« The Obama Passport Scandal | Main | "A photo.....ooooh" »

Richardson Endorses Obama At... 12:08 am PT

21 Mar 2008 06:44 am

The New Mexico Gov. sent a message to his campaign e-mail list at 3:08 a.m., leading to AP bulletin about 5 minutes later. Did Obama need a good morning news cycle?

BTW: a wise old hand agrees that St. Dept. passport affair might well help unite Democrats around Sen. Obama by posing the Bushies (fairly or not) as foils.

During the last year, I have shared with you my vision and hopes for this nation as we look to repair the damage of the last seven years. And you have shared your support, your ideas and your encouragement to my campaign. We have been through a lot together and that is why I wanted to tell you that, after careful and thoughtful deliberation, I have made a decision to endorse Barack Obama for President.

We are blessed to have two great American leaders and great Democrats running for President. My affection and admiration for Hillary Clinton and President Bill Clinton will never waver. It is time, however, for Democrats to stop fighting amongst ourselves and to prepare for the tough fight we will face against John McCain in the fall. The 1990's were a decade of peace and prosperity because of the competent and enlightened leadership of the Clinton administration, but it is now time for a new generation of leadership to lead America forward. Barack Obama will be a historic and a great President, who can bring us the change we so desperately need by bringing us together as a nation here at home and with our allies abroad.

Earlier this week, Senator Barack Obama gave an historic speech. that addressed the issue of race with the eloquence, sincerity, and optimism we have come to expect of him. He inspired us by reminding us of the awesome potential residing in our own responsibility. He asked us to rise above our racially divided past, and to seize the opportunity to carry forward the work of many patriots of all races, who struggled and died to bring us together.

As a Hispanic, I was particularly touched by his words. I have been troubled by the demonization of immigrants--specifically Hispanics-- by too many in this country. Hate crimes against Hispanics are rising as a direct result and now, in tough economic times, people look for scapegoats and I fear that people will continue to exploit our racial differences--and place blame on others not like them . We all know the real culprit -- the disastrous economic policies of the Bush Administration!

Senator Obama has started a discussion in this country long overdue and rejects the politics of pitting race against race. He understands clearly that only by bringing people together, only by bridging our differences can we all succeed together as Americans.

His words are those of a courageous, thoughtful and inspiring leader, who understands that a house divided against itself cannot stand. And, after nearly eight years of George W. Bush, we desperately need such a leader.

To reverse the disastrous policies of the last seven years, rebuild our economy, address the housing and mortgage crisis, bring our troops home from Iraq and restore America's international standing, we need a President who can bring us together as a nation so we can confront our urgent challenges at home and abroad.

During the past year, I got to know Senator Obama as we campaigned against each other for the Presidency, and I felt a kinship with him because we both grew up between words, in a sense, living both abroad and here in America. In part because of these experiences, Barack and I share a deep sense of our nation's special responsibilities in the world.

So, once again, thank you for all you have done for me and my campaign. I wanted to make sure you understood my reasons for my endorsement of Senator Obama. I know that you, no matter what your choice, will do so with the best interests of this nation, in your heart.

Sincerely,

Bill Richardson

Comments (35)

Well Mr. Richards I can say prsonally I will never do that energy deal with you. (Yes I would rather lose money) 2nd. I will never vote for you in the future. To me you have branded yourself on the wrong side of history.

I really hope that Hillary can pull it out because otherwie I will be forced to vote against my civil liberties and vote republican. Vote republican I will as much as it pains me if Obama wins this nomination.

So it seems the democrats and other wish to loose. Good luck with that.

WAKE UP HILLARY. It's 3AM and Richardson just endorsed Obama!

If you vote Republican over Obama getting the nomination, you were never really that interested in the Democrats winning in the first place. ;)

KP:

I really, deeply, honestly would rather lose with an honest, decent and genuinely progressive candidate like Obama than win with a dishonest, flip-flopping,
race-baiting Republican-light like Hilary Clinton...

Although I have no particular warmth for Richardson, I think it's an exceptionally positive sign that someone who was so close to the Clintons is willing to take a stand against their desperate, discredited campaign. People like Kimberly may still not get it, but an awful lot of voters are coming to understand that 8 years of Hillary would be like putting the car in reverse.

Whatever Barack Obama is, the wrong side of history he is not. He's going to need Clinton's supporters -- I hope they get over their resentments by November. I hope Hillary Clinton proves herself a large enough figure to campaign hard for him.

Richardson was under tremendous pressure from the Clintons -- they gave him a couple of cabinet posts, after all -- but he went with the future anyway. Yes, it would have meant a little more if he did it before New Mexico or Texas...but, as a sign of how the big dogs in the Democratic party are leaning, it's HUGE.

I don't see anything short of scandal or a 40-point blowout for Clinton in Pennsylvania that can derail Obama's nomination, at this point.

Hillary is home alone in New York today pondering her future no doubt.

She has lost the revote options of MI and Florida nd all prospect of winning the popular vote (forget about the delegate vote), and Richardson endorses Obama with more endorsements to come...

She must be taking stock of who and what she wants to be ...does she want to be seen as a uniter pulling the Party together with a positive legacy, or does she want to be forever viewed as someone who was more concerned about themselves than the future of the Party and th Country. The choice is hers

If you can't vote for Obama, can you at least vote against The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy which he stands to inherit from Hillary Clinton?

And against a Supreme Court that looks like the conservative all-star team?

Kim Peacock, I can only hope that the temporary pain of seeing Hillary lose with wash away and you'll come to your senses.

I trust that you will not be able to push 'John McBush'.

Kimberly, so your principles allow you to vote for McCain who is pro life and give him the opportunity to overturn Roe vs. Wade because the Supreme Court anticipates at least 3 justices to retire in the next four years. I wonder if there is something else beside your principles that is motivating you. I'm tired of Americans voting against their supposed principles and economic interests for silly reasons. It's like cutting off your nose to spit your face.

Are you guys kidding me? K. Peacock wouldn't be voting in angst at the idea of Hillary not being on the ticket. She'd merely be voting for the candidate that most closely resembles her political views.

Cheney in a pantsuit.

The reason I will not vote for Obama if he wins the Democratic nomination, is the same as the reason I won't vote for him for the Democratic nomination. It's got nothing to do with resentment. I don't believe he is qualified to do the job. Performing the job requires more than being 35 and a natural born citizen of the United States. Communication is important, and he's got that skill set, but that is not enough.

Obama's primary rational is that he opposed the war in Iraq, prior to the war. Well so what? He was a long shot candidate in a Democratic Primary with a particularly Liberal population. Opposing the war in Iraq was the politically expedient position to take. I'm not saying he didn't believe it, but I think your kidding your self if you think Obama is any less calculating than any other politican. (just look at his resistence to a revote in Michigan and Florida, hardly a position of principle.)

Obama also claims to be a uniter. But where has he demonstrated this. Not in the Senate. Certainly not in the Democratic Primary. I think Obama let his ego get ahead of his and the party's interest. This is an election we should have won, and now were all but certain to lose, regardless of who wins the nomination. At least one large block of the Democratic Coalition is going to feel they were robbed. And this is all a result of Obama's egotistical run for the Presidency.

just look at his resistence to a revote in Michigan and Florida, hardly a position of principle

Oh, Hillary's acting principled? hahahaha, seriously? Double-speak and ignoring the rules and everything, and Obama's the unprincipled one? Obama's passively opposing a re-vote for several reasons: 1) it's not in his political interests to do so, and 2) it's a mockery of the nomination process.

Don't make me laugh. You are basing your vote on ethics and principle, and this leads you to be against Obama most of all?

Let's talk about political expediency: Hillary's vote to authorize the war, one that she made with "conviction" and "experience from both ends of 1600 Penn. Avenue." Please, you can't tell me she wasn't angling for the Dem nomination even then. As were Kerry and Biden and Edwards.

Sisy -

Why wasn't Hillary's run for the Presidency egotistical and the cause of the rift in the coalition? Because she was inevitable & everyone should have let her run as an incumbent?

I got news for you: the 90s weren't that great for Dems in the governors houses, the House or the Senate. People were not all that jazzed about a Clinton restoration.

If you don't want to vote for Obama, fine. But laying the ruination of the Democratic Party at the feet of the leading candidate because he ran in the first place makes no sense at all.

Sorry, sisyphusjns, but I'm afraid your claims just don't hold water.

You've completely misread Obama if you think his "primary rationale" is that he opposed the war. No, the centerpiece of the Senator's campaign has always been the effort to put behind us the Red/Blue mindset that's paralyzed the country for the last 16 years. And, yes, Obama is a uniter -- many of his Republican colleagues in the Illinois legislature have spoken in support of him, in fact -- and in Congress he championed "loose nuke" legislation that he co-sponsored with Richard Luger, a Republican.

Like it or not, this is a candidate who has excited the electorate, is well respected by his colleagues and has a vision for the future that doesn't include taking us back to the badly flawed Clinton dynasty.

Si Se Puede! New Mexico and West has now been won for the Democrats.
As a Mexican American. If Obama is good for Richardson, then he is good for me.

I can't help but notice the (unintended?) symbolism of a 3 a.m. endorsement, especially given that he has twice now shot down Hillary's ridiculous claims about Obama being unfit.

First of all I didn't mention ethics as a reason to not vote for Obama. In fact,I didn't mention ethics at all. I said I wouldn't vote for him because I don't have any reason to believe he can do the job well. Perhaps you'll catch my drift better if I say it like this: I'm not willing exchange another four years Carter (read Obama) for enother Eight years of Reagan (read whoever the repubs nominate in 2012). For the last seven years we've had a president who was over his head and we will not be significantly better off if we trade him for a President equally over his head, but from another party. Bush's Ideology is offensive, but not nearly as offensive or harmful as his incompetence.

Second of all working with the republicans in the Illinois legislature does not prove unity. Democrats a majority in the legislature, they had to work with Democrats to get any thing done. Hillary has a history of working with Republicans in the Senate, and she gets trashed for it, not called a uniter.

Finally, I didn't say that Clinton's run wasn't egotistical. My point was that this outcome was the only forseeable way Obama could win the nomination, by tearing the party apart. By pitting the two largest democratic constituencys against one another. If he wins, he will not get the level of support from white women that democrats can ussually count on. He essentially decided that he would win the nomination by making it worthless. Pretty ironic.

First of all I didn't mention ethics as a reason to not vote for Obama. In fact,I didn't mention ethics at all. I said I wouldn't vote for him because I don't have any reason to believe he can do the job well. Perhaps you'll catch my drift better if I say it like this: I'm not willing exchange another four years Carter (read Obama) for enother Eight years of Reagan (read whoever the repubs nominate in 2012). For the last seven years we've had a president who was over his head and we will not be significantly better off if we trade him for a President equally over his head, but from another party. Bush's Ideology is offensive, but not nearly as offensive or harmful as his incompetence.

Second of all working with the republicans in the Illinois legislature does not prove unity. Democrats a majority in the legislature, they had to work with Democrats to get any thing done. Hillary has a history of working with Republicans in the Senate, and she gets trashed for it, not called a uniter.

Finally, I didn't say that Clinton's run wasn't egotistical. My point was that this outcome was the only forseeable way Obama could win the nomination, by tearing the party apart. By pitting the two largest democratic constituencys against one another. If he wins, he will not get the level of support from white women that democrats can ussually count on. He essentially decided that he would win the nomination by making it worthless. Pretty ironic.

'I really hope that Hillary can pull it out because otherwie I will be forced to vote against my civil liberties and vote republican. '

wow. so hillary is the candidate that represents your civill liberties and views, but if she doesn't get the nomination, you'll vote for the absolute opposite of all your beliefs? even though the democrats have a candidate that is only marginally different from hillary clinton?

the republicans are welcome to your ignorance and faulty ethics. i personally would rather have people in the democratic party that vote according to their principles and not because they hate a candidate they've never even met, so much so that they'd betray their own values.

sisyphusjns,

With respect to Obama's foreign policy qualifications, I suggest you look at exactly why Obama opposed the Iraq War (not just the fact that he did, but the reasons he gave at the time for his opposition), how that ties into what else he has written and said about foreign policy, and how all that has attracted the support of a number of people with a great deal of foreign policy experience.

With respect to his political skills, he did in fact work across party lines in the U.S. Senate, including on issues such as ethics reform and nonproliferation (the latter being a foreign policy issue, I might note). He also has a track record of doing so going back to the Illinois Senate, on issues as diverse as ethics reform, police reform, low-income tax relief, and so on.

Finally, with respect to his "ego": for anyone to win the nomination, everyone else running has to lose. So, yes, by running for the nomination and hoping to win, he was necessarily putting Hillary Clinton in jeopardy of losing the nomination.

But that is not a different situation than Hillary Clinton herself put all the other contenders in, nor a different situation than anyone else who has ever run for the nomination has put the other contenders at the time in. So, ironically, this argument of yours seems to depend on Obama anticipating that Hillary Clinton would be a much worse loser than any other loser in the race, or indeed a much worse loser than the typical loser in other nomination contests, and that as a result he should, for the good of the Party, not put Hillary Clinton in a position where she might lose.

But once that is all explicit, that is not only pretty insulting to Clinton, but also could lead one to the opposite conclusion (e.g., if Clinton is a person of such poor character that she could not lose graciously, then to me it doesn't sound like she would be a very good President). So, frankly, that strikes me as a ridiculous argument.

Rather, if Obama thought he would make a good nominee and a good President, he had every right to run. The fact that if he won the nomination, that would necessarily mean that some other powerful people would not have their ambitions fulfilled, is just a normal part of politics.

My point was that this outcome was the only forseeable way Obama could win the nomination, by tearing the party apart. By pitting the two largest democratic constituencys against one another. If he wins, he will not get the level of support from white women that democrats can ussually count on. He essentially decided that he would win the nomination by making it worthless. Pretty ironic.

This is very strange reasoning, indeed.

In other words, as long as Clinton is in the race, NO ONE else is allowed to run, or they've "essentially decided" that they would win the nomination by making it worthless. Was this true for Edwards, Biden, Dodd, and Richardson as well?

Would it still be true if it was some other formidable woman in the race instead of Hillary, Dianne Feinstein perhaps? Or does Hillary have some unique hold on the passions of white women that all other candidates should instinctively respect by not running for president against her?

I think you may want to re-think what democracy means, sisy.

sisy:

'Finally, I didn't say that Clinton's run wasn't egotistical. My point was that this outcome was the only forseeable way Obama could win the nomination, by tearing the party apart.'

are you talking about the candidate leading in almost every category before his opponent, with no possible chance at winning through legitimate channels, refused to leave the race, tried to seat delegates that she had already promised not to seat, who attacked obama on assurances to canadian officials after promising the same thing to them at the same time?

or the great candidate who brought peace and harmony to all the people on the entire planet by having first lady tea while her husband and his officials did lots of stuff and then claimed that as her experience? the candidate who bashed obama for flipflopping on nafta before it was revealed that she had given several speeches at pro-nafta events (AND referred to it as one of her husband's successes in her own autobiography). the one who rabidly insisted that voters in michigan and florida be seated after agreeing that voters in michigan and florida would not be seated?

honestly, if you're looking for nothing more than an experience candidate, vote mccain. at least then you'll have someone who repeatedly fucks about the difference between major shia and sunni extremist groups working to destabilize a country that we're fighting a war in. or the one that calls vladimir putin the leader of germany.

take your pick at 3 am:
a) mccain: 'let me get my dentures, hearing aids and melanoma cream, and while running as the 'tough on national security and very experienced veteran' candidate, i'll fuck up about islam in the middle east in front of middle eastern muslims that might want to kill us.'
b) clinton: 'wait, wait, let me ask bill, we're running a co-presidency'
c) obama: 'let me give you a analytical and thoughtful speech about all the things we can do as one united country.'

VOTE LIKE SISY! VOTE EXPERIENCE! A AND B ALL THE WAY!!!!!!

sisy:

'Finally, I didn't say that Clinton's run wasn't egotistical. My point was that this outcome was the only forseeable way Obama could win the nomination, by tearing the party apart.'

are you talking about the candidate leading in almost every category before his opponent, with no possible chance at winning through legitimate channels, refused to leave the race, tried to seat delegates that she had already promised not to seat, who attacked obama on assurances to canadian officials after promising the same thing to them at the same time?

or the great candidate who brought peace and harmony to all the people on the entire planet by having first lady tea while her husband and his officials did lots of stuff and then claimed that as her experience? the candidate who bashed obama for flipflopping on nafta before it was revealed that she had given several speeches at pro-nafta events (AND referred to it as one of her husband's successes in her own autobiography). the one who rabidly insisted that voters in michigan and florida be seated after agreeing that voters in michigan and florida would not be seated?

honestly, if you're looking for nothing more than an experience candidate, vote mccain. at least then you'll have someone who repeatedly fucks about the difference between major shia and sunni extremist groups working to destabilize a country that we're fighting a war in. or the one that calls vladimir putin the leader of germany.

take your pick at 3 am:
a) mccain: 'let me get my dentures, hearing aids and melanoma cream, and while running as the 'tough on national security and very experienced veteran' candidate, i'll fuck up about islam in the middle east in front of middle eastern muslims that might want to kill us.'
b) clinton: 'wait, wait, let me ask bill, we're running a co-presidency'
c) obama: 'let me give you a analytical and thoughtful speech about all the things we can do as one united country.'

VOTE LIKE SISY! VOTE EXPERIENCE! A AND B ALL THE WAY!!!!!!

sisy:

'Finally, I didn't say that Clinton's run wasn't egotistical. My point was that this outcome was the only forseeable way Obama could win the nomination, by tearing the party apart.'

are you talking about the candidate leading in almost every category before his opponent, with no possible chance at winning through legitimate channels, refused to leave the race, tried to seat delegates that she had already promised not to seat, who attacked obama on assurances to canadian officials after promising the same thing to them at the same time?

or the great candidate who brought peace and harmony to all the people on the entire planet by having first lady tea while her husband and his officials did lots of stuff and then claimed that as her experience? the candidate who bashed obama for flipflopping on nafta before it was revealed that she had given several speeches at pro-nafta events (AND referred to it as one of her husband's successes in her own autobiography). the one who rabidly insisted that voters in michigan and florida be seated after agreeing that voters in michigan and florida would not be seated?

honestly, if you're looking for nothing more than an experience candidate, vote mccain. at least then you'll have someone who repeatedly fucks about the difference between major shia and sunni extremist groups working to destabilize a country that we're fighting a war in. or the one that calls vladimir putin the leader of germany.

take your pick at 3 am:
a) mccain: 'let me get my dentures, hearing aids and melanoma cream, and while running as the 'tough on national security and very experienced veteran' candidate, i'll fuck up about islam in the middle east in front of middle eastern muslims that might want to kill us.'
b) clinton: 'wait, wait, let me ask bill, we're running a co-presidency'
c) obama: 'let me give you a analytical and thoughtful speech about all the things we can do as one united country.'

VOTE LIKE SISY! VOTE EXPERIENCE! A AND B ALL THE WAY!!!!!!

sisy:

'Finally, I didn't say that Clinton's run wasn't egotistical. My point was that this outcome was the only forseeable way Obama could win the nomination, by tearing the party apart.'

are you talking about the candidate leading in almost every category before his opponent, with no possible chance at winning through legitimate channels, refused to leave the race, tried to seat delegates that she had already promised not to seat, who attacked obama on assurances to canadian officials after promising the same thing to them at the same time?

or the great candidate who brought peace and harmony to all the people on the entire planet by having first lady tea while her husband and his officials did lots of stuff and then claimed that as her experience? the candidate who bashed obama for flipflopping on nafta before it was revealed that she had given several speeches at pro-nafta events (AND referred to it as one of her husband's successes in her own autobiography). the one who rabidly insisted that voters in michigan and florida be seated after agreeing that voters in michigan and florida would not be seated?

honestly, if you're looking for nothing more than an experience candidate, vote mccain. at least then you'll have someone who repeatedly fucks about the difference between major shia and sunni extremist groups working to destabilize a country that we're fighting a war in. or the one that calls vladimir putin the leader of germany.

take your pick at 3 am:
a) mccain: 'let me get my dentures, hearing aids and melanoma cream, and while running as the 'tough on national security and very experienced veteran' candidate, i'll fuck up about islam in the middle east in front of middle eastern muslims that might want to kill us.'
b) clinton: 'wait, wait, let me ask bill, we're running a co-presidency'
c) obama: 'let me give you a analytical and thoughtful speech about all the things we can do as one united country.'

VOTE LIKE SISY! VOTE EXPERIENCE! A AND B ALL THE WAY!!!!!!

sisy:

'Finally, I didn't say that Clinton's run wasn't egotistical. My point was that this outcome was the only forseeable way Obama could win the nomination, by tearing the party apart.'

are you talking about the candidate leading in almost every category before his opponent, with no possible chance at winning through legitimate channels, refused to leave the race, tried to seat delegates that she had already promised not to seat, who attacked obama on assurances to canadian officials after promising the same thing to them at the same time?

or the great candidate who brought peace and harmony to all the people on the entire planet by having first lady tea while her husband and his officials did lots of stuff and then claimed that as her experience? the candidate who bashed obama for flipflopping on nafta before it was revealed that she had given several speeches at pro-nafta events (AND referred to it as one of her husband's successes in her own autobiography). the one who rabidly insisted that voters in michigan and florida be seated after agreeing that voters in michigan and florida would not be seated?

honestly, if you're looking for nothing more than an experience candidate, vote mccain. at least then you'll have someone who repeatedly fucks about the difference between major shia and sunni extremist groups working to destabilize a country that we're fighting a war in. or the one that calls vladimir putin the leader of germany.

take your pick at 3 am:
a) mccain: 'let me get my dentures, hearing aids and melanoma cream, and while running as the 'tough on national security and very experienced veteran' candidate, i'll fuck up about islam in the middle east in front of middle eastern muslims that might want to kill us.'
b) clinton: 'wait, wait, let me ask bill, we're running a co-presidency'
c) obama: 'let me give you a analytical and thoughtful speech about all the things we can do as one united country.'

VOTE LIKE SISY! VOTE EXPERIENCE! A AND B ALL THE WAY!!!!!!

sisy:

'Finally, I didn't say that Clinton's run wasn't egotistical. My point was that this outcome was the only forseeable way Obama could win the nomination, by tearing the party apart.'

are you talking about the candidate leading in almost every category before his opponent, with no possible chance at winning through legitimate channels, refused to leave the race, tried to seat delegates that she had already promised not to seat, who attacked obama on assurances to canadian officials after promising the same thing to them at the same time?

or the great candidate who brought peace and harmony to all the people on the entire planet by having first lady tea while her husband and his officials did lots of stuff and then claimed that as her experience? the candidate who bashed obama for flipflopping on nafta before it was revealed that she had given several speeches at pro-nafta events (AND referred to it as one of her husband's successes in her own autobiography). the one who rabidly insisted that voters in michigan and florida be seated after agreeing that voters in michigan and florida would not be seated?

honestly, if you're looking for nothing more than an experience candidate, vote mccain. at least then you'll have someone who repeatedly fucks about the difference between major shia and sunni extremist groups working to destabilize a country that we're fighting a war in. or the one that calls vladimir putin the leader of germany.

take your pick at 3 am:
a) mccain: 'let me get my dentures, hearing aids and melanoma cream, and while running as the 'tough on national security and very experienced veteran' candidate, i'll fuck up about islam in the middle east in front of middle eastern muslims that might want to kill us.'
b) clinton: 'wait, wait, let me ask bill, we're running a co-presidency'
c) obama: 'let me give you a analytical and thoughtful speech about all the things we can do as one united country.'

VOTE LIKE SISY! VOTE EXPERIENCE! A AND B ALL THE WAY!!!!!!

sisyphusjns,

Sorry, I meant to note that Obama worked on ethics and nonproliferation with Republicans in his first Congress, when the Republicans still controlled both houses. Similarly, during some of his time in the Illinois Senate, the Republicans also controlled the Illinois legislature. So, this is not just something he does when Democrats are in charge (and indeed, no smart legislator would do that, since sometimes your party isn't in charge).

It occurs to me now that sisy isn't saying that no one else should run against Hillary, only that black people shouldn't run against Hillary. Sorry for misunderstanding your principled stand, sisy.

Ban Johnson,

That does seem to be the claim with respect to Obama, but I suspect that if anyone else had put together a winning coalition, that person would also be deemed guilty of tearing the Party apart, just in some different way.

So, really, Obama's sin is apparently not so much that he ran against Clinton, but rather that he ran and WON, which is the real difference between him and the other contenders. So the ultimate point appears to be that the Party just can't survive someone actually beating Clinton. Or is it that it can't survive Clinton losing? That is a subtle but perhaps important distinction in figuring out just where this poster is coming from.

In other words, as long as Clinton is in the race, NO ONE else is allowed to run, or they've "essentially decided" that they would win the nomination by making it worthless. Was this true for Edwards, Biden, Dodd, and Richardson as well?
--Ban Johnson

This is what happened when she ran for the Senate: every other democrat was convinced to bow out and clear her path. Evidently the presidential nomination was supposed to work the same way except, inexplicably, other people ran.

As for working with Republicans: Obama did it on weapons proliferation and ethics, Clinton on anti-flag burning laws and aid for New York. One of the things I like about Obama (and Hilzoy at ObsidianWings had a nice essay on it) is that if you examine his Senate record he has been quietly there on a lot of important but unglamourous issues.

I'm glad Richardson endorsed. I like him, and hope the president will use his roving diplomat skills. (He'd be a good veep--executive skills as governor and very broad experience, including international diplomacy--but there are other good choices, as well. Still, he's near the top of my list.) The timing of the endorsement, after the Wright hysteria, is also welcome.

The Clintons can't lose, regardless; there'd be hell to pay:
http://theseedsof9-11.com

Folks, McCain and Clinton have never run anything bigger than a Senate office either until this campaign (unless you count Clinton's disasterous health care reform initiative in her husband's administration). Frankly, there is no credible evidence that either of them would be any more competent than Obama as President. Doesn't mean they wouldn't be - the truth is that we just don't know. For a lot of reasons, I'd much rather take my chances with Obama than take my chances with Clinton or McCain.

And if you think that McCain has a better handle on foreign policy issues than Obama, well, I suspect that you are either very hawkish such that his knee-jerk militarism doesn't bother you, or you just aren't paying attention.

Finally, if you look at history, prior experience is not a very good predictor of success for US Presidents - as far as I can tell the record suggests that they have almost nothing to do with each other. For example, Hoover had lots of experience, T. Roosevelt and Lincoln had very little. Counter examples in the other direction could also be cited. There just isn't much of a relationship.

After Richardson' endorsement, is there any way Edwards can follow with a Clinton endorsement without being seen as one who would prolong the divide, rather than heal it?

If Edwards, as has been rumored, was leaning toward endorsing Clinton, he would have had to beat Richardson to the punch.

-


Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.