« Audio Podcast | Main | What Do McCain's Public Interest Group Allies Say About His Campaign Finance Claims? » Richardson Moves Toward An Endorsement, Likes Obama27 Feb 2008 02:47 pm New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson is being coy with his inner circle and hasn't told them who he'll endorse for president. But he's sure said a lot of nice things about Barack Obama. And Richardson was irate, according to several sources (including the New York Times) when a "senior Clinton official" -- I'm told this was former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright -- called him to pressure him into endorsing Hillary Clinton. TrackBackTrackBack URL for this entry: Comments (45)
The time to endorse Hillary and not look like a bit of a fool has now passed. I'm guessing that Bill Clinton is now promising Richardson the moon just to stay quiet until after the 4th. I think Obama would do just fine even if Richardson stays neutral; but it would be nice to lock up a news cycle or two. 
But his comments to Wolf Blitzer a few days ago suggest that it's Clinton he'll endorse. I think he said something to the effect of "this race is going to go on." That sounds like a Hillary nod.
I was curious to see if anyone had any thoughts on how Barack Obama could reach out to Clinton and her supporters in order to ensure the party is as united as possible going into this election (after Clinton withdraws and announces her full support, of course).
And what's up with John Edwards? In his silence he's seeming indecisive, and by demanding that Hillary and Barack come to his house he's come across to me as really self-important. I liked him when he was running, but he strikes me as a small man, now.
Madeline Albright is a Harpie out of ancient mythology.
Tim - I think the seating of the delegates from MI and FL will be cast as a reconciliatory gesture towards Clinton. I mean, assuming Obama wins the remaining primaries after the 4th and can afford to do so.
My sense if that he was going to jump on the Obama bandwagon he would have done what Dodd did -- his endorsement would be huge for Obama to announce in Texas. I think he's waiting 'til the 4th for Clinton...if she's still in he'll announce for her...otherwise it's a moot discussion.
That would be just about the lamest reconciliatory gesture I've ever heard of. Obama has to seat those delegations no matter what, those states are too important for the general election. I meant give Clinton some kind of formal or informal role in the campaign or back her for some position of influence. That would be the smart thing to do.
The hour of relevance has passed for Bill Richardson. This little teaser simply displays the political ineptness he revealed in the campaign that made him a non-starter. I doubt that endorsements at this late date mean a whole lot. It's more the cumulative effect that may sway a voter or two. With all Hillary's endorsements, what did it get her? In the end it's the candidate and their campaign.
Tim: I think his gesture is going to go along these lines: "Bush, Bush, Bush, McCain, Bush, Cheney, Bush, McCain." He will be gracious toward Hillary but he doesn't need to bow at her feet. She and her supporters will come along if the choice is between McCain and Obama.
Craig: It's that kind of presumptuous attitude that might by Obama's undoing. I don't know why I even brought up the idea here, most of you are just blinded by the anti-Clinton venom coursing through your veins. We're still talking about somebody with an 80% favorability rating in the Democratic party, with a huge following, and even now 40% of Democrats want to see her nominated.
So Tim K what do you suggest? Seriously. If Obama is the nominee, then he needs to be allowed to actually be the nominee and run his own race. There is nothing presumptuous about being the victor. Why fix what isn't broken? This has nothing to do with anti-Clinton venom. It has to do with winning the White House. Senator Clinton would be a giant distraction from Obama's core message. But I would love to know what you think Obama owes Hillary in this regard.
Olive branch to Hillary supporters?
It's not Obama anybody "owing" anybody anything. It's about making sure all the major figures in the party are united and have all have a personal stake in the outcome. If I were Obama I wouldn't want Clinton's supporters (who are numerous and influential) or the Senator herself feeling like they may as well sit on their hands because if Obama loses Clinton will be the front-runner in 2012 able to say the proverbial "I told you so." If you don't think Hillary, Bill or their allies and supporters have anything to contribute to an Obama victory then you're just being really foolish. What do I suggest? Well I wouldn't put her on the ticket. That would be a real distraction. But I would make her a major surrogate, maybe even in a role of attack/defender in chief. Give her a prime-time speech at the convention along with Kennedy, Gore, Kerry and Bill. Maybe even back her behind the scenes for Senate Majority leader to replace the ineffectual Reid next year.
TimK: Not sure there is an answer that would satisfy you at this point. Frankly, given the way that Senator Clinton has campaigned over the course of this year (versus last), she's made it increasingly difficult to bring her into the proverbial fold. That's the downside of attempting to "knee-cap" a fellow Democrat. At the end of the day, I think with the passage of a little time and a refocusing of our collective energy toward the fall will be about the best we can do toward addressing your question.
I don't know why I even brought up the idea here, most of you are just blinded by the anti-Clinton venom coursing through your veins.-Tim K Good to see you continuing to try and win friends here Tim. Have you accused everyone here of being Latte-liberals yet, or is that coming later?
You would have to be the world's most tone-deaf politician to decide that endorsing Hillary Clinton looks like a good bet now.
Keith: How Hillary Clinton has campaign? It's Obama campaign who played the race-baiting card by twisting and distorting the Clinton's words out of context and working the press in order to make them appear racist. There's a great article describing how it was done in great detail in The New Republic today. So, please, no lectures from the Obama camp on how to run a clean campaign.
Tim: Are you suggesting that Obama out-maneuvered Clinton? That he used superior political instincts? For shame! Nothing will satisfy you until we all agree that you are correct right and that Hillary should be Queen for life.
I think Hillary would make a fantastic Supreme Court Justice, some have suggested her replacing Reid but the Court would be even greater.
I think Tim K is asking the right question for anyone with any political horse sense at all. Its not what you give Hillary, its how you draw in her supporters after trashing them so thoroughly and in many cases with bile, contempt and contemptuous charges or racism. Obama will need Hillary's supporters, of that you can make absolutely no mistake nor counter argument. If, as some of you seem to be saying here, its the heck with them, well then Obama will probably lose. BOTH Hillary and Obama will have to find a way to make more than just peace, and Obama and his supporters will have to figure out how to appeal to Hillary supporters and draw them in enthusiastically. I support Hillary but i will support Obama enthusiastically, because the Supreme Court is the name of this game. End discussion. For the rest of us, well lets just say Obama if he is smart, and he surely is, will be warm and embracing even if his supporters are not. I think you can count on Bill and Hillary doing the same thing. With the game ending and a winer pretty clear, it is indeed crazy that Obama's people are still all over these boards churning out snark. Try to be good winners and embrace your defeated fellow Dems. With malice for none, with charity for all. If your man is Lincoln reincarnated, start acting consistently with those ideals. I dont mean this as derogatory to Obama at all who is mighty impressive indeed. But we need an end to the snarkiness and the constant BS of the chat boards. Youre winners, so grow up and act like a good winners. I guarantee you the Clintons will act like good losers.
I think Hillary would make a fantastic Supreme Court Justice, some have suggested her replacing Reid but the Court would be even greater. Ummm, flag burning, anyone? Unrestrained executive authority? No thanks.
I guarantee you the Clintons will act like good losers. I agree with the tone and message of your posting, and I wish the quoted portion above would happen. My question is *when* will it happen? At what point can we stop talking about superdelegates "correcting" primary/caucus voters, states that don't count, and credentials fights at the convention?
(oops, hit a button and may have prematurely posted...) Though I cannot support HRC as a presidential candidate, I applaud the idea of her sitting on the Supreme Court. In fact, I believe it would liberate her. I do not doubt that Sen. Clinton possesses a brilliant mind and well-intentioned. Politics, though, are far too personal for her - most recently displayed early in last night's debate. Power - and the potential loss thereof - is also too importatant. I fear that too many of her decisions have been made with the the next election in mind. As one of the Supremes, though, she'd be in a position of exquisite power without ever having to worry about re-election. I believe she would enjoy freedom as never before. She'd be out of her husband's shadow. Most of all, the repartee with Scalia would be delicious!!! Should Obama be elected, I'd hope Justices Ginsburg and/or Stevens would soon retire, allowing the new President to balance the Court.
Why would Richardson endorse before the Convention? Holding out on endorsing keeps his name in the news every couple weeks. This is more publicity for him than his own candidacy ever generated.
The idea that it is important for the primary phase of the election to end soon is silly: the longer it goes the more its in the news and that is definately a good thing.
The idea that it is important for the primary phase of the election to end soon is silly: the longer it goes the more its in the news and that is definately a good thing.
Craig: Yes, obviously the Obama campaign out-maneuvered the Clinton campaign... they've won. But he didn't do it with a different kind of politics, he did it with the same old politics: character attacks, distorting opponents positions, and playing the race card more effectively. Yet, all is fair in love, war and politics. Your side won, you could try being a bit more gracious about it. I like how I'm reading a lot of constructive comments about how Hillary could be brought onside in the campaign and/or the administration. I personally like the idea of Senate Majority Leader, but associate Supreme Court justice sounds pretty good. If I were Obama I would want to unite the party and win over all her support, have her and Bill 100% on side during the campaign, and finally to neutralize her as a direct competitor waiting in the wings, and rather take advantage of her abilities for the good of the party and his own agenda.
Re: endorsements, is it possible that the Obama campaign is expecting to win Texas, and hopes that endorsements after March 4 from "party elders" (Gore, Edwards, Richardson) seem more like a signal to HRC that it's time to concede gracefully, rather than trying to shift the momentum before any one particular contest? I'm just sayin'.
PREDICTION: Richardson will endorse Obama Friday and stump with him in West texas over weekend Any one wanna bet?
Tim K don't think you are a student of Bill Clinton - he cannot positively 100% endorse anybody other than himself - and that includes his wife I remember being at a luncheon for Blanche Lincoln - Sen from Ark and she just about confirmed this as did Gore -- He was a good President - but he wasn't good for the Democratic party an in the end - if we are ll honest with ourselves - his wanderings set the stage for Bush --(yes Gore made mistakes and yes Gore really won but should have been a landslide) Obama will have to be very careful with the Clintons -- no one knows what they will really do behind closed doors
TimK is making sense here. It's politics and the winner will have to reconciliate with the loser to ensure that their supporters will be united. My friends and I as well as many others here in the Bay Area are supporters of Hillary Clinton, helped her on her campaign and being constantly bombarded by the anti-Clinton faction. It's sad to see such a highly capable candidate lose because of her 16 years of negativity from the Republican press. It's also sad to see that this nation will not have universal healthcare for at least another decade. But that's life. However it seems that the Obama supporters are taking California for granted that it will stay blue. If you look at the electorate here in California, you will realize that 40% of the voters here are Republicans and it is the Bay Area which delivered California to the Democrats from time to time. And most bay area democrats are centrist as we believe in actions and results. Not propagandas and promises. Call this a cheap shot towards Obama if you want to but this is why California went to the Clintons. Hillary won the youth vote here too. And with the constant barrage of missiles from the anti-Clinton towards us, i can tell you that many of us here have no inspiration to vote in the general election. If you think that Obama has run a clean campaign, go read the facts again. Prior the Feb 5, Mitt Romney spent the most in negative campaigning followed by Obama. And up till now, Obama outspent Hillary in negative campaigning 4-1. It's all politics and we accept that. Let me end this by telling 2 stories here to show you the meaning of 'progressive'. Steve Wesley was once the deputy-chairman of the development board. His job is to find ways to bring the poor out of poverty. When his boss resigned, he thought that he would take over but instead the democrats instilled a black man who had no knowledge of the job. The reasons behind this were to show how progressive california is by letting a black man taking over such an important goverment post, to show unity, hope, applease the black voters and to show change. Equal representation is part of the progressive's agenda. And so Steve Wesley quit the job and with a few of his friends started a small online sales company called E-Bay. Events like this has happened from time to time in California. No wonder the blacks remained the poorest. They always prefer to have someone of their own skin than someone who has the goods to deliver. This 2nd story is kinda an insider joke when i attended the centrist luncheon a year after John Kerry lost the election. While discussing strategy to take back the house and senate, I was told that Karl Rove planned an 18 state strategy that pushed Bush to victory. He selected those 18 competitive states and invested all their resources there. Meanwhile, Kerry, who has less resources than Bush, and ignoring the advice from the centrist, excecuted a what i think is a 30+ states strategy. I hope you all understand why we lost the Presidency in 2004.
Tim K: Your suggestions for her in the Senate actually make sense, and people have been suggesting for weeks that echoing a part of LBJ's career--master of the Senate--would be a better use of her skill set. Your earlier open-ended "role in the campaign" does not seem wise; she has high negatives, and she hasn't shown much ability to run a campaign. She's now being endorsed by a dead woman over her children's protests. Offer her a gracious way out--yes. That's good politics. (And I do consider Obama a politician. A talented one.) Taking that way out is up to the Clintons. In previous contests, I just don't recall a requirement that the loser be bribed into cooperating. It's supposed to be "uniting behind the candidate," not "buying off all losing candidates to avoid their sulking for the next few months." I hope Obama chooses Sebelius or Napolitano as veep; if you're a "stop at the ovaries" Clinton supporter, that should help. Of course, McCain could choose Hutchinson or Rice. I saw that article in the New Republic. The author was taken to task in the comments at great length. I was watching in SC. Reimagineding history by a long time Clinton family friend won't change what happened.
Deborah: I tend to agree with you on the Senate role. Having said that, I think you've taken some cheap and unnecessary shots there for no good reason. Just because Hillary will lose doesn't mean she's a terrible campaigner and politician. She is right up there with Ted Kennedy with favorability and popularity among Democrats, is universally known, and has a huge following. That's what a campaign needs in a surrogate. She'd definitely be more of an asset than somebody like John Kerry or virtual unknowns like Byron Dorgan or Claire McCaskill.
Deborah: I was *watching* in SC, too. Obama exploited his race for political advantage. The fairytale remarks had nothing to do with race, the MLK remarks had nothing to do with race, references to past drug-use have nothing to do with race... only Obama's campaign and the media pushed that story. And it was disgusting.
Generally, I agree that Obama should extend an olive branch to Hillary and her supporters, though I think it's important to separate the two. Hillary, however you feel about her campaign (I personally found it an unimaginative and self-defeating mess), is an important figure in the Democratic Party and is the most competitive runner-up since Gary Hart. Backing her is a significant chunk of the Democratic machinery. Magnanimous gestures, from offering the VP slot to a high-profile Clinton supporter (e.g., Wesley Clark) to making universal health care a top priority, would help. Working behind the scenes to install Clinton as the next Senate Majority Leader would also be a good move, as that would involve calling on Obama-loyalist Durbin to stand down. Most of Clinton's supporters are mainly Democratic partisans who will naturally back the Democratic nominee, Obama or someone else. One of the key tasks for Obama before the convention (besides defining McCain) is to win over the remaining Clintonites, perhaps more than 10% of her support, who appear deeply embittered. They may be aggrieved for any number of reasons, from hostility to Obama not "waiting his turn," to bad experiences with in-your-face Obamans, to the general sense that Hillary got a raw deal from a misogynistic media who'd rather promote the smooth-talking neophyte. Hopefully, they'll "come home" by mid-summer. If Obama hasn't consolidated the bulk of Hillary's supporters, however, he'll probably have to enlist Hillary herself to help. Certainly Sen. Clinton can do much to undermine a notion that she's done so much to drill into the head of her supporters: that what we need above all is an experienced Washington hand. I think Clinton understands the stakes and will do her part to unify the party. In any case, Obama's made all the right calls so far. I expect that graceful magnanimity would not elude him.
Tim K, I think you're making the common mistake of assuming that because there is bitterness in comment threads on sites like this one, that therefore most of the electorate has been embittered by this primary contest. It's really (as Obama has noted) been a quite gracious primary. They've both spoken often about the respect they have for one another. There hasn't been any really vicious moments. The race stuff in SC was closest, but both moved very quickly to distance themselves from it. As a result of the relative civility, polls consistently show most Dems are happy with both candidates. Hillary's supporters are not going to be alienated because most of them like Obama quite well. And, indeed, the two candidates have almost indistinguishable policy positions, so if you're voting on issues, it's unlikely you'll leave the Democratic fold. I strongly suspect Clinton will have a prime spot at the nominating convention. I also suspect she will stump hard for Obama in the general. Another way he may reach out to some of her supporters is by putting a woman on the ticket.
"And so Steve Wesley quit the job and with a few of his friends started a small online sales company called E-Bay" and then in 2008 he went on to become a co-chairman of Barack Obama's 2008 Presidential campaign in California. Btw, his name is Steve Westly, and he wasn't a founder of eBay, but an early employee.
Noah is right that the general public of voters will be fine. Hillary Clinton will not be on the Supreme Court; if Obama was going to choose someone he'd have trouble getting confirmed because of Republican resistance, he'd choose Laurence Tribe, i.e., a really stellar legal scholar. Hillary Clinton will not be Senate majority leader. Its a secret ballot and she is a very junior senator. As with the Republicans in the Senate regarding a Supreme Court appointment, Democrats will not want to put her in a position where they have to worry about her using power to settle scores. She made her bed.
Noah is right that the general public of voters will be fine. Hillary Clinton will not be on the Supreme Court; if Obama was going to choose someone he'd have trouble getting confirmed because of Republican resistance, he'd choose Laurence Tribe, i.e., a really stellar legal scholar. Hillary Clinton will not be Senate majority leader. Its a secret ballot and she is a very junior senator. As with the Republicans in the Senate regarding a Supreme Court appointment, Democrats will not want to put her in a position where they have to worry about her using power to settle scores. She made her bed.
I expect that if Clinton doesn't win on March 4th, both sides will handle the endgame graciously, at least in public. Obama doesn't have any special burden to buy Clinton's support - everyone is expected to support the party's nominee especially when they are close on the major issues. I would expect that Clinton would give an enthusiastic endorsement of Obama and Obama would respond by saying nice things about Senator Clinton (and her husband). It would be good to do a few events together in the spring to show party unity (inviting the other candidates too would be a nice touch), though I don't think that Senator Clinto is the best surrogate for the general election. The thing about having things end in March (if in fact they do which is still an open question), is that there is plenty of time for hard feelings from the primary to subside. Having Obama out there trading blows with McCain all summer will tend to help most Clinton supporters feel better about him (actually most of them already do like him, so it is only a minority that there needs to be any concern about). If Obama finds a VP that was in the Clinton camp (like Wesley Clark) that would be a plus, but it shouldn't be a leading factor in the decision - Obama needs a free hand here to pick the best person available. Clark is the only Clinton support I can think of at the moment who definately should get a close look, but there are probably others that don't come to mind immediately. Even Byah is another possibility, I guess, but I'd rather stay away from him . . . There is no reason for Clinton to be majority leader at this point. First of all, this is not the President's call to make - Senate democrats get to choose their leader and the next President needn't spend political capital on this unless Democratic Senators are about to do something crazy like select Ben Nelson (NB). Secondly, if Obama becomes President, it will be a bad dynamic if a former rival is running the Senate - too much opportunity for mutual suspicion even if everybody is trying to do the right thing. If she stays in the Senate, she is a plausible candidate in the future. But in the short term, if she loses the election, she should make an appiontment with Teddy Kennedy to discuss how to be a powerhouse legislator after your political ambitions are over. So far the primary season has been useful for the party. If Obama is the nominee, then he will have gained really valuable campaign experience and gotten an opportunity to introduce himself in Ohio (Obama seems to poll much better against McCain in states where he has campaigned a significant amount in the primaries). The problem with extending things to PA is that after MS, there will be no primaries for over a month so that is a lot of time for the candidates to snipe at each other while McCain gets to take shots at the frontrunner. Not a good dynamic, I think. It would be different if the PA primary were in the middle of March.
Richardson would be a fool to endorse Obama before he clinches the nomination and judging by this video, things are going to start sliding for Barack soon. What does it say about Barack's inexperience that he's been caught lying in the debate about his position on NAFTA? You can see the reporting here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LtbLEKHsi0 and more over at No Quarter: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/02/28/shocker-obama-campaign-reveals-fake-stand-on-nafta/ It really has turned out that Obamas is just words. Heck, it's what HE is telling the government in Canada. LOL.
I think Al Gore will come out soon for Obama due to the fact that Gore is concerned about America's role at home and abroad. Barack Obama had a Tripple Whammy thrown at him with the throwing out his middle name in a negative way, accompanied by a picture of Obama dressed in Somali garb, at the same time being endorsed by Farrakhan this is the worst kind of politics, its called "Swift Boating", which in reality is an assisination of character insinuating that Barack is a Muslin, even though he's not. I hope we Americans will not allow Camp Clinton and the Republicans to Swift-boat Barack like the Republicans did Kerry, turning a war hero into a deserter. And too, Obama can be of use to America by addressing the need of some to "clerverly" sow divisions and to exploit our differences, instead of building on that which unites us. "The world can use him too, with his reach to the Muslim nations and his middle name making it impossible for the US to walk away from one of the biggest foreign policy blunders in history. A restructuring of this overall policy is due after the demolition of the World Trade Towers. Some people think it's cool to be cynical. They deride those who show overt respect, admiration, and optimism. Those who still believe they can make a difference. Those who know they have power. This campaign has proven that cruelty is no longer desired as political style in the United States. The people now have a choice. A choice between magnifying the negatives or using the positives. I will say this. Obama has the potential to be one of the greats, but only if the people participate in molding his leadership. That's the task at hand. He, himself, invites others to recognize his faults not letting them interfere with the work. You can see how the people's support has molded him already in his quick evolution from weak debating events to the beautiful, strong, elegant, debate he delivered last night.." From: Blogger, J.M., Raging Universe. We cannot afford to continue to alienate our allies and friends in the Middle East by insinuating that to have the name Hussein means that you are evil, a terrorist, or are to be feared. Do we really want to Convey that? We have to remember, it was not Sadam Hussein who bombed us on 911, though some would have you to think that. And, there are many good and decent people with the name Hussein in the Middle East, some of which have been our allies such as King Jordan Hussein. To continue to ridicule and fear the name Hussein, will only continue to incite hatred and hostility, with the result of no end of wars in sight. America the world is watching and we must decide as a nation what we are going to do. America is only as strong and good as her leaders and politicians. America is finding her Soul!
lphokja pkgvoh pknrzcmhu pdkbfuweo rqjhnte wmlcpyzfn eyzsh
|
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email 
Recent Posts
Monthly Archives |
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
|
I doubt he'll endorse until after it is clear Obama will be the nominee. At that point though the endorsement probably won't matter much.
Posted by mike | February 27, 2008 3:10 PM