If Clinton wins Pennsylvania by more than 10, let alone 18, then popular vote can get very ugly for Obama very fast.

See Digby here.

What the “creative class” is trying to do is seize control of the Democratic Party or, more precisely, the discourse about the Democratic Party.

They don’t want to get rid of Broder; collectively, they want to be Broder. I always figured this would happen, but I didn’t expect the rot to set in to fast. What Digby shows is that the rot began to set in at least 5 years ago. Ick.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

they want to see Obama actually step up and take one of the big states and prove he’s not hurt by wright, etc.

is a very bad thing for Obama, IMO. Not only does it put her within striking distance of the popular vote lead, eventually people are going to wonder why he can’t beat her (and at some point the press might get frustrated that the one thing they ask of him - beat the bitch - he can’t seem to do).

Obama is once again outspending her, as he did in Ohio, 4 to 1. He’s got great press. He’s got the party bigwigs, Dean, Pelosi, Brazile, going on national television and pushing his talking points. If he can’t win Pennsylvania, that should send a cold shiver up any SD spine if they care about winning in November. And if he loses by double-digits? That’s even worse, obviously.

But, really, I don’t care about expectations, Obama needs a win. There’s only so many times you can claim to “have closed the gap” in a big primary. He has everything going for him, if he can’t win now, then when can he win? Because I don’t think “closing the gap” in key swing states is going to be considered sufficient in November.

the media’s been egging him on and he always does what they say, i find.

and he’s been spending tons and tons of money in every state—it’s ridiculous—esp in states where only 10,000 voted and we can’t win in November ever.

Don’t want to hijack the thread, just asking for some supportive documentation for what you and a few others here have been saying about Pelosi. Could you provide a reference for her “going on national television and pushing his talking points”?

Understanding, I hope, that saying things that are true and that also happen to be politically useful for Obama is not the same as “pushing talking points.”

Trollish behavior disclaimer, I’m all for Hillary at this time and hope she wins PA by 20%+. I just dislike seeing Pelosi branded as throwing her weight behind Obama. What I see instead is her being studiously neutral and holding her people back from rushing in his direction. If anything, through her actions she’s being supportive of Hillary staying in the race.

What’s Up in Pennsylvania? — http://www.pollster.com/blogs/whats_up_i…

“I will admit that, … I am at a bit of a loss about the flurry of recent results from Pennsylvania. In the last week, we have seen surveys released showing everything from an 18-point Clinton lead to a 2-point Obama advantage …”

this will prob be the media’s response—unless they ignore Survey USA altogether now.

and Slate— http://www.slate.com/id/2175496/

I should’ve included a link initially, bringiton, I was just crunched for time.

Anyway, on or about March 14, Pelosi went on ABC and argued that it is the pledged delegate count - not the popular vote - that is the measure of the will of the people and that SDs should decide based on this factor:

Pelosi argued that superdelegates should follow the pledged-delegate, not the popular-vote, leader.

“But what if one candidate has won the popular vote and the other candidate has won the delegates?” asked Stephanopoulos.

“But it’s a delegate race,” Pelosi replied. “The way the system works is that the delegates choose the nominee.”

See http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/…

If that’s not an Obama talking point, I don’t know what is. Interesting that how people vote is not, you know, any indication of their will.

And, in fact, Pelosi trying to dictate how Supers should vote, led to a group of prominent Clinton backers to demand Pelosi backtrack. (http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/3/27/…). Which led to Obama folks donating money to the DCCC and anonymous sources reporting Pelosi was unhappen about being so publicly called out (see http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/arch…). But it also led Pelosi to say that Super Delegates can vote their consciences (see http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/4/1/1…).

When there was some talk of a unity ticket, she was among those who said one wasn’t possible. See, http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/3/11/…. Now, IIRC, this was after Clinton had said she’d be open to a unity ticket with Obama and the Obama was concerned that this would hurt them.

So, yes, I consider Pelosi - like Dean and Brazile - to be an Obama backer who simply claims to be neutral. And, like Dean and Brazile, she has not exactly been a unifying force in the party (despite all the hand-wringing by the Obama folks over the need for Democratic unity).

and her position effectively forbids the things she originally said—she has immense power over hundreds of Superdelegates and can make or break their careers.

This is all about media perception. Fact is Clinton will only win PA by 9 to 10 pts.

So by polling so high it will be declared a disappointment, not enough delegates at this late game, not convincing enough to sway supers, etc. When she only get’s single digits instead of 20 pts, they will say she effectively lost.

SuSA was insanely far off in some other polls just FYI, and the most accurate in some.

there just aren’t enough Obama voters in PA—and they say that most college kids there aren’t registered in PA, but back home.

He can win Philly and Bucks county, but that’s really it, i think.

interesting PA story in the NYT mag — http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/magazi… — Change Makes a Call on Levittown

Hillary has been getting hammered in the media and blogosphere for weeks, but SUSA says the voters opinions haven’t budged.

All the haka was kaka.

“The key marker of a Hillary Hater is the willingness to state, in almost the same breath, that it is out of control and then to plunge in for a full-throated round of it.” - Anglachel

BDBlue, very aware of that incident on Stephanopoulos and what ensued. I’m not asking for what was written about what she said, or how others interpreted it, or how Obama backers spun it or how Clinton backers reacted to the misrepresentations by the media or how bloggers and commentators continue to repeat the initial false analyses. Most of all, I’m not interested now or ever in reports supposedly from anonymous sources about how somebody else supposedly feels; the sources could be anybody, with unknown malicious agendas, or no one at all.

I asked for what Pelosi actually has said, and in her own words; the same way you and I would like to be understood. From your link:

”’If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what’s happened in the elections,’ said Pelosi, ‘it would be harmful to the Democratic Party.’”

And when asked to clarify, she said:

” ‘But what if one candidate has won the popular vote and the other candidate has won the delegates?’ asked Stephanopoulos. ‘But it’s a delegate race,’ Pelosi replied. ‘The way the system works is that the delegates choose the nominee.’”

Are these statements not true? Of course, they are. If the “winner” of the primary elections, however that is perceived, is denied the nomination, it will be harmful to the party. Every poll shows that some supporters for both Hillary and Barak will not vote for the other candidate; inexplicable to me, but a constant result that seems to be true. Is the price of having the superdelegates chose a second-place primary candidate of larger magnitude than the benefit of selecting someone with a greater chance of winning the general? Presumably not; but to some degree, it will hurt the party.

What about her second statement? The contest is indeed for delegates, not the popular vote. The election at the Convention is the only election that counts and that will be won or lost on delegates. She didn’t say anything about where those delegates would come from; the candidate with the most delegates will win, regardless of whether they come from the primary electoral process or from the discretion of the superdelegates.

Can these statements be seen as beneficial to Obama? Taken at face value; they are nothing of the sort. They are simply statements of fact, undeniable fact. The media, loving conflict, misrepresented them as “Hey, let’s you and her fight” and Clinton supporters jumped at the bait and went after her. Once again, the media paints Pelosi as evil, conniving, malicious and undemocratic and people just buy the lie. Pisses me off, frankly, and I would like it to stop.

So that one’s dealt with. Pelosi certainly did not favor Obama, as she made clear in follow-up comments. She didn’t “backtrack” amberglow, although again that’s how the media spun it. She clarified, quite a different thing, and everything she said subsequently was consistent with what she said in the first place. When people misrepresent what you’ve said and you need to say something more to be perfectly clear, that is not “backtracking.” This is exactly the kind of malicious framing we’ve seen quite enough of from the MSM and Rove; please don’t start in on it with a decent Democrat, a staunch liberal and a committed progressive like Pelosi.

With regards to a joint ticket, here are Pelosi’s exact words again from your link:

“’I think that ticket either way is impossible’ and ‘I wanted to be sure I didn’t leave any ambiguity.’”

Again, what she says here is, IMO, the simple truth and, IMO, the correct position for the good of the party. She say “either way” so there can be no interpretation of favoritism. I think it is highly unlikely that either of them would be content with VP; both of them would have greater freedom of movement and better future presidential prospects staying in the senate. Beyond that, the vision both of them together is not a dream but a nightmare; they combine their negatives but bring no new positives. Either will get the vast majority of AfAm and a solid majority of white female and Hispanic voters. Where both are weak is with white males and that is what either of them should choose for a running mate.

For the good of the party, that idea needed to be stepped on hard and I for one am grateful to Pelosi for doing so. It did come after Clinton floated it, naturally; why would Pelosi say anything about it until someone had made it an issue? If Clinton says something that is harmful to the prospect for victory in November, are you saying that Pelosi should just STFU because speaking out could benefit Obama? I say rather that Clinton should think little more before she speaks herself.

Again, sorry for getting off thread here but this Bash Pelosi movement gets under my skin. She’s done nothing to show favoritism at all, except insofar as holding back those House and California state delegates she influences. She’s asked them to wait for a while longer to see how things play out; that is a position which, insofar as it favors anyone, helps Clinton’s chances more than it does Obama’s.

I have no problem debating his strategy for dealing with MI/FL or even for not muzzling Donna Brazile. But I am well past the limit on reading comments on other blogs like “Dean told Hillary to fuck off” or even BDBlue’s comment here that Dean is one of the people pushing Obama’s talking points on national television because it is simply not true.

I’ve been a longtime observer of Dean and I know this is not a game he plays. He has the experience of a presidential campaign behind him and he’s not going to mess around with someone else’s campaign.

I agree, corrine, but I wanted to fight one argument at a time; I’ll defend Pelosi and you take care of Dean - but I’ve got your back on that one too.

Dean’s job sucks, and he does as good at is as can be done. If it were not for Dean’s insistence on a 50-state strategy the House and Senate would still be formally in Republican hands and the telecos would have their immunity. Howard is a good man, dealing with a bunch of dimwits and selfish fools. We should be very grateful it isn’t Donna B running the DNC.

More attacking the Republicans, please.

I think Dean has failed the only issue that matters because it’s the only issue that can truly split the democratic party in November - FL/MI. Yes, he’s had help, but ultimately he’s the chairman. And instead of a 50-state strategy, we’re looking at a 48-state strategy, As far as I’m concerned Dean and the democrats got played by the Republicans in Florida and Michigan. I know they deny that, but that doesn’t make it any less true. And while I think he has done some good things as DNC chair, the fundraising has sucked - the only area where Dems lag Reps in funding is at the party level and will put whoever the nominee is at a disadvantage in November. (See http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/…)

As for Pelosi, I give her generally decent marks as Speaker of the House, but I think her comments on the election recently have been incredibly unhelpful. I think she was advocating the SDs follow the pledged delegate leader, which is neither required by the rules nor necessarily reflective of the will of the people.* It’s generally believed that Obama cannot be passed in pledged delegate count and, I don’t think it’s irrelevant, that her statement came amidst a flurry of calls for Hillary to drop out precisely because of Obama’s pledged delegate lead. Indeed, the news reports indicate that her statement were seen at the time as a boost to Obama.

I understand others may hear it differently, but that’s what I heard and given the Clinton donors’ reaction (and Pelosi’s subsequent backtracking), I don’t think I’m alone. Of course, one could ask why she was weighing in on any standards for the SDs beyond what the rules say. Because even if I’m wrong about what Pelosi meant, the appearance of a conflict is almost just as bad as a true conflict and she went out and for no reason created that appearance.

As for attacking Democrats, if you don’t call out poor leaders, you’ll continue to get poor leadership. I don’t believe party loyalty requires blind loyalty.

* Also from the link I provided above:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos on Friday that it would be “harmful” to Democrats if superdelegates were to give the party’s presidential nomination to a candidate who is trailing in the delegates awarded in primaries and caucuses.

“If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what’s happened in the elections,” said Pelosi, “it would be harmful to the Democratic Party.”

bringiton:

We should be very grateful it isn’t Donna B running the DNC.

How do I get that picture out of my mind?

Ow, my forehead! It hurts! The banging!

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Trying not to be tendentious here, and it’s too late for me to provide links, but I’m mostly not with bringiton here. Now, it’s possible that her comments on the delegates were meant to be Delphic, a form of constructive ambiguity — After all, she did not say “I wanted to be sure I didn’t leave any ambiguity” of the delegates issue, but of the joint ticket issue (where I happen to agree with her*).

However, I don’t view Pelosi’s ambiguity as constructive in these cases:

1. This:

“But it’s a delegate race,” Pelosi replied. “The way the system works is that the delegates choose the nominee.”

Which is true when parsed in isolation, but when placed in the context of: (1) the Obama campaign having managed to make the pledged delegate count the Holy Grail of the nomination, and (2) not mentioning that, according to The Rulez, the automatic delegates are expected to exercise their judgment, Pelosi’s statement looks like a decided tilt toward Obama. As BDB said, lots of people smarter than a few C list bloggers saw Pelosi’s statement in exactly that way, which is why she had to backtrack on it.

2. And this:

”’If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what’s happened in the elections,’ said Pelosi, ‘it would be harmful to the Democratic Party.’”

Which (1) begs the question of “what happened.” I mean, what if the margins turn out to be razor thin? What if “what happened” is in major dispute? (Like: Disenfranchising FL and MI), and (2) ignores the clear role of the superdelegates, again in the precious Rules, which is exactly and precisely to serve as a check on “what happened.” Like it or not, that’s how the system was set up….

NOTE * If this was going to happen, the Obama campaign wouldn’t have trashed the Clinton brand as racist.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Donna Brazile, one woman wrecking crew:

See her object to gays benefitting from affirmative action in terms of delegates because it would offend African Americans and their civil rights struggles- http://www.washblade.com/thelatest/thela…

Watch her help strip Florida of its delegates - http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/in…

Watch this Rules Committee Member totally misstate the DNC Rules - http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/3/30/…

And here she is feeding the Clinton is a racist meme in NH, for Bill’s “fairy-tale comment” - http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/…

While I’ve been very disappointed in Dean this election season, I will grant you it’s not easy running a DNC with people like Brazile undermining you every way they can.

I agree that there will never be an Obama-Clinton ticket. Obama doesn’t want it, thus his willingness to trash the Clinton brand by smearing them as racists. But he’s been afraid that voters will decide they can vote for Clinton and still get him as VP. Indeed, Clinton has said she would consider him (I actually believe her because I think she wants to unite the party and beat the republicans more than soothing her own hurt feelings). Which is why I saw Pelosi’s comments as benefitting Obama because it has been his surrogates pushing back against this narrative. See, e.g., http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/3/30/… (there have been other instances, but I remembered this one so it was easy to find). When you follow the Obama surrogates’ line, you start looking like a surrogate.

Note, again, she could’ve bowed out by saying something like “I think they’re both great candidates and would make terrific presidents. I trust whoever the nominee is will select the right running mate.” But she did not.

The election at the Convention is the only election that counts and that will be won or lost on delegates.

This I agree with. But the next statement of yours is what bothers me.

She didn’t say anything about where those delegates would come from;

The very question she was answering was “Where will the delegates come from?” At the time of this interview, it was obvious to everyone that Obama was not going to hit the magic number, without the superdelegates. The statement was about how the superdelegates should vote, and she replied, for whoever the delegate leader is.

The argument can be made over which is more important, popular vote/delegate lead, and that the delegate lead is more important, is an Obama talking point. Do I believe she said it to boost Obama? No. I just think it flew out of her mouth, before she thought of the shitstorm it would(and did) cause, and it has hurt her impression of neutrality.

I do not believe she is trying to destroy her party, but the best policy would be to keep quiet about, which she has now done.

I also applaud Dean’s commitment to the Dems, understand that his strategy has enabled us to, if not actually accomplish anything progressive, put a halt to the rubber stamp congress for this disastrous administration(Pelosi holds blame for this as well, though she is immeasurably better than Reid I knew he was a bad idea. I do feel Dean has made bad decisions during this primary process, and believe he needs to be held accountable.

And I can’t necessarily blame Clinton supporters for lashing out, for this primary season they have been forced to see their candidate subjected to the most gross and inappropriate media attacks ever put on a serious presidential candidate. This media behavior, has of course signaled to the rest of the electorate that this behavior is okay, and filtered into our mainstream discourse.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

On this matter; everything else I can think of we are in concert.

Way back on February 8 when the candidates were neck-and-neck just after SuperTuesday, Dean and Pelosi were asked about their thinking in regards to an election process that did not determine a clear winner. Dean had this to say:

“I think we’re going to have a nominee by middle of March or April.” Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said. “But if we don’t, then we’re gonna have to get the candidates together and make some kind of arrangement, because I don’t think we can afford to have a brokered convention. That would not be good news for either party.”

And Pelosi:

Asked whether she would be troubled by a brokered Democratic convention in which superdelegates would determine the party’s nominee, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi defended her party’s system.

“These superdelegates are all part of their state delegation, so that state will speak,” Pelosi said. The superdelegates “work out their preference, working with the people of their state.”

Superdelegates were established, Pelosi explained, to allow grass-roots Democratic activists to attend the nominating convention without having to compete with high-ranking Democratic party officials for a coveted spot on the convention floor.

“So, again, I don’t think that members of Congress, governors and senators are not attuned to what’s happening in their states and in their districts,” Pelosi said.

Both of these statements read to me the same as everything that has been said since by both of them. If you want to read favoritism into either of them, well, that will be your projection. Taking the bare statements and choosing what part of the surrounding maelstrom constitutes “context” is inevitably a selective process that reflects one’s own preconceptions and predilections; we are all of us only human and that’s how humans tend to interpret complex events.

My argument is that the comments have to stand on their own, without placing our own external contextual interpretations on them. Nothing here or since said by either Dean or Pelosi has been anything more than a concern for the general welfare for the party’s chances in November and a collection of barely more than banalities about the process. Putting more weight to them than that is, my opinion, unjustified.

I will again caution that pejoratives are not well used when they are applied without foundation. Read again Pelosi’s words – not what has been written about them but her exact words – and see if the term “backtracked” actually applies. I argue that it does not, and that falsely accusing Pelosi in that way serves only the objectives of Republicans to divide and conquer Democrats.

Further, I cannot actually believe BDBlue that you mean to say that Pelosi should not speak her mind on the election or anything else; her forbearance is a courtesy, not an obligation. Again, I urge you to rethink that construct. Last, you say this: ”Because even if I’m wrong about what Pelosi meant, the appearance of a conflict is almost just as bad as a true conflict and she went out and for no reason created that appearance.” Tsk, tsk, say I; we are each of us responsible for what we say, but not for what others say about us or their interpretations of what we’ve said – that way lies madness.

As to calling out “poor leaders”, please, do so whenever justified. What I am objecting to is laying blame where no clear blame is due. If the person is a good person – and Pelosi is a good person – then we ought to give them the benefit of the doubt when statements or actions are equivocal. If we continue to castigate good leadership for every single minor misstep we will drive them from office and be left with the dregs, the incompetents and the insensitive opportunists.

Speaking of which, Lambert, regarding Donna Brazile; we should be rid of her very soon if she is true to her word. In the same Feb 8 article she is quoted as saying this regarding the settling of the nomination by superdelegates:

“If 795 of my colleagues decide this election, I will quit the Democratic Party. I feel very strongly about this,” Brazile said.

Since it is all but certain that the nomination will indeed be decided by 795 of her “colleagues”, she should soon be on her way. Please don’t let the door hit your butt on the way out, Donna; as BDBlue points out, the DNC can’t afford to get it fixed.

Enough. The thread is distracted, BDBlue is put off and Lambert has a new nightmare image; that’s all the disruption I want to spread for one night. Adieu.

I was initially impressed by Pelosi’s and Dean’s determination to stay neutral in the race, so I’m not surprised by their early statements. It’s the later statements by Pelosi, whether intended or not, and some of Dean’s inaction on FL/MI that have bothered me. I don’t think either is trying to destroy the party, I just think they fail to see the looming disaster ahead of them, are perhaps too insulated by the Village and its Obama mania to see what dangerous ground they are treading, and are, inadvertently, making it worse.

Which is why I do think, yes, Nancy Pelosi and other party leaders should do everything they can to appear neutral. I don’t think they have to, and ultimately as Super Delegates, they will have to vote, but it would be nice to have some party leaders who I can believe - however they end up coming down in the end - are putting the party before everything else, even perhaps their personal preference. Of course, I’d like this of all SDs, but I think party leaders like Dean and Pelosi serve the party better by doing this.

Given the strong feelings on both sides, honest brokers are likely to be needed to help work through the issues. If those leading the party are seen simply as being in the tank for a particular candidate, it will make it hard for the other candidate’s supporters to see them as anything other than a surrogate for that candidate. Think how much worse MI/FL is because Donna Brazile was so involved in the decision and has given up any pretension of neutrality. So while I agree that Nancy Pelosi has the same free speech rights as everyone else, I don’t think her exercising those rights in favor of a particular candidate is in the best interest of the party because of her very special role in the party. Indeed, earlier in the campaign, I essentially heard her say this same thing on NPR, which made her later statements more disappointing.

Whether intentionally or not, Pelosi was seen by a lot of Clinton supporters as weighing in for Obama at a time when Clinton was under tremendous pressure from other Dem leaders (Dodd, Leahy) to drop out. As a result, in the event this thing ends nearly tied - as appears likely - Pelosi won’t have the standing to try to resolve it she would otherwise have because a lot of folks may not see her as an honest broker looking out for her party, but as an Obama supporter. That’s a problem for her and the party. Both would be better off if she had stuck to her earlier talking points and not weighed in on the matter at all (other than to express admiration for both candidate and confidence in a unified democratic party).

As for Ms. Brazile, I cannot believe I did not include her threat to quit the party (sadly, not an enforceable promise). Because there’s no better way to hold together a party than for one of its “leaders” to threaten to split it if she doesn’t get her way.

So, yes, we do disagree on some things regarding Dean and Pelosi, but that’s to be expected in such a contentious contest I think. If we’d disagreed about Brazile? Now that would have been worrisome.

they were specifically created to ensure that bigshots had the final say—everyone involved in their creation says so.