|
||
A Few Unanswered Questions About Bill Richardson's Obama Endorsement
I think there are a few lingering questions regarding Bill Richardson's endorsement of Barack Obama. This is what he said on CNN on February 25 regarding the role of superdelegates:
BLITZER: All right. So you say you will -- you're about to endorse somebody? You're thinking about endorsing either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama? Make the news. Go ahead.
RICHARDSON: Well, no. I'm going to decide very shortly. But the reality is I think there are too many superdelegates. There are over 800. That's the latest count that I saw.BLITZER: There's almost 800.
RICHARDSON: Who elected these people? I think it's important that those...
BLITZER: Well, you're a superdelegate. You were elected by the people of New Mexico.
RICHARDSON: Well, that's right, but that doesn't mean that you appoint every big fundraiser, you appoint every governor, every member of Congress, every leader that contributes money.
I just think this should be decided by voters. And in my view, there are too many superdelegates. They have too much influence. I would cut down the number.
But I think superdelegates should vote according to who they represent. If somebody's appointed as a superdelegate because they're Hispanic or a governor, they should pay attention to what their voters and their constituencies are saying.
BLITZER: Well, the Democratic caucuses in your state, New Mexico, decided that Hillary Clinton got the most votes. Does that mean you have to go with the Democrats of New Mexico, because she won the caucuses there?
RICHARDSON: Well, she won by 1 percent, you know. It was a very contested race.
BLITZER: Well, you know what they say. A win is a win.
RICHARDSON: No, I know that. But I'm going to decide in the next few days. I just think superdelegates have too much influence. It should be voters in states. It should be delegates according to the proportion of the vote or the candidate.
It shouldn't be, you know, fat cats, big contributors, politicians deciding this. Let the people -- let the Democratic voters -- decide. That's my view.
Richardson seems to be talking out of both sides of his mouth on this one. New Mexico went for Clinton, and Hispanics in the New Mexico caucuses went 2-1 for Clinton. If Richardson thinks superdelegates should "vote according to who they represent," "because they're Hispanic or a governor," who does he think he's representing?
I don't have strong opinions one way or another on the superdelegate situation, or whether they should even exist. Neither do I have a fear that they're going to go renegade and override a clear popular winner (and I don't see any way that's not going to be Obama). I also think The Huffington Post's superdelegate transparency project is a good one, but that's based on general considerations regarding the good of transparency.
What I have a problem with are people espousing a set of rules strictly on the basis of advocacy for their candidate, without regard to whether it's a good thing for the party, long-term. Just because it's Good For My Candidate Now doesn't make it a smart way to run the party over time, and those who are indulging in these kinds of proclamations at a volatile moment without taking that into consideration are not showing either good judgment or leadership.
If Bill Richardson has changed his mind regarding the rules that should govern superdelegates, he should say so. With all the talk of him being a potential vice presidential nominee now, this dramatic about-face when it becomes convenient smacks of political opportunism.
Follow Jane Hamsher on Twitter: www.twitter.com/janehamsher
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Jesse Jackson, Jr. asks Representative John Lewis, who supported Hillary Clinton, "if it comes down to the last day and you're the only super delegate. ... Do you want to go down in history as the one to prevent a black from winning the White House?" "So you wake up without the carpet under your feet. You might find some young primary challenger placing you in a difficult position in the future,"
If you watched the John Roberts CBS interview of Bill Richardson did you notice what was said 2:53 minutes into the interview? When Roberts asked if Richardson had been promised anything for his endorsement he stuttered a bit and said no job was offered and nothing had been promised, "ABOUT THE CAMPAIGN DEBT." Hmmm. So does this mean the Good Gov owes money from his Run for the Roses and Good Ol' Money Bags Obama is going to rub out that debt? One can't help but wonder. Let's keep watching Obama's grease (Closer to $900,000 now) to the Super D's to see if Gov. Billy Poorardson gets Richer. Poor fella does need a job so I guess he's looking to trade up.
PROPORTIONALITY ANYONE?
Why is it that in a contest with pledged delegates awarded proportionate to the result of the primary or caucus, that the allocation of superdelegates must be a 'winner takes all' situation?
Remember that Gov. Bill Richardson is not the only superdelegate in the state of New Mexico.
There are 11 superdelegates in New Mexico.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/03932e1b8eb6b12c62_cdm6bnnf7.pdf
According to the superdelegate tracking at demconwatch...
(http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.html)
Hillary Clinton has received the endorsement of 6 of the 11 superdelegates from New Mexico.
(6 members of the DNC)
Barack Obama has received the endorsement of 2 of the 11 superdelegates from New Mexico.
(Former DNC Chairman: Fred Harris & Democratic Governer Bill Richardson)
Remembering that all the Superdelegates have an equal vote at the Convention this means that so far...
Hillary Clinton is receiving 55% of the available superdelegate support in New Mexico so far.
Barack Obama is currently receiving 18% of the available support.
The results from the New Mexico primary according to CNN were:
Hillary Clinton, 49%
Barack Obama, 48%
...and Pledged Delegates
Hillary Clinton, 14
Barack Obama, 12
Therefore it can be reasonably argued that Bill Richardson is representing the 48% of New Mexico primary-goers who voted for Barack Obama.
And if we take this proportional distribution of the superdelegates into account, which after-all would be the most representative situation, Hillary Clinton is receiving more than her fair share of the New Mexico superdelegates and Barack Obama is receiving less representation than that allotted by primary-goers.
(Leaving 3 remaining superdelegates uncommitted at this stage)
I think I understand.
See M.S. Bellows, Jr.'s Profile
A similar issue was raised when Obama first said Supers should track the popular vote, and Clinton rejoined (with some bitterness) that she was looking forward to receiving Ted Kennedy and John Kerry's votes, even though they'd endorsed Obama.
But for any Super to override his/her own convictions to match their own narrower (ie state or Congressional district) constituency instead of the overall popular delegate count interprets the "follow the popular vote" concept too narrowly. And even following the national delegate count might be foolish if all the other supers don't do the same.
I like the proposals that all the supers give Dean their proxy, with the Party's commitment that he'll cast them all consistently with the popular delegate count. A loud, public call for such a move should shame almost all supers into falling in line, and most would probably breathe a sigh of relief that they're now off the spot, both with their constituents and with the candidates (especially with Clinton, who has enough of a machine behind her that she can make or break some politicians by granting or withholding favors).
Gov. Richardson made a point of stating that he's paid back ALL he owes to President Clinton. He did his job well. No one called him a 'judas' when he ran against Sen. Clinton for the office.
He's practicing what Sen. Clinton has preached (vote your conscience) and suddenly Clintonistas think it's a low down dirty thing to do... Interesting.
As a "Hispanic" America, I agree with Carville! I always thought highly of Richardson, but if he isn't talking out of both sides of his mouth now for political gain, I don't know who is! If all of these democratic superdelegates were practicing what they preach, they would all be for Clinton!
You mean you agree that President Bill Clinton is like "Jesus" and Governor Bill Richardson is like "Judas" and I don't have any idea what you think the 30 pieces of silver are. The analogy by Mr. Carville was way over the top. Anyone who defends this statement is showing their own bias.
The name calling is what's disgusting in the way the clintons run their campaign. I use the respect them , but noI realize who they truly are. When Hill lost a state primary she would not even thank those who worked hard for her. No wonder if what Peter Paul says is true , he gave her $2000000 , but as soon as he was in trouble she said he never did. Check youtube"the truth Hillary doesn't want you to know.
I use to be so fond of Bill , but boy he disappointed me. Now Carville must hate the fact that he will not be able to spin in the WH when Obama is president.
Carville and co are part of the problem
Speaking as someone who isn't a partisan of either of the two remaining candidates, I must regretfully point out that the abuse, name calling, and objectionable stereotyping appears to be coming primarily from the Clinton side, and is reprehensible. Whether or not it is because of racism or sexism on their part is, in my opinion, irrelevant.
You've got to be kidding! LOL
Are you serious?
I agree. It is unfortunate, but I still don't get why so many folks are just fine with a candidate for the Presidency of the United States (Senator Clinton) insulting millions of voters by calling them "delusional" simply because they choose to support a candidate other than herself.
Sen Clinton can answer the question.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOsGo_HWP-c
James Carville is quoted in the NYT calling Richardson "Judas" which is appropiate in that we are approaching the Easter holiday.
I wholeheartedly agree Carville. The same goes for John Kerry, Patrick Deval, and Ted Kennedy. The people of Massachusetts supported Mrs. Clinton and they should support their constituents in their choice.
So that makes Hillary Jesus? Or is Bill Jesus? Or Billary? Was Bill Richardson given his jobs because he was qualified for them or in expectation of future repayment of the "favor"?
You criticize JK, PD and TK yet give a pass to the more numerous super-delegates ignoring their constituents and backing Hillary. Now why would that be?
No pass was given to the rest of the superdelegates. feelfree merely pointed out that John Kerry, Patrick Deval, and Ted Kennedy are voting contrary to how their constituents voted. This is also contrary to what many Obama supporters are saying, that superdelegates should echo the votes of their constituents. Superdelegates are allowed to be free agents. Which definitely raises the question of why we have them. There should be equitable voting, no one with a stronger voice than any other individual. I wonder what American citizen packs the most punch? A Texan superdelegate who voted in the primary and caucus?
The Judas thing is a bit much. Better to stick to the facts than use religious imagery.
Bill Richardson 's name should be right up there with Judas.He wouldn't be known out of Yuma if it wasn't for the Clintons.He stated he doesn't owe Clintion anything because he performed at the jobs he was given. Can anyone imagine Jackie Robinson a class person saying the same thing about Branch Richie. His loyalty and trust leave a lot to be desires.His friends should watch their backs.
Are you suggesting that Governor Bill Richardson broke a color line and therefore owes some blood debt to the Clinton's? Governor Bill Richardson was more than qualified for all of the positions he has held. His appointment also required Senate advise and consent. An appointment does not create a blood debt; it does create the necessity that before endorsing a different candidate, you need to contact the person who gave you the appointment and inform them. Governor Richardson did this. He has also refrained from critizing the Clintons. Now, neither the Clintons, nor their campaign surrogates have any such qualms about attacking everything about Governor Richardson. This is simply another double standard brought to us by Senator Clinton's campaign. I sincerely wish this sort of thing would stop.
Richardson's main concern seems to be the party.......thank goodness!
If Bill Clinton had not appointed him Secretary of energy and the other post he gave him,he would not even be governor of New Mexico today.I was one of his suppporters during his campaign.I was not a Clinton supporter.I now know that it was a blessing from god that he failed in his quest for the presidency.I even donated money to help pay off his campaign fund debt.I am appalled at his dishonesty.Especially after the remark he made right after dropping out of the race,that he thought the Super delegates,of which he is one,should support the same candidate that the majority of his constitutioncy voted for.Senator Clinton won his state,yet he waited around until he got the best offer he could find for himself before he endoesed.Now he has the nerve to say he wasnt offered anything.Why should anyone beleive him after he lied before.He is just like Obama,an opportunist.I guess he picked the right candidate for himself alright.Birds of a feather flock together.I doubt he will ever win another election.The people of New Mexico are not too happy with his double cross.
Richardson was promised future involvement by obama--Hillary knows his inadequacies
ATTENTION PLEASE: HAS ANYONE NOTICED THE PHOTOGRAPH AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE?
GREEN BANNER that asks "Who should be our President?"
Who do you think is making Hillary Clinton look like really dumb BABOON. Is this sexist? Is it Republican? Is it leading and I don't mean misleading........ but then again. Or is it a Barack Obama campaign - putting up an ad disguised as a poll? Whatever the case, this kind of "photographic essay juxtapositions of images" are flourishing - all over the Internet! Do these images get internalized - within us and then we begin to believe it all over again? Just wondering.....
OF COURSE. Now that ad is gone!
Do you know how the internet works? Ads are placed on pages according to the ratings the pages get in several categories, "liberalism" and "politics" being two sample categories.
The ad arrives on the page you are viewing because AT THE TIME THE PAGE LOADS that ad is the answer to the algorithm that the page categories fit. Ads are different almost every time the page loads. This is done by software, and is wholly out of sight of any person whatsoever.
The ad you see on your page, not only will be different from most other viewers' pages, but also will be different the next time you load the page. This does not reflect any plot or priority beside the making of money, or whatever other purpose the purchaser of the ad is pursuing.
Note: there is a growing caveat to the above. More and more ads are placed not only according to the desires of the ad purchaser, but also in response to the tracked preferences of the page viewer. They get this info from your documented page-view history, and it's up to you to take counter-measures, if you don't want to be targetted or tracked this way. Some blockers send confusing "flack" out, that invalidates these tracking algorithms.
------
stop watching tv.
My Friend Lavister
Stop wondering... "Obama as correct body politic" is the raison d'etre of Huffblog,, to send subliminal messages in support of the VENDETTA organized against the Clintons.
COGITO, ERGO SUM.
And one more thing Jane, you really should think long and hard about the battles you chose to fight. You can't give him the benefit of the doubt about this? This man, from New Mexico, a peaceful place, can't decide to go with Obama without it being some kind of political calculation? The exorcism of the f**** up American psyche is taking place now Jane, so you can go through it now, or be in the minority next year. You should do it now, like Bill Richardson did, and rip off that band-aid.
you mean like y'all give Bill Clinton the benefit of the doubt when people make ugly accusations about something he said?
Even when you know better?
Right.
OK
Just as soon as the media and the Obmazis give the Clintons the benefit of the doubt. once.
I find the hypocrisy incredible.
I have no dog in this race. The ugliness and unfairness from the Obama supporters have really turned me off to the whole thing, which is ironic since I was a huge Obama supporter and also incredibbly proud that the Dems had finally broken the lock by white men. What an amazing opportunity we had.
Oh well.
As long as it is a dem I'm OK with that.
It would be better however if the supporters would actually support rather than spread poison.
You stopped supporting Senator Obama because of his non-campaign affiliated supporters? Well, I suppose you have a right to your opinion, but what in the heck do his non-campaign affiliated supporters have to do with his candidacy especially since he specifically asks his supporters to always be civil?
Have you heard the kinds of things Senator Clinton, Senator Clinton's campaign surrogates and Senator Clinton's supporters have said about Senator Obama's supporters? If being called delusional, trust fund babies, sheeple, obamabots, and up above there was a particularily nasty one Obamazi are not cause for incivility, I am uncertain what would be. Have you considered that perhaps the less civil comments coming from Senator Obama's supporters are caused by these repeated insults?
Have you considered the possibility that some of the comments from supposed supporters of Senator Obama do not come from his supporters at all, but rather come from 3rd party trying to stir up trouble? Have you heard about Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos?"
Jane, he changed his mind. Now move on and do something more productive with your time.
Bill Richardson is a two-faced turn coat opportuist. One more reason to see that OBAMA is not elected Presidente'.
Why is so when people don't agree with your narrow mindess they no longer loyal. I think that why you have the same mindset as your ancestors. It was right for them to treat others races in this U.S. anyway they want and think GOD is so pleased with their hatred. So what Rev. Wright said about the U.S.A, is truly correct, America will reap what they have sown on other countries and race. GOD is just and fair, and it's not a DAMN thing that you White hateful, mean-spirit will able to do about, so wait and see. You need to repent and ask GOD to forgive your wicked soul.
Do you think that you could have lived as a black person in the Jim Crow South? How would you have coped? What would you have done to survive? What would have been the most difficult thing for you as a young black person to have accepted or coped with in Mississippi or Georgia at the peak of Jim Crow terrorism?
Answer the same questions from the perspective of a young white person.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
