« Obama Explains His Break From Trinity Church | Home | After Tuesday's Voting, Obama May Be Only 20 Delegates From Clinching Nomination »
Richardson Says Obama Will "Remember" Super-Delegates Who Endorse Before Voting Ends
Buried in today's big New York Times piece on the state of the Democratic Primary is a curious quote from leading Obama supporter Bill Richardson, in which he appears to suggest that there are benefits awaiting super-delegates who've endorsed him before the voting ends -- and not those who wait:
Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, who endorsed Mr. Obama nearly two months ago, recently called Gov. Bill Ritter Jr. of Colorado, who has yet to endorse a candidate. "Hey, Ritter!" Mr. Richardson said. "After June 3, it means nothing. Those who take a little bit of a risk, he'll remember you."
This is a bit hard to read. The sourcing is unclear, and Richardson's tone seems somewhat jocular. But the message is pretty clear.
Richardson doesn't appear to be speaking for the Obama campaign at all here. If this is a message that's being delivered to other super-delegates, it seems like the sort of talk Obama wouldn't -- and shouldn't -- condone, and I suspect he'd denounce it if asked.
Advertisement
"Richardson doesn't appear to be speaking for the Obama campaign at all here."
If this is your true assesment of the situation why is this a news story? It seems that this is one more attempt to assure there is no party unity.
June 1, 2008 8:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
because Richardson is a major, major figure in the Democratic party, obviously
June 1, 2008 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely correct. By the way, I am sure this type of conversation has been occurring with supers since February when he had the pledged delegate lead locked up. It isn't rocket science.
June 1, 2008 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course Obama would denounce this -- won't stop him doing it though. The interesing thing is that Richardson who is politically knowledgeable is finding it advisable to threaten/promise superdelegates because they are not coming on board fast enough -- probably has to do with the drop in Obama's polling versus McCain while Hillary's is rising according to Pollster.
My guess is that Obama's campaign has judged that compromising democratic principle -- cutting the margin the voters in Michigan and Florida gave Hillary and awarding to Obama all the delegates selected by voters who thought they were voting for uncommitted (Yes, I know that on the ground the Congressional District Conventions selected delegates who intend to vote for Obama but there is a big difference between the failure of voters who wanted Edwards and now want Hillary to come in to the conventions and defend their positions and the unDemocratic Party simply taking their votes and awarding them to Obama.) -- looks really bad and so he timed the news about quitting his church -- no I don't really share Father Pfleger's views (I just hung out with him for twenty years and called him one of my morally compasses) -- to step on that coverage.
June 1, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's way to early in the morning to be arguing, but suffice it to say, your facts are incorrect.
June 1, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously. He hung around with Father Pflager for 20 years? Do you have any idea what you're talking about?
These fucking children.
June 1, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hyper,
AJM is right as usual. It's been widely reported that Father Pfleger has been Obama's friend, and by Obama's admission, one of his spiritual mentors for twenty years. Like Wright, he was until recently part of the campaign. Calling commenters "fucking children" does not refute their argument and doesn't exactly advance yours.
Back onto the topic at hand: Greg writes, "Richardson doesn't appear to be speaking for the Obama campaign at all here." But when Richardson says, "he'll remember you" that is exactly what he's doing. Promising favors for votes isn't really new politics but I can't say it's worse than what Jess Jackson, Jr. was doing. But does anyone really believe they'd make these calls without an okay from the campaign?
June 1, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh. My. God.
You mean to tell us that major, MAJOR figures in the Democratic party are calling undeclared Super delegates and twisting their arms?
Someone call the papers!
We've got to stop those presses!
June 1, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Greg what innuendo is left for you now that your girl Hillary is doomed?
It is fun watching the last gasps of the cult of the DLC dinosaurs and their enablers
June 1, 2008 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
How you came to the conclusion Richardson's tone was "jocular" is a mystery to me. But more importantly these out of the blue episodic quotes and citations have become pattern in NYT reporting.
Especially, articles pertaining to McCain appear like jigsaw puzzles gone wrong. They pull quotes out of their asses that have nothing to do with the flow or context of the article. Either they need better reporters, or better editors or ballsy boses.
Anyway, your title is equally stupid. Gov.Ritter is different in stature from a X congressman in the third district of a Y state- though both are super delegates. Ritter being offered benefits for endorsement doesn't transcend to all super-delegates will be offerred benefits for endorsement.
Not a story the way you want to spin.
By the way, Good morning Greg.
June 1, 2008 8:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
gotalife was at the hearing yesterday, here she is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KACQuZVAE3s
June 1, 2008 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Poor Goatlife.
Thrown down the toobz by the Democratic party!
~
June 1, 2008 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Based on the exact words used again and again on the site I can assure you she is Raek, not gotalife.
Anyway, it's funny if you notice the guy behind her, probably a reporter. His face lit up, had a mild smirk and his pen blazed on his notepad. He seemed to saying to himself- "Oh man, it's good shit."
June 1, 2008 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I noticed that. LOL.
June 1, 2008 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
She lives in Manhattan. She's voting for McCain. Manhattan went for Kerry over %81 - Obama will do even better. There will be more nosebleeds in Manhattan on election day than votes for McCain. Including hers.
June 1, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
yeah, she lives in manhattan and she is a second class citizen...
June 1, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
No - she's a second class thinker by virtue of being such a deeply prejudiced individual. But her threat about voting for McCain is comical coming from someone living in Manhattan. Her vote against Obama will be unnoticed - except by her.
June 1, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo!
I am a woman. I have never considered myself a "second class citizen" and I wouldn't take it well at all if someone tried to tell me that I am.
That's just bullshit. These old feminist hags are driving me nuts.
This shit isn't necessary anymore, my dears - get over yourselves and worry about the Real - like Choice.
June 1, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am glad you have never thought of your self as a second class citizen. It is probably because other people never thought of you as a second class citizen, either.
Did you ever wonder why? Perhaps it was all those feminist=hypocrites whose shoulders you are standing on? Sorry we couldn't do it better for you, Tena X, we had to make it up as we went along. But I am sincere that you are reaping the benefits we had to sacrifice for, being called hypocrites is the least of it.
June 1, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Old feminist hags are driving me nuts, too, and I AM one. Whatever we fought for has nothing to do with Hillary's marrying a powerful guy, gripping his coattails and counting on an ascent, after 35 years of "experience" in a compromised arrangement called marriage, to the White House. Tena, girl, you are soooo right.
June 1, 2008 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm old enough to be both -- one of those who fought being treated as a second-class citizen and, in a mid-life carreer change, one who has benefitted greatly from the fact that that is not the general attitude these days. In my experience, the women who are screaming and raving now were (or their predecessors were) screaming and raving then and not very much help to the movement at all. For that matter, except from benefitting from the work of others and having to live through that awkward time of transition, I've never figured out what Hillary Clinton has done for women in general - except to provide a valuable, well-known example of a woman who can succeed in the big leagues.
In any event, I think the confusion here is equating that hostile, angry, self-important person with the women who actually did work in the trenches to change things. There are always hot-headed people around looking for a good fight, and they are rarely the valuable workers.
Related thought -- they just read on Morning Joe an e-mail from a woman who was saying "we're not going to take this lying down," "won't just sit down and be good little girls again". No doubt she calls herself a feminist. I think her comments put the movement for equality BACK a good ways. Translated: "We women aren't grown up enough to take a loss with any grace and when someone who we have decided is our champion loses, we're going to blame it on sexism and totally ignore the things like problems with organization, credibility, etc. that have impact in men's campaigns." Sure as heck doesn't appeal to my sense of sisterly pride!
June 2, 2008 8:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's fucking hilarious.
New bumper sticker:
Bat-shit Insane Ladies for Hillary.
June 1, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Saw that video earlier. Hilarious!
Daily Kos has a must-read post on our new friends, The McCainocrats...
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/1/8216/94358/221/526603
June 1, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
How many supers have announced since last night? My guess is not many. Apparently Bill Richardson's threat isn't nearly as scary as being on Bill Clinton's shit list.
June 1, 2008 9:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
More reporting on quitting his radicals please. The lie on he did not see it coming is absurd.
June 1, 2008 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Huh? Are you still drunk from partying overnight.
June 1, 2008 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
"More reporting on quitting his radicals please."
Shut the fuck up coward...
June 1, 2008 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are so cute. This time your sentence doesn't even make sense! I've tried for the life of me to parse it out but I think you are so beside yourself that you're no longer bound by the rules of English.
June 1, 2008 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I for one welcome everybody - whenever they choose to jump on the bandwagon. We're on the high road. Come on up and enjoy the view!
June 1, 2008 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is a vote thief and is leading the new unDemocratic Party.
June 1, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whose votes was it he stole, exactly? I'm really intersted in this fascinating new grievance you guys are cooking up. Do tell. Whose, votes, exactly, is it he stole? Would you be referring to the 45% of Michigan voters who voted for "uncommitted?" Is that what you're crying about?
Jesus Effing Christ on a Whole Wheat Cracker! By what conceivable stretch of the imagination, even the fever-addled imagination of a Hillary cultist, was Hillary entitled to delagates elected by people who went to the polls specifically to vote against her? Or is it that you are upset that some of them might have been cast by Edwards or Richardson supporters? Did it escape you attention that both of those guys have endorsed Obama and have asked their delegates to support Obama?
June 1, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
The "new politics" in action. If you endorse me now, you'll get something in return.
Fixing Washington is nothing but a new set of backroom deals, it turns out. Obama pays better than Clinton.
What Judas Richardson is REALLY saying is this: remember, Barack, how early on I endorsed you and what it cost me. Now give me that job I want.
June 1, 2008 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama? The Obama who didn't even want to pay street money in Philly? But let me hush. He's not a saint and politics = politics.
June 1, 2008 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo: You don't like Obama and certainly not a big Fan of TPM bloggers- I wonder what attracts you to be one of the first attendees on a sunday morning?
But to be honest I don't mind seeing you though, good morning.
June 1, 2008 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Morning Kash. Good to see you too.
June 1, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're what 0 for 10,000 this primary period on your predictions, right? I'd say quit while you are ahead, but fuck it.
June 1, 2008 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, Pubicola.... hungover from last night's party?
June 1, 2008 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just a little tired from trying to correct the misinformation being spread by you and others. Other than that, I feel great. Thanks for asking.
June 1, 2008 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Aren't you an angel... I hope Obama will remember you too
June 1, 2008 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL. At least you are relative good sport about it all. So have you decided if you are just going to go away or are you going to become Mavericky McSame's #1 cheerleader?
June 1, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm changing my registration tomorrow. My vote is up for grabs now, whoever earns it - gets it.
I voted in FL and Donna Brazile and her gang took it for granted yesterday. I don't think so.
June 1, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I take it that means you'll be joining the ranks of the self declared independents. Well welcome.
As for yesterday, your vote counted. It was heard. All of the delegates were seated. Not sure what you have to complain about, but that is your wont.
June 1, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for the generous bread crumbs from your so-called "big tent" table.
I don't know where you live but I don't think your vote is worth more than mine.
June 1, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
California. My vote counted the same as yours. The difference, if there is any, is the penalty imposed upon Florida for breaking DNC rules. They played with fire and got burned. It wasn't personal.
June 1, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
They bend over backwards for Obama and you think it wasn't personal? See the Richardson job application, above, to put yesterday's theater in context.
June 1, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
How did "they" bend over backwards for Obama? And remember ALL of the Clinton supporters backed the Ausman Plan (which was supported by the Florida Democratic Party).
Ok, go.
June 1, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Short answer: stealing Clinton's delegates in Michigan.
Long answer: if they decided they can break their own rules to gift Obama with MI delegates he didn't earn, then why couldn't they break them to seat FL at full vote?
June 1, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Explain how one steals something that was never given?
June 1, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Vote certified and delegates awarded by the state. DNC could only recognize or not recognize the state allocation of delegates. What they did instead was fix their own arbitrary allocation of delegates. Even Bush in 2000 didn't try to reassign vote outcome with his friends at the Supreme Court.
June 1, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your facts are little confused. Michigan's original delegate selection plan was never approved, so the Jan 15th primary awarded NO delegates. The delegate selection plan proposed by Michigan yesterday was approved and as a result Clinton was awarded 69 delegates. Nothing was stolen from her.
June 1, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
And lest you go off on a tangent, the penalty (loss of 50% of delegates) was automatic--no discretion. The loss of 100% was an enhanced penalty, which this decision relaxed.
June 1, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I believe you when you say you're changing you voter registration- I don't think your vote is up for grabs though.
June 1, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why?
June 1, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
If ease or no increase in capital gains tax is your top issue, you know who you're voting for.
June 1, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not yet, but I'm getting close.
June 1, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your vote ISN'T up for grabs - you're using bigotry, not policy to make your decision. If you took the candidates' names away and just listed their platforms, you stick with the Dems. But you're blinded by irrational hatred. I feel sorry for you - it must be hard to wake up every morning with that kind of anger in you. Tell me, do you have friends? Do you need a hug? Maybe you should stay away from politics for a while to clear your head before November. You could plant a garden, take up yoga, talk to a therapist, read a novel...it would be really good for you.
June 1, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great condescending piece of advice from a burntout democrat. What I need is less of your instructions. And more distance from people like you.
June 1, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's what I'm saying! Take a break! You sound like a discerning voter who needs some distance to clear your head.
June 1, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Bad Obama. Bad, bad, evil, wicked Obama. He should take a page from Hillary and Bill's book. They have become reknowned for their light touch and "no pressure" sales pitch with the super delegates.
June 1, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
He's just pretending to be different when he's not.
June 1, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
If he was really willing to be the same, if he was REALLY willing to use the Clinton playbook, this election would have been UGLY. He would have come at her with ever f-up from the 90's, and would have SLAUGHTERED her.
Don't say he's more of the same - he's shown admirable restraint the past 6 months, unlike Madame Republican.
June 1, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are a first class idiot or a robot.
Everyone who endorses a candidate publicly upfront hopes to looked at favorably by the candidate they endorse. Anyone who comes out after the election and says I was with you all along, gets less credit. Richardson is stating the obvious, and it is something many, many people have been saying. Richardson isn't making a promise (I'm sure he not authorized to do that in any case), but nudging the guy about the obvious politics that evn the most naive person understands.
Your claim that Richardson is undermining Obama's politics by pointing this out is part of your foolishness. Obama never promised he wasn't going to try to build the broadest possible coalition to support what he want s to do. That's the whole point.
June 1, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
New politics? In New Mexico, this is old old and with deep roots.
Let me share a New Mexican saying some pols are proud of:
If you want to get a BA in politics, go to Chicago and study the Dalys.
If you want to get an MA in politics, go to New Orleans and study the Longs.
But if you want a PhD in politics, go to New Mexico and study the patron system.
I love Bill R., but I hate to see him spread this conquistador mentality. On the other hand, maybe this mentality is what makes him able to work with North Korea. To the victor, and his buddies, go the spoils.
June 2, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
More theater.
These type of conversations have been going on in politics since Grog tried to pressure Unga to support Grog's bid to be the leader of the mammoth hunt.
Sure, this is an interesting bit of information since it can be confirmed. But there is nothing unusual or wrong about what Richardson said. Saying that Obama shouldn't condone this kind of talk seems a bit naive.
This kind of thinking that gets Americans shut out of the process. Let's stop pretending that politics is something other than politics. The more that we as citizens let on that we accept the perfectly legal, perfectly rational aspects of big boy politics, the more information we are going to get.
June 1, 2008 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another day, another spin from TPM reporters.
Nothing to see here, move on folks.
June 1, 2008 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
First of all, for the people ragging on Greg, may I point out he is DEFENDING Obama here by saying this is probably something he wouldn't condone ?
And secondly while I dont think he would condone it, this is politics. There comes a time where one has to be a little rough. So it doesn't bother me, crass as it is
June 1, 2008 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
First of all, for the people ragging on Greg, may I point out he is DEFENDING Obama here by saying this is probably something he wouldn't condone ?
Stand back a step or two and you'll see the picture with greater clarity. What point can there be in plucking this quote out of a rather large NYT article if not to construct a non-story implying that this could be a message from Sen. Obama to undeclared Superdelegates. Remove that intent and Greg Sargent's story is flagrantly meaningless, a complete non sequitur.
Adding the tag about Obama not condoning such tactics "if asked" (two words that reveal more than they perhaps intend) is just a squalid, neo-Nixonian rhetorical trick. At best it's a double-edged defense, at worst it's just . . . crude.
June 1, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Ritter is not an ordinary super-delegate, he is the Governor of Colorado. One might assume that two Democratic Governors from neighboring states might share similar political interests along with a casual and cordial friendship.
There's already enough spin out there without having to create some here. Jocular, indeed.
June 1, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can do more than assume, I've seen them being jocular together in public. Richardson was here in Denver after he ended his campaign raising money to retire his debt. He enjoyed a great turnout and public support from Bill Ritter and many other local Dems. Richardson is well regarded in Colorado.
June 1, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg,you may want to recommend this article for a good sunday brunch. Sundays are usually for political autopsy anyway.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/07/clinton200807
June 1, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I HIGHLY doubt Greg will be recommending this article. But I appreciate the link, so far it's a pretty good read.
June 1, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Holy shit! Bill is running around with Steven Bing?
O my god - and he thinks he can get his wife into the White House without any of this shenanigans being questioned?
O. My. God. Bing is trouble -with a capital T. We really need a First Gentleman with a posse like that.
Lord!!!!!!
June 1, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Awesome article. Thanks.
June 1, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fascinating its only being published now.
Christ, if we'd nominated her, people would have been so sick of the both of them, and all their drama and pathology, by November, we would have been crushed.
June 1, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jeez, you're really reaching here Greg. Richardson is obviously just trying to make a pitch to get these cowardly superdelegates to take a risk. If you think that the Clinton people aren't making this argument (if not a much stronger one), then you must be living in another world.
June 1, 2008 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
When I was in the second grade, I was nominated to be class president. Two of my classmates were also nominated. One of these classmates approached me and said that if I supported him for president, he would nominate me for vice president. I agreed. After he was elected class president, the boy stood up and nominated the prettiest girl in the class to be vice president.
It was my first lesson in politics.
June 1, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm more interested to know how your president friend is doing in life right now. He was one smart cookie when he was a kid. Enjoyed your story.
June 1, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let me guess...you were classmates with Bill Clinton.
June 1, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!
June 1, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Shocking, absolutely Shocking, I tell You.
Hillary's Sargent At Arms has ferreted out the following:
We will have more favorable opinions of all those who pitched in and helped us to raise the barn, compared to all those who came over after it was raised, and just wanted in on the food and festivities.
The Horror Of It. The Horror Of It. Thank You for staying so vigilant, Sargent At Arms.
Without your outcry, those bandwagon jumpers who rush to come on board, after the victory has been won, would not be amply rewarded for having done nothing to help achieve the victory.
June 1, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Every one of the supers that endorses before June 3rd will get a free t-shirt. Supplies are limited.
June 1, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tempest in a teapot. Does anyone here believe that this isn't the way things are done? We've all heard the stories of Bill Clinton's 30 minute choleric phone calls to those who he doesn't think have been "loyal" enough to him and Hillary. Does anyone really doubt there have been plenty of carrots-on-sticks offered by the Clinton campaign, along with threats of political retribution? I sure as hell don't.
June 1, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
June 1, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know what this reminds me of?
It reminds me of the time back in 1990 when I was directing an effort to get a public initiative on the ballot for campaign finance reform here in Arkansas. We had to gather something like 60,000 signatures to get the thing on the ballot. And every single candidate for governor - except one - endorsed the measure while we were out collecting the signatures we needed.
Guess who that one that didn't endorse us was?
And guess whose endorsement magically appeared the day after our signatures were counted and we were certified for the ballot?
And guess who, a mere two years later, went on national TV in a candidates' debate and proclaimed, "I'm the only one on this stage who passed comprehensive finance reform in my state"?
I was surprised my television survived the shoe I threw at it.
June 1, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gosh, this just seems like common sense, to me.
June 1, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
frelling tags.
June 1, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Which people would you folks give a ride to: Those that pitched in and gave your car a push to get it rolling, or those who just stood by until you got it rolling, and then decided they wanted a free ride?
Isn't it about time that Mr.Sargent entered a rehab center to break his addiction to Stupid Pills!
June 1, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know - it's a big "well duh" as far as I'm concerned, tool.
Let's talk about Bill Clinton's posse and just how much fun the Republicans would have had if Hillary was the nominee.
Bill does not have the sense god gave a goose. Steven Bing? International trash?
I am gobsmacked.
June 1, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
The "new politics" in action. If you endorse me now, you'll get something in return.
Close. Except for the fact that Obama didn't say that.
June 1, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
With surrogates like that he don't need to say it.
June 1, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, right. I forgot the rules.
Obama must answer for everything anyone he's ever met or who has ever supported him has said, ever.
June 1, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well at least he isn't flying all over the world with Steven fucking Bing - irresponsible playboy with too much money and no desire to do one positive thing with it. He spends it on partying and women.
Right up Bill's alley. No wonder Bill is trying so hard to get his wife too busy to notice what he's doing. Jeeeezuz.
June 1, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, either you run on judgement or you don't, right? Otherwise, why did he get the urge to leave his church?
June 1, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ummmm, okay, a new topic, I see.
The man explained why he left the church yesterday. Go watch the video.
June 1, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I see these two events as part of the same story. Wasn't changing the subject at all.
June 1, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe you can work Area 51 and alien abduction into your story as well.
~
June 1, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
What Bill Richardson said to Gov. Bill Ritter (not on behalf of Obama, mind you) reflects on Obama's judgment and is somehow related to Obama leaving Trinity?
If you say so.
June 1, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Richardson was talking about Obama's future actions in response to quick superdelegate endorsements.
Richardson endorsed him, campaigned for him, he's part of the Obama team now, in whatever capacity they want to use him.
Whether he turns out to be an asset or a liability, the same judgement should be applied to Richardson as was applied to him as was applied to Wright and others.
Unless of course, Obama always meant selective judgement. He set his own standards.
June 1, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you have evidence that Richardson was speaking in an official capacity of the Obama campaign, provide it. Otherwise, this has nothing to do with Obama's judgment. Question Richardson's judgment in saying this all you want - but to relate it back Obama's judgment and to Trinity is laughable.
Time for waffles!
June 1, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
We will stamp out all vestiges of recrudescent Clintonism.
Their party is OVER
June 1, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
tool = too.
My friends, the time has come to insist on a preview function!
June 1, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Long ago, I think there was a preview function.
~
June 1, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Once upon a time, in the long ago and faraway days of early 2007, there was indeed a preview function, an edit function(!) and, indeed, even a rating system for comments. Alas, all of that went away because, as the incivility between the Hillary and Obama/Edwards supporters ramped up, people could not resist the temptation to rate someone as a "troll" when, in fact, that person was merely being an asshole. We were warned about the abuse, and then, one day, it was all gone and for a while, we didn't even have nested replies.
(Actually, I suspect the old commenting system was also removed because the strain of all the extra processing that kind of thing puts on severs was more than the original squirrel powered system could take.)
Alas, all that's down the ol' memory hole now.
June 1, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, since I ragged on him earlier in the week (and rightly so) - I'll rise to Greg's defense on this one. But in so doing I'd like reiterate that that SD newspaper endorsement post earlier this week was FUCKED UP! That said, it requires an almost Clintonista-like view of the world to take offense at this one. Here's my reasoning:
A: The next/only thing left in the primary is if/when superdelegates "really end" this thing. This means that any stupid thing these overblown party bigwigs do until that phase is complete will be news. Sorry, but it is.
B: Aside from an observation that the tone seems jocular (an assessment I'd agree with) this has been picked up by all sorts of other sites. HuffPo highlighted this last night with a similar angle.
C: I'd like to point out that descriptions of similar calls by Clinton supporters to superdelegates are described as anything but jocular.
June 1, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed.
June 1, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I particularly like C. - because we've all read how Bill and the others have leaned all over the superdelegates.
And everyone else they could lean on. And like you say - the pressure has been anything but jocular.
June 1, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, by the way, I'd love to hear from Harold Ickes this morning.
Will you give him a call?
June 1, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's too early. Ickes is still sleeping off his hangover. It's not everyday that your political career gets flushed down the toilet on national television.
June 1, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well wake him up - it's the perfect time to talk.
June 1, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why, oh why, oh why?
It's such a peaceful morning. It's beautiful here in the city.
Why kash? Why?
;-)
June 1, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
After yesterday. it must have become clear no one gives a shit about what Harold Ickes, not as much as TPM made us think allthese weeks. Want to make sure, if Greg will tell us how Ickes is doing.
June 1, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Off topic: I heard Tim Russert say that there were enough votes at the RBC meeting yesterday to pass the 50/50 split in Michigan, but that the 69/59 compromise was passed for the sake of unity. Has anyone heard this, I didn't catch Russert's source.
June 1, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. Chuck Todd said the same thing.
June 1, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here ya go:http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/31/1091448.aspx
June 1, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo this is required reading for you and anyone else who believes that delegates were STOLEN for Senator Clinton.
June 1, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yup! He had the vote to get the 50/50 and decided to give a little more to get more votes. the 50/50 would have passed but by only 1 or 2 votes:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/1/73254/84271
June 1, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, apparently it was from multiple sources in the meeting. Excellent move on obama's part. The michigan party wanted 69/59, which really winds up being a net gain for clinton of 5. Big deal. Go with the Michigan state party. Why piss them off because you want them to be all on board and fighting for obama in the general. Also, clinton fighting it appears more sour grapes as opposed to clinton and michigan fighting the result.
June 1, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
better link from hyper.
June 1, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
It was chucky todd's claim about the obamajority at RBC for 50/50.
June 1, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Donna Brazile said it too on CNN. She said that Clinton wanted it all, Obama wanted 50/50 and his votes were there, but in the interest of unity they didn't pass the motion.
Clinton wasn't happy because they can't win unless they are given some unreasonable advantage.
June 1, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/31/1091448.aspx
June 1, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you all.
June 1, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
donna brazile just confirmed this on "this week"
June 1, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're questioning Obama's judgment for what was a very painful decision that he was forced into making?
And you sit there and ignore the fact that Hillary Clinton's husband is running around the world with a posse of high-flying playboys - an expresident acting like he's a charter member of the Hugh Heffner Appreciation Society.
Please keep the Clintons out of my government from now on.
Thank you, my friends.
June 1, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ramen!
~
June 1, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
(from hyperevue's link)
I haven't said this for awhile cause CTVoter took umbrage with my saying it so often, but this is all I can come up with:
Please just shoot me.
June 1, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who cares who gets to call Michigan a win? Clinton still loses.
June 1, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ickes is a pig.
June 1, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know if Richardson said what he is quoted as saying or not, but assuming he did, there is nothing that is in the least unusual or inappropriate about the comment. It's not like Richardson is being reported as conveying this message to lobbyists or corporate donors. These are other Democratic politicians and legislators we're talking about. Anyone who thinks that the "new politics" means that politicians henceforth no longer remember their friends and reward the risks they take is really a babe in the woods. Surely every campaign, from Obama and Clinton to Dodd and Kucinich, understands these political principles.
For example, does anyone think that Bill Richardson is not going to get an important job in the Obama administration in gratitude for his personally courageous endorsement, which made him the target of some ferocious Clinton counterfire?
June 1, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
For example, does anyone think that Bill Richardson is not going to get an important job in the Obama administration in gratitude for his personally courageous endorsement, which made him the target of some ferocious Clinton counterfire?
I don't know if that has as much to do with it as the fact that Richardson is an incredibly qualified statesmen who would be an asset to any administration.
June 1, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sure. But nevertheless, I assume Richardson had some sort of conversation with Obama before the endorsement in which they discussed jobs that Richardson might like to have and that Obama might be in a position to give him.
June 1, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have no idea. But I'm not about to start speculating about some sort of quid pro quo for which there is no evidence. It demeans Richardson's credentials and Obama's candidacy.
June 1, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
It demeans Richardson's credentials and Obama's candidacy.
I don't think it does. There is nothing wrong with deals of this sort.
June 1, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok OT, but news on the Puerto Rico primary that was forced down the island's throats by the clintons, because they don't like caucuses. Remember originally Puerto Rico was going to be a caucus, but because the clintons kept getting hammered in caucuses they forced Puerto Rico to change to a primary. Pathetic.
First point CNN reporting turnout is extremely light.
Point two, Puerto Rico is very poor and check this out:
Personally, I'm not terribly surprised about these problems (they had to close 1000 polling places due to a lack of volunteers to run the polls). At this juncture, Sen. Obama's nomination appears to be all but certain, and the primary is increasingly perceived as an irrelevancy - albeit a very costly one, to the tune of five million dollars. However, the Puerto Rico Democratic Party chairman is on Sen. Clinton's camp, and it's quite evident he wants the primary to go on nonetheless - he's even talking about one (or more) upcoming visit(s) by Sen. Clinton herself, evidently to boost voter turnout. That said, I don't know if the decision to go ahead with the primary is his idea or part of Hillary Clinton's strategy to hang on to the bitter end.
http://www.observer.com/2008/puerto-rico-primary-looms-smaller
Pathetic, force Puerto Rico to waste 5 million dollars on a primary when the money could have gone to the poor. Reminds me of the 11 year old that sold all his worldly possessions to help multi- millionaires. The clintons have no shame.
June 1, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's called priorities and the Clintons list of priorities looks like this:
1. Clintons
2. Clintons
3. Clintons
4. Whatever is best for the Clintons
5. Bill priority: Coochie - not Hillary's.
6. Hillary priority - only one: WIN WIN WIN and show those mofos!
June 1, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, and it seems kind of silly to add Puerto Rico's vote to her popular vote count when Puerto Rico doesn't vote in the general. Count Puerto Rico, but not Iowa. Talk about silly.
June 1, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is a strong movement in PR to boycott the vote because it only reinforces PR's quasi-US status and does not advance their case for either 1) independence, or 2) full status. So, turnout will be lower than expected for a lot of reasons.
June 1, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
That makes sense. Thanks for the info. I was wondering about turnout and have been surfing all morning trying to get info.
June 1, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Check out the Washington Post today. There's a story on the PR primary.
June 1, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ickes is on MTP stoking the party disunity fire over four freaking delegates.
June 1, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Clintons domestic relations are unfortunately a matter of national interest, since the Clintons made it one, otherwise, I wouldn't give one shit.
But if I was married to a man I caught running around with someone like Steven Bing, I would divorce his ass in 2 minutes flat and take 75% of every fucking thing he owned, plus whatever else I could come up with. He is disrespecting Hillary every time he gets on Bing's plane. I am appalled.
I have no respect for Hillary Clinton at all. I cannot believe she turns a blind eye to what he is doing.
Good god. That just really makes me sick - I cannot believe she hasn't left him or thrown him out.
Bill Clinton is disgusting. I finally get that - what kind of dignity is that? What kind of way for an ex-president to act is that?
June 1, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tena: I think she accepted a long time ago that this is a working political relationship. I believe it is a marriage based on what I have mentioned before, a narcissistic woman, and a narcissist would want the world to believe all is perfect despite otherwise. In fact, she would probably believe that herself. She would stay before admitting failure or defeat.
I had a sister-in-law, a well know Judge, as was my brother (retired), and as the pieces fell all around her, no one had a clue her life was anything but perfect.
June 1, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pippi - I agree. But this looks terrible, regardless of the arrangement they have.
And it makes liars out of her feminist supporters, in my opinion, that they don't acknowledge this.
This is just In Your Face, beeeyotch! And I wouldn't stand for it, no matter the reason I was keeping him around to begin with.
And it looks like hell that she does.
June 1, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agree totally.
June 1, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
No respect or loyalty from the kool aidbots for the Clintons, no respect or loyalty for the party .
To the convention floor.
Huge landslide in PR today for Clinton.
June 1, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, some sentences. You must have sobered up a bit.
June 1, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm...I think gotalife has revealed his identity. The 1970s Adam West version of...Batman! "To the convention floor, Robin!"
June 1, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
WHAM!
KAPOW!
BAM!
ZOWIE!
June 1, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gawdamighty, enough already. Every time you talk about the Clintons, you sound like some mindless minion in a one-party totalitarian shithole waxing poetic about your Great Leader. Your fawning, worshipful, whipped dog-like devotion to them is unworthy of a voter in a democracy and, frankly, kind of creepy.
June 1, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Something that you will not see posted by Hillary's Sargent At Arms, since he spent a lot of time,posting on TPMhorse's Mouth, that the media favored Obama.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters/325339/media_doesn_t_love_obama_after_all
Epcerpted from the full report.
Barack Obama has not received better media coverage than Hillary Clinton, according to a new study by the research team at Pew/Harvard, the gold standard in nonpartisan media analysis.
June 1, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
It seems to me that Richardson is being crticized by you for having the audacity to suggest that politics is politics...
The point of the matter is, well... he's probably correct. You're more likely to be looked upon favorably by the next president if you actually supported them when it mattered, especially when your opponent has gone fullbore into scorched earth territory.
If you can't take a stand, then what good are you as a politician in the first place?!
June 1, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Edit:
Excerpted
June 1, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I read this article in full, and Richardson's quote did not jump out at me at all. In fact, I think it sounds just like him and his jovial personality. Much of nothing here.
What I did find much more interesting are the SD's that still won't commit for fear of retribution due to their conservative districts and so forth. At this point, get over it. The handwriting is on the wall, no one is going to blame you. The best "thing" for the party would be to have Senator Obama over the top on Tuesday night and these SD's have the power to make that happen.
I do think Bill and Bing (Vanity Fair) has a certain ring.
June 1, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I read the whole thing before coming to TPM and seeing the headline. I too was completely non-plused by the portion excerpted here. Maybe I'm not looking for a story is the difference, but I can't say I saw a headline in it at all, though in hindsight, I recognize that this has been about the level of the narrative throughout this primary, though I do hope we can move on from it pretty quick and supposed (wrongly apparently) we had.
June 1, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
What Greg actually said was "denounce if asked." And he's simply talking out of his hat.
Obama would look at the reporter-blogger as if he were nuts, chuckle, and walk away without a word.
This item wasn't worth the time I just spent commenting on it.
What a sucker I am.
June 1, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is pretty tame compared to Saban trying to bribe superdelegates for their vote.
June 1, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Damn. do you have a TPM link on that story?
June 1, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll tell you what else has a ring to it: Clinton Feminist=hypocrite.
And big time!
June 1, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wrote you a note up above ;)
June 1, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Saw it and left you a reply. :)
I love your avatar, but I keep worrying about all the blood going to you head.
LOL!
I don't know why Pippi Longstocking was getting so much shit for awhile - I think it makes parents nervous or something. I wanted to be you!
June 1, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are too funny. Obviously with the typos the blood to the head is affecting my writing.
June 1, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Richardson states the painfully obvious: at the end of the game, it's the players with the dirty uniforms who get the glory.
Or you could say, that at the end of the battle, the soldiers who stayed in camp polishing their rifles, shouldn't expect to receive any medals of valor.
How is this newsworthy? Is there something about putting "remember" in quotes that puts some lipstick on this pig?
June 1, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've just given up wondering about this shit and I read past it now and go to the conversation.
I mean I still don't get this post at all - since when did people not reward people who helped them get somewhere?
It's just bizarre.
I didn't see any threats or promises, just a common sense statement for all love.
June 1, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is too much. It only illustrates the cycle of perpetual, content free cynicism. I understand that we have all been subject to so many lies and misrepresentations, that is only an excuse used by those who are not interested in good reason. It is a tad intellectually lazy not to consider that it may have been an emotional appeal rather than a political one. (You must realize that your conclusion does not NECESSARILY follow.)
Not that it is surprising considering Blumenthall's email list. I feel sad about it, because I haved loved TPM on other subjects and when they let us draw our own conclusions based on the given EVIDENCE.
"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar"- Freud
June 1, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
What Richardson is sayingif indeed he said it is standard political inside talk,, and it could just as easily come by a Clinton supporter like, for example Ed Rendell (we're balanced here -- governor for governot).
Of course if a delegate declares early his or her beneficiary is going to remember them --- Obama would and so would Hillary. That's politics. It this the best we can come up with on a quiet Sunday after the fireworks in DC?
June 1, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama is going to be about some "new" kind of politics, I hope he'll start by choosing his advisors, cabinet ministers, department heads, etc., etc., without regard to whether they displayed "loyalty" by backing him earlier than someone else. Let's hope he fills those posts strictly on merit. We've had enough of administrations that function on the basis of loyalty.
June 1, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not exactly surprising given: Obama Supporter Jesse Jackson, Jr: Black Super-Delegates Who Back Hillary Could Face Primary Challenge
But I'm glad we can all look forward to loyalty oaths.
June 1, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama needs a moral compass, he's crushed his 2nd pastor under the unity bus he's driving. He's shown us he's got no hesitation to throw who ever doesn't fit the image. Its all about Obama.
He didn't need a pastor in his life anyway theys just get in his way.
I'm waiting for the claws to come out then he'll blame someone on his staff not take responsibility and move on to the next screw up.
Wonder who else will crawl from out of his closet that he'll have to sacrifice under the bus.
Bill Richardson lost all respect I had for him. I wonder what he was promised. BO reminds me of GWB in sooo many ways. Loyalty Loyalty will get you to the gravy train.
June 1, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously things will play out, probably in O's direction. But this rhetorical form of Grand Theft Auto needs to stop. We need to dislodge the war investing oilmen out of the WhiteHouse. Stirring the pot of either half of the Democratic voters will do nothing to make sure we throw the bums out.
June 1, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
absolutely last time:
No, Greg is not sympathetic to Obama. He is trying to "plant" a move across postings to get Obama to "denounce" something else.
It's a silly, transparent posting, meant to complicate the end of the primary. It is clearly meant to anger superdelegates who were tied to the TV this morning, hanging onto Richardson's every word.
As if the end had not been choreographed for about a month. Doesn't TPM Election Central understand by now that the Obama campaign, while certainly not perfect, does not leave much to chance or the good will of others??
OK: I'm done. Nothing has changed here. Greg, Tina Flournoy, and the other faithful are still...
faithfully cynical, manipulative, and ...transparent.
June 1, 2008 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't think I'd ever quote Dick Cheney but I'm forced to here, concerning the reality of politics and the pragmatism of Bill Richardson...and the indignant righteousness of Greg Sargent who is squawking like SNL's Church Lady had just emerged from her pew never having payed a twits bit of attention to the forgoing 8-years of fascism and war crime and finds this to complain about:
"So?"
June 1, 2008 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, now the pretend Hillary suporters (Republicans: gotalife, lalo, AJM, Constantinople, etc.) have all got their panties in a bunch because of this little non-story. Didn't hear a peep out of 'em when Hillary's fundraiser henchmen went around the party threatening to pull funds if folks didn't tow the Clinton line. What a bunch of hypocrites (as usual).
June 1, 2008 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me guess Jenn, was it, The Dope from Hope?
June 2, 2008 6:41 AM | Reply | Permalink