WEBB ENDORSES BYRNE

Statement of Senator Jim Webb on his Endorsement of Leslie Byrne for U.S. Congress

Washington, DC—Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) today issued the following statement:

“I am pleased to announce that I am endorsing the candidacy of Leslie Byrne for Congress from Virginia’s 11th Congressional District.

“I am convinced that Leslie Byrne is our best candidate. Leslie shares my values about economic fairness and the need to re-order our national security policies – both in Iraq and throughout the world.  In her service as a state legislator and member of Congress, Leslie Byrne has demonstrated time and again that she is tough, fiercely independent and willing to stand up to powerful special interests.  I would be proud to serve in Congress with her.

“The Democratic Party has fielded outstanding candidates for the primary, including Gerry Connolly – the Chairman of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors.  The winner of our primary must be able to serve effectively in the House of Representatives and reflect the values that are important to citizens in the 11th District.  Through their service in the community and in government, our leading candidates can certainly do that.

“As the primary season begins, I look forward to a positive and spirited contest in the 11th District.  As in my 2006 Senate campaign and the governor races that preceded it, and as with the recent Presidential primary, I hope we can continue to attract new people to the Democratic Party and its ideals.  At the end of this process, I expect 11th District Democrats to stand united behind our nominee.  And I expect us to win in November.”

Comments

Now that is big news. Congratulations Leslie

[John]

I'm surprised, but very glad that he got into this on Leslie's behalf. Certainly an odd move for a sitting Senator to intervene in a Congressional primary. He must have some beef with Gerry that I'm not aware of.

It's also odd - and a bit disappointing - that he can decide about a House primary, but can't seem to make up his mind between Hillary and Obama. It's time for him to play his Superdelegate role - no matter who he endorses.

Big get for Leslie. Any word on Kaine?

[Dan]

This is great news. Hardly unexpected though.

Byrne was there to support Webb early, when it counted most. I would have been schocked had he not come out for her.

[Dan]

John, perhaps it is best that Webb is not committing to either presidential candidate just yet. There may be some questionable manuevering that could damage the party if it is not sorted out properly.

A pool of uncommitted elected superdelegates could play a critical role in seeing that the best interests of the nation and the party are given priority over the interests of a particular campaign.

[John]

Dan - I think your point is fair, and I'm an Obama supporter who won't scream bloody murder if superdelegates push Hillary past Obama inevitable lead in pledged delegates, but I also don't like that the superdelegates have total freedom in this process. They don't have to declare until the convention, and if they do declare, they're free to change their minds. I had to vote on February 12. I feel that all Virginia Superdelegates should have had to decide that day too. One way or the other. I'm sure people will scream bloody murder back at me about this, but I have a problem with this free agent notion. I think the people would be more comfortable with superdelegates if there was more sunshine to the process and superdelegates didn't have the power to waltz in and act when and how they see fit.

I base my argument in part on the fact that the MI and FL superdelegates are tied into the problems in those states - i.e. Governor Granholm and Senator Nelson won't get to vote unless their state's other delegates are seated - so by that logic, I think we should tie all superdelegates to their states. Make them formally declare at the same time that the voters in their states decide.

I think you could exempt a few people for institutional reasons - maybe the DNC chair and former Presidents and Vice Presidents - but all others should have to go on the record when the voters do.

I'm quasi making this up as I go, but I think it's a bit rediculous and frustrating that we have 300 some-odd undeclared superdelegates who are going to be able to swing this thing at the end of the process. And if I feel this way - as someone generally in the know - I'm sure some sort of idea like this would appeal to most average voters.

Reactions?

[Dan]

John, it seems to me that if you require the superdelegates to follow their states or districts or to commit at the time their state's other delegates are selected that you ignore the very purpose for having superdelegates. They are there to get things back on track when they get totally screwed up or there is some unforeseen problem that could blow up the party's chances in the general election.

We might want to look at how the numbers of superdelegates has increased over the years. They represent a pretty big percentage of the total. Reducing the number ought to be discussed.

Another thing we have to look at is the way we do proportional allocation of delegates. I sure don't want to go to winner take all like the Republicans, but we have carried it to the point of absurd in the other direction. I think we can assure representation of significant minority opinion without this ludicrous everybody wins system we have now.

One positive that must surely come out of this nomination fight is that we take a hard look at our rules. And that we change them. In many ways they are dumb as hell.

[LAS]

I think Jim Webb is smart not to endorse either of our presidential candidates. Personally, he should delay that as long as he can.

He owes both Obama and Clinton for helping him out in his own campaign. He owes Leslie as well--and he owes Gerry nothing.

That isn't to say that he doesn't have other (and better!) reasons for endorsing Leslie, because she is, in many ways, closer to him ideologically and politically than Connolly.

[John]

Dan, again to some extent I agree with you, but the most common refrain the media this week has been that our nomination is going to be decided by shadowy figures in a smoke-filled room. Forcing the superdelegates to "vote" when their state votes would eliminate this concept. And I don't think it would undo the point of having superdelegates. These folks would still be free to exercise their judgment and vote as they see fit. In 2004, for example, if Howard Dean had held on and won in Iowa, Tom Harkin could have cast his "vote" that day for John Kerry or John Edwards and made a strong point that Governor Dean would not have been a viable general election candidate.

In other words, I don't really think it matters WHEN the superdelegates vote - you just need to have them as a check in the process to insure the voters don't entirely go off the deep end.

As for the number of superdelegates, I actually think we have a good number right now. One fifth seems right to me. That basically insures that in any reasonably contested year, a candidate won't be able to win the nomination without some "institutional" support.

This is a good debate and I wholeheartedly agree with your idea that we need to take a hard look at our rules come Denver.

[Dan]

John, what's so terrible about shadowy figures in smoke filled rooms? That's how we got Harry Truman and that worked out pretty well. Those smoke filled rooms often gave us better nominees and better Presidents than our current process.

After the rewrite of rules in the aftermath of the 1968 Chicago debacle, it was said that we took the decision out of the hands of 2000 pols in smoke filled rooms and gave it over to 2000 Iowa farmers. I don't recall who said that, but it wasn't meant as an endorsement of the new system.

I'd like us to strike a happy medium between the good old days and the lunatic rules we operate under currently.

[dems4dems]

Relax everyone. Either Hillary will hold serve by winning PA and makeup primaries in Michigan and Florida - all Hillary states - or Obama will break serve by winning these states. Either way, there will be consensus when these states weigh in.

Webb endorses Byrne

I believe this is how Tom Davis and Jeanmarie Devolites-Davis started...

Is there a Leslie Byrne-Webb announcement comming?

[Idiot]

Congrats to Leslie Byrne.

Yet he hedges a bet for Gerry, which is a shame.

Then this:

"Through their service in the community and in government, our leading candidates can certainly do that."

Wow. "Leading Candidates" really infers Leslie and Gerry, leaving Doug in the dust. That's a shame too. But that's politics...

[Bryan J. Scrafford]

This is definitely great news for Leslie's campaign. One must really wonder why Doug and Leslie have been able to receive support from Members of Congress, but Gerry has yet to be endorsed by one of the people he hopes to serve with.

[No Surprise Factor]

This deal was cut a long time ago when Leslie first supported Webb. That being said, this might be the weakest endorsement that I have ever seen.

[The Many Lives of Jen Thomasina]

You're right on the money, NSF.

It probably came from her little squirt husband's *cough*notso*cough* wonderful job on his campaign.

Whomever you support, this photoshop of Hillary is priceless:

http://s258.photobucket.com/albums/hh254/destonio1/?action=view¤t=laurelandhillary.jpg

That's a funny picture, but whoever named it is a dumbass. It's Oliver Hardy in the picture with her, and they named it Laurel and Hillary.

[Dem Legislator in Search of Clue]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1204546422275&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Schottzie!

If Byrne "is, in many ways, closer to Webb ideologically and politically than Connolly," as LAS notes, one must wonder...

Does Byrne support Webb's pro-gun stance and his position on FISA?

[RichmondDem (Not J.C.)]

I don't know much about NOVA politics. But if shes good enough for Webb, shes probably good enough for me.

That is weakest, sideways endorsement I've ever read. Webb didn't waste much time getting past talking about Leslie so he could talk about both her and Gerry.

Way to play both sides of that one, Jimmy!

[Fairfax Democrat]

To 'No Surprise Factor': You're dead wrong. There was no deal cut, ever. In fact, I have it on good authority that Webb interviewed all three candidates equally, and that Leslie had no idea which way he was going to go until he endorsed her.

Having said that, it would be logical to assume that he would have endoresed her, since she was the first big name to come out and endorse him when he ran, and the timing of her endorsement was critical to his winning the primary. She endoresed him a week before Connolly's St Patrick's Day fundraiser, thereby giving Webb a great assist in winning Connolly's famous straw poll vote and defeating Harris Miller on Miller's home turf. If Miller would have won that vote, he would have had the momentum in Fairfax County and very likely would have gone on to win the primary. But he didn't, and the rest is history. So, yes, Webb owed a great debt to Leslie.

And to 'Lives of Jen Thomasina': If you don't like Leslie's husband, that's your perrogative, but keep your smartass remarks to yourself. He took hold of a totally disorganized campaign and turned it around and was one of the decisive factors in leading it to victory. You obviously weren't in a position to know that, as many of us were.

[Fan of Integrity]

If encouraging democratic unity is "playing both sides" then all politicians should take a lesson from Webb.