2007/02/19

Kvatch Konsiders - President Pelosi

Anyone who reads Blognonymous knows that I've been very critical of Nancy Pelosi ever since she took over as the House Minority Leader, but when the rubber hits the road, she may be the single Democrat most qualified to become our next President...

...and 2008 may be an ideal year. Consider: Americans love to elect governors to our highest office. In fact, since 1976 we've had only one 'non-governor' as president, Bush Sr., and I would argue that he's an anomaly--really just the caretaker of the last 4 years of Reagan's 12 in office. This time around though, no governor has a viable candidacy. On the Democratic side, Warner and Richardson are the longest of long shots, and on the Republican side you've got Romney who, for a number of reasons, is unelectable.

Moreover, when it comes to qualifications the two Democratic front-runners are sadly lacking. Senator Clinton never held a political office before she became NY's junior senator, and Senator Obama isn't even qualified for his own Senate seat much less the office of the President, having served as a state legislator since 96 and at the national level for...well let's see...two months.

Nancy Pelosi, on the other hand, has served continuously in the House for almost 20 years, rising to become it's first female Speaker. Despite the right's attempt to paint her as a wild-eyed leftist, she's actually more conservative than the district she represents. Her opposition to Bush and the Iraq War are well-documented. She's well-seasoned as a politician and as a campaigner. But the important question is: Does Speaker Pelosi have the ambition?

There was a time, before our nominating conventions became carefully scripted coronations, when they deadlocked and had to look for a compromise nominee. I doubt it will ever happen again, but with Clinton and Obama at the top of the Democratic heap...you never know. And who could fill the role of the compromise candidate? Pelosi, the one politician more qualified than both of the contenders.

HT to KnightErrant and Windspike for nudging me in this direction.

33 Comments:

I don't know, President Pelosi. Too alliterative?
Prez Pelosi sounds great to me.
You make a great case for her, but it will never happen.
Fashiongirl...oh come on! "President Pelosi prosecuted a pack of pickled 'publicans."

Peacechick... PhoenixNYC is probably right, but if it does it will kept secret till the very last moment.
You do bring up some interesting points about Pelosi, but I don't think it will happen. She is seen as a San Francisco liberal -- which is the worst kind of liberal, according to the hard right.

I have to speak up for my man, Barack. From StarTribune.com:

The greatest president in U.S. history was also the least qualified for the job. Several presidents who came to office with the most impressive resumés turned into White House flops.

The first president cited above was Abraham Lincoln, who is usually at the top of every list of great presidents. Yet he was the only president with no experience as a governor, senator, Cabinet member, general or vice president. Lincoln’s previous experience in public office consisted of one term in the U.S. House, several terms in the Illinois Legislature and a brief tenure as postmaster of New Salem, Ill. He was also an unsuccessful merchant, a successful lawyer and twice an unsuccessful candidate for the U.S. Senate.


Food for thought....
They are masticating her for her appointments. First it was Murtha, and did you hear she appointed Jefferson (Mr. 90K in cold hard cash literally in the freezer) to the Homeland Security Committee? What is she thinking?
20 years of tradition unmarred by progress does not qualify as experience. Until she shows that she respects the laws in our constitution, she's not qualified to hold the position she has. Non-binding resolutions isn't going to get the job done.

What would she do as President? Throw a non-binding resolution at the Terrorists?
Lizzy... This was really just me thinking out loud. I don't for a second think that Pelosi wants or can get the nomination. But about Obama...you raise a good point, but will he be any less qualified after six years in the Senate? The bigger danger is that he'd contract lung cancer and die from it before attempting a run.

Praguetwin...she certainly does make mistakes. Look at Silvestre Reyes, but I still think she's more qualified than the other Democratic contenders, and maybe that's the GOP goal...to get the least qualified Dem through the nominating process.
Add this to the reasons to consider her candidacy. She is committed to legislative transparency! Even before her rise to the Speakers position, she was working behind the scenes on making real change to the way business is done on the hill.

More here:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/12/8/185933/459

And here:
http://pridepress.blogspot.com/2007/02/one-citizens-dreambecomes-realitythe.html

And here:
http://www.theopenhouseproject.com/press/

Seems to me a leader in the White House that can claim such measures to create honesty & integrity in the House is a good thing! A very good thing!
With Hillary ready to out spend everyone from anywheres around 20 or 40 to one...what's the point in even discussing 08' anymore. (at least until 08')
20 years of tradition unmarred by progress does not qualify as experience.

Hmmm... I'm not going to give an exhaustive list of Pelosi's accomplishments here. They are many. And nobody has given her more shit than I over her abdication of the congressional responsibility for impeaching Bu$hCo, but that said, she's certainly accomplished more than Clinton, and as far as Obama is concerned...the man has accomplished nothing, and will accomplish nothing as he turns his focus to the race.

So...if you've got a better candidate-- one with the recognition, maturity, and possibility of a success against the GOP, then name him/her. It isn't Warner or Richardson. Feingold is out, as is Gore. Edwards has been out of the public eye for too long. So who's left?

But please keep in mind, as Fred has so correctly pointed out, Clinton has more money God, has a pretty good bead on 08, and I was just thinking out loud.
I do know that Ms. Clinton terrifies the crap out of the Christian Taliban, and that right there scores her some points in my book. But when push comes to shove, are the people of America ready to walk into the voting booth, and check the box next to a woman's name?

Don't know for sure. Even four years ago, I would have said "No." I see who's running for prez, and I'm not liking what I see so far.

I also see that "Ralphie Boy's" ego isn't satisfied yet. He's still insisting that there's no difference between the two parties, and he's still full of shit, like he's always been.
Limbaugh would call her pp girl for president pelosi

Anyway, some speculate that the reason she is not pushing so hard for impeachment of Bush/Cheney and waiting for Conyers or Waxman or someone else to make the case is that she would be next in line for the Presidency.

She's in a tough spot. If she pushes impeachment she may appear to be making a grab for power.

At the same time, announcing a run for The Presidency this early may also hamper her ability to be an effective speaker.

Will she run? I doubt it. She probably thinks she could get more done as speaker.

I was sort of hoping Clinton would not run as she could probably be more effective as a Senator.

Alas, we have to vote for the candidates we get, not the ones we want.
i am really liking gravel for 2008. he is older than dirt and seems to speak his mind. i don't agree with all of his platform but i do like his courage to speak his mind. ahhh-- basking in some sort of integrity.
Kvatch,
Thanks for the HT and the link up. President Pelosi may be a much more attractive option than Hillary as such. You have a point, that the process is more like a coronation than anything else, unfortunately. As the technology has imrpoved, perhaps its high time to have a serious conversation about eliminating the electoral collage and moving the operation to a more popular style voting mechanism. If that were the case in Y2K, we might not have seen even 9/11 happen as Gore would have been elected over the selection of GWB.
Gary... Thanks for the links. I'll be interested to see what Speaker Pelosi does with the Open House Project's report.

Hariseldon67...actually I think that any of the candidates should scare the crap out of the rightists. Considering how McCain is bending over daily to kiss Christian conservative ass. As for Ralph, I blogged on him a few days ago, and the man has taken leave of his senses.
Polishifter... I agree Pelosi is walking a fine line with the impeachment issue, but she'd have to go after Vice President Buckshot as well.

Betmo... Wow! Gravel? I looked him up--didn't even know he was a candidate. Now that's a long shot.

Windspike... My pleasure on the link.

I'd certainly like to see our state represented with more a more balanced system, but on the 9/11 issue, I think that it still would have happened, but the response...the response...night and day.
I think we ARE ready to elect a woman, and I prefer Pelosi to Clinton. But even I would consider paying to go to a fundraiser to meet slick willie...so I know she's going to raise more money.

In the end, I will vote against the rethug candidate, rather than for the dem candidate, as I usually do.
Sixteen years of southern accents make me happy for anyone who doesn't drawl.
Gov. Richardson is actually the most qualified, but don't underestimate Obama - I like what I see so far.

I'm in the Anyone But Hillary Club ...
I was pissed when Pelosi wimped out on impeachment too, but I like pretty much everything else I've seen from her. I would happily vote for her.
I'm in the Anyone But Hillary Club

CitizenBoo... I'm with Pam in the 'anyone but McCain club'. Richardson is very qualified but doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell.

Betty... It would be interesting to see if Pelosi has the interest.

Lew... There isn't a southerner in the field this time. Warner? Maybe?
Pelosi is an incredibly gifted legislator, but that's a very different skill set than that of an executive. I'm not sure her legislative ability would translate to an executive role.

I'm not at all concerned about Obama's supposed lack of experience. I think he's smart enough and learns quickly enough to do just fine.
It may just be that Senator Obama's lack of experience is a benefit, rather than a detriment. We've had enough of "business as usual", IMNSHO.

I think the numbers 15 and 19 are more applicable here. The 15th ammendment to the Constitution is the one that eliminates voting discrimination based on race.

The 19th ammendment to the Constitution is the one that allows women to vote.

I think the insistance of the severely intellectually handicapped in still believing that "a woman's place is in the home, barefoot and pregnant" is more prevalent than the alleged "Racism" that Jesse & Louis would have you believe underlies every act a white person performs.

The country might could get behind a black candidate. I do not believe ANY woman candidate can win... especially not Shrillary.

The level of pure, unadulterated HATRED by even those of moderate right-leaning is phenominal - and only her own hubris refuses to allow her to see it.
It's too early for my mind to wrap around this campaigning, but I'm keeping an eye on Gov. Vilsack (D). He has a riches-to-rags story (that right, his dad lost their fortune) and he comes from a blue collar town - Pittsburgh. He is an attorney, but many unions have given him a nod because he's for the working guy and not a slave to corporate America.

At least that's the take I've seen so far. I think he's worth watching, along with Kucinich.
Lew, I know what you mean. I get awfully tired of the way it seems like political success at the higher levels is dependent in part on the candidate having a Southern accent. I guess that makes the candidate seem more honest, or more "everyman"? I don't know, but I guess someone deserves credit for starting and perpetuating that idea for political gain. Maybe that will help Edwards get the Democratic nomination!

I tend to disagree with those who say Richardson doesn't have a snowball's chance. If Hillary Clinton has too much baggage and Obama doesn't have enough experience, who does that leave... Edwards and... ? I would say Edwards definitely has a better shot than Richardson at this point in time, but who knows what the situation will be like a year from now? The current bright stars could be tarnished by negative spin from various sources by then, and the Dems might be looking for someone else, someone more qualified. I'm beginning to think the nominee won't be Obama or Clinton. I think it will more likely be John Edwards, Bill Richardson, or someone nobody is even considering... like maybe Pelosi!

Great post, Kvatch!

Whoever it is for the Dems, I will vote for them, even if it does end up being Hillary Clinton. The thought of McCain (gasp!), Romney (blecccch) or Giuliani (GAG!) in the White House makes me queasy. Brownback? That might be the ultimate proof against intelligent design, on his part and on the part of voters. As for Newt, I can't force myself to even consider that possibility!
Please, please, oh please, don't let the Dem nomimee be Hillary. Oh please.
On that note, Pelosi would be a fine choice. So would Richardson. In fact, Richardson is my first choice.
But he's not the money-making machine, and he's half-Hispanic.
Qualifications mean NADA anymore.
PLEASE don't let it be Hillary.
I have NEVER voted for a repuke in my entire life and never will.
I will vote for the Dem nominee. Period.
Oh please don't let it be Hillary.
The question this thread brings up is simple. Is 'hold your nose and vote for the lesser of two evils' really democracy? Frankly having two parties that are both in the deep pockets of corporate interests provides no real choice at all. Tweedledum with the blue bowtie, Tweedledee with the red.
Just last night I read 4 other blogs that is saying basically the same thing as you. I think this is building some momentum.
Pelosi is an incredibly gifted legislator, but that's a very different skill set than that of an executive.

Well Tom, you can't really say that either Clinton or Obama have more skills than Pelosi--tenure alone dictates that, and Obama has no experience at the national level.

And Sewmouse, I can't agree with the "lack of experience is a benefit," notion. I don't think that lack of experience has anything to do with a willingness to depart from 'business as usual'. The latter is a character issue. The former...a maturity issue.
Kathy... Don't know much about Vilsack. Thanks for the head's up--guess there's another candidate I'll have to check out.

BTW: Kucinich doesn't stand a chance, as admirable as he might be.

Snave...thanks! I'd sort of like to see Richardson make to the convention. Seems very level-headed to me, and he has the advantage of being a governor.
Old Broad...so what I hear you saying is that...uh...you'd prefer if the nominee were not Senator Clinton? ;-)

SadButTrue... Well obviously I don't agree. Though the dems are deep in corportocracy, the tone of an administration comes down from the top, and a Gore administration (or a Kerry administration for that matter) would have been a very different beastie from what we have.

Sumo... Great minds thinking alike, huh? And to think, I considered this post a throwaway--just Kvatch kvetching.
Does Speaker Pelosi have the ambition?

I'd rather see her get the job sooner, but still wish she'd make that choice and declare. Of course, I'm hoping the exact same thing for Gore, the only potential candidate who really thrills me.

Add a comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link