House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says her party may be hurt if it fails to nominate the U.S. presidential candidate preferred by Democratic voters.

“If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what happened in the [caucus and primary] elections, it would be harmful to the Democratic Party,” she said.

“It’s a delegate race,” Nancy Pelosi added this weekend on ABC’s This Week. “The way the system works is that the delegates choose the nominee.”

The California Democrat did not mention Sen. Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton by name, but her remarks seemed to suggest she was prepared to cast her ballot at the convention in favor of the winner in pledged delegates.

Obama leads Clinton by about 140 in pledged delegates, having expanded his lead slightly thanks to Iowa Democrats this weekend, but it is unlikely he will end the primary season with the 2,025 needed to win the nomination.

That gives the balance of power to the 796 superdelegates - prominent Democrats who are automatically entitled to attend the convention because of their status as members of Congress, governors of states or other leaders.

Hillary Clinton lead among superdelegates by 30-40 in most counts, though they are free to change their minds and several hundred remain uncommitted.

Pelosi’s comments could influence other House Democrats who are neutral in the presidential race and will attend the convention as superdelegates.

In a declaration that gives a boost to Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi also said that even if one candidate winds up with a larger share of the popular vote than the delegate leader, the candidate who has more delegates should prevail.

We’re stunned, but apparently, the days of tough talk, no action, and the symbolic, non-binding resolutions are behind us.

Today, Democratic leaders of the U.S. House of Representatives dug in their heels and set the stage for an aggressive debate over the future of the Iraq war.

At a press conference, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), flanked by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), introduced $96 billion in new supplemental spending for the Iraq war - but with major strings attached.

Notably, that the Iraqi government meet George W. Bush’s benchmarks for reform under penalty of immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops. There is also a timeline, regardless of benchmarks, for ending all U.S. deployment in Iraq.

“No matter what, by March 2008, redeployment begins,” Nancy Pelosi said.

By August 2008, it will be completed, according to this bill.

The bill would also require the Bush administration meet Pentagon standards for troop readiness in terms of unit readliness, length of time they can be deployed in Iraq, and the length of time they can stay at home before they are redeployed to Iraq.

The bill does grant George W. Bush some leeway - he will have the authority to depart from Pentagon guidelines if he provides a report explaining why.

This action is significant if only because Democratic leaders in the House and Senate have trouble getting their members — which range from far-left, anti-war liberals to conservative Democrats from states Bush won handily in 2004 — to coalesce around one plan.

Even this morning, ABC News reports, House Democratic leaders seemed not entirely clear on all the details of the bill they were introducing.

Nonetheless, this is the first real effort of the new Democratic Congress to end U.S. involvement in Iraq, in what will surely be a long and ugly and complicated fight.

What remains to be seen is whether this is anything more than symbolic - and what impact it will have on candidates from both parties in the 2008 election. What is the “right” vote on this, given the current electoral landscape? How will the bill itself fare under greater scrutiny?

Needless to say, the members of the U.S. Senate - Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama, John McCain and others - will find it hard to test the waters before stating their positions, and are under more pressure to “get it right,” as they are tied to their official voting records.

Advantage, Bill Richardson?

Relying on self-deprecating jokes, candor and flattery, the President continues to woo lawmakers he must answer to in the final years of his presidency.

George W. Bush had not attended a Democratic congressional retreat since 2001. But the new political reality that has Democrats in charge of Capitol Hill for the first time in a dozen years changed his mind.

When he appeared before House Democrats at a Virginia resort, his first order of business was to put to rest one bone of contention between the White House and the new congressional majority: The “ic.”

Democrats found it demeaning when the president, in his State of the Union address, referred to the “Democrat majority,” not the “Democratic majority.”

“Now look, my diction isn’t all that good,” Bush told the 200 lawmakers at the retreat. “I have been accused of occasionally mangling the English language. And so I appreciate you inviting the head of the Republic Party.”

He got plenty of laughs - and managed to keep the “ic” firmly tacked on for the rest of his remarks.

While this was expected to be the toughest part of Bush’s foray onto Democratic turf, both he and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi emerged with good things to say.

“We were honored by your presence,” Pelosi told Bush. “We’re also encouraged by your remarks.”

Speaking to reporters after the president had departed, she added:

“Let’s make no mistake. The choice is bipartisanship or stalemate. We have to work together.”

Still, divisions over the Iraq war were never far.

One of the primary topics at the retreat was how to legislate opposition to Bush’s overhauled Iraq strategy, which involves a troop surge of 21,500 service personnel to the 132,000 already in the country.

Democrats have not settled on a consensus approach for any anti-war resolution or on what action to take if Bush’s buildup fails.

Continue reading this article …

It shouldn’t be a shock that it took more than 200 years for Congress to select a female to the post of Speaker of the House of Representatives.

After all, a Fox News piece from this week eloquently states, the United States isn’t exactly at the forefront when it comes to women in politics.

In fact, women make up a larger share of the national legislature in 79 other countries, including China, Cuba, North Korea and Vietnam. The U.S. even trails a couple of fledgling democracies: Afghanistan and Iraq.

“When my colleagues elect me as speaker, we will not just break through a glass ceiling, we will break through a marble ceiling,” said Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) before taking the position last Thursday.

“In more than 200 years of history, there was an established pecking order - and I cut in line. We have waited more than 200 years for this time to come. But we did not just wait, we worked.”

She alluded to one of the reasons women have been slow to climb the ladder, saying federal policy has never recognized women’s need for child care.

“This Congress is going to be about children,” she said.

For an interesting point of reference, there were 22 women in the House when Pelosi was first elected to her California district in 1987. It’s appropriate that there are now a record 71 female representatives - 16 percent of the states - with Pelosi presiding over the House.

Some analysts believe the biggest obstacle women face is not gender, but simple lack of opportunity. It’s no secret that - especially after Tom DeLay and his redistricting - most incumbents who run are re-elected. It becomes harder and harder for new faces to break through.

But when women decide to run for office, and hold it, they have proven just as successful as men, according to experts who study the issue.

However, women are much less likely to run in the first place, and one big reason is child care. Women are much more likely to be responsible for the care of their children, which doesn’t always fit into the usually chaotic schedule of a member of Congress.

Continue reading this article …

As they prepare to take control of Congress and face up to campaign pledges to restore bipartisanship and openness, Democrats are planning to largely sideline Republicans from the first burst of lawmaking, the Palm Beach Post reports.

House Democrats intend to pass a raft of popular measures as part of their well-publicized plan for the first 100 hours, including tightening ethics rules for lawmakers, raising the minimum wage, allowing more research on stem cells and cutting interest rates on student loans.

But instead of allowing Republicans to participate fully in deliberations, as Democrats promised after their November 7 wins, majority party members now say they will use House rules to prevent the opposition from offering alternative measures, assuring speedy passage of bills and the trumpeting of early victories.

Nancy Pelosi of California (pictured), who will become Speaker of the House, and Steny Hoyer of Maryland, who will become majority leader, finalized the strategy in a flurry of conference calls and meetings with other party leaders over the holiday recess.

A few Democrats, worried that the party would be criticized for backing off such an important pledge, argued unsuccessfully that they should grant the Republicans greater latitude when the Congress convenes Thursday.

The episode illustrates the dilemma facing the party in power:

• Democrats must demonstrate that they can break legislative gridlock and govern after 12 years in the minority, while honoring their pledge to make the 110th Congress a civil era in which both parties can work together.
• On the flip side, in attempting to pass laws viewed as critical to their prospects for winning re-election and establishing a larger (and lasting) majority, Democrats may have to hard-fisted techniques - the same ones Republicans used and were criticized for.

Democratic leaders are torn between giving Republicans a say in legislation and shutting them out to prevent them from derailing their bills. In turn, House Republicans are already complain that Democrats are backing away from their promise to work cooperatively.

Some Republicans are working on their own strategy for the first 100 hours, partly built on the idea that they might be able to break the Democrats’ slender majority by wooing away some conservative Democrats.

The Democrats intend to introduce their first bills within hours of taking the oath of office Thursday. The first legislation will focus on behavior of lawmakers: banning travel on corporate jets and gifts from lobbyists, and requiring lawmakers to attach their names to spending directives and certify that such earmarks would not financially benefit the lawmaker.

That bill is aimed at bringing legislative transparency that Democrats said was lacking under Republican rule. Democratic leaders said they are not going to allow Republican input into the ethics package and other early legislation because several of the bills already have been debated and dissected, including the proposal to raise the minimum wage.

Democrats say they are still committed to sharing power with the minority down the line.