Obama-Clinton? (Clinton or Obama) Nope, Says Pelosi.

Via New England Cable News (Click on the video link and watch the last ten seconds):

Thinking a Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton ticket sounds too good to be true for Democrats? The Speaker of the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California says you're right.

"I think that ticket either way is impossible," Pelosi told NECN's Alison King shortly after an environmental event in Waltham, Massachusetts today.

Pelosi cited comments made by Clinton officials that John McCain would be a better commander-in-chief as an example of why the 'dream ticket' wouldn't become a reality.

As for who she favors at this point, Pelosi, who will chair the Democratic National Convention in Denver, isn't tipping her hand.

"I'm uncommitted," she reiterated to Alison King.

But for hopes of a Clinton-Obama dream team, there's no subtlety.

"I wanted to be sure I didn't leave any ambiguity," she said.

Comments

Seems like a pretty strong but subtle rebuke of the Clintons' strategy, wouldn't you say? It looks like they've finally succeeded in pissing off the superdelegates so much that the Speaker of the House is even willing to publicly keibash the dream ticket idea.

Maybe Geraldine should talk some sense into Nancy.

Posted by Bill | March 11, 2008 2:37 PM

Uncommitted, maybe. But it's a Clinton trial balloon she's shooting down. And a Clinton tactic she's criticizing.

My $2 says she's with Obama.

Posted by Matt Ellsworth | March 11, 2008 2:37 PM

She really doesn't want President McCain, does she.

Posted by Jeff | March 11, 2008 2:43 PM

Well, at least Pelosi is now speaking up. Her and Dean are indeed Obama backers. Pelosi' majority whip endsored Obama and he wouldn't have done it without Pelosi's approval. Also, Dean has been restructuring the DNC to include a 50 state strategy unlike the Clinton's 50 plus 1 strategy. Also I get the feeling that the DNC are dragging their feet on this Mich/Fl redo because Hillary wants to win more of the popular vote to bolster her arguement and she needs Fl voters to do it. But the DNC prefer not to count Mich/Fl or spilit the delegates evenly. The Florida legislation is required by law to pass any primary legislation 90 days prior. The last possible primary date is June 10th. Therefore, Mich/Fl have until April 10th to get their plan thru. That is why Dean kept saying, his waiting to see the complete plan before the DNC approves and that is why Clinton supportors are so eager to raise the money and that is why Obama is just sitting on the sidelines on this one.

Posted by sonya | March 11, 2008 2:47 PM

That last 30-seconds was a big slap on the wrist to HRC!

This is just the start. Pelosi can easily influence a block of superdelegates to follow Obama . . .while she stays "uncommitted."

Posted by EJ | March 11, 2008 2:49 PM

This certainly looks awfully close to an Obama endorsement.

Pelosi' majority whip endsored Obama and he wouldn't have done it without Pelosi's approval.

Jim Clyburn is the majority whip, and he remains uncommitted, although, like Pelosi, he seems to be leaning Obama. You're probably thinking of Pelosi's close ally George Miller of California, who did endorse Obama, but who has no official position in the House Democratic leadership.

Posted by John | March 11, 2008 2:58 PM

If Hillbilly Rodham and ex President Clinton had stayed on the high ground, refusing to say negative things (directly or indirectly) about Obama and Edwards, etc. and played by the rules with regard to Michigan and Florida, the campaign could have withstood an initial setback with a quick change of staff and advisers.

As it turns out, the staff change came "too little, too late", and the negative campaign guaranteed that Obama and his supporters could not be co-opted by her camp.

The final coup de grace was was delivered by the crass suggestion of a joint ticket with Obama as VP when she is trailing Obama in the popular vote and in the delegate count.

To suggest that a rival who has won democratically and by the rules have to take second place can only come out of the head(s) of closet racist who, whether they know it or not, fundamentally believe that one black vote is worth less than one white vote.

The worst racist are not the ones who openly acknowledge their prejudices, but those who don't even know that they are prejudiced.

If I were to guess, Obama will poll well this November in Republican stronghold southern states, with widespread support from white males and females.

This may be as improbable as Louisiana electing an ethnic Indian as governor.

Posted by D | March 11, 2008 3:25 PM

D,

I don't think it is racism but egoism that affects the Clintons. The breakdown isn't that a white opinion is worth more or less than a black opinion. Rather, it is that their opinion is ipso facto the correct opinion and the rest of ours don't add to a hill of beans, unless we happen to agree with them.

If only we'd all agree with them, then we could all get along.

Posted by Curtis | March 11, 2008 3:38 PM

The problem with the Clinton team is that they get carried away with their own tactical brilliance and fail to stop and think - will this still make sense in two days' time?

The 'Veep' tactic was a backfire waiting to happen.

http://www.marbury.typepad.com

Posted by marbury | March 11, 2008 3:58 PM

I couldn't agree more, Curtis.

It is not so much the policies of the Clintons that grate the nerves, it is the fact that my inability to agree with every one of them is supposed to be a sure sign of my inferiority.

There is a fine but clear line between strength and arrogance, and while Bill was pretty good at seeing that line Hillary seems completely incapable of recognizing it's existence.

Everyone who disagrees with Sen. Clinton is not an idiot. But she sure does give that impression.

I agree with Pelosi. The bleeding has to stop.

-chris

Posted by Chris Blask | March 11, 2008 4:00 PM

Curtis:

Call it what you will, and perhaps the term should not be race, but prejudice.

The effects are still the same.

I do dare say in the deep south, race is a huge issue, otherwise there is no way to rationalize the 80% black vote for Obama.

Race IS an issue with many southern whites. But it is not playing out in the old fashioned way --- of exclusion --- but in a totally different calculation that goes something like this: "We (southern whites) haven't been able to handle blacks with our way [aka segregation, "tough on crime" that locks up most black males, etc.] so let one of their own kind be President and see if they will do any better."

The amazing thing is how few of the mainstream media is unwilling to tackle these real deep rooted prejudices and how it is playing out in how the electorate vote (or will vote)this election.

I would love to see some bubba voter interviewed about what they really thought of Obama and Clinton and why they support one or the other given what views they have on views or sex.

One of the biggest issues I see is how the mainstream media have underplayed or dismissed the prejudices that come straight out of the Clinton campaign that has as much racial overtones as the infamous advertisement against Harold E. Ford.

Quite frankly, I am sick of the Clinton campaign talk that denigrates Obama.

The lack of experience of the Clinton camp with the aspirations of, and their inability to connect with younger voters (30 and under) is amazing.

Posted by D | March 11, 2008 4:07 PM

I wouldn't over-read this, mainly it just means that like a lot of folks Nancy has noticed that win or lose Obama has coat tails and Clinton doesn't.

Take this weekend. Bill Foster practically had Obama turrets. The only things I ever heard the man say were "Like Barack Obama .." or "I agree with Barack Obama on ..." If he hadn't won, it would have been a Daily Show skit.

Posted by Dirk | March 11, 2008 4:09 PM

One, Hillary never said that McCain would make a better commander-in-chief than Obambi. She said both she and John McCain have experience, and Obama does not. That's a fact.

It is also a fact that John McCain...WOULD make a better commander-in-chief than Obama.

Which is why the Democrats would be fools to nominate him.

Posted by DKobalt | March 11, 2008 4:29 PM

Actually, it's not a "fact" that Obama doesn't have experience, especially if you're setting the standard at Clinton.

Posted by Klaus | March 11, 2008 4:50 PM

DKobalt
JOhn McCain, better than OBAMA? LOL!!! I've been to Iraq, maybe you should go for the next 100 years with Mr. McCain.
I'll give you one reason why not to vote for HRC, SHE VOTED FOR THE WAR WITH OUT READING THE NIE. I can't vote for anyone that stupid.

Posted by SigmaMan | March 11, 2008 4:56 PM

Pelosi is so far to the left, she is about to run aground on the East Coast. She is only female by virture of the miracles of modern medicine. I don't think there is much doubt where her "sympathies" lie. Or perhaps in this case who her "lies" sympathize.

Posted by robert ethan | March 11, 2008 5:49 PM

DON'T BE DUPED!!!

Large numbers of Republicans have been voting for Barack Obama in the DEMOCRATIC primaries, and caucuses. Because they feel he would be a weaker opponent against John McCain. And because they feel that a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket would be unbeatable. And also because with a Clinton and Obama ticket you are almost 100% certain to get quality, affordable universal health care very fast.

You see, the medical and insurance industry mostly support the republicans with the money they ripped off from you. And they don’t want you to have quality, affordable universal health care. They want to be able to continue to rip you off, and kill you and your children by continuing to deny you life saving medical care. So they can make more profit for them-self.

Hillary Clinton has actually won by much larger margins than the vote totals showed. And lost by much smaller vote margins than the vote totals showed. Her delegate count is actually much higher than it shows. And higher than Obama’s. HILLARY CLINTON IS ALREADY THE TRUE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE!

As much as 30% of Obama's primary, and caucus votes are Republicans trying to choose the weakest democratic candidate for McCain to run against. These Republicans have been gaming the caucuses where it is easier to vote cheat. This is why Obama has not been able to win the BIG! states primaries. Even with Republican vote cheating help.

If Obama is the democratic nominee for the national election in November he will be slaughtered. Because the vote cheating help will suddenly evaporate. All of this vote fraud and republican manipulation has made Obama falsely look like a much stronger candidate than he really is. YOUNG PEOPLE. DON’T BE DUPED! Think about it. You have the most to lose.

The democratic party needs to fix this outrage. I suggest a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket now! All democrats need to throw all your support to Hillary Clinton. So you can end this outrage against YOU the voter, and against democracy.

Fortunately the Clinton’s have been able to hold on against this fraudulent outrage with those repeated dramatic comebacks of Hillary Clinton’s. Only the Clinton’s are that resourceful, and strong. Hillary Clinton is your NOMINEE. They are the best I have ever seen.

“This is not a game” (Hillary Clinton)

Sincerely

jacksmith...

Posted by jacksmith | March 11, 2008 6:04 PM

of course she wants obama! he is way easier to influence.

Posted by elgarbanzo | March 11, 2008 6:04 PM

SigmaMan.........i agree with you 100%.......another four years for republicans equals total downfall for america forever....think wisely before u cast your vote.

Posted by epij | March 11, 2008 6:15 PM

As always, you're wrong, Jack Smith. Most republicans who have voted for Obama have done so because they want to see change. Those who are worried about McCain, might follow Rush Limbaugh's advise to vote for Clinton because republicans would have a harder time against Obama.

The republican Bush administration has been an enormous failure and incredibly corrupt. Even republicans want to see change. Your comments on so many blogs are so shallow and not very well thought through.

Posted by Marie in Tampa | March 11, 2008 6:28 PM

one reason why most people like obama is because he has far more good ethics than both john mccain and hillary clinton. Ask Yourself this Questions. how will hillary clinton fight the health insurance compant if she have taken more money from their lobbyist than anybody in the campaign. how will john mccain fight for the middle class when he favours tax cut for the rich and high tax for the poor......why is hillary clinton reluctant to provide her tax returns. why is that john mccain has flipflop on every issue he talked about. what about the keating five. apart from being a POW which i respect him for that, can someone please name some of john maccain national security credentials. how can john mccain fight the poor economy when he agree that his strong zone is not the economy......why is obama preaching transperancy. we all know who is going to be the best president.....once again vote wisely

Posted by epij | March 11, 2008 6:32 PM

Well, I could be wrong, I am first to admit it, and skeptical of everything, including my own skepticism... but...

It seemed to me that the Clintons were merely taking the suggestion of Romer, who was pretty clear that the delegates were encouraging a joint ticket, to bring back the party as a united front.

And furthermore, wasn't Clinton's statement merely that it "remained to be seen" who would top that ticket? All of which is true. Nobody has announced Barack as the Democratic Nominee yet. So any statement to the contrary is premature.

What's far more upsetting for me, as a Barack supporter (and I think I am still am, though the wool may be getting tugged a bit) is that he prematurely closed the door on that, without any need to, by labeling it as more of the "same insider politicking". That's a pretty serious accusation for a Dem to be throwing at the other candidate in such a close race, and it seems to indicate he believes more in his own rhetoric than part wishes... which leads us to my new dilemma...

If Hillary loses the campaign, she would never turn her back on the dems and run independent. She has always been a Dem, running as a strong party supporter.

But Barack, in these statements, is identifying himself as an independent running on the dem ticket. The Dem nomination is a stepping stone for him to institute his changes. Not for the party.

And should Barack not get the nomination, you can bet he will split the vote, and run independent. Just ask yourself.. what would his response be?

Something like "We need to rise above the party insider dealings that are undermining america, we need to vote now for a change. I am running independent for that change!"

Count on it.

I am not sure where I stand now. I really wish he had said something like "That was a nice suggestion, but this campaign is not yet over, and we can cross that bridge when we come to it." Regardless of what their motivations were, offering a joint ticket, when super delegates like Romer have publicly requested it, is not unheard of. Slamming the door on it as more insider politics, is more divisive in every way.

Just sharing some of the conundrum I am in since he took this position.

Posted by YAJV | March 11, 2008 7:41 PM

I will even go one (last) step further:

The accusations that Barack is laying on the clintons is a rehash of the accusation originally promoted by the republicans.

This isn't good that the party is now viewing them as dirty, low-down, power-hungry, politicians with nothing but self-serving motivations.

That's really sad to be coming from any Dems, and especially a front-runner.

Sad indeed.

Posted by YAJV | March 11, 2008 7:47 PM

I love reading comment boards. A big salute to the folks who are willing to admit that RACISM DOES EXIST IN AMERICA!　It's mind blowing to hear G. Ferraro say if Obama was white, he wouldn't be in this position. Of course! If he were white, everyone would be screaming for Hillary to quit. Why is it when Obama wins the black vote, it's because of race, yet when Hillary wins the white vote, no attention is paid to it? Hillary supporters continue to resort to name calling and relying on racism to get support. It has nothing to do with experience. Look at the price of gas. Look at our economy. All led my a man who had experience.
I am Jewish. I am a woman. I support sound judgement over reckless experience. Hillary is an embarrassment to women. She should step down.

Posted by Susan Cohen | March 11, 2008 8:02 PM

YAJV: No one is running as an independent, because they'd have to be getting on ballots right now. Thus Bloomberg having to officially declare or bow out. It is just not an option this year. I don't think either Obama or Clinton would try it, but it's just not, legally speaking, a choice they have in this election.

Promising the veep to anyone before securing the nomination is nuts. It's not a consolation prize. Refusing to take the veep (and it was certainly pushed hard by the Clintons this week, along with "pledged delegates can actually vote however they want" which I heard once from Clinton and twice from Ickes) is perfectly reasonable for the person who is sewing up the nomination. Pelosi is sending a signal to the Clintons of 1) stop endorsing McCain over Obama 2) stop offering him second place. I wish more supers would.

This is not, incidentally, an endorsement of Obama per se. It's a procedural endorsement of the person who is going to win: stop trying to hamstring him in the general election. Run your own damn primary campaign without trying to arrange his general election run.

Posted by Deborah | March 11, 2008 8:41 PM

Pelosi's boneheaded "impossible" remark shows a complete lack of leadership. She's an embarrassment to the party.

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2008/03/pelosi_poopoos/

Posted by Tahoe Editor | March 11, 2008 8:44 PM

Cigar anyone? UMMM smells good.

Could Slick-Willy be Client Number 1??

When will someone ask her how she thinks her husband treats women??

Posted by gamma ray | March 11, 2008 9:51 PM

Cigar anyone? UMMM smells good.

Could Slick-Willy be Client Number 1??

When will someone ask her how she thinks her husband treats women??

Posted by gamma ray | March 11, 2008 9:51 PM

I think Polosi and Clinton both stated the truth. Ferraro also spoke the truth. Before this election cycle is over Obama will loose. Then when we're stuck with MCcain you can declare your supreme brilliance and scream foul just like you always do.

Posted by Joseph Meyers | March 12, 2008 9:14 AM

Me being a white man, if I had my way, Any Goofy religon that would put America second to their home land and me second to their creed is nothing but scum. And I would personaly like to ask you to get out of this country and take your money and friends with you. I heard yur calling. your home land needs help.

Posted by Meyers | March 12, 2008 9:34 AM

This is a BIG rebuke of the Clintons from Pelosi.

I'm glad that Pelosi has spoken out. I see this as a statement from the Democrats in Congress -- they are superdelegates, too (200+ of them.)

I'm thinking many members of Congress received letters similar to this one that I sent to my congresswoman (who has endorsed Clinton):

Why do you continue to support Hillary Clinton as she repeatedly endorses McCain?

Do you endorse McCain as well? If Hillary does not get the nomination, do you want to see McCain and his 'lifetime of experience' elected president?

If you do not endorse McCain over Obama, then you should come out RIGHT NOW and rescind your endorsement of Clinton.

Clinton's repeated denigration of Obama, in the same sentence she praises McCain, should be creating an OUTCRY among Democratic officeholders, as it has already created in internet message boards. Added to her shameful performance on 60 minutes when asked about the rumors that Obama is a muslim, Clinton has crossed the line.

Please rescind your endorsement of Hillary Clinton now.

Posted by kucinoich_fan | March 12, 2008 2:09 PM

All commentary was insightful, reasoned and varied but one: Please someone comment on how the rabid "Meyers" contributes to this serious conversation? Just hate?
And I am yet astounded by what Senator Barack Obama has wrought__turning the dem'08 primary on its head, "messin'" with the 35 year old Clinton brand and machine from his position of the junior senator, gentleman and stateman, with certain powerful establishment forces pretty much discreetly backing him! Barack could just be an instrument of "Change" and "Hope" for a new governance in America that will increasingly respect the rights of and offer the American life opportunities to a greater population.
No doubt Bill and Hill are at work to re-fashion Barack in their image and appropriate all the "thunder" he now claims among the Obamabots and Obamacans and the rest of us.
What's the old World War II song of combat and patriotism? "Coming in on a wing and a prayer"! That's presidential hopeful Senator Obama. He will still be standing at the end of the day, but he will be "wounded". But even now Obama is proving himself resilient (not like a Hillary boxer-fighter but the hoops-player). Bless Barack and Michelle for striking out on Primary Campaign'08 to show Americans and the world a new face of America.

I became a virtual fan of Barack Obama when Iowa voted the content of character and the capacity of intellect and the excellence of the Stand for Change strategy. Some may doubt his toughness, but Barack is no wimp nor is Michelle the woman behind him. Young, African American, they are fired up to possess more of the American Dream for all Americans. . . . their family, mine, yours.

Posted by VictoriaV of CA and PA | March 12, 2008 4:11 PM

With people from the same party like Hillary it takes no enemies for an urgent need of anger-management

Posted by maz hess | March 13, 2008 4:33 AM

I can imagine, that pelosi thought about pushing Obama in the end of the day to take Hillary as vp. For that she would maybe have been ready to hold a big part of superdelegates back. In exchange for the ticket she would helped to deliver him the missing number of the superdelegates. With her statement Pelosi told Hillary now that she is not willing any more to help her to get on the ticket. In that case Hillary lost with her commander-in-chief statement the last opportunity to get on the ticket. That may explain, why she speeks recently a lot about a ticket with Obama. She tries helpless to make things unhappen.

Posted by maz hess | March 13, 2008 4:57 AM

One can necessarily conclude that ego, not racism, was the catalyst behind the "obama for VP" remark (afterall, she considered herself the defacto nominee before any actual voting took place!) But no one ever accused HRC of being a genius. In fact, does anyone not remember that it is the "under-educated" that make up the largest portion of HRCs base? Ipso facto, does anyone want this country run by the candidate the "morons" voted in? (Look what happenned when the idiots let W in!)

Posted by ToolmanQ | March 13, 2008 4:41 PM

Pelosi is right on! How can Hillary support Obama after basing her entire campaign strategy against his ability to lead the country? And for Obama to run Hillary as VP? Certainly Pelosi isn't thinking this, but the notion of Hillary's self-serving strategy "at all cost" to ensure her Presidency is seriously daunting. (insert theme for Dead Presidents)

Posted by primarywatcher | March 13, 2008 8:07 PM

Neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton have unequivocally rejected the joint ticket. Maybe one of them should.

Many others have proposed the joint ticket idea before [or discounted it] each presumably, with their own agenda for doing so [Castro?, Giuliani?]. However, only the candidates can jointly and decisively propose this union and the announcement will need to come about suddenly [and soon].

Why the equivocation? Why haven’t the candidates announced their strong support for each other and for a joint ticket with the primary winner as the leader? The reason is that what constitutes victory in the primary will not be clear and has not been agreed upon. Obama has a delegate lead, but will end up short of the 2025 needed to win the nomination. He will argue against superdelegates voting independently when that means in contravention of the pledged delegates and popular vote. Hillary’s hope lies with the superdelegates and a brokered win for her.

The longer the candidates hedge and delay the announcement, the more they pit their supporters against each other making the acceptance of the ticket by the increasingly radicalized “supporters” on both sides that much harder.

Posted by Scootie2008 | March 17, 2008 11:19 AM

All good points. I just wanted to retort that I never said they "could" go independent; it's clearly too late for that. My point was rather, "Which one of them is most likely a candidate that truly is independent?" I still think that's Obama first, McCain second, and Hillary last. She's a long-term, dyed-in-the-wool Democrat.

I still have my toe on the Obama side of the line, but am having a hard time being as committed as I was just a few weeks ago, before bad became worse, and I watched a party self-destruct, and Senator Clinto be shredded by Obama with all the right-wing arguments that we as a party should already have debunked.

Ultimately Dems should ask themself if Obama is really electable in a General election. When McCain begins his uprooting of Obama's crusade, it won't be plagued with racism (though from his pattern we can guess Obama will label it that).

As one having lived in the heartland for most of my life, I can tell you that despite his wins of R state Dems, he cannot, will not, win those states in November. And, unfortunately, the unspoken, and un-approachable truth about that is entirely racial.

It's too bad WE let this happen.

Posted by YAJV | March 17, 2008 11:35 AM