I wanted to throw a shoe at the television.

If you didn't see Pelosi on Meet The Press, you were fortunate. She was pathetic with moments of salience.

Russert shows her a clip from a year and a half ago where she says upon being asked whether we should withdraw the troops, and she had said no--we have to stabilize Iraq. Then he says aren't you contradicting yourself now? Instead of composing herself, getting steely eyed and giving a controlled measured blast of the outrage of that implication, she starts stuttering and stammering and then speaks like a 45 record on 78 rpm. Incoherent at best and evasive appearing, she throws it off on John Murtha eventually as a military expert.

She could have made Russert look like a fool several times. This was only one. She could have said I made that statement one and a half years ago, not 30 days ago! Before there were elections, before there was a government and before the truth came out that we had a fraction of the Iraqis trained that we were led to believe would provide for their own security.

How long are we keep bringing our kids home in body bags? How long is our presence keeping the Iraqi factions on the brink of all out civil war going to be ignored? Which makes as much sense as giving our soldiers uniforms with targets on their backs. The military has done it's job. They have stabilized now to the point of creating a government. It's time for the Iraqis to discharge their obligations now. Instead she flustered like she was caught in a lie.

Unbelievably she wouldn't even say Democrats are going to roll back the tax cuts. What the hell have we been hollering about in the Congress for years? Repealing the tax cuts of the richest one percent of Americans so we can pay for some of the programs 99% of all the rest of the Amercans need!! Russert asked her two or three times. Each time she dodged the question like she was walking in a field of cow pies.

It was pathetic. She said "everything is on the table." Russert gave her a fastball belt high. She could have knocked it out of the park. Instead her voice pitch raised and she started talking fast like she didn't like the question. Unbelievable.

And if that wasn't enough, she threw Conyers under the train. Instead of using the opportunity for expressing insult at the suggestion that Americans would rather not know the truth about whether they were lied into a trillion dollar war, a 150 billion dollar coverup of the real cost of the medicare prescription drug bill, the truth whether Americans could be paying $1.50 a gallon for gas, instead of $3.50 a gallon if the Cheney energy meetings that are being kept secret were revealed as to who was in those meetings--to only scratch the surface of the questionable possiblities that have been raised by some of the highest authorities in our government.

She could have said, YOU BET, he's going to scrutinize the serious consequences suffered and questions raised by these failures of the Republican led Congress to conduct ANY oversight whatsoever. We would be abrogating our responsibility to the American people if we failed to search for the truth in every matter of government. And we will restore a system of check and balances to this United States Congress.

If that oversight conducted with fairness, reveals that high crimes or misdemeanors were committed, it is incumbent upon Congress to consider a resolution of impeachment. Every Republican interested in honest government should applaud that principal. They found it essential to issue 1,035 subpoenas for the indiscressions of President Clinton. Do the American people know how many have been issued by the Republican led Congress for the countless questionable scandals involving this administration? Let me tell you. THREE!!!

Russert would have been stammering all over himself.

Instead, she leaves Conyers hanging out there like he's a insulent child that she can't control. And says he can have what he wants on his personal website but she is the Democratic leader and sets the policy.

There is no way, she has the think-on-her-feet tenacity or party spokesman cum laude to represent the outrage we need to convey to the American voter.

We need somebody who doesn't back down from issues, not somebody who stumbes around, abandons our message, and leaves the impression of exactly what the voters don't want. :argh:

I have just not even been able to talk about it, I was so horrified.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12612211/

transcript

I think she was caught off guard by his petulance.

On the other hand, Dean was brilliant on Stephanopolous - he was asked about a corrupt dem and if he should resign. Deans answer was a forcefull - "YES."

Stephi was surprised by his brutally honest answer and said so. He had no smarmy come back for Dean which disappointed him no doubt.

That's how Pelosi should have handled the interrogation by Russert. She should have stood resolute in her beliefs and that would have diffused his hostility towards her. He pounced on her specifically because of her wishy washy responses which for the oppostion, is a weakness to be exploited.

Russert came across as a domineering asshole.

Stop critisizing our Democratic Leaders and consider doing more political volunteer work ... that's the only way we'll get more democrats in the house this fall. :(

and how do you know what I do or don't do.

I said Russert was being petulant towards her and she was caught off guard -
And it's criticizing not critisizing.

understood and OK. Some people do not have the capability to get in other's faces. We need people (real democratic strategists) to stand up to thug behaviors that Russert demonstrated. But no, Nancy is not going to get NASTY ... that's what spokespeople are for. Now that she knows Russert, hopefully she will not agree to another interview. ;)

the easiest ones to make LOOK like assholes if you know what you're talking about. Because you're talking to an asshole.

She should have been the one that was domineering.

Hey, as a woman who has no difficulty in behaving like a domineering asshole (right in your face), I honestly know what it takes. Nancy Pelosi has been raised in a different way, and I like her. She is, in the classic sense "a lady."

I never liked ultra-feminine women who use their sexuality to get ahead. But Nancy takes even a higher road, in that, she has been taught to be polite above all else ... she is a soft spoken, self-satiated kind of woman who's also not afraid to speak her mind.

We need women like Nancy Pelosi as our Democratic Leaders. Why? She reveals the ugly side of male dominance while standing by her issues.

Part of me wishes that I could be as "low key" and thoughtful as Nancy Pelosi. Especially when we are dealing with Right Wing Fundamentalists, a woman who is understated is just the ticket for our party.

Nancy Pelosi's genuine but subdued demeanor and her overall "grace" serves to bring out the worst in *'s base. :-)

Remember, the * Administration has no respect for the feminine qualities that make diplomacy work. I fear that due to their homo-phobic tendencies, they will swagger us into Armageddon.

I love the fact that Nancy Pelosi can softly reveal that these Neo-Cons and their Corporate Media Whore enablers are nothing more than spoiled, arrogant and domineering a**holes.

She's PERFECTION!

voters and their childrens' present and future. Like war, it's diplomacy by other means.

Up-front confrontation, not with verbal vilification, well.. yes.. but only by telling the truth. The fact that it's hell for them is their fault, and they need to be confronted with it, precisely because of it.

I believe it's the principle underlying the purpose of reformatory schools in the UK. To correct children, young people, if at all possible. You don't do that by turning a blind eye, when they exhibit delinquent behavior.

I had a discussion with a few other DU'ers about this exact subject last night. My summary tracks very neatly with yours. Dianne Feinstein (On the Judas Maximums Show) was a bit more cogent but her substance was lacking at best. Thank Deity Dean came along and tossed a bone. If we do win the congress back this year, it's not going to be as a result of anything these tools have done. They are out there speaking for us and they are pathetic.

Jay

When they picked Pelosi and Reid I thought, what were they thinking. Pelosi seems to always speak up but yesterday she was answering some question and I was screaming at the tv "Just say yes" but she gave some long winded answer that always irritates me and Reid also. I didn't really like Howard Dean in the beginning and I did not think it was fair about the scream but, one thing about Howard is: HE DOESN'T BEAT AROUND THE BUSH he tells it exactly like it is and this is what is wrong with most Dems, they are afraid to tell the truth which everyone already know and this is why people are losing faith in them.We need some dems like Tip O' Neil former speaker of the house and others.

getting a dem on like pelosi because they know she is going to hem and haw I was screaming "Spell it out " I don't know what they are expecting when they come on these shows. They know they will be going into past statements and they know what the main question will be " what is the democrats plan" They need to tell them plans change and situations change and we can give you information on what we will do in the fall when the situation can change at the any moment. As soon as the dems give them a plan they will use it against them as soon as something changes in government. You never see them pound the Republicons when they are the ones who are suppose to be running the show.

posted so far.

Why don't everybody have that little nugget of the subpoenas issued for Clinton versus the 3 for Bush?

I think that would shut up every damn one of the Republicans or anybody who tried to imply that investigations would be the reason we don't want to elect Democrats. What could they possibly say?

That statistic is so ready made to annihilate that stupid talking point, it's incredible. Yet our spokes people dance around it like it's radioactive.

I never saw such stupidity.

I can not afford to be angered by things that aren't real. The 'game' of politics... real problem in this country... is a parallel universe, inhabited by those who seem to enjoy the 'sport' of it all. There is no information, garnered through that exercise that does anything to kick the can further down the street. If she represented me, I might be inclined to write to her, but she doesn't. My representatives know my feelings on a variety of issues. The fact that they are not screaming and yelling, and kicking and hollering, dumbfounds me. And yet, as far as their individual personalities, each and every one is a person I respect....alot. My answers can not be found on cable news...but history is being very helpful.

we will win nothing in 2008...This interview with her, made me decide that ONLY an antiwar candidate can have our support. This wishy washy stuff is not going to work.

I wanted to reach right through the screen and shake her.

Almost every damn day we talk about rolling back the tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent of Americans, and she couldn't even say that!!

A huge audience watching that program could have been told we're inversing the favors to the wealthy which the Republicans adore so we can help the middle class that the Republicans could care less about. She has no clue what to say.

Even when the gift is handed to her three times!!

my sentiments exactly. Feingold is on right now talking about dems standing up
get they need someone else to lead the party she is not getting it!

I had the same feelings watching her.

She had plenty of opportunity to 'belt one out of the park' but instead came off like somebody trying to cover something up.

Tax cuts, Iraq war, Hayden, etc. etc. ... great opportunities.
Instead she reinforced the stereotype of the stuttering mealy mouthed democrat who doesn't stand for anything.
(I'm not saying that's what she is... just how she came off)

I find it amazing is that she seemed completely unprepared for some very very predictable questions.
Just going out and winging it obviously doesn't work. No matter how correct your position.

The democratic leadership should make a team of "media analysts" available to any party member that is scheduled for a talk show/appearance. Determine the message that rep/sen wants to get across and drill them on expected questions so they know what to expect.

Maybe they already do something like that... but it sure doesn't look like it.

is what everybody watching that show perceived. When you stutter, and scooch around in your chair and blather out words very rapidly hoping your brain can catch up to your mouth, you come across as somebody who is nervous about the question.

It's so preposterous, it stands logic on its head that she would have had to do that. Al Sharpton could even give her lessons.

Russert came at her with a vengeance and jumped from subject to subject. She appeared to try to answer his questions before he could interrupt. Wasn't she one of the first to acknowledge and agree with Murtha? When russert had two male guest on his show right after Pelosi it was a whole different ball game, full of smiles and understanding demeanor. Steph is a gentleman, Russert was and is arrogant with most Dems.

Please remember folks that 50% of the electorate = WOMEN. Most of whom were not raised to be tomboys such as myself and other assertive gals here at DU. With rare exception, these young women will *all* side with Pelosi's side of the argument. Why? Because the truly positive stereotypic feminine characteristic is "toning down" - not escalating the angst and anger. Young women will see through all the bravado and evaluate Russert to be the domineering asshole that IMO, he is. :P

Most WOMEN who view Nancy's performance will walk away with a much different opinion than the average man. Women voters are more apt to respect Pelosi's control and measured efforts.

To me, she was weak and not able to stand up and take control of the saturation. We NEED leaders that can not only control such saturations, but turn them in our favor.
She did nothing to help the Democrats yesterday. She hurt us by not being able to take control

Good bless him...Sharpton does very well too.

She said to me, I like this person, who is she? is she a Dem. or a Rep.? I said why do you ask? she said she is the most positive politician she ever heard!!! She said she liked how she stayed positive and was truly optimistic about the future of our country?

So, I am hoping many more out there are like my wife, and we are the geeks with the higher expectations...

And, although I too, would have liked some different answers to the war, tax cuts for the rich, Mr. Conyers, and investigations that might lead to impeachment, Russert's really rude behavior overshadowed the interview and I left it angry at Tim, not Nancy.

Her chances of becoming House Majority Leader are getting smaller and smaller. She's bent over backwards so often I fear that she's lost her spine.

How about we replace Donna Brazille with a real scrapper?

Want to throw a shoe at the television--that is.