CONGRESS

Juggling Gavels

With a speaker’s gavel in one hand and a Democratic National Convention gavel in the other, Nancy Pelosi is under pressure to both build her House majority and clean up the presidential nomination mess.

by Richard E. Cohen

Sat. Apr. 19, 2008


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who is rarely at a loss for words, has become painstakingly silent about the Democratic presidential nominating contest. “I am neutral,” she said in an interview with National Journal outside her Capitol office when asked about the long-running battle between Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton that has riveted Democrats nationwide, including House members. “I don’t want to give any impression what they should do, with a wink or a nod or a nuance.”

Behind the scenes, however, Pelosi and her lieutenants have been struggling to move their party beyond its deadlock. And they are preparing for her to be highly visible and active in the national campaign, once the party rank and file has spoken—or when it even seems to have spoken.

“Speaker Pelosi will bring different groups together with a message of unity and the new direction of our party.… Each side will validate the outcome” when a nominee is selected, said Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., an early Clinton supporter, who added that she has discussed this likely scenario with other members. “Her singular focus is to protect House members and expand our majority. She has our back.”

Rep. Artur Davis, D-Ala., a steadfast Obama backer, offers a similar forecast. “I suspect that by [early June] there will be a [House] Democratic Caucus meeting to work out a unified approach with members on each side” of the Obama-Clinton race, Davis said. “There is a yearning for agreement.”

Not coincidentally, Wasserman Schultz and Davis co-chair the “Red to Blue” program of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee for the November election, and they are already crafting strategy and raising money for key House races. Despite their hopes for eventual conciliation, they and other Democrats worry that the presidential nomination clash has become a growing and potentially debilitating distraction.

“Everyone has concern. From a practical standpoint, our [House] candidates need to begin their coordinated campaign,” Davis said. “If some Clinton people want to preserve the right of appeal at the convention, that would be fractious and cause us to lose valuable planning time. The speaker has been very clear that we should respect the results” of the nominating contests.

As probably the most influential and prominent national Democratic leader aside from the presidential candidates themselves, Pelosi faces a delicate balancing act. On the one hand, House politics are of paramount importance. Having regained control after 12 painful years in the minority, House Democrats are nervous about the electoral prospects of many of their 30 freshmen who won Republican-held seats in November 2006. Building—or at least holding—their majority is critical to them.

On the other hand, many Democrats, both inside and outside Congress, are looking for Pelosi to focus on another task that traditionally falls on the leader of House Democrats: chairing the party’s national convention in August. In most presidential elections, that is largely a ceremonial function with few responsibilities beyond attending social, fundraising, and organizational events.

This year, however, the prospect that the hard-fought Obama-Clinton battle could drag on—and that challenges to party rules and credentials could make the Denver conclave a free-for-all among the rival camps—has lent extra significance to Pelosi’s handling of the convention gavel.

House Democrats agree that Pelosi faces unusual challenges. “It’s a very divisive time in the caucus,” said Rep. Joseph Crowley, D-N.Y., who is one of nine chief deputy majority whips and an ardent Clinton supporter. “She is doing a good job keeping us together.… [But] it’s a difficult atmosphere for her. No one anticipated the campaign would be this close. If the contest continues until June, I would not envy her position. But she has great acumen and influence through her moral suasion.”

The Fixer?

The pivotal nature of Pelosi’s position became clear last month, when 21 Clinton contributors confronted her in a letter that seemingly accused her of taking sides with her oft-stated comments that the presidential nomination should go to the candidate who has won the most pledged delegates—a position that now favors Obama.

Noting that they have strongly backed the DCCC, the Clinton contributors urged Pelosi to “clarify” her position on the role of superdelegates and reflect “a more open view to the optional independent actions” of all delegates. Their call for the speaker to be “responsive to some of your major enthusiastic supporters” was widely viewed as a threat.

“That was stupidity. They had no understanding of the person they were dealing with,” said Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., who is perhaps Pelosi’s most influential House ally. He has endorsed Obama.

Likewise, MoveOn.org called the donors’ letter “pretty outrageous” and urged its members to support Pelosi for “stand[ing] up for democracy.” The grassroots organization added, “It’s the worst kind of insider politics—billionaires bullying our elected leaders into ignoring the will of the voters.”

Even some Clinton backers in the House criticized the contributors’ letter. “That was the stupidest thing that they could have done,” Wasserman Schultz said. “It caused some ill will and didn’t help the individuals who sent the communication.” She said she discussed the letter with unnamed persons close to Pelosi and wished that the letter writers had initially spoken to her or other House members.

Their defense of Pelosi confirms that, despite some rocky moments since taking over as speaker, she enjoys great respect and appreciation among House Democrats. Perhaps even more, the harsh reaction to the fundraising letter displayed the lawmakers’ growing frustration and impatience with the tendency of many Democrats nationwide—plus some in the news media and the growing chattering classes—to look to Pelosi and the superdelegates to fix their problems and resolve the deadlock.

Pegging Pelosi as the fixer is misguided, said Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif. “I am increasingly disappointed by the national party’s leadership [at the Democratic National Committee] for not anticipating problems like the delegation selection in Florida and Michigan and not resolving them before they became bigger problems. The speaker’s hand has been forced by the circumstances of the superdelegates—her baby chicks.… She is the uber-member on behalf of all of us who don’t want to make these decisions,” said Tauscher, a Clinton backer. “Her decades-long experiences and relationships with party elites make her uniquely qualified to deal with these issues. But unfortunately, she is already working 24/7 on her legislative priorities.”

Many House Democrats continue hoping that the controversy over the nominating contest will soon resolve itself and that Pelosi will not have to intervene. “She is playing exactly the role that she needs to play to facilitate a fair process,” said Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., an Obama backer and Pelosi ally who serves as a chief deputy majority whip. “She takes very seriously the need to be a neutral player.… I expect that the contest will be resolved by early July and that [her responsibility] will be limited to the kind of statements that she has made.”

In the meantime, Schakowsky said that the furor has not distracted Pelosi. “I don’t get a sense from her that this is stressful for her or that she spends a lot of time thinking about it,” she said.

For their part, senior House Republicans believe that Pelosi and her team are deluding themselves if they think that the messy Democratic battle will lend itself to an easy resolution. And they have taken delight in her uncomfortable situation.

“It’s a problem” for House Democrats, said House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. “One side will be sorely disappointed when they finally have a nominee. I am not sure that anybody should get in the middle of that catfight. If they do, they will get clawed.”

A senior House GOP leadership aide speculated that Pelosi “fears” getting involved in the presidential campaign because of her limited influence and her apprehension of additional Democratic chaos.

Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., the chief deputy minority whip, contended that because many House Democrats are firmly entrenched on one side or the other of the Obama-Clinton contest, “anything that [Pelosi] does is probably a lose-lose for her.” Regardless of the outcome, he added, “the electability of House Democrats will be significantly impaired.”

Many House Democrats privately conceded that the Obama-Clinton race has become an unwanted distraction, even with all of the grassroots excitement it has generated. They had hoped by this time to be working on their plans and message for the November election—as presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain has been doing for weeks with Boehner and his team.

“The polarizing effects of the presidential race could begin to hurt the prospects of our congressional candidates,” said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., the DCCC chairman. “There is a risk that we will create harmful changes in [our] tone. We need to focus on the need for change and on the Bush record.”

Among the 234 House Democrats, fewer than 80 have not publicly endorsed Obama or Clinton, according to a running tally compiled by National Journal’s CongressDaily. The fence-sitters include a disproportionate 17 of the 30 Democratic freshmen elected to Republican-held seats in 2006. These freshmen, many of whom face tough re-election campaigns, seem wary of taking sides and potentially alienating one faction or the other. Many are in the uncomfortable position of parsing their comments to keep them neutral.

Steeped in Rules and Precedents

Pelosi has also been careful to watch her words. On February 7, when Clinton had a narrow lead in pledged delegates after the Super Tuesday primaries, the speaker told CNN that the superdelegates should follow the will of the voters.

In an April 1 interview with National Public Radio, Pelosi reaffirmed her hope that the contest will reach a speedy conclusion after the primaries end on June 3, but added, “Both of these candidates should be aiming to go to the convention. I don’t think anybody should be discouraging anyone from continuing his or her quest.” Then she volunteered to reporters at an April 3 press conference in the Capitol: “It will do great harm to the Democratic Party if it is perceived that the superdelegates overturn the will of the people.… The will of the people must be respected in this election.”

A less familiar part of Pelosi’s political biography is her deep familiarity with national party rules and Democratic conventions, which predates her 1987 election to the House. While raising her five children, she held a variety of positions in the California and national party organizations, and her experience should prove to be useful training for the responsibilities she’ll assume leading up to the August convention. In particular, during the prelude to the 1984 convention in her hometown of San Francisco, she chaired the compliance review commission, which was responsible for enforcing party rules.

“She knows who, and she knows how,” said Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., a longtime friend of Pelosi’s who has also participated in national party rules deliberations.

Interestingly, given the current Michigan and Florida brouhahas, the key conflicts in 1984 also included two states—New Hampshire and Iowa—that were accused of violating party calendar rules on early contests. “She would look people in the eye and say, ‘Here’s what the rules say, and here’s how we interpret the rules,’ ” then-Democratic National Committee Chairman Charles Manatt recalled in a recent Associated Press report about Pelosi’s role in 1984. Eventually, the party seated both delegations. “We defused most of it,” Manatt said.

Pelosi has made clear that she does not want to get involved in this year’s parliamentary arcana. Asked in the NJ interview whether she could serve as an intermediary, she replied, “I don’t think it will happen.” Still, Pelosi has already begun to serve as what Wasserman Schultz called “the grand unifier, with her unique ability to cajole, apply influence, and bring the party together.”

“I want a climate where all views are respected,” Pelosi explained. For example, she has had regular contact with top officials of both the Clinton and Obama campaigns, typically without participation of supportive House members from each camp. “She has made clear to the campaigns—publicly and privately—that the candidates ought not attack each other.… It’s harmful,” said her spokesman, Brendan Daly. He reiterated her frequent call that “the contest needs to be settled before the convention.”

Historically, House Democratic leaders have sought to avoid taking sides in convention showdowns. Probably the most relevant recent case came in 1980, when Speaker Tip O’Neill, D-Mass., chaired the convention that ended the bruising primary challenge that Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., waged against President Carter. O’Neill was in a dicey spot as a close ally of his home-state senator, and he had endured numerous conflicts with Carter; but he sought to be evenhanded as he mediated between the rivals. “Tip played it pretty straight in holding the party together,” said Linda Killian, a Washington journalist who is working on a book about Democrats, including O’Neill. “This superseded his friendship with the Kennedys.”

At the contentious 1968 convention in Chicago, then-House Majority Leader Carl Albert, D-Okla., got into tiffs with Mayor Richard Daley over Albert’s seemingly routine handling of convention proceedings. “Every attempt to transact orderly business ran headlong into all of the bitterness, all of the divisions, and all of the frustrations that our assembly only mirrored,” Albert later wrote in his autobiography, Little Giant. (Democrats lost the White House in both 1968 and 1980.)

A more felicitous moment came in 1960, when Speaker Sam Rayburn, D-Texas, gladly served as a go-between at the convention when John Kennedy tapped fellow Texan and longtime ally Lyndon Johnson as his running mate.

Denver and Beyond

Pelosi visited Denver early this month to highlight the convention’s “greening” initiative, including a competition for delegates to offset their carbon use during their travels. Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., a chief deputy majority whip who represents the host city and supports Clinton, said she viewed it as positive that both she and her home-state colleague Rep. Ed Perlmutter, D-Colo., who backs Obama, “agreed with everything that the speaker said there about the superdelegates, including the need to finish by June and abide by the popular vote.”

An intriguing question is what impact Pelosi would have—especially with her House members—if she seeks to settle the Obama-Clinton contest or some related convention issue. Such high-level intervention, which Democratic members hope is unlikely, could have a momentous effect on both the 2008 election and Pelosi’s speakership.

A House GOP leadership aide called such a scenario the ultimate test of “member management,” which would come during a pre-election period when a growing number of Democrats have gone their own way in legislative showdowns. “Nancy Pelosi lacks the leadership skills or the guts to say what the party should do, because she doesn’t want to offend her constituents” in the House, said the top aide to another senior GOP member.

With the political community’s attention focused largely on the Obama-Clinton contest, less attention has been given—including on Capitol Hill—to what comes next: the general election campaign and, Democrats hope, their takeover of the White House in January. Pelosi, of course, would be a vital participant in both events because of her formal authority and her central position in the party’s 2006 campaign.

During the last two elections in which Democrats captured the White House—Jimmy Carter in 1976 and Bill Clinton in 1992—the nominee had been a former Southern governor who ran largely independently of the congressional team in Washington. Subsequently, both presidents had legislative problems with painful political consequences: Ronald Reagan’s 1980 landslide and congressional coattails, and the GOP’s 1994 takeover of the House and Senate.

Pelosi’s bid to unify the party is designed to avoid a repeat performance of those debacles. For now, she hopes that this year’s presidential nominee will embrace many of the themes that she and the other House Democrats voiced during the 2006 campaign and since taking control. But congressional leaders typically have little influence over those decisions, including the party’s vital message at the national convention. And, unlike Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., Pelosi has not had a close or lengthy working relationship with either Obama or Clinton.

These evolving relationships will provide important insights into Pelosi’s leadership style and her ability to implement policy goals, in contrast to the House Democratic majority’s limited success in dealing with President Bush. As a junior House member, she witnessed the Democrats’ mistakes with Bill Clinton, and she understands the inevitable institutional tensions and the need for close cooperation.

But so long as Obama and Clinton continue to focus mostly on each other and Democrats are forced to deal with the consequences, such strategic planning remains on hold.

  •  
  •