Obama--not Hillary--gets endorsements from prominent women

Introduction

According to a January 8, 2008, Washington Post article, both Obama and Clinton were trying to get the endorsements of Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano and Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill.

In the last three days, both Napolitano and McCaskill turned Hillary down and endorsed Obama instead.

For those currently supporting Hillary and those who might be thinking about voting for her, ask yourself why these two women who are established political leaders chose to endorse someone other than Hillary.

Janet Napolitano

First came Napolitano's endorsement. Here's some background on Napolitano:

In 1991, while a partner with the private Phoenix law firm Lewis and Roca LLP, Napolitano served as attorney for Anita Hill. Anita Hill testified in the U.S. Senate that then U.S. Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas had addressed her inappropriately ten years earlier when she was his subordinate at the federal EEOC.

In 1993, Napolitano was appointed by President Bill Clinton as United States attorney for the District of Arizona. As U.S. attorney, she was involved in the investigation of Michael Fortier of Kingman, Arizona, in connection to the Oklahoma City bombing. She ran for and won the position of state attorney general in 1998. Her tenure focused on consumer protection issues and improving general law enforcement.

She won the gubernatorial election of 2002 with 46 percent of the vote, succeeding Republican Jane Dee Hull and defeating her Republican opponent, former congressman Matt Salmon, who received 45 percent of the vote. She ran under Arizona Clean Election system where a certain number of small "qualifying contributions" (often as little as $5) from registered voters, then collect government funding...Some initially considered Napolitano to be a possible running mate for presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry in the 2004 U.S. presidential election but Sen. John Edwards was selected instead.

In November 2006, Napolitano won the gubernatorial election of 2006, defeating the Republican challenger by a nearly 2-1 ratio.

She is the past Chair of the Western Governors Association and served as the chair of the National Governors Association, the first female governor and first governor of Arizona ever to serve in that position, from July 2006 to July 2007.

Napolitano is a woman who has achieved repeated electoral success in a heavily Republican state, and she is recognized as one of the top female politicians in the country. And yet she chose to endorse Obama instead of the first woman who has a legitimate chance to become President.

Why?

According to this blog post by Dan Balz and Shailagh Murray,

"I think we need fresh voices and fresh messages of unity and coming together," Napolitano told The Post in a telephone interview. "I think he's a new young voice who has new appeal, particularly for those of us in the West."

Napolitano praised Hillary Rodham Clinton as a strong candidate, but said, "This is not about Senator Clinton. This is about what is the unique freshness. He does bring the unique ability to excite, to bring young people into the process...and to attract independent voters.

*******

Napolitano said her endorsement came after lengthy deliberation and several meetings with Obama, the first of which took place last February. "He is a powerful persuader," she said. "He really is. As good as he is at motivating a large hall, he's as good or better one on one."

*******

Napolitano said westerners see Washington as a city "where good ideas go to die," and argued that Obama has a special capacity to break the gridlock. She also said she believed Obama would be a strong general election candidate in western states that could prove decisive in a close race.

But wait, there's more. As reported in the Arizona Republic,

Why Obama? For Napolitano, it was equal parts policy and personality.

She called the charismatic U.S. senator from Illinois "a unique motivator" and "a powerful persuader," and said she is hopeful he can create a new vision more focused on problem-solving than political point-scoring.

"All (Washington) D.C. is is a place where good ideas go to die," said Napolitano, a two-term Democrat. "I believe we need a new message of hope and solidarity. . . . To me, Senator Obama is evidence of that change we need."

In other words, Napolitano sees Obama as being more electable in a national election, feels that Obama is more capable of getting people to work together, and feels that Obama has a better chance to effectuate change.

Claire McCaskill

Shortly after Napolitano's endorsement came that of Sen. Claire McCaskill. Here is some background on her:

The day after (high school) graduation, Claire left town for a job bussing tables at Lodge of the Four Seasons at Lake of the Ozarks. Waitressing for six years helped Claire work her way through college and law school at the University of Missouri in Columbia.

Claire clerked for the Missouri Court of Appeals in Kansas City and then got a job as an assistant prosecutor in Kansas City, where she was a felony trial prosecutor handling sex crimes, homicides, and specializing in arson cases. In 1982, McCaskill won a seat in the State Legislature. She juggled the responsibilities of both mother and legislator and was the first woman to ever give birth while she was an active member of the Missouri Legislature.

Claire broke new ground again in 1993 when she became the first female Jackson County Prosecutor, which included Kansas City. This was the largest prosecutor's office in the state and she began many new programs, including a domestic violence unit and one of the nation's first Drug Courts. She held this position until she was sworn in as Missouri Auditor in 1999.

As State Auditor, Claire has been credited for revolutionizing the office and making it into a true watchdog for taxpayers and citizens. In 2004, Claire took on her own party establishment and became the first person to ever defeat a sitting Missouri governor in a primary election.

In November of 2006, Claire became the first woman elected to the United States Senate from Missouri, vowing to bring Harry Truman's no-nonsense style of accountability back to Washington. It only seemed fitting that her place in the Senate chamber is desk shared by none other than Senator Truman himself.

Claire sits on five Senate Committees, including Armed Services, Commerce, Homeland Security and Government Affairs, Aging, and Indian Affairs. Additionally, Claire was named as one of the select Senators to sit on the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, formerly known as the Truman Committee.

Clearly, McCaskill is a "self made" woman in the world of public service and elected office. She is a woman who has herself made political history and been a breaker of the glass ceiling. And yet she also chose to endorse Obama, not Hillary.

Why?

As reported by the Chicago Tribune, today McCaskill provided several reasons.

McCaskill, who was elected to the Senate two years after Obama, in 2006, said she is backing him because he has proven to be a leader willing to work with both sides of the political aisle.

"I have kind of staked a tent in the middle ground and with some frequency I ran into Barack Obama there," she said. "As I worked with him trying to find a way to get past the partisan food fight, I realized this was an extraordinary leader."

McCaskill said she has quickly found Washington a disappointing place.

"You don't have to be there very long at all to realize that it is broken," she said. "I have been frustrated and disappointed and some times, actually depressed, over the inability of people in Washington to talk with each other about public policy and not just focus on partisan politics."

*******

"There is no question that he is truly gift by God with an ability to speak to people in a way that touches them. But for me, that is the whipped cream in the cherry," she said. "For me, this is a man who has incredible intellectual heft. He is a very smart guy with a wise soul who is not afraid to figure out a new and different way to tackle problems."

*******

"I honestly believe that only once in a generation does a leader come along that has that particular gift and I think it would be a terrible disappointment to our country if we didn't grab this opportunity right now," she said. "I get 'the fierce urgency of now.' I feel it in my bones and I believe this is an extraordinary man at an extraordinary time in history and we must take advantage of his gifts for the benefit of our country and the benefit of the world."

********

"I have deep respect for Hillary Clinton. She is a smart woman. She is a strong leader," she said. "But at this moment in history, it is very important that we look forward with a kind of optimism and hope that we have not been able to gin up in this country for a while."

In other words, Obama has a better chance to get people from both parties to get past partisanship and work together.

And by the way, that is the "change" that is needed. Hillary has emphasized policy over process, and at the same time downplayed Obama's call for a change in the process. Look closely at what McCaskill and Napolitano said. They both feel that Obama is the candidate who can effectuate the change in the process that needs to happen.

McCaskill also noted that she respects Obama because he has not resorted to "winning by making the other guy look bad." Recall the December 9, 2007, poll conducted by MSNBC in which Democratic voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina said that Hillary was running the most negative campaign. And that was followed by the CNN exit polls from New Hampshire, in which voters said Hillary ran the most unfair campaign (22% to 11% for both Obama and Edwards). There's more to be said about the Clinton campaign's negative attacks on Obama, but that will wait for a separate post.

Conclusion

One of the significant factors in these endorsements is that they came from two prominent, very successful female politicians.

As the Washington Post noted, "The Napolitano endorsement could help Obama in Arizona's Feb. 5 primary, but its larger significance is to signal that Clinton does not have a lock on support from top female Democratic elected officials." Think about that. Here are two very prominent female officials--ones that have been trailblazers for women in politics--and yet they determined that the female presidential candidate is not the best choice for the Democratic nomination. So are Hillary's supporters now going to claim that Napolitano and McCaskill are misogynistic?

Both Napolitano and McCaskill have many more years experience than Hillary in running for and being elected to public office. Moreover, they did not ride on anyone's coattails to get that success--and I am saying that Hillary did. Now I know what some of you Hillary supporters are thinking, namely that I am simply joining in the unfair, misogynistic denigration of Hillary's experience as First Lady of the U.S. and Arkansas. Well, guess again. That experience is relevant and valuable. However, my point here is that when it comes to being a candidate and winning elections on a statewide level, Napolitano and McCaskill have more experience than Hillary--much, much more.

And why does this matter? The WaPo blog post said that "she believed Obama would be a strong general election candidate in western states that could prove decisive in a close race." Given that Arizona has long gone Republican in Presidential elections, and that Napolitano has been a Democrat who has won multiple statewide elections there, I think she knows what she is talking about. And with her endorsement, Napolitano has concluded that Obama will have a better chance to win in Arizona. Furthermore, Napolitano has some knowledge about other Western states given that she is the past Chair of the Western Governors Association. Now take a look at Missouri. That state is perhaps the most evenly divided state in the country. That means that if a Democrat is going to win Missouri in November, that candidate is going to have to get some Republican votes, and McCaskill--who has won numerous elections as a Democrat in Missouri--feels that Obama has a better chance of getting those crossover votes. In other words, Napolitano and McCaskill have long and detail information and understanding of the voters in their states, and they concluded that Obama will do better in their states.

The WaPo blog post put this consideration in perspective:

McCaskill's homestate is one of the hardest fought in politics, narrowly divided along partisan lines and with large constituencies of suburban, rural, black, evangelical, and college-age voters -- the ultimate electoral treasure trove. The senator's decision to support Obama underscores concerns expressed by some Democrats in hard-to-win states like Missouri, that Clinton has limited crossover appeal beyond the party faithful and limited ability to bridge the partisan divide in Washington.

(emphasis added). All Democrats should be concerned about this. Janet Napolitano and Claire McCaskill are concerned. And that's why they chose Obama over Hillary. Get it?