Klobuchar Call

I'm on a conference call right now with Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar who's announcing her endorsement of Barack Obama. In an interesting effort to change the tone of the campaign, she started out by emphasizing that she believes the "Democratic Party is truly blessed this year with two presidents who would each be a strong president" and declined an invitation from David Corn to condemn Clinton for continuing her campaign. She just likes Obama better. In particular, she says Obama "has inspired an enthusiasm and idealism that we haven't seen in this country in a long time" and recalls that back in 2006, Obama "came to Minnesota several times during my own campaign for the senate and even then we saw the incredible enthusiasm he could generate."

In terms of specific issues, she spoke about Obama's leadership on ethics reform following the 2006 election. She recalled that she "actually spoke with Barack" about the issue on the phone as she was driving across country to Washington after the election "and talked about ethics reform and then got a bunch of freshman senators together on a conference call" on the issue. A lot of the Democrats who won in '06 regarded ethics issues as having been crucial to their victory and were frustrated by the fact that many longstanding Democratic legislators weren't so keen on pushing it later. Obama, as someone who'd just been elected in the previous cycle, helped build bridges across that divide and make sure that something happened. Klobuchar also noted Obama's work on the risks of lead in kids' toys as "just another example of where he took on an issue that was ahead of its time."

Comments

""Democratic Party is truly blessed this year with two presidents . . . "

While one can certainly admire her optimism, the election isn't until November.

Posted by Joel | March 31, 2008 10:56 AM

Klobuchar also noted Obama's work on the risks of lead in kids' toys as "just another example of where he took on an issue that was ahead of its time."

Obama deserves some credit for this, but it's important to put this into context: Rep. Henry Waxman was the legislative workhorse on this -- he originated the legislation and recruited Obama to sign-on as the Senate co-sponsor. Still, Obama signed on early (in 2005), a credit to his own judgment.

Posted by dry_fish | March 31, 2008 11:04 AM

She just likes Obama better.

So, the endorsement is not based on who has the lead in pledged delegates or in votes or whatever? Just, she think Barack would make a better President?

If that's the case, it would partly confirm my suspicion that these claims about following the votes or the pledged delegates are not really what will motivate superdelegates. Instead, the superdelegates (like regular delegates and voters) will decide who to endorse simply based on who they think would be a better president.

If that's correct, of course, Obama is quite likely to win the nomination, since it is unlikely that a huge majority of the uncommitted superdelegates will think Clinton would be the better President.

But it does undermine the "it's the math!" argument.

Posted by Al | March 31, 2008 11:04 AM

Another woman-hating Obama supporter.

Haven't we had enough of the "Boys Club" trying to push Senator Clinton from the race?

Posted by Craig | March 31, 2008 11:05 AM

Are you writing from the International Dateline, Craig, where it's already April 1st?

... because my first reaction to your post:

Another woman-hating Obama supporter.

Haven't we had enough of the "Boys Club" trying to push Senator Clinton from the race?

Posted by Craig | March 31, 2008 11:05 AM

was that you were serious and didn't even realize that Governor Klobuchar is a woman!

I've seen so much vitriol both for and against Hillary and Barack that it will be a relief to see things settle down for a bit...

... though I fear the next "gotcha" as much as those that linger.

Posted by batondor | March 31, 2008 11:17 AM

batondor, you might want to consider the possibility of snark/sarcasm...

Posted by SKI | March 31, 2008 11:19 AM

dry_fish: That doesn't contradict Klobuchar--she wasn't saying that he should be given sole, or even primary, credit for the legislation. She's just saying that he was ahead of the curve on it.

Posted by observer | March 31, 2008 11:26 AM

Of course, I figured it out after a moment of reflection... but what irritates me is that there are some who really believe in this "Boys Club" baloney...

Posted by batondor | March 31, 2008 11:28 AM

Batondor, my first thought was that you were serious and didn't even realize that Governor Klobuchar is a senator! What an hilarious April Fool's mix-up!

Posted by mark f | March 31, 2008 11:30 AM

Except for me, people around here tend to be too goddamn nice. Even as the leftmost Senator Wellstone kept on being nice all the time. (And look where it got him.)

Posted by John Emerson | March 31, 2008 11:38 AM

Touché, Mark...

Posted by batondor | March 31, 2008 11:51 AM

@John Emerson:

Yes, because what our public discourse has really been suffering from these past couple decades has been too much civility.

I'm personally fine with Minnesota being at the front of a trend of pulling back from a hyper-partisan politics and a sense that winning a party's nomination requires the utter destruction of all opponents.

Posted by Mercutio42 | March 31, 2008 11:57 AM

she says Obama "has inspired an enthusiasm and idealism that we haven't seen in this country in a long time"

But not enough of them among Democrats, at least, to give him a decisive win over Clinton almost a month after McCain secured the nod from Republicans without having inspired great enthusiasm and idealism from within his own party.

Posted by Swift Loris | March 31, 2008 12:12 PM

But not enough of them among Democrats, at least, to give him a decisive win over Clinton almost a month after McCain secured the nod from Republicans without having inspired great enthusiasm and idealism from within his own party.

It helps that the only real competition McCain had was a plastic-haired flip-flopper and the little-known evangelical candidate, and not the famous wife of a popular former President.

Posted by ntr Fausto Carmona | March 31, 2008 12:30 PM

But not enough of them among Democrats, at least, to give him a decisive win over Clinton almost a month after McCain secured the nod from Republicans without having inspired great enthusiasm and idealism from within his own party.

It helps that the only real competition McCain had was a plastic-haired flip-flopper and the little-known evangelical candidate, and not the famous wife of a popular former President.

You're just forgetting the rule that all news is bad news for Dems.

Actually, this was a group of Republican candidates that had us all so confused last summer b/c we couldn't figure out which one of these morons could possibly win the nomination. So they settled on the crazy, incosistent, stubborn, pro-war, old man sooner than the Dems could decide between Clinton and Obama. Doesn't say anything for McCain versus Clinton or Obama in my view.

Posted by mpowell | March 31, 2008 1:08 PM

"But not enough of them among Democrats, at least, to give him a decisive win over Clinton almost a month after McCain secured the nod from Republicans without having inspired great enthusiasm and idealism from within his own party."

The differences in the nomination procedures nearly guarantee that, all else equal, the Democratic nominating process would last longer. Without superdelegate support, a candidate would need to win every contest on average by about 62-38. It's hard to see how a campaign between 2 (3 really) candidates would be swiftly resolved under that procedure. With winner-take-all, it's comparatively easier to knock out contenders if one candidate generates a string of 52-48 victories in the early primaries.

Someone had to win the Republican primary, just like someone has to win the Ugliest Dog competition. Rules and institutional design matter.

Posted by TheF79 | March 31, 2008 1:28 PM

"But not enough of them among Democrats, at least, to give him a decisive win over Clinton almost a month after McCain secured the nod from Republicans without having inspired great enthusiasm and idealism from within his own party."

If the GOP nominating process had involved proportional representation, McCain would be struggling to win the nomination at this moment. Remember, he won many winner-take-all states like Missouri by very slim margins against Mike Huckabee. Proportional representation would have caused McCain to have to fight Huckabee or even Mitt Romney all the way to the GOP convention.

Posted by eltoro | March 31, 2008 2:37 PM

"So, the endorsement is not based on who has the lead in pledged delegates or in votes or whatever? Just, she think Barack would make a better President?"

"But it does undermine the "it's the math!" argument."

Al,

It also undermines Hillary Clinton's various arguments, such as electoral votes, only big states matter, only big blue states matter, etc.

Posted by eltoro | March 31, 2008 2:42 PM

Yes, because what our public discourse has really been suffering from these past couple decades has been too much civility.

From the Democrats, yes. From the Republicans, no. No more Broderism, please.

The United States has suffered from Republican incivility, but the Republicans have flourished on it while the nice Democrats sat and watched, and basically they have changed the course of history -- partly by succeeding, and partly by failing.

Posted by John Emerson | March 31, 2008 2:49 PM

Al is wrong (as usual). It doesn't "undermine the math arguments".

The superdelegates are expected to go with whoever they want. But there has never been any evidence that either candidate is preferred. Therefore there is no evidence that Clinton is preferred.

Those superdelegates who intend to endorse the candidate with most pledged delegates will support Obama.

Some percentage of those superdelegates who will endorse based on their own preference will endorse Obama and some percentage will endorse Clinton.

Because there is no estimate of how many superdelegates are for one or the other candidate, that means there is ZERO evidence that Clinton can or will overturn Obama's pledged delegate lead by this occurrence.

Therefore, the fact one delegate or another chooses at this time to endorse one candidate or another does not "undermine the math" because the math remains - or should remain - an important issue in the minds of the superdelegates.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 31, 2008 4:40 PM