The New York Times-20080127-Paybacks Hurt- but Some Senate Democrats Are Taking Sides Anyway

Return to: The_New_York_Times-20080127

Paybacks Hurt, but Some Senate Democrats Are Taking Sides Anyway

Full Text (983  words)

The name of Senator Ben Nelson, a centrist Democrat from Nebraska, is regularly bandied about as a potential Democratic vice presidential pick, given his status as a former governor able to reel in those elusive independents. But it is probably safe to strike him from Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's short list for No. 2.

Mr. Nelson took the opportunity over the Congressional recess to endorse Senator Barack Obama as Senate Democrats became more serious about taking sides in what amounts to an intramural fight between two current colleagues and one former one, sort of the battle for class president writ large.

I think reconciliation is going to be a big part of what '09 and the years to follow will be about, said Mr. Nelson, citing what he described as Mr. Obama's message of unity as a motivating factor behind the endorsement. Nothing against the other two.

Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington, a 49-year-old lawmaker with style and a Seattle dot-com pedigree, would seem to be another Obama convert considering they are part of the tiny under-50 crowd in the Senate. But she flew east to Iowa to endorse Mrs. Clinton.

These are going to be tough economic times, very tough, and when I think about it, I want somebody who is going to hit the ground running, said Ms. Cantwell, a player in Senate energy policy who pointed to $100-a-barrel oil as part of her rationale for backing Mrs. Clinton.

The Senate is small, and its members, while they may occasionally detest, ridicule or disdain their colleagues, prefer to keep it somewhat private since they all need one another eventually. There is a reason Senate leadership elections are conducted by secret ballot -- to limit the grudges.

But the competitive Democratic presidential primary is drawing out the preferences of some senators, creating factions and the potential for awkward moments now and in the future. Consider that Senators Charles E. Schumer of New York and Richard J. Durbin of Illinois are roommates, members of the leadership and top backers of Mrs. Clinton, of New York, and Mr. Obama, of Illinois, respectively. They haven't come to blows when the presidential fight occasionally rears its head. Yet.

We understand that we each have a colleague in our state who we like, work for and respect, Mr. Schumer said.

Until the eve of the Iowa caucuses, Mr. Durbin was Mr. Obama's sole Senate endorser. No one made much of his split with Mrs. Clinton since he was such an avid backer of the junior senator from his home state. The third leading Democratic candidate, former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, who is not beloved by his former colleagues, had zero Senate backers, a level of support he maintains.

Mrs. Clinton, on the other hand, had lined up nine colleagues. Some were natural fits like Mr. Schumer, Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Mark Pryor of Arkansas, and their public commitment was understandable as well.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a freshman from Rhode Island, was also an early adopter, to use his term, when it came to Mrs. Clinton's candidacy. Mr. Whitehouse noted that he was appointed United States attorney by former President Bill Clinton and that the Clintons had been supportive of his political career.

I would have felt like a real rat if I hadn't done it, really like a louse, Mr. Whitehouse said.

But most Senate Democrats were content to remain uncommitted, and they had a convenient excuse. With two popular Democrats, Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut and Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, in the presidential mix, both committee chairmen, many Democrats professed neutrality out of respect.

Once it became clear that Senators Dodd and Biden would be gone after Iowa, the endorsement picture began to shift. Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota, who had been pursued by Mr. Obama as a farm-state favorite, headed to Iowa to campaign with the Illinoisan, becoming the first in a series of red-state Democrats to join the Obama cause.

I just think Barack Obama is of exceptional quality and his message of bringing people together to get results is the right one, Mr. Conrad said. I am also from a very Republican state and this is my own sense of the best chance for doing well not only in my state, but around the country.

After Mr. Obama's triumph in Iowa, the names of other Senate Democrats about to take the plunge for Mr. Obama began to circulate. Then came New Hampshire, and operatives in both camps expected those endorsements might dry up as Mrs. Clinton regained her grip on the race. But they didn't. They came anyway: John Kerry of Massachusetts, who ran with Mr. Edwards four years ago, and Tim Johnson of South Dakota. Mr. Nelson. Claire McCaskill of Missouri. Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont.

Even supporters of Mrs. Clinton say the endorsements were timely and helpful for Mr. Obama. First, they showed his New Hampshire loss had not scared people off, that influential fellow Democrats still considered him a credible rival to Mrs. Clinton. Second, the support from red and swing state lawmakers left the impression that some senators, like Mr. Conrad, believed Mr. Obama to be an easier sell than Mrs. Clinton outside Democratic strongholds.

When you have senators from states that are not presumably blue in every election cycle support him, Mr. Durbin said, it at least raises the very sound argument that Barack is electable.

Most Senate Democrats remain uncommitted. Many no doubt hope the flood of Feb. 5 primaries will wash away the problem, sparing them a public choice. But if the race continues, the pressure to declare will increase.

It can be a tough call. Senators are rooting for the person they endorse to go on to the White House. Of course, that means the one they oppose may remain seated alongside them for the next few years.