The Breakfast Table

What About the Cantwell Story?

Ralph,

Thanks for this installment. You are more of a Bill Schneider-type political-handicapping pro than you usually let on!

I agree with your assessment of Gore’s predicament. I am chagrined that the debates loom so large in analyses of how his campaign fell apart. I wrote a big Atlantic article that summer about how Gore had become the most ruthlessly effective political debater in sight. As he was—until then. Political historians always stress that debates matter in ways that have nothing to do with the logical clash of ideas. That certainly was true this time. Bush was barely coherent in the first debate, but in the three sessions Gore was three different people.

By the way, I’m on your side about opening up the debates. There should have been at least one that included both you and Pat Buchanan.

I think you sell Clinton short as the political talent of our age—but I agree with you that his talent has been used mainly for personal survival.

Good points about Edwards. Indeed, I think you’ve given a preview of what’s in store for him in the next stage of the “mentioning” cycle. Everyone knows he’s “attractive” and that he’s the one “fresh” possibility for the Dems. Next comes the “but what is he for?” stage.

Now, Ralph, I need to return to an item from our very first round. I said: Those Green votes in Florida cost Gore the state and the election. You said: If you want to play that game, you have to count the Greens who voted for Maria Cantwell in the Washington Senate race. They helped her knock off Slade Gorton, by a tiny margin, which set the stage for James Jeffords, and so on.

In the last few hours I’ve heard from a number of people on the West Coast saying: Wait a minute!!! The history, as they recount it, goes this way:

In the Democratic primary, Cantwell ran against the state insurance commissioner, Deborah Senn. Cantwell had been elected to the House during the first Clinton victory, lost during the Gingrich backlash two years later, and then made a quick fortune at RealNetworks. She was the big-money candidate. Senn was the “reform” candidate. The Greens didn’t have their own candidate but supported Senn.

After Cantwell beat Senn for the nomination and was running against Gorton, you came to Seattle—and attacked Cantwell. Here is what Nina Shapiro wrote in the Seattle Weekly six weeks before the general election:

Nader saved his sharpest local comments for last, weighing in on the Democratic primary results in the race between populist state Insurance Commissioner Deborah Senn and onetime congresswoman and high-tech millionaire Maria Cantwell. He called the race “exhibit number one” in demonstrating the evils of big money. A longtime fan of Senn, Nader claimed she lost because of Cantwell’s dough. He further characterized the victor’s former tenure in Congress as “distinctly mediocre.”

I know and respect Nina Shapiro and have no reason to doubt her report. Another person I don’t know but who claims to have been at that speech sent me an e-mail. According to this account, you’d said that there was “no real difference” between the Democratic and Republican candidates with Senn out of the race. Someone I do know sent me a quote from Joel Connelly, a big-time political columnist in Seattle, who wrote earlier this year:

On one Seattle visit, [Nader] decried Maria Cantwell and vocally endorsed Insurance Commissioner Deborah Senn for the U.S. Senate. Cantwell crushed Senn in the Democratic primary. Yet, in his book, Nader claims Green Party voters in November “gave Cantwell the seat.”

On a logical level, these accounts can be squared with what you said. Your point was that if the Democrats wanted to play the “what if” game, counting how many of the 90,000 Green votes Gore might have taken in Florida, then they should also consider the possible benefits the Green provides in the Washington Senate race—even if you hadn’t meant to help them there.

But I understood—maybe misunderstood—you to be saying something more. Essentially, that the Greens were “taking credit” for that victory and thought there was a difference between a Democratic and Republican Senate. It is obvious that the Democrats would care about ending Republican control of the Senate; I understood you to be saying that you did, too.

What are you saying about the Cantwell story? What’s your answer to these accounts from the Northwest?

I am sorry to end on this note, and I would have asked this earlier if I’d known about it any earlier. And right now I’m remembering how often you told us, back in those inspirational Nader Raider days, not to shrink from unpleasant questions.

Thanks for this exchange,
Jim Fallows