Bill Clinton Still Won't Speak To Bill Richardson

CBS' Bob Schieffer, talking about the historic nature of this Democrat National Convention to African-Americans on the Imus in the Morning Show, relayed an interesting tidbit about Bill Richardson and his former boss, Bill Clinton. You will recall that the 42nd President -- via surrogate James Carville -- let his feelings be known about Bill Richardson's endorsement of Barack Obama as well as the former Ambassador's releasing of his Iowa delegates to Obama, helping fuel his upset victory in the Hawkeye State over Clinton and John Edwards. The Clintonites viewed it as a betrayal of Biblical lengths, as Bill himself had been lobbying hard to get the New Mexico Governor's imprimatur (They watched this year's Superbowl together). Bill Richardson, the Clintonistas felt, owed Bill Clinton a lot considering his rapid career ascent in the Clinton administration.

Richardson's speech was cut from last night's Convention broadcast. Schieffer, who saw him last night afterwards said the Governor told him that he and Senator Clinton are "fine." Richardson recently hosted a fundraiser for Hillary to retire her remaining campaign debt. But Bill Clinton, Richardson added, still won't speak to the former Commerce Secretary.

For more Huffington Post coverage of the Democratic National Convention, visit our Politics @ the DNC page, our Democratic Convention Big News Page, and our HuffPost bloggers' Twitter feed, live from Denver.

Comments

[boycottrightwingthings]

If Richardson did to me what he did to the Clintons, I wouldn't be talking to him either. They made his career, and he stabbed them in the back in their time of need. That is even worse than what Republicans did to them, I am sure that they never thought that one of their own would stab them in the back in such a way as to help Hillary lose. I won't ever forgive Bill Richardson for that either!! I call him Judas!! I turned the channel when he spoke at the convention, it was the only time that I did that. Obama Biden 08

[MPeter]

And why is this a news story? Richardson or Clinton do not have to speak to each other. Life will still go on. Richardson is a successful man who can stand alone. Clinton is a successful man as well. It is stoopid trying to claim that Richardson needs Clinton's approval or viceversa. Stop this nonsense and move on.

[BottomLine2008]

Bill Clinton should get over it. Just like the Obama people need to get over the primaries.

[mredder4]

Hey, maybe it's just because I'm such a Virgo that loyalty matters to me too, but I would feel the same way as Bill Clinton if Richardson did the same to me.

What Bill Richardson did was low, lower than dirt, but because it was done in the service of Barack Obama, no one will acknowledge it. I mean, viewed rationally, the Clintons weren't the only ones angling to "get back in the White House". Bill Richardson is playing on a longshot that being a presidential candidate that ends his run and endorses the eventual winner will result in a cabinet positon for himself, or something along those lines. Any job in the White House would be better than any job in New Mexico.

If someone I trust, someone that I've helped and who's helped me in the past, if they turn on me in a way similar to what Bill Richardson did to Bill Clinton, they're done. I'm done with them, present and future. If you can't trust the people around you, what good are they? Bill Richardson proved himself to be an opportunistic backstabber, and if Bill Clinton's not talking to him anymore, he has no one to blame but himself.

I hope karma plays a nice role in this drama and Richardson still finds himself the honored governor of New Mexico well into the Obama presidency.

[Geekboy]

So you think that because Bill helped Richardson get his DC job, he was obliged to support HRC? What if he honestly thought O was better qualified? What if he was honestly offended by HRC's campaign tactics?
Perhaps I'm being idealistic here, but I don't buy the idea that helping somebody get a job means that person is obliged to be your lifelong slave.

[strangelet]

See below, but also recall Bill didn't "help Richardson get his DC job". He APPOINTED Richardson to his DC job.

[tel8034]

So, Richardson is NOT allowed to have an opinion of his own, and should be beholden to the Clintons until the day he dies?

That makes NO sense.

If Bill Clinton (at the time) was REALLY SINCERE in moving Richardson's career forward, he would have done it from the heart, and NOT because it was a move just to be able to call in a favor or to force allegience from Richardson when the time was right for the Clintons' benefit.

Richardson was the first to extend the OLIVE BRANCH even after being publically called a JUDAS, when he hosted and organized a fund raising event in his home state just to retire Hillary's debt ..................... AND STILL, BILL IS NOT SATISFIED, AND STILL, BILL HOLDS A GRUDGE.

[mredder4]

It's telling that your more upset with someone for being upset at being betrayed than you are at someone who did the betraying. Remind me not to trust you anytime soon.

Bill Richardson was not beholden to Bill Clinton to the effect that he was his "lifelong slave" or anything like that. But it's hard to image how a man with his record could have won the governorship of a state without his Clinton Cabinet experience. He doesn't owe his life to Bill Clinton, but he does owe a large portion of his political life to him.

His ambition and desire for advancement are plain as day in his Obama support. He could have done a lot of other things to let the Clintons know that they couldn't count on his support, most importantly of which would have been keeping his selection PRIVATE. Instead, HE brought the issue into the public, so it's hardly right for him to be offended or surprised that Bill Clinton would publicly let people know what he really thinks of Richardson. I know I would, in the same situation.

After all, how much can Barack Obama trust Richardson's support, knowing that he sold out his previous patron as soon as something brighter came along?

[strangelet]

mredder4: I don't think I agree with you all the time, but on this one I sure do. Some of the other responders on this thread seem to think the big issue here is Bill Richardson's undeniable right to have, and express, his personal political opinions. It's not. In my opinion, it's not even the ordinary loyalty to which you refer. It's political trustworthiness, which may sound like an oxymoron, but which is in fact the life-blood of politics.

Government and politics are ongoing processes, not point events, so favors owed and called are the currency of public affairs. I'm not talking about "play-for-pay" deals with lobbyists, but "owe-you-ones" between politicians. When someone unilaterally walks away from favors-owed, it's a big hit to the process, and to the other person left holding the bag.

I'm NOT saying that Richardson had to be Clinton's "slave for life", nor that he didn't necessarily have reasons -- other than ambition -- for his endorsement of Obama. But it doesn't appear that he was able to explain those reasons very successfully to Bill. He did have other options, e.g., he could have endorsed nobody, like some other Clintonistas.

As far as karma goes, I wouldn't write off the possibility of an appointment. If Senator Obama (a trustworthy politician) promised him a quid for his quo, he will deliver. However, I notice that Richardson never really got very far in the Veepstakes -- you have to trust your VP candidate.

[mredder4]

Exactly. How can you trust someone that you watched backstab someone else to support you?

Good point about the "points" system. If you prove yourself to be the kind of person that takes favors and never returns them, exactly how long can you expect anyone that knows you to do you a favor? Unless you're able to constantly bamboozle relatively naive people who don't know you, you're going to run out of help real quick. How many people in Washinton who value honesty and integrity can look at Bill Richardson and say that he possesses those qualities while maintaining a straight face? Not many.

[witchie]

Hey... I live in New Mexico and I don't talk to him... and have no plans to.... Bill just likes to whine... and oh, by the way... Mr. Governor... thanks for that $100 tax rebate check we are getting sometimes in the fall.....

[OtayPanky]

I'm going to take a little nap.

Wake me up when BubbaCo is no longer a topic of conversation, otay?

[jhNY]

"Bill Richardson, the Clintonistas felt, owed Bill Clinton a lot considering his rapid career ascent in the Clinton administration." It's almost as if he couldn't have been appointed to those cabinet posts all by himself! Hearing Richardson strive to reach mediocrity whenever there's a mic in the area, and nearly always underachieve, it seems to me his ambition is probably the most remarkable thing about him, as it is always on view, along with his need to be liked. Richardson has always been a guy whose resume reads better than the man himself. Just for that, I'm not speaking Bill Richardson either!

[YankeeCanuck]

I suppose that is a personal choice. But the Clintons showed a side that is bigger than that last night. Despite behaving at times in a seemingly petty manner, if the report is true, they showed their prodigious talents last night and their care and concern for the very idea of America.

Richardson, given the opportunity to perform on an international stage, showed himself to be a talented and trusted statesman. Perhaps he has overreached. He's human. It's time to start recognising that our leaders are no better people than ourselves.

What can we do to help them? We can do our own due diligence and be informed about issues and we can at least vote. We can encourage others to do this as well.

Don;t give Bill the cold shoulder. He's listening. ;- )