Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Salazar says senators didn't agree on endorsement

M.E. Sprengelmeyer and Isaac Wolf Rocky Mountain News

Published June 2, 2008 at 3:08 p.m.
Updated June 2, 2008 at 6:18 p.m.

Text size  
Sen. Ken Salazar described the meeting as "a dialogue without an agenda."

Sen. Ken Salazar described the meeting as "a dialogue without an agenda."

More Barack Obama

More stories »

WASHINGTON — Sen. Ken Salazar joined a small group of fellow undecided Democratic superdelegates on Capitol Hill today, but said they reached no agreement on whether to endorse a presidential candidate as a group.

The gathering created a major stir amid published reports that up to 15 previously uncommitted senators were on the verge of giving a united endorsement to Democratic front-runner Sen. Barack Obama.

That did not happen at the meeting inside the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee offices, where Salazar and the only three other participants left by a backdoor to avoid more than a dozen reporters who staked out the front door.

Later, Salazar said the meeting had been "a dialogue without an agenda" and added he had spoken to "12 or 13" Democratic colleagues in the past few days.

"I could make the argument for either one of them," Salazar said about Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton. "Many people can make the argument that maybe the best thing would be for both of them to be on the same ticket."

Salazar said the possibility of a joint ticket was discussed at today's meeting. "There was some of that discussion, but there's no conclusion," he said.

After Tuesday's primaries, Obama is expected to be within a handful of the 2,118 delegates needed to clinch the nomination, and his campaign would need less than a few dozen new commitments from a pool of about 200 undecided "superdelegates" — the elected officials and party activists who get to cast votes regardless of caucus or primary results.

Clinton's campaign has said there is still a way for her to take the nomination, in part because delegates are allowed to change their endorsements through the start of the Democratic National Convention in Denver in August.

However, there also is speculation that Clinton could be winding down her campaign after she scheduled Tuesday's election-night party in her home state of New York and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, told a crowd in South Dakota today that "this may be the last day I'm ever involved in a campaign of this kind."

Sen. Salazar, Rep. John Salazar, Rep. Mark Udall and Gov. Bill Ritter are Colorado's four undeclared superdelegates.

So far, they have resisted pressure to pick sides.

Salazar said he would not make a final decision until after Tuesday's primaries, and most likely not before further meetings with fellow Democratic superdelegates.

The other participants in today's meeting were Sens. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa; Ben Cardin, D-Md.; and Tom Carper, D-Del.

Harkin said there would be another meeting with more uncommitted superdelegates on Wednesday. However, Harkin said he was not sure that the group would end up voting as a block.

"We need to bring some other folks to the table," Harkin said.

Harkin said 18 senators were invited to today's meeting. Four showed up but a larger gathering is expected, Harkin added.

"We should bring this to a conclusion as quickly as possible ... in the next few days," Cardin said.

Comments

  • June 2, 2008

    3:27 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    rickg19611 writes:

    The party fatcats have commanded.... and the idiot followers act like lemmings and get in line as told.....

    Just remind those Michigan and Florida voters about how Obama and his party bosses decided to only count HALF of the votes.
    No wonder Obama is losing in both states.

  • June 2, 2008

    4:04 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Firedewd writes:

    Wow, wait until they find out who is the most popular and then go with the crowd. Must be a dumbacrat.

  • June 2, 2008

    4:24 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Truth writes:

    Hilary, McCain, He-who-must-not-be-middle-named, all the same.

  • June 2, 2008

    4:30 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    davies writes:

    "We the esteemed Democratic senators of this august and deliberative legislative body, do hereby find and declare that the least experienced and most liberal of those among us, is the obvious choice to be the next President of the United States of America!"

  • June 2, 2008

    4:39 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    davies writes:

    "Did you ever dance with the devil in the pale moonlight?"

  • June 2, 2008

    4:43 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    DenverDan writes:

    I love it! Rush and all his dumb-as@ followers.OPERATION FAILURE

  • June 2, 2008

    4:51 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    davies writes:

    So you don't like McCain because he's too moderate? I bet you would have liked it if Ron Paul or Tancredo or the like were the nominee - then you could call him fascist, bigoted, reactionary, etc. Now you're stuck with "too moderate". Smirk.

    Hey, maybe he'll choose Lieberman for his running mate...

  • June 2, 2008

    4:59 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    buffsblg writes:

    rickg forgets that the Republicans punished Florida and Michigan as well in exactly the same way. those states broke the rules and the voters there knew it.

    About time that Salazar began to maybe think about some day setting a date to start considering when he might announce his timeline for considering a decision. Get off the fence and do something.

  • June 2, 2008

    5:24 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    jay writes:

    Obama now needs 45 out of the remaining 200 uncommitted superdelegates for the magic number necessary to confirm the party's nomination. my guess is that it'll be over in a matter of 48 hours.

    you can spout conspiracy theories about michigan and florida all you like, but the bottom line is those states' votes were corrupted data from day one considering that obama wasn't represented in either contest because of the states local election committees. blame them, not the national democratic leaders, who still managed to elect a great candidate using the math instead of an "activist" court.

  • June 2, 2008

    5:36 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    davies writes:

    The national democratic leaders elected a great candidate? This is great news! Who is he/she?

  • June 2, 2008

    5:43 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    davies writes:

    Thanks Big_D. I kind of like McCain for the same reason. My daughter got one of those chain letter e-mails saying that Obama was the Antichrist; so I kind of think they have already decided who they are going to direct their paranoid Scriptural delusions towards.

    And then the folks on the left always have Bush of course ;-)

  • June 2, 2008

    7:39 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    alwaysright writes:

    who ever said democrats even had a brain ??

  • June 2, 2008

    9:38 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    ES writes:

    Isn't it a conflict of interest for these senators to be super delegates. These are senators. Not citizens. This makes me feel that my party is being controlled by the wrong people. There is no accountability. It kinda seems like a good old boy system to me. May we may need to just go to a good old popular vote.

  • June 2, 2008

    10:43 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Ghost_of_Juvenal writes:

    Jay, MI and FL were certified by their Secs of State, they were perfectly legal votes. Obama, in collusion with Edwards and others, chose to remove their own names from the ballot in MI (not FL where their names remained) to pander in IA and in an effort, since Clinton lead the polls, to embarrass her by having "uncommitted" win the primary, as their supporters were urged in the final days before the primary to vote uncommitted. If the MI vote was "corrupted", as you say, it was Obama's doing! To reward him for gaming the system by giving him delegates he didn't earn, as well as delegates earned by the winning candidate, is despicable, and undemocratic, big or small d.