Cantwell backs away from Clinton (first step away anyway)

[Perky]

from Ben Smith on Politico

Obama’s pledged delegate lead is nearly impossible to erase, so if this becomes a trend it’s bad news for the Clinton campaign:

U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell, one of Washington’s 17 Democratic superdelegates, isn’t ready to shift her allegiance from Sen. Hillary Clinton to Sen. Barack Obama — yet.

But in an interview with The Columbian’s editorial board Monday, she said the candidate with the most pledged delegates at the end of the primary season in late June will have the strongest claim to the party’s presidential nomination.

“I definitely don’t want the superdelegates to be the deciding factor,” she said.

“If we have a candidate who has the most delegates and the most states,” the Democratic party should come together around that candidate, Cantwell said. The pledged delegate count will be the most important factor, she said, because that is the basis of the nominating process.

[democrattotheend]

1. Headline is a little misleading

She is wavering but she has not officially switched her support.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

4. I'll take" wavering" any day!

[Adelante]

30. Lynn Woolsey is said to be wavering, too

I don't know how true this is:

http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=932

[NightWatcher]

2. "don’t want the superdelegates to be the deciding factor" is code for switching to Obama

yay another one for us

[Benhurst]

11. Yeah, because the super delegates are going to be the deciding

factor no matter which candidate they choose. Nobody's going to make the magic 2025 with elected delegates this time around.

[LisaM]

3. Well she's my Senator and I would be greatly disappointed

If she switched her support.

[slick8790]

6. Naturally. It's not like Obama got more than 2/3s of the vote in WA.

Cantwell should endorse for the other candidate.

[LisaM]

9. Yeah, and Hillary won Massachussetts so Kennedy should support her....

Also, it's a caucus state, there were a lot of independents who voted in the caucus, and in the primary held 10 days later (which had more than twice as many voters) the race was much closer.

[Benhurst]

12. Exactly. The whole system sucks and needs to be totally reformed before 2012.

Given the present situation and the agreed upon rules, both sides are blowing it our their butts when it comes to moral posturing, and they are making it up as they go.

[SoCalDem]

23. Here's how it COULD have worked..and worked well

As soon as there were two remaining candidates, a SECRET ballot (so they could all vote their consciences) that would have shown the real support and at some point it would have made dropping out more likely for a candidate who got behind in the numbers..

as long as there are hundreds sitting there like schoolgirls waiting for the cute guy to ask them to dance, it grinds on..

and if no one still got to the magic number, they could all RE-vote..

[Alexander]

20. And Obama won Maryland and Delaware, so O'Malley, Mikulski and Minner should endorse him.

Any way you look at it, Obama wins. Done deal.

[rhett o rick]

17. Why? Would you be happy if Sen Clinton gets the nomination when the popular support

is for Obama? Would it be good for the party? Would it be good for the nation? Don't you think the voters should decide? And, please, "it's the rules" isn't an answer for any of these questions.

[Diane R]

27. Well, she's my senator, and I will be delighted when she goes with her heart, and not HC armtwisting

[Cha]

5. Wonder how many Washingtonians Maria Cantwell

has heard from on this? :)

[DB1]

8. Me. by e-mail 20 minutes ago. and now I am going to phone her.

The last time I called her it was because I was disappointed in her not stopping the Alito confirmation. I told her I agree with her position, thanked her for speaking out and I was hoping she will at some point change her vote to Obama. (although I don't see her doing that until the convention when everyone else does it)

[Cha]

13. Thank you, DB!

I'm thinking more than a few especially with hilary shooting her self in the feet and no end in sight.

[DB1]

14. Yes, the Hillary supporters I know are reluctantly beginning to face facts.

[ampad]

18. She heard from me

and will continue to hear from me.

[Cha]

21. Thanks so much, ampad!

And Welcome to DU!

[rhett o rick]

19. I have a number of times and will again. nm

[Perky]

7. This is the same approach Pelosi is taking.

[Benhurst]

15. Yeah, Off-the-table Pelosi has done so much to uphold the Constitution,

end the illegal and immoral war and fulfill her Constitutional duty to rid us of the war criminals running this country. Anything Pelosi says deserves our full attention and respect. Yeah. Sure.

[Kurovski]

10. It will be politically wise for her to support the choice of her constituents.

We Washingtonians chose Barack in the caucus and the primary election.

[David Zephyr]

16. It's the Richardson effect. And it's begun. Thanks for posting this, Perky.

:)

[cooolandrew]

22. Exactly HRC is pacing an unnecessary burden on SDs that she could resolve today.

[PATRICK]

24. Clear enough

It is completely against the Clinton strategy and possibility and lobbying to delegates. It shuts another door of possibility. That is about as clear as you can get. If Hillary needs her superdelegates to all publicly endorse Obama, they will add harsh resentment to adamant refusal.

[KaptBunnyPants]

25. This is the best solution.

Super-delegates should vote for the winner of the majority of the pledged delegates. Those are the only delegates which are democratically selected, and the will of the Party must not be trumped by some back room deal. And the super-delegate system needs to be eliminated completely after this election is over. We don't need a "House of Lords" in the Democratic Party.

[Benhurst]

26. A majority of the pledged delegates is 2025. If either Clinton or

Obama had gotten a majority, they would automatically have been assured the nomination. Neither can win a majority at this point, and thus "the will of the party" is, at best, in the mind of the beholder. Both Clinton and Obama have had more Democrats vote against them than for them, so one could even say "the will of the party" is neither of the above.

Usually, the contest is less evenly divided and a clear-cut winner emerges. This year, Obama may very well get a plurality, but under the agreed-upon rules a plurality is worth squat. Anything less than 2025 is a loss. No matter which of our two biggest losers is nominated, it will take the votes of super delegates to drag him or her over the finish line, and the unelected delegates will in effect be overriding the votes of the elected delegates of the other candidate by doing so.

[johnnydrama]

28. wrong

2025 is not a majority of the pledged delegates. It's a majority of all delegates (without MI & FL)

A majority of the pledged delegates is around 1628.

[Benhurst]

29. Yes, I stated that poorly. What I meant to point out was that it is possible

for a candidate to obtain a majority with elected delegates. But neither Clinton nor Obama can do so now, and either will have to use super delegates to win the election. Under the rules, a plurality has no particular meaning -- anything short of a majority is a loss. And both will come up short without relying on unelected delegates to be pushed over the line.

[KaptBunnyPants]

31. So Obama leading Clinton by 80, 100 elected delegates means nothing to you?

The super-delegates can do as they will. But if the Democratic Party were to even consider such an overtly anti-democratic act as to overturn the winner of the democratically selected contest by fiat of Party elites, it is not the institution that I believe it is. Can you imagine, in today's age, a political organization actually behaving in such a suicidal manner? Especially an institution which proudly calls itself "Democratic".

[Benhurst]

32. Maybe the rules for 2012 should be rewritten to address your concerns.

The primary process this year with its very undemocratic distribution of "elected" delegates (where in some cases the loser of the popular vote has been given a majority of the delegates) and open primaries where God only knows who won the majority of Democratic votes, has set us up for this disaster. Since both candidates have had more Democrats vote against them than for them, it is impossible to really know what is "the will of the people." In truth, the party is closely split, and no matter which candidate gets the nomination, the loser's people are going to feel cheated.

Unless Clinton and Obama come to a compromise before the selection is made, we're going to be a divided party going into the general election, and John McCain will win. At least the Republicans won't have to steal it; but I'm damned tired of our snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.


I no longer have a dog in this fight and think both choices are poor. Nevertheless, both sides had better start working to bring the party back together and recognize the legitimate feelings of the other before one of the candidates is dragged by the unelected delegates over the finish line to a Pyrrhic victory. Humiliating one or the other of the candidates, which seems to be the goal of many here on DU, will do nothing but assure McCain's victory.

[KaptBunnyPants]

33. The rules definitely should be changed to explicitly rule out this kind of antidemocratic action.

As I said, the super-delegate position needs to be completely eliminated. In the meanwhile, principle will have to be used instead. I've yet to hear from super-delegates saying they would support Hillary even after she's lost the pledged delegate contest, and I've heard many swear that they won't for the reasons I've talked about. I find it amazing that you swear you have no dog in this fight when you are saying that the candidate with less votes should be made the nominee. Clearly, you've picked a side, and your alliances are overruling your ability to reason. This is not about humiliation, it's about accepting the will of the voting public. Obama is not my favorite candidate, but he is the favored candidate of the Democratic electorate, and for that reason I support him. If this organization is what you want it to be, one which will ignore the results of the popular contest, then you can have it. I've made up my mind about this, after careful thought. If such an unthinkable scenario takes place, I will disavow the Democratic Party, and I will never vote for one of it's members for as long as I live. I guess Clinton's supporters can consider it a bonus, but I doubt I'd be alone. I would have been fine voting for Hillary, if she had been able to win legitimately. But taking the nomination like that is the act of a tyrant, and I could have nothing to do with her or the Party that allowed it if that were to occur. You're worried about this contest, but you're proposing political suicide.