Sam Stein

BIO

Sam Stein

The Huffington Post

huffpolitics, Christine Pelosi, christine pelosi and DNC, Christine Pelosi and super delegate, delegate split, michigan and florida and 50/50, pelosi and clinton, Pelosi and convention, pelosi and democratic race, pelosi and obama, Pelosi and super delegates, superdelegates and popular vote
huffpolitics, Christine Pelosi, christine pelosi and DNC, Christine Pelosi and super delegate, delegate split, michigan and florida and 50/50, pelosi and clinton, Pelosi and convention, pelosi and democratic race, pelosi and obama, Pelosi and super delegates, superdelegates and popular vote

Christine Pelosi: Superdelegates Should Not Overturn Majority Dem. Vote

February 15, 2008 12:10 PM


stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust

Christine Pelosi, daughter of the Speaker and (more notably at the moment) a superdelegate, warns of a massive disillusionment of voters should Democratic Party officials back a presidential nominee that didn't win the pledged delegate vote.

"Many of us are elected by the grassroots of the party," she said, "And I cannot imagine going home in November to those people and try to phone bank for someone who did not capture the [pledged delegate] vote... We were all galvanized by what happened to Al Gore in Florida."

Pelosi, who has been a DNC member since 1996 and recently authored the book "Campaign Boot Camp," acknowledged being petitioned heavily from campaign surrogates but declined to say whom she would support. She did, however, list different attributes upon which her superdelegate vote will be based: "Who is building a base of volunteers, who is bringing the party together - the best indicators of future performance."

In her interview with the Huffington Post, she spoke freely and at length about some of the challenges facing the 796 superdelegates as the presidential nomination seemingly falls into their laps. What, for instance, should the party do about the primary elections in Michigan and Florida, which did not, according to DNC rules, carry any delegates, but which the victorious Hillary Clinton campaign is hoping to have counted?

"Of course they should be involved. I can't imagine a scenario personally where they are not. The question is how?" said Pelosi. She then playfully suggested a novel idea: splitting the state's delegates 50/50 to Obama and Clinton. It would, she argued, allow for representation from each state while not changing the dynamics of the race in one candidate's favor. Of course, she added, "Ideally we sit back and let the process do its will and by the time you get to June it won't matter."

In a separate interview Friday with Bloomberg TV, Christine's mother, Nancy Pelosi, went a step further, arguing that the Florida and Michigan primaries shouldn't decide the party's nomination. "I don't think that any states that operated outside the rules of the party can be dispositive of who the nominee is,'' Pelosi told Al Hunt. She also addressed the power wielded by the super-delegates, dismissing concerns that they vote against the will of the majority of Democratic voters.

"It's not just following the returns; it's also having a respect for what has been said by the people,'' she said. It would be "a problem for the party if the verdict would be something different than the public has decided."

Reflecting her mother's remarks, Christine Pelosi also sought to debunk the perception that super delegates were just cigar smoking -- "my mother won't allow that" -- backroom dealing, political bigwigs willing to trade their votes at the Democratic National Convention for patronage.

"We are paying attention," she said, "What we are supposed to do is enhance the process not step on it."

As evidence, the Speaker's daughter riffed on a variety of political and campaign topics. Pelosi showed little patience for the most recent line of attack by the Clinton campaign, which has accused Obama of ducking debates in Wisconsin.

"It is always sort of a stunt when you call for a debate," she said. "If they really wanted a debate you know, Howard [Wolfson] has David [Axelrod]'s phone number. They could arrange this if they really wanted to... This silly fight over a debate or a snub or this or that is really dumb."

But her most critical words were saved for the Republican side of the political aisle.

"John McCain is George Bush's third term," she said of the GOP frontrunner, "and I just don't believe the American people want to elect George Bush for a third term."

As for former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's decision to stay in the race against the most unlikely of odds: "Can't Fox give him a talk show or something?"

Mostly, however, Pelosi offered a cautiously optimistic outlook for the Democrats in 2008. There is a historic nature to the election, she posited, a chance to bring and secure a new generation of voters in the political process. And absent a major screw-up, Democrats could ride that wave to long-term victories.

"I think that if we can capture and hold the enthusiasm of the 20 million Americans who have come out to vote so far," Pelosi said, "and the millions more who will by the time our nomination process if over, if we can keep those people organized and energized we will win."

Comments for this post are now closed


 
 

Comments
389
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next › Last » (6 pages total)

As a person who believes that we should do away with the Electoral College and just have a Majority vote for President - I agree with you these "SuperDelegates" power should be limited.

But let us not forget that at its core the reason that the Democratic Party has Superdelegates is that they don't trust Democratic Voters.

The Democratic Party bigshots wanted to leave in a place a firewall in case Democratic Voters decided to nominate someone who they didn't like and didn't think could win so that they could essentially overturn the will of their own people and put who they believed should be the Nominee.

The funniest part of the Superdelegate issue is that it a complete insult to Democratic Voters who in the end find that they can have their votes overturned by what comes down to "The Select Few" who "Know Better" than the average Democratic voter. That really sounds like a complete undermining of a "democratic" process.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:49 AM on 02/18/2008

Raise your hand if you actually believe that Kennedy and Kerry --who campaign for Obama yet are from a Clinton state-- will actually vote for Clinton.

This whole "debate" is a crock, started because Obama is behind in superdelegates.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:20 PM on 02/16/2008

OBAMA WILL GET SCREWING BY CLINTON MACHINE BIG TIME..,THEY BOTH POLITICANS AND HUNGRY POWER WANT TAKE BACH HIS DESK

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:33 AM on 02/17/2008

Excuse me, but who the fuck cares what Nancy Pelosi's daughter has to say about anything, much less Nancy Pel-ho-si herself?

Pathetic.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:31 PM on 02/16/2008

The problem is that the Democratic Party thinks highly enough of her daughter's opinion that they have awarded her a SuperDelegate vote - thereby she has the ability to overturn something like 10,000 Democratic Voters with a single raise of her hand.

Why does the Democratic Party so mistrust and think so little of their voters that they want people with the ability to essentially confer the crown for nominee on who "they" believe should wear it...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:59 AM on 02/18/2008

Stop the hypocrisy. Don't tell me the reason Clinton wants MI seated is for the good of the voters. Many, including myself, haven't voted because our candidates weren't on the ballot.
The idiotic notion that, somehow, Obama and Edwards campained for "Uncommitted" is an attempt to legitimize Michigan as a win for Clinton. Either we re-vote or we follow the rules agreed upon by all candidates, including Clinton.
Seating MI delegates without a re-vote, will only demonstrate that the old guard of the Democratic party is above the rules.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:33 PM on 02/16/2008

Let's hope they stick to that. Since Bush entered the race in the late 90s, we have had neither a legal election nor too many politicians who really give a damn. This is our chance to reclaim democracy. Let's hope and pray that neither party tries to screw it up in any way, including sexism or racism. After all, we've always had white males, and most lately God-fearing males. Where has it gotten us? As the old Tennessee Ernie Ford song says, "Another day older and deeper in debt." Time to reclaim the soul of America by listening to the people and voting accordingly.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:14 AM on 02/16/2008

"splitting the state's delegates 50/50 to Obama and Clinton. It would, she argued, allow for representation from each state.

Filed under:

things Marie Antoinette might say if she were reincarnated as C. Pelosi

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:09 AM on 02/16/2008

So Christine Pelosi hasn't picked a candidate yet??? What BS. Is she afraid of declaring her Obama support because she likes all this attention? She wears her Hillary-hate on her sleeves.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:20 AM on 02/16/2008

I can't say that I know what the rules say with regard to the role of the superdelegates and how they are to cast their votes, whether they should reflect their constituents or vote their own conscience. I can say that I think we have had enough of rule breaking because it isn't convenient to abide by those rules. Further, I don't think when one is in the midst of that rule being enforced or called into play is not the time to change the rule. If it's a bad rule then let's change it...however, I don't think it should be changed because we think if it is, we can influence this election in the way we want it to roll out.

I am sick (and tired) of those in government (like the current administration) who have broken one rule or law after another because it doesn't suit their need. Please let's leave the rule breaking to the Republicans. If we do, then we can, in good conscience, call them on it when they want to break the rules. Otherwise, we might as well be just one big corrupt republican party.

Personally, I think public financing needs to be done away with and our Presidents need to be elected strictly by popular vote. But you can't change horses in the middle of the stream.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:42 PM on 02/15/2008

Right, Purcy. Except the last time we had this outrage, it faded faster than our hopes for an Al Gore presidency.

The only reason it's middle of the stream is because we didn't change it when it was important. Now it's important again, and we're saying we can't because we're in the middle.

The reasoning behind delegates is not just so they follow the will of the people, otherwise there would be no need for them at all. The reasoning behind the process is that politically astute and objective minds are supposed to balance the people's will with their educated knowledge.

It's an antiquated system, and prone to all sorts of shady deals, uneducated assumptions, and more.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:39 AM on 02/17/2008

...error...elections need to be publicly financed ...(rather than as stated above.)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:44 PM on 02/15/2008

Where in the article is she quoted using the incorrect grammar in the headline?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:22 PM on 02/15/2008

"Where in the article is she quoted using the incorrect grammar in the headline?"

Nice to see that I'm not the only one on whom that grated.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:11 AM on 02/16/2008

I thought super-delegates were supposed to vote their conscience and judgment. Why bother having superdelegates if they just follow the popular votes? And what should Pelosi do if Barack wins more pledged delegates even though he lost California? Should Pelosi follow her voters in California? I don't have a good answer but I thought the original intent of super delegates is to leverage their judgment rather than having them as followers.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:14 PM on 02/15/2008

"Why bother having superdelegates if they just follow the popular vote?"- So you think that 800 people who are being payed off right and left by Obama and Hillary will "vote their conscience and Judgement". Sounds like you don't want a democratic nomination or even a "republic" type nomination but a corruption and graft politics, like we have had for the last 7 years. You are partially right "Why bother having superdelegates" they are a needless appendage to a majority vote ie when only 2 candidates are running, they may be of some use if there was a plurality problem but such is not the case in this nomination.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:55 PM on 02/18/2008

I'm a little surprised by the negative reaction to these so-called Superdelegates. I'm a Canadian and all of our political parties have automatic delegate status for elected MPs, Senators and officials at the riding level (current and past riding presidents). We refer to these people as ex-offico and I've never heard anyone question the concept. Elected members and party officials often have the most at stake in leadership races and have the deepest knowledge of the candidates and their abilities. Their careers are on the line too...they want the best leader possible to ensure they have the strongest shot at forming the government.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:09 PM on 02/15/2008

What works in Canada does not apply in the USA. One revolution, with blood, one civil war, 2 World Wars, Korea, Vietnam and now Iraq should tell you that we like democracy. We don't like some "selection" of so called "elders" to determine our future.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:00 PM on 02/18/2008

I'm with you on this. Otherwise why have Superdelegates? You Canadians embarass me with your inate common sense. Cool.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:29 AM on 02/16/2008

You presume that elections in the US are conducted rationally: They aren't. What you suggests make perfect sense only if voters wished to elect the most qualified person but truthfully, that's rarely the motivation. You see Americans, the majority of whom spend perhaps a few hours attending to anything political or relating to government policy are firmly convinced they know what's best. Our government placates this nonsense by holding an election every four years that amounts to little more than a political beauty contest. Most voters couldn't sift through complex policy issues if someone wrote out explanations for them in crayons using three letter words. These same voters presume that when a politician publicly says something agreeable, the mere fact of saying it makes it so. Absent the ability evaluate the nuances of substantive political issues, during elections we hear voters comment that a candidate "looks presidential" or that "he's authentic;" as if these attributes have any bearing on one's ability to perform. The political mess that exists today is why Thomas Jefferson preferred an electoral college to direct election. Jefferson was terrified of the ignorant masses and sadly we have a huge mass of ignorant voters; people who believe in creationism, swear the founding fathers were Christians, and manage to elect George Bush twice. In my opinion, American elections are so strange and they display such a degree of voter lack of attentiveness, they should be internationally supervised to prevent candidates from taking advantage of voter ignorance.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:07 AM on 02/16/2008

You claim we "manage to elect George Bush ...as a huge mass of ignorant voters". For your information , George Bush was first elected by a minority and a favorable ruling of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in overriding the Florida State Supreme Court, negated a total recount in Florida. And a total recount apparently would have gone to Gore.
Based on the last 7 years of "King George" I would say the Majority of voters, who voted for Al Gore, were not, as you characterize, "a huge mass of ignorant voters".Further, your allegation that Thomas Jefferson preferred electoral college : it was not because of demographics (aka an august select few to decide) .Geography was cause an electoral college. It would have taken months to deliver boxes of popular vote ballots to Washington D.C. That fact alone, disregarding the possible abuses of fraud during transit, is the reason for the electoral college, not some smug view of a bunch of elitists thinking they are smarter than the average joe.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:21 PM on 02/18/2008

Re "We were all galvanized by what happened to Al Gore in Florida."

Pardon my disgust, but that SHOULD have resulted in even ONE Senator rising to support the protest that started in the Black Caucus in the House.

Galvanized? Hardly.

If by the reference, Pelosi the younger is suggesting we should always defer to the popular vote, then this: eliminate the electoral college or pipe down.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:26 PM on 02/15/2008

I would suggest Speaker Pelosi should not overturn the will of the majority, let alone the CONSTITUTION, by continuing to enable the eunuch-tary executive.

Rules, and the Constitution, are neither to be ignored, nor are they to be out-thunk -- even in a heartfelt but misguided attempt -- by the Pelosi clan.

Sheesh.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:22 PM on 02/15/2008

Impeachment is off the table - well your re-election should be off the table as well...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:24 PM on 02/15/2008

From MyDD:

Here's the state of the race that includes all 50 states (in other words, with Florida and Michigan counting):

Clinton leads Obama, 1127 to 1119, in pledged delegates.

Clinton leads Obama, 240 to 140, in super-delegates.

There are 393 remaining super-delegates.

There are 1301 remaining pledged delegates.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:59 PM on 02/15/2008

See the tide...if obama is the winner we count super delegates and he gets to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates...but if Hillary, HOW DAMN DARE HER be the winner, then we should make sure she doesn't get the super delegates, we should also make sure that she doesn't get the Michigan and Florida delegates and they be given to obama. The cod piecers and the jumping screaming American Idolites have spoken...Change...sure change the rules to fit obama.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:29 PM on 02/15/2008

That's kind of silly. I haven't seen anyone suggesting that if Hillary were to win in pledged delegates, that "we should make sure she doesn't get the super delegates." If Hillary wins the pledged delegates, she should win the nomination.

The only one trying to change the rules so far has been Hillary, in trying to count the votes of Michigan. This goes against her written pledge that those votes would not count.

Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi, among others, will ensure that the super delegate vote follows the pledged delegate vote. Sure, there will be a few people that hold-out, but there are 796 super delegate votes, and the vast majority will support the winner of the pledged delegate vote.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:48 PM on 02/16/2008

And what kindergarten do you attend?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:02 PM on 02/15/2008

This was the counts at my DD. This explains why Obama is fighting so hard to prevent the seating. Despite his FL ads. Despite his "uncommitted" campaigning in MI.

This is the new politics of hope

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:05 PM on 02/15/2008

All the major news organizations show Obama winning. The Clinton campaign has admitted that they do not expect to be ahead in pledged delegates even at the end of the race. I suggest you use a better site for your numbers, like RealClearPolitics.com.

Hillary would not just have to be a 'big winner' in Texas and Ohio, she would have to win 56.5% of the vote in all of the remaining state primaries and caucuses to overcome the 137 pledged delegate lead that Obama currently holds. Believe it, it's the truth. So far, she has only taken this percentage of the vote in New York and Arkansas (57% in NY, and 70% in AR.)

Reality says it's over for her. All she has left is the super-delegates, and they will break for Obama if he has the most pledged delegates.

Yes, she has already tried to pull Florida and Michigan in. Her camp realized days before Florida voted that the probable math could take her down, so she flip-flopped on that. It's sad to see her resort to these tactics. It's her ONLY chance, to seat both Michigan and Florida -- and even then she has to win significant delegates.

My estimate is that she would still need 51.7% of all remaining delegates. This is also unlikely (think North Carolina and Oregon), but it's the only possibility she has left, and that's what she's actually running on at this moment.

Seat Michigan and Florida, win better in the remaining contests than she has already, and
overcome the democratic allocation of uperdelegates.

Ain't gonna happen. The fat lady has sung.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:39 PM on 02/16/2008

And what if Clinton wins the popular vote? Would it be a betrayal if Superdelegates followed the popular vote? Of course it would...that is, if Obama loses the popular vote.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:52 PM on 02/15/2008

Obama is winning the popular vote. With the way that pledged delegates are assigned in the remaining contests, the winner of the popular vote will be the winner of the pledged delegates.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:51 PM on 02/16/2008

The media has been giving false information about Obama, at the expense of Hillary Clinton.
I was against super-delegates at first, but
now I'm starting to see where they may have a place in making sure the most qualified person
gets nominated, not the "rock star" who is married to "Omarosa"..the first female black
president, who is calling the shots in his campaign.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:55 PM on 02/16/2008

If we could get Nancy organized and energized maybe she'd do the peoples work?Nah,it was just a fleeting thought.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:49 PM on 02/15/2008

The Republicans must be dancing in Florida knowing that the Republican controlled state congress moved up the primary and the Democrats were stupid enough to totally disenfranchise their voters. How dumb can the DNC be? Now they have probably insured that Florida will once again go Republican in November.

I'm sure though he doesn't support letting their votes count now, Mr. Obama will graciously want them to count after he wins the nomination, but not one second before. I hope they all tell him in November to go piss up a rope!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:45 PM on 02/15/2008

McCain will win if Obama gets nominated. There
are an awful lot of Hillary supporters Who Will
Not Vote for Obama.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:57 PM on 02/16/2008

The Florida and Michigan messes are not the fault of the DNC. The Dem voters in those states have their state party leaders to thank, for trying to operate outside the rules. The national party leadership told them not to move their dates up, but the state party leaders to the nationals to take a hike. Well, they made their bed, let them answer to their voters.

Personally, I'd like to see the voters be able to make their voices heard and counted. A second caucus or primary could be held. Then we will see a more accurate picture of what the people want, as Obama wasn't on the ticket in Michigan and none of the candidates actively campaigned in those states.

But it is directly up to the state voters to hold their state party leaders accountable for trying to operate outside the rules. If you don't like a rule, you work to have it changed, not by breaking the rule for selfish gain.

    Favorite