It's presumptuous to declare what the motivations are in a simple sweeping vilification of all those that oppose Pelosi for speaker. It appears as nothing more than a slander meant to undermine any serious dialogue by questioning the motivation of participants. Disgusting, but this is the way some people seem to operate.
The issue is that most of the critics of Pelosi are not offering much in the way of substantial or detailed criticism. The people who are calling for Pelosi to be replaced are generally using one of two arguments:
1) Republicans hate Pelosi and campaign against her.
and
2) Pelosi is out of touch/ineffective and we need new blood.
However, both of these arguments lack substance and aren't being backed up by facts. As far as the first argument goes, no one has supplied any solid evidence that Pelosi is actually hurting Democratic campaigns. On the contrary, evidence seems to be that the Republicans' attempts to use her as a boogeyman have fallen completely flat. As far as this criticism goes, it feels like the critics are presuming that the Republican propaganda works without actually confirming whether or not it actually has.
As far as the second point goes, Pelosi's critics haven't been able to point out any specific failures on Pelosi's part. If you want to criticize a specific vote or decision Pelosi has made, you are free to. However, most of the criticism directed at Pelosi actually seems to be directed at the electoral woes of the Democratic Party as a whole.
Good criticisms are supported by facts and solid arguments. If you think that Pelosi is a bad Speaker, feel free to say so. Just be prepared to support your opinions with facts. If you can't, you open up your motivations and reasons to be called into question. Bias is a real thing, and you need to examine your own biases when you enter into a discussion.
