« Another Clinton Plant? | RhymesWithUrple's Blog | Clinton Campaign Press Release: OBAMA IS BLACK! »
Nancy Pelosi: Clinton Made Shared Ticket "Impossible"
The television interview is here: http://www.necn.com/category/32/4893
When asked about the possibility of Senator's Clinton and Obama sharing the national democratic ticket, Pelosi responded "I think that the Clinton administration has fairly ruled that out by proclaiming that Senator McCain would be a better commander in chief than Obama. I think that any, that ticket - either way - is impossible."
Then after the end of the interview, Pelosi turned and said "I didn't want to leave you with any ambiguity."
Advertisement
Wow. Is that technically a shot across the bow? Or a bust in the mush?
I think we can now guess who Nancy Pelosi is rooting for.
March 11, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another shot across the bow from Nancy Pelosi, in the same interview: she spoke of the matter of coattails, not using those words, but, as Nancy put it, how this fall election will affect the make-up of Congress itself.......and how the tone of the campaigninng relates to positives or negatives [relative to coattails].
As Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi obviously is paying careful attention to the matter of the Hillary campaign's repeated rhetoric of dissing small, caucus, and red states and what affect that rhetoric could have on the future make-up of Congress.
March 12, 2008 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd hope we all know at this point!
Obviously Pelosi doesn't want the Clinton dynasty back, it'll destroy the Democratic majority in Congress.
March 12, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Her comment isn't about which candidate she likes better, it's about the smear/attack tactics the Clinton campaign has used on another member of her Party. Pelosi is worried about the Party and about maintaining/expanding the majorities in Congress. The Clinton campaign's "Kitchen Sink" strategy on a fellow democrat demonstrates they could care less how the Party fares, as long as they get in the White House.
This has been another negative quality of Senator Clinton and why her leadership could severly compromise the Democratic Congress in 2010, similar to the way President Clinton did in 1994.
March 12, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Clinton administration." A slip into the Pelosi psyche?
March 11, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whoa Nancy - she was just trying to toughen up the presumptive nominee for the general election. She's doing it for the good of the party.
Seriously, it will be interesting to see if this sentiment grows in the Democratic leadership circles. There definitely seem to be two camps emerging on this issue. Either it's a "dream ticket" or it "won't happen."
What are the odds? If I'm laying down money I'd start betting on the Obama/Clinton ticket at 1:5 and the Clinton/Obama at 1:30.
March 11, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll take Obama/______________ at whatever odds they put up.
March 11, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just to note for the record that I wrote those odds before the whole Ferraro thing.
I'd say the odds of Obama/Clinton are now more like 1:100.
March 11, 2008 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I think that the Clinton administration has fairly ruled that out by proclaiming that Senator McCain would be a better commander in chief than Obama."
Funny, all I heard Hillary say was that she and John McCain have the experience and it's important--after months of Obama smearing her character and saying he deserved to win because he has better judgment (which by the way was missing when it came to the Dick Cheney Energy Bill and the Predatory Lending Bill).
Perhaps Pelosi should turn her attention to getting her Congress' approval rating out of the twenties. When she stands up and calls for impeachment, she'll have my respect. But then again, maybe she's part of this whole change we can believe in thing. Change nothing because you compromise your beliefs on everything.
March 11, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
What should they impeach Bush for? Iraq?
March 11, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
That TPM poster would want to impeach Bush for taking away HRC's chance in 2004. ;-)
March 11, 2008 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
You will note that in the example you gave Sen Obama compared himself to Sen Clinton. That is what a primary is about. Sen Clinton compared Sen Obama unfavorably to Sen McCain. That ain't cricket.
March 11, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Basing your entire candidacy on a speech and then using it as a character attack against your opponent is not new politics, nor is it particularly hopeful. He's the one who started this dialogue, so he gets the response he deserved.
March 11, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nah. SEnator "Ready on Day One" Clinton "started this dialogue", and guess what? The chickens are coming home to roost!
Who could have anticipated that someone might actually follow up on all those Clinton claims??
Hilarious.
March 11, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's entire candidacy has rested on the idea of his "superior judgment". He is running on character. Clinton's has rested on her experience. She is running on qualifications. Obama can't compete with her on qualifications, so he has to attack her character. It's a classic, old, and divisive way to run a campaign, but he was brilliant enough to sell it as new and hopeful. We see his true colors now with his recent negative assaults, but up until recently he had many fooled. I never thought of him as dumb, just completely disingenuous and opportunistic.
March 11, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Clinton's has rested on her experience."
Is this the experience you're refering to?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/26/us/politics/26clinton.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Not very impressive.
March 11, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
What negative assaults?
March 11, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see it more like this. Hillary's entire candidacy has rested on the idea of her entitlement.. Obama is running on a superior vision. Hillary can't compete with Obama on true inspiration and vision so she has to attack his character. It's a classic, old, and divisive way to run a campaign, but she was ruthless enough to sell it as toughness. We see her true colors now with her recent negative assaults. Up until recently she had many fooled. I never thought of her as dumb, just completely disingenuous and vicious..
March 11, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's running because it is "her turn", cowboy. Let's be real about qualifications here for a minute The only person fundamentally qualified to be president is the incumbent. That doesn't leave us with nihilism--we can still talk about candidates relatively, but we need to be honest about it. Does being a governor equip someone to be president? There is an argument to be made, sure. Administering an executive is hard and practice helps. By the same token, having the national guard at your beck and call isn't really preparation to lead a military in time of war. Is being in the military a sufficient condition? I can speak from experience in telling you that MY military experience (while enlightening and important) doesn't qualify me to be president.
Was JFK qualified? Was Bill Clinton? Was Truman when FDR died? TR?
Both Truman and JFK were forced to make difficult decisions with little or no precedent early in their presidential careers. Kennedy probably made the wrong choices in some sense and the right choices in others (in the bay of pigs) but those choices equipped him to make the right choice in the Cuban Missile Crisis (overriding both the military AND some more senior advisors on the issue). Truman made either the right or the wrong choice about the bomb, depending on your point of view. he made the right or the wrong choice about the USSR, Europe and Korea. But he made choices unanticipated and unprecedented. There wasn't a past experience to equip him.
And let's continue being real. The only reason Barack hasn't blown Hillary's claim out of the water is because and reminder that she was first lady--not a member of the administration--brings up the memory of the impeachment mess. That results in HUGE support for Hillary out of sympathy. That's it. That's the end of the story. That's why we aren't seeing B-reel of Hillary at random functions and launching ship and all the other drek we foist upon first ladies. That's why we don't see Obama suggesting that Hillary couldn't have known what that 3AM phone call was like without a security clearance.
Hillary can rightly claim her Senate experience as cause for her being a better candidate. That's cool. But we have to jive that with what she approved and enabled while she was in the senate. even then, her 8 years in the senate versus 4 years for Barack aren't so towering. But there are legitimate distinctions to be made there. She can talk shit about Obama not holding hearings on this or the other thing. But I leave it up to you to see how compelling that might be.
March 12, 2008 12:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's right...her EXECUTIVE experience in the White House. Where she failed to pass initiatives but DID manage to whip the Holiday Decorations Staff into shape. What an amazing example of executive experience. I'm sure the time where she had to settle the argument that was tearing apart the Garland committee (tinsel or cranberries?) is just the kind of experience she needs when bringing peace to the Middle East.
How can she claim to be a feminist when she tries to pass her husband's resume off as her own???
March 12, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Huh.. interesting.. "completely disingenuous and opportunistic" is exactly how I see Hillary Clinton. You know, like how she keeps repeating the NAFTA-gate lies?
March 12, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
As to 'superior judgement,' the first time I heard that term applied to Barack Obama was by Ted Sorensen.
Ted Sorensen knows a thing or two about judgement. He was in the room when it counted the most. He saw first-hand, and was part of the process, when the phone really did ring at 3AM.
That's all I need to know.
March 12, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
How is pointing out that she voted to give George W. Bush a blank check on Iraq an 'attack on her character'? She says she stands by her vote
March 11, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
She clearly said in the last debate she regretted it and that it was a mistake. Keep up.
March 11, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gee, it only took her five years and how many hundreds of thousands of deaths to admit she was wrong? And people have the nerve to question her judgement?
Madness! Sheer madness, I say!
March 11, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
But don't you get it? She's not allowed to mention McCain or Jesse or Obama's kindergarten or 373 other things, because it's not fair. We have to make sure we don't damage the other Democrats in the general election, which is why he's saying she's too divisive and should show her taxes and has no experience and was wrong on the war.
March 11, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
KINDERGARTEN???? lol!!
Seriously.
March 11, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
CT Hussein Voter,
It is very disturbing to me that anyone would make light of proof that Obama was twisted from the very beginning.
Let us have full disclosure of all the naughty things Obama did from the very beginning. Got to know which way the sap runs and who would know better than Hillary and her command staff.
Best, Terry
March 12, 2008 12:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
True. And if you'll go back and watch the first debate, you'll see that BO is the one who started all the negative attacks o HRC. And later on, he threw her the barb about her sitting on the board for Walmart (during the days, by the way, when the big guy himself was still alive and running the company with integrity--it was his sons who screwed it all up, long after HRC was gone); HRC finally had enough of BO's BS and slapped him with the Rezko comment.
HRC was good enough to campaign for BO so he could get into the US Senate. I wonder what BO would have said about HRC to anyone who attacked her credibility back then. No, he needed her credibility and name back then, but now he wants to play President so he knocks her down. If she is so unworthy of the Presidency, then I guess her initial judgment about BO being a US Senator was really wrong, too.
March 12, 2008 1:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, good point.
Does anyone have a quote from Obama that compares McCain more favorably than Clinton? I haven't read one but if you've got it please post. Otherwise, I think it's fair to say that Hillary's message is unusal for a primary.
March 11, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
another_reader,
1) Your statement is inaccurate by omission. That she and Senator McCain have experience is hardly "all" Senator Clinton said.
Quite to the contrary, she pointedly compared Senator McCain's experience favorably to Senator Obama's.... not just her experience compared to Senator Obama's... but directly and favorably compared their Republican competitor's experience to that of her Democratic rival.
I can not think of any argument that would excuse this behavior if the assumption is made that she truly considers the political well-being of her own party more important than her personal political fortunes. So, this leads me to conclude her personal political career is at least some degree more important to her than the people of the party she nominally represents.
2) If your point that Obama "smeared" Senator Clinton's reputation by comparing his judgment to hers is granted, the same "smeared" description must, in fairness, be applied to the comparisons she made. Comparisons and contrasts between direct competitors within the Democratic party are just that. If one wishes to consider them "smearing", so be it, but is disingenuous to do so in a unidirectional manner.
3) Senator Obama, when criticizing Senator Clinton's vote to authorize the Iraq war, did not proceed to favorably compare their Republican competitor to her, thereby minimizing any damage to her should she eventually win the nomination. In fact, he particularly made it a point to mention that John McCain also voted in favor of invading Iraq! ;D
March 11, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hooray! You're o for 2. The Predatory Lending Bill stated that lenders couldn't charge more than 30% interest. In Legaleze that means they could legaly charge an outrageous 30%. Unlike some, Obama saw the ploy for what it was. He thought 30% was too high, and voted against it. You probably haven't thanked his yet. "Cheney Energy Bill"? Please tell me you don't need and explanation for this one. Cheney! Duh!
March 11, 2008 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Given both Pelosi's and Reid's refusal to stand up to the Repuglican obstructionist in both houses of Congress her wishy-washy position was expected. It is clear she and Reid are both in the BHO "let's all hold hands and get along" camp instead of being with the majority of the party who understand NOTHING COMES EASY... For those who disagree, name one(1) issue of importance the Repuglicans yielded their position and joined the Democrats. Their definition of bipartisanship is to stand their ground until the weak-kneed Dems come crawling over to them dragging their votes between their knees.
March 11, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
"For those who disagree, name one(1) issue of importance the Repuglicans yielded their position and joined the Democrats. Their definition of bipartisanship is to stand their ground until the weak-kneed Dems come crawling over to them dragging their votes between their knees."
I can think of one example off-hand. Remember Bush's amendment to ban gay marriage?
""The constitutional amendment we're debating today strikes me as antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans," (Sen. John) McCain said. "It usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states do not believe confronts them."
The proposed amendment died Wednesday after a procedural vote to move the measure to the Senate floor failed 48-50, or 12 votes short of the 60 required by Senate rules. (Full story)
McCain said Tuesday night he would side with opponents of the amendment on the procedural vote to make clear to his constituents that he is against the amendment itself.
McCain also said the amendment "will not be adopted by Congress this year, nor next year, nor any time soon until a substantial majority of Americans are persuaded that such a consequential action is as vitally important and necessary as the proponents feel it is today."
"The founders wisely made certain that the Constitution is difficult to amend and, as a practical political matter, can't be done without overwhelming public approval. And thank God for that," he said." - CNN.com, July 14, 2004.
Forceful, intelligent, progressive, standing his ground and yet still bipartisan. Dare I say it - Presidential?
McCain then went back to Arizona to try to ban gay marriage at the state level.
March 11, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just to clarify, Hillary Clinton's Nevada campaign co-chair is Harry Reid's son.
I doubt Hand-It-Over Harry is singing Kumbayah with the movement.
March 12, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, it sounds like that line of attack from Clinton really pissed off Pelosi. She certainly wasn't ambiguous about that.
Makes me wonder what the other uncommitted super delegates are thinking (for that matter, even the committed supers). I imagine many are none too happy.
March 11, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I"m keeping up! Over 4000 of our guys died before she was forced to recant. A woman president would be a lot better than Bush, but not this woman.
March 11, 2008 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
C'mon folks. Listen to what she said. Given the information she had at the time, she, along with Kerry and Edwards and the majority of the Senate gave power to the President to take action if necessary so there wouldn't be another unprepared 9/11. It is vitally important that a legislature give their President a modicum of trust. Just because GW turned out to be a lying crook doesn't make their initial decision wrong.
I opposed the war, vehemently. Does that make me Presidential material? Of course not. And the use of this argument about HRC from BO is really getting old and stuffy. It's the main reason I gave up supporting BO at the beginning and turned to HRC.
March 12, 2008 1:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah - hard to know the truth when you don't even read the report yourself. On the other hand - it's hard to imagine why someone like Saddam would be stupid enough to allow chemical weapons manufacture under his own bedroom - as was claimed by the administration. Remember they claimed he was hiding labs under his palaces? Obviously HRC thought it was plausible. Yup - Saddam was going to allow the possibility of a terrible accident right under his dinner table!
Obviously she knew so much about Saddam that she would believe he would even think about being in cahoots with Osama Bin Laden.
Where were her screams when Bush whored principles to climb in bed solely with Musharef?
March 12, 2008 3:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, but I would sure like them to have a better sense of judgement. The evidence of WMDs and Al Qaeda in Iraq was so thin you could poke a finger through it. Any lawyer or person with half a brain and their wits about them could have looked over all the facts on the table and seen through the Bush Administration's lies. Face it, Dems like Clinton and Kerry capitulated on the War Authorization out of fear, and political self-preservation in a hostile environment.
The alternative is pure incompetence.
March 12, 2008 7:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're full of it. First of all, while it's true that Clinton was joined by Kerry, Edwards, and others in voting for Bush's war, that hardly makes it sensible to nominate ANOTHER candidate who has that anchor around her neck. Kerry paid dearly for that vote in 2004. It blunted all of his criticism of Bush. Hillary would be equally hampered.
Second of all, with all due respect, I'm sure you lack a lot of other qualities that qualify Obama for the presidency. He opposed the war and Kyl-Lieberman (which, even more than her vote for the Iraq invasion, disqualifies Hillary from this nomination).
Hillary's just a triangulating bullshit artist. Most of her so-called experience is a laughable fraud, as is becoming obvious to ore and more people. Just ask Sinbad! Obama's qualifications: his judgment, charisma, inspiration, eloquence, and heart--are on display every day.
March 12, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pelosi rules!
You go girl!
I love the way she sticks the knife in with such a bright smile. She's one of my favorite pols.
Obama/Pelosi 2008
March 11, 2008 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
March 12, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
observer2, I also love Pelosi. I'm afraid too many people have dissed her for her to win in '08 though. Maybe I'm wrong - I hope so!!! (By the way, I'm not mad at her for taking impeachment off the table - it would have been a rallying cry for conservatives - every Presidency would have turned into an impeachment-fest. Even though W deserves it, no question.)
March 11, 2008 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nancy's MY CONGRESSWOMAN
She's been aiming shots across the bow of the Sinking Ship Clinton for a month now
The Clintons better hope they don't need any rulings from the Chair
Nancy you go girl!
March 11, 2008 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Observer...
I agree. It seemed like she spoke with such delight.
I get the impression that while she may not be an Obamaniac, she still disagrees with the measures coming from the Clinton camp of late.
March 11, 2008 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pelosi has played her hand in Congress as good as she can. FISA is a great fight. She's clearly better than Harry Reid. Bush is no match.
March 11, 2008 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad to see that there are at least some high ranking party members who are as pissed off at Clinton's increasingly destructive behavior as a lot of those of us in the rank and file are.
March 11, 2008 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
What hasn't been mentioned is that Pelosi speaks for the Dem Party (as she reminds us in her talk). This means that these remarks were carefully vetted by a *lot* of Party Elders.
I think this was all to be telegraphed to Hillary. I guess the private channels weren't working and this is the last warning before a mass of endorsements.
I'm betting that they want to allow PA to go on... and will call it after that.
6 weeks is an awful long time though.
Remember that 6 weeks ago, was about the time of the NV caucus!
March 12, 2008 12:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
No kidding, ct. 6 weeks is a lifetime right now.
March 12, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps since Nancy Pelosi is now the highest ranking woman ever in govt., she wants it to stay that way. She'd lose that distinction if Hillary were to be President. Thus, her comments about Hillary. "Cast a big doubt on the 'other woman' and I'll keep my top spot!"
March 12, 2008 1:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
What? Are you that REALLY that blind? I have to ask, when exactly, did you really start following this campaign? No person with any sense of fairness could possibly cheer lead the ridiculous tactics employed by Clinton as of late. From the number of incredibly self-centered, ugly and grotesque comments made by the HRC camp to the blatant defiance of DNC rules, how on earth can you even begin to come to your conclusion.
Have you been taking lessons in reality denial form say - Scott McClellan?
March 12, 2008 8:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think that 6 weeks or 6 months will matter. McCain is really weak. Getting a Bush endorsement is simply not a positive. Stating we would have to stay in Iraq forever is just amazing. Compare Eisenhower and how he brought the Korean War to a halt. We left a force in S. Korea but I'm sure headlines were all about the end of the conflict. Hillary could win but the margin will be too close for comfort. Obama could win with greater margins; probably usher in bigger wins for Senate and House. If there's a deadlock between these two, a Democrat like Richardson or Gore could win as well. This one is for the Democrats to lose; the GOP doesn't have a knight in shinning armor.
March 12, 2008 2:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Steny Hoyer for Speaker of the House! Ms. Nancy Pelosi, a closeted SF Obama supporter, has done nothing of note while Speaker. I guess she blinks a lot though.
March 12, 2008 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pelosi rocks!
You go girl!
March 12, 2008 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Splitting Image - You make my point wonderfully well that there is NO example to give and many thanks! Make no mistake, I will vote for BHO if that is the choice of our Democratic Party but he better find a way to get all those young, energetic voters to the polls in November. That will be historic in itself since it will be the FIRST time they put their votes where their inspiration was this primary cycle. We will see.
March 12, 2008 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exit polls show that it's already happening. Youth participation is up considerably over previous Presidential cycles. Note also that youth play more of a part than just voting; they are the meat of an organizational GOTV structure, the volunteer, intern, unpaid and underpaid staffers who truly believe in the candidate, doing this for much more altruistic reasons than just money or advancement.
March 12, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pelosi rocks!
You go girl!
March 12, 2008 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Andrea Mitchell, an MSNBC pundit, says Pelosi is a closet Obama supporter...
March 12, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pelosi's comment should be evaluated based on what she actually said not on her performance as Speaker. That's no more relevant than e.g. Murtha's record when considering his opposition to Iraq.
Makes one long for some magical program to delete irrelevant ad hominums and shrink these comments to the portion that actually deals with the subject.
In which case the above would all be deleted leaving only....
IMHO when HRC claims that Obama is less capable than McCain to handle a 3am crisis she shut the door on the possibility of later selecting him as VP . True even if Pelosi said it.
March 12, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
When Pelosi endorses Obama (which sounds like the direction she's leaning), how will that effect the Superdelegates?
How long before Pelosi endorses?
I'm also surprised this has not getting more media attention, in may ways, it's much more important than Ferraro's race-baiting comments.
March 12, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Though Clinton won California, it's important to note that Obama won Pelosi's district comfortably in SF (52%-45%). This included mail-in ballots that still had Edwards on them, and whatever head start Clinton might have had in getting out the mail-in vote.
So an endorsement of Obama would be faithful to how her constituency voted!
March 12, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
"One more word..."
Rumplestiltskin!"
We would need to ask Alexandra what comes next, a standoff or a timeout.
I vote for timeout.
March 12, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since i know you guys all love FACTS, here is a good one: Obama WILL be the next president of the United States of America, even with George W. Bush on the ticket with him. So if you don't like it, then turn off your T.V.
Go Big O!!!
March 12, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I'm also surprised this has not getting more media attention, in may ways, it's much more important than Ferraro's race-baiting comments."
BEcause the MSM is a tool of the Clinton camapaign.
Ferraro's deliberate race-baiting is intended for crackers in PA. Replaying it is free ad space for HRC to get her message out.
Anything really negative for HRC, like Pelosi, or her credit card fraud, is buried by the MSM, epsecially key lackeys like CNN, NYT etc.
March 12, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink