Why does Pelosi hate Hillary?

[JeffL]

I just used the word hate to get your attention - but Pelosi is obviously working to help Obama out. Every time Hillary tries to do something, Pelosi gives a speech or talk or interview to counter it. Even though she's declared "neutral."

Examples: When Hillary was trying to say that FL and MI votes should stand as is, Pelosi immediately came out with comments that this was unfair. As it became clear that HRC could only win with the Superdelegates voting counter to the elected delegates result, Pelosi went on the record saying the superdelegates should honor the elected delegate total. Then, when Hillary and Bill came up with the clever strategy of "Hey, make me the nominee and you can have both of us on the ticket! Wouldn't that be super?" Pelosi went out of her way to crush that tactic by giving interviews, almost immediately after Bill and Hillary started giving those speeches, saying that she could guarantee that there would never be a Hillary/Obama "superticket." Her latest is an interview that will air tomorrow (from what I read) with Stephanapolous (sp) where she says that even if HRC were to somehow win the popular vote, the superdelegates should align with the elected delegate vote, because that is the way that it "should" be and to do otherwise would tear the party apart.

So - anyone know why Pelosi is so anti-Clinton that she goes out of her way every week to give some speech or interview specifically targeted at shooting down the latest Clinton strategy?

[Hugin]

I'm not being sarcastic here: She may actually think Clinton's arguments/tactics lack merit and hurt the party. It is within the realm of possibility.

[Sarkus]

It's also possible that Pelosi would like to declare for Obama but is being told to hold back by the party brass in case some sort of deal/compromise needs to be worked out.

However, I'm not aware of any past reason for Pelosi and Hillary to be at odds.

[Jason McCullough]

The Clintons running the Democratic party again doesn't get Pelosi anything.

[JeffL]

My wife commented "Hey, Pelosi is a woman in a historically high level in Washington, maybe she doesn't want that to be overshadowed!" LOL!

I heard someone, might have been Sam Donaldson, comment that Pelosi is one of quite a few in Congress that doesn't like Hillary and her style and feels resentful that she (Pelosi) had to work her ass off for years to get to where she is, while Hillary has basically just been married to Bill, easily won a Senate seat in a state that she wasn't from, and has now quickly been coronated the front running Democrat for the nomination. (It was Donaldson - his radio interview is what made me aware of what she's been doing to actively counter Clinton's campaign rhetoric.)

I guess I could understand that point of view.

[The Other Guy]

I think that's a good point, Jeff. Certainly, Pelosi's eye-rolling rhetoric when she was made Speaker of the House was that it was a(n) historic milestone for women simply by virtue of her being a woman could make the case for your wife's joke. And she did do it the hard way by grinding out 20 years of hard politics.

But I wouldn't overlook the simple possibility that she is strongly committed to the Democratic party machinery, which Hillary appears to have little regard for if it doesn't suit her. Certainly, making an issue of the Michigan/Florida delegate denial clusterfuck--which all candidates had agreed to honor--as Hillary has, is to run the risk of fucking up Demo state primary registration procedures for decades to come.

[Anders Hallin]

I heard someone, might have been Sam Donaldson, comment that Pelosi is one of quite a few in Congress that doesn't like Hillary and her style and feels resentful that she (Pelosi) had to work her ass off for years to get to where she is, while Hillary has basically just been married to Bill, easily won a Senate seat in a state that she wasn't from, and has now quickly been coronated the front running Democrat for the nomination.
Hillary - the Establishment Candidate

[Tom McNamara]

Pelosi really didn't like it (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/182845.php) when Clinton said that both she and McCain were presidential material while Obama was not.

[Rimbo]

So - anyone know why Pelosi is so anti-Clinton that she goes out of her way every week to give some speech or interview specifically targeted at shooting down the latest Clinton strategy?

I tried "Pelosi wasn't born yesterday" for size. "Pelosi's not as stupid as she looks" fits well. But I think I'll get this item that seems to be on sale this week, called "Pelosi understands and is looking out for the best interests of the party."

[wildpokerman]

My wife commented "Hey, Pelosi is a woman in a historically high level in Washington, maybe she doesn't want that to be overshadowed!" LOL!

I heard someone, might have been Sam Donaldson, comment that Pelosi is one of quite a few in Congress that doesn't like Hillary and her style and feels resentful that she (Pelosi) had to work her ass off for years to get to where she is, while Hillary has basically just been married to Bill, easily won a Senate seat in a state that she wasn't from, and has now quickly been coronated the front running Democrat for the nomination. (It was Donaldson - his radio interview is what made me aware of what she's been doing to actively counter Clinton's campaign rhetoric.)

I guess I could understand that point of view.


What do these two women have in common?

http://weblogs.newsday.com/entertainment/music/blog/kristen.jpg

http://themoderatevoice.com/wordpress-engine/files/2007-november/hillary_clinton.jpg

Fact is we wouldn't have heard of either of them if it weren't for who they had sex with.

[Dirt]

Pelosi was on Stephanapoulos this morning. She made it clear she thinks the superdelegates should vote for whomever wins the delegates. Stephanapoulos asked what should happen if one person wins with delegates and the other wins the popular vote. She said that, just like Presidential elections, it's the one who wins the electoral college that becomes President, not the person who wins the popular vote.

[wildpokerman]

Yes the Democratic party will have quite a debate on it's hands if that happens. One problem is though that cacuses aren't a good way to count votes because of the time commitment involved.

[Andrew Mayer]

Fact is we wouldn't have heard of either of them if it weren't for who they had sex with.

Fact is, we wouldn't be able to hear anything from anyone if people didn't have sex.

[JeffL]

As an Obama supporter, I will say this: it is not Hillary's "fault" that she is where she is because of her husband. I can't hold that against her personally. She has taken advantage of the situation she was in, but the voters put her in the Senate seat. And the overall Dem party machine elevated her to this position of presumptive nominee, and the Dem primary/caucus voters made the decisions via votes to put her ahead of Edwards, Richardson, etc. So yeah, she's where she is because of being Bill's husband and the drooling worship the party has lavished on the name "Clinton", but it's the Dem party and voters who put her where she is.

What has been the major turn-off has been the way she has seemed to have assumed the nomination was hers by default, as if it was her birthright, and her dragging what was a very positive "event" for the Democrats, with incredible turn out and excitement, into what is now going to be a long, dragged out fight with questionable tactics (trying to convince people that the MI and FL votes should be counted as is, for example, and making the case that the only states that should really be considered are the handful she's won) when everyone admits that she has lost the delegate vote and almost certainly the popular vote.

[Lum]

Fact is, we wouldn't be able to hear anything from anyone if people didn't have sex.

Amazingly, people are still having sex. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZP05N_bZ60Y)

[wildpokerman]

As an Obama supporter, I will say this: it is not Hillary's "fault" that she is where she is because of her husband. I can't hold that against her personally. She has taken advantage of the situation she was in, but the voters put her in the Senate seat. And the overall Dem party machine elevated her to this position of presumptive nominee, and the Dem primary/caucus voters made the decisions via votes to put her ahead of Edwards, Richardson, etc. So yeah, she's where she is because of being Bill's husband and the drooling worship the party has lavished on the name "Clinton", but it's the Dem party and voters who put her where she is.

What has been the major turn-off has been the way she has seemed to have assumed the nomination was hers by default, as if it was her birthright, and her dragging what was a very positive "event" for the Democrats, with incredible turn out and excitement, into what is now going to be a long, dragged out fight with questionable tactics (trying to convince people that the MI and FL votes should be counted as is, for example, and making the case that the only states that should really be considered are the handful she's won) when everyone admits that she has lost the delegate vote and almost certainly the popular vote.


My major complaint of the Clinton campaign is that we've just had 8 years of it's who you know not what you know and the results are less than stellar.

[bigdruid]

Pelosi was on Stephanapoulos this morning. She made it clear she thinks the superdelegates should vote for whomever wins the delegates. Stephanapoulos asked what should happen if one person wins with delegates and the other wins the popular vote. She said that, just like Presidential elections, it's the one who wins the electoral college that becomes President, not the person who wins the popular vote.

This whole "delegate vote" vs "popular vote" issue is a fabrication of the Clinton campaign. Because turnouts are smaller for caucus states, any counting of the "popular vote" is going to unfairly diminish the contribution of caucus states because turnouts are lower.

For example, Clinton had a solid win over Obama (50% vs 42%) in Arizona, 229K to 193K, a difference of nearly 40K votes.

Obama crushed Clinton in Washington State (67% vs 33%) - a state that is more populous than Arizona and is solidly Democrat. But because it's a caucus state, the "popular vote" difference was only 11K (21K vs 10K).

In a general election, Washington will go overwhelmingly for the Democratic candidate, and will deliver far more delegates to the Democratic cause. So it's ludicrous for someone to claim that Hillary winning the "popular vote" in the primary is meaningful in any way, given the different voting systems. A victory in Arizona should not be worth 4x as much as a *more* lopsided win in Washington State, but that's what you get when you consider the "Popular vote".

[Lum]

The Clinton campaign's emphasis on "popular vote" is twofold:

1) Part of their ongoing attempts to denigrate caucuses (because Clinton doesn't do well in them due to their emphasis on organization and an inspired base - which, you know, she really probably shouldn't be playing up her weakness in!)
2) An unsubtle reference to the 2000 general election.

[JeffL]

The Clinton campaign's emphasis on "popular vote" is twofold:


2) An unsubtle reference to the 2000 general election.

So let's have a huge mail in vote, send out millions of ballots to people with no real control over potential fraud, etc., and have video of a lot of people hunching over tables counting mailbags worth of ballots! LOL! ;)

[JeffL]

This whole "delegate vote" vs "popular vote" issue is a fabrication of the Clinton campaign. Because turnouts are smaller for caucus states, any counting of the "popular vote" is going to unfairly diminish the contribution of caucus states because turnouts are lower.

For example, Clinton had a solid win over Obama (50% vs 42%) in Arizona, 229K to 193K, a difference of nearly 40K votes.

Obama crushed Clinton in Washington State (67% vs 33%) - a state that is more populous than Arizona and is solidly Democrat. But because it's a caucus state, the "popular vote" difference was only 11K (21K vs 10K).

In a general election, Washington will go overwhelmingly for the Democratic candidate, and will deliver far more delegates to the Democratic cause. So it's ludicrous for someone to claim that Hillary winning the "popular vote" in the primary is meaningful in any way, given the different voting systems. A victory in Arizona should not be worth 4x as much as a *more* lopsided win in Washington State, but that's what you get when you consider the "Popular vote".

Duh. And that is the sound of me slapping my head. For some reason I never thought of the actual math here and how the popular vote could actually be misleading due to the differences in how caucuses work.

Duh again. Thanks, that would have slipped right by me.

[Dave Markell]

Duh. And that is the sound of me slapping my head. For some reason I never thought of the actual math here and how the popular vote could actually be misleading due to the differences in how caucuses work.

Duh again. Thanks, that would have slipped right by me.

Yeah, bigdruid and I don't agree on pretty much anything politically, but he's sharp and I missed that one myself. Nice job.

[Jason McCullough]

In a general election, Washington will go overwhelmingly for the Democratic candidate, and will deliver far more delegates to the Democratic cause. So it's ludicrous for someone to claim that Hillary winning the "popular vote" in the primary is meaningful in any way, given the different voting systems. A victory in Arizona should not be worth 4x as much as a *more* lopsided win in Washington State, but that's what you get when you consider the "Popular vote".

It's a differently phrased version of "caucuses suck." The point is a tiny-ass amount of democrats in some states have allocated rather ludicrous numbers of delegates, compared to the primary vote states.

Not that it matters a whole lot; them's the stupid rules.