by Salena Zito
Sunday, May 4, 2008
One of the constants of the Democrats' contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is the daily announcement of endorsements by the separate campaigns. From mayors to congressman, senators to governors, barely a day goes by without some elected official jumping on one bandwagon or the other.
If you miss the e-mail announcements, the Drudge Report typically has a bold headline, sometimes shaded red, marking yet another former Clinton supporter who has jumped ship for Obama.
Superdelegates certainly are newsworthy -- since they likely will be the deciding factor in a race where no one can close the deal -- but the drama borders on the ridiculous when a rock star or athlete's endorsement becomes the ticker across the bottom of CNN's screen.
As far as former President Jimmy Carter goes, that drama is over. How many hints need to smack anyone in the face before he realizes that Carter is backing Obama?
"Most endorsements are really just a second chance for voters who support the endorser to look over the candidate," says David Carney, a GOP strategist. "Some rare endorsements bring on-the-ground clout and resources to help win a race, but that typically only comes from a sitting or recently retired governor."
Of all of the backings Obama or Clinton should want (besides, of course, every superdelegate who walks the face of the Earth) is that of a governor.
Remember, Florida's chief executive, the very popular Charlie Crist, handed John McCain his critical punch in the race for the Republican nomination. And it is hard to overstate Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland's or Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell's effect in Clinton's victories in those two states.
Obama's campaign has done a spectacular job of racking up U.S. senators and House members on his side. Those add Beltway prestige to Obama's campaign and erode Clinton's delegate base -- but do they deliver primary votes?
Not so much. Just ask John Kerry, Ted Kennedy or Bob Casey, whose endorsements of Obama failed to hand their states to him.
Carney says the difference between a statewide endorsement and a congressional endorsement is simple: "Governors have on-the-ground organizations that are exercised every day. Senators usually have 'ground' for only a few months every six years, if that."
The congressional effect typically is even more minimal, only touching the district that a congressman represents. "They don't deliver states," he adds.
Carney, far from a Clinton fan (he worked on George H.W. Bush's re-election campaign in 1992), admits that Democrat governors must see Clinton as a candidate who knows how to take a punch. "Obama appears to have a glass jaw, and governors know it takes more than words to win and govern," he says.
Obama has his fair share of governors as well, but many of them announced after their contests were over, like Tim Culver of Iowa or the infamous "Judas" endorsement of New Mexico's Bill Richardson.
As the press and the candidates continue to move the goal post back further -- thanks to Obama's inability to close and Clinton's reluctance to leave -- Indiana and North Carolina have gubernatorial clout in the mix.
Evan Bayh, two-time Hoosier governor and current U.S. senator, carries a lot of weight and popularity in Indiana; he hopes that will translate into a win for the New York senator. So does Gov. Mike Easley of North Carolina, whose endorsement gave Clinton a decided boost in a state where she once lagged far behind.
Come November, McCain and the Democrats' nominee will need the institutional support of governors to bring home their parties' vote. Such support won't come from U.S. senators, who spend the bulk of their time in Washington, or from congressmen, who control not much more turf than the grass they walk on.
It certainly won't come from Bruce Springsteen or the Dixie Chicks: To date, neither have carried any battleground state, in any election.
Salena Zito is a Tribune-Review editorial page columnist. She can be reached at szito@tribweb.com or 412-320-7879.