« Rasmussen: Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) Narrowly Leads Al Franken | Home | Obama-Supporting Retired General Compares Bill Clinton To Joe McCarthy »
Updates On The Richardson Endorsement
A couple quick Richardson updates.
First, here's an explanation from Clinton spokesperson Phil Singer of Mark Penn's suggestion yesterday that Bill Richardson's endorsement of Obama was "not significant":
Everyone in the Clinton campaign has the utmost respect for Gov. Richardson and many of us know him well. Mark was referring to the fact that Gov. Richardson didn’t endorse prior to his state’s primary and certainly didn’t mean to imply anything else. The Clinton campaign continues to seek the support of all Latino voters and leaders in the remaining primaries and caucuses.
Meanwhile, Richardson offered some new comments clarifying whether he thinks Hillary should drop out of the race, as he seemed to suggest yesterday. Check out what Richardson said about this in a new interview:
“I’m not going to advise any other candidate when to get in and out of the race,” Mr. Richardson said after appearing in Portland with Mr. Obama. “Senator Clinton has a right to stay in the race, but eventually we don’t want to go into the Democratic convention bloodied. This was another reason for my getting in and endorsing, the need to perhaps send a message that we need unity.”
Richardson's stance seems to be that Hillary has a right to stay in for now, but just not too much longer, and certainly not all the way until the convention, lest it imperil the Democratic Party's chances in the fall.
Advertisement
NY Times
March 22, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
But they've (falsely) been accusing Obama all along of protraying himself as Jesus...
Are they simply jealous, just wanting the Jesus-title for their Hillary?
Like I said below, the message of this campaign is too confusing...
March 22, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Carville quote is telling. It once again demonstrates how Clinton's core supporters feel so aggrieved because they truly believe that Clinton was entitled to the nomination. But it also indicates that the end is near. Such a sour grapes comment does Clinton no good. Rather, it is a comment of a grieving supporter who is bitterly acknowledging that Clinton has no path to the nomination.
March 22, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Carville is merely confused as to the candidate who threw and caught his anvil, the problem is his candidate threw and caught it.
March 22, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
The irony of that nasty comment by Carville is that he is the one sleeping with the enemy... or is her name really Mary Magdalene!!!!
March 22, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Superdelegate and new Obama-backer Gov. Bill Richardson told the New York Times
in February that a superdelegate's vote "should reflect the vote of my state, it should represent the vote of my constituency. It shouldn’t be because you’re a fund-raiser or a big-shot delegate. Superdelegates should reflect their state or constituency. If superdelegates decide this nomination, it’s going to look like big-shot politicians and fat-cats decided who should be president."
Er…Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, won New Mexico, Governor."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/richardson-on-s.html#comments
He betrayed his OWN WORDS!
March 22, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
If they want to be that way, let's compare:
Dubya and Carville:
"You're either for us or against us."
Jesus Christ:
“He who is not against us is for us.”
Mark 9:40 and Luke 9:50
March 22, 2008 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have a cheeseburger or four Bill, you can even add hot sauce to it/them. A true opportunist that you are, always looking for your next Government job or money handout.
March 22, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
If he's an opportunist, then he must know which way the wind's blowing.
March 22, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Braaaain Freeeeze!
March 22, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really that isn't a very nice thing to say about Bill Clinton. I heard he has cut down on the cheeseburgers since his heart surgery. I know he is looking for his next Gov't job to be First Gentleman but sadly for him but thank goodness for the rest of us, that seems to be a pipe dream.
;-)
March 22, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama remains up in Rasmussen; retakes lead in Gallup. On a fine day like this it's even fun to find I have something in common with MP.
Excerpt from another of my posts:
"Bill Richardson, just another despicable politician who occasionally displays flashes of integrity. Then again, perhaps his motivation was merely to ingratiate himself with America's next president so he can recycle himself in the foreign policy sphere. Perhaps Richardson's goal is to "fix NAFTA" with sanctions against Mexico and Canada?"
There's no denying that this is an example of how Obama is capable -- even when he's not trying! -- of bringing Democrats like me and wannabe Republicans like MP together.
I'm telling you, MP, that man can work miracles!
March 22, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg,
"Richardson's stance seems to be that Hillary has a right to stay in for now, but just not too much longer"
I don't see it that way. He could have been a little clearer, but what I hear him say is that only Hillary can make the decision to quit the race, but he has chosen to go for unity, to rally behind one candidate NOW (the best candidate in his opinion.)
At your second link we have Carville calling Richardson's endorsement "a betrayal." Is this just another form of spin?
Hillary's camp has been pushing for Superdelegates to vote their mind, independently of the pledged delegates, and when someone does it, they cry betrayal.
Following Hillary's mottos becomes twistedly confusing!
March 22, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Richardson's stance seems to be that Hillary has a right to stay in for now, but just not too much longer, and certainly not all the way until the convention, lest it imperil the Democratic Party's chances in the fall."
The above shows a superb mastery of the obvious.
March 22, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm, I'm happy about the Richardson endorsement but must admit that he's wasn't specially courageous in backing down from suggesting that Hillary should drop out of the race before any more harm is done.
As far as those who are saying that the endorsement was a stab in the back or traitorous; first of all, a stab in the back would have been if he made the endorsement without talking to Clinton first, and second, are you actually saying that cronyism or nepotism should outweigh Richardson endorsing the person he thinks is the best candidate? Unfortunately that's what my pathetic leaders here in western PA did...
March 22, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I read about the "upset" reaction that the Clintons made to the phone call, intimidation, sliming, accusations, 30-pieces of silver comments, all standard fare for the Clintons. And then the fact that Hillary has the highest negative ratings of all the candidates.
Before this is all over the Clintons will be contending a close race with Bush on negative numbers.
I don't see how the Clintons can explain away the over 1 million contributions that Obama has received from the public.
Richardson was being pragmatic, but the Clintons will slime him as well. Standard Clinton behavior.
March 22, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
What Gov. Richardson is doing, skilled diplomat that he is, is offering Sen. Clinton a face-saving, honorable way out.
Will she (a) have the sense to recognize it for what it is, and (b) have the good judgment to exercise that option? It is now nearly mathematically impossible for her to win the nomination without backroom skulduggery. Her campaign staff, by all accounts, knows this is true. Does she?
With her recently-cited money troubles and the narrowing, now nearly closed window of opportunity for her candidacy, look for the defections to begin within the next few weeks.
March 22, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Richardson's stance would be better summed up as "she has a right to stay in, but she shouldn't".
March 22, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Also.... ok, she has a right to continue... but not a right to do damage to the party. Thus, he seems to want her to look toward unity and away from the kitchen sink.
March 22, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
This was my take as well. He even made a few comments to that effect before OhXas. I suspect had Obama won Texas the endorsement would have come sooner to start to bring closure to the process. The polls are beginning to show that a prolonged - negative Dem fight is only benefitting McCain.
March 22, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama did win Texas. I know it rarely is acknowledged in the MSM, but Obama won Texas.
March 22, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
As an Obama supporter I'd like to have seen it the endorsement come earlier, too, but Richardson (especially if he's just an opportunist/former Clinton lackey) will have a real impact with the Supers. After all, the "opportunist" description fits the bill for most of the Supers who are appointed officials and not elected ones. The Clinton campaign sees Richardson as a rat...the first rat off a sinking ship and they're terrified.
March 22, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let me take this moment to criticize TPM's decision to ridicule the Clinton campaign by posting the responses of readers MR and DT to vote a straight GOP ticket) together with James Carville (who implies that Hillary is Jesus and Obama the Christ-killer on Easter Weekend no less!)
Well, many members of my family support Clinton, but no one in our family is nearly as offensive, spiteful, or downright malicious as these three! Please be fair!
March 22, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry for the garble, I meant to point out that of the two reader comments:
(One of whom calls Obama "a glorified motivational speaker" and the other who promises to vote a straight GOP ticket)
Perhaps a cut and paste error. But I wonder if they might be Obama misinformation
March 22, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Go spend some time in the comments of Hillaryis44.org, Taylormarsh.com and MyDD.com and then come back and tell us whether you think they're part of some sinister Obama disinformation campaign.
March 22, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I second that. Those comments by DT and MR are positively diplomatic, compared to the slime that's on Hillaryis44.org.
For those who haven't been there, you might need disinfectant after visiting. The site is vile.
March 22, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
One commenter at Hillaryis44 explained Bill Clinton's 'clever' meme-starting strategy to the other Hill cultists at that site.
To paraphrase, the commenter said Bill C. knows exactly how to get an idea planted [like McCain and Hillary love America, and, by assumption, Obama doesn't 'love America'; or like Obama won SC 'just like Jesse Jackson'-ergo, Obama is painted as 'the black guy'] in a way that is carefully crafted to be ambiguous. The seed idea gets planted in folks brains, then watered and nourished by the subsequent back and forth public arguing about what Bill Clinton meant.
This rovian strategy was lauded at the site, and you can be sure, there was not one criticism amonst the folks over there in response. They really are lower than low.
March 22, 2008 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mark,
I undersatand your point about the two (not intelligent sounding) letters from Hillary's supporters.
I can't find Carville's comment TOGETHER with those two letters, as you state.
However, I think is quite correct for TPM to report on (Hillary's advisor) Carville's twisted and insane Easter comments.
March 22, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
It should be beneath Josh Marshall to troll so transparently. First, post a negative story about Hillary. Then, taunt Hillary supporters for not responding. Then, mock the tone of the responses that were produced by the taunt. That's the type of thing I expect from Jon Aravosis.
March 22, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
March 22, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Richardson's stance seems to be that Hillary has a right to stay in for now, but just not too much longer..."
I think you're stretching a bit here. I don't see support (in the material quoted here or in the NYT article) for your interpretation that Richardson is implying that she doesn't have the *right* to stay in the race until the bitter end.
On the contrary, it seems to me that his point is that while she has the *right* to say in, the *responsible* thing for her to do is to step aside.
March 22, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
How many of the 425 and so people who recommended that Plan B do you think are people who genuinely think Obama got bribed by Saddam ?
Wanna bet ?
March 22, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Plan B doesn't work, they're going to Plan C: hold their breath until they turn blue and stomp their feet really hard.
March 22, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
On an amusing side note, someone on a Kos thread claimed that saying "Hillary Clinton is stomping her feet" was a sexist image.
March 22, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is !
HER is a feminine pronoun. SEXIST @!
March 22, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I think someone responded "Okay, it's stomping its feet. Happy?"
March 22, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Say what you want about the Internet bringing out the worse in people, it always provides little gems like that.
March 22, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Looks like the Clintons have decided that Northern Ireland is no longer of any political use to them, so Bill has dropped it from his schedule, and Peace Maker Hillary never even planned on attending:
Ireland
Clinton pulls out of NI conference
Thursday, 20 March 2008 16:44
Former US President Bill Clinton has pulled out of a major conference in Belfast next month.
The event was organised to mark the 10th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement.
Mr Clinton withdrew from the 10 April conference, organised by the US Ireland Alliance, because of changes to his schedule.
Trina Vargo, president of the US-Ireland Alliance, said, 'It is an historic occasion and while we would have welcomed President Clinton's participation, we are looking forward to this opportunity to bring together the negotiators on one stage for the benefit of the George Mitchell Scholars and their peers on the island of Ireland who will be in the audience.'
Other guests confirmed to attend the event include Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness, General John de Chastelain, who oversaw paramilitary decommissioning, former and present SDLP leaders John Hume and Mark Durkan, Ulster Unionist leader Sir Reg Empey and ex-Northern Ireland secretary Paul Murphy.
The US government is helping to sponsor the event.
Story from RTÉ News:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0320/northpolitics.html
March 22, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
"to bring together the negotiators on one stage"
Makes you wonder if hillary was not even invited and would never have been able to sit on that stage...and thus it would have been evident that her role was not as important as she would like people to believe. (bill's presence would only have made that obvious, I suppose)
March 22, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
The lesson is: Josh should not print letters from crazy people.
March 22, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
For that matter, Josh shouldn't ask for crazy letters, then mock them for being crazy. That's troll behavior.
March 22, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's staying in the race is not about party unity at all. She is too far behind to win the nomination fairly. She has gone into high gear with a drive to bloody Obama.
For pete sake's they are about to push the idea that Obama is anti-american. Wright's tapes were 2 fold. The first was the racial angle which they believed would be the most incendiary. It failed to knock out Obama although it had him wobbling on his feet before the bell rang and they went to their respective corners.
Now they are going to ratchet up the 'racist Wright' angle again, given the polling data shows that bluecollarmales and rednecks found Wrights remarks to not just be those of an 'angry racist black man' but ANTI-AMERICAN! The USKKKA and God DAMN America is unpatriotic to them.
Thus we have Bill on the stomp now pushing the line that only Hill and McCain are the candidates in this race that 'love their country' and we need to have them in the general so we can move forward without the rest of these distractions (racism and anti-patriotism)
Limbaugh was pushing the anti-patriotic stuff all along with the muslim smears. The Clintons have decided to join up with the right and push the same nasty vile rumors.
Frankly, it is unbeleivable to watch. It lets you know just how crass and craven the Clintons are despite having already been in the WH.
Passportgate is about anti-americanism.
Bill and Hill are playing the same GOP cards against Obama that the GOP played against them or others. GHerberBush used Willy Horton. The Clintons used Wright. GHerberBush used Bill's passport file to allege Bill renounced his citizenship and create suspicion around his Moscow visits. Bill and Hill have rifled through Obama's passport to come up with some anti-american evidence. Hillary has already said on the campaign trail that Obama has not visited any NATO countries.
This is about to get very nasty and ugly.
So while Richardson claims she has a 'right' to stay in this race.
Democrats should be outraged and shutting this down as it is not good for our Presidential nominee to be piled on in the primaries so that McCain can win in the fall.
March 22, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, Jesus H. Christ. Clinton said bupkes about McCain, and you know it, if you can read the original statement. He's not suggesting that only Hillary and McCain love their countries, he's calling out the media for their love of distractions, wishing that candidates would be covered and assessed on their merits and not on gotchas. Obama MADE THE SAME POINT in the "race" speech, about what we _could_ do, and shouldn't, "Not this time." Remember? It was all inspiring-like? You're being bamboozled. Again.
March 22, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
FlipyrWhig
Can't even comprehend how you twisted Clintons statements to be about the media, despite him clearly saying their were only 2 candidates in the race who love their country. All of a sudden you think this is about the media? Give. me. a. break.
If Bill is wishing that the media cover candidates on their merits and not gotchas he would have directed his comments to the race that matters most for him and that is between Hillary and Obama. He didn't do so. Billary is a skilled politician and he said precisely what he meant on the very day we learned that Obama's passport was breached three times, that only two candidates will enable the general to be about policies BECAUSE they 'love their country'...McCain and Hillary. How you twist that into something else is beyond me. Perhaps, it is your moniker at work.
Surely you understand that it is the candidates themselves who create the media distractions? Billary injected race, drugs, Wright, NAFTAgate and disenfranchisement of voters in the race, all in the same manner they are now injecting anti-amricanism in the race. Their STATEMENTS. WORDS matter!!
PassportgateII is about anti-americanism and Billary is already voicing that meme.
March 22, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
You fell for it. Congratulations. Welcome to the new idiocy. I'm out.
March 22, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
OMG
Look at this:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/124524
This is no coincidence, Eleanor is hammering on the same anti-Americanism as Bill did.
Moreover, it was Newsweek in 92 that lead with the story that Bill was unAmerian, when it was 'leaked' from the State Dept that the FBI was investigating him.
Politics is the same game over and over. Bill has NOT FORGOT what happened to him.
What makes this worse is that Bill was attacked in the genral in the LAST weeks of the campaign by the OPPOSITE party. Obama is being attacked by the defacto LEADER of his OWN party!!!
Here's what Bill recalls:
Passportgate I
In 1992, for instance, George H.W. Bush’s White House pulled strings at the State Department and at U.S. embassies in Europe to uncover and to disseminate derogatory information about Bill Clinton in the final weeks of the campaign.
The Bush assault on Clinton’s patriotism moved into high gear on the night of Sept. 30, 1992, when assistant secretary of state Elizabeth Tamposi – under pressure from the White House – ordered three aides to pore through Clinton’s passport files in search of a purported letter in which Clinton supposedly sought to renounce his citizenship.
Though no letter was found, Tamposi still injected the suspicions into the campaign by citing a small tear in the corner of Clinton’s passport application as evidence that someone might have tampered with the file, presumably to remove the supposed letter. She fashioned that speculation into a criminal referral to the FBI.
Within hours, someone from the Bush camp leaked word about the confidential FBI investigation to reporters at Newsweek magazine. The Newsweek story about the tampering investigation hit the newsstands on Oct. 4. The article suggested that a Clinton backer might have removed incriminating material from Clinton’s passport file, precisely the spin that the Bush people wanted.
Immediately, President George H.W. Bush took the offensive, using the press frenzy over the tampering story to attack Clinton’s patriotism on a variety of fronts, including his student trip to Moscow in 1970. With his patriotism challenged, Clinton saw his ONCE_FORMIDABLE LEAD SHRINK . PANIC spread through the Clinton campaign.
March 22, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The obvious motivation for the turncoat Richardson is that he is sucking up to Obama in hopes of being the VP.
March 22, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was okay for him to run against her but he's not allowed to endorse anybody but her? How's that work?
March 22, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because everybody knows that Senator Clinton will be the next President of the United States. All else is just details.
March 22, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I personally find the comments that Richardson is a 'traitor' insulting and reeking of spoiled grapes. I think that had it not been for his loyalty to the Clintons, Richardson would have endorsed long ago and would have made enough of a difference in Texas that this race would be over.
I can't imagine the Obama camp ever making comments like that. If Edwards chose to endorse Hillary, I would expect his comments to be something along the line of 'We are dissappointed but respect his decision'.
It is ridiculous to think that Politics should be determined by loyalty and not what is best for the party or more precisely the country. Talk about being unpatriotic.
March 22, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a little OT but Gallup just released their tracking poll and Obama is up 48-45. Yesterday it was Clinton 46-44. While I am sure that is in part just Obama coming out of his Wright slump, maybe Richardson gave him a bit of a boost.
On the down side Rasumussen has Clinton ahead 46-44. (yesterday it was Obama 46-44) However, historically they seem to be a little slower to measure trends. They showed Obama up the entire last few weeks so it looks like they are now starting to pick up the Wright effect. If that is the case they will probably show negative Obama numbers for several more days but then likely begin to follow the other polls showing Obama on the rise again.
March 22, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Marginal Player and Hillary are on the same page. Here is how he describes himself:
# Age: 52
# Politics: DLC Moderate
# Party: DEM (HILLARY), McCain otherwise
Just like Hilllary, he endorses McCain over Obama.
Hillary is the new Lieberman, and Marginal Player approves of her message.
March 22, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Richardson would have endorsed HRC if she hadn't adopted kitchen-sink strategy. For a smart woman, I am amazed that she chose to surround herself with such a vile and incompetent election team.
March 22, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Superdelegate and new Obama-backer Gov. Bill Richardson told the New York Times
in February that a superdelegate's vote "should reflect the vote of my state, it should represent the vote of my constituency. It shouldn’t be because you’re a fund-raiser or a big-shot delegate. Superdelegates should reflect their state or constituency. If superdelegates decide this nomination, it’s going to look like big-shot politicians and fat-cats decided who should be president."
Er…Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, won New Mexico, Governor."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/richardson-on-s.html#comments
Wow...so Richardson, Kerry, Kennedy...
So much for Obama saying the superdelegates should follow the will of their people. Oh well, I guess that was just another political ploy.
March 22, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would you prefer that "he believe the same thing on Wednesday as he did on Monday, regardless of what happened on Tuesday"?
In February the kitchen sink was still attached to the pipes in the kitchen. Now it's been thrown at Obama, along with the muck that was in the pipes. I know it bucks the trend, but I respect politicians who are willing to change their minds.
March 22, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ben,
I would prefer that Obama actually took a principled stance for once. He was the one telling us superdelegates need to reflect the will of their people. Now, he's telling us they should exercise their judgment so long as that leads them to him.
Why should Clinton not attack Obama? I don't understand why that should change your principles. It's a PRIMARY. He's running for POTUS.
He is trying to pull a character assassination on Clinton. Oddly, he was the one who told us character attacks have no place in politics. Oh well, once again no principles when he's up against the wall.
March 22, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
another_reader,
What are you talking about??
Obama knows the Superdelegates are free to vote as they want, he is asking them to respect the will of the People.
Richardson is following the will of the People. He is endorsing the one with:
- The most pledged delegates
- The most popular vote
- The most states won
- The most donors and committed voters
- (And the best character, to boot!)
(PS: The will of the People, not just the people in New Mexico.)
March 22, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps you should read Richardson's quote again.
March 22, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Question: who, exactly, is his constituency? Does he represent the entire state or just the Democrats? If just the Democrats, does he represent those who voted, or is he allowed to take into consideration those whose votes might have been suppressed? Is he allowed to consider those who have changed their minds since they voted?
Note that the speech you're referring to is talking as much about how they shouldn't decide as how they should.
Finally, (a) show me where Obama ever said that superdelegates should vote the same way their state or district voted. (b) do you find the Clinton camp to be equally hypocritical for suddenly claiming that he should follow the will of his constituents (or at least their interpretation of that will)?
March 22, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Perhaps Obama's campaign isn't being careful enough, though, because lately it has been sending out contradictory messages. On the one hand, it's calling for the superdelegates to reflect the will of the people (problematic for the Obama campaign if the will of the people is decided state by state, since it lost in Massachusetts, from which some of its most prominent superdelegates hail), and on the other it's suggesting that the superdelegates should fulfill their traditional role and vote for what they think is good for the Democratic Party and the country.
For example, at a candidate forum Monday, Obama himself said,
We've got to make sure that whoever wins the most votes, the most states, the most delegates, that they are the nominee. I think it would be problematic if either Senator Clinton or myself came in with having won the most support from voters, and that was somehow overturned by party insiders. I think the people would feel as if the voters' voices had been discounted.
Now, as you know, these are all allocated on a congressional district-by-district basis, and so, you know, how folks -- how superdelegates want to vote their conscience, that's up to them. But I do know that the bottom line is, our goal is to win the most delegates from the voters. And if we've accomplished that, I think we're going to be able to lay fair claim to the nomination.
But in an appearance on NBC -- also on Monday -- David Axelrod, Obama's campaign manager, seemed to contradict his candidate, saying, "I think that the role of the superdelegate is to act as sort of a party elder. These are elected officials from across the country and they're supposed to exercise their judgment as to what would be best for the party. And as they look at this, they need to decide who would be the strongest candidate for the party."
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/02/13/obama_superdelegates/
Once again, where is the "new politics"???
March 22, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're confusing Obama's words with how someone else is interpreting them. He said specifically, in what you just quoted, that it's up to the superdelegates to vote their conscience. Also note that he said the person who wins the most *delegates* (not just pledged delegates) should be the one who wins. This is probably at least partly a response to Bill Clinton's assertion that even pledged delegates should feel free to change their mind.
March 22, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ben,
Your questions are the exact reason that the Clinton camp said superdelegates should exercise independent judgment from the first place, while the Obama camp said they should follow the (ambiguous) "will of the people." They did this to make it look like the Clinton camp was trying to steal the nomination somehow. Disgusting and underhanded. What I expect from the Obama campaign at this point.
March 22, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your attributing motives to their actions when you don't really know what their motives are. I'll admit that I'm guilty of the same thing, but from my perspective it's exactly the other way around.
March 22, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is the character assassination you're speaking of? He wasn't the one who compared Richardson to Judas. He isn't the one accusing (rightly or wrongly) Bill Clinton of playing politics with patriotism. He isn't the one playing guilt-by-association.
What is it that he has done that you're calling character assassination?
March 22, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I'd be fine with following that logic...since Obama has won twice as many states, I haven't done the math lately but I am pretty sure that if the super d's voted per the vote in their state (yes, which would include Kerry and Kennedy, and Richardson going to Clinton), then Obama would win.
No matter how you slice it.. Obama is our nominee. This just isn't Hillary's time.
March 22, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aren't the Clintons relying on superdelegates going against the tide of voters? Your protest doesn't make any sense. I didn't realize "independent judgment" was code for "you must vote for Hillary."
March 22, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
It does make sense. Obama says one thing when it's to his advantage, then says another when that changes to a disadvantage. That's old politics.
Hillary will win the popular vote and will win the nomination. Popular vote is more democratic than these sham caucus delegates. Of course, Obama can only win through disenfranchisement--MI, FL, caucuses.
March 22, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ben, for some reason I can't reply to you, so I'll do it here.
Perhaps you missed that the new Obama strategy is to attack Hillary's character.
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/obama_campaign_attacks_hillary.php
Like I've said from the beginning--I don't think Obama is a new sort of politician at all, just a gifted one. This proves it to me. I think the country deserves the experienced and capable one now--Hillary--and Obama needs more experience.
March 22, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please note that the headline is inaccurate. They're not calling Clinton untrustworthy. They're responding to her assertions that he has electability issues by pointing out that the polls also state she has electability issues vis-à-vis the perception of her trustworthiness. That said, I'm not particularly fond of this strategy as it smacks of the kind of thing the Clinton campaign would do. (We're not saying she's untrustworthy, we're merely stating that others have said it.)
That said, I've never thought Obama was anything other than a gifted politician who was best suited to (a) win in November, and (b) get good policies enacted after winning. Don't get me wrong—I like the guy, but I don't pretend he's some saint.
March 22, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, as opposed to Hillary being against FL/MI counting before she was for it???
Now that she needs those votes it is a whole different story.
Like being for NAFTA before she was against it for Ohio, like being for the war before she was against it, like being for stricter credit laws before she was against them...
People in glass houses and all...
March 22, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is to you, mewfapalooza, and Ben. I am not saying these things to say that Hillary doesn't do the same thing. I think they both act hypocritically at times. But, like the Obama memo from a couple days ago, he runs on not "parsing your words and misrepresenting your position" for political convenience. When you clearly are doing that your entire campaign is an empty promise. You can't usher in an age of new politics when you embody the tactics of old politics.
March 22, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
You didn't answer my question. Why is it okay, theoretically, for superdelegates to flock to Clinton at the convention by exercising their "independent judgment" but it's not okay for Richardson to do so now? If your point is that he should wait until the convention...well, why aren't you chiding every superdelegate who has already thrown their support for Obama or Clinton already? Your argument (shared by the Clinton camp) seems to be "superdelegates should exercise their independent judgment...and clearly if they were rational and wanted to beat the Republicans in November, they would be supporting Hillary." Do you fail to realize that some superdelegates have different opinions about what makes someone a strong candidate?
"Obama says one thing when it's to his advantage, then says another when that changes to a disadvantage. That's old politics." -- ...Clinton *doesn't* do this? Seriously? Or is she less reprehensible for this because she's been consistently negative for longer?
March 22, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, she does do it. Point to me where I said she doesn't. However, her campaign doesn't rest on the premise that she's new politics. Her campaign doesn't try to sell her as some sort of transcender of all things past. That's Obama's campaign, and it's a false assertion. Therefore, to me, he is wrong on his number one issue, and if he doesn't have the judgment to run his campaign on something that actually exists then I fault his judgment.
March 22, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Richardson's response to those who think he betrayed the Clintons:
"I owe a lot to the Clinton family but I served well. I paid it back in service to the country."
Can you fathom that? The country is supposed to come first, not personal loyaties.
March 22, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm mystified by anyone who feels passionate about the Clintons.
March 22, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
The most telling remark by Richardson yesterday was his invoking Obama's 'race in America' speech as reason enough to trust him as the party's standard bearer. Doubtless Richardson gave some thought as to how how he would have speechified in that make-or-break address. Indeed, it's interesting to wonder just how differently he would have tackled it, given his latino roots and perspective. The fact he was mightily impressed leads me to figure so were other superdelegates. I'm convinced the Man From Illinois likely put to rest any lingering doubts about his candidacy with that speech, and Clinton knows it. Hence, she feels as though she was kicked while she was down, and is righteously bitter about it. She's only human, after all.
As to Carville? Essentially he said, "Because we made you, we own you". He's so enamoured of his own insider brilliance that he fails to see how intrinsically insulting his remark truly is. I would guess it too won't be overlooked by those remaining fence-sitting superdelegates- leastwise those who possess a shred of self respect. They're only human too, and I doubt they appreciate the implication inherent in that foolish statement.
March 22, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Senator Clinton indeed has every right to stay in the race as long as she likes, as long as she would take the high road and give positive reasons to vote for her instead of doing everything she can to kneecap the party frontrunner and, even were he to not win the nomination, one of the most talented rising stars in Democratic politics.
Unfortunately we know just how often the Clintons choose the high road when they can take the low one.
March 22, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama remains up in Rasmussen; retakes lead in Gallup. On a fine day like this it's even fun to find I have something in common with MP.
Excerpt from another of my posts:
"Bill Richardson, just another despicable politician who occasionally displays flashes of integrity. Then again, perhaps his motivation was merely to ingratiate himself with America's next president so he can recycle himself in the foreign policy sphere. Perhaps Richardson's goal is to "fix NAFTA" with sanctions against Mexico and Canada?"
There's no denying that this is an example of how Obama is capable -- even when he's not trying! -- of bringing Democrats like me and wannabe Republicans like MP together.
I'm telling you, MP, that man can work miracles!
March 22, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
i remember looking at a clip of hillary's reaction to the speech in the first few hours it came out when she said she was glad he made a speech. and i remember thinking she had the look of someone realizing a rubicon had been crossed.
obama took the nomination with that performance and she knew it. obama threaded the needle when it mattered most.
as a new yorker, i can't help thinking that obama reminds me a bit like eli manning during the post-season. with both i want them to do well but i am always apprehensive. they never do things how i think they should. i'm always nervous but they never seem that way. it's like they both know their way and all you can do is sit back and have (gasp) faith. that speech was the final drive in the superbowl. when obama announced last weekend that he would be giving a speech i though to myself "he's wants the ball and this is it". i don't know how eli or obama do what they do but i've been impressed with both when it mattered most.
March 22, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could somebody -- ideally a Clintonista -- please explain how the "traitor" applies here?
I think I get what "traitor" means. It's somebody who betrays somebody or something -- a nation, an army, a friend, a team, a spouse, or something like that.
So how does this apply to Richardson? Are we truly to believe that, having been appointed (twice) to public office by a certain president, he is henceforth obligated to loyally support all the members of that president's family, for any office in the land, under any and all circumstances, regardless of what other candidates might be running, and irrespective of his judgment of where the best interests of the United States lie? Is that really how the American political system is supposed to work?
To me, this sounds like something other than an advanced democracy. Rule-by-family-loyalty is the ethic of, among other things, the Mafia. Isn't it?
And if I'm wrong -- if that's NOT what the Clinton side is arguing -- then what exactly is Richardson a "traitor" to?
Somebody please enlighten me.
March 22, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Richardson was not offering Clinton a 'face saving' way out. He was trying to get Clinton to quit so Obama wouldn't have to risk any damage trying to beat her. Clinton should stay in the race through the convention, as long as she still wins enough votes to make the outcome competitive and questionable. Unless Obama wins enough delegates outright to claim the nomination before the convention, then Clinton stays in. Anything said to the contrary is just campaign spin, including much of the threats involving McCain.
March 22, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Smells Like Bullshit
March 22, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Words can't describe Hillary's situation. Perhaps music can:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPz4sLMJjr4
March 22, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Smells Like Last Dog's Last Poop
The Clintons are parasites in the bowels of the Democratic Party
March 22, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just wish the democratic party would sh*t them out of their bowels. I am sooooo sick of the clintons and their garbage. I wish they would just go away. Especially, mr. bill. He should just STFU. They are in the wrong party. He ran his administration republican-lite and that's the game plan for the third term. We need a democratic administration, not another republican one.
March 22, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think Richardson's endorsement is going to make anyone change their vote, but boy, has it knocked discussion of Wright and "typical white person" right off the radar screen. Thanks, Bill.
And for all the Clinton supporters complaining that Bill Richardson isn't doing what he said he thought should be done, several weeks ago, you do realize for your candidate to win, the remaining uncommitted superdelegates have to do exactly what Richardson did yesterday, but in favor of Hillary?
As for the "he's just the same old, same old". Sorry. That dog won't hunt any longer. No other politician alive today could have given the speech he did on Tuesday. None. Tear him down for being the same-old, same-old, but that's just stale, borrowed rhetoric.
March 22, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that the Obama campaign needs to keep running a good, "high-road" campaign, with renewed integrity. Even if he is winning, now is not the time to get lazy. He must be on top of his game. Also, if he does end up up being the nominee then he is in essence campaigning for the presidency right now. Voters and the American people are still watching, even those who have aleady voted.
Also, Clinton will keep trying to use "un-electabilty" argument and she has said it herself that her husband did not get nomination until June, that seems to be her strategy as well. They will look for any mistake etc. Obama makes. Also, we all know politics is shady business so I don't think we the people need to consider it a done-deal even if the math shows it to be. We cannot stop paying attention I guess is what I am saying!
Further, as for PUERTO RICO, it was recently changed from a caucus to a primary. Clinton has publicly told Puerto Ricans that she will offer them a vote for independence, and part of the island of Vieques (which is a big issue for Puerto Ricans). So in my mind she is basically offering them the sun and the moon. So she is not out of the game yet, while it would be good for her to step down for the good of the party, I don't see it happening.
I don't think it is over yet, because the Clinton's are indeed very tenacious. She is a scorpio (as am I) and take this with a grain of salt, but scorpios never give up, even with the deck stacked against em'! I think anything is possible since delegates are not committed by law till the convention, right?
March 22, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no law—only the party rules. However, yes, you are correct that even by party rules all delegates are able to change their minds between now and the convention. That said, unless there's an excellent reason, of course, doing so would be disastrous for the party.
March 22, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another problem for Hillary... number of BO's new 2008 donors is fast approaching 2 million... in spite of all the bad press...
https://donate.barackobama.com/page/smartproxy/my.barackobama.com/page/contribute_c/sofar08_lp/graphic
March 22, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's really impressive, groundbreaking in fact.
What can Hillary be thinking, when she allows her campaign to turn toxic? Is she in massive denial around losing the nomination? Is she unconcerned with how this would effect Obama's electability in the fall?
Does she care at all, how all of this will effect African American and young voters, all of whom have been totally energized by the Obama candidacy?
The only way any of this makes sense, is if the Clintons are hoping Obama does lose in the fall, and they plan to run in 2012, figuring that McCain will be to old to run for a second term. If true, that would put their self absorption on a level, second to none.
March 22, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's time for elected and party officials such as Richardson, to put pressure on Clinton to withdraw.
Since it's mathematically impossible for her to win, her only recourse is to go nuclear. The fact that the media is perfectly happy with this situation, is discouraging, to say the least.
As so many have said, if Obama was in her position, he would be under intense pressure to bow out.
March 22, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
We know US history, so as I said, we the people must keep watch! Party politics, there is always some exception to some rule etc.! haha. Expect the Clinton camp to find this exception to the rule!
Obama must keep taking the high road, garnering support, campaigning with the same type of intelligence, determination and clarity, focusing on his experience, legislation, policies, plans etc.
Also, anything can happen in terms of the economy, war, global issues. We don't know what could happen in the world, in the news, etc. new issues to anticipate, crises, natural disasters etc. All campaigns must anticipate this. The world is always changing, transforming etc....! Foreign policy stuff could always pop-up and all candidates must be in the know, 100%. The American people I think expect this.
March 22, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
All very true.
Hillary has a way of dominating the news cycle with negative campaigning. Obama needs to figure out a way, to as you say, stay front and center without stooping to Hillary's level.
On another note, Obama needs to figure out a way for Hillary to have to pay a price, for her toxicity. Sometimes a light, joking touch is best, sometimes not. It won't be easy, but if anyone can figure it out, he can.
March 22, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or maybe Edwards, Pelosi and Gore could surprise us...surprises can be good and bad...
March 22, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's disappointing and surprising that Edwards hasn't endorsed. But since most of his people will vote for Obama anyway, it's not a huge deal that he hasn't.
More than endorsements, I'd like to see some Dem party big wigs, put heat on Hillary to at least keep her campaign positive, if not drop out. Since she is unlikely to do the former, it's time for her colleagues to turn the heat up.
March 22, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reading comments here considering what Richardson meant in his follow-up comments to his endorsement; i.e.,whether he saying that Hillary should drop out now, or drop out later, or that it was her "right" to stay in but that she "should" drop out, etc.
I had a different take on it ... I had the sense that he was using "walk-around the question" language because he's simply a nice guy. Wants to be respectful of people, including Clinton; i.e, just not his style to lay down the law to her. He's always struck me as a guy whose heart portion is as big as his intellect portion. Which I like about him.
March 22, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Richardson then:
and
Bill Richardson now:
Would the real Bill Richardson please stand up? Ahhh, there you are... Governor, you are, of course, aware that Senator Clinton did win your state of New Mexico. Right, then aren't you going against the will of the people of your state by now endorsing Sen. Obama? If so, don't you think that having bucked the will of your people as a superdelegate by endorsing someone who lost your state, you have just forcefully made the point that Superdelegates are free to vote their conscience? That being the case, and Obama seeming more vulnerable by the day, why should Sen Clinton drop out of the race, which is as tied as now it can be?
Inquiring minds wanna know...
March 22, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, since Feb 5, 68 superdelegates have gone to Obama.
Hillary has gotten less than 5 in that same time period.
Yes, the superdelegate tide is turning, and thanks to Clinton's own arguments about the supers making their own mind, neither she nor her supporters really have any right to complain.
This might actually end before PA!
March 23, 2008 1:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, Richardson is contradicting himself. If it brings you comfort to emphasize this point, I daresay that you are welcome to whatever consolation you can still find at this point.
I would say, however, that I thought that your ilk were of the opinion that caucuses do not really really provide an accurate picture of the will of the electorate anyway. Mind you, I do not believe that myself, but the meme certainly seems to have a great deal of currency among those on your side of this debate. If one does not think that caucuses really reflect the will of the voters, then I am not sure how one arrives at the conclusion that Richardson is bucking the will of his constituents.
Mind you, I am willing to agree that he is bucking the will of his constituents (or at least the will of a very slim majority of them), but I can arrive at that conclusion because I think that caucuses really do count for something. It is harder, however, to see how this claim might still be regarded as supportable if one thought that caucuses are too "undemocratic" to be understood to reflect the will of the electorate.
March 23, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have never been among those who'd claimed that caucuses where not legit. They are because they was the rule of engagement that was established at the very beginning and the candidates knew them from the outset. Therefore, it makes no sense to complain this late in the game about rules that were already present at the beginning, which allows me to reproduce here something along the same lines that I just posed at TNR in response to the following increasingly irritating meme:
It is time for people to stop this line of fallacious reasoning. It is ludicrous, if not outright stupid. Hillary did not make up the rules of engagement. The party did. The number of pledged delegates required to win the nomination was established by the party. At this point neither she nor Obama would reach it. And out of more than 2k pledged delegates required to win, the two are separated by just over a hundred. With Obama looking weaker after being scrutinized for the first time ever during the contest, Hillary's chances at winning the lion's share of the remaining states/delegates look every good. In the end, neither would reach the required number of pledged delegates, so that the superdelegates would have to settle the nomination. However, it would be foolish to assume that the superdelegates would just automatically anoint Obama because he has a narrow lead in pledged delegates. If that were the case, they would already have ended this thing by putting Obama over the top, since Hillary cannot mathematically overtake Obama's lead. But things are not that simple, for a number of reasons, but chief among them is that in the end, the superdelegates' only basis for supporting either Obama or Clinton will be, 'who can bring the bacon home against McCain?', and at this point no one knows! That the superdelegates have chosen to the take a "wait and see" attitude, and are willing to let this thing play itself out to the end plainly reflects their uncertainty about Obama's ability to win in November. That is why the pattern of his wins so far becomes important. He's won the deep red states and a few purple states that he has no chance of winning in November! You wanted for Hillary to bow out before the Ohio and Texas contests, but that would have been foolish on her part! Obama had to prove to the superdelgates that he can deliver the knock out punch and yet again he failed to do so, which gave the superdelegates -- who seemed ready at that point to jump in for Obama -- a pause. But after Obama's 20-year old relationship with the hate-filled Reverend Dr. Wright surfaced and raised serious and legitimate questions about Barack Obama's judgment and what he really believes in, you can bet that many superdelegates are now more than ever determined to "wait and see" before they endorse. Obama looks increasingly vulnerable, and should Hillary finish this contest with the momentum by trouncing Obama in PA, WV, and carrying a state or two (IN, NC) that Obama is expected to carry, all bets would be off. This thing would go all the way to Denver, as it should UNDER the party's own rules. As Richardson's endorsement of Obama just showed, the superdelegates are not bound to support a candidate just because he or she won a given state. If that were the case, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry would have to support Hillary, since she won MA by 13 points (driving a stake into the heart of the argument of those who said that Hillary really did not win NM). So what should we expect going forward? Most superdelegates are going to "wait and see", and let this things play itself out, which means that:
1. Obama has better to hope that the Wright issue would not have damaged him too badly, and that it would go away.
2. No other damaging issues would surface to cast more doubt on Obama's ability to win against McCain.
3. Obama would finish strong and have the 'big mo' when it is all said and done.
4. There remains the question of what to do with the FL and MI delegates. Failure to resolve this issue satisfactorily could anger the voters in both states, which would almost certainly cost the Dems the election. Thus, this is also still pretty much a wild card.
What won't happen going forward is Hillary dropping out. She won't because (a) this thing is too close for her to give up and (b) she owes it to those who have supported her this far to continue fighting. She did not make the rules of engagement, and if this election has taught us anything at all, it is that she is a fighter. Get used to that idea and stop pushing the foolishness that Hillary should drop out for the "good of the party." The party made up the ridiculous rules of engagement, which she is just playing by!!! She got into this race to win, and with the contest remaining very very close, Obama looking increasingly vulnerable, and most of the rank and file Dems supporting her, you think that Hillary should do the unthinkable and drop out now? This is no longer only about what is good for Hillary. It is about who would be the best Dem nominee for the party, and at this point, no one knows. The superdelegates, by not ending this thing now when they can, seem to want Hillary to continue, and she won't quit, so get used to it.
March 23, 2008 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, for one thing, New Mexico was so close that it took them over a week to figure out who won. I believe Clinton's margin less than 2,000 votes. More than Bush's margin when he stole the 2000 election in Florida, but hardly the kind of mandate a superdelegate should feel he or she needs to honor in the face of a number of other important considerations. I could see it being different if someone wins a state 60-40, or 65-35, etc..
"Spinning" in a different direction is somewhat inconsistent, but it's pretty mild as far as "old politics" go. It's not a negative attack on another candidate. It's not an indirect slap at their patriotism compared to their Republican opponent, for example. It's not calling someone a Judas because they've made a decision about what's best for their Party or their country. Unfortunately, these are just the most recent examples of the real old politics. The kind of old politics that have gotten really old.
March 24, 2008 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was shocked when I found out that the Kennedys put their support behind Obama...that was a slap against Hillary..now Richardson...wow! I am speaking to alot of people who are registered independents who are saying that if Obama is the democratic candidate...they will vote for him against McCain...if Hillary is the candidate..they won't vote for her but will vote for McCain!!! I want a democrat to win!!! I have now switched my support because I believe Hillary at this point is fractionalizing the party too much!! Go Obama!! I'm no Kennedy or Richardson...but you have my support now, Obama!!!
March 22, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink