Still More Talk Of "Deals," This Time Between Obama And Richardson

Comments (27)

mroben wrote on January 3, 2008 3:59 PM:

It could also be a strategy on the Obama camp's part to get it "in the air" about a deal to potentially sway a BR supporter who doesn't know an actual deal hasn't been worked out.

Robert in N.H. wrote on January 3, 2008 3:59 PM:

Obama is the only viable candidate at this point.
Hillary and Edwards are just too negative
and carry too much baggage.

Matt wrote on January 3, 2008 4:05 PM:

I really hope that intentionally-confusing citizens in order to gain votes isn't a "normal part of the caucus process".

If this is from Obama's campaign, it sounds more like a dirty trick than normal and ethical strategy. While it isn't suppressing votes, it is misleading them.

But, no one knows who these "sources" are so it's all speculation.

Col wrote on January 3, 2008 4:06 PM:

Considering that both the Biden and Richardson stories have been sourced to the Biden and Richardson campaigns, Greg's editorializing is pretty much entirely without merit. Sure doesn't stop him, though!

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 3, 2008 4:09 PM:

I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest that what could actually be going on here is that the Obama people are merely planning an all-out push to win over Richardson voters, which is a natural part of the caucus process.

My training as a scientist makes me preternaturally ill-at-ease with the idea of treating the merely plausible as if it were the truth. As such, I cannot quite bring myself to agree with the above, but I do think that it is the most intuitive hypothesis.

AJ wrote on January 3, 2008 4:09 PM:

They also seem to be putting out a disinformation campaign to give the impression to Richardson and Biden supporters that, secretly, the candidate would want them to go with Obama. It may back fire with caucusers feeling insulted to be viewed as chattel, we'll see.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 3, 2008 4:13 PM:

While it isn't suppressing votes, it is misleading them.

Do you really think so? I guess that I just do not really believe that it really matters one way or the other. I doubt that anyone will caucus any other way than the way that s/he darn well feels like caucussing, backroom deal or no. That goes even for Kucinich supporters, who really and honestly have been instructed by the campaign to caucus for Obama if they cannot caucus for Kucinich himself.

NCSteve wrote on January 3, 2008 4:19 PM:

There doesn't have to be a "deal" in order for Richardson to tell his caucusers to support Obama if Richardson is nonviable. Nor does there have to be a "deal" for Richardson to let Obama know he's doing it.

Hate to parse, but all these denials of deals are pretty conspiciously not addressing this.

You just tell/ask the caucusers to do it and they either do it or they don't.

Matt wrote on January 3, 2008 4:21 PM:

Greg D-

You are most likely right. I myself would feel insulted if my candidate thought that my vote could be shuffled like cards for their own personal benefit (i.e. cabinet positions, ticketmate, etc.).

But, you gotta believe that some poor twit might switch his/her vote with this story in the back of his/her head. And if one vote goes from Richardson to Obama (because of these rumors) then it is definitely misleading voters.

But, like I said, there is no way to tell. It's on an individual basis of choice anyways.

You bring up a valid point, though.

Anonymous wrote on January 3, 2008 4:22 PM:

I don't think rumors in the new york times would somehow trick voters to caucus for obama. remember, the caucuses are an intimate process, and most likely biden and richardson will have their own people at most if not all of the caucuses. in the end, they'll be doing the directing, and people probably won't be listening to them like mindless sheep anyway.

this is not a ploy, but if it is, i agree that is a bad one.

Nickal1 wrote on January 3, 2008 4:24 PM:

"Follow the money." The only one who benefits in both the long term and the short term from these rumors is Barrack Obama. Even if these reports are true, Obama is the sole beneficiary. Given that, maybe TPM should investigate and find out who is really behind these rumors/stories of caucus goers trade offs. It is more than a good guess that Obama's campaign is culpable in this last minute scam to undermine Hillary and Edwards, the only other viable candidates in the race.

CalD wrote on January 3, 2008 4:32 PM:

I'd have to agree that Obama seems to be the most likely beneficiary, which would tend to make his campaign the most likely source.

Michael wrote on January 3, 2008 4:34 PM:

All the original stories on this were sourced to national co-chairs for Richardson and Biden, one of which referred specifically to a caucus-strategy meeting the Biden campaign was convening.

The suggestion that there are multiple reporters, at Iowa Independent, The Huffington Post, Time, and The New York Times that are flat-out lying about who their anonymous sources are, in the service of an oblique end-around dirty trick from the Obama campaign, is pretty absurd. Especially when one adopts that belief over plenty of other, reasonable explanations that have just as much, if not more, evidence for their veracity (Biden wants Sec of State and knows he won't get it in a Clinton admin b/c she's so close to Holbrooke; Richardson sees his only chance as competing beyond Iowa if Hillary loses; both now think Obama has a legit shot at the nomination and are angling for his VP slot; the quote from the original Biden story is accurate, and the Biden team really does like Obama's foreign policy, like Obama himself--feasible given Obama jumping to Biden's defense over the racial remarks in the last debate--and really does like the way he's run his campaign).

And lastly, he's David Plouffe on the matter, with a classic non-denial denial:

avid Plouffe, Obama campaign manager, responding to the report that Mr. Obama had reached an agreement for reciprocal support with Bill Richardson’s campaign, insisted the campaign had reached “no formal arrangements” with any of his rivals. But he said that “there are certainly places where our precinct captains want to work with Richardson” supporters — to gain second-choice support in cases where Mr. Richardson doesn’t reach the threshold to compete, or to lend Mr. Richardson surplus backers in instances where they can’t yield any additional Obama delegates.

“We’re giving our precinct captains a lot of latitude to work this out,” Mr. Plouffe said. “We’re going to fight as hard as we can for every one” of Mr. Richardson’s available supporters, and “It comes down to how well our precinct captains do.” With polling showing that Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards are the top contenders for second-choice support, Mr. Plouffe said they’d made similar efforts with supporters of Joseph Biden and Chris Dodd as well. Dennis Kucinich has already publicly urged his backers to support Mr. Obama in precincts where Kucinich is not viable.

That's not "misleading" voters, that's standard caucus strategy.

hadenough wrote on January 3, 2008 4:34 PM:

This story was shot down at least 4 hours before this post.

anonymous sources say greg sargent is a shadow of a shadow of what he used to be.

nogo war wrote on January 3, 2008 4:35 PM:

Most caucus goers have not heard anything about this....
This appears to be just dust in the wind to fire up Blogs....

an old saying went like this
"No biggie"

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 3, 2008 4:37 PM:

The only one who benefits in both the long term and the short term from these rumors is Barrack Obama.

Nonsense. Obama's campaign is certainly high on the list of those who might stand to benefit, but so would:

1) the bloggers who brought you these rumors. It makes great content for them.

2) Biden and/or Richardson. If the rumors are based on reality (and it is hard to say one way or the other at this point) then they stand to gain as a means of garnerning votes themselves in precincts where Obama has more votes than he needs to win the maximum number of delegates possible. If the rumors are false, then these two still might stand to benefit simply from getting their names in the late editions above the fold.

3) Clinton and/or Edwards. The whole thing could be cooked up in order to make Obama look devious and scheming. This seems the least likely of the possibilities mentioned, but not altogether too far fetched (stranger things have happened).

That said, if someone was game to put a lot of effort into investigating the source of these rumors, I admit that I would be interested to see the results (even if they arrive weeks after we have all forgotten Iowa).

nogo war wrote on January 3, 2008 4:43 PM:

Just a reminder

http://www.southernpoliticalreport.com/storylink_1231_103.aspx

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-xIulyVsG8

Dawn wrote on January 3, 2008 4:46 PM:

Didn't Obama himself make a direct appeal this weekend for the 2nd choice voters? Nothing wrong with that. Why the denial among his supporters now that his 'people' are planning an all-out push?

Nickal wrote on January 3, 2008 5:03 PM:

I should have said that Obama was the primary, not sole, beficiary of these rumors/facts. It is true that Biden and Richardson may gain (very little) in the primary season. Not even they think that they will leave Iowa with enough momentum to compete seriously in NH, SC or MI. The bowing and scraping will more likely benefit one or the other in the Veep Sweepstakes to come. Although I hope Biden would be considered for Sec of State and Richardson for Veep.

Greg wrote on January 3, 2008 5:05 PM:

it seems to me that the distinction here is between

(a) a natural push for second choice voters, which the campaign has openly said they're going to do

and

(b) a back room deal in which richardson agrees to have all his precinct captains push second choice voters into the obama camp in exchange for this, that or the other thing.

what I'm having real trouble understanding -- help, anyone? -- is how such a deal would work in practice, given that there are nearly 1,800 precincts

Michael A wrote on January 3, 2008 5:05 PM:

In case anybody's interested, the weather will be good tonight.

The forecast for Thursday [tonight]is much better. Temperatures will be in the 20s during the day and dip just below that as the caucuses begin, according to the Des Moines Register. CNN.

I can't wait to see what happens. It is exciting. Hopefully alot of people will comeout to caucus. The more the merrier and better for democracy.

Michael A wrote on January 3, 2008 5:16 PM:

There is no way that a backroom "deal" would work with 1800 precincts and the fact that iowans are notoriously independent. Can you imagine the blowback if such a deal got out, which it surely would based on 1800 precincts? It would torpedo a campaign. Don't see it happening. I could see an announcement like kucinich's but at this point it would be too late to have an effect so close to the caucuses.

Simon B. wrote on January 3, 2008 6:00 PM:

And what if there were two deals (Richardson and Biden) under discussions until the Hillary campaign (read: Bill) made a few calls to kill the deals. That seems like the most plausible scenario...not that it's going to help her.

Imelda Blahnik wrote on January 3, 2008 6:21 PM:

No Go War: thanks for the link to the Insider Advantage piece. The scenario they outline sounds very plausible. The fact that Edwards has campaigned long and hard in small rural towns may do it for him. The whole apportionment thing makes the caucus outcome so hard to gauge.

Imelda Blahnik wrote on January 3, 2008 6:24 PM:

yup, it's exciting. I should put
"attend an Iowa caucus" on my list of things to do before I croak. Can non-residents attend, or do they not let anyone in who hasn't registered?

Chris Brown wrote on January 3, 2008 6:36 PM:

How about we go out on a limb and suggest that someone in the media made up the report, perhaps extrapolated from comments from a non-official campaign source.

veritas wrote on January 3, 2008 7:48 PM:

Just back from Iowa- Obama's people are definitely making big time deals-even throwing around the VP position- This is a fact- He has gotten this far through smoke and mirrors- If only those young, idealistic supporters could see the bigger picture and know that David Axelrod, Robert Gibbs et al-big time operatives- have been responsible for the putting out such an appealing story line. These men are in it for themselves- the future of our children and grandchildren is not in their vision. All the operatives have major egos and they play us for saps-guess if it works they win.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)