Maureen Dowd hits the nail on the head again

NY Times columnist Maureen Dowd has an interesting Op-Ed piece in the Times from yesterday. It's titled, Hillary or Nobody?

One interesting snipit from the column:

One Hillary pal said she wouldn’t want to go back to a Senate full of lawmakers who’d abandoned her for Obama. And even if she could get to be majority leader, would it be much fun working with Nancy Pelosi, whose distaste for the Clintons has led her to subtly maneuver for Obama?

We all know that Nancy Pelosi has gotten lots of flack from the Clinton campaign over the past few days for her stance on how super delegates vote and Obama supporters are standing by the Madame Speaker of the House of Representatives in her call to respect the popular vote in determining the nominee. But is she a closet (pun intended for the San Francisco Queen) Obama Supporter?

The New York Observer believes so, pointing to her words earlier this month about overturning the delegate count at the convention by the Clintons and her apparent surrogates in California, both supporting Barack Obama.

This might be surprising if Pelosi really were neutral. But by all measures, she isn’t – and hasn’t been for a long time. She was somewhat cool to Clinton and her campaign from the very beginning of the 2008 cycle, and over time began sending clear signals that Obama is her candidate. When George Miller and Anna Eshoo, fellow House Democrats from California through whom Pelosi often telegraphs her wishes, endorsed Obama a few months back, the hand of the Speaker was apparent.

And back in January Time suggested the same thing, adding: "Pelosi has so far stayed out of the race. But when her top advisor who also happens to be a famous champion of women politicians endorses Obama..."

It's an interesting a believable notion, but one that won't be confirmed any time soon. In the meantime read the Dowd Op-Ed, it gives even deeper insights into the Clintons and how they operate, specifically this:

After all, the Clintons think of themselves as The Democratic Party. When Bill and Dick Morris triangulated during the first term, it was what was best for Bill, not the party. In 1996, when Bill turned the White House into Motel 1600 for fund-raisers, it was more about his re-election than the re-elections of his fellow Democrats in Congress; in 2000, the White House focused its energies more on Hillary’s Senate win than Al Gore’s presidential run.

Now that's a damnig accusation with not just a little bit of truth.

Sphere: Related Content