Nancy Pelosi

[PrincessFiona]

So...all hail to the first woman speaker of the House. It's about time we get a woman into this office....next hurdle...a woman in the white house...

Hillary 2008

kris

[SuzySunshine]

Yes, even though she's a democrat, its nice to have a women third in line for the presidency.

[PrincessFiona]

Can you give me the "what's bad about Nancy Pelosi" list other than her party affiliation? I can't think of anything really bad about her.

Kris

[Meenah]

She walks on water!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[DCJenn]

I think if she can temper the San Francisco liberalism (which I personally am all about BUT) I think she'll do fine.


jenn

and I'm wondering if Denny is going to put his house on the market now that he's going to retire. The house next door to his is still on the market.
He and Jean will make bank though, they bought it 30 years ago.[/i]

[SuzySunshine]

To be honest Kris I can't answer that question - even when I lived in CA I didn't know that much about her.

Supposedly she and Bush had a talk today about working together. I hope they both really do that. I've heard a lot of the races were close so I agree with Jenn, I hope that both sides work together and get some real things done.

[PrincessFiona]

I have heard so many knee-jerk reactions about Nancy Pelosi leading up to the election and now...but no one can actually point to policies that they disagree with. Many paint her as a "bleeding heart liberal" (thanks media) but don't know why.

I'm just curious about why people don't like her other than the fact that she's a democrat....

kris

[DCJenn]

Powerful smart woman, who until she was made Minority Leader, no one had ever even heard of.

She's actually pretty reasonable when it comes to politics and policies, but her personal opinions can be as liberal as mine!

Some of the Republican stratgegists were painting her as the woman who would personally bring down the institution of marriage, etc. (probably the same ons who bussed in the homeless PA guys to distribute mis-leading literature for Steele in the primarily black parts of Maryland.) To be honest, unless you're Barney Frank, you're not going to be able to get away with a ton of Way Liberal stuff on a national level in the first place.

I think it's great though- at least girls can see that you can truly be anything you want to be- Secretary of State, Speaker of the House, Ambassador- now we just need Pres and VP.

Jenn

I just read the Wikipedia entry on Pelosi - she sounds very level-headed. I hope she does us proud!

Seriously - let's send a group letter to the newly elected (or re-elected) Dems that says "Please - now get something done. Don't waste time finger-pointing and name calling. Find the reasonable folks, work together, and do some good. Don't make us look like fools."

[Meenah]

I love Hillary, almost as much as Jenn does.

[DCJenn]

Actually, the people of NY LOVE her. She's been a very effective Senator. and she's not overstepping her bounds since she's the 'junior' Senator from NY.

She was re-elected by a landslide.

Jenn

[Stella]

Sorry, that's all I have to say about that.

From http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200610u/green-interview

No less important to her Senate reputation, of course, are the small but significant gains Clinton has made for New York. She has created new medical clusters in Syracuse, new defense technology in the Central Corridor, and agricultural programs that link upstate supply with downstate demand. And when faced with decisions that test her political allegiances, she has proven her loyalty to New York above all else—an especially important statement in the face of a possible presidential bid. If Clinton does decide to run, this leadership, Green predicts, will be the theme of her campaign.

More importantly - earlier in the article it speaks to her success in working with others - in her party and across the aisle. Remember - she's the Jr. Senator, and can't step on toes. I think it shows remarkable class that she did NOT come in as a prima donna - "let me tell YOU" kind of person based on her 8 years in the white house.

People may choose to mock the tempering of her "idealism" ... but honestly isn't that what we ask - even beg for? Someone who will come in and govern - the way the PEOPLE want. This country is pretty much split 50/50 - and to disenfranchise 1/2 the taxpayers to serve one base is unfair. Her willingness to compromise and work with others who are more conservative shows me that she's willing to work to get things done.

Some may call it catering or caving, I call it reality.

This is from an opinion piece Anna Quindlen did for Newsweek a few weeks ago. I would have posted the link, but it's 'archived' now and only subscribers can get it for free.

October 30, 2006
Section: The Last Word: Anna Quindlen
Edition: U.S. Edition
Page: 74

The Hillary Questions
She has to take only the states that John Kerry took, and then one more. (Or the states that Al Gore took, and the Supreme Court.)
By Anna Quindlen
Newsweek

Will she run? can she win? the fact that virtually every American voter knows who the "she" is in those oft-repeated sentences means that name recognition will not be a problem if Hillary Rodham Clinton decides to try to become the first woman president of the United States. Nor will certain key qualifications. It has become axiomatic (in this case because it happens to be true) that Senator Clinton is really smart. She has a sharp mind buttressed by an encyclopedic knowledge of key issues and a work ethic that is Calvinism on steroids. She also plays well with others, a surprise to those officials who confused celebrity with the tendency to be a prima donna. Although the looming presidential race will mean her Republican Senate colleagues once again feel obliged to stereotype her as the Tokyo Rose of the far-left insurgency, privately it's a different matter. She has cosponsored bills on both sides of the aisle. She does not hog the mike at press conferences. They like her, they really like her.

History shows that she is able to woo agnostics and even naysayers. That is how she wound up with a Senate seat in a state to which she had only recently moved. (In the carpetbagger department she was inoculated by Robert F. Kennedy, who didn't even have a home in New York when he was elected its junior senator.) She bested her opponent by 12 points because she won over some Republicans and independents and upstate residents. And she carried the women's vote by 60 percent, even though pundits loved to parrot anecdotal evidence suggesting women were put off by her decision to stand by her unfaithful husband. At the time, Gloria Steinem put it best: "I think women can tell the difference between their personal feelings and their political welfare."

A presidential election will test how many voters can make the distinction between feeling that Senator Clinton rubs them the wrong way and thinking that her considerable skills make her prime presidential timber. It's also expected to test whether Americans are ready for a female commander in chief. That may be less of an issue than conventional wisdom would suggest; the universe of those who would never elect a woman is a universe that significantly overlaps the hard-core Hillary haters. Thus her negatives may help neutralize her sex. And while the most persistent rap is that she's polarizing, all that really means is that she evokes strong feelings. Haven't voters long been suggesting that they would find that more compelling than the none-of-the-above choices they've been offered?

No, the biggest problem Senator Clinton may have is with the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. Recent history teaches that when the Republicans suspect they have a front runner, they rally convincingly. Thus George W. Bush was lauded as a Tex-as straight shooter who would be a breath of fresh air in the bloviating smog of Washington (not a prep-school scion with no track record who could barely string together a coherent sentence).

But because liberals are idealists, they are unwilling to do the same. They don't even compare their most promising leaders with the opposition. Instead they compare them with the ideal, the perfect candidate, the standard-bearer without flaw. Right now that means a candidate who did not vote for the Iraq war (although, curiously, if the memory of dinner-party arguments circa 2003 serves, a significant number of liberals supported the original invasion). It also means someone who has never moderated a position for the sake of legislative consensus or personal gain: neither LBJ nor FDR need apply. The chatter about presidential possibilities for superstar newbie Barack Obama offers liberals a classic opportunity: this time around they could argue the black man versus the white woman and then watch, wounded, as another white guy takes all.

Can it truly be that the people who once brought us Social Security and civil rights, often through frantic horse-trading, are now so frozen in the amber of high-mindedness that they have become the official party of the Pyrrhic victory? In that case they might as well get right down to it and send a check to Ralph Nader. From Atlanta to Seattle and everywhere in between, Americans speak of 2008 as a defining moment. It may be the disenchantment with Iraq, or just a vague sense that something has gone terribly wrong with the promise of the American Dream and the level of national leadership. But if there were ever a time for the Democrats to stop chipping away at their own best hopes and start fighting back hard against opposition lies, it is now.

Let's see: brilliant, well informed, high profile, enormous war chest, works hard, speaks eloquently, campaigns well. No wonder the party leaders are worried. Will she run? I hope so. Can she win? She has to take only the states that John Kerry took, and then one more. (Or the states that Al Gore took, and the Supreme Court.) And the Democratic Party has to decide only that it wants to get behind its front runner, to win and therefore actually get things done instead of having the satisfaction of whining "we told you so" all the way to oblivion.

Another quote from The Atlantic ..

But few in the Senate today would deny that, whatever her motives, Clinton is diligent about her work there, and successful in ways that have moderated her image. Her deft touch with conservative colleagues has thus far neutralized the Republican National Committee’s strategy of getting people to put her in the same mental category as bumbling liberals like Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean. She’s no easy target. Her partnerships were deemed so successful in moderating her image that Karl Rove, according to a source close to him, sent word last year to halt Republican cooperation with her—an edict that has been ignored. As the atmosphere in Washington has deteriorated, Clinton has emerged within the Senate as the unlikeliest of figures: she, not George W. Bush, has turned out to be a uniter, not a divider.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200 ... en-hillary

Like I said - Rove is above NOTHING to try to get his party elections. Stop working across the aisle and getting things done solely to keep Hillary Clinton from getting good press? Sad.