mortal Sins against ‘God’ and Nature. Their Tragic Opera seems to be gearing up for it’s crescendo. Remember ‘It ain’t over ‘til the Fat Lady Sings’

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, March 6, 2008 at 4:21 am Link to this comment

Oh, the Republican Party Inc. and Democratic Party Inc. don’t have to be democratic in their selection process. 

Superdelagates = selectors for life.

Thanks for the clarification.

Report this
Purple Girl's avatar

By Purple Girl, March 6, 2008 at 2:48 am Link to this comment

Pelosi has just convinced me that the election is thororughly bogus. She has confidence that the Super Delegates won’t be needed becasue she has helped in rigging the election. Don’t ned them becasue it is already in the bag- They’ve Crowned her Queen .Plus if we keep hearing about Superdelegates- We Might Start getting suspecious and demand a new election. Best to let US just think this was a clean election, since Super Delegates won’t be ‘needed’.
Michigans Primary was set up and delivered to Hillary by our own State Dems. Now they want to seat those Delegates- No mention of a New Primary with both the candidates on the ballot this time.
No worry for hillary though- just keep switching how they are presented, but pre program th e’Scam’Trons to always read the first name as Clinton regardless of what is printed.
hanging Chads ,butterfly ballots…now ‘uncounted votes’then counted votes from Primaries without all the candidates offered on the ballot. How exactly will they determine the number of delegates to be awarded to Obama- when his name diod not even appear.
Hillary did not win MI, and certainly not 55% of Us.
The Dems are playing Repug games with this election- perhaps this proves there is a third party (entity) pulling the strings of our elections who hold no allegience to either Red or Blue, Nor US.Corporationists.
I’ve already written Brewer,Granholm and Levin regarding this sham of a Primary. Demanding a New Primary -otherwise skip our delegates entirely (they will not be representing the People of MI).

Report this

By cyrena, March 6, 2008 at 2:19 am Link to this comment

The “Hill” article says this…

Pelosi, who is to serve as chairwoman of the convention in Denver, has scrupulously maintained neutrality in the race. She also declined to weigh in on whether Clinton or Obama should pick the other as a vice presidential nominee.

But of course for those of us who know Pelosi, (who is more cunning than she is scrupulous) we know that she’s frantically working behind the scenes on behalf of Hillary.

She probably expects to be on the ticket with her.

Meantime, I wonder what they’re gonna do with the disenfranchised voters of Michigan and Florida, who didn’t get to vote in their primaries, for anyone OTHER than Hillary?

Does that not seem like a problem? I mean she’s claiming those states as wins, except of course the voters (at least in Michigan ... I didn’t see the Florida ballot) only had one CHOICE. Hillary!

Is it just me, or doesn’t anyone else expect a major problem if those delegates are seated?

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, March 6, 2008 at 2:09 am Link to this comment

Democratic officials involved in the conversations said Obama was lining up a package of superdelegates — the party insiders whose votes help select the Democratic nominee — with plans to announce their support as a bloc….

The Obama campaign had an extensive “whip” organization set up to track and woo these officials, including members of Congress…. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/8838.html

Report this

By bert, March 5, 2008 at 10:59 pm Link to this comment

You always find the best facts. I truly appreciate you, Maani.

Report this

By bert, March 5, 2008 at 10:56 pm Link to this comment

Political paeries are not covered under the U.S. Constitution.

In addition, the Supreme Court has ruled political parties are seperate entities and can make thier own rules and regulations.

The Republican Party does not have super delegates. The Republican Party awards its deleagtes differently as well, with the winner of the popular vote winning all delegates.

Report this

By cyrena, March 5, 2008 at 10:45 pm Link to this comment

They aren’t mentioned in the Constitution PatrickHenry, but slavery is certainly well established in the origins of the document.

So, some things have changed. That’s not to suggest that the superdelegates are a ‘good’ addition, and so that’s not what I’m suggesting. Only that there’s a whole bunch going on now, that isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, and a whole bunch that IS mentioned, that is being violated or otherwise ignored.

So, instead of Nancy Pelosi telling anybody to back off, maybe SHE should just do her own job! Like impeachment.

Of course we already know there’s no chance of her doing her job, and she isn’t going to ‘back off’ either, so she needs a shove-off.

We don’t really care where she goes, she just has to LEAVE HERE! (Or in this case..Congress). Wherever she chooses to go, (or we send her) she isn’t gonna need to worry about superdelegates, so she should just shut up and start packing.

Report this

By Maani, March 5, 2008 at 10:12 pm Link to this comment

Waxman:

“HOW MUCH HAS OBAMA DONATED TO SUPERDELEGATES SO FAR?”

As of February 14, 2008:

“Obama, who narrowly leads in the count of pledged, “non-super” delegates, has doled out more than $698,200 to superdelegates from his political action committee, Hope Fund, or campaign committee since 2005. Of the 82 elected officials who had announced as of Feb. 12 that their superdelegate votes would go to the Illinois senator, 35, or 43 percent of this group, have received campaign contributions from him in the 2006 or 2008 election cycles, totaling $232,200. In addition, Obama has been endorsed by 52 superdelegates who haven’t held elected office recently and, therefore, didn’t receive campaign contributions from him.

Clinton does not appear to have been as openhanded. Her PAC, HILLPAC, and campaign committee appear to have distributed $205,500 to superdelegates. Only 12 percent of her elected superdelegates, or 13 of 109 who have said they will back her, have received campaign contributions, totaling about $95,000 since 2005. An additional 128 unelected superdelegates support Clinton, according to a blog tracking superdelegates and their endorsements, 2008 Democratic Convention Watch.”

Let’s see how the Obamamaniacs here spin this one…LOL.

Peace.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, March 5, 2008 at 6:53 pm Link to this comment

I don’t remember where in the constitution, superdelagates are mentioned.

Report this

By waxman, March 5, 2008 at 5:18 pm Link to this comment

HOW MUCH HAS OBAMA DONATED TO SUPER DELEGATES SO FAR ???

Report this
 
Monsters of Our Own Creation? Get tickets for this Truthdig discussion of America's role in the Middle East.
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook