Richardson Campaign Denies Deal Rumors

Tom Reynolds, a spokesman for Bill Richardson, denies reports that his precinct captains will urge non-viable Richardson caucusers to choose Sen. Barack Obama second.

Regarding the Richardson/Obama rumor, there is no deal. We will be viable in nearly every precinct in Iowa so this issue is moot. Iowans are independent and will make up their own minds about who to support. Our instructions to our precinct captains are to win delegates. Just like every other campaign is trying to do.

Comments

So - all spin aside - what exactly is the deal with these rumors? Are they being generated uniltaerally by the Obama camp in an attempt to start a "second-tier-campaigns-want-their-supporters-to-break-for-Obama" meme to influence caucus-goers' decisions? Or are these rumors instead the product of actual strategic collaboration and discussion between Obama and Richardson/Biden, but both campaigns want them kept quiet for the sake of appearances?

Whaddya think, Marc?

Posted by Will | January 3, 2008 3:19 PM

There are now rumors of Clinton sending her supporters to Edwards, which would make sense for her as she would much rather see Edwards win than Obama.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/01/horse-race-trading-by-digby-jane.html

Posted by Mike | January 3, 2008 3:20 PM

Not that there's anything wrong with aggressively going after every vote you can get, but, for a candidate who's running on a platform of reform, all these deal rumors strike one as, well, something you'd see back in Chicago ward politics. I hope for Obama's sake all these machinations don't ignite a backlash, because he sure is looking like a greedy political hack at the moment.

Posted by Wilma | January 3, 2008 3:24 PM

Wilma,
it's clear you already hated Obama.

People in Iowa know this is what goes on. It certainly didn't hurt Edwards in 2004 when he made a deal with Kucinich, no matter what his spinsters now say.

Posted by Mike | January 3, 2008 3:27 PM

IA has corrected the story to say there's no deal, just that Richardson will send its non-viable supporters to Obama to avoid a Clinton loss.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | January 3, 2008 3:31 PM

Anyone who thinks that Clinton would rather ANYONE WIN BUT HER, is a fool.

If Edwards wins, Clinton and Obama will both fall DRAMATICALLY in New Hampshire, and Edwards will skyrocket there.

Clinton WOULD RATHER HAVE EDWARDS GONE TONIGHT, because if it's Clinton versus Obama, they are confident that people are going to take a step back and say, "wait a minute, I don't think Barack Obama could win a General Election against [insert GOP Iowa winner]"

They would NEVER SAY THAT if it was Edwards who won, especially if it Mike Huckabee who wins tonight.

The fact that the Edwards campaign even allowed that Barack Obama campaign talking point to last this long, pisses me off.

Clinton would rather be one on one with OBAMA than with Edwards.

If Edwards wins Iowa, he won't have a MONEY PROBLEM. Obama's money fountain will dry up, and Edwards will easily have 50 million to spend, which is more than enough to win a nomination. Obama's folks know this.

Posted by framecop | January 3, 2008 4:24 PM

Mike said:

Wilma, it's clear you already hated Obama.

People in Iowa know this is what goes on. It certainly didn't hurt Edwards in 2004 when he made a deal with Kucinich, no matter what his spinsters now say.

Kucinich didn't do JACKQUAT for John Edwards.

Much of Kucinich's support went to HOWARD DEAN anyway.

John Edwards came in second because he and Kerry were strongest in rural Iowa, and because Gephardt collapsed.

Get a brain, and stop believing ever talking point that the media feeds you.

Posted by framecop | January 3, 2008 4:27 PM

This is a perfect reason (among hundreds of others) to get rid of the Iowa caucuses and this broken system of choosing our candidates. Let's rethink the process, maybe even try to have a single day where all 50 states vote in the primary. Why should 200,000 Iowans set the national tone in the media for the candidates or their viability on a 50-state stage? It's madness.

-bafflez

Posted by bafflez | January 3, 2008 5:24 PM