Political Punch

You're right!

I've been a Democrat since the days of segregation. I'm so proud of our Governor, Ed Rendell ,The Staff & His Friends here in Pa for supporting Hillary.

They believe just as I, that Obama is nothing more that a sheperd boy that is out of line. His place in the Democratic Party is at the back of the bus. Why doen't he get it? The rest of us Pa. Demos do!

This Obama campaign will stop at nothing to prevent Our Great White Hope Hillary from getting the nomination & presidency that we all know she is entitled too.

They are bent on nothing more than racism that spews this bitter, hatred towards Hillary. What else would you call it. They're not fooling me. Go Hillary!

Old Guard Demo & proud of it.

Ms. Pelosi lost all credibility when she took impeachment off the table.

I like the title about Hillary doing all of the wining and dining when it is being done by both sides.....but on this site I don't expect any better. According to Pelosi she was going to stay neutral "NOT!" It's true the decision should be made by the delegates but I am afraid that also includes the super delegates. There are a lot of things in the democratic primary that have been unfair and I hope they make some changes. The caucus voting was unfair to Hillary because elderly and working people were unable to vote. That's the very reason Obama is ahead in the delegate count. As long as Hillary wins by the "rules" the Obama people have no right to complain.

Pelosi is off-target, and rationalizing to support a position that is incorrect. While the whole structure of the primary/caucus delegate/ superdelegate process is anti-democratic beyond dispute, it is quite unfortunately what the Democrats have foisted off on the candidates and the nominating "electorate". Pelosi's position that it somehow would be improper or wrong or undemocratic for the superdelegates to "overturn" the determination of the voters (via their purported "pledged" delegate surrogates), is obtuse and hypocritical. Is she contending that the superdelegates are just occupying "honorary", but non- functional positions? Or is she saying that the "rules" Obama so highmindedly insists be followed don't extend to the use of superdelegates? Any way you slice it, it is a specious and self-serving Obama position. Either superdelegates are there to serve a purpose, such as resolve an impasse, or they are there as a rubber-stamp for "the will of the voters", in which case they are superfluous. Clearly, they exist for the former. But, just to illustrate how muddled and undemocratic Pelosi's position is, she contends (as does the DNC) that the "will of the voters" is only properly measured by the number of "pledged" delegates each candidate has, and not by the number of "real" voter votes (so-called popular) each has. Thus, if Obama has more "pledged" delegates and Clinton has more "voter(popular)votes", Obama should be the nominee, and the superdelegates should not, dare not (there will be riots)vote so as to override the delegate count, because by "rule" that is the "will of the voters", even though it clearly is not in the given hypothetical. It is just so pathetic that otherwise reasonable persons are forced to adopt such humiliatingly specious arguments because of, and in defense of, such a patently, blatantly UNdemocratic Democrat nomination process. Disgusted, dismayed, disappointed, distressed, disheartened, but still a (little "d") Democrat.

Hurricane Hillary is causing severe damage to the Democrat Party. Similar to the Clintons' mastery of "scorched earth" and "vise-grip" politics: if she doesn't get her nomination to the presidency Hurricane Hillary will spawn off whirlwinds of destruction with the anger and the perpetual fury the party have yet to witness. Katrina will look like the eye of the storm compared to the Clintons' wrath. Shore up and brace yourselves for the perfect storm Democrats!

Then she wonders why she has to lend her self money Living way above her means,,,,using or minies...

delegates are delegates and its a long way to june.

Ms Pelosi arguements lack logic and seem to be a partisan attempt to support one candidate over another.

One assumes since voters and delegates in California were won by Clinton MS Pelosi will be voting for her., but no.

You see there is no logic. What she is saying is that all other mechanisms of the democratic process, even those in place for decades be ignored to give Mr Obama a win, supported by caucus delegates in red states the dems will never win. That's all she's saying.

In all honesty its not her place to give an opinion of this and its totally out of line. She should simply have outlined the process by which democrats chose delegates to go to convention and what happens then, which is that ALL delegates, yes ALL delegates get to vote for whomever they want.

Ms. Pelosi and other Obama supporters arent interested in the deocratic process or the various methods that eventually determine the nominee thought out over decades. She is only interested in putting forward one candidates position.

You know Republicans are really good at winning the white house. They use the same winner take all system that is used in the general election to determine their nominee. Under this system, Hillary Clinton would be the nominee by now.

Republicans are very good at winning the white house. Ms Pelosi would do well to remember this, remain neutral not just in name and do her own job.