A Democrat consultant close to Gov. Bill Richardson says that the New Mexico governor will not endorse a presidential candidate until after February 5.
« Where DeLauro Goes, So Goes Dodd? | Main | The RNC's New Way To Bracket Barack Obama » Richardson Won't Endorse Until After 2/501 Feb 2008 01:11 pm Comments (44)
"A Democrat consultant close to Gov. Bill Richardson...." I hope you meant "a Democratic consultant close..." 
Poor show by Richardson, I thought he would have had more guts than to dodge the question.
By "close to Bill Richardson" do you mean "close to Bill Clinton?"
Huge blow to HRC, and here's why: Obama's momentum has gone from an idea pushed by his supporters to a reality verified by, well, you-name-it. If the Clintons had Richardson under their thumb and were going to get his endorsement, it would be coming not just before February 5th, but most likely TODAY. That way, they could perhaps stem the Obama tide as much as possible over the weekend by touting the endorsement and putting his face on every television in America. As an Obama supporter, Richardson would have been a nice get this week. But this makes me think a couple of things... 1) Is what could be taken as Richardson's refusal to "help swing some Hispanic votes on Super Tuesday for the couple who helped his political career so much in the past" a small victory for Obama? 2) Does the Obama campaign have a different, big endorsement (Edwards) coming out today?
Surprising, actually. With Obama having two separate events in New Mexico today, I actually expected he'd be announcing a Richardson endorsement.
Bill Clinton was in NM Thursday and likely asked Gov Richardson to wait until after Feb 5th to endorse Which would mean Richardson will endorse Obama is he does ok with hispanics and not anger the Clintons -- at least not this week Shame on Richardson - putting personal ambition over what he knows would be the right thing to do. He does seem like a nice guy - but the Clintons will come up with another reason after Feb 5th for him to "wait" again His endorsement as the highest ranking Hispanic in USA could have really been impt before Feb 5th But there is Texas in March-- Obama--08
"A Democrat consultant close to Gov. Bill Richardson...." I hope you meant "a Democratic consultant close..."
Aventura,
Why am I not surprised? This was pretty much the way he ran his campaign -- wait and see.
How can one think he has more in common with the Clintons? Unless he's not the candidate I thought him to be, he may have succumbed to some pressure by Clintons, and be waiting til after 2/5, but HOW can one say that he has more in common with Clintons???? HOW???? Bill Richardson has some values and some morals. That makes him a natural fit to endorse Barack.
Maybe he's just waiting to see which way the winds blows, for a future cabinet post or more. But Aventura's idea is also a strong possibility given how the Clinton's dealt with Kennedy before he endorsed.
Way to hedge your bets, Bill. This makes it all the more critical that Edwards get off the fence and behind Obama ASAP. Why? Just wait, if Hillary has a good day Tuesday and starts to pick up a little steam, there will be all sorts of Democratic hand-wringing and second-guessing, just like the Republicans are doing now with John McCain. We have a chance to do this right, and do it now.
Obama's momentum has gone from an idea pushed by his supporters to a reality verified by, well, you-name-it. JBS: No, you name it. I don't see that his momentum has been "verified" by anything. I see lots of Obama supporters talking about polls and crowds and money. But I heard about those things after Iowa, and they proved to be untrustworthy predictors of success, since, by my count, Hillary is 4-1 since then. The biggest single development in the last few days is Edwards's withdrawal, and that almost certainly benefits Hillary. If the Clintons had Richardson under their thumb and were going to get his endorsement, it would be coming not just before February 5th, but most likely TODAY. It would appear rather obvious that the Clintons have never had Richardson "under their thumb." He did, you know, challenge Hillary for the nomination. That way, they could perhaps stem the Obama tide as much as possible over the weekend by touting the endorsement and putting his face on every television in America. Running on the issue of economic anxiety is all Hillary needs to do to "stem the Obama tide." Endorsements matter little either way. Is what could be taken as Richardson's refusal to "help swing some Hispanic votes on Super Tuesday for the couple who helped his political career so much in the past" a small victory for Obama? Is what could be taken as Richardson's refusal to "help swing some Hispanic votes on Super Tuesday for Obama" a small victory for Hillary? Does the Obama campaign have a different, big endorsement (Edwards) coming out today? Yes. Andrew Sullivan has scheduled a press conference for 4pm EST.
Jasper, Hillary's 4-1 since Iowa? Are you serious? I suppose if you count 2 scrimmages against no opponent, then Hillary's 4-1. But let's be real, Hillary barely won in NH where she had the best field organizer in the nation working for her. And even though she had more supporters in Nevada -- hardly a representative contest, with all the shenanigans that took place by all sides -- Obama won more delegates! I hope for your sake that Hillary's experience (to say nothing of her campaign staff) can do a better job of winning delegates, as opposed to raw voters. Otherwise, you might wind up with another popular winner, who just can't get it done where it counts...with the delegates!
Jasper, I predict that you're about to get owned by JBS.
I agree. Hope you're wearing a cup, Jasper.
Jasper, I would also add a couple of things to support Obama's mo. 1. Look at his fundraising numbers for January - over 32 million in one month. Money is not everything but it is sure a sign of support and his biggest fundraising day was the day after NH. 2. Look at the polls. I think when you have movement across the board in a wide variety of states as well as national numbers you could call that momentium. 3. Look at endorsements. In light of Edwards dropping out Obama is picking up key union support. He just got the endorsement of Moveon.org, the mayor of Seattle, Charlie Rangle's wife Alma, the Mexican-American Political Association, etc. The list could go on and on. I'm not saying he is going to win but I think the evidence is clear that he has the big mo right now.
Jasper, I would also add a couple of things to support Obama's mo. 1. Look at his fundraising numbers for January - over 32 million in one month. Money is not everything but it is sure a sign of support and his biggest fundraising day was the day after NH. 2. Look at the polls. I think when you have movement across the board in a wide variety of states as well as national numbers you could call that momentium. 3. Look at endorsements. In light of Edwards dropping out Obama is picking up key union support. He just got the endorsement of Moveon.org, the mayor of Seattle, Charlie Rangle's wife Alma, the Mexican-American Political Association, etc. The list could go on and on. I'm not saying he is going to win but I think the evidence is clear that he has the big mo right now.
I think it is bit a bad thing thing that Dodd, Biden, and Richardson are not endorsing right now. If too many (male) former candidates endorsed at once, it could be spun as the boys beating up on the girl. Obama should save his male endorsements for big ones like Ted Kennedy, or hopefully, John edwards. Too many big name male endorsemenrts would drown out the impact of the Napalatano, Sebalius, McKaskill, and Caroline Kennedey endorsements that needs to stay in the forefront to cut into HIllary's advantage with women.
Obama's "momentum" has been confirmed by Gallup, among other things ("At the moment, Obama has the momentum among Democrats nationally"). As of today, he has cut Hillary's national lead down to three points, which is the lowest it's been since, uh, ever. As for who benefits from Edwards' departure: "Gallup Poll Daily tracking shows Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as close as they have been since the polling program started at the beginning of 2008. Forty-four percent of Democratic voters nationwide support Clinton, while 41% support Obama, within the poll's three-point margin of error. The data suggest that Obama has gained slightly more -- at least initially -- from John Edwards' departure from the race. In the final tracking data including Edwards in all three days' interviewing (Jan. 27-29 data), Clinton had 42%, Obama 36%, and Edwards 12%. Since then, Clinton's support has increased two points and Obama's five." Annd Rasmussen: "The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows Barack Obama inching closer to Hillary Clinton. It’s now Clinton 43%, Obama 37%. A week ago, Clinton had an eleven point advantage, 41% to 30%. The last two nights of tracking were the first without John Edwards in the race. For those two nights, it’s Clinton 44% and Obama 42% meaning that Clinton’s support is essentially unchanged. This suggests that many former Edwards supporters now support Obama, many others have yet to make a decision, and few currently support Clinton."
Or, you could say in the contested caucuses/primaries so far, there have been two strong wins for Obama (IA&SC), one pretty good win for HRC (give her credit for NH!) and one close win for HRC in votes cast (NV) that actually gave Obama more delegates because of his rural strength. And he leads in earned delegates right now. http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/delegates/index.html The current polls show Edwards voters dividing, but if anything favoring Obama. Possibly some of them have seen this: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4218509&page=1 --- What's interesting is that super Tue may leave us with rough delegate parity. Who expected that? So look ahead: http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/primaries/democraticprimaries/index.html I don't know what will happen and I'm not gonna pull any "almost certainlies" out of the air, but it looks kinda hopeful. Anyone keeping tabs on Texas?
Jasper, You're a real glutton for punishment, I have to tell you. Okay, here we go. Wait, I should say something first - if your mission is to annoy me by making me refute your BS, it's working. Okay, here we go for real. 1) Hillary is only 4-1 IF you count Michigan and Florida, which awarded no delegates and saw no visits from Barack Obama, who kept his word about the pledge. So she's really 2-1. That is, if you count New Hampshire, where she and Obama had an equal amount of delegates, and Nevada, where Obama had MORE delegates. Not sure if anybody told you that, Jasper ole boy, but the candidates are trying to amass enough delegates to get the nomination right now. And let's not forget that Obama's 1 was a big one in that it started this new momentum, which I think we're seeing and feeling is different than the post-Iowa momentum. And Jasper, if you're reading the Atlantic, you're probably reading the same blogs and/or news websites that everyone else is reading. So listen - when I mentioned Obama's momentum, I simply asserted that, all things considered (polls, crowds, endorsements, Edwards = out, and, yes, money), Obama has what can only be characterized as some real momentum right now. Don't discredit the things that contribute to a real FEELING of momentum, Jasper (which is all momentum is in the first place). As an Obama supporter, I may not have liked the feeling/idea of HRC's inevitability when it looked like my candidate was going to be swallowed up by it this summer, but I didn't deny the things that contributed to that feeling/idea. As far as predictors of success go, I guess we'll have to wait and see. But I think that the applicable factors above would have been solid predictors of success had your candidate not benefitted from several things leading up to New Hampshire's vote. The first was the perception that she was piled-on at the debate. Now, reasonable people have disagreed on this, but I think that voters in New Hampshire paid close attention to these things and, in the last 72 hours, sent a clear message with their votes: "we will not be the state that twists the knife on this woman's candidacy." She is, after all, not a bad candidate. 2) I've already smacked you around on why Edwards' dropping out helps Obama rather than HRC. And everyone who read our exchange knows it. So you're not going to get me to waste my time doing it all over again. 3) Jasper, I don't think anyone could say with a straight face that Bill Richardson ever challenged HRC for the nomination. 4) Do you think before you type? Nobody has ever imagined Richardson as auditioning for a Veep slot with Obama they way they have with HRC since THIS SUMMER, and for good reason, considering Richardson’s long relationship with the Clintons. There isn't enough time for people to think about it the way you proposed, but even if they started imagine it that way at this point, it only reinforces the Obama momentum argument, and only gives HRC a small victory, which we now know will be coming AFTER February 5th. And it's only a victory in that she & Bill were able to persuade an old crony to wait a few days to endorse the juggernaut who is knocking them off of their pedestal. Is that even a victory? 5) A Sullivan endorsement? Cute. Jasper, I'm hereby done with you. Everyone knows that you only think about one side of your arguments, which are weak in the first place. But hang in there, sport.
Here's more data: http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/delegates/index.html *If* Edwards voters were breaking for HRC, *then* most of the ten points he has lost in the last 3 days would have accrued to HRC. Rasmussen and state-level data show the same pattern.
Sometimes, being a bit understated is actually better. Richardson has not formally endorsed Obama. But if you look at the story he is telling, about how Obama bailed him out during one of the debates (about Katrina), he has sent the message to Hispanics: here is a guy who will stand by us. Even when he doesn't need us, and when it isn't likely to get a lot of public attention. That's worth far, far more than a formal endorsement.
Cat got your tongue, Jasper?
JBS: Hillary is only 4-1 IF you count Michigan and Florida, which awarded no delegates and saw no visits from Barack Obama, who kept his word about the pledge. Democratic primary voters in these two states most certainly did "award delegates." The question is whether or not they'll be seated. I predict, given their importance in November, that they will be. Hillary played this opportunity just like the highly experienced politician she is. Moreover, it's laughable to say these two states saw "no visits" from Obama. First, it's not true (he visited Florida in September). Secondly, unlike Hillary, who kept her word about not advertising in Florida, Obama bought spots on CNN and reached millions of Floridians. There's also the well-publicized efforts of black political leaders in Michigan against Hillary, and the energetic activities of Obama's partisans in Florida. Needless to say these Obama surrogates failed. And let's not forget that Obama's 1 was a big one in that it started this new momentum, which I think we're seeing and feeling is different than the post-Iowa momentum. It most certainly is different from "the post-Iowa momentum." The main difference being that it doesn't look as hopeful for Obama this time around. After Iowa, Intrade had him as the heavy favorite to win the nomination, and there was talk of the "collapse" of the Clinton campaign. South Carolina changed their numbers very little (bettors reckon she has a 60% shot at the nomination). Apparently people who actually have a financial stake in this election now disagree with Obama fans' perceptions about this race. Funny, that. And it's only a victory in that she & Bill were able to persuade an old crony to wait a few days to endorse the juggernaut who is knocking them off of their pedestal. Is that even a victory? The more likely explanation is that Richardson and Edwards, like most prognosticators, feels there's a better than even chance Hillary will be the nominee. Whether that's a victory for Hillary or not I'll leave up to you. I personally don't think endorsements matter than much either way in national campaigns, and may even trigger a backlash, because many voters resent what they perceive is their betters telling them how to vote. Everyone knows that you only think about one side of your arguments, which are weak in the first place. But hang in there, sport. Right, and your participation in Obama's campaign makes you a paragon of objectivity.
What a transparent bufoon. His endorsement would be valuable before primaries in high-hispanic states, but he wants to wait until after then, so he can figure out who might win. Thanks for nothing, candy clown. He should endorse now or forever shut up and sit down and hope someone picks him for a job on his dubious merits.
His endorsement would be valuable before primaries in high-hispanic states, but he wants to wait until after then, so he can figure out who might win. Thanks for nothing, candy clown. He should endorse now or forever shut up... Why does everybody seem to think politicians have a duty to publicly recommend a candidate in a primary? To me the whole practice is very 1950s-ish, and smacks of paternalism. Voters aren't wind-up toys. I think Edwards, Gore and Richardson are to be commended for keeping their noses out of other people's business, in contrast to the very out-of-date Ted Kennedy. I seriously think all these last minute endorsements are going to hurt Obama with female voters, as they both diminish him (makes it looks like he can't make the case himself) and give the appearance of piling on. They also -- amazingly -- impart to Hillary's campaign the air of "underdog." Obama has now truly taken on the appearance the establishment's anointed champion, which is something to behold, given the fact that by rights, Clinton is the one who should be perceived as the "entitled" bitch queen headed to her coronation. Now -- astonishingly -- she looks scrappy, sympathetic, and almost persecuted.
Its a funny funny world when a bunch of bloggers tell jasper to "watch out! watch out! JBS will get you you!" and then JBS posts and says he is done with Jasper and that he's batted him around already: I'm ready for the super bowl, right? Richardson is not endorsing yet. Mystery? yes. Obama is surging and Hillary are surging. They are headed into 2o+ states. Both campaigns are quivering with insecurities and doubt too. JBS makes no sense about florida and michigan: Just keep thinking Fannie Lou Hamer and the humiliation that comes from not seating delegates. Florida was the most representitive state yet and barack didn't clean her clock yet. Please don't argue that Iowa isn't his neigboring state and that it doesn't stink a little like Tsongas' winning in MA. Please don't argue that SC was representitive of how it goes in 22 states on tuesday. Please don't tell me that the big un-known isn't how many women think of their daughters and their mothers and go Hillary on tuesday. It is a complete unknown that pollsters can't or won't really dig deeply into. Everything will be a lot clearer tuesday night. obama's publishing money reports for Jan don't mean much if you can't compare them to hill's numbers that aren't published: all you can do is give biased guesses what they are just like your biased quesses on who will endorse who and why. Remember that richardson ran against obama too. I hope someone has more cogent arguments against jasper than JBS or else he will have to start spotting your side points.
if this is true, this is the next best thing to an endorsement for Obama. Keeping Richardson sidelined and out of the Hispanic voting arena for Hillary is a good thing.
Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Tom Daschle, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore?... soon to join this list Barack Hussien Obama. Get REAL u IDIOTS, Endorsements from these losers is not going to get any votes for him.
Didn't you hear? Bill Clinton is watching the superbowl with Bill Richardson on Sunday. So who do you think he's going to endorse now?? I also think it's telling that Edwards hasn't endorsed anyone yet. And Edwards should be furious with BO about BO's "right from the Rebublican 1993 playbook" negative health care flyer the Obama people sent out against HRC's health care plan. I don't see a unifier here, I see a divider.
Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Tom Daschle, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore?... soon to join this list Barack Hussien Obama. Get REAL u IDIOTS, Endorsements from these losers is not going to get any votes for him. I assume you're a Dubya man? Becauase Hildog's a loser in the general she'd get curbstomped by McCain everyone who isn't a blind Clintbot, everyone know this!
Lisa - I have mixed feelings about the Obama flier, but I would venture to guess that Edwards would be more upset about Hillary's robocalls attacking him than he is about the factually accurate and issue-based flier that the Obama campaign sent out. I am still blown away that everytime that Obama points out policy differences between him and his opponent, that is somehow "abandoning the politics of hope" and being a "divider." Get a new chorus. Let me know when Obama's campaign starts attacking her on personal issues (ie Clinton surrogate bringing up Obama's youthful drug use or Bill dragging race into the forefront in SC) and we'll talk. "Get REAL u IDIOTS" ca-ind - you don't even know how hilariously ironic that is, do you?
I have a feeling that Bill Richardson will endorse Hillary at the Superbowl when millions are wtaching! I amy be wrong but why than he would pick Bill Clinton to watch it???
It is past time for some of these people to get off the sidelines and get into the game. This failure to endorse prior to 2/5 just reeks of cowardice. Believe me, I'm no Ted Kennedy fan, but the man had the intestinal fortitude to put it all on the line. He makes Edwards, Gore, Richardson and the rest of them look like tiny little men. Disgusting.
wj, you are singing my song ... I got the same "gut" check subliminal message - his current silence may seem like a Bill Clinton "get" for now, but actually the telegraphed message of far greater importance is that he IS NOT endorsing b4 Feb. 5th - AND, let's face it, BR's totally easiest political decision would have been to endorse Hillary - BUT, if this Atlantic story can be believed, apparently he won't. If it turns out THAT way, Richardson's SILENCE will be DEAFENING to all Latino voters on tsunami tuesday.
It is not bravery for a very old man in a safe seat in Mass to endorse anybody.
This failure to endorse prior to 2/5 just reeks of cowardice. More likely, it "reeks" of his belief that Barack Obama is not the party's best bet to take our country back from the Republicans. I know you Obama fans can't possibly conceive that millions of Americans favor Hillary's Clinton's candidacy, but millions do. Maybe Richardson's one of them.
All the men I've come across who support Hillary are the type of spineless jellyfish with no balls that you see in the mall taking orders from their fat, overbearing wives.
Gallup's overnight polling has Hillary's national lead widening to seven points. She'll be a lock for the nomination by 11:30pm Tuesday.
When did the Hillary Clinton become so hated by Democrats? I am frustrated by the entire process because the Clinton's are being scrutanized constantly and Obama is getting a pass. I only hope when people learn that he does not "walk on water", the supporters will not turn on him like everyone has done Hillary. I am one Democrat that will plans to sit out this election.
At approximately 5:00 pm PST today, NPR broadcast that Richardson endorsed Hillary Clinton today. Was that an error, or a leak?
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email Twitter || On Facebook || QIK Live Channel  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
|
| 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
The adjective form is "Democratic."
Posted by r | February 1, 2008 1:14 PM