Nancy Pelosi: No Dream Ticket -- "Take It From Me"

The Democratic presidential ticket will be a "Dream Team," Nancy Pelosi said Thursday, it just won't have both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama's name on it.

Speaking to reporters on Capitol Hill, the House Speaker reiterated comments she made earlier in the week that the two presidential candidates will not end up sharing a ticket.

"I do think we will have a dream team, it just won't be those two names," She said. "Whoever our nominee is and whoever he or she is and whoever he or she chooses, will be a dream team as the Democrats go forward."

When pressed further about the possibility of a joint ticket, Pelosi stated flatly, "Take it from me, that won't be the ticket."

Keep reading here.

Watch the video below:

Dream1
by krs601

On Tuesday, Pelosi deemed a joint ticket with Obama and Clinton "impossible," citing Clinton's statements that McCain would make a more experienced commander-in-chief than Obama. ">Read more and watch the video here.

Comments

[whitegoldwielder]

Who knows, maybe Nancy wants to be the VP.

[syllepsis]

Now this is absurd. One thing Pelosi cannot be accused of is a secret desire to get near the White House.
I think her preemptive amnesty for for Bush and company was disastrously ill-advised. But it effectively put her out of the loop for Presidential succession (Speaker is third in line for President).
You need to come up with a better reason for Nancy's comments. Desire to infiltrate the Executive Branch is not one of her vices.

[blackrome]

OUCH

Below you'll find the annotated e-mail that has been making the rounds of the media. The Obama campaign's comments are in bold.

To: Interested Parties
From: Clinton Campaign
Date: Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Re: Keystone Test: Obama Losing Ground [Get ready for a good one.]


The path to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue goes through Pennsylvania so if Barack Obama can't win there, how will he win the general election?

[Answer: I suppose by holding obviously Democratic states like California and New York, and beating McCain in swing states like Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Virginia and Wisconsin where Clinton lost to Obama by mostly crushing margins. But good question.]

After setbacks in Ohio and Texas, Barack Obama needs to demonstrate that he can win the state of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is the last state with more than 15 electoral votes on the primary calendar and Barack Obama has lost six of the seven other largest states so far -- every state except his home state of Illinois.

[If you define "setback" as netting enough delegates out of our 20-plus-point wins in Mississippi and Wyoming to completely erase any delegate advantage the Clinton campaign earned out of March 4th, then yeah, we feel pretty setback.]

Pennsylvania is of particular importance, along with Ohio, Florida and Michigan, because it is dominated by the swing voters who are critical to a Democratic victory in November. No Democrat has won the presidency without winning Pennsylvania since 1948. And no candidate has won the Democratic nomination without winning Pennsylvania since 1972.

[What the Clinton campaign secretly means: PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT WE'VE LOST 14 OF THE LAST 17 CONTESTS AND SAID THAT MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA WOULDN'T COUNT FOR ANYTHING. Also, we're still trying to wrap our minds around the amazing coincidence that the only "important" states in the nominating process are the ones that Clinton won.]

But the Obama campaign has just announced that it is turning its attention away from Pennsylvania.

[Huh?]

This is not a strategy that can beat John McCain in November.

[I don't think Clinton's strategy of losing in state after state after promising more of the same politics is working all that well either.]

In the last two weeks, Barack Obama has lost ground among men, women, Democrats, independents and Republicans -- all of which point to a candidacy past its prime.

["A candidacy past its prime." These guys kill me.]

For example, just a few weeks ago, Barack Obama won 68% of men in Virginia, 67% in Wisconsin and 62% in Maryland. He won 60% of Virginia women and 55% of Maryland women. He won 62% of independents in Maryland, 64% in Wisconsin and 69% in Virginia. Obama won 59% of Democrats in Maryland, 53% in Wisconsin and 62% in Virginia. And among Republicans, Obama won 72% in both Virginia and Wisconsin.

But now Obama's support has dropped among all these groups.

[That's true, if you don't count all the winning we've been up to. As it turns out, it's difficult to maintain 40-point demographic advantages, even over Clinton]

In Mississippi, he won only 25% of Republicans and barely half of independents. In Ohio, he won only 48% of men, 41% of women and 42% of Democrats. In Texas, he won only 49% of independents and 46% of Democrats. And in Rhode Island, Obama won just 33% of women and 37% of Democrats.

[I'm sympathetic to their attempt to parse crushing defeats. And I'm sure Rush Limbaugh's full-throated endorsement of Clinton didn't make any difference. Right]

Why are so many voters turning away from Barack Obama in state after state?

[You mean besides the fact that we're ahead in votes, states won and delegates?]

In the last few weeks, questions have arisen about Obama's readiness to be president. In Virginia, 56% of Democratic primary voters said Obama was most qualified to be commander-in-chief. That number fell to 37% in Ohio, 35% in Rhode Island and 39% in Texas.

[Only the Clinton campaign could cherry pick states like this. But in contrast to their logic, in the most recent contest of Mississippi, voters said that Obama was more qualified to be commander in chief than Clinton by a margin of 55-42.]

So the late deciders -- those making up their minds in the last days before the election -- have been shifting to Hillary Clinton. Among those who made their decision in the last three days, Obama won 55% in Virginia and 53% in Wisconsin, but only 43% in Mississippi, 40% in Ohio, 39% in Texas and 37% in Rhode Island.

[If only there were enough late deciders for the Clinton campaign to actually be ahead, they would really be on to something.]

If Barack Obama cannot reverse his downward spiral with a big win in Pennsylvania, he cannot possibly be competitive against John McCain in November.

[If they are defining downward spiral as a series of events in which the Clinton campaign has lost more votes, lost more contests and lost more delegates to us ... I guess we will have to suffer this horribly painful slide all the way to the nomination and then on to the White House.]

[Thanks for the laughs guys. This was great.]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/news/2008/03/obama_campaign_skewers_clinton.html

[prochange]

Clinton and Obama on the same ticket is a nightmare anyway around. There will always be Bill to deal with and if Hillary is president, Obama would only get funerals to attend. If Obama is president, he would have to battle the super-egos of Hillary and Bill all the time. Any vice-president under Hillary would have the problem of Bill to deal with. It was never a good idea to make Hillary a presidential candidate. As much as I want to see a woman president, I do not want a woman represent me who stands by her man while he is screwing one younger woman after the other. I also do not want a woman president, This is not my idea of feminism.
Give me an Angela Merkel, who made it all on her own.

[getalong]

So... you are mad at Hillary because her husband cheated on her.
(As if she cares, it is a political marriage anyways. And as I would not judge gay-marriage to be bad, I will not judge a political one to be bad either. It is up to the members of the marriage to decide.)

And, I don't mean to attack you, but did you read what you wrote before you posted it?

Originally posted by prochange:
"As much as I want to see a woman president...
I also do not want a woman president"

So you want to see a woman president, but you do not want a woman to be president?
There seems to be a contradiction there.

[prochange]

I am sorry, some part of my post got lost. I meant to say that I do not want a woman president, who bases her experience on being married to a man, who held the position. Though many women may be the reason that their husbands are so successfull, it does not mean that they can do the same job.
And I am not mad at Hillary because her husband cheated on her, I do not like the way she stood by him. All these "political­"marriages should admit that they are together for the power and the money and not pretend to uphold family values.
Why would any woman would want to stand by her man, if he does everything to break the marriage commitment and humiliate her in front of the whole world.

I am waiting for one of these "political wives" to smack her husband at one of these "mea culpa"-press conferences or at least say loudly and clearly that he is a dog.

Maybe the whole institution of marriage should be changed. It is obvious that it is not working. All the evidence shows that sex in a long-term marriage only happens by cheating.

[ampay]

I think Pelosi's comments are very telling. She knows what's going on with the super delegates and she's basically saying Obama will be the nominee and Hillary won't have a seat at the table after her plug for McCain.

[halyscomet]

I totally agree!

Speaker Pelosi is basically saying that Clinton does not have a prayer as a result of her statements and behavior.

[PingMama]

I picked up on that too. I don't know if it's our wishful thinking, but Hillary cannot be the nominee.

[BrooklynLager]

That's how I read it too.

[Boadicea]

That's my take, too. Clinton is finished. Thank God.
I was really beginning to think we were going to have to surgically remove the Clintons from the White House threshold.

[AnninCA]

The statement was nothing than a smackdown for her remarks that McCain was experienced and Obama is not.

That's all.

[syllepsis]

I respectfully disagree.
The war for control of the Democratic party has begun.
The situation is analogous to 1850, where the nominal 'progressives' (the Whigs) took DLC-like positions on the South's 'peculiar customs' and Kansas and Nebraska sank into chaos, much like today's outer reaches of American Empire (Afghanistan and Iraq).
Before the decade was out, a fascist Supreme Court affirmed that blacks could be considered property even in free states. Even the people in the North sympathetic to 'states' rights' found this hard to swallow.
Upshot was the Whig coalition shattered, and the 'Radical' Republican Abe Lincoln won in 1860, despite not being on the ballot in many Southern states. Meanwhile, on the other side, the Southern-s­ympathizin­g Pennsylvanian, James Buchanan, blamed everyone else for the nation's crisis, much like the Harvard-educated Texan Bush.
A President who is a melding of Buchanan and Herbert Hoover is a destroyer of nations. You better hope that Pelosi cleans house in the Democratic Party before a second civil war breaks out. I think she is slowly awakening to the fact that the people realize Bush is the enemy of this country, and that Clinton has her pardons ready to let him off the hook. That is why Republicans turned out to vote for Hillary in Mississippi.
Republicans know nothing, except how to work the system till it's dead. Coulter and Rush support Hillary. They are not stupid, at least when self-interest is involved: Hillary is their 'last best hope.'

[degjack]

Don't believe ONE word that falls out of Pelosi's mouth....not ONE...including these words.
She doesn't have a clue what leadership means.

[DogBitez]

I'm so angry at Hillary's Political Machine trying to divide this race into women against men, white against black. It's repulsive. It's offensive. If she ends up representing the Democratic Party in November, I will tear up my voter registration card and join a third party. I cannot in good conscience vote for her.

And for those that would say that shows I'm not a true Democrat... I would answer: if the Democratic Party nominates that Republican­-in-Democr­at-Clothin­g/Anything­-Is-Fair-I­n-Order-To­-Win woman, then it's the Party that has shown it is not a true Democrat. It'll be dead to me.

[apcalc]

You and I have the exact opposite views. I do not respect Obama.

If he is nominated, and allowed to steal this while trying to squirm out of legitimate re-votes in Florida and Michigan, then he has demonstrated that he is no leader and does not know right from wrong.

The party will be dead to me if this is allowed to happen, and I have worked for it for many years.

[greejambri]

Dog, you express my sentiments exactly, with the appropriate amount of intensity. If the superdelegates anoint Clinton, it will be the end of the Democratic Party. I'll vote for Nader in November and then work hard to begin fashioning a viable, progressive third party. If Hillary is the nominee, the Dems will be dead to me!

[starboymikey]

Any ticket that includes Hillary Clinton will be a nightmare for Dems and a wet dream for Republicans.

[gvidal]

Hillary should NOT consider Obama as running mate unless he goes on national TV to repudiate his racist minister & preacher form Chicago - It is outrageous that my fellow liberals would EVER allow Obama to get away with that...

[ampay]

Uh... separation of church and state. freedom of speech. either of those ring a bell?

[guriboy]

Pfft. Whatever. Your horse is a loser get used to it.

[Chris7982]

She does not have to pick him if she is chosen...and she will lose to McCain...she needs him more than she needs BIll right now...Bill cannot deliver a thing!!!! Obama can deliver a generation of new and motivted voters, including Independents like a bunch of our friends and the most loyal Blacks....as for that stupid preacher....he is a fool and was rejected by Obama awhile ago..this is old news that someone just floated to stir up more trouble for Obama....i wonder who that could be? Who do you think does not want him to do well in PA?

[Tankan]

Ssssh! Go back to sleep Nancy!

We know George W. won't be running for President!

He's heading off to recapture his youth in Afghanistan!

[DaisyMiller]

Pelosi is pushing towards a Republican Executive - Wow! Thay way, she will never have to investigate Bush, which she set as her cornerstone last year when she took over.
Wow. What a thing to say. I prefer the Rachel Maddow line: the only way to heal this party is with a shared ticket.
All that Obama has to do is stand up and announce clearly that he knows that the Clintons are not racists and all that Clinton has to do is stand up and announce that they know Obama is intelligent and experienced and a brilliant campaigner.

[gearbox]

The simple fact is, should the MSM "pundits" get their way and Obama runs against McCain, we will have at least four more years of the Bush/McCain policy come next January. As likeable as Obama can be, he doesn't stand a chance against McCain and the mud that will be flung at him between now and November. It's a sad, but true fact!

[getalong]

What a dumb thing to say.


First of all, it is too early to say.
Who does Nancy Pelosi think she is?
She is the Speaker, but that doesn’t mean she makes the decisions for the Democratic party.
That is why we have conventions.

Secondly, it would be a big mistake to not have a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket.
McCain has a long record of working with the Democrats (McCain/Feingold, McCain/Kennedy, et ct). If Obama wins the primary (for example), and doesn’t have Clinton on the ticket, McCain could say:

“I have a history of working across the aisle, while my opponent doesn’t. Obama says he is going to bring the nation together, but how can he when he won’t even work with the other half of his own party?”

Something like that might not seem like a big deal to Democrats, but it is a huge deal to independent voters like me. And independent voters matter big time in the general election.

I’m not saying that joint ticket is needed for the Dems to win the election.
My point is that not having one can actually HURT them.

[BrooklynLager]

Who does Nancy Pelosi think she is?
She is the Speaker, but that doesn"t mean she makes the decisions for the Democratic party.
That is why we have conventions.

She's going to be the chair of that convention. And with democrats, their ranking member in the house is generally the de facto head of the party. If there's a move to shut the election down or a decision to coalesce around either candidate, she'd be the one running it.

[getalong]

So as being "de facto" head of the party, as you say, she gets to decide what the ticket will be?

Ahh... Democrats.
The party of the people.

Luckily that sarcastic comment doesn't hold, as your interpertation of the convention system is wrong. Nancy Pelosi is in a powerful place, but even she doesn't have THAT MUCH power.

And I noticed you didn't comment about my other point.

Bush hits McCain with underhanded tactics (such as saying he had a "black baby" outside of marriage), as do the rest of the Republican party who don't like him, but when McCain gets the nomination they are solid "buddys". In fact, in 2004 McCain campained hard for his once upon a time "foe" Bush.
This is because McCain knows not to get his own personal panties in a bunch, but put that aside and work together when it counts.

McCain is able to work across the aisle and work with Dems. Because he puts what is good for the country first (or at least what he thinks will be the good of the country).

Now, I'm not saying Obama or Hillary should drop out. In fact I would be against that, as it would be unfair to the millions of Obama/Hillary voters (although Obama is ahead, it still is a very close race). What I am saying is that when the dust is settled they should get together on a joint ticket.

If the Dems can't do this, and are unable to hold a joint ticket due to their own personal dislike of eachother, then I don't think I can support them this election. I am a centralist, and like many, many others in this country who aren't heard, but are felt during the general election, I will vote for whoever is willing to stop this stupid Dems vs Repub war we got going on.

To her credit, Hillary did say that Obama would make a good VP (though she also said he isn't ready to be Prez, which is a contradiction, but I guess that is just politics). Point being it seems that she would be willing to work on the joint ticket with him. (Of course, this is assuming she would be willing to be his VP, as she is willing for him to be her VP, but this may not be so.) So (assuming that assumption is true) the only hold-out I can see would be Obama.

And seeing as it is now Obama's decision, I don't like how Nancy Pelosi is speaking for him. The man is in first place for winning the nomination, so I would imagine that he is the "de facto" head of the party. Let him decide.

And while Obama did say that there would be no joint ticket, as "we would have to choose", I am praying that is just politics.

Because, if that is true, how can Obama (or Hillary, if that is the case) say the Dems are going to unite the country when they can't even unite themselves?

I'm not taking sides, as I would like either Hillary or Obama, but I got to say that if the Dems are going to be so petty about it, I won't feel guilty voting for McCain, as he is a good centralist.

[sn]

Obviously you have not taken the effort to read the legislative history of either Clinton or Obama to say that Obama has not worked with republicans but Clinton has. Can you name one substantive bill that Hillary has passed working with republicans?????? Obama has passed several important bills working with republicans: McCain-Obama lobbist reform bill, Coburn-Obama transparency act, Lugar-Obama nuclear nonproliferation act. He currently has a global poverty bill with Chuck Hagel and Cantwell, which has passed the senate committee. Not only does Hillary not have any republican senator sponsoring or authoring bills with her, she is having a tough time getting even democrat senators to work with her. Please check her authored bill...most of them without any co-sponsor.

[getalong]

Excuse me, but I never said Clinton has a history working with republicans.
Where did I say that?

Also, I like Obama. I didn't say anything negative about him, except to say that I hope when he says there will be no joint ticket, he is just saying that for poltical reasons as of now, and that there may be one after the dust is settled and he wins the nomination.

The only negative thing I said about anyone was Nancy because I think it isn't her place to be saying what she is saying. I still haven't had anyone convince of this opinion otherwise.

And about you assuming I was attacking Obama when I wasn't: I have found that is the problem with Obama supporters. I am an Independent talking about the need for Dems to get along with eachother, and I don't even say anything about Clinton working with Republicans, and I don't even say anything bad about Obama, but already I have an Obama supporter jumping down my throat. What gives?

Obama is a good guy, but his supporters are terrible.

I hate Bush supporters for beings so emotional and idealistic. How are the Obama supporters different in that regard? Is it really okay to go from one extreme to the other?

And the main point of my argument isn't what Obama/Clinton may or may not have done with Republicans, my main point is these people (the Dems) have to work together when this is all over.

No matter who wins, there should be a joint ticket.
Show some leadership and commitment to the nation.

Dems, quit being so petty and defensive.

[PioneerKing]

MEMO TO AMERICA:

I Sen. Billary Rodham Clinton, have accepted Sen. John McCain's invitation to join him on the republican party ticket as his Vice Presidential nominee.

[kellygrrrl]

Obama has so many great Dems to choose from -- Great Women -- Great Military Leaders -- Great Governor's.

The DREAM TICKET will be - but it won't have a Clinton on it.

[greejambri]

Actually a Obama/Clinton ticket would be more NIGHTMARE, and less dream.

[BetterAmerica]

This is just another example of Democrats "Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory". I've decided this is the Dem's mantra. I hope I'm wrong.