Christine Pelosi: Superdelegates Should Not Overturn Majority Dem. Vote

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.

Story continues below

advertisement

"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

[rh654]

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.

[amberglow]

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.

[anythinggoes]

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

[4br4h4m]

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.

[rh654]

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...

[Plank]

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.

[MissingAmerica]

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.

[GhiaccioPronto]

"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

[BrooklynMikeS]

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.

[Purcy]

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.

[Purcy]

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

[BGraham]

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.

[lenzorizzo]

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

[unitron]

"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.

[IndependentVoice]

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.

[Ozarks]

"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.

[EBennett]

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.

[RogerHWerner]

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.

[Ozarks]

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.

[Themo]

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

[Ozarks]

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.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

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.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

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.

[lungfish]

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

[Lalo]

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.

[IkeChicago]

And what kindergarten do you attend?

[Lalo]

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