Christine Pelosi: Superdelegates Should Not Overturn Majority Dem. Vote

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Christine Pelosi: Superdelegates Should Not Overturn Majority Dem. Vote stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS


First Posted: 02-15-08 12:10 PM   |   Updated: 03-28-08 02:45 AM

I Like ItI Don’t Like It
Christine

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."

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 t...
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 t...
Report Corrections
 
Comments
388
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

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: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next › Last » (10 pages total)
- AdLib I'm a Fan of AdLib 277 fans permalink
photo

So far so good! MoveOn has received over 200,000 signatures and will be running its ad in USA TODAY petitioning Super Delegates and the DNC not to allow Super Delegates to overthrow the majority vote.

If you haven't signed already, they're hoping to reach 300,000 before press time. You can sign here:

http://pol.moveon.org/superdelegates/

The petition, which you can read in full there, includes the following:

In a New York Times op-ed, Walter Mondale's former delegate counter writes: "The superdelegates were never intended to be part of the dash from Iowa to Super Tuesday and beyond. They should resist the impulse and pressure to decide the nomination before the voters have had their say."

People standing up together for their party and democracy, very cool.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:31 PM on 02/15/2008

Sorry...in the past I have given MoveOn a ton of money...but not another penny. I think they should have stayed neutral in the race.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:05 PM on 02/15/2008

I agree along with the Courage Campaign not a another penny not another dime.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:32 PM on 02/15/2008

If the delegates vote only for the winning candidate in their state, then their next move should be to abolish our super delegate system.
I don't see the point of having them if we say they shouldn't vote their hearts.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:31 PM on 02/15/2008
- magen I'm a Fan of magen 14 fans permalink

Did you tell her that her Mom is putting the advancement of her political career over the interests and rights of the American people, and ignoring her constitutional duties as Speaker of the House???????

Did you ask her why would she expect her Mom to "do the right thing" as a superdelagate?

The first woman Speaker of the House is probably going to go down in history as one of (if not THE) worst.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:30 PM on 02/15/2008
- CraigMM I'm a Fan of CraigMM 8 fans permalink

I agree that the super delegates should follow the votes. So Ted Kennedy and John Kerry will vote for Hillary, as will the super delegates of New York, California, New Jersey, Florida (where, despite every attempt of HuffPo to alter the truth, Obama was on the ballot just like Hillary and lost by a HUGE margin) and Michigan. That seems reasonable and appears to give an edge to Hillary, especially when she wins Texas, Pennsylvania and Ohio and gets their delegates and super delegates. It is about time for HuffPo and MoveOn to stop trying to force the outcome of the election with their complete one-sided spin of every story that turns into Hillary-bashing. It is turning into Foxnews circa '97. Now watch, all of the Obama supporters will find a way to say that ALL of the superdelegates should vote for Obama and that is really the fair way to do it....

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:30 PM on 02/15/2008
photo

So when is Arianna going to STOP posting these ridiculous stories and posts from relatives of Superdelegates?!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:28 PM on 02/15/2008
- Nutcase I'm a Fan of Nutcase 49 fans permalink
photo

I understand the turmoil it would cause if the super delegates overrode the pledged delegates but, in fact, the super delegates were established specifically for the purpose of overriding the pledged delegates, when they thought they should. Blame the leadership of the party for thinking it was their party, rather than the party of Democrats.

I wouldn't worry if I was you. Both of the candidates are owned by the corporations, so they'll do what they're told, if or when they get elected.

cognito ergo populistae

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

Note to Christine:

House Speakers like your mom should not undercut the CONSTITUTION.

She has a "duty"* to impeach.

She is derelict.



* See para 2 of the Declaration of Independence.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:22 PM on 02/15/2008
- eurydice I'm a Fan of eurydice 10 fans permalink

God help us, another Pelosi...

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

Exactly. Keep this Hillary bashing up and many of us will vote for McCain. I know quite a few people that have indicated this.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:05 PM on 02/15/2008
- boomer59 I'm a Fan of boomer59 6 fans permalink

Sure, cut off your nose to spite your face, that's really intelligent. Don't the issues matter to you? You'd rather have McCain then a Democrat in office?? Another Clinton whiner! Get over it!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:21 PM on 02/15/2008
- FirstShirt I'm a Fan of FirstShirt 65 fans permalink

This a party that wants to lead us into this new century and they can't even run their own primaries right. Republicans have their own problems for the future but disorganization isn't one of them.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:14 PM on 02/15/2008
- rixhex56 I'm a Fan of rixhex56 15 fans permalink

Well, I think the chaos in Iraq would indicate that disorganization IS a Republican problem.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:16 PM on 02/15/2008
photo

It's very obvious what her last remarks were inferring. Even the Democratic establishment (and their offspring) are now moving away from the Clintons and gravitating towards Obama. Smart move. It's time to get rid of the dead wood and those who have enabled Bush and the corrupt Republican agenda. They don't belong in the Democratic party.

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

if by her last remarks you mean the part about keeping the enthusiasm of the 20 million who have come out to vote, it might be a bit dangerous for you to continue to interpret what other people MAY be inferring. I find it far more accurate to just take what people actually say at face value.

Nearly half of those 20 million people have voted for Clinton, and you are ready to throw nearly 10 million voters out of the party as 'dead wood'. That kind of attitude doesn't bode well for November.

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

No, I'm not referring to the ignorant Democratic voters who are mostly old and nostalgic for the 90's, and largely uninformed about their own candidate - Clinton. I'm referring to the dead wood within the party itself, those blue dogs, dinos, accommodationists, vichys, triangulationists that need to be expelled or extricated from the Democratic party. They don't belong, and they should be on the other side of the aisle. Just because half of the Democratic voting public has been hoodwinked by these Bush enablers in Democratic drag, doesn't mean we as voters have to put up with the poor choice between Democrats who enable the Republican agenda, and the Republicans themselves.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:09 PM on 02/15/2008

So when Obama was busy funding the war and voting agaisnt timelines he was not enabling Bush?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:55 PM on 02/15/2008
- boomer59 I'm a Fan of boomer59 6 fans permalink

So you'd rather have our soldiers unfunded? Bush is the one insisting on no timelines. Enabling Bush is continue to vote for resolutions to authorize him to bomb Iran or go to war with Iraq!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:24 PM on 02/15/2008
photo

He and other Democrats are in a no-win position regarding funding the war. It's all very well to stop funding the war and vote for timelines (that Bush will ignore anyway), but the larger issue here is the catch cry of the Republicans: "not supporting/undermining/against the troops". Funding the war, while simultaneously being against it, is actually helpful to him in a debate against McCain. If McCain asks him why he is funding a war that he is ideologically and politically against, then he can reply with "I'm not going to deny soldiers body armor or vital equipment, because you and the others who voted for the Iraq war, sent them into a dangerous situation from which you refuse to extricate them."

Clinton on the other hand, cannot argue that point, because she voted for the Iraq resolution and has only recently spoken out against the Iraq war.

Besides funding the war, there are positions that Obama has taken a stand on, whereas Hillary has been lockstep with the Republicans.

Here are a few:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/hillary-clinton-votes-for_b_66174.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-tasini/hillary-cluster-bombs-ar_b_28990.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/blogBurst/politics?type=politicsNews&w1=B7ovpm21IaDoL40ZFnNfGe&w2=B7tmRCRJt2YFzDsa7MJ1CblL&src=blogBurst_politicsNews&bbPostId=Cz1VeFnrO5fmhCz7sNEgkr6eaqCz3hWJURc5eE5Cz8bp0emPnej3&bbParentWidgetId=B7tmRCRJt2YFzDsa7MJ1CblL

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics

http://politicalmaelstrom.blogspot.com/2008/01/actual-differences-between-barack-and.html

I only have to look at her campaign's corporate contributions from defense contractors to know that she plans to continue this war:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/sectors.asp?sec=D

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:00 PM on 02/15/2008
- JohnKemp I'm a Fan of JohnKemp 26 fans permalink

Might possibly have something to do with the huge amounts of money that Hussein is giving to the "super" delegates, a misnomer if ever there was one.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:13 PM on 02/15/2008
- boomer59 I'm a Fan of boomer59 6 fans permalink

Well, Obama was smart enough to think ahead and donate to some of the superdelegates renomination efforts. BTW, Hillary gave at least 100K too, not nearly as much as Obama. I don't like this whole idea either, but it is perfectly legal. The more that comes out about this superdelegate process, the more it stinks to high-heaven. Nobody likes the idea of $$ for votes, but both candidates have done it. Hillary's no saint on this one either.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:32 PM on 02/15/2008

You can call him "Hussein" until the cows come home. Won't matter. The fact remains..your party is toast, and either of our candidates will beat the stink off of McBarelySane.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:09 PM on 02/15/2008

Nor should the DNC go back on their RULES of not seating the MI or FL delegates at the Convention. That, in my opinion, would be the death of the party.....RULES, agreed by every candidate, should NOT be broken.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:06 PM on 02/15/2008

O.K.... and so you are ready to disenfranchise the million and and a half + people who voted having nothing to say about the primary movement.
If Obama were (subjunctive because he wasn't the winner) the winner, you would be clamering for the delegates to be seated!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:09 PM on 02/15/2008

in fact before the primary was held in Fla, Obama himself said he would work to get the delegates seated. When asked about it later, he said he just meant if he had already won the nomination.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:44 PM on 02/15/2008

Both Christine and Nancy realize that superdelegates CANNOT overturn the will of the Democratic voter without losing in November.

Obama has energized and inspired a lot of new voters to turn out and vote for the first time. They would be disgusted and disheartened if the superdelegates ignored their vote and could not possibly be motivated to turn out for Clinton.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:00 PM on 02/15/2008

I have a question that I posted the other day, but never really got an answer too. Maybe someone can help me out. Won't the Superdelegates only be used if there is a "tie" between the two candidates? Does this mean a tie in popular vote or regular delegates? If this is true, then won't at least 50% of the voters feel that they have been disfranchised? Any one who supported Obama will feel cheated if Clinton is awarded the nomination, and vice versa, Clinton supporters will feel cheated of Obama is awarded the nod. Seriously...can someone fill me in on the specifics?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:07 PM on 02/15/2008
photo

Well, the question is, do the Superdelegates vote their conscience or interests, OR do they vote for the candidate with the most pledged delegates nationwisde, or in their state, or in their district, OR do they vote for the candidate with the most votes nationwide, in their state, or in their district?

For the candidate receiving the most votes nationwide, in a state, in a district, may not necessarily be the same candidate who wins the most pledged delegates nationwide, in a state, in a district, under these current rules which are proportional, yet byzantine at the same time.

In 2012, can we please scrap the convention delegate system, which is really an intraparty variation of the antiquated and immoral Electoral College?

We should directly nominate our candidates by popular voting and have one national primary day in the Spring and a direct popular vote election in November, which each having some form of run-off, either two-round voting as in France or Brazil, or ranked-choice voting as in Australia and Ireland.

We really have to end this madness and insanity.

Conventions can then become giant parties and political rallies.

Hopefully, with the outcome of the nomination this year relying on Superdelegates, some wholesale change may be possible in time for 2012.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:58 PM on 02/15/2008

Your's is the best solution yet, Proud.

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

I agree with doing away with super delegates, but I don't think you should scrap the staggered, state-by-state primaries. If you hold a national primary you're virtually guaranteeing the better-known, better financed candidates to win, year after year.

The whole purpose of having a small state like Iowa vote first is that it allows candidates with little money or name recognition to focus just on winning a small state. Then, after that, they can get more media exposure and money, and little-by-little, the playing field levels out.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:10 PM on 02/15/2008
photo

There is the proposal of rotating regional primaries.

Another proposal are five primary days once a month Feb-June with the 10 least populous states going first, then the next 10 least populous, then the next 10 least populous, etc.

However, putting all this energy into Iowa and New Hamphshire or ANY two states is unhealthy an undemocratic.

I still endorse a national primary day. There are 4 years between presidential elections, 2 years between the midterm and the next Presidential election. That should be sufficient time to campaign across the country to win support. If a candidate chooses to spend 4 years in one state, then don't complain to me that you only have one week to campaign in 22 of them.

"Small" states get widely disproportionate representation in the U.S. Senate. They do not need, nor do they warrant additional disproportionate power in nominating and selecting a President.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:16 PM on 02/15/2008

If Hillary manages to turn the election on super delegates then I will not vote in the Fall.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:57 PM on 02/15/2008

How about counting all of the votes. Of course, Obama does not want to have Florida and Michigan count because he is desperate for the nomination. He will not get my vote.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:08 PM on 02/15/2008
- boomer59 I'm a Fan of boomer59 6 fans permalink

Sure, give your vote to McCain, that ought to teach Obama! How dumb! vote for a Republican before a Democrat and you'll have more of the same 7 years we've already had! I'm sticking with the Democrats!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:58 PM on 02/15/2008
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next › Last » (10 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect