Pelosi prepared to 'step in' to end race

Let us hope someone has the power to stop the divisive nonsense from dragging on to the convention. There is no honest way Hillary can get the nomination. Who wants her if she manages it another way?

Hillbillary is working for the Ripusofficans. I said she was or will be - and she clearly has every intention of either being the Democratic Republican elect, or making as much of a mess as possible to aid and abet the Ripusofficans.

Good for Nancy Pelosi!

Where was Hillary when Gore "lost" to Bush in '04? Then I would have appreciated her pitbull nature. Now, I don't.

This should be good. Nancy waylaying Hillary, snatching her into the ladies' room with a chloroform doused rag to tie a bag over her head and club her, so Obama can win while Hill's tied up in a Senate basement broom closet.

I wonder if Bill will notice her missing between now and November?

Cat Fight!

LOL - take it easy there 96thday, you've painted quite a vivid picture of the "cat fight".

Let's not be encouraging violence now. LOL

Finally, some words of wisdom.

I don't understand why it takes so long for each state to do their primary. Is there a really good reason for them doing this or could not all states have their primaries within two months? What is the point in prolonging it?

The states that don't normally get a say are getting one now and they like that, so why not have all 50 states have a say but make it within shorter time frame. Unless I'm missing something (and I am guessing I am).

I'm sick and tired of hearing about the election when there's more important news going on around the world.

Amen, Marilynn!

J-Jammer: I would assume they separate them so that the candidates have time to campaign in each state, and in theory, dedicate the time to reach each community with their message before they vote. It's a good theory, but as we've noticed in years past, it usually doesn't work that way. Normally the first few states get their say, and by the time it gets to the rest of us, it's already pretty obvious who the nominee will be.

Anyway, having said that, I would definitely support reforming the primary process. I think that there should be a set number of months that the candidates are allowed to campaign (say, 3-6 months before the primaries), and then each primary should be held in all of the states at the same time (just like we do the general election). That way, no single state gets a disproportionate amount of attention, and candidates don't have to skew their platforms to appeal to the desires of the New Hampshire/Iowa crowd just to be considered viable.

Isn't that what conventions are for? Americans are so used to having it done by now because we rush everything... Even in 2000 when Al Gore fought to have votes counted people were saying it was going on too long and calling him a sore loser too. I say then there is no need to have a convention at all if you are going to crown a nominee in March and disenfrachise voters. I would probably say that Clinton should give it up now if it weren't the case that it will come done to superdelegates regardless. Neither of them have what they need yet so why not fight? I would say the same if it were reversed. And I wonder if people who decry her fighting really stood up in 2000?

And after Nancy Pelosi shirked her duty to call for Bush's impeachment, I don't think she has much room to talk about anything regarding this process. But oh, how the Clinton haters who can't see the principle above their own political bias love her now... Oh, and of course, those who applauded John Edwards when he said he was taking it to the convention before he gave into what the party wanted. How attitudes change when it suits the purpose.

I would like to know the party rule that states a candidate can't take it to the convention regardless of who the candidate is. To say you will deliberately do something to derail that sounds undemocratic in and of itself.

Am I the only person who recalls when Florida lost their delegate votes the Democrats were all behind the decision, Hilary included. However, I find it very convenient that she now believes that the delegates need to be counted... I believe it reasonable to state that it is only because she needs them to win.

Janforgore I agree with your premise that she should be allowed to go to the convention, however as even Gore said, this could do damage to the party.

The country comes first. And if Al Gore said that, please provide a link to it.

Finally, someone is willing to put Clinton in her place.

Can you say sore loser?

1. It's about time.

2. WHAT DID YOU DO WITH THE LAYOUT???
IT SUCKS.

you'll get used to it, stardate. i already am. in fact, i forget what the old one (from like 3 hours ago) even looks like!

Really? I didn't think Pelosi did ANYTHING anymore except cozy up in Bush's pocket.

I don't think you all understand the process and the law behind it too well.

First of all, the people of Michigan and Florida don't have the right to have their votes counted in the primary process. As a private organization, the Democratic Party can choose its nominee any way it wants, and it has chosen a series of over fifty primaries and caucuses. Two states broke the rules set out by the national party and are subject to penalty.

The process is surely flawed, but the concept of retail politics in small towns and cities with an active and informed citizenry, which both Iowa and New Hampshire provide, is a solid one. The emergence of Obama or other lesser-known, non-establishment pick candidates would be impossible with a national primary. Should just Iowa and New Hampshire be the states to determine who is a viable candidate? No, I think there should be an alternating regional primary system that would/will be very difficult, at least politically, to implement. But the Democratic Primary has become the most closely fought and competitive one in history, and in many ways I think that's a good thing. If the campaigns (by which I mean the Clinton campaign) hadn't gone negative on each other (by which I mean on him) to such a degree, it would not be so damaging. A national primary would reward the best-known, best-financed candidate, not necessarily the strongest. And although they wouldn't be hurt by a primary campaign, they wouldn't be strengthened by it either.

Now that the race has gotten down to the superdelegates, different rules apply. Hillary Clinton has every right to go to them and argue that she is a stronger candidate. I'd rather she use a more intellectually honest argument than the whole popular vote metric (which is impossible to determine at all, let alone fairly). This fight would be bad for the party, of course, and just as Clinton has the right to go ahead and do this, party officials and superdelegates have the right to stop her. So, if Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid want to intervene to end the primary fight, then that is no worse than Hillary Clinton wanting to fight on; in fact, considering that Pelosi and Reid are motivated by what's good for the party and Clinton is motivated by her desire for the nomination (which she sees as one and the same), I think they're in a much more just position.

As far as the jobs Pelosi and Reid have in Congress, what did you expect? I didn't work for a Democratic majority under any delusions. Have we gone to war with Iran? Are all the crimes of the administration going uninvestigated? Is presidential power unchecked? The answer to all those questions is no. While the war in Iraq is still going and Bush hasn't been impeached, convicted, and jailed, I'll take the monumental improvements we've seen.

And an Obama presidency won't be enough, either. Constant pressure on those in power, even when they're inclined towards the right thing, is necessary.

stephenthomson,

in fact, i forget what the old one (from like 3 hours ago) even looks like!

Now that's it. They change the site like other people change their underwear. This never ending reinvention is getting on my nerves.
The old layout was perfect. No need to come up with yet another version.

The New Republic actually has a good article about this that is linked from their front page as "Nancy Pelosi, Badass." I thought that was well-put.

This is where the Gore stance came from - taken from the Scotsman by Fox . . .

by FOXNews.com
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Border

Jimmy Carter and Al Gore are planning to call for Hillary Clinton to end her presidential run, according to an article published Sunday in a Scottish newspaper.

The Scotsman — the same paper that quoted Barack Obama adviser Samantha Power calling Clinton a “monster,” which resulted in her dismissal from the campaign — reported that the two politicians are teaming up because they believe it is in their party’s best interest to end the prolonged battle for the Democratic presidential nomination and unite behind Obama, who continues to maintain a lead over Clinton in number of pledged delegates.

“They’re in discussions,” a source close to Carter reportedly told the newspaper. “Carter has been talking to Gore. They will act, possibly together, or in sequence.”

According to the report, the two party elders will either meet with Clinton privately to urge that she withdraw her candidacy or they will publicly endorse Obama in the hopes that more superdelegates will follow suit.

Clinton still holds a lead over Obama in number of superdelegates. It is not known when Carter and Gore will make such an appeal to Clinton, but insiders say it is certain to happen, the newspaper reported. It added that both pols have clashed with the Clintons in the past.

Hawkmang: Actually, it's precisely Pelosi's acidic relationship with the President that has made it difficult for things to be accomplished between the two in a diplomatic manner. Her recent agreement with the views of Scott McClellan is a good example.

LOL, are you kidding me? Another link from FOX News? And you believe this crap? Where is the exact quote from Mr. Gore himself? Please, don't even bother me with this. As a matter of fact, Mr. Gore is also quoted as stating that he believed the delegates would be seated and that there was still time. He isn't involved in the petty partisan political BS so many are in just to stick it to HIllary Clinton without looking at the big picture.

Good Lord, are some of you closet Republicans? Is posting something from FOX the best you can do? I doubt very much Mr. Gore would state anything like that. HIs entire book the Assault On Reason emphasizes country over party. It was putting party over country that got us into Iraq and got us an illegitimate president. And Democrats still want to play that game? I think ultimately as one who knows how the process can screw you over he would also believe in allowing a candidate to let this process play out and let the people decide, not some bitter party leaders who just want it done to save their own face.

Whether you like Clinton or not, she has every right to fight this just as Obama would have that right even though I don't support either of them. Democracy can be messy and inconvenient ( like counting all the votes properly) but it is not easy. People seem to have forgotten that. 'Just give me my candidate like I am ordering at a fast food restaurant, because I don't have the patience nor am I informed enough to wait and play the process out. A good speech is all I need." That seems to be the mentality of many in this country that has now ruined this country. It is such a shame that this country has allowed partisan political bickering to now stain the Democratic process our founding fathers fought so vociferously to institute.

I hope Clinton does take it to the convention just to give Democrats and especially Republicans a lesson in what it means to choose a candidate.This isn't about "putting Clinton in her place," this is about picking a president. How dare the elitists in any party think they have the exclusive right to do that. If Obama is such a sure thing there should be no worries. Let the process then play out to that end if that is what is to be. What are they afraid of?

@ freestyletin, perhaps you're right. However, I don't find her relationship with Bush nearly "acidic" enough. Why exactly is he still in the White House? I think this article captures my sentiment.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/linda-milazzo/pelosi-hear...

JFG - You asked where the reference of where the Gore remark came from and I posted what I found. Nothing more nothing less. Didn't say I believed it and could care less if I bothered you.

..."It is such a shame that this country has allowed partisan political bickering to now stain the Democratic process our founding fathers fought so vociferously to institute."

Um...isn't the current 'bickering' stemming from the very people you say deserves to keep going?

I'm all for letting the process work out itself, but like you've said, we have to look at the bigger picture. Mrs. Clinton is hanging on to a thread and threatening to pull it, even if the whole damn thing falls apart. If the 'process' wasn't so divisive then perhaps there wouldn't be such pressure to call this off.

You have to know when to fold,
know when to fall down,
know when when to walk away,
know when to run
She gotta count her blessings... you get my meaning.

By the way, I hate this new format. It's off center and making me feel awkward.

Silly me, I thought that the purpose of the convention was to pick a candidate, I mean if the candidate is already decided on why waste all that money on a convention. buy some TV time and have the candidates give their speeches and spend the difference on advertising.

I think it's time we had a real convention. If the outcome is in doubt, at least people will watch. I mean, who's going to watch the Republican convention. People will instead be complaining that it is preempting something important like the Athabasco turtle races. Why are the Democrats trying to compete for Boring?

It seems these two candidate are only growing weaker as the battle continues to go on. I feel that there will be too much separation in the party and they will be too weak to even beat a Republican, which is something not a lot of folks want again.

It's about time Nancy and the gang got off their butts and got in the game. This isn't as complicated as those that buy into Hillary's spin would try to make it. At the beginning of the contest every state was given a slot to have their respective primary/caucus. MI and FL wanted to be more influential in the process this time around challenging Iowa and NH. The DNC and the candidates, ALL the candidates, agreed any state not sticking to the accepted schedule would be disavowed in deference to Iowa and NH. This was not a problem for Hillary or anyone else at the time. In fact is wasn't a problem for anyone until Hillary's campaign turned into a wedge issue against her own party because she's putting her own interest above those of the party or the country.

As with all she's done to date, Nancy should have acted much sooner in squashing this obvious self-serving tactic for the good of party and process as a whole.

Chique: The feeling is mutual. But thanks for proving it is BS.