Wednesday, January 16th, 2008...7:39 am
Distaff Disatisfaction
The Yellow Sheet found a few Hillary Clinton backers to find out their opinion of Janet Napolitano’s endorsement of Barack Obama. Pima County activist Judy Nagle was the most blunt:
Janet stabbed us all in the back.
Mary Rose Willcox and Ken Cheuvront had more muted responses that were probably a bit closer to the official talking points. Cheuvront pointed out that Napolitano’s endorsement, and for that matter anyone’s endorsement, doesn’t really matter. This begs a few questions. Does this mean that had Napolitano endorsed Clinton they wouldn’t have touted it? How is this such a betrayal if it won’t make a difference? If endorsements don’t matter, why is the campaign trotting out people like Willcox when it comes time to do press availability?
Anyway, the most amusing part to me is a quote that the Yellow Sheet attributed to Amanda Aguirre:
I had thought she was going to wait until after the Arizona Primary and she didn’t. I know there are folks besides myself who are very disapointed in that action. Everyone was very, very upset by that.
Interesting, but as the Yellow Sheet had to admit yesterday, Aguirre didn’t say it. Instead, it was Linda Lopez.
I was going to make an uncalled for jibe about the folks from the Yellow Sheet thinking that all latinas look the same, ‘cept Lopez isn’t actually latina.
Maybe they got confused since there used to be a Linda Aguirre in the legislature. I used to get Brenda Burns and Bob Burns confused all the time too.
17 Comments
January 16th, 2008 at 8:35 am
These people are the reason that no one gives credence to endorsements. Rather than being the carefully weighed recommendations of trusted political leaders, they are viewed as favors, quid pro quos, or vengeance.
And the wounded sense of entitlement that practically drips off the Clinton people about Janet’s endorsement is very telling. It’s the kind of thing that comes from the leadership down. Hillary is owed the presidency and that message has obviously been instilled in her troops.
January 16th, 2008 at 8:38 am
Question for the ‘disappointed’ Hillies: What are you gonna do about it? Assuming Janet runs for Senate in 2010, are you really going to sit home and not work for her or vote for her, allowing her GOP opponent to win?
Somehow I doubt it. And if you aren’t serious about trying to take her out because of this alleged egregious betrayal, quit whining please.
January 16th, 2008 at 9:04 am
C’mon. Who REALLY thinks Napolitano’s endorsement of Obama is unimportant?
All the spin aside, I’d note that I’ve seen a bunch-o-Obama ads on my Tee-Wee, but nothing yet for Hillary. I’m starting to wonder if they’ll semi-concede the state to Obama by focusing resources somewhere else….
I love Judy Nagle. Truly, she is one of my favorite Democrats. But Judy, why should we support Hillary just because she has x-x chromosomes?
I’m not sure whether I’d support Obama or Clinton. I’d cheerfully vote for either one.
But I do worry about Hillary’s ability to win independent voters - and that’s where the political action is these days.
Of course, I also worry about Obama. Winning a legislative race and then a virtually unopposed U.S. Senate race isn’t much of a preparation for leading the Democratic ticket. Having said that, I’ll grant that his campaign effort looks pretty good so far.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:44 am
I think the endorsement is unimportant and I am an Obama supporter. Unless the Gov, contributes lists of supporters, staff or raises money (or all three) it is pretty meaningless. I think Laura Pastor’s race in Phoenix is a good example of the importance (or lack thereof) of endorsements. I hate to admit this as a Phoenician, but I think I would rather have a Grijalva endorsement (assuming he would help with turnout) than the Gov.
The Hill people need to take a chill pill. So they did not get an endorsement, so what. Move on… Its politics. It is not like the Gov endorsed John McCain (or would the Hill supporters be ok with that?) like our esteemed Phoenix Mayor Phil “the goober” Gordon.
January 16th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Yeah…its an exciting year in politics, there are great candidates before us (at least on the Dem side). How can it be such an afront to pick an Edwards, Clinton, or Obama over one of the others? Its not like I scream at people because they support Hillary.
As for the back stabbing, I don’t see it unless the Governor made a promise to the Hillary camp that she would endorse them and went behind their backs to endorse Obama. If that happened, I might buy Judy’s assessment.
If it had to do with the fact that a woman should endorse a woman, than their is no back stabbing and instead an eroneous assumption on the part of the Hillary camp.
January 16th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
I think the Obama endorsement helps him more than Janet endorsing Clinton would have helped her, if only because the unexpectedness of it garnered more attention. I doubt you would have seen the kind of packed press conference there was had she gone for Hillary. Another reason it was a shrewd move on Janet’s part. In the end, she’s the one who comes out the winner.
January 16th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Well, the governor’s endorsement of Obama at least spurred not just the reaction described by Tedski, but also by a committee of 50 top Democrats for Clinton, including Pederson and Arzburger.
In a Phoenix post, one Obama supporter reports ruefully that it would be more valuable to have Grijalva’s endoresement (Edwards) that Napolitano’s.
Meantime, there is the puzzling assumption that Edwards’s supporters will automatically go to Obama were to withdraw. Boy is that a miscalculation based on New Hampshire exit polls.
January 16th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Why is it a “backstab?”
Janet Napolitano, as Governor, has experienced firsthand the fallout on the states of the Federal Government getting stuck into lockdown mode on everything from immigration reform to sCHIPS and letting the states pick up the pieces.
It is a valid argument that another Clinton administration would lead to more of the same kind of gridlock, and Obama promises to work with people from different backgrounds in order to get things done.
The truth of the matter is that Hillary has been stung by her own miscalculations. Her writings show a progressive mindset and had she voted that way in the Senate I suspect she’d already have the Democratic nomination locked up. But the truth is that the core of the opposition within the Democratic party to Hillary Clinton comes from people (like myself) who went from being enthusiastic about her when she was first elected to the Senate to being lukewarm at best after she voted like Joe Lieberman on NCLB, the Iraq war, Patriot I and Patriot II, the bankruptcy bill and the Iran resolution this year.
For many Democrats who don’t want Clinton, it’s not about experience, endorsements, race or gender. It’s about her conservative voting record in the Senate.
January 16th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Napolitano making any endorsement before February 5 was more poor taste than anything else. She showed herself to be self important and tasteless - not a pretty picture. As for if and when she runs for the Senate, is it a foregone conclusion that she will not have a challenger? Let’s see what the field of Democrats running will be - then we can decide.
January 17th, 2008 at 7:53 am
Given that the primary is on February 5th, just when was she supposed to make an endorsement?
Was it equally in “poor taste” for numerous other elected officials to make their endorsements before February 5th, or is it simply in “poor taste” to endorse a candidate that you are not supporting?
Honestly, this whole affair has got to be one of the silliest shows of righteous indigation that I have ever seen, and I speak as someone who serves in a legislature dominated by movement conservatives.
January 17th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Tom,
I agree with you that this thing has gotten way too petty. I also think people have missed the wider point. Why is it that so many red state politicians (Napolitano, Sen. Johnson from SD, Sen. McCaskill from MO, Sen. Nelson from NE) are endorsing Obama? It’s not just Janet.
January 17th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
I have followed some of the discussion on this blog about Janet’s endorsement of Obama. It seems that Democratic party activists and others who have worked for and supported Janet feel they are owed something. How different is this from politicians “giving back” to special interests who bankroll and support them, a practice that so many of those same activists say they abhor?
What is really going on here? I can’t say that I understand it. Janet Napolitano has first amendment rights just like any other citizen. Either you believe in that or you don’t. So the “betrayal” part of this is really confusing for me, coming from people who are so “dedicated” to our freedom.
January 17th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Liza, you’re forgetting the part where in 2006, 2002, and 1998 every Democrat forced Janet to sign a statement saying she would only endorse candidates Judy Nagle, et al liked before anyone went to work on Janet’s campaigns.
There was a clause in those statements which said Janet Napolitano would forfeit any credibility, public office, or future political career if she didn’t endorse Hillary Clinton.
It’s really just that simple, I don’t know why Obama supporters didn’t get organized back in 1998 to do the same thing with Jim Pederson, but it shows a complete lack of commitment on the part of his campaign and is probably indicative of a deeper personal or psychological shortcoming on the part of Barack Obama.
January 18th, 2008 at 6:33 am
I am a Clinton supporter, and I really don’t care that the Governor endorsed Obama. I don’t feel like I was owed anything or stabbed in the back. What does concern me is what her endorsement means for Arizona in terms of who will be our governor for the next 6 years. I am sure that her endorsement of Obama means that she is on a short list somewhere - for VP, AG, or whatever. Should Obama win, she screws us over by leaving us in the hands of Jan Brewer. Janet does owe Arizona a lot, and I don’t think that’s how we were expecting to be repaid.
January 18th, 2008 at 8:21 am
Why are we making the assumption that the Governor was offered a cabinet-level post in exchange for her endorsement? While it is true that these things often work that way, it is rather cynical and simplistic to assume that they always work that way.
Keep in mind that in 1992, when the Governor was a mere up-and coming talented young attorney with a name strikingly similar to a then popular musician, she endorsed and actively supported the nomination of Senator Bob Kerry. A little over a year later, she received a plum appointment as United States Attorney for Arizona from Kerry’s opponent, Bill Clinton. It is hard to argue that there was a quid-pro-quo there. It might have had something to do with…uh…what is that word?…oh, that’s right…merit.
Of course, she would also be in a better position to run for US Senate in 2010 if she stays where she is.
There is also no truth to the rumor that I endorsed Senator Obama in exchange for a promise of a diplomatic post in Equatorial Guinea.
January 19th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
You know, as a Democrat, if Hillary Clinton is the nominee I will get behind her (I even wrote why I will in a way that was pursuasive enough to get a guy who said he’d never vote for her to comment that he’d at least think about it) but some of these folks out there pushing her are making it tough.
Because someone supports a different candidate in the primary is not a reason why they should be considered disloyal. Further, there is no entitlement for any candidate to win, nor should any candidate expect the support of any person, elected or otherwise just because it is ‘assumed.’ Support is something that has to be earned. To assume that someone will support you because of something that may have happened ten years ago is a stretch. To assume that someone will support you for reasons not specifically related to politics is an even bigger stretch.)
January 19th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Whoops, I forgot to end the link.
Leave a Reply