Pelosi Expands Comments On Superdelegates

On Good Morning America this morning, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi seemed to back away from code phrases suggesting she endorsed the view of superdelegates taken by Barack Obama's presidential campaign.

"These superdelegates have the right to vote their conscience and [for] who they think would be the better president or who can win," she said. "I think the election has to run its course .... at some point it'll be clear that there is a front-runner, and at that point we would hope that, for the greater good, for the country, that we can all rally as early as possible behind one person."

She did make a point of saying that she hoped the superdels would not overturn the will of the voters, but she did not make it clear how she measures said will.

The language of the superdelegate argument has always cut against the Clinton campaign, even though they have history on their side. Clearly, one doesn't want to be seen as offending the will of the people -- hence Sen. Amy Klobuchar's endorsement of Obama yesterday, well after his lopsided victory in Minnesota -- and yet, there will be no 2024 without the superdelegates exercising some degree of judgment.

Comments

I have said it before and will say it again. I do not understand why the Obamaites push the popular win should determine SDs meme. Because all it does is suggest that if SDs were left to their own judgement they would choose Hillary.
And we all know that is probably not quite true.
So why make a potentially perilous case when in the end they could very well win enough SDs over based on the coattails and enthusiasm and "more progressive" angles ?

Posted by Benjamin | April 1, 2008 12:37 PM

Why do the Clintons have "history on their side" on the superdelegate argument? Superdelegates have never given the nomination to someone when someone else had an absolute majority of pledged delegates.

Posted by John | April 1, 2008 12:48 PM

I think she's been extremely consistent on a procedural endorsement of the frontrunner. Since pledged delegates are never going to not count, that metric isn't going away. "At some point it'll be that there is a front-runner....we can all rally as early as possible behind one person."

Now if Clinton can score knockout, 4-1 victories (that's 80-20, or 60 points) in the next elections, the front runner won't be clear. But since Slate's counter says that a 20-point Clinton win in PA will lose enough ground that even 30-point wins in every remaining contest won't quite let her catch up, the frontrunner is Obama.

Whatever Pelosi's personal feelings I don't for a minute think she would be making a different argument if the positions were reversed. She wouldn't be saying "Well, Obama's behind, but I think Clinton's shrill and irrititating, so we all need to use our judgment at the convention to find an electable candidate." It may be true that she likes Obama more; it may be wild speculation. Maybe she can't stand either of them. But her public statements have all been consistent with the logic that the party must be seen to listen to and respect the voters.

Come on, the donor letter clearly said a) All states should vote before supers are heard from (Clinton's 100 pre-vote endorsers date from Opposite Day); b) At that point, supers should reverse the will of the voters we wanted to hear from a mere subpoint ago. Pelosi's on a consistent "we listen to the voters and don't screw with them for anyone's benefit" kick. Good on her.

Posted by Deborah | April 1, 2008 12:48 PM

Yeah, what John said. History shows the superdelegates without exception have endorsed the pledged delegate leader. There is no historical example of the superdelegates giving the nomination to a candidate that trailed in the pledged delegates.

Posted by Ron | April 1, 2008 1:08 PM

Ok, Nancy. Where are tour tax returns ? :)

Posted by amk | April 1, 2008 1:12 PM

I do not understand why the Obamaites push the popular win should determine SDs meme. Because all it does is suggest that if SDs were left to their own judgement they would choose Hillary.

Current history says "no". Since March 1, Obama has gotten a net increase of 23 super delegates to Hillary's 6. And not one super delegate has endorsed Clinton since March 19, nearly 2 weeks ago. Obama's added 6 since then.

Posted by LFC | April 1, 2008 1:21 PM

The language of the superdelegate argument has always cut against the Clinton campaign, even though they have history on their side.

But history is not on thier side, at least in terms of the superdelegates voting against the candidate with the most votes/delegate count...? Mondale DID have the most pledged delegates on popular vote; he didn't have enough to win, and superdelegates backed him; it was controversial because Mondlae has lost something like 10 primaries in a row before the convention; and went on to lose to Reagan.

So, if you mean Mondale's loss to Reagan is evidence of the Clinton's having "history on thier side," then I guess that's one argument (although, I don't think this really holds water either).

Posted by AKBY | April 1, 2008 1:41 PM

Posted by John | April 1, 2008 12:48 PM

Why do the Clintons have "history on their side" on the superdelegate argument? Superdelegates have never given the nomination to someone when someone else had an absolute majority of pledged delegates.

All I can say to this exactly what Bill Clinton recently said, “Bull”

Let’s look at 1984 almost none of the then approximately 700 odd Superdelegates that year supported Gary Hart yet his pledged delegate count was much higher than Walter Mondale. The DNC and party leaders made a huge mistake in Running Mondale… That idiot only carried his home state. I’m not saying Hart would have won but I’m convinced he would have made a better showing than that.

Posted by SC Rose | April 1, 2008 2:30 PM

Let’s look at 1984 almost none of the then approximately 700 odd Superdelegates that year supported Gary Hart yet his pledged delegate count was much higher than Walter Mondale.

No. WRONG. Mondale was ahead 1,564 delegates to Hart's 941....

The controversy is over the fact that Mondale couldn't reach the TOTAL number of delegates on his own to win. The superdelegates backed him, and he won the nomination. So...the superdelegates chose the candidate WHO WAS AHEAD in PLEDGED DELEGATES AND THE POPULAR VOTE.

Get your facts straight people!!!

Posted by AKBY | April 1, 2008 5:32 PM

YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT:-)

If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary's than they had ever been before or since.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-)

Best regards

jacksmith...

Posted by jacksmith | April 2, 2008 6:16 AM

DON'T BE DUPED !!!

Large numbers of Republicans have been voting for Barack Obama in the DEMOCRATIC primaries, and caucuses from early on. 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 soon.

But first, all of you have to make certain that Hillary Clinton takes the democratic nomination and then the Whitehouse. NOW! is the time. THIS! is the moment you have all been working, and waiting for. You can do this America. “Carpe diem” (harvest the day).

I think Hillary Clinton see’s a beautiful world of plenty for all. She is a woman, and a mother. And it’s time America. Do this for your-selves, and your children’s future. You will have to work together on this and be aggressive, relentless, and creative. Americans face an even worse catastrophe ahead than the one you are living through now.

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 that you have already paid for. So they can continue to make more immoral profits for them-selves.

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. She also leads in the electoral college numbers that you must win to become President in the November national election. 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.

Hillary Clinton has been out manned, out gunned, and out spent 4 and 5 to 1. Yet Obama has only been able to manage a very tenuous, and questionable tie with Hillary Clinton.

If Obama is the democratic nominee for the national election in November he will be slaughtered. Because the Republican 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. Everyone needs to throw all your support to Hillary Clinton NOW! So you can end this outrage against YOU the voter, and against democracy.

I think Barack Obama has a once in a life time chance to make the ultimate historic gesture for unity, and change in America by accepting Hillary Clinton’s offer as running mate. Such an act now would for ever seal Barack Obama’s place at the top of the list of Americas all time great leaders, and unifiers for all of history.

The democratic party, and the super-delegates have a decision to make. Are the democrats, and the democratic party going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee to fight for the American people. Or are the republicans going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee through vote fraud, and gaming the DEMOCRATIC party primaries, and caucuses.

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 | April 2, 2008 6:18 AM