Court Of Impeachment And War Crimes: The Campaign Crystal Ball, plus the usual gathering of bad news clips, Followed by Prolific (Mouth) Pelosi (Party Guru/Einstein…Not!) and...
Loading...

Click for a full report.

Imbush Peach

An interview with Naomi Wolf about the 10 steps from democracy to dictatorship!

Stop The Spying Now

Stop the Spying!

Friday, March 7, 2008

The Campaign Crystal Ball, plus the usual gathering of bad news clips, Followed by Prolific (Mouth) Pelosi (Party Guru/Einstein…Not!) and...



The Campaign Crystal Ball, plus the usual gathering of bad news clips, Followed by Prolific (Mouth) Pelosi (Party Guru/Einstein…Not!) and a Shotgun Blast Finale! I hope this doesn’t confuse you, and I admit it took me a bit of time to digest it all. The News These days is like that…INDIGESTION!


As the closely fought Democratic presidential contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama moves deeper and deeper into the primary season, there is a growing sentiment that the nomination should go to the candidate that ultimately wins the popular vote.


Fair enough. Ever since the current primary-dominated era of nominations began in the 1970s, every Democratic and Republican nomination has gone to the candidate who received the most votes in the presidential primaries. The last nominee who was not his party's top primary vote-getter was Democrat George McGovern in 1972. And that was the last election in which less than half the states held primaries.


In recent decades, the aggregate nationwide vote has been won in decisive fashion by the ultimate nominee. But so far this year, that has not been the case with Clinton and Obama. There are different ways to count the Democratic popular vote. And while Obama comes out of the Feb. 19 voting leading in all of them, Clinton could still vault on top with a succession of strong showings in the big primary states that vote directly ahead.


Limit the tally to sanctioned Democratic primaries, and Obama presently enjoys a lead of more than 700,000 votes. Count the ballots from all primaries, including the non-binding votes in Florida and Michigan that Clinton dominated, and his advantage drops to barely 100,000 votes.


But add to this mix the reported vote for the candidates from caucus states, where Obama has had the upper hand, and his lead grows to more than 300,000 votes. And if one wishes to delete the unsanctioned Florida and Michigan results, and limit the tally to sanctioned primaries and reported caucus votes, Obama's lead swells to more than 900,000 votes.


To compound the complexity, the actual presidential preferences of attendees was not tallied in some of the most highly-publicized caucus states, including Iowa, Nevada and Washington. There, the state parties presented the vote in terms of local delegates elected and did not conduct a primary-like tally of participants. If such a tally is attempted by extrapolation--multiplying the delegate percentages for Clinton and Obama times the voter turnout--the Illinois senator would add roughly another 100,000 votes to his total.


What then is the "popular vote"? It would probably take a judge wiser than Solomon to declare a hard and fast winner at the end of the primary season in June if different formulations of the popular vote produce different winners.


Democrats can hope it does not come to that, and they have history on their side. The pattern over the last two decades has been for candidates to trade victories over the first few weeks of the primary season before one candidate catches hold and scores a long string of wins that puts the nomination away. By the end of the process, there has been a clear winner and the popular vote is regarded as little more than an interesting curiosity.


The Capital Eye: The Phone Companies Want Off The Hook!

Congress continues to debate granting immunity to the telecom industry, a major lobbying force, for participating in the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program. Those who favor immunity have received more money from telecom than those who don't.


Cost of '08 Presidential Race Already Tops All Elections Prior to '04
While Republicans saw gains, exclusive analysis of year-end contributions finds Democrats maintained their hold on most top-giving industries. Lawyers, retirees and Wall Street still dominate. Candidates are on pace to break 2004 records before parties officially nominate.


WASHINGTON—Even before a single vote was cast, the candidates running for the White House raised and spent more money in 2007 than in all of seven of the last eight presidential elections, the Center for Responsive Politics has found. And based on their year-end campaign finance filings, the candidates are on pace to break 2004's fundraising records before the major parties officially nominate their candidates for this November's contest.


"We knew from the start that this would be the most expensive presidential election ever, but to see the pre-primary season alone costing more than entire elections is remarkable," said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the nonpartisan watchdog group.


In 2007 the field of presidential candidates for '08 raised $582.5 million and spent $481.2 million. That exceeds the total fundraising and spending in each election from 1976 through 2000—the last time both parties had competitive fields. In 2000, George W. Bush, Al Gore and the other candidates who ran collected $528.9 million and spent $343.1 million, including public financing. In 2004, Bush, John Kerry and the rest of the field raised $880.5 million and spent $717.9 million. In 2008, the Center predicts, the candidates alone will raise more than $1 billion—the first time a U.S. presidential election will cross the billion-dollar mark.


Diebold Stock Soars After $3 Billion Takeover Bid by Defense Contractor Conglomerate United Technologies
UTC Chairman Says Irresponsible Republican Voting Machine Company an 'Excellent Fit' in Letter Explaining Hostile Offer, Twice Rejected by Diebold...3/3 modify


Election Integrity Advocates Bristle at 'Disastrous,' 'Surreal' News...


Prices for Diebold stock shares are soaring out of the 7-year basement this morning, where they have been sitting for the past several months since a coordinated insider sell-off by a dozen or so officers on the very same day last August, when the stock had been near its 52-week high at $53.04/share. Within days after the sell-off, the company renamed its humiliated Diebold Elections Division to Premier Election Solutions, and the stock has been falling, some 50% in total, ever since. Until today.


The New York Times reported a take-over attempt of the entire company by defense contractor conglomerate United Technologies Corp. (UTC). The initial $3 billion hostile bid to buy Diebold at $40/share is "a 66 percent premium over Diebold’s Friday closing price of $24.12," according to the Times' report.


As of 2pm ET today, Diebold's share price has soared some 60% to more than $38/share…


Bush gang tries to circumvent Congress on Iraq treaty
Given the clarity of Article II, Sec. 2 of the Constitution, and the fairly obvious role Congress is supposed to have in approving treaties, there really shouldn’t be any question about lawmakers’ role in approving a new security agreement struck between the White House and the Maliki government.


But this is Bush we’re talking about, so unambiguous constitutional language may not matter.


A Not-So-Simple Twist of Fate: Could Hillary Bequeath Us Our Long-Awaited Third Party?

Only Democrats could lose the White House in 2008. It's hard to imagine a more perfect storm favoring their decisive, landslide victory. This should be 1932 redux, and then some. There's a reviled incumbent from the opposite party, already past his expiration date four years ago when he stole a second election. There's a new nominee from that same party joined to him at the hip on the most important issues, and stupid enough to be seen as such publically.


There's the economy heading into a recession after years of lethargy for the middle class, An extremely unpopular war based on lies, A massive national debt, A housing crisis, An environmental crisis, Gas at well over three bucks a gallon, Oil over $100 a barrel, The dollar at record lows and plummeting, Pension stocks falling and cities falling apart - when they're not literally drowning, Scandals everywhere in the Republican Party, Three-fourths of the country believing America to be on the wrong track, And more.


Put it all together and it's an amazing scenario! It's like some poli-sci professor somewhere was tinkering around with a real-life statistical model, setting all the variables at max to see how big a blow-out is theoretically possible. "Hey, I wonder what happens if...?"


It's a perfect, perfect storm. And then along came Hillary. Look, I certainly don't object to her running if she wants to.


But I do object to how she's running, and I think Democratic voters are as dumb as a bag of hammers sitting out in the rain to pull the handle for her. In this year of the great political tsunami, Republicans have managed to - inadvertently, it would seem - choose their best hope to hold on to the presidency, even if they can't quite stand their own choice. Hillary would be the Democrats' worst hope.


She would go into the general election with all sorts of pre-existing baggage and negatives. She would get smashed to pieces by McCain on the very voter selection criteria she herself has articulated for use against Obama: experience and national security. McCain could virtually take her 3:00 a.m. ad, pull her out and drop himself in, and use it against her. And he will.


Her candidacy is already ugly to contemplate, and she hasn't even released her tax filings yet. Aren't Democrats just brilliant? Hey, maybe she can get Kerry to be her running mate! Perhaps Bob Shrum is free these days, and can finally push himself into double digits on his personal best lifetime count of presidential races lost (with zero wins), by managing the campaign.


The Clintons will do anything - and I mean anything - to get the presidency. This is a sickness that infects the hearts and minds of some people much more than others. Because of their own needs, most prominently a very deep-seated personal insecurity, they simply need the validation of being president, and they go after it like a heat-seeking missile headed toward a power plant.


It's a perfect, perfect storm. And then along came Hillary. Look, I certainly don't object to her running if she wants to. But I do object to how she's running, and I think Democratic voters are as dumb as a bag of hammers sitting out in the rain to pull the handle for her.


And then there Is Nancy Pelosi Running Around Loose As The “Goodwill Einstein” Ambassador of The Democrat Party… (Oh God, or a reasonable facsimile thereof; help us!)


Nancy Opens Her Big Mouth Again
By lumberjack(lumberjack)
Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic House speaker, said Boeing had been on course to supply the US Air Force with tankers until Mr McCain "intervened". "My understanding is that it was on course for Boeing before. I mean, the thought was that ...


Surrender Monkey Friday: Pelosi Pork Could Benefit Husband
By William Teach
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) dismissed any notion Thursday that her sponsorship of Medicaid legislation that would likely help her husband’s financial holdings in a pharmaceutical company presented a conflict of interest. ...


Pelosi weighs in, hammers McCain over Hagee endorsement
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is the highest ranking Roman Catholic official in the federal government, and not surprisingly, she finds John Hagee’s anti-Catholic rhetoric offensive. Yesterday, to her credit, she pressed John McCain on why he refuses to denounce Hagee’s bigotry. Nico Pitney has the story.


“That behavior is outside the circle of civilized debate in our democracy,” Pelosi said during a Thursday conference call. “I certainly think John McCain should reject his endorsement and I’m sure it won’t be long before he does.”


McCain has come under heavy fire from Catholic groups across the political spectrum for appearing with Hagee last week and declaring he was “proud” of the endorsement. Subsequently, McCain told reporters that Hagee’s backing “does not mean that I embrace everything that he stands for and believes,” but added, “I am very proud of the Pastor John Hagee’s spiritual leadership to thousands of people.”


Pelosi on Recommendation of Congressman Howard Berman as Chair of ...
WASHINGTON, March 6 --


Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced today that the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee voted to recommend Congressman Howard Berman of California to serve as Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, filling the vacancy left by the passing of Chairman Tom Lantos of California. (I Guess This Is A California Job!)


Club for Growth Commends Nancy Pelosi (Get Serious!)
Washington
– The Club for Growth commends Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi for considering a moratorium on earmarks for the Fiscal Year 2009 and encourages her to take the necessary steps to shut off the pork spigot, even if it is just for one year.


To be sure, Nancy Pelosi is motivated by less than pure intentions. It is hard to believe the former appropriator and consummate porker has suddenly become a great defender of taxpayers, but it will be taxpayers who win nonetheless. In the past fiscal year, taxpayers were forced to foot the bill for more than $18 billion in pork projects. Some of these earmarks included Kansas’ Prison Museum, California’s Mule and Packers Museum, and Maine’s Lobster Institute.


Already thirty lawmakers have taken personal moratoriums upon themselves in recognition of how out of control the earmarking process has gotten. Nancy Pelosi should follow their lead.


The cluelessness of Nancy Pelosi — John Hagee edition
Like my semi-regular “Irony Alert” and “Hypocrisy Alert” posts at my personal blog, the cluelessness of our Speaker of the House, if not of politicians in general could turn into a regular blog feature here.


Today’s installment? After calling for John McCain to reject the endorsement of bigoted “evangelist” (spreading the gospel of hate? Armageddon? Anti-Catholic, to be sure) John Hagee, our nation’s beloved dimwitted Speaker had to be reminded McCain solicited Hagee’s endorsement. A blogger on a blog conference call had to remind her of that.


But, wait, it gets better.

Fox’s Oliver North Blames Times Square Bombings On Pelosi And ...

Fruitcake Awards All Around!


Yesterday, a “shadowy figure on a bicycle” planted a small bomb that shattered the glass facade of the military recruiting station in Times Square in New York City. An investigation into the incident has begun.


Fox News’ Ollie North, however, has found his scapegoat. This morning, he said the incident may have been prevented had the House and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) granted a renewal of the Protect America Act:


Last month, of course, the U.S. House of Representatives at the direction of Nancy Pelosi went on vacation rather than voting on the Protect America Act, which provided for wiretapping of terrorists making phone calls into and out of the United States to foreign places.


And I note that it would have been a lot easier, perhaps, to find out who did this, or even to know that they were planning it, had we been able to intercept those communications.


Pelosi Stands Up for Clinton

Hillary Clinton scored more than just three presidential primary victories this week. She also helped freeze a movement of top Democrats set to call on her to concede to rival Barack Obama. A group of uncommitted superdelegates were ready to make a show of support for Obama by trying to pressure Clinton to give up, said Tim Roemer, a former congressman who's rounding up backers for Obama. Now, after her wins in Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island, many will still back Obama without calling on Clinton to quit, he said.


Yesterday I was on Capitol Hill to interview that most super of superdelegates, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. I call her "most super" because she will be chairing the Democratic convention this summer.


(NOW THERE IS A THOUGHT THAT JUST SENDS SHIVERS UP MY PARLIAMENTARIAN SPINE!)


She is staying studiously uncommitted, as well she must at this point in the race.


But I was intrigued by her answer to my question that I share with you below:


Pelosi asks Clinton, Obama to quit bickering (Let’s all play nice)

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi urged both leading Democratic presidential candidates to cease their bickering, warning that the escalating rhetoric could hurt the party's chances in November.


“Once upon a time, Far, Far away…Ed..


"I would encourage both of them, as I have, to remember we have to keep our eyes on the prize, which is the general election in November," Pelosi said Friday at a luncheon in New York sponsored by Lifetime Networks and the Hearst Corp., parent company of The Chronicle.


"We are all very passionate about our politics and the issues we believe in, but we have to be very dispassionate about how we approach winning. We have to lift the debate to a place that does not turn off the American people."


The comments came on the day that Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's foreign policy adviser, Samantha Power, resigned from the campaign for calling New York Sen. Hillary Clinton a "monster" in an interview with a Scottish newspaper. Power apologized for the remark.


Obama's supporters have also been rankled by comments by Clinton's spokesman, Howard Wolfson, who suggesed that Obama's campaign was "imitating Ken Starr," the independent prosecutor who investigated the Clintons in the 1990s.


And we’re just getting started…really!


Pelosi was asked about those comments and whether the intensifying rhetoric could end up helping Republican John McCain win in November. The San Francisco Democrat noted that the remarks were from Obama and Clinton advocates, not from the candidates themselves.


Hey Wichita, Pelosi says it's McCain's fault that Boeing lost the ...
Well its go to be someone else’s fault; doesn’t it?


Pelosi Statement on Troubling February Jobs Report, Largest ...
Political mish mash at its finest!


On PBS, Pelosi Demeaned Troops, Agreed We're In 'Bunker of 9-11'
By Tim Graham
That was the conflicted message emanating from Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Charlie Rose on PBS stations last Thursday night. Rose ran Pelosi through the usual list of anti-war talking points, and the Speaker suggested our troops are riddled ...


Say it ain't so Madame Speaker
By Brian Leubitz
Glenn Greenwald has it on good authority that my Representative, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, is planning on letting the Republicans own the Constitution: (?) I thought they already did and threw it away…it was too old to be any good any more.


Pelosi: Democrats will have a nominee before the convention
By rsinderbrand
WASHINGTON (CNN) – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Wednesday now is not the time for superdelegates to wade into the fight over the Democratic presidential nomination. "I think the electoral process has to work its way,” the California ...


MATH: No Democrat can win nomination?
By The Editors
... of the delegates in those states mathematically making it essentially impossible for either candidate to win the nomination outright, Democrat US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi decided today was the approriate time to show off. ...


Pelosi: Superdelegates Will Not Decide Race
NewsMax.com - West Palm Beach,FL,USA
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she believes Democratic primary and caucus voters will select a presidential nominee before the party’s convention in August ...


Pelosi: Super-Delegates Should Not Intervene In Dem Race Right Now
TPM - New York,NY,USA
... may be ripe to intervene in the Dem primary if it gets nasty, but the ultimate super-del -- Nancy Pelosi -- is warning against such a precipitous move. ...


DPG Chair Jane Kidd Endorses Obama {She’s a SD isn’t she Nancy?}
By Andre
On another note, US House Speaker & 2008 Democratic National Convention Permanent Chair Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has said she thinks "that now is not the time for anybody [meaning super delegates] to weigh in." ...


Pelosi aide: Congress is online-savvy, I swear
CNET News.com - San Francisco,CA,USA
Still, Karina Newton, who serves as director of new media for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, sought on Wednesday to debunk what she called a "myth" that our ... (Are They All La, La Land?)


Pelosi Confident About Superdelegate Process In Dem Race
AHN - USA
Washington, DC (AHN) - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) weighed in on the Democratic race on Wednesday, saying a protracted battle between Sens. ... (God She Never Stops Talking)


Nancy Pelosi is Sponsoring a bill That will Benefit Her Husband
By mrpinkeyes
Nancy Pelosi is sponsoring a bill that would allow HIV-positive patients who do not have AIDS to qualify for Medicaid. This bill has support on both sides of the aisle and it sounds fair enough, doesn’t it? At least it does if you think ... (OINK!)


Pelosi Tells Superdelegates to Back Off
By editor@truthdig.com(editor@truthdig.com)
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has once again warned superdelegates to stay out of the nominating process until they are needed: “The electoral process has to work its way.” Hillary Clinton has a strong advantage among superdelegates, ...


AAEA, NAACP & Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi

Check out the guest$! (No Typo)


Pelosi's ETHA bill and Amgen (The Needs A Full Read!)

March 06, 2008 Pelosi's ETHA bill and Amgen (updated)

Ray Robison


Previously, we reported the suspicious timing of Amgen executives making large donations to Speaker Pelosi's campaign just before she submitted a bill that would likely increase that company's bottom line. The Early Treatment of HIV Act (ETHA) would expand coverage of a pricey drug, EPOGEN® made by Amgen and used in treating anemia in HIV positive patients. In addition, the drug is marketed as PROCRIT® under license by Johnson & Johnson, a company in which -- according to her most recent financial disclosure -- she was heavily invested in at the time. J&J sales would increase and likely benefit Amgen (although possibly indirectly) under licensing agreements. CNSnews has investigated and affirmed our initial revelations to a great extent and added to the case.


Medicaid announced it was considering cutbacks in government purchasing of those drugs several months before the Amgen donations were made. Just a few days before Medicaid was set to announce implementation of the rules change, Amgen execs began dumping money into the campaign coffers of Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic Party. Speaker Pelosi submitted the ETHA bill, which would reverse some of the Medicaid expenditure reduction within hours of the formal announcement of the Medicaid changes.


In addition, as Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi sets the agenda of the House. The House joined the Senate in approving informal resolutions urging Medicaid to cancel the rules change late last year. The effort worked, Medicaid did so and Amgen stocks soared. The House resolution and the separate ETHA bill were both overwhelmingly backed by Democrats. Amgen CEO, and President Kevin Sharer pumped $26,000 into congressional Democrats campaign committees in the weeks before the ETHA bill was submitted and after Medicaid announced it was considering the rules change.


Pelosi received $30,000 from Amgen executives to her campaign and the Democrat campaign committees received $26,000 just prior to the bill submittal. A look at the 2007 donations of Amgen show very little donations at any other time, in 2007 or otherwise.


Subsequent investigation has revealed that another money-maker drug made by Amgen estimated to cost $30,000 per patient in some cases would likely benefit from increased purchasing under ETHA implementation. That drug called Enbrel is used as an inhibitor in cases of severe psoriasis among other conditions. Many HIV patients develop psoriasis and other conditions which are also under medical testing with Enbrel treatment. If approved by the FDA for treatment in HIV associated illness, the expanded market of government purchasing provided by the ETHA bill could be a real windfall for the company.


The ethical course for Congress

Legislation to create an office to keep Congress clean should include subpoena power.

March 6, 2008


Before his conversion to Christianity, St. Augustine prayed: "Grant me chastity and continence, but not yet." We were reminded of Augustine's hesitation last week when Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) reiterated her support for an independent ethics office for the House of Representatives even as she was withdrawing legislation to create such an office from the House floor.


Like Augustine, the speaker and her colleagues should see the light and make good her promise that this would be the "the most honest, ethical and open Congress in history." As we have argued before, redeeming that pledge requires that complaints about misbehavior by members be scrutinized by an independent watchdog who could then forward complaints to the House Ethics Committee.


A bill proposed by Rep. Michael E. Capuano (D-Mass.) would create an Office of Congressional Ethics governed by a six-member board comprising experts in law, regulatory policy or professional ethics. The board would conduct both preliminary and advanced investigations and refer serious charges to the Ethics Committee. If the committee were to reject a recommendation for further investigation, the board's report would be made public -- a powerful incentive for the committee not to engage in cover-up.


The House could vote as early as today on a new version of the Capuano measure. Some of the changes Capuano has floated are improvements, such as a requirement that all six members of the board be jointly appointed by the majority leader and the minority leader. That would discourage the appointment of highly partisan individuals regardless of their party. If all six members must have bipartisan support, there is no need for another concession Capuano has floated -- a requirement that the board could initiate an investigation only if at least one member from each party agreed.


The most positive change in the legislation would be one that Pelosi and Capuano aren't promoting -- subpoena power for the new office. Without that power, the office could find it difficult to assemble the sort of case against a member that would require the Ethics Committee to take notice. Capuano's bill would allow the office to identify potential targets of subpoenas in the reports it sends to the Ethics Committee, but that's a poor substitute for the ability to examine documents and witnesses itself.


Because House Republicans are cool to the creation of any independent ethics operation, Pelosi needs overwhelming support from her party to launch a new era in ethics enforcement. What matters isn't the number of Democrats who vote to create a new ethics office, but that office's ability to pursue allegations of wrongdoing into hidden recesses of lawmakers' dealings with lobbyists, contractors and contributors. A toothless watchdog would be as bad as no watchdog at all.


Pelosi May Trump GOP on Earmarks
CQPolitics.com - Washington,DC,USA
Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer and senior Democratic aides said that Speaker Nancy Pelosi , other party leaders and their staffs were examining a moratorium ...


Pelosi: Dems 'absolutely' will continue pursuing contempt after ...
Raw Story - Cambridge,MA,USA
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that Democrats would not abandon their pursuit of contempt of Congress charges against two Bush administration ...

See all stories on this topic

Pelosi Won’t Commit to Bringing Up Surveillance Bill Before Easter ...

CQPolitics.com - Washington,DC,USA

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi indicated Thursday that new legislation regulating electronic surveillance may come to the House floor next week, but would not ...
See all stories on this topic


Pelosi Hints Decision May Be Near On Earmark Moratorium
CQPolitics.com - Washington,DC,USA

Speaker Nancy Pelosi indicated Thursday that a decision may be near on imposing an moratorium on appropriations earmarks. “My patience is running out on ...
See all stories on this topic


Pelosi: Surveillance Bill Focus Should Be on "Exclusivity"
TPM - New York,NY,USA

In a conference call with bloggers today, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) made it clear that her highest priority for a surveillance bill was that it ...
See all stories on this topic


Ala. Dems to Speaker Pelosi: Leave Alabama Jobs Alone!
By markeshia ricks(Ben Cunningham)
Jim Folsom leading the way, the Alabama Democrats have collectively told their fellow Democrat Speaker of the US House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi to back off. Earlier this week Folsom fired off a testy letter to Pelosi expressing ...
Capitol Letters - http://starcapitol.blogspot.com/


Pelosi Weighs Ban on 'Earmark' Spending
The Associated Press -
WASHINGTON (AP) — Under pressure from Republicans, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is considering a ban on home-district projects sought by lawmakers, ...
See all stories on this topic


Alabama Senate urges Pelosi to accept Air Force tanker contract
al.com - Birmingham,AL,USA
(AP) — The Alabama Senate has passed a resolution encouraging US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to accept the Air Force's decision to award a tanker ...
See all stories on this topic


Pelosi plans to file law suit to enforce WH subpoenas
Austin American-Statesman - Austin,TX,USA
By Rebecca Carr | Thursday, March 6, 2008, 04:03 PM House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., did not mince words today about her intention to force the Bush ...

See all stories on this topic


The Huffington Post Pelosi Blasts McCain Over Anti-Catholic Pastor
Huffington Post - New York,NY,USA
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the most prominent Catholic serving in the US government, has called on Sen. John McCain to reject the endorsement of Texas ...

See all stories on this topic


Will Pelosi steal a march on pork moratorium?
Hot Air - MD,USA
Now it looks as if Nancy Pelosi may try to steal the issue from the GOP by endorsing a one-year moratorium. But how will she get Jack Murtha to agree? ...

See all stories on this topic


AND THIS IS WHAT WE'RE UP AGAINST!!! LET ALONE OUR OWN PEOPLE!


Condemn the Berkeley City Council’s actions and support the Semper ...
By devildog6771
It is a “petition” effort by Townhall.com to express outrage to the city council of Berkeley, California, “Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and their liberal cohorts that we’ve had enough of their assaults on our troops. ...
HELLO IRAQ - http://devildog6771.wordpress.com


The Political Landscape
By Turkana
A couple weeks ago, Nancy Pelosi said they shouldn't overrule the voters. Many took that to mean that she wanted the superdelegates to shut down Hillary Clinton's campaign. Many in the shrillosphere are still calling for Clinton to shut ...
The Left Coaster - http://www.theleftcoaster.com/


Earmarks: Republicans Led The Fight
By Justin Higgins
If Nancy Pelosi moves to the GOP's side on this issue, the GOP needs to point out that she was the one preventing a moratorium before, and she obviously saw the light due to the actions of the GOP leadership. I'll close this out with an ...
Right On The Right - - http://www.rightontheright.com


Pelosi weighs ban on 'earmark' spending
San Jose Mercury News - CA, USA
Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and actor Tom Hanks, executive producer of "John Adams", pose for photographers at the US Capitol before the screening of the HBO ...
See all stories on this topic


Pelosi Won't Divest Drug Stock, Dismisses Conflict Claim
Crosswalk.com - Chesterfield,VA,USA
Washington (CNSNews.com) - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) dismissed any notions Thursday that her sponsorship of Medicaid legislation that would ...

See all stories on this topic


Nancy Opens Her Big Mouth Again
By lumberjack(lumberjack)
Nancy Pelosi
, the Democratic House speaker, said Boeing had been on course to supply the US Air Force with tankers until Mr McCain "intervened". "My understanding is that it was on course for Boeing before. I mean, the thought was that ...
Are We Lumberjacks? - http://arewelumberjacks.blogspot.com/


AN IMPORTANT VIRGINIA BLUE BREAK BEFORE THE FINALE!


Andrea has my Endorsement...Here and Now!

As many of you already know, I am running as a Democrat for the U.S. House of Representatives in the 4th Congressional District in Virginia against Republican J. Randy Forbes. I'm running as a "citizen candidate" (a parent, a teacher, a community activist, a pro-choice advocate and a defender of the U.S. Constitution — not a professional politician). I strongly believe that the $1.6 billion spent in Iraq in the 4th District could have been better invested for jobs, teachers, healthcare and infrastructure in my community.


When I checked http://www.opensecrets.org today, Randy Forbes had a little over $300,000 available for this race. As the former Chairman of the Republican Party in Virginia, I am positive he will raise over a $1 million. I am counting on all my friends to help me jumpstart my campaign in one of three ways.


  • Host a fund raising event for me. I'll be happy to travel wherever you are, meet your guests, give a short presentation/speech and answer questions
  • Create an ActBlue Fundraising Page for me and send it out to your address book. Simply go to http://actblue.com/content/learnmore/fundraise and create a page. Use your own words or feel free to borrow any of mine from this email or my Web site http://www.andreamiller.us.
  • From this email make a donation of $25, $50 or $100. You can also send a check to: Andrea Miller for Congress, 14004 Summersedge Terrace, Chesterfield, VA 23832. If you can manage, a recurring donation would be great


For those of you who know me well, you know that I have been working to change the world for a long time. It took me awhile but I finally found my true calling; I believe I was born to do this.

Sincerely,

Andrea Miller
Congressional Candidate
VA 4th District, U.S. House of Representatives


The morning after Tuesday's primaries, Hillary Clinton's campaign released a memo titled "The Path to the Presidency." I eagerly dug into the paper, figuring it would explain how Clinton would obtain the Democratic nomination despite an enormous deficit in delegates. Instead, the memo offered a series of arguments as to why Clinton should run against John McCain - i.e., "Hillary is seen as the one who can get the job done" - but nothing about how she actually could. Is she planning a third-party run? Does she think Obama is going to die? The memo does not say.


The reason it doesn't say is that Clinton's path to the nomination is pretty repulsive. She isn't going to win at the polls. Barack Obama has a lead of 144 pledged delegates. That may not sound like a lot in a 4,000-delegate race, but it is. Clinton's Ohio win reduced that total by only nine. She would need 15 more Ohios to pull even with Obama. She isn't going to do much to dent, let alone eliminate, his lead.


That means, as we all have grown tired of hearing, that she would need to win with superdelegates. But, with most superdelegates already committed, Clinton would need to capture the remaining ones by a margin of better than two to one. And superdelegates are going to be extremely reluctant to overturn an elected delegate lead the size of Obama's. The only way to lessen that reluctance would be to destroy Obama's general election viability, so that superdelegates had no choice but to hand the nomination to her.


Hence her flurry of attacks, her oddly qualified response as to whether Obama is a Muslim ("not as far as I know"), her repeated suggestions that John McCain is more qualified.


Clinton's justification for this strategy is that she needs to toughen up Obama for the general election-if he can't handle her attacks, he'll never stand up to the vast right-wing conspiracy. Without her hazing, warns the Clinton memo, "Democrats may have a nominee who will be a lightening rod of controversy." So Clinton's offensive against the likely nominee is really an act of selflessness. And here I was thinking she was maniacally pursuing her slim thread of a chance, not caring - or possibly even hoping, with an eye toward 2012 - that she would destroy Obama's chances of defeating McCain in the process. I feel ashamed for having suspected her motives.


Still, there are a few flaws in Clinton's trial-by-smear method. The first is that her attacks on Obama are not a fair proxy for what he'd endure in the general election, because attacks are harder to refute when they come from within one's own party. Indeed, Clinton is saying almost exactly the same things about Obama that McCain is: He's inexperienced, lacking in substance, unequipped to handle foreign policy. As The Washington Monthly's Christina Larson has pointed out, in recent weeks the nightly newscasts have consisted of Clinton attacking Obama, McCain attacking Obama, and then Obama trying to defend himself and still get out his own message. If Obama's the nominee, he won't have a high-profile Democrat validating McCain's message every day.


Second, Obama can't "test" Clinton the way she can test him. While she likes to claim that she beat the Republican attack machine, it's more accurate to say that she survived with heavy damage. Clinton is a wildly polarizing figure, with disapproval ratings at or near 50 percent. But, because she earned the intense loyalty of core Democratic partisans, Obama has to tread gingerly around her vulnerabilities. There is a big bundle of ethical issues from the 1990s that Obama has not raised because he can't associate himself with what partisan Democrats (but not Republicans or swing voters) regard as a pure GOP witch hunt.


What's more, Clinton has benefited from a favorable gender dynamic that won't exist in the fall. (In the Democratic primary, female voters have outnumbered males by nearly three to two.) Clinton's claim to being a tough, tested potential commander-in-chief has gone almost unchallenged. Obama could reply that being First Lady doesn't qualify you to serve as the commander-in-chief, but he won't quite say that, because feminists are an important chunk of the Democratic electorate. John McCain wouldn't be so reluctant.


Third, negative campaigning is a negative-sum activity. Both the attacker and the attackee tend to see their popularity drop. Usually, the victim's popularity drops farther than the perpetrator's, which is why negative campaigning works. But it doesn't work so well in primaries, where the winner has to go on to another election.


Clinton's path to the nomination, then, involves the following steps: kneecap an eloquent, inspiring, reform-minded young leader who happens to be the first serious African American presidential candidate (meanwhile cementing her own reputation for Nixonian ruthlessness) and then win a contested convention by persuading party elites to override the results at the polls. The plan may also involve trying to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations, after having explicitly agreed that the results would not count toward delegate totals. Oh, and her campaign has periodically hinted that some of Obama's elected delegates might break off and support her. I don't think she'd be in a position to defeat Hitler's dog in November, let alone a popular war hero.


Some Clinton supporters, like my friend (and historian) David Greenberg, have been assuring us that lengthy primary fights go on all the time and that the winner doesn't necessarily suffer a mortal wound in the process. But Clinton's kamikaze mission is likely to be unusually damaging. Not only is the opportunity cost - to wrap up the nomination, and spend John McCain into the ground for four months - uniquely high, but the venue could not be less convenient. Pennsylvania is a swing state that Democrats will almost certainly need to win in November, and Clinton will spend seven weeks and millions of dollars there making the case that Obama is unfit to set foot in the White House. You couldn't create a more damaging scenario if you tried.


Imagine in 2000, or 2004, that George W. Bush faced a primary fight that came down to Florida (his November must-win state). Imagine his opponent decided to spend seven weeks pounding home the theme that Bush had a dangerous plan to privatize Social Security. Would this have improved Bush's chances of defeating the Democrats? Would his party have stood for it?

No comments: