Obama, Clinton deadlocked in US Senate, 13-13

April 22, 2008

WASHINGTON – Among those who serve with them in the U.S. Senate — an institution often referred to as “the world’s most deliberative body” — endorsements for White House rivals Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are dead even.

rtr1xvi9.jpgThirteen of their fellow Democratic senators back Obama, the first-term lawmaker from Illinois, while 13 support Clinton, the second-term lawmaker from New York.

Twenty-one other Democratic senators are uncommitted in the race for their party’s 2008 presidential nomination.

Obama’s Senate backers include: Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, Chris Dodd of Connecticut, Dick Durbin of Illinois, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Edward Kennedy and John Kerry of Massachusetts, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and John Rockefeller of West Virginia.

Clinton’s Senate backers include: Evan Bayh of Indiana, Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray of Washington, Dianne Feinstein of California, Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Robert Menendez of New Jersey, Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, Bill Nelson of Florida, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Charles Schumer of New York, Debbie Stabenow of Michigan and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island.

The Senate split is reflective of a nationwide Gallup tracking poll of Democratic and Democratic leaning voters after last week’s debate. It found Obama at 47 percent and Clinton at 45 percent, within the margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points.

Senators are among the 796 Democratic super delegates — members of Congress and other party leaders — who will have a vote at the Democratic presidential nominating convention in August. They will join delegates won by Obama and Clinton in state-nominating contests. 

Click here for more Reuters 2008 campaign coverage

- Photo credit: Reuters/Shannon Stapleton

13 comments

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

I sincerely believe they are dead even…how will break the tie by coming out with the next scandal?

Hillary Can’t Wait: Screw’emGate
http://conservativesuperiority.com/?p=20 5

What about Jim Webb?

Posted by Logaraj | Report as abusive

All Clinton doing is just helping Republicans come on lady..

So do the “superdelegates” vote in public or private? It’s going to be a little difficult for the women from Washington to vote Clinton with their state voting Obama.

I’m just sayin’ – all us goddess loving women want a woman but as for me I want one who is real, a healer, a visionary, a natural being. That’s the function of woman in the natural order. Not to say she cannot lead in the society. But what we need to do is have the society reflect the natural order a little better and women won’t be forced to pretend they are men in order to be role models and inspiration for their daughters. You know, a woman like Michelle Obama for example.

Posted by Gaias Child | Report as abusive

Fully half of Clinton’s senate endorsements are women. Imagine that. People will vote for those they feel best represents them, so when Obama secures the lion’s share of the black vote, the principle repeats itself.

- T

Posted by The Uncreated | Report as abusive

Wow! Talk about “separate” but “equal”, in the full sense of those words. These two are like two sides of the same coin, two genders of the same species, two faces of the same politician (ha ha).

Obama hasn’t done a very good job of unifying, has he? If he splits the Democratic Party, what would he do to the far more divided, diverse and problematic melting pot that is the general electorate?

Everyone is blaming Clinton for not quitting and letting Obama (the man) have the race (although no man would quit with this thin of a margin to a caucus-state winner and two large swing states unrepresented). But why is no one looking to he who claims to be the leading candidate, for leadership? Where is Obama’s leadership in this conundrum.

If anything, this divided, perplexing Democratic Primary presents Obama with his first real leadership opportunity, in the very realms of unifying and crossing divides that he is running on a promise of being able to do. Well, where is the leadership from the leading candidate in the race? This Democratic Primary also presents Obama with his first opportunity to win an election against a real opponent, instead of one who gets disqualified, or who implodes or is non-viable.

Why can’t Obama show us either (1) how to cross these divides and lead the Democratic Party out of this dilemma or (2) how he can win a straight-out contest against a real opponent (for the first time in in his career) and close the deal with voters?

If what appears to be a plan to create the pretense of some ad hoc push by superdelegates to push Clinton out of the race before the convention and without counting FL and MY (its popular votes or its delegates), pushing Clinton out of the race instead of Obama leading the party out of the impasse or closing the deal via voters alone, he will be an unacceptable, engineered nominee to many Clinton supporters. That adds negatively to his thin resume of experience and tips the scale toward us casting a vote for McCain in the Fall.

Posted by Annette Keller | Report as abusive

After reading this , plus analizing certain
Text in wrapmusic “stacking guns and bombs from ceiling to the floor”
13-13 is not justifiable.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/art icle/2662

Posted by hlg | Report as abusive

Isn’t this interesting! the numbers, by all counts, show a race that is dead heat. Yet many folks in the media and these so called party elders keep calling her to bow out. It is nothing short of bullying! Even if Clinton wins by 1 vote, then she should be the nominee because the big question that Obama failed to deliver yet again, another big state considering that he is outspending her by 3 or even 5 to 1, same thing that he did in Texas and Ohio.

He can’t connect with the base – he will loose in Nov. It is that simple.

Posted by vote4thebest | Report as abusive

Yesterday, Clinton threaten to “Obliterate” Iran should they attack Israel. I don’t care how cozy you are with Israel, you should NEVER threaten to “Obliterate” an entire race of people! Wasn’t she the one who criticized Obama for saying he will if necessary bomb Taliban targets in Pakistan (where the real threat still is), and Clinton responded by saying Obama is engaging in “Hypotheticals”???
Well Clinton, There are indeed Taliban targets in Pakistan – that is not hypothetical – , as for Iran, there is no evidence of any attempt at attacking anybody, and the reactors being built by Russia were confirmed to be for generating electricity, which was also confirmed by the IAEA, not to mention that even if Iran is able to become a formidable nuclear power (which will not happen for at least 10 years if they were somehow able to build it undetected under the IAEA’s, Russia’s and the UN’s watch), they will still be severely under equipped to fight Israel & the US! And as for Obama saying he would directly talk to the Iranians about interference in Iraq, well, if our neighbor Mexico was attacked, wouldn’t that directly affect us?? Wouldn’t you want a say in what happens to your next door neighbor, since it directly affects you, and since they are messing in our neighborhood?
Clinton is just as bad as her republican counter-parts. Obama has my vote, at least he promised a measured response: to go after the Taliban, not to Kill off all Pakistanis in the process!! Shame on you Clinton, Shame on you!

You can continue to view this election as a woman vs a black man, or you can forget all these in-conclusive stereotypes and just view them as 2 candidates, one is better than the other, period. Even if Obama was a half white-half Chinese woman, I would still vote for him. I like his approach to problem solving and healing divides, and it is as simple as that.

Posted by Etch | Report as abusive

50% of Democrats love Hillary. Why are the Obamanites trying to force her out? Obviously 50% really likes what they see!!

Posted by cb | Report as abusive

its not a matter of bias or opinion: Hillary cannot win. Its a quantifiable fact. It has nothing to do with misogyny. Its a cold hard fact. Her campaigns nonsense pr about big states is meaningless. The press needs to accept this, not just HuffPo and kos, blogs which are once again way ahead of the political bellcurve.

Posted by james | Report as abusive

Yesterday, Clinton threaten to “Obliterate” Iran, what is the difference between her and Iranian president talking the same way about Israel? First of all the newly popular question amongst journalists is completely baseless when the country doesn’t even have nuclear weapon and even if it did, it does not make any sense for them to use it. she talks about Obliterating a nation and blame others to be elitists? what a hypocrite!

Posted by brooklynite | Report as abusive

….it does not make any sense for them to use it. …

They will have “guests” co-located all over the
suspected /expected Retaliation target Area . They
will launch . And we will remember your article for
generations , brooklynite.

Admittedly , it is not wise to mention obliterations
and the obliteration of one another. She would never
use such language when interacting with civilized
statesmen. It is Thug level language and therefore for this Iran regime absolutely appropriate.

Posted by hlg | Report as abusive