by Andrew Green
Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley isn't wavering from his support for Hillary Clinton -- he was one of the first governors to endorse her -- but he's not toeing the party line on how superdelegates should vote or on the idea of her fighting all the way to the convention.
In an interview with The Sun's editorial board in Baltimore, O'Malley said he agrees with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that it would be dangerous for superdelegates to overturn the popular vote of Democratic primary voters. Pelosi's comments have widely been seen as sympathetic to Barack Obama.
"The twists and turns that still have to be made in the remaining states still have to be played out," O'Malley said."I heard Nancy Pelosi say the superdelegates should not reverse the popular vote, and I think that's a very important consideration that will weigh heavily on all the superdelegates."
O'Malley reeled back in to the Clinton campaign talking points a bit, saying that it's also important to consider who wins the states with the most electoral votes and who wins primaries instead of caucuses. But later he returned to Pelosi's suggestion: "I do think the popular vote, as Nancy Pelosi suggested, will weigh heavily on the superdelegates. It's an important point for her to have made as a party leader."
O'Malley also said he supports Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen's idea of holding a "superdelegate primary" in June after all the states have had their chance to vote. That would effectively preclude the idea that Clinton fighting all the way to the convention, as her campaign has suggested she might do.
"I kind of like that idea," O'Malley said. "I know a lot of people don't."
He said he's talked with Bredesen about the proposal and agrees that Democrats should find a way to settle the race before the party's August convention.
"Whether you do it all at the Washington Hilton in the ballroom or whether you do it somehow over the course of the summer in other ways, I think that what Gov. Bredesen is trying to do is to get everyone to at least agree this shouldn't be allowed to drag on until the convention itself. I think it would be positive if after the last state voted and before the convention we would be able to resolve this."
Obama won Maryland handily, but O'Malley said he's not at all squeamish about casting his vote as a superdelegate for Clinton. O'Malley has a long history with the Clintons, dating back to his days as Baltimore mayor when the then-president Bill Clinton brought him along for a peacemaking trip to Ireland. Hillary Clinton raised money for O'Malley during his gubernatorial bid in 2006, and Bill Clinton cut a commercial for him in the waning days of that campaign.
O'Malley went to New Hampshire twice to stump for Hillary Clinton's campaign.
He said he has joked with Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, a major Obama supporter, who's in the opposite position: Hillary Clinton won his state by about the same margin that Obama took Maryland.
"I suggested to him maybe w should swap or something," O'Malley said.
Andrew Green is city editor of The Sun, in Baltimore.
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
How is it "sympathetic" to one side or another to say that the one with the most votes should win?
Rather, that would be the Democratic way to solve this, in both senses of the word.
Posted by: Joe | April 3, 2008 6:32 PM
Split the delegates from Michigan and Florida 50/50 (the only fair and democratic solution). Let Hillary run the remaining 10 contests. Let superdelegates use independent judgement to decide whenever for whomever. Fair is fair.
Posted by: Matt | April 3, 2008 6:44 PM
I think Gov.O'Malley is right, Hillary won big states so in the electoral votes she will win big.
Obama win mostly Republican small states that Democrats usually don't win.
So Hillary is more electable on this premise.
Hillary is also the most qualified and the best candidate who will work hard to solve the worst economic, security, environment etc. problems the country faces now.
I wonder where Obama got all his millions, don't you.He is spending money like water on this very hard times.
Posted by: alma.evangelista | April 3, 2008 6:45 PM
In reference to the post by alma.evangelista
The premise upon which Hillary is more electable assumes that the majority of those who supported hillary clinton would not support obama, which I believe to be untrue.
Posted by: Luke | April 3, 2008 6:56 PM
Winning a Democratic Primary in a State with a large number of General Election Electoral Votes does not translate to the Democratic Nominee winning in that State against the Republican Nominee in the General Election. The two races are mutually exclusive as each has a different opponent.
Posted by: Tim K | April 3, 2008 7:05 PM
He got his money from thousands like me, $50 at a time. Isn't it great not to be bound by lobbyists or big oil!!!
Posted by: GregG | April 3, 2008 7:06 PM
To answer the alma question, the money is coming from people. In a capitalist society, people place their money where they see value. Clearly, a very large number of people see a very large value in the Obama candidacy. More money is going to him than to the two others combined. He has more votes and more money, what more do people need to do to indicate a favorite?
Posted by: Andy | April 3, 2008 7:17 PM
To alma.evangelista:
Are you aware that your sentence "won big states so in the electoral votes she will win big." is incorrect and misleading?
No electoral votes have been cast nor can the votes be assumed to be awarded to Democrats.
Hillary effectively has lost the delegate vote, the popular vote, and any other measure one could think of.
It's high time for her to stop this and help unite the party she has done so much damage to.
Her vicious and divisive tactics must be stopped for the good of the Democrat Party.
Posted by: Steven | April 3, 2008 7:19 PM
Florida was a fair election, let that split per the actual vote and then Michigan 50/50.
Posted by: Ken | April 3, 2008 7:24 PM
It is the American and democratic way to let the popular vote count and be the only count which matters. I am an Independent who has had to register as a Democrat in order to vote in the primaries *which I think is where the real decisions are made). I just want this entire process to be finished so whoever wins the nomination can begin to take on McCain!!! I will vote for either Obama or Clinton. Just get it done! Super delegates MUST vote the way their states voted ... certainly in the first round, anyway!
Posted by: Jean Strachan | April 3, 2008 7:27 PM
he got it from the American people who believe in him.
Posted by: nikki | April 3, 2008 7:34 PM
"Hillary won big states." alma.evangelista
Let's just use a little logic here, please.
John McCain hasn't a chance of winning in either California or New York. A Democrat is going to win those states even if their name is Humpty Dumpty.
Look at the vote totals in the primaries. Even with a split vote between the two Democratic candidates, both of them still beat McCain by a two to one margin.
The delegate count in California was still very close. I think there was about a four delegate difference- some say now that it is even a wash. So much for the idea that Barack Obama will not win in the "Big" states against "100 years in Iraq" McCain.
Posted by: Eva Martinez | April 3, 2008 7:37 PM
"I wonder where Obama got all his millions." alma.evangelista
From people like me who send $100 every time I read a derogatory remark about him on these blogs. So far, he has almost 1,400,000 people donating. Of course, we're all very ignorant people.
donate at www.barackobama.com
Posted by: Lucia | April 3, 2008 7:41 PM
"Florida was a fair election."
Ken
Ken You are jesting, right? Over 2,000,000 registered Democrats did not bother to show up at the polls because they were told that the primary was not going to count. Hillary showed up for "fundraisers" in the state- but did not call it "campaigning" which was prohibited. Barack Obama stayed away from the state as per DNC instructions. You don't award a winner in a cancelled contest. If Obama had campaigned in Florida or Michigan the results would have probably been 50/50 or very close to it.
The Clintons just want to change the rules because they think it is the only way they can steal the nomination. Not this time.
Hillary speaks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULxxBz-PAjg&NR=1
Posted by: Lucy | April 3, 2008 8:08 PM
Florida and Michigan were bogus elections so since there was no valid election in either state the fairest way is 50/50.
There was no reason to vote in the Fl election because the citizens knew that it would not count. Many who voted voted because of of a property tax amendment not because of the presidential nomination. Can't change the rules after their made. Hopefully in the next election cycle the rules will be followed. Elections need to be spread out more evenly with no more than two weeks between elections. No more Super Tuesdays.
Posted by: Ron M | April 3, 2008 8:33 PM
Donate to hillary at hillaryclinton.com.
You'll be glad you did!
Hillary '08
Hillary for America!
Posted by: Diana in Minneapolis, MN | April 3, 2008 8:59 PM
Ken
No, Florida was not a fair election.
There was no election. It was not approved by the party and the candidates were asked not to participate so that a small state would get attention. There is a need for a small state to be first so unknown candidates can compete without funding.
No one but Hillary went there, and the Dem Party punished them for moving their date. The New Hampshire primary is first for a reason, so that unknown candidates have a say and so that others besides famous people have face time in debates.
Florida doesnt count and it doesnt count because it was moved.
Unfortunately it was moved by Republicans. The problem is that the Florida congresspeople would not allow a mail in vote.
There was no real election in Florida. If you think so, you are deluded,
Posted by: bruce becker | April 3, 2008 9:39 PM
Diana in MN: LOL!!! No one will be gladder then McCain!! LOL!! That's the funniest thing I read all night long!!
OMally sounds like the typical HRC superdelegate; He feels he owes something to the Clintons; He extends the tpyical back scratching and old style politics that made this mess; He sits on the fence and is not a strong backer of HRC.
Obama 08
Posted by: Xcellentform | April 3, 2008 10:23 PM
[[[ I think Gov.O'Malley is right, Hillary won big states so in the electoral votes she will win big.
Obama win mostly Republican small states that Democrats usually don't win.
So Hillary is more electable on this premise.
Hillary is also the most qualified and the best candidate who will work hard to solve the worst economic, security, environment etc. problems the country faces now.
I wonder where Obama got all his millions, don't you.He is spending money like water on this very hard times.]]]
Its more like Hillary wins the states where Democrats are going to win anyway. Not that it matters, the nominee is elected based on total delegates acquired, not on whatever magic formula that the Clintons are trying to pass off as meaningful on any particular day. "Popular vote count. No, only popular vote in Primary states, no total votes in big states, no total votes in big states plus FL and MI, minus the caucuses. Yeah if you only count big states, plus FL & MI, minus the undemocratic caucases, then WE WIN" Please...
Posted by: Mjohnson | April 7, 2008 4:29 AM
If you believe these party Super Delegates should consider the voice of rank-and-file Democrats, go tell them so… by using www.LobbyDelegates.com.
LobbyDelegates.com is the first and only 1-stop portal for grassroots lobbying of Super Delegates in your state.
The website is strictly impartial and is not affiliated with any political party, candidate, campaign or advocacy group. LobbyDelegates.com was created as a public service under the auspices of the nonprofit StateDemocracy Foundation.
Posted by: ken | April 8, 2008 1:21 PM