WTF? Barbara Boxer for Clinton - but says she'll remain neutral?

[Debi]

http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_8472501?nclick_check=1

<snip>

Barbara Boxer, one of the state's best-known superdelegates, has confused some by her stance. Boxer does not plan to endorse Clinton or Obama as long as both are running. But even though she has not thrown her support to either candidate, she does plan to vote for Clinton at the convention because Clinton won the California primary. Saying "the will of the voters is paramount," she hopes the superdelegates do not decide the nominee at the convention.

<snip>

++++

She was on Morning Joe this AM saying that she was remaining neutral in the Super Delegate race. Sorry, Senator, you can't support one candidate and be neutral.

Looks like that's one for Clinton.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++
on edit:

Maybe this will help -

neu·tral (ntrl, ny-)
adj.
1. Not aligned with, supporting, or favoring either side in a war, dispute, or contest.
2. Belonging to neither side in a controversy: on neutral ground.
3. Belonging to neither kind; not one thing or the other.

++++++++++++++++++++++++

How is she neutral AND promising her vote to Clinton?

[Lucinda]

1. Sounds like shes not going to actively help either but will vote her states results

Which she also said right after Hillary won her state.

[Debi]

4. Then she's not neutral n/t

[Lucinda]

7. Shes not campaigning. She's supporting her states results. That's not an endorsement.

[Debi]

11. I know I'm being picky here - but since we are all aware that the nominatioin will be determined

by Super Delegates (since neither candidate can reach 2025 w/out the SDs) then a vote in the Clinton column is just that. If she were neutral her vote would be in 'undecided'. But it's not - it is for Clinton. Therefore she is not neutral when it comes to determining the nominee.

I agree she hasn't endorsed and hasn't worked for a candidate - but her vote has been promised. For that reason she's not neutral.

[Lucinda]

48. Your post #6 says she was neutral this morning right in the subject line.

So i'm not sure what it is, exactly, that you're arguing here.

She is doing what she feels best, and I support her in that. If the argument is that she should vote for Obama since she isn't actively campaigning for Hillary (and thus implies a preference) then is it ok for everyone to just go ahead and vote for their prefernce of the two? I can support that as well, though i think we need to seriously work for election reform, and clear up all this mess, before the next cycle.

[Debi]

53. What I'm saying is that she is publicly proclaiming neutrality

which would mean that she does not favor either candidate in this race.

However she has promised her vote to Clinton - which is not neutrality.

She can't be both.

[SeaLyons]

66. Exactly

...unlike Kerry and Kennedy who have given their support to Obama rather than following the wishes of their constituents in Massachusetts who voted for Clinton. Boxer is right, Kerry and Kennedy are wrong.

[Jawja]

69. Good for Boxer.

Like John Lewis of my district in Georgia, she is going to vote per the will of the voters of her State.

This is admirable on her part.

[Apollo11]

2. She said before Super Tuesday that she would support the candidate who won in her district.

I guess Hillary got the most votes in San Francisco! B-)

Seems to me that Boxer's position is more logical than folks like Senators Kerry and Ted Kennedy, who hitched themselves permanently to the Obama bandwagon even after Massachusetts went for Hillary.

[Debi]

5. She can't be neutral if she's chosen a candidate to vote for in Denver

for whatever reason.

[knight_of_the_star]

32. Yeah she can

She said she's not endorsing and not going to pump up Clinton but instead obey the will of the voters by voting as California did. In that way she's supporting the will of the people of California, not the Clinton for President campaign. Perhaps the other supers should consider taking a similar stance.

[Debi]

34. She is casting her vote for Clinton - that means she's no longer neutral

[karynnj]

44. I don't think that has to follow -

Her vote is cast to follow the CA voters. She has not said who she personally supports - and has said she won't do so.

[Debi]

46. But for the purpose of the nomination her vote will count, right?

And since it's for Clinton how does that make her neutral?

I understand the argument of not campaigning and her personal feelings and all that.

But, as long as she has chosen a candiate to vote for - she is no longer neutral in the count of Super Delegates.

[karynnj]

59. ok - I see where you are coming from -

She will be a Clinton superdelegate vote.

(What would be interesting is that there could be someone actually advocating for one, but committed to vote for teh other.)

[Debi]

62. Also, she really can't go around the MSM and say she's neutral

her vote is spoken for.

[karynnj]

57. Or an alternative position

Soon after SuperTuesday, when the numbers weren't known - Kerry implied what he would do saying that he didn't think - either way - that it would be right for the superdelegates to give the victory to someone who wasn't the leader in pledged delegates. That it would be a disaster for the party.

With the numbers now better predicted, assume that Obama stays ahead in pledged delegates - assume that it comes down to one superdelegate vote - as all others have cast theirs - John Kerry's. Assume that HRC is as high as she is because she got far more of the party insiders vote, what is the ethical thing for him to do?

- blindly vote as MA did or vote to prevent the unelectable, unaccountable party insiders from making HRC the winner? (Note - This would actually be a nightmare situation, that thankfully will not occur.)

[Blue_State_Elitist]

24. Boxer is the senator.

Pelosi is in San Francisco where Obama actually won.

[babylonsister]

3. She was good this morning.

She is not 'really' endorsing Clinton because she did say she's remaining neutral. Boxer said that she wouldn't be where she is if not for her constituents, so she'll vote according to how they did. If she wasn't remaining neutral, she'd be endorsing Clinton. I think if she considered it 'her' decision, the outcome would be different.

[Debi]

6. Yes, she was good this morning - and I was happy she was remaining neutral

but if her vote is in the Clinton column then she is not neutral. She's voting for Clinton.

[jenmito]

8. She's a U.S. Senator, so in HER case, I guess she should represent the STATE'S results, unlike the

SDs who are governors who represent their own DISTRICTS. I think she's being consistent.

[Debi]

12. Consistent by saying she's neutral but promising her vote to one candidate over the other?

:shrug: THAT'S neutral?

[jenmito]

27. I think so. Her daughter was on later, saying she agrees with her mother that the SDs should go

along with the will of the people. Her mother represents the whole state, so the will of her STATE was Hillary. Don't worry. Obama won the majority of states, so the majority of STATE Senator SDs will go for HIM if they follow that system.

[Debi]

33. Maybe I'm not being clear

How can a person claim to be neutral and yet clearly state that their vote is going toward one of the candidates?

Either she's neutral and her vote hasn't been promised OR she has promised her vote to one of the two candidates.

Which is it? Has she promised her vote to a candidate or is she remaining neutral?

She has promised her vote to Clinton. That is not neutral.

[jenmito]

38. Her state already voted. She's not promising her vote to CLINTON but to the winner of her state who

HAPPENS to be Clinton, and she wants every OTHER State Senator to do the same. She doesn't want them all to vote for Clinton regardless of the outcome of their states. That's how I see it, anyway.

Someone who's NOT neutral is Stephanie Tubbs-Jones, whose district voted heavily for Obama yet SHE said she's going to stick with Hillary.

[Debi]

40. Someone who IS neutral is Tom Harkin who has not promised his vote to either candidate

See the difference? She promised her vote to Clinton. No longer neutral.

[jenmito]

47. IMO Harkin is worse than Boxer. Being neutral in each case means not necessarily following

the will of the people they represent but holding their option open to go AGAINST the will of the people. He SHOULD say he's voting for Obama since his people voted for Obama. She's not showing a PREFERENCE for Hillary, but following the will of the people. Maybe she worded it wrong, but I think she's doing the right thing.

[Debi]

49. She clearly stated this morning that she was neutral

voting for a specific candidate is not neutral.

[jenmito]

55. But she's not voting for Hillary out of preference but out of following the will of the people...

If she went AGAINST the will of the people, THAT would not be neutral and showing her OWN preference. She's just doing what her people voted for. Like I said, maybe she shouldn't have used the word "neutral" as it CAN be confusing, but I see her as meaning she'll follow the will of the people DESPITE her personal feelings.

[Debi]

58. As long has she has made a choice between the two candiates

for whatever reason - she is no longer neutral.

I think we agree on that.

She did used neutral and went on to talk about how wonderful the process is and exciting and all that. She was using neutral in the sense of not supporting either candidate. She was using it wrong.

[jenmito]

63. OK-the WORD may have been wrong but her logic is right-and to Obama's advantage,

which is why I'm not worried about it.

[Debi]

67. I don't have a problem with her vote for Clinton or her support of Obama

but once she has chosen a candidate to vote for (no matter how she made that choice) she is no longer neutral and can't go around saying she's neutral.

Each of those votes are going to be very important come Denver. She should be clear that she has chosen a candidate to vote for. (whether or not she is personally content with casting that vote).

[DJ13]

9. The Clinton campaign's plan is to try and seat SD's on a state by state basis

Instead of the national pledged delegate totals.

Boxer is a tool.

(And this comes from a Californian.)

[Debi]

13. She's just trying to have it both ways

She can't be neutral and have promised her vote to one candidate. Either she's for Clinton (which she has acknowledged) or Obama or neutral. Not 'neutral but my vote will be cast for Clinton' :crazy: No, Senator.

[Renew Deal]

10. It's the typical thing. People don't like Hillary

But sometimes feel obligated to support her.

[Debi]

15. Whatever her reason - and her state going for Clinton is a fine reason

but promising her vote to Clinton does not make her 'neutral'. As long as that vote is in the Clinton column she is supporting Hillary Clinton.

[MadBadger]

14. I think her position is very honorable.

[Debi]

17. How?

She says one thing but is doing another. How is that honorable? If she were truly neutral then she would not be promising her vote to either candidate. She'd be.....uh....neutral. Instead she says she's neutral but has publicly promised her vote to Clinton. :crazy:

[parasim]

16. From what I got from her statements after Super Tuesday...

as a superdelegate, her vote belonged to her constituents. Whether or not she herself supported one or the other candidate, she felt it was her duty to vote for who her constituents voted for.

I admire her for doing so. I would hope that all superdelegates do the same. I agree with her in hoping that the superdelegates do not decide the nominee at the convention.

[Debi]

19. I agree - and have no problem with her vote going to Clinton for that reason

but that does not make her neutral. It makes her for Clinton. When the delegate counting is so precise (especially for Super Delegates) there are only three ways to go - Clinton/Neutral/Obama (okay - Edwards also has some). But if her vote is not neutral (like she says) then it's for a candidate. And she has decided to cast her vote for Clinton. So she is not neutral.

[blm]

18. She's only voting that way because her STATE voted for Clinton. Not endorsing

someone and not working for them even if you vote for them speaks volumes.

[Debi]

22. For the purpose of Super Delegate count - that's not neutral

She said she was neutral. A vote for a specific candiate is not neutral.

[blm]

28. She qualified it and refuses to endorse or campaign for Clinton.

She has to vote some way and she's doing it as neutrally as possible given that her state voted heavily for Clinton.

[Debi]

39. That's right - she does have to choose - and she chose Clinton (because CA chose Clinton)

So she's not neutral. She's voting for Clinton.

[blm]

42. Technically. For politicians, though, if you DON'T campaign or donate to a candidate

and don't endorse their candidacy, that's pretty neutral.

[Debi]

45. So as we add up Super Delegates - where is her vote going?

Obama? no
Neutral? no
Clinton? yes


Explain again how that is neutral?

[blm]

54. I agree - I'm just saying that NOT endorsing and NOT contributing is seen as neutral

positioning for a POLITICIAN whose vote is already designated.

[Debi]

61. Unfortunately she was claiming to be neutral in this process

which she is not because she is voting for Clinton.

Position away - that vote is in the Clinton column.

[stillcool]

79. How do these 66 Super-delegates...

in California divine the 'will of the people' in their state? Is it proportional at all to the regular delegates each won in the state? I don't understand it at all.

[stillcool]

78. I wonder how that works...

California has 66 Super delegates.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/superdeleg.pdf

Here's the list of those who have already officially announced:

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.html

[Debi]

82. Super Delegates don't have to go by the will of the voters - but Boxer has chosen to

which I applaud. Since she is a US Senator and thereby represents the entire state she is supporting the candidate that won the most votes in the state, Clinton.

What I have a problem with is that Boxer has stated that she is neutral in the Super Delegate race. However, since she has chosen to vote for Clinton she is not technically neutral. She's for Clinton.

[stillcool]

92. I understand that...

but since California has 66 Super delegates, it seems to me that all Super-Delegates who have pledged their support, could use that argument, regardless of the candidate.

[rinsd]

87. They don't vote till August.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

20. Okay, I can respect that.

[Debi]

23. Except she's not neutral like she is telling the press - because she's promised her vote

to a candidate. That's not neutral

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

21. No, she's being consistent

She says she feels an obligation to vote Clinton to represent her state, but she doesn't advocate for Clinton. Everyone knows that Boxer voted for Obama in the California primary, but at the convention she sees her role as representative of her state, not personal. (I think she's wrong about that, but it's a reasonable position)

She's not telling anyone else to vote Clinton... so it's not an endorsement.

[Debi]

25. No, it's not an endorsement - it's a vote

and a Super Delegate voting for a specific candidate means they are not neutral.

[knight_of_the_star]

36. It isn't that black and white though

She can vote for someone with supporting them because of WHY she is voting for Clinton. It doesn't have to be either A or B but not C.

[Debi]

43. For the purpose of counting Super Delegates it is black and white

either she is for one of the candidates or she is neutral. Her vote is in the Clinton column. She's not neutral

[Ichingcarpenter]

26. When she flew out to Support Lieberman against Lamont

She got a lot of flack from her supporters but she even
wrote me back and explained her position which
was solidly behind the Democratic Party.

I can fault her but I'm DAMN glad she is my senator.

[Debi]

31. And I think her choice to support the candidate that the majority in her state voted for is good

But she can't claim to be neutral if she has clearly stated that she'll be voting for a specific candidate. Neutral is just that. If her vote has been promised to Clinton then she is for Clinton. No matter if she doesn't endorse her or work for her or give her $$. Clinton has her vote. Therefore she's not neutral.

? Did she work for Lieberman in the primary?

[grantcart]

29. Her position is quite principled and clear

She is going to vote for Sen Clinton at the convention because Sen Clinton won the CA state primary. She is not going to endorse Sen. Clinton or campaign for her.

This is a stunning blow for Clinton given the fact that it is an extremely close relationship going back decades and given the fact that their families are intermarried (alhtough now divorced).

[Debi]

50. Clear as mud

She can't be voting for one candidate and be neutral.

[midnight]

30. I like Barbara Boxer.....

[mculator]

35. Hillary for VP

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4927930

[ElsewheresDaughter]

37. yes she is a Hillary supporter....GO BARBARA

[Debi]

51. I didn't think we'd be agreeing on anything until August - but on this we do

A vote for a candidate is clear - it's not neutral.

[karynnj]

41. It makes sense - if you don't conflate the superdelgate vote with an endorsement

Boxer said long ago that she would cast her superdelegate vote for the CA winner - thus to HRC.

An endorsement would be her personal choice - that she could give to either, but has not chosen to do so.

[Debi]

52. Definition of neutral

neu·tral (ntrl, ny-)
adj.
1. Not aligned with, supporting, or favoring either side in a war, dispute, or contest.
2. Belonging to neither side in a controversy: on neutral ground.
3. Belonging to neither kind; not one thing or the other.

++++++++++++++

She is voting in Denver for Clinton - she is not neutral.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

56. Senator Boxer has chosen to listen to her constituents...

something this Californian greatly appreciates. I understand and respect her decision to cast her vote for the candidate her fellow Californians determined was their choice. And I say this as someone who cannot tolerate the sight of Hillary Clinton right now.

I find the whole Super Delegate process wildly undemocratic, and nothing more than an attempt to undermine the choice of the people.

I find Sen. Boxer's vote an attempt to remedy that.

[Debi]

64. By claiming to be neutral yet promising her vote to a specific candidate?

She needs to be honest. She is voting for Clinton b/c that's what the voters of California asked her to do. Therefore she is no longer neutral.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

70. People in this thread have shown the clear distrinction...

between her vote as a Super and her personal endorsement. I'm sorry you don't get it.

Boxer is an excellent Senator, a fine representative of her people, and I have the utmost respect for her.

[Debi]

72. Point me in this thread where I've stated that I don't have respect for her

Senator Boxer's feelings aside - you can't choose a side and remain neutral.

I'm sorry you don't get it.

[Irishonly]

60. Boxer always said she would vote for the candidate

the people of California chose. IMHO it just shows she is true to her word unlike the other CA senator. Maybe Boxer sees neutral as not campaigning.

[Debi]

65. Unfortunately - her vote will be cast for one of the candidates

and she chose to follow the will of the voters of her state. So she is no longer neutral. Her vote is in the Clinton column.

[NMMNG]

68. A vote and an endorsement are two different things

Vote
1. an formal expression of preference in an election or decision.


Endorsement
1. a statement given in support of a person or product, as in an advertisement or political campaign.


The vote gives Hillary just one more delegate vote. An endorsement could sway the opinions of many and thus affect the outcome of the election in one way or another significantly. That's the difference between the two, and how she is remaining neutral despite the fact that she is casting a vote based on the fact that CA went to HRC.

[Debi]

73. You are absolutely correct

But she cannot be neutral in the Super Delegate selection process because she is voting for Clinton.

She can certainly remain personally neutral in the over-all race by not campaigning and not contributing.

But for the purpose of Super Delegates her vote is in the Clinton column - therefore NOT neutral.

[CRH]

71. You wouldn't need a definition of neutral, if you read her statement, ...

The state voters cast more ballots for Clinton, and therefore she intends to respect that mandate. Seems simple if you don't have a favorite.

[Debi]

74. Then she has chosen a candidate to vote for - and is not neutral

There are only three options in the Super Delegate race - Clinton/Obama/Neutral.

I don't disagree with her decision of choosing Clinton based on California's votes. I have no problem with it either.

But she can't be a neutral Super Delegate if she has chosen to vote for Clinton.

[CRH]

75. No she is neutral on endorsement, she is following the mandate of the vote. n/t

[Debi]

81. And is choosing to vote for one over the other - therefore NOT remaining neutral

in the Super Delegate race - which is the subject of my OP.

[CRH]

77. from you quote, ...

She was on Morning Joe this AM saying that she was remaining neutral in the Super Delegate race. Sorry, Senator, you can't support one candidate and be neutral.

She is not supporting Clinton, as demonstrated by failing to endorse her, instead, she is supporting the will of the people

[Debi]

80. She is supporting Clinton in the Super Delegate race by promising her a vote

no matter how she got there - by her own choice or by the will of the people - she is still a vote for Clinton in the Super Delegate race. So she can't be neutral in the Super Delegate race.

Why is this so hard?

I'm not saying she's waving a banner for the woman or marching in parades or sending her money.

She's just voting for her. But by voting for her she loses her neutrality because she's chosen a side.

[4_Legs_Good]

76. Good stance by Boxer

She's voting the way her constituents voted, but not campaigning or supproting anyone. Basically she's adding one more delegate to the California pool.

I wish'd she'd campaign for Obama though!

And I hope and pray she's our first female President.

Love you Boxer!!! Couldn't be prouder to have you as my Senator!!! (quite unlike that other one)
David

[Debi]

83. My beef is a technical one - she says she is neutral but that her vote is going to Clinton

You can't be neutral (in the Super Delegate race) and have promised your vote to one of the two candidate choices. Neutral would be not having made a choice.

I am fine with the decision she made - but she needs to be clear with the public and the media. Her vote as a Super Delegate is for Hillary Clinton.

[Inuca]

84. There are SDs and then there are SDs

The major ones (senators and governors mainly) mean much more than just a vote. Most of them participate in the respective campaigns to some degree or another, and their endorsement carries much more weight in terms of what it implies and how it can be used than that of minor (no offense intended :-)) SDs. As a case in point, take Rockefeller. I am sure he does not have a huge fan base around here, especially recently, but having the head of the Senate Intelligence committee endorse you means a lot, especially when "you only gave a speech" is being thrown at you. In Boxer's case, as others I am sure pointed out (I did not go through the whole thread, sorry) she announced prior to super Tuesday that she will vote for the candidate that carries CA. That, in spite of this, she insists that she is neutral and says that the SDs should not overwrite the will of the voters, speaks volumes.

[Debi]

85. Right

And I understand her neutrality in that she has not chosen one candidate over the other for the purpose of campaigning or contributing.

BUT - and here's my point - when we are all counting how many Super Delegates (no matter their stature or influence just the plain number) are in each candidates column and how many are in the NEUTRAL column - Boxer is in the Clinton column NOT the neutral column and can't pass herself off as neutral.

I'm speaking ONLY about the Super Delegate race and nothing else. She was discussing the Super Delegate race this morning and stated that she was neutral. She previously stated that she would be voting for Clinton b/c that's the way the majority of Californians voted.

So she is not neutral in the Super Delegate race. She is voting for Clinton.

[Inuca]

90. A somewhat confusing statement from her, I agree n/t

[rinsd]

86. So she is not endorsing or campainging for either but she will vote according to her state.

What is so hard to understand?

:shrug:

[Debi]

88. Which is just fine - but she stated she was neutral in the Super Delegate race

and she is not - no matter how she got to her choice she has made it - she has promised her vote for Clinton.

Let's try this:

Each Super Delegate gets one vote. Up to the point of voting they can a) promise their vote to Hillary Clinton b) promise their vote to Barack Obama or c) remain neutral. Boxer promised her vote to Clinton. That is not neutral.

I agree - she is not campaigning nor endorsing or even contributing. That is not what my OP was about. It was strictly about Boxer claiming to be neutral in the Super Delegate race. Having stated publicly that she will be giving her vote to Clinton is not staying neutral in the Super Delegate race. It's supporting Clinton.

You've seen all the posts - people are keeping track of all the Super Delegates. Who is in Whose column and who is NEUTRAL. Boxer is in Clinton's column. Not in the neutral column.

[theboss]

89. I really don't have the energy to care one way or the other

Whatever.

[Debi]

91. But you took the time to post your non-energetic lack of concern

Thank you.