- BIG NEWS:
- Sarah Palin
- |
- Barack Obama
- |
- GOP
- |
- War Wire
- |
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
For awhile I was in a comfort zone about Obama but not anymore.
Whether Obama is right about Iraq is not the point anymore. The point is that for 20 years he has been comfortable in a church whose pastor preached a racist message. This message has apparently had an effect on his persona as displayed in his not placing his hand over his heart when the pledge of allegiance or the anthem are played, and in his wife’s statement that the first time in her adult life she felt proud to be an American was when her husband became a candidate for the presidency.
Not once in the 20 years did Obama publicly take issue with Wright’s racist views. Only when the Wright tapes were exposed did Obama denounce Wright’s statements. How convenient and how politically correct of him.
Wow. The bottom of the economy is dropping out. Gas is heading towards $4.00 a gallon. The Middle East is as destabilized as it's ever been, and were stuck in a seemingly endless war in Iraq. The freedoms given to us by our maker and codified by the founding fathers are being systematically stripped away...
Who'da thunk the the defining issue of the 2008 campaign would be the victimization of caucasians at the hands of an African American preacher. We really should ask for repararations from those uppity Negroes who have exploited us for all these centuries.
We do have some things in common as Democrats. Let's talk about class.
If we nominate Obama.
The Democrats would be putting a man up on the world stage -
Who looks like a teenager.
Who acts like a King.
And this sounds to me like a formula for the making of a Dictator.
I know you've had it tough ZeMongoose! You'll get your turn like the rest of us pushing to the front line....bu
Just changing the subject baby.
HAHAHAHAHA
First of all, did anyone hear John King's interview on CNN with Bill Richardson? Did anyone hear Richardson say he was supporting Obama because Obama "is a good piece of Man?" Need I say more. He admitted that he is voting for Obama because Obama is a man, which just proves Richardson is just one more sexist jerk in America who would never vote for a woman for the top spot, no matter how qualified she might be.
Second of all, did anyone hear Bill Clinton say that both Hillary and McCain are patriotic? What he meant by that remark is that neither Hillary or McCain attend a church where the preacher curses America or makes racial slurrs, unlike Obama who attends a church where his beloved friend and advisor spews hatred of white folks and America for sport.
Can you imagine for a moment if Hillary had attended a church for 20 years where the pastor said one negative remark about negroes? Can you imagine if Hillary attended a church where the pastor cursed America? Can you imagine if Hillary attended a church that cursed all men for oppressing women since the beginning of time? Her campaign would be over in a heart beat.
Hillary is not a racist or a sexist. Yes, Hillary vehemently disagrees with most of the policies of the Republicans that have led this country into a financial mess and an even worse foreign policy nightmare, but instead of cursing the country in hatred, she works to make it better. No, she won't run to Canada if things don't go her way like a lot of liberals who support Obama. She will stay and fight and that what makes her a true patriot, even though she is a woman.
1 - Bill R admitted no such thing. 2 - If Bill C meant that, he's lying for political purposes. 3 - I can imagine lots of hateful things have come out of the mouths of Hillary's associates. 4 - She may not be racist or sexist, but she's not above using those means to an end - her Presidency.
What a bunch of bull feathers.
(for the record I think the word negroes is still hurtful to some people, but since you're a Hillary supporter I don't really expect you to understand that)
How about her husband making negative remarks about "negroes". Saying that they expected Obama to win a state because Jesse Jackson had.
First of all, attending a church does not make someone patriotic or not. Bill Clinton's remarks were intended to mean exactly what you said though. He was trying to bring the issue back into the public eye. A perfectly transparent dirty trick from the Hillary camp, and I'm glad one of her followers actually admitted it. The problem is that first of all, McCain has a "spiritual adviser" that has made remarks about America which are every bit as inflammatory as Reverend Wright's remarks. Secondly, Hillary made plenty of remarks against her country in her youth.
The thing that you need to try to understand is that this country was founded on the principle that it should be ok to disagree with this country. To tell someone that they are wrong for making remarks about things they do not like in this country is actually unpatriotic. It is such a shame that the Republicans have made everyone afraid to speak out for fear of being labelled unpatriotic. What is even more of a shame is that people like you - who are apparently democrats - have taken over the Republican propaganda machine and are oiling it up for another run.
Typical Obama follower Daniel8168 - Divide and conquer!
Jane, with all due respect...
First, no one won a majority of the vote in New Mexico. According to CNN, it was Clinton 49%, Obama 48%, Edwards 2%, and Richardson 1%. That kind of leaves 3% of the vote up for interpretation considering Edwards hasn't endorsed, and Richardson now has.
Second, as I recall, a super delegate can vote for who ever they want to according to DNC rules, in an effort to ensure electability, come November. According to the polls I've seen, Obama is ahead of Clinton with the Independent vote.
Right. It was pretty close to a tie, so clearly he's free to vote his conscience. He gave an impassioned speech explaining his decision. Have a look on Youtube.
And I don't recall any complaints when Murtha endorsed Clinton. He clearly was not representing his constituents, who had not even voted yet. Surely the Obama camp would have appreciated this endorsement. But you win some and you lose some. It's up to the candidate to convince people (including superdeligates). Obama was apparently just not convincing for Murtha. Same with Richardson, only the other way around.
Or he could be upset because Clinton got 49% of the vote in his home state while he only got 1%.That must have been a bummer.
With friends like Bill Richardson, who needs enemies!!!!!!!!!
If Bill Richardson is typical enemy, I'd LOVE to have more enemies. The man is brilliant, well schooled in foreign and domestic policy, and a damn fine Governor.
It is amazing how many Hillary supporters are willing to smear the name of a man like Richardson, calling him a traitor, simply because he is exercising his judgement in selecting the candidate he feels is best qualified and has the best chance to win for the Democratic party in the fall. How can you justify doing that?
Richardson served his COUNTRY, not the Clintons (he just made Bill look better in the process).
He doesn't "owe" them his conscience or his integrity.
As for NM, it was basically 48/48, so for Richardson to represent his state (and more importantly, his conscience) by choosing the candidate who has....mor
If his endorsement gives courage to other superdelegates to standup to Clinton intimidation and her lies ("Bosnian snipers", "NAFTA") and evasions (tax returns; big library donors list), and pro-McCain campaign..
Thank you, Governor Richardson. Hopefully your integrity and love of your country will inspire others.
Thanks Jane, nce piece. There is no expediency like the expediency of politicians. Richardson, like all politicans talks out of both sides of his mouth. Join Ted Kennedy and John Kerry who dispite Clinton carrying Massachusetts plan to vote as super delegates for Obama. What frauds these politicans are. And the truely sad part, which Obama has revealed to us lat week, is tha Obama fits right in. He has once again revealed that he is not he candidate of change, but the same-ol, same-ol politician. He talks a great game, "let the people decide", yet what does he do? Court Richardson, and for what, so he can get aother suepr delegate and more importantly claim his "Hispanic"support. He is so in favor of letting the people decide that he is terrified of a re-vote in Michigan and Florida. Can I have a revote? want my Obama vote back! Cange = Yes we can, but not with Obama.
If you don't like super-delegates ignoring the votes of their constituents, you should acknowledge that this phenomenon is helping Hillary more than it's hurting her. So there are more "frauds" on her side.
Courting Richardson is well within the rules and the Clintons certainly did a lot of it. And though all the results are not in yet, so far "the people" have decided on Obama and Richardson is going along with that decision.
Why don't you give Hillary Clinton the respect as a woman, as politcal candidate with her own identity - and STOP rendering her invisible with this marriage crap! It's ancient! She is not a CLONE! She has a right to - YES ENTITLED to her own campaign as an individual candidate! MEn have been ENTITLED for over 200 years! The fabric is wearing!
Note to Hamsher: There's more than one superdelegate in New Mexico. Clinton won by one percent there. Does this mean Clinton gets all of New Mexico's superdelegates? Get real.
That's how some of the people want it, winner takes all. But, I think the superdelegate system was installed to counter shennanigans such as where one party would encourage their members to vote for the opposition party candidate that would be most beatable thereby skewing the primary results. The superdelegates roll was intended for them to exersize their independent accumulated judgement as to who in their party would have the best chance to win the general election. Otherwise why have the system in place? It looks like this year's Democratic Primary will test this system the core.
Richardson reinforces the precedent set by Kerry, Kennedy, and others, that superdelegates are not obliged to reflect the views of their constituents. Rather, they are free to support whomever they think would make the best candidate for the Party. Good for them.
I strongly disagree with the super-delegate system and think that, while it's too late in the game to change the rules, SDs should take themselves out of the equation by supporting the pledged delegate winner - aka the will of the people.
factbased said: "SDs should take themselves out of the equation by supporting the pledged delegate winner "
Isn't your advise kind of changing the rules midstream - which you also said is TOO LATE to do? Or did I misunderstand you, factbased?
Jane, you conflate two separate issues here. Regardless of his feelings about superdelegates and how they should vote, or whether they should vote at all, Bill Richardson should endorse whomever he thinks would be the most successful President. Richardson was a candidate for the same office, with a national presence. His endorsement probably means more than his superdelegate vote.
I'm not saying he is likely to endorse Obama and then cast a superdelegate vote for Clinton. I suppose that's possible, but unlikely. But there's no obligation for his public endorsement and public support to go to anywhere except where his conscience directs it, regardless of his feelings about the voting obligations of superdelegates.
Yeah. What that guy said.
I am happy Bill Richardson has endorsed Obama. He was my first pick for president after watching the debates and his take on medical care for Veterans.H
I'm with you. I would have chosen Bill Richardson as the Democratic candidate had he been more viable. He certainly has more qualifications, according to Hillary's cic criteria, than she does. On the other hand, although he is a fine man, he doesn't have the ability that Obama has to inspire voters in vast numbers. Could you imagine an Obama and Richardson ticket? Lovely thought.
You don't have to vote for her.
I could say the same about Obama.
Ain't the Democratic party grand?
I am no more a Democrat I am an Independent. Did you ever learn to read? May be you support Hillary because of you may read but do not understand. Try and read my post. I am not a Democrat shush!!!!
Bill Richardson does not need the added advantage of being a superdelegate to be a sought after endorsement. This Governor has the deepest foreign policy experience of anyone in the race and moreover has successfully executed his missions or objectives time and time again. His nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize also were from groups who carry weight(the last being his negotiations with North Korea that this administration is now screwing up). As governor he has been successful in bringing progress to his state and was reelected by almost 70% of the vote. It was not his superdelegate status that was attracting these candidates to his endorsement of their campaigns, but it was his savvy;acco
Yeah and HOW did he get those credentials? He would be a nothing congressman from a tiny state that nobody ever heard of if it were not for BC recognizing his talent like Bill did with so many other minority appointments. But hey, that's all forgotten now that we have our little black pony running out in front by a nose. My money is still on the filly with the WINNING track record. Richardson should have just stayed the f**k out of it!
Right, so regardless of who he thinks would be a better president, Richardson should automatically ignore his conscience and reward Bill Clinton's patronage by supporting his wife's bid to run the country?
How can you not get that this kind of logrolling is one of the biggest things wrong with American politics?
And your revolting equine metaphor, characterizing Obama as "our little black pony," tempts me to remind you that your "filly" is headed for the historical glue factory because of the way she has conducted this campaign. It was hers to lose; she has behaved as if it was hers, full stop.
He got those credentials by being trained at the Fletcher School at Tufts in diplomacy, working at lower levels in government, and winning a congressional seat on his own. His manner and intellect attracted Mr. Clinton and when given assignment performed at a high level. Also the people of NM reelected him by 69% of the vote in a supposed red state. Bill Richardson's hard work and its recognition by others is what got him where he is. If your candidate is Hillary Clinton she has had more on the luck side to her resume than real accomplishments.
IF HE IS SO GREAT,AS HE AND YOU SAY,WHY DID HE FAIL SO MISERABLY IN THE PRIMARY ELECTION?????
It is his success as a diplomat and governor that establishes his credentials as a reference. Do you have a problem with that? He was called upon time and time again to perform tasks others had failed at in the international arena. His judgment on what will make an effective leader in foreign affairs therefore counts big time. Maybe he failed as a presidential candidate but his successes elsewhere makes his endorsement valuable.
If the Clinton campaign goes down that road they still lose...
You can tell just how meaningful Richardson's endorsement is by how hard the Hillary campaign appears to be trying to quash the discussion. There are people hanging around here to be the first to hit any pro-Obama comment with a negative as soon as it appears. And just as many making up smears making false assertions and associations as fast as their fingers can pound the keys. Boy did Richardson make the right choice.
The sad thing for me is, Bill Clinton had it so right when he said, "Now one of Clinton"s laws of politics is this: If one candidate"s trying to scare you and the other one"s trying to get you to think, if one candidate"s appealing to your fears and the other one"s appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope."
They had me in the beginning. I defended them, for over a decade, vociferously. They lost their way, or maybe they never really had the way. Either way, we've now seen who they really are. They blew it. They took the wrong lessons from the last eight years, Barack Obama took the right ones. Barack is by far the most creatively and emotionally and intellectually intelligent president we've had in a long, long, time. The Hillary Clinton could have been the hope and think candidate, but out of her own fear and lack of conviction, she chose to be the fear and smear candidate.
Watch this video to see what could have been if they hadn't lost their way and become the very demagogues who hounded them relentlessly when Bill was in office :
http://www
Richardson chose to hope and think. He did the right thing.
Umm....exc
On what basis do you say that Sen Obama is the think and hope candidate.
On the contrary..
I have found him to be the
"Stop thinking and hope" candidate.
For the only way I can believe that he has any integrity and will do what he says he will do...is for me to 'STOP THINKING" .....and..
Yeah...rig
Sen Obama has integrity? I do not think so but you decide for yourselves:
He has been calling everyone a racists (warranted or not) since day 1 of the campaign.
He hired his campaign manager-David Axelrod-who has made a niche for himself by marketing black candidates-Obama team promotes racial division so Obama gets the sympathetic whites & angry black votes. Read on…
http://www
The New Republic, "Race Man" by Sean Wilentz
http://www
The Nation, "Obama"s Media Maven" by Chrisptoher Hayes. 2/19/08 issue
His campaign is accusing Sen Clinton of trying to steal and/or buy the delegate & superdelegate votes:
http://www
Washington Post,“For Black Superdelegates, Pressure to Back Obama”, by Shailagh Murray, 3/3/08; AO1
http://bla
blackmisso
Who is really trying to ‘buy’ the Superdelgate votes?
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
Sen Obama has accused Sen Clinton of soliciting $ from lobbyists and stating how this is not ethical…
See how Sen Obama receives lobbyists’ money- he hides it well.
http://www
"A "more complicated truth" on campaign contributions" , by Trudy Lieberman 2/15/08 , Columbia Journalism Review. Article describes how Sen Obama was able to receive "cloaked" lobbyist money. The lobbyists contributed to funds being collected by their industry or company "so $ was lumped together under a different category-. This is why people need to ask the tough questions. Check out the author’s credentials.
Sen Obama’s campaign manager and strategist David Axelrod is involved with another company that works for corporate clients in helping shape public opinion about the company. Check out the clients this company has. Can anybody define “Major conflict of interest?” By the way, read about the fact that Illinois does not require public-affairs firms to register as lobbyists unless they seek to influence officeholders directly. Nice protection for your state’ citizens Sen Obama…real nice…
http://www
Businessweek, “The Secret Side of David Axelrod -The master of “Astroturfing: has a second firm that shapes public opinion for corporations- by Howard Wolinsky 3/14/08
Oh…and the Iraq war. Was Sen Obama really so against it as he says ? Then explain this please…
Sen Joe Lieberman (strongly pro-Iraq invasion) was being opposed in the CT Senate race by Ned Lamont- a VERY popular candidate who ran on strong Iraq War opposition platform. Sen Obama flew in to CT to support Lieberman.
http://www
“Suppport for War Tests Lieberman’s Re-election Prospects” by William Yardley , New York Times, 4/2/06
The mainstream media is REFUSING to follow up on any of these stories which begs the question…
W H Y ???
Sen Obama has integrity…
He and his campaign people and the mainstream media must really think that we (American people) are fools.
great post
"Conflict of Interest"?
What do you think of the fact that Charlie Black (top McCain advisor and lobbyist) and Mark Penn (top Clinton advisor and lobbyist) are not only FRIENDS, but the Chairman and CEO, respectively, of the same lobbying business (which they started together)?
Given what we've seen of the Clinton-McCain campaign, is there anything of interest to you in THAT Black-Penn connection?
This is a bilge purging of all the anti-Obama plants out there...a "kitchen sink" redux if you will. This stuff has either been completely refuted, or there are extenuating circumstances, i.e., there is more to the story that the Clinton camp or unscrupulous media supporting Clinton or McCain have conveniently left out. I've refuted this stuff so many times. And what I've found, is that it doesn't take much to refute it. Usually, you just have to scratch the surface, though some are rather crafty and take some work.
So what is going on here, is that they are counting on readers to be too busy to do their own research, hoping we'll just say, "Wow, that's a lot of stuff...th
Don't take any of this stuff seriously without cross-checking it from many sources. Especially anything that changes your mind. Propaganda is rampant here.
As a resource, here are some links to posts that describe propaganda techniques:
Quick overview of the propaganda basics: http://lib
And from this link, which goes into detail explaining propaganda, there is a list of things to ask yourself about anything that seems to be causing you to change your mind, so you won't fall prey to propaganda and vote for someone or something that is not in your interest:
"Who does this benefit?""Why did they do that?""According to whom?"
Here's that http://pro
The best thing you can do to protect your vote from being ripped from your hand is to educate YOURSELF on propaganda and rhetoric techniques. Google them if you want more, there are a lot of resources out there, and the education will help protect your vote for a lifetime, and it doesn't take very long. They are easy to spot once you know them.
Great Post. I agree wholeheartedly and really question the pro-Obama media bias. What is really behind their agenda? The Obama apologists in the media must really
think the American public consists of total morons. We know the 51 percent that voted
for Bush are, but I'm afraid the Democrats have blew it again and we can thank their incompetent leadership for that.
I think you mis-read the situation.
Hillary still has the majority of superdelegates and public opinion is in her favor.
She's going to win big in PA and that will mean that she has basically ran the table when it comes to the battleground states.
If the delegates from MI and FL are seated Obama is in real trouble.
As far as the Richardson endorsement goes, this only serves to once and for all remove the argument Obama supporters have been making for a while now.
You can't say Hillary is going to subvert the process by getting a bunch of superdelegates to vote against the will of their constituencies. Richardson has done just that for Obama and Obama's supporters couldn't be happier.
So apparently courting any and all superdelegates is fair game. No more talk of smoke filled back rooms wher Hillary will subvert the will of the people.
That argument is dead now. It doesn't hold anymore.
When the convention rolls around, and Hillary racks up a bunch of superdelegate votes from Obama won states, we're not going to talk about the popular vote or subverting the will of the people. If it's good in New Mexico, then it's good everywhere.
EXACTLY!! It couldn’t have been said more clearly.
Obama's won nearly twice as many states. Do you actually think he wouldn't get California, NY, and New Jersey in the fall? He might get Ohio, too, but he doesn't need it to win (like Hillary does). He has more possibilities out West.
Meanwhile, do you really think she'll win in Texas in the general?
Hillary's spin ("I won the states that counted!") is a nice try. And she'll win in PA, of course, (although even Rendell said either she or Obama would be good Presidents
Stop the spin. It's time to get off.
I didn't misread the situation at all. In fact you just proved that I nailed it. You just proved my point made in other comments on this page, that the sole purpose of this post is to provide cover for Hillary to do the bad thing by accusing Richardson of doing it first. This part of the larger strategy to subvert the will of the people at every turn, which we have all come to know about Hillary, when push comes to shove.
You were one of the one's on the attack, slamming negatives on pro-Obama posts as soon as they came up, and you were spewing all kinds of obfuscation rhetoric initially, now you are talking like a calm strategist. The gig is up. We know you guys are trying to steal this election, in anyway you can. You absolutely do NOT want the will of the people, which is why you are lying your asses off and demagogueing and obfuscating and card-stacking and straw-man-ing. You, and the Hillary campaign are NOT behaving like a friend of the American people and democratic principles.
You write that "You can tell just how meaningful Richardson's endorsement is by how hard the Hillary campaign appears to be trying to quash the discussion. There are people hanging around here to be the first to hit any pro-Obama comment with a negative as soon as it appears. And just as many making up smears making false assertions and associations as fast as their fingers can pound the keys."
But then you write a note as a pro-Obama supporter asking us to see what you feel are the many negatives of Clinton. Jane Hamsher made an interesting blog post about Richardson's seeming doublespeak over the superdelegate representation problem. Instead you seem to be dropping a campaign note, a reply-mode that makes the forum hard to get through because so few actually reply to the subject of the blog post. I often feel as if I'm reading thousands of posts from staff for both Democratic campaigns -- though it makes sense to drop talking points that mean a lot to you folks. I just wish they could be made without all the unnecessary animosity and boilerplate style.
And it quashes discussion, as you say, of the actual subject posed for discussion.
I think though that the superdelegates don't have to vote as if the winning candidate got the entire state's delegates (the way the Repubs do and Dems used to do) and some are proposing proportional voting that reflects the voters (though superdelegates were made to get past the known problems of narrow representation of caucuses vs full primaries).
One thing for sure - what a horrible disorderly mess. And I do agree that Richardson is talking out of two sides of his mouth about this, considering how his state and the Hispanic vote in particular (which he likes to say has special meaning to him) went. Aside from all that, I've never found him particularly impressive though as a presidential candidate. All is politics -- his endorsement IS meant to sway the Hispanic vote his way.
No he's not. Who he endorses and how he votes are two separate issues. And did you read the post from the person above yours? About the voting irregularities in NM? There is more to this story. Jane Hamsher is trying to get out in front of it to provide talking points to Hillary so she can justify her delegates voting against the public will.
There are so many commenting here and spinning off on various subjects to detract from those of us commenting from NM. I am Latina, a life-long feminist, past President of the NM Women's Foundation, sit on the board of various organizations strengthening teenage girls and I can tell you that NM went to Hillary by a narrow and suspect margin. I echo the other New Mexicans on this thread that there were many irregularities in our caucus. In Santa Fe, state capital, Obama won by a hefty margin in 9 out of 10 precincts (by more than 70% in most). However, I worked the caucus site and were it not for my values and integrity, I could have voted a hundred times. We have a very suspect contract with the company for ballots, E E & S, who are Republican (assoc. with Diebold) and many long term democrats were purged from the registered voter lists. And yes, in Rio Arriba County, known for its 'good ol' boy' network of politicians, three ballot boxes went home overnight. These were unlocked ballot boxes.
I am very proud that Gov Richardson endorsed the "Leader of a life-time"! He knows of the problems we had voting here. Had it been a fair, honest, transparent caucus the state would have gone overwhelmingly to Senator Obama.
Thanks for reminding us of that. And yes, now I remember that that county where the ballot boxes went on a 'sleepover' before going to be counted, was the one they were waiting for to make the very close call. Again, thanks for this information that is not being covered in the mainstream media.
I am optimistic, but not in the way you think. I am optimistic that enough of us have seen through the Clinton lies that we will choose a president who is actually good for our country and not simply vote in another fear-mongering power glutton.
They are denigrating Richardson, attacking him before they even know how he will actually vote, because as a Clinton operative admitted above, they are trying to frame this as Richardson doing it so therefore they can do it. Jane is holding the football so they can come and kick it. Watch for this to become a Clinton talking point. I can guarantee you this is a plant for them do justify doing the bad thing they always wanted to do and have done repeatedly, subvert the will of the people in their quest for arrogant power.
Don't base any decision on what the Clintons are doing. You can't infer anything as in your out loud wondering, "Otherwise, why would the Clinton's denigrate it so?" because everything they do is calculated in some way and designed to fool us into voting for them instead of earning our vote out of earnest dedication to democratic principles, and the spirit of true public service, as Obama has shown repeatedly.
Bill Richardson has clearly chosen political opportunity. He isn't adhering to his words about superdelegates reflecting the votes of their constituents. Another politician changing the game to further his career.
He hasn't said how he would VOTE yet, he's only said who his heart is with. If the super-delegates do honor the people's votes, many will have to vote against their heart.
I think this whole stink is an attempt to frame Richardson as not supporting the popular vote to give false justification for Hillary's people to go against the popular vote. As they have demonstrated, they have no interest in rules or in what the people want. They are in it for their own self-aggra
Again, Richardson's endorsement is NOT a statement on how he will VOTE. Nowhere in his statement does he say he will not support the popular vote. We are only discussing it because Jane posed the question as though he weren't. Why didn't she just ask him and then report on what he said? Again, I think this is to provide false justification for Hillary people to go against the popular vote.
Give Richardson a break! He is only doing what all the other Democratic sexists have done! - He may have been able to work for President Bill Clinton - but to work for President Hillary Clinton? No Way! So he is piling on behind his friends Kerry, Kennedy, etc. etc. all trying to make sure a woman doesn't become President . The sexism in this campaign has been over the top and almost not reported or discussed. It is just assumed its alright. And Richardson! Lots of men understand his decision and the reasons he made it and it has nothing to do with who is best qualified, etc. It has simply to do with gender. After all Kennedy will patronize, do for you, take care of you, get legislation passed for women etc., but a woman President is another thing. If he had any respect for women his lifestyle wouldn't have been what its been over all these decades. I can't forget the write up of Kennedy having lunch at a restaurant and his tip to the waitress? Sex under the table with patrons watching. Do you think those guys can think of a woman as President? Not on your life. And the fact that Richardsons' constituents voted for Hillary is beside the point - or that he said a superdelegate should follow his or her constituency (oops I don't think he said his or her). That's different. We all understand that those comments don't count under the circumstances.
This is so ridiculous. There are millions of women in the US. Why is opposing this individual sexist? Certainly there are qualified women who wouldn't run nasty campaigns, authorize illegal wars, vote for anti-middle class bankruptcy bills, or vote against the ban on cluster bombs. I happen to believe that there are countless women who would make better presidents than Hillary Clinton. Let's find a better candidate. In this season, however, the best we have is an African American man. That should mean something.
I'm sick of hearing the BS about Hillary being the wrong women. Oh yes, many competent women like our great Secretary of State: Look at the wonderful job she has done for our country. Lets look at all the women on the Republican side, and those in Bush's cabinet. Haven't they done a fantastic job? Maybe Maureen Dowd, the idiotic NY times, nutjob columnist, "anti-women" woman can come up with some suggestions for the next female presidential nominee with the best qualifications. Name one with the intelligence, competence, experience and expertise that Hillary Clinton has.
jane, it's over. instead of posing your question to bill richardson, it might be better for you to start using your considerable talent to creating some damned unity behind obama.
Hear! Hear!! Hillary's nomination would be Rash Limberger's wet dream. The Republicans need to be punished and HRC isn't the one to do it.
Jane, I love this site and Firedoglake both, but I think Richardson went with what he thought was best for the Party. I also heard Richardson say that after Texas and Ohio, the candidate with the most delegates should be the nominee. Perhaps that had an impact. He also noted that he was not happy with the Clinton Campaign. My State went heavily (2 to 1) for Obama, but to date, both my Senators and my Congressman are still supporting Hillary. As much as this irritates me and I have told them so, it is their vote to cast. As voters, all we can do is let our Representatives know how we feel and tuck this away for reference on election day if we can't come to terms with their actions. For a long time, I didn't care what DEM got the nomination, I just wanted any DEM, but I can honestly say I would have an extremely hard time voting for Hillary in light of the campaign tactic she has employed.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
