Decoding Pelosi

With her election as Speaker, she is the first woman, the first Californian, and the first Italian-American to hold the Speakership. She is the second Speaker from a state west of the Rocky Mountains, with the first being Washington's Tom Foley, who was the last Democrat to hold the post before Pelosi. As Speaker of the House, Pelosi ranks second in the line of presidential succession, following Vice President Dick Cheney. She is therefore the highest-ranking woman in the history of the U.S. Government. -Wikipedia.org

When she was elected as Speaker, Pelosi clearly weighed in that this was a victory for women. She said in her acceptance speech, "This is a historic moment — for the Congress, and for the women of this country. It is a moment for which we have waited more than 200 years. Never losing faith, we waited through the many years of struggle to achieve our rights. But women weren't just waiting; women were working. Never losing faith, we worked to redeem the promise of America, that all men and women are created equal. For our daughters and granddaughters, today, we have broken the marble ceiling. For our daughters and our granddaughters, the sky is the limit, anything is possible for them." -The San Fransisco Chronicle

Pelosi is sort of the "clean Clinton." She's got a history of getting elected instead of appointed. She has never participated in a candidate debate. She has a history of landslide victories. She seems to have a monogamous and happy marriage. In her marriage, she is the political big wig, and did not stand on her husband's shoulders to get where she is. Nationally she is seen as a liberal, although her constituents consider her moderate. She is a strong and popular advocate for women in politics. In spite of what should be a clear-cut case for supporting Clinton (including her constituency supporting Clinton), it must sting a little bit to see Clinton take the limelight as the "first."

I think the arguments that Pelosi is supporting Obama secretly or that she would benefit politically by supporting him are little more than rumors. I'd say Pelosi's Freudian slip in referring to Clinton's campaign as the "Clinton Administration" here, certainly shows that she has at least envisioned Clinton as president. Further, rumors that Obama should pick Pelosi as VP are pretty silly. First of all, why would Pelosi give up her place as Speaker on the chance of becoming Vice President, a political post of questionable influence, with term limits, and one that would only bring her one step closer to the presidency? She would be stepping out of the legislative process, which is where she has the most of her influence. Ignoring for a moment the fact the VP picks really have very little to do with the outcome of presidential elections, Pelosi also isn't a great choice for either Obama or Clinton. She doesn't represent strength in either candidate's weak areas, her performance as Speaker has been less than stellar, and she stands to gain a lot more for herself by staying right where she is. Ignoring also the few pointed departures from her usual liberalism, Pelosi seems like a sensible and dedicated Democrat with the best interests of her party and the people in general at heart. In her NECN (New England Cable News) interview, Pelosi said, "We must have a Democratic president." She also stressed her uncommitted status and distanced herself from the campaign completely.

Pelosi wears many hats right now. As Speaker she is primarily concerned with Democratic control of the House. As Permanent Chair of the 2008 Convention, she is concerned with the integrity of the process. And as a superdelegate, she is concerned with picking the best candidate for president. I think Pelosi is doing what she knows is safest and staying out of it.

Clinton and Pelosi have both stood out as Bush critics. Obama and Pelosi both enjoy very liberal images in general. Pelosi has taken a lot of criticism for putting the kabosh on impeachment proceedings against Bush. I believe Pelosi understood that this would have been a waste of effort. Only 2 presidents have been impeached and both were acquitted by the Senate, stayed in office, and experienced increased popularity and power in Congress due to it. To get Bush out of office, Democrats would have had to give almost every second of their time and muster their entire constituencies. Pelosi saw upcoming battles for control of Congress, and the early stirrings of a very important presidential election as bigger issues, and no doubt they are. Bush was already a second-term president by the time all this came into play, which meant he was on the way down anyway. His approval ratings were so low by 2006 there was little point to getting rid of him. Passing up the shiny prize of impeaching Bush in favor of more realistic and likely long-term gains was the much wiser sentiment, even though it cost her some of her liberal image, and got her soundly chewed out by her home constituents. Pelosi can take the hit. In 20 years, she has never faced a serious challenge to her seat.

Pelosi's main problem is eroding approval ratings of the Democratic Congress since she became Speaker. Failure to effectively challenge Bush is cited as the cause. More specifically, failure to push the current administration's hand on settling affairs in Iraq. There is an argument that Pelosi would be biased toward Obama because of his stronger claims to being anti-war than Clinton. I'm not convinced he is all that anti-war, and agree with this article that asserts Obama has been inconsistent on his Iraq position. I also believe that in spite of Obama's slight lead in the Iraq debate, Pelosi shares many more commonalities with Clinton both in position and plan. Her constituency supports Clinton by and large. She shares a view with Clinton on the importance of this election for women. I also think that Clinton's vocal support of Pelosi's role in Syria indicates the two share a view on foreign relations schematics as well. Pelosi referred to her "gut" in her weekly press conference yesterday, and I think her gut says go with Hillary. Pelosi pretty strongly put forth her experience as the reason they should believe her. She said there wasn't time for her to share her "lifetime" of knowledge. Pelosi understands that tenure and backing of the party line make a recipe for success, both of which Clinton has over Obama. While Pelosi will no doubt remain neutral, I suspect her superdelegate vote will go to Clinton eventually.

That could change before it's all said and done. I think her many and possibly conflicting roles inside the party are going to lead her to back whoever fronts the strongest case by August. I can see a conforming support of Obama, versus what I think is fair to call a natural support for Clinton. No one is anxious to jump on the Hillary bandwagon, for fear of looking corrupted, versus how readily people are flocking to Obama. If I were the most powerful Democrat in government I would be wary of both: looking corrupt or looking fleeced by a cult.

To wrap up, I would like to point out what Pelosi has actually said. After all, she did say, "I just speak, you interpret."

"We must have a Democratic president," [source]

I think this clearly identifies Pelosi's priority: winning in November. She may be uninvolved in the campaign now, but that is going to change on August 29th. The only person she is going to hand over the title of "most powerful Democrat in America" to is the next President. This is a major throwdown to the GOP, the kind she has been criticized for not offering up to now. No matter who the nominee is, Pelosi will come out swinging. If the GOP does by some miracle win in November, her political power, and the chances of retaining it, are in extreme jeopardy. In this vein, Pelosi stands to lose a lot more than either Clinton or Obama in a worst case scenario. They'll still have careers with a chance of getting better.

"I think that ticket either way is impossible," [source]

Not, "I think Clinton-Obama is impossible," as the media is spinning it. Yes, that, but also, "I think Obama-Clinton is impossible." Pelosi has indicated that she thinks neither combination will happen and cited her "lifetime of political gut" as how she knows. I believe the reason she specifically cited Clinton as having ruled it out herself is because, of the two possible pairings, Clinton-Obama is the only one anyone could imagine. Obama did say, "Hillary would be on anyone's short list," but I doubt he would ask her and more I doubt she would accept. But, I don't think that is why Pelosi thinks it won't happen. I think she is looking at how seldom the top two contenders in a nomination race have paired up, and how even less often it has worked. Top two combo is not a winning strategy.

"Yes, there is going to be a dream team," [source]

No matter who is picked, Democrats are going to call it a dream team. They definitely aren't going to put forth a combined ticket like this, "Well, it's the best we could do. Good luck ya'll." Whoever claws their way to the top of the nominating process will be on the top of the ticket. Whoever is picked as VP will be the real McCain contrast. Neither Clinton nor Obama represents a strength to each other in that way. Both face different issues in creating strategies against McCain, and that is where the selection of a VP will really matter.

I'm surprised conspiracy theorists aren't already jumping all over Pelosi's certainty that any combination of Clinton and Obama will not happen. How does she know really? I've said how I thinks she knows, or at least what she means. Pelosi speaks. I interpret.