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
In 2008, the important and fair thing for the Super Delegates to do is to back the winner of the primary/caucus process. By 2012, this anti-democratic part of the nominating process should be eliminated completely. As for endorsing Obama, this was no doubt a difficult decision for Richardson as it involved rejecting the candidacy of a friend and a powerful political family. However, Richardson did what he thought was best for the country and lent his support to the candidate that he thought would make both the best general election candidate and the best president as is his right to do. When it comes time to cast his vote at the convention, I would expect Richardson and other Super Delegates to put small d democratic principles first and vote for the candidate endorsed by those who voted in the Democratic primary. End of story.
In the 2008 elections the Super Delegates should follow the rules that have been set up for them UNLESS the rules for Michigan and Florida are also changed.
Rules are Rules, as I keep hearing chanted, if we are going to break the rules and do whatever we want then that should go for all.
And yes, we need to get rid of this by 2012. What we also need is one vote, one citizen.
If there is a reason we still have a delegate system at this point I would be happy to hear it.
Seriously.
The superdelegates are there as a safety valve to prevent an American Idol contestant from being the nominee due to only the popular pledged delegate vote no matter how you feel about it. They DO NOT HAVE TO VOTE FOR OBAMA EVEN IF HE HAS THE MOST PLEDGED DELEGATES or how fabulous you think he is. They are independent. That Obama's supporters are threatening a revolt or worse should also be taken into consideration regarding his nomination. The party shouldn't succumb to threats by first time voters.
END OF STORY.
I didn't approach my decision about who to vote for as an "American Idol" contest. Are you incensed by Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos?" I find Rush's current attempts to sabotage the democratic party indefensible. But, I can see you don't have much faith in the democratic process. As Winston Churchill once commented (to paraphrase) "It is the worst form of government, except for every other form."
I already replied-- but I have another thing to say. I am not a first time voter. I've probably voted in more elections that you.
Second, first time voters are not somehow less valuable than other kinds of voters. I wish everyone in the U.S. would go out and vote each and every time there is an election. I am very pleased that more people (of all ages) have been brought into the political process. Why does it disturb you so much? Because enough of those first time voters and people like me (old time voters) have come together to give a candidate other than the one you prefer the lead in this election. This is how the process works. If you truly have voted often you know this simple fact well.
When John Murtha endorsed Hillery, there was but a few snippets on the boob tube, then this Gov Bill Richardson gets on along with Obama and holy hell , hours and hours of coverage of his endorsment. Talk about fair and balanced, the Mrdock chain wants to dump Mrs. Clinton.. Then they can tear apart Obama with the slick boat's millions, like they did to John Kerry.
Good point, Ms. Hamsher. It's very possible Gov. Richardson's endorsement is about his own political future.
Shame on him! A politician looking out for his own political future. That NEVER happens... EVER. I'm certain that absolutely no one in the Hillary camp has any political aspirations. In case you couldn't tell - and sadly, I sometimes wonder how many people really can tell - that was sarcasm.
HIllary won New Mexico by 1,123 votes, .08%, so I can see where that is an overwhelming mandate by the voters in New Mexico and the "will of the people." to nominate her. It took, what, a week to actually figure out who won?
Any comments from the highly respected Donna Brazile, a political commentator on CNN's The Situation Room and American Morning. (In addition, she is a columnist for Roll Call and a contributing writer for Ms. Magazine). Several weeks ago she stated that she would quit her DNC position (Chair of the DNC’s Voting Rights Institute) if the Superdelegates vote trumped the will of the people.
http://www
“I'll Quit DNC Position Over Superdelegates” by Donna Brazile (audio interview) NPR News & Notes, 2/11/08
Ms Brazile’s opinion is important for a number of reasons. She was the campaign manager of the 2000 presidential campaign of Vice President Al Gore. She was the first African-American woman to manage a major presidential campaign that also won the popular vote. She provides valuable insight and perspective as to how to interpret the facts that John Kerry and Ted Kennedy (Mass) and now Bill Richardson (NM) are going against the will of the voters and are endorsing Sen Obama.
Sen Obama’s camp was accusing Sen Clinton that she would try to steal the election by ‘stealing’ the Superdelegates’ vote. Here is what is actually happening:
http://www
Washington Post,“For Black Superdelegates, Pressure to Back Obama”, by Shailagh Murray, 3/3/08; AO1
http://bla
blackmisso
Who has actually given the most money to date to Superdelegates?
Sen Obama $710,900
Sen Clinton $236,100
http://www
The Center for Responsive Politics has found that campaign contributions have been a generally reliable predictor of whose side a superdelegate will take
http://col
Colorado Indy Media 3/19/08
I would like to know what her thoughts are on the Kerry, Kennedy, Richardson endorsements and what action-if any- she will take.
Thanks, good post.
I keep hearing the term "stealing" or "stripping away" about Hillary as if Barack is not doing the same thing.
HELLO!
Politics.
They want to win... but Hillary isn't supposed to want to win.
Sheesh.
Bizarre!
Frankly I don't know how or why Super Delegates are allowed to endorse or choose before the convention anyway... doesn't that go against what the point is?
The whole thing is so Effed Up.
I don't care who wins anymore as long as its a Dem.
They have both done some "nasty" stuff... which frankly I expect... but the supporters have been so incredibly rotten and the media so incredibly ummm... insane and unethical? that my fervent support for Obama and then my support for Clinton just on principle as a reaction to so much ugliness by the Obamazis has dwindled to a "please let a Democrat win." position.
Quit Donna, quit. We don't negotiate with terrorists either. So, you can threaten if you want to but don't expect it to go your way then.
It just wouldn't be fair if superdelagates like Richardson, Kerry, and Kennedy had to cast their votes for the choice made by the voters of their respective states. It would only be fair if they cast their votes for Obama. Have I got that about right? HYPOCRITES!
piezoid - that's about it.
Jane, how about telling us about the DLC, The Family and the 2002 Iraq War resolution and then remind us again why you support Hillary.
You have to forgive Ms. Hamsher. She, like many HRC supporters, is an affluent, white professional female who is suffering from the delusion that she is a member of an oppressed minority. My guess is that she is pro-globalization and feels that working class Americans are garbage.
Any comments from the highly respected Donna Brazile, a political commentator on CNN's The Situation Room and American Morning. (In addition, she is a columnist for Roll Call and a contributing writer for Ms. Magazine). Several weeks ago she stated that she would quit her DNC position (Chair of the DNC’s Voting Rights Institute) if the Superdelegates' vote trumped the will of the people.
http://www
“I'll Quit DNC Position Over Superdelegates” by Donna Brazile (audio interview) NPR News & Notes, 2/11/08
Ms Brazile’s opinion is important for a number of reasons. She was the campaign manager of the 2000 presidential campaign of Vice President Al Gore. She was the first African-American woman to manage a major presidential campaign that also won the popular vote. She provides valuable insight and perspective as to how to interpret the facts that John Kerry and Ted Kennedy (Mass) and now Bill Richardson (NM) are going against the will of the voters and are endorsing Sen Obama.
Sen Obama’s camp was accusing Sen Clinton that she would try to steal the election by ‘stealing’ the Superdelegates’ vote. Here is what is actually happening:
http://www
Washington Post,“For Black Superdelegates, Pressure to Back Obama”, by Shailagh Murray, 3/3/08; AO1
http://bla
blackmisso
Who has actually given the most money to date to Superdelegates?
Sen Obama $710,900
Sen Clinton $236,100
http://www
The Center for Responsive Politics has found that campaign contributions have been a generally reliable predictor of whose side a superdelegate will take
http://col
Colorado Indy Media 3/19/08
I would like to know what her thoughts are on the Kerry, Kennedy, Richardson endorsements and what action-if any- she will take.
I have a theory.
The cable news channels got their start with the OJ trial - whites against blacks, women against the man. Lots of race and sex to jazz things up.
The media's prejudice in the OJ trial was against any possibility that OJ could be innocent. I decided, because of the prejudice shown, OJ could likely be innocent. Still believe that.
In this 2008 Election season - so far it has been blacks and their sympathizers against whites and men against the woman.
So I have reason to believe - because of the prejudice against Hillary, she is most likely the best candidate for President.
Maybe it is the media propping one candidate up to keep the conflict going.
They have to prop up Obama or ratings would fall.
Let's extend your logic -
The media, and almost 70% of Americans, believe that George W. Bush is a failure as president. That must mean he's the greatest president we've ever had.
I guess we have to cling to whatever delusions we can find when things fall apart. Good luck with that one.
The media is propping up Obama? Let's consider the facts for a moment...
The media have run the Wright sermon snippets 24 hrs a day for more than a week and conjectured on whether this would sink his candidicy. They did not play any longer versions of Wright's sermons which, if you watch them, entirely change what he was saying. Instead they bought into the notion that Wright is a racist, anti-American, urges violence, and pro-Islamic.
On the NAFTA-gate issue just before the March 4 primaries, Obama was incorrectly reported to be saying different things to Canada about the trade agreement than he was saying to Ohio voters. Actually, he said the same to both. Meanwhile, Clinton's calls to Canadian officials saying the things Obama was charged with were not reported widely and still have not.
After the Potomac primaries, if Clinton and Obama's situations had been reversed, I think the media would have declared Obama dead. In reality, Clinton got a very big benefit of doubt.
Considering the fact that Obama is winning, I'd say his treatment by the press has been anything but soft and Clinton has been given a pass on a few occasions.
I find it interesting how the Obama campaign and especially his rabid supporters have become schizophrenic. His campaign based on change, hope, "unity" and "a new kind of politics" has proven to be anything but. From Rezco to Wright to his campaign comparing Bill Clinton to McCarthy all show that he is just a politician like any other. His willingness to disenfranchise the voters or FL and MI are a case in point. His speeches are nothing more than smoke & mirrors to distract from that fact.
If we are to believe his premise, he can "unify" the country. How? Do the Democrats suddenly reach out across the aisle to people like Lieberman and convince them that they should join forces? Unlikely. Change in politics is evolutionary. It requires hard work, compromise and, yes, an acceptance of the fact that not everything will go one's desired way. If Obama is the nominee, he will lose the general election because, in my opinion, most Americans understand that in order to accomplish one's goals, a President must have experience, good judgement and a firm grip on reality. Obama has none of the above.
"in order to accomplish one's goals, a President must have experience, good judgement and a firm grip on reality."
Let's examine these "must-haves" in regards to Hillary.
First, experience. Hillary has tooted her own horn about her experience since the beginning of the primary season. Recently, as documents were released, we became aware of the fact that Hillary's experience was merely ceremonial. Hillary's claims of being present when the 3am calls came in is the equivalent of a waterboy saying that he was there when the Giants won the Superbowl. So, Hillary doesn't qualify on that count.
Second, good judgement. Hillary was ahead in almost every poll at the beginning of the primary season. She was so sure that she was going to win the nomination outright that she spent her campaign money on sandwiches and donuts for her supporters rather than in an attempt to get votes. Oh yeah... and that whole mess in Iraq - Hillary voted to give George Bush the power necessary to do that. Oh darn... another disqualification for Hillary.
Third, a firm grip on reality. Hillary still believes she can win the nomination without tearing the democratic party apart. Hillary stood up and declared a resounding victory when she won Texas and Ohio, but failed to notice that she had only gained a total of 4 delegates out of the nearly 100 she needed to catch up. Looking pretty bad for Hillary.
So, yes, I agree with you that a President must have experience, good judgement and a firm grip on reality. The only problem is that Hillary has very few of those qualities, and the little that she does have is not any more than that which Obama has.
More Clinton spin . The idea is that the superdelegates don't overturn the NATIONAL will of the people. It is NOT a state by state issue. If it were, there could be discussion about the superdelegates in Maryland who are continuing to support Clinton despite the vote there and one that is never mentioned: Senator Inouye from Obama's birth state Hawaii which went OVERWHELMINGLY for Obama yet he supports Clinton. Stick to the facts. Clintonites!
“The reaction of some of Mr. Clinton’s allies suggests that might have been a wise decision. “An act of betrayal,” said James Carville, an adviser to Mrs. Clinton and a friend of Mr. Clinton.
“Mr. Richardson’s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic,” Mr. Carville said, referring to Holy Week.”
This is why I have never backed Hillary Clinton. The “Clinton machine” has always believed that the nomination is due her because of her husband, and anyone who served with Bill, and now backs Obama, is a traitor.
That is not democracy, that is dictatorship.
The sense of entitlement that Hillary and her ilk have displayed throughout this campaign would make Paris Hilton blush.
This quote, from a guy who literally sleeps with Mary Matalin, personal advisor to Dick Cheney. How many “pieces of silver” has come into his household, courtesy of the Republican Party?
I don't care who you are in this equation Mr. busdrivermike! This is a perfect example of the "old boys club." You're using ANY reason to cut Hillary Clinton (a woman) out of the ENTITLEMENT link because of her husband or for any other reason for that matter?? Hillary Clinton is not her husbands, CLONE! MEN have been ENTITLED to this "male dominated political power base" for over 200 years in this country! ALL PEOPLE are ENTITLED to EVERYTHING in this country - READ the constitution!
I think you misread busdrivermike's post. He's not saying that the Clinton's think they have a RIGHT to be in the White House, but rather that they think that the presidency is OWED to them. Subtle distinction, but important.
I've been following the superdelegate discussions pretty closely, Jane, and you are misrepresenting what they are talking about with regards to "representing" the voters. Concensus is that the delegates should not slice and dice the electorate in determining who they represent, but to look at the entire map. That boils down to supporting the candidate who has the most popular support and who has the most pledged delegates. Clearly, Obama has both those advantages. Hillary has more than a million less popular votes in her column, and far fewer pledges.
Saying Richardson should only represent Hispanics is more than disingenuous, it's scandalous. Here is a man who acted as an Ambassador to the United States, a man who represented all of America in dealing with foreign governments. Who are you to say he should not also represent me, a white middle aged woman? I'm an American who has enormous respect for Governor Richardson. He can represent me any day.
Bill Richardson owes his political career to President Clinton, who gave him all those important
jobs and the resume he keeps touting. He would not be Governor without those jobs setting the
stage for him to run for Governor. And he has ignored the wishes of the people of the state he
is representing, Senator Clinton WON NEW MEXICO.
Richardson showed who he really is and what an ungratiful slimy guy he really is.
He wanted to get the Obama & Obama's Rev - off the front pages, and perhaps cut a deal
with Obama to be his Vice President if Obama actually gets the nomination.
This has LOSER written all over it - in every sense of the word.
Excuse us.... so you are FOR patronage? It means someone - anyone - can not change their mind
or be independent of someone to whom you "owe your political career."
"LOSER" is for basketball - not politics which is how we manage our government.
You are an insider - you know about this "deal"?
If you come to an independent position you are "ungratiful" and , I suppose, un-American.
I agree that Richardson is probably endorsing Obama because he sees the writing on the wall and wants to cozy up to Obama for the future Obama administration. And I agree that it is a bit of a betrayal of the Clintons, and I am disappointed in Richardson for mixing his personal ambition into this race.
But the fact is the Clintons have, under every single reasonable measure, already lost this nomination. This endorsement, in consequence, is actually good for the party and good for the because it signals to other superdelegates: this is the time to start drawing down this contest. It signals to them that it's OK to start gently (or not gently) nudging the Clintons out of this campaign so that we don't lose our footing. We need to be kicking off a national campaign and national fundraising and we're still fussing around with our messy primary system.
Of course, she will (and is entitled) to end up staying in until Pennsylvania, but if the Wright story dies and more superdelegate endorsements come along the way, Obama should be able to close some margins up there and make it nearly impossible for her to rationalize staying in the race.
So to sum up: Bill Richardon's endorsement of Obama, bad in intention, good in consequences.
Why aren't we talking more about Hillary's lies about dodging sniper fire?
Didn't she argue that the super delegates don't necessarily need to vote with their constituents? Is she backing out of that now?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
