Bill Richardson to Endorse Obama

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson will appear with Barack Obama in Oregon Friday and provide his endorsement to him.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, the nation's only Hispanic governor, is endorsing Sen. Barack Obama for president, calling him a "once-in-a- lifetime leader" who can unite the nation and restore America's international leadership.

"I believe he is the kind of once-in-a-lifetime leader that can bring our nation together and restore America's moral leadership in the world," Richardson said in a statement obtained by the AP. "As a presidential candidate, I know full well Sen. Obama's unique moral ability to inspire the American people to confront our urgent challenges at home and abroad in a spirit of bipartisanship and reconciliation."

Richardson could be angling for the V.P. Spot. He could also take Hispanic votes from Hillary. [More...]

Richardson praised Hillary Clinton as a "distinguished leader with vast experience." But the governor said Obama "will be a historic and 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."

See the love:

"There is no doubt in my mind that Barack Obama has the judgment and courage we need in a commander in chief when our nation's security is on the line. He showed this judgment by opposing the Iraq war from the start, and he has show it during this campaign by standing up for a new era in American leadership internationally," Richardson said. Obama said he was "deeply honored" to have Richardson's support

And back at you:

Obama said he was "deeply honored" to have Richardson's support. Whether it's fighting to end the Iraq war or stop the genocide in Darfur or prevent nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists, Gov. Richardson has been a powerful voice on issues of global security, peace and justice, earning five Nobel Peace Prize nominations," Obama said in a statement.

John Edwards didn't endorse either candidate, or more accurately, he endorsed both on the Tonight Show last night. He said Barack was inspirational and could bring out the youth vote, and Hillary was tenacious, a fighter and had the experience. He said both would make great presidents.

< Obama Campaign Provides Photo of Rev. Wright Shaking Hands With Bill Clinton | Friday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    How much is the Hispanic vote in play (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by nycstray on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:38:07 AM EST
    in the next few upcoming primaries?

    also, could this be a sign he knows something if he's angling for a VP spot?

    Guess I'm trying to figure out why now  :)

    not much for the hispanic vote (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by TheRefugee on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 06:35:13 AM EST
    latino voters love Hillary.  But angling for Veep?  Absolutely.  

    Apparently that wasn't something Bill offered while watching the Super Bowl with Richardson.  For players like Richardson all they want is an assurance they are on the short list of prospective running mates.  

    Endorsements for Obama at this pt tick me off because they are, in effect, legitimizing Obama's willingness to throw MI and FL into a perpetual state of "red"ness.  Anyone who believes that Obama can give the finger to those states and then win them back with a couple feel good "yes we can" speeches is smokin da ganja.


    He may be in for a surprise! (5.00 / 0) (#110)
    by ghost2 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:14:13 AM EST
    What's the gurantee that he would be picked as VP? Wishful thinking on Richardson's part.  

    MI Under The Bus Indeed (5.00 / 0) (#116)
    by cal1942 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:22:27 AM EST
    So Richardson a "free" trade promoter and DLC type endorses another "free" trade supporter and DLC type.

    Throwing Michigan under the bus is nothing new for Richardson.  He wants Great Lakes water to be piped to the southwest.

    Crapping on Michigan.  Birds of a feather.


    Because Obama is screwing Florida now... (5.00 / 0) (#32)
    by goldberry on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 07:13:11 AM EST
    ...and he needs to get them back in the fall.  
    The Math is going to get really tight and Puerto Rico looks important.

    I don't think it will be a big deal in Puerto Rico (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 07:47:54 AM EST
    ..in Puerto Rico there are plenty of Puerto Ricans who support Hillary and who support Obama and those endorsements will matter more. Now if Bill Clinton were to suddenly endorse Obama, that might make a difference. ;-)

    Mr. 48 (5.00 / 0) (#58)
    by Athena on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:09:11 AM EST
    Mr. 48, aka Senator Obama, is now aided in his willful disenfranchisemt of 2 key states by those who are selling principle for a spot on the short list.

    I think that any nomination where a candidate willfully would not submit his candidacy to the voters of a state (Obama in Michigan) is illegitimate.  There's no other way to characterize it.


    Richardson also (none / 0) (#134)
    by cal1942 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:39:53 AM EST
    removed his name from the Michigan ballot.

    But this statement really grinds at me:

    "There is no doubt in my mind that Barack Obama has the judgment and courage ... "

    Reminds me once again of the 'judgement' and 'courage' Obama showed on the Roberts nomination.


    Clinton has the NY Puerto Rican community (5.00 / 0) (#106)
    by litigatormom on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:11:49 AM EST
    pretty locked up, and they have ties back to PR.  She has her own network of endorsements down there, and I don't think Richardson's endorsement (he's Mexican-American, not Puerto Rican) is going to matter much.

    Re: Hispanic vote (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by claudius on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 07:39:09 AM EST
    My feeling is that Richardson probably doesn't have too clout to move votes in the Hispanic community.  Anyways, this is well past the time when it would offer a significant boost to Obama (i.e. before Super Tuesday, Texas).

    What is significant is the following:

    1. He's one more superdelegate for Obama.
    2. Obama gets some positive coverage in the press.  He's lost about the last five news cycles.
    3. Other superdelegates may see this and start to move too (for both Clinton and Obama).

    they were saying this morning (5.00 / 0) (#94)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:03:47 AM EST
    there is only one contest left with much of a latino vote.

    i don't think most voters outside of his (none / 0) (#129)
    by hellothere on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:35:11 AM EST
    home state much care what richardson thinks. they are hillary voters. i am just wondering what kind of koolaid are these folks drinking. glup,glup,glup!

    Maybe in NM (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by MaxUS on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:45:42 AM EST
    He could also take Hispanic votes from Hillary.

    He might drive the Hispanic vote in NM, but I think he'd be hard pressed even to deliver the Hispanic vote against McCain on a national level.

    Ask Teddy about endorsements delivering votes. Poor Bill R., it looks like he decided to put paid on his debt to Teddy K. We Hispanics understand loyalty and honoring our debts, I don't think this will hurt Bill R., but it won't help Obama with Hispanics.

    Did I read somewhere that Obama said something about immigrants in The Speech?

    am I wrong (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by Kathy on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 07:57:47 AM EST
    or was it true that even Richardson couldn't deliver the Hispanic vote for himself?

    I Understand... (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by AmyinSC on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:08:05 AM EST
    That he is also INCREDIBLY sexist, which would also explain choosing Obama over Clinton (that came from a fairly high up muckity muck at DOE who worked under him when he was Sec.  She said if he ever ran for president, she would NEVER vote for him because of the way he treated women there).

    I heard from (1.00 / 1) (#187)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:37:31 AM EST
    My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who saw Hillary kicking puppies at 31 Flavors last night. I guess it's pretty serious.

    I love rumor smearing.


    Oh my... (none / 0) (#250)
    by Fredster on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:26:05 PM EST
    My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who saw Hillary kicking puppies at 31 Flavors last night. I guess it's pretty serious.

    I love rumor smearing.

    S M A C K ;-)


    isn't being sexist (none / 0) (#189)
    by cy street on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:37:54 AM EST
    a prerequisite to supporting obama?  

    umm... (none / 0) (#245)
    by mindfulmission on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:42:33 PM EST
    ... no.

    but i guess being ignorant doesn't disqualify someone from being a Clinton supporter.  


    Richardson's sexist behavior (none / 0) (#211)
    by reality based on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:04:31 AM EST
    was alleged in this Washington Note blog entry http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001884.php

    Wow. Quite a read in comments, too. (nt) (none / 0) (#253)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:59:36 PM EST
    yes thats it he hates (none / 0) (#213)
    by Jgarza on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:13:51 AM EST
    women every one who doesn't support Clinton is sexist how did you know

    This announcement seems carefully timed ... (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by cymro on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:49:27 AM EST
    .. to do the minimum amount of damage to the Clinton campaign.  

    Friday (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Davidson on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:22:08 AM EST
    And it was done so it'd be reported on a Friday, which seems highly odd if you want to get traction out of it.

    Wonder how many guest appearences he has (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by nycstray on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:25:49 AM EST
    planned for the weekend?  ;)

    AND, it is a holiday weekend. (5.00 / 0) (#91)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:00:25 AM EST
    And the stock market is closed. Good Friday means a holiday for many. I only have a half day today, need to do some Easter cleaning and by tonight there should be something new from the Friday Night dump. Yep, this was not timed for maximum effect except to change the topic.

    The timing is, well unfortunate. (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by myiq2xu on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:49:48 AM EST
    A few weeks ago when Obama was cruising, there were rumors that Richardson was going to endorse him.  It might have helped in Texas, NM's next door neighbor.

    Now all the states with large Hispanic populations have had their primaries and Obama is stuck in a cycle of daily gaffes, missteps and bad news.

    I think this endorsement will cause nary a ripple.

    divorced from reality? (none / 0) (#214)
    by Jgarza on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:14:50 AM EST
    I think that (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by BrandingIron on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:42:07 AM EST
    more Wright tapes are coming, but the MSM will finally figure out to focus on Obama's Kenya Connection (to Raila Odinga) next.  Just you wait.

    i have the popcorn out and ready (none / 0) (#133)
    by hellothere on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:38:03 AM EST
    to go! actually it is sad and i have to wonder just where there is leadership in the democratic party. i trust hillary more and more and some of the rest are in the dog house with me.

    Kenya Relatives (none / 0) (#196)
    by KD on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:44:00 AM EST
    I think one story the Republicans will go after is Obama's half brother Roy in Kenya, a "militant Muslim."



    Relatives? (none / 0) (#223)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:35:30 AM EST
    That's a reach....

    For us that's a reach--for ReThugs, it's a gift (none / 0) (#227)
    by jawbone on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:01:50 PM EST
    For the ReThugs 527's and the below the radar emailers it's Christmas cubed.

    This may be why I saw something somewhere about an Obama brother named "Roy" who changed his name to a Muslim name and was praised for it by Obama.

    Now, at the time I didn't know all that much about Obama's immediate family--or rather the siblings of his mother.  And I meant to google around, but forgot. Roy seems to be a Kenyan half-brother. Right?

    But it's already out there, being passed around in some way.

    (Watching the Richardson announcement speech--Obama looks bored, has the head back, looking down his nose posture--interesting.)


    I know a website that lays it all out (none / 0) (#229)
    by diplomatic on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:04:56 PM EST
    it's stuff that would probably shock most of his supporters.

    Obama has made two trips to (none / 0) (#237)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:17:07 PM EST

    His relatives are not people he really knows all that well....It will be a very real reach.....As to changing of names, Obama went from using "Barry" to his true first name Barack.  Don't hide from who you really are.....It's about honesty, not politics....

    And the wingnuts will have to figure out if there are going to say he's a Muslim or a radical black Christian.  Tough choice.

    Don't buy into the power of the right wing to define everything.....


    That's the deep thought (none / 0) (#247)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:02:26 PM EST
    posture, as in listening the Music of the Spheres--and he has stopped doing it during the debates but it seems to still crop up now and again.

    My endorsement is bigger than yours: (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by LoisInCo on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:07:35 AM EST
    I think Richardson heard Edwards may endorse Clinton before NC and wanted to beat him to the endorsement punch.  Personally as a Latino I have as much use for Richardson's endorsement as I did his Presidential bid. None. And after he whined about experience being a dirty word, turning around and endorsing the "new guy" probably drops it down to -10.

    Richardson's deaf political ear ... (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:48:41 AM EST
    is once more displayed.

    Imus Connection (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by wiredick on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:37:22 AM EST
    We know that Imus hates Hillary more than Satan.
    Most of these Dems that have appeared on his show now support Obama.  Kerry, Lieberman, Dodd, Richardson, on and on.  Just curious....
    Does this old fart have that much influence?

    Probably (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by tek on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 07:56:07 AM EST
    the old farts are taking advantage of Imus' hatred toward Hil.

    The Times Article (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Davidson on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 06:23:20 AM EST
    And all of us seem to forget (5.00 / 0) (#39)
    by ding7777 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 07:34:11 AM EST
    that in October 2002, scientists were publically saying that anthrax mailed to the Senate(a case which the FBI botched) was weapons grade anthrax.  

    It was not known if the DC sniper was a stand-alone criminal or part of a terrorts cell.

    Would Obama, as President, want the authorization
    to protect the United States?


    He Wouldn't Need It (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by flashman on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:30:29 AM EST
    Would Obama, as President, want the authorization
    to protect the United States?

    Insead, he would give a speech on the importance of protecting government officials from mail-in attacks.

    Then, he would hold a press conference stating that the attention given to the DC sniper by the press was because of institutional racism.

    Then, he would make a posting to his website that proclaiming his opposition to the willful killing of Americans through voilent means.

    Mission accomplished.


    The NYT continues the deception (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by Josey on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:21:26 AM EST
    In stump speeches, Obama says he "opposed the war from the start, but Hillary began opposing it after she became a presidential candidate."

    Lots of Truthiness.
    Obama also began opposing war funding after he became a presidential candidate, but that's rarely mentioned in the media or press.

    NYT contact info for Patrick Healey -


    SO now (none / 0) (#217)
    by Jgarza on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:21:54 AM EST
    if you don't try and cut off funds to soldiers you are pro war, and inconsistent?

    So many stories (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by Dancing Bear on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 06:24:00 AM EST
    and only 24 hours in each day. Heads are exploding in smokie newsrooms everywhere.

    This is about Michigan. Richardson also removed his name from the ballot. Hence the timing.

    Yup, looks like a VP or high Cabinet spot.

    I hope they find out the breaches of the Passport file were Obama fans just sneaking a peek out of adoration. "Look! Baracks file".

    Edwards didn't do much for either.  I was thinking it will still happen, just closer to NC.

    I'm also thinking he would rather be Attorney General than VP.

    It seems like a bad choice for anybody to join any side right now. Especially the one he chose for timing alone.

    OMG (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by tek on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 07:57:51 AM EST
    Obama and Richardson running the country!

    it isn't going to happen! (none / 0) (#136)
    by hellothere on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:40:20 AM EST
    but you already knew that! smile!

    Richardson did not help himself (none / 0) (#190)
    by felizarte on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:39:48 AM EST
    in California and will not be able to help in Puerto Rico either. Must suffer from the same tweety syndrome.

    "a-once-in-a-lifetime-candidate?" Give me a break. The same goes for Hillary even more so perhaps became women have been discriminated against much longer than any race..


    This could have (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by alsace on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 06:30:34 AM EST
    overridden the Rev. Wright story for a news cycle, but then Obama released that picture of Bill Clinton and the Rev. to keep it going.

    And doesn't that picture (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Dancing Bear on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 06:47:48 AM EST
    make The Reverend look morel like a hypocrite than the Clinton's having anything to do with him?  Go where the power is. Photo-op. This was during the Monica event. I wonder if he gyrated during the hand shaking photo?

    Yes, Yes, Yes... (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 07:53:53 AM EST
    ...that was my overriding reaction and it made me actually dislike Wright, which I hadn't before, because he is a man who will eat at your table, shake your hand, keep the mementos of the event, and then personally mock you from a pulpit.

    hey Bill does this statement: (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by TheRefugee on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 07:04:08 AM EST
    "As a presidential candidate, I know full well Sen. Obama's unique moral ability to inspire the American people to confront our urgent challenges at home and abroad in a spirit of bipartisanship and reconciliation."

    mean that you are admitting that you lacked the ability to be a "unique" leader?  No wonder you won over so few voters...well that and the fact that you looked and sounded the least presidential of any candidate.

    But I always have questions so here is one:  How does playing the race card like it was a Stradivarius, the willful disenfranchisement of two swing states, and not having steadfast convictions on a single policy issue qualify Obama as having a unique ability to build bridges?  Bashing Bush and McCain is fun and easy...but is it the right row to hoe to lure conservative voters to the center?  Is bashing pretty much all Republican policy going to pull GOP congressmen to the center?  

    Hillary can't force bipartisanship either as she says the same things about the GOP and GOP policies.  So please tell me how Obama's trashing is actually bridge-building.  Tell me how Obama's insistence that Wright is a swell guy is going to win over conservatives?   I keep looking for a reason to stop disliking Obama in case he is the nominee but frankly, I can't find a single reason.  He has no definitive policy plans, his "young and progressive thinking" staffers say he does..with the caveat that "nothing is set in stone", including pulling troops out of Iraq with all speed...which at one time was his only selling point.  He speaks well but what does that matter when he says so little while saying so much?  He is as divisive in his tactics as was George Bush...lockstep or nothing.  So long as Hillary is the media's target all is fair in love and politics.  Let the media focus turn to Obama for one news cycle and he whines as though his ice cream just fell off the cone.

    So tell me again why Obama is uniquely qualified to lead and unite?  Is it the eight years in the IL legislature?  Is it the four years in the US Senate?  

    good points (none / 0) (#73)
    by Josey on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:24:53 AM EST
    And is it common for state senators to keep NO records?
    Or is that only in Illinois?
    Or is that only Obama?

    honestly (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by TheRefugee on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:08:28 AM EST
    the rules by which Obama is being allowed to run his campaign are the most lenient I have ever seen.  Go negative?  You're a racist.  Tell the truth?  You're just a race-baiter.  Want an answer from Obama?  Either keep waiting or receive a million word speech on every topic save the one that was put up for debate.

    Even GWB had his feet held to a small fire.  Even GWB had to answer the occasional question to a journalist's satisfaction and not to Bush's satisfaction.

    I wish the rules would have been explained beforehand.  All dem candidates not named Obama, you will be held to the same standard as all previous Presidential candidates.  Anyone not named Obama will not be allowed to point out the fact that Obama is, shhhhhh, of mixed heritage.  

    I love the SNL skit where the moderator of a debate asks Obama, "Mr. Obama, can you please tell me, can I get you a glass of water?"

    Obama: "No, thank you, I'm fine."

    2nd moderator:  "With regards to my colleagues question; are you sure?"

    Hillary gets the journalist wearing Mike Tyson gloves, delivering knockout punches.  Obama gets Olbermann wearing silk gloves which give loving taps to Obama's backside.


    I've seen some back tracking and clarifications (none / 0) (#113)
    by MaxUS on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:17:03 AM EST
    but wasn't that Gerri Ferraro's original point that got her blasted?

    I think she's settled on his campaign can't be historically significant if he isn't historically significant, which is also true but different from her original observation which, I think, is also valid, though not easy to sound bite.


    exactly (none / 0) (#140)
    by TheRefugee on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:42:44 AM EST
    I'll get away with it because I'm an anonymous blogger.  Ferraro didn't because "she just has to be playing the race card" despite the fact that the statement, taken as a whole, is true.  And she is a big name who can be embarrassed which, in turn, can embarrass Clinton.

    But aside from Obama and company being able to play the race card while no one else can even whisper a word that can be remotely confused as having racial connotations, Obama gets a pass on everything.  One example:  Obama doesn't have to explain his foreign policy views or experience, Clinton is asked repeatedly.  When she provides examples a day is spent picking apart the example: Northern Ireland for one, she says...pro-Obama media "we can find nothing to suggest she participated in Northern Ireland" despite the fact that Nobel Laureate John Hume called her presence and support "instrumental."  They leave out his endorsement in favor of the man who shared the Nobel with Hume, Lord David Trimble who says Hillary's claims are "silly".  


    I think (none / 0) (#147)
    by Claw on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:50:16 AM EST
    What got her really blasted were her completely unrepentant performances after she made the original comments about how lucky Obama is to be black.  And her whining about reverse racism.  On topic though, I don't think Richardson has a shot at VP.  I think he probably knows it. I'd guess he's angling for a good seat in the Obama administration.

    Secretary of State (none / 0) (#154)
    by Blue Neponset on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:55:48 AM EST
    I think Richardson would do very well as our Sec. of State.  He has a working relationship with North Korea and I thought he did well at the UN.  

    Actually (none / 0) (#153)
    by cal1942 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:55:39 AM EST
    two years in the Senate. Running for office since Feb. 2007.

    And about that subcommittee he never assembled.


    race card (none / 0) (#222)
    by Jgarza on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:35:02 AM EST
    But I always have questions so here is one:  How does playing the race card like it was a Stradivarius,

    Stop blaming Obama for the Clintons missteps.


    She won N. Mexico (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Saul on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 07:27:48 AM EST
    What a bum.  He owes the Clinton's.  Cisnerso and Richardson were cabinet appointments under the Clinton's. Cisneros stuck with Hilary but not Richardson.   So much for loyalty.

    Yeah (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by ghost2 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:32:04 AM EST
    weren't he saying his endorsement would depend on who wins his state?

    It (none / 0) (#37)
    by sas on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 07:31:26 AM EST
    really doesn't matter.

    It isn't going to influence any primary result.


    Maybe it says more about Hillary (none / 0) (#188)
    by riddlerandy on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:37:40 AM EST
    than Richardson and Cisneros that they would endorse Obama over the former First Lady they served with?

    Cisneros campaigned for Hillary in Texas (5.00 / 0) (#203)
    by diplomatic on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:52:54 AM EST
    and endorsed her.

    What clout? (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Grey on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 07:52:00 AM EST
    Gov. Richardson has little to no clout with voters, and that includes Latinos and Hispanics.

    He is, however, one of the biggest political opportunists in public life, so this endorsement, as well as the timing of its "unveiling," is strictly political.  Sen. Obama is trying to turn the page on a week of terrible political news; it might work today and through the weekend, but I wouldn't place any bets on what will happen from Monday on.

    I know my reaction was "ho hum" (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:12:50 AM EST
    and it just feels to me like a story that will get elbowed out of the way for the more interesting ones - like new polling that shows Obama not being able to hold onto Democratic votes in head-to-heads with McCain.

    I think Obama is facing something he really has never faced before, which makes this a real test for him.  His political history has not been one of rising against adversity in highly competetive contests, and his response to it in this race has so far not impressed me, and not done much to change the dynamic.

    I'm sure Obama is hoping that the Easter holiday might bring a break in the cycle that is long enough to set things back on track again, but I am not holding my breath.

    As for Richardson, I would love for someone to ask him why, if Obama is all about "yes, we can," he seems to be telling the voters of Florida and Michigan, "No, you can't."   Obama's arrogant response to the voter who wanted to know when he was going to get a chance to vote - "probably not until the general election" - is really bothering me.


    Didn't (none / 0) (#54)
    by tek on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:03:17 AM EST
    I just read an article on sexual harrassment in his government in MN?  He is always grabbing and insulting the women he works around.  That'll be a big asset to the Obama campaign.

    The fact remains (none / 0) (#148)
    by ChrisO on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:50:53 AM EST
    that the allegations about Richardson as a sexual harraser have been around for some time, andwere cited as a reason why Hillary couldn't offer him the VP slot. Mentioning that hardly makes someone a "traitor."

    you can stop that type of language (none / 0) (#168)
    by hellothere on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:10:52 AM EST
    now. talk left doesn't go for personal attacks like you are making here.

    Excuse me (none / 0) (#192)
    by cal1942 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:40:00 AM EST
    but Richardson does have a reputation for sexual harrassment.

    I read a couple of articles about a year and a half or two years ago about potential Democratic candidates. The articles indicated that Richardson's reputation regarding sexual harrassment would be a potential problem for him.

    He never gained any traction in the primaries so nothing came out.

    By the way, Richardson was Lord KOS' original favorite.


    Thank goodness (none / 0) (#195)
    by riddlerandy on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:42:30 AM EST
    no one close to Hillary has that rep

    do you not pay much attention? (none / 0) (#249)
    by SarahinCA on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:16:58 PM EST
    Richardson has not been neutral until now.  He called for Hillary to exit the campaign on March 4 and then had to shut his trap for the next couple weeks since Obama couldn't sew it up.  So now he endorses on a Friday before a holiday.  Even us low-intellect Hillary supporters know that you release news on Fridays and Saturdays when you don't want many people to know or care about it.

    I was more impressed by his resume (none / 0) (#56)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:04:32 AM EST
    that I was by him as an actual candidate. He was not a good spokesman for himself, I don't expect him to do much for Obama.  

    I'll add... (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:09:35 AM EST
    that I really really hope he is not Obama's VP choice. That would just about seal our fate in November.  He just is not a major league campaigner, whatever his other qualities.  You have to win first. He is better in appointed positions.

    What clinched it for me with him has been his near silence about the firing of New Mex. U.S. Attorney David Iglesias.  That should have been a major issue for him.  Where has he been?


    Hedging his bet is where he has been (none / 0) (#224)
    by TruthSpeaksVolumes on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:35:35 AM EST
    Our hispanic community isnt going to budge (5.00 / 0) (#87)
    by Salt on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:49:43 AM EST
    they have a real problem with Obama Church, and unlike the other communities they vote their interest and can't be moved by grievance collectively or as easily they are not frightened.

    Richardson (5.00 / 0) (#90)
    by cannondaddy on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:00:24 AM EST
    was always my number two choice, just because I liked him on a personal level.  

    I think I'm (5.00 / 0) (#93)
    by PlayInPeoria on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:02:52 AM EST
    going to get my Hillary in 2012 ready...... because we are SOOOOOO going to lose this GE!

    I'm so disgusted with the Dem Party..... However, I will hold my nose and vote for Obama.

    dont assume you will have to do that (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:04:59 AM EST
    the primary is not over in spite of what MSNBC and Kos say.

    Well, I was looking (5.00 / 0) (#114)
    by PlayInPeoria on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:19:31 AM EST
    at what we have left....I have 566 delegate (unless I miss counted) from 8 states plus Guam and Puerto Rico. Half are closed primaries which will favor Hillary.

    By my figures she would have to get 70% (unless my math is off).

    It is not looking good.

    I see what is going to happen ... unfortunately it is going to take losing the GE to wake up this party.


    I thought we were supposed to have (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:55:28 AM EST
    woken up after Kerry lost in 2004...

    Not only will pledged delegates not decide this nomination, but it is entirely possible that some will switch their allegiance when they get to their state conventions, which could alter the landscape a little.

    And before anyone starts screaming about Hillary breaking the rules and stealing delegates in desperation, let's understand that the term "pledged" is a term that imputes a stricter standard than the actual rules impose.  

    If Obama can't shake the bad news cycle, if polling continues to show a downward trend for him, an upward trend for Hillary and an even greater upswing for McCain, superdelegates who are already committed, and those who are not yet committed, will have to think long and hard about the consequence of sticking with him or committing to him, which may well be losing our chance to win the WH in November.

    I would not want to be a superdelegate for love nor money.  If they stick with Obama when all signs point to him losing, and he does, the same people who were threatening riots if they "gave" the nomination to Hillary will be blaming them for not "seeing the big picture."  If they commit to Hillary and she gets the nomination, and loses, then it will be their fault because the didn't go with Obama.

    However - I truly believe that if Hillary can win decisively in many of the remaining contests, the ground will shift, and the SD's can choose Hillary with a clear conscience.


    Math is a little better than that (none / 0) (#119)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:26:41 AM EST
    Chris Bowers at Open Left had a good breakdown of the delegate math earlier this week.  According to him, Hillary needs to win 56% of the remaining pledged delegates.  But Obama needs to win 53.9%.  That is not such a huge difference, in my view.  A tougher road for Clinton, to be sure, but not as insurmountable as I had previously thought.

    What If Hillary Wins The Popular Vote? (none / 0) (#139)
    by flashman on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:42:22 AM EST
    Every time I hear Obama make his case, it goes like this:

    "I've won more delagates, more states, and more votes..."

    First of all, the "more states" argument is absurd.  It assumes, for example, that a state like Wyoming, which has something like 300K residents, is equivalant to California, which has 12 Million, or so.  So that leaves us with delagates vs. popular vote.  But neither will get the required number of elected delagates, so even that argument isn't valid.  The bottom line it, if Hillary can close the gap on popular votes, and looking at recent polls, she just might, then Mr. BHO runs out of arguments to make.

    Waddya' think?


    I've wondered (none / 0) (#144)
    by Dave B on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:45:47 AM EST
    Seems to me that all those predicting that Clinton could not do it were assuming that Obama would keep on steam rolling every primary.  We'll see about that.

    Received "2008 Presidential Campaign Survey" today in mail. At end of survey, DNC asks me "will you join the DNC as a contributing member today?"

    I told them NO because they showed lack of leadership and bias, because my fellow dem in Michigan and Florida cannot vote, etc.

    So let them hear your voice!


    It's unfortunate, but I think Clinton is (none / 0) (#126)
    by tigercourse on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:31:52 AM EST
    going to get the blame for Obama's GE loss. Don't ask me how, but it will be done. I'm not sure she will run again in 2012. The media and party leaders (Kennedy, Daschle, Dean if he's still around) will still be against her.

    I bet the blogs and the party leaders will back Warner.


    Warner this year would have been (none / 0) (#131)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:36:09 AM EST
    better than Obama. If those old guys wanted to get rid of Hillary, they should have backed Edwards.
    Obama's just too green.

    Only Obama could pry the AA vote away from Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by MaxUS on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:07:33 AM EST
    The money poured into the Obama campaign (which I don't believe came chiefly from Democratic coffers...tinfoil anyone?) was intended to stop Clinton at all costs, not to win the GE.

    I really get the sense that what we are seeing is a power stuggle to control the Democratic Party, not a race for the White House. It really is very much like what cost us the Congress back in 1994.

    I also think that Clinton was prepared for this struggle and will come out on top. The other side is just flailing now. Hillary is courting the AA vote for a reason, and it's not because she can't win without them in November, it's because she values what AAs bring to the Party.


    That's a good point. (none / 0) (#167)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:10:48 AM EST
    And I agree that this was a planned fight between the DNC and the Clintons.

    Certainly more electable. But Warner is (none / 0) (#150)
    by tigercourse on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:53:28 AM EST
    a straight up moderate (probably more conservative then any of the most recent candidates) and also doesn't have a ton of experience (and won't in 2012 either). I'm not elated at the thought of his candidacy.

    Obama's promising to reach out to figures (none / 0) (#155)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:55:53 AM EST
    from the Bush I administration if elected.
    Dick Cheney for Sec Def?!

    Very upsetting to me (5.00 / 0) (#97)
    by Foxx on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:06:07 AM EST
    I live in New Mexico. I am so disappointed in him.

    There does Schuster on MSNBC (5.00 / 0) (#98)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:06:50 AM EST
    ...pinning the passport thing on the Clintons!!!!!

    I know this is OT, but really. This is the absolute limit. The media WILL HAVE Barack Obama as the nominee. It's all so useless.

    I meant there goes Schuster... (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:07:59 AM EST
    And now to bring it back on topic. MSNBC is now calling the Richardson endorsement a "slap in the face to Hillary Clinton."

    I Saw That Too (none / 0) (#142)
    by flashman on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:45:02 AM EST
    And I wondered how long it would take for someone there to do that.  Little surprise that Shuster, the same who virtually called Chelsea a whore, would be the one.

    Has this man no shame?


    funny (5.00 / 0) (#101)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:08:16 AM EST
    my first thought was that it was the Obama campaign to change the subject

    Too funny (none / 0) (#121)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:28:07 AM EST
    I just told my co-worker that would happen. He is a Republican and was complaining that it would get blamed on Bush. I told him, no, t will somehow end up Hillary's fault.

    Richardson has foreign policy experience and (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Angel on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:09:31 AM EST
    I think that is where it could help BO.  But as far as Richardson being VP, that is a giant joke.  I could see a cabinet position, which is what he is probably angling for.  I think most people have already made up their minds who they prefer, Clinton or BO, so I don't really see that much effect from this endorsement.  Lots of other SDs out there still making up their minds, or at least keeping quiet.  No question about the timing though, and trying to take the Rev Wright issue off the table.

    Wright issue off the table (5.00 / 0) (#104)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:10:34 AM EST
    good luck with that.

    Does anyone else find the wording a bit creepy? (5.00 / 0) (#105)
    by Delilah Boyd on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:10:54 AM EST
    Or is it just me?

    A "once-in-a-lifetime leader that can bring our nation together and restore America's moral leadership in the world" sounds like Richardson is conceding that there are not now (and won't be for several decades) any other great Dem leaders.

    I find that truly creepy.

    Kind of like a uniter not a divider? LOL. (5.00 / 0) (#107)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:12:03 AM EST
    this "creepy" language creeps into (5.00 / 0) (#109)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:14:12 AM EST
    everything around the obama campaign.
    last night on Tweety there was a guy who had the other two panel members snickering and rolling their eyes with his shamless gushing.
    and this was Tucker and some other hack.  not Hillary supporters.
    this stuff "could" let him survive the primary, I dont think so but it could, but this one thing will be death in the general.

    Condi on MSNBC addressing passport thing. (5.00 / 0) (#115)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:21:01 AM EST
    Let's see if she blames it on Hillary too.

    dont be surprised (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:22:45 AM EST
    they clearly want to run against Obama.
    Karl Rove has started wearing a lobster bib when he talks about it on FOX

    Why step into the (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by facta non verba on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:29:30 AM EST
    eye of hurricane? The question I'd like to hear at the press conference asked of Bill Richardson is how much campaign debt do you have and does this endorsement of Obama include any quid quo pro that the Obama campaign will cover your campaign debts?

    With McCain as President (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by riddlerandy on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:36:02 AM EST
    Stevens, Souter and probably Ginsburg will be replaced with Alito/Roberts clones, effectively if not expressly overruling Roe, cutting back further on other civil liberties, ending effective regulation of campaign finance, and severely curtailing environmental regulation.  Iraq will continue to fester, and Iran will be targeted.  The economic divide will significantly worsen.

    And yet the Obama and Clinton campaigns, greatly aided by the DNC, have decided to sign a suicide pact, waging a campaign guaranteed to ensure that a significant portion of the loser's supporters will never vote for the nominee.  A combination of Tom Wolfe and Hunter Thompson could not have dreamed up such a pathetic mess.  Only the Dems are capable of producing such a depressing result in a year where the presidency was otherwise guaranteed.

    God help us.

    could we please stop talking like (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:45:42 AM EST
    the nominating process is over.
    it is not.  it is not even close.
    Obama is not the nominee.  his numbers are in free fall.
    get a grip - man up - stop cowering.
    Hillary is not cowering and we have no business doing it.

    This endorsement is a big deal (none / 0) (#149)
    by Blue Neponset on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:53:11 AM EST
    Many Clinton supporters have been saying that Obama is so damaged because of the Wright and MI & FL re-vote kerfluffles that he can't win the in the GE.  Gov. Richardson's endorsement is evidence that some of the bigwigs in the Party think Obama will win it in November.  

    MMI and FLA (1.00 / 0) (#163)
    by joe in oklahoma on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:05:32 AM EST
    pardon me, i don't think it was Obama that ruined MI & FLA...
    Hillary and Obama both agreed to the rules ahead of time, and now, suddenly Hillary is acting like those rules didn't exist?

    i used to play cards with kids who liked to change the rules in the middle of the game.  in third grade.


    Ms. Clinton did not CHANGE any rules (5.00 / 0) (#226)
    by TruthSpeaksVolumes on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:53:47 AM EST
    Contrary to what you may think.

    The REPUBLICAN party FORCED the DEM primary date of JAN 29th as part of a bill for PAPER BALLOT VOTE establisment in FL.

    I am in FL. and Governor Charlie Crist [write this name down] stated he would veto any paper ballot bill that did not contain the JAN 29th date selected for the DEM PRIMARY as a part of a rider addendum to the PAPER BALLOT TRAIL bill. The paper ballot trail bill was voted on PRIOR to the Jan 29 Dem primary in FL in by the REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED GOV in FL to force this issue.

    Btw.. Now back to Crist. He is on the SHORT list for McCain as a VP candidate from FL to get VOTES.

    Democrats know that the PAPER BALLOT trail is needed in FL as a record against electronic voting "snaffoos" AND HAD A FORCED VOTE of choosing the JAN 29 primary date added to a bill intended for voting for establishing a paper ballot trail. If you VOTED yes for the Paper Ballot Trail you VOTED YES on the Jan 29 Dem Primary date BY DEFAULT.

    The democrats in FL selected Paper Ballots.
    DEAN should have SUPPORTED the FL democrats by now. Dean KNOWS THIS FACT of why the FL primary date WAS CHANGED BY REPUBLICANS.

    It is a matter of Record.


    I agree (none / 0) (#170)
    by Blue Neponset on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:14:11 AM EST
    But many Clinton supporters have been arguing that Obama can't win the GE because FL & MI will never vote for someone who "disenfranchised" them.  With this endorsement, Gov. Richardson is saying he doesn't agree with that assessment.

    It has become a known fact (none / 0) (#180)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:25:25 AM EST
    that Michigan and Florida are both Obama's fault.  Not the state legislatures, not the state Democratic parties, not the DNC.  Nope, Barack Obama is the culprit.

    Yes. Obama is/was the final (none / 0) (#200)
    by oldpro on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:48:50 AM EST
    barrier....not that there wasn't plenty of blame to go around.  So much for Howard Dean's leadership abilities....sheesh...with friends like these, what Democrat needs enemies?

    Obama was at worst (none / 0) (#216)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:20:20 AM EST
    a minor speed bump.

    Heh. I take it (none / 0) (#221)
    by oldpro on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:33:36 AM EST
    you're not a traffic cop with a future in law enforcement!

    Bull (none / 0) (#159)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:58:26 AM EST
    this shows Richardson wants a job and he already blew it with a Clinton administration.
    nobody will care tomorrow.

    Do the other superdelegates ... (none / 0) (#174)
    by Blue Neponset on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:15:42 AM EST
    ...know Richardson is only doing this to get a job?  

    Yes. They do. (none / 0) (#197)
    by oldpro on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:46:10 AM EST
    Everybody knows it...and to pay off his campaign debt...

    I hope that some of Richardson's (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:57:40 AM EST
    campaigning skills rub off on Obama.

    ha (none / 0) (#160)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:59:02 AM EST
    no kidding.

    Richardson's endorsement (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by americanincanada on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:40:54 AM EST
    carrys far less weight with the people who have yet to vote than say, Murtha's does.

    Endorsement today in Portland, OR (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by 1jane on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:04:06 AM EST
    Richardson's endorsement will play well in Oregon. The Democratic Latino caucus in my county are supporting OBAMA. One of the leaders of that caucus is on the VIP list for Obama's appearance. He is a young Latino who has literally knocked on hundreds and hundreds of doors for OBAMA. Our ballots are mailed out on May 2 and must be mailed in by May 20th to count in the primary election. Richardson's endorsement should give Obama a good bounce as we head into the holiday weekend. Obama's grassroots support has been visable for over a year, even marching in Obama tee-shirts in last years' July 4th parade. Today, the statewide newspaper announced that the Clinton campaign is sending in it's first operative to begin field organization in Oregon.

    Obama's long been expected to win in Oregon (none / 0) (#231)
    by shoephone on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:06:25 PM EST
    with or without a Richardson endorsement.

    Which is why I wondered (none / 0) (#233)
    by tree on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:11:21 PM EST
    the reason for dragging Richardson along with him to Portland. Even the small Hispanic demographic n Oregon doesn't seem to be enthralled with Richardson.

    Bill Richardson... JUST WORDS like Barrack Obama (5.00 / 0) (#254)
    by TalkRight on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:00:09 PM EST
    Richardson's Just WORDS Moment:
    Richardson said last month that his superdelegate votes "should reflect the vote of my state, it should represent the vote of my constituency."

    Clinton won New Mexico.

    Also says I was about to endorse Clinton.. But then I waited...  

        "You know, that's typical of some of his advisers that kind of turned me off..

    So what was his point?? He did not endorsed Clinton because he disliked her advisers.. bur does he like Obama's advisers Axelrod and what do we say to people who dislike Obama's spiritual adviser.

    Today he took umbrage at Clinton's adviser saying endoresements won't matter.. what matters is voters votes.. says I think my endorsement will matter... but all along in the past he himself was saying .. endorsements do not matter!!!

    He wants the voters to decide .. but wants this election race to end!!

    He Milked Clintons for 8 years.. two cabinet posts.. got governorship to NM and not he jumps the ship to BO.

    Richardson sold out for 30 pieces of silver (none / 0) (#256)
    by TalkRight on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:33:46 PM EST
    "Mr. Richardson's endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic," Mr. Carville said, referring to Holy Week.

    This thing is not over yet !!


    Cynicism ? (3.33 / 3) (#1)
    by Jgarza on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:38:03 AM EST
    Richardson could be angling for the V.P. Spot.

    Guess at least one person liked the speech.  I'm awaiting a commenter to say that this is somehow a betrayal of the Clintons, and comments on how ungrateful he is.

    Politics (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Davidson on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:46:14 AM EST
    Politicians rarely do something out of pure integrity, especially when it comes to the presidential race.  So it's legitimate to ask, "What's in it for Richardson?"

    Considering how poorly Obama has done with Latinos it's sensible to think he believes adding a Latino for VP will help him against McCain, who is surprisingly popular with many Latinos due to his leadership on comprehensive immigration reform.


    As mentioned below on timing (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by MaxUS on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:59:31 AM EST
    This is possibly a very politically saavy move by Bill R. It can't really hurt Clinton but it puts paid on his debt to Kennedy.

    Hmmm **wild speculation ALERT!** I wonder if this means that Bill R. knows something about the uncommitted SDs and Obama's campaign possibly being in freefall mode. Richardson was very careful not to commit when his committment would have made a difference (NM was very close).


    True (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Davidson on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:24:27 AM EST
    This checks off Kennedy and yet doesn't truly hurt Clinton.  Or am I wrong?  Todd Beeton at MyDD makes it seem as if this is the beginning of the end for Clinton with regard to uncommitted major endorsers.  I don't see that.

    Timing (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by PennProgressive on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:33:47 AM EST
    seems odd because in the next big state, PA, latino votes will not be very important. But more importantly, many latino voters outside NM don't even know that Bill R is hispanic. But still he may be somewhat helpful in FL and defimitely in NM. His endorsement would have been more useful to Obama before TX. But the real importance of the timing is that the MSM will focus  on it instead of Wright or Obama's opposition to revote in MI. That is helpful. Also, I am not sure that the Obama campaign is in a free fall as suggested in an earlier post. Perhaps more uncommitted SDs who have  been sitting on the fence will endorse Obama now. The next few days will be important. But for now, this is very good press for Obama even if the long run value  of this specific endorsement by itself, may turn out to be marginal.

    I don't think (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by standingup on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:57:34 AM EST
    many will be surprised by Richardson's endorsement.  His practically said as much on his last appearance on Face the Nation a few weeks ago.  I was surprised that he didn't announce it after the Texas and Ohio primaries since he hinted that might be the time.

    The Clinton's might feel betrayed but that is between them and Richardson. I think the biggest benefit for Obama will be an opportunity for the press to report on something other than Wright.  Unless I am mistaken, the remaining primaries with the exception of Puerto Rico do not have a large hispanic population.  


    That's what I was thinking re: Hispanic vote (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by nycstray on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:05:02 AM EST
    but I wasn't sure. If it were an issue, seems like he would have had Obama fight more for Fla to re-vote and then announce. Obama still may have lost, but may have been able to close the gap, which would add weight to his GE bid. And of course, endorsing before 3/4 would have prob been better for Obama.

    Hmm, the press will be SO conflicted tomorrow. Continuation of the Wright/Clinton 'connection',
    Passport Peeking and an endorsement.


    Wag the dog? (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by cymro on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:19:37 AM EST
    Hmm, the press will be SO conflicted tomorrow. Continuation of the Wright/Clinton 'connection', Passport Peeking and an endorsement.

    Having enjoyed Wag The Dog, it did occur to me that someone might be orchestrating these alternative news stories.


    Yeah, it think they played the Passport Peeking (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by nycstray on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:24:55 AM EST
    card a bit early as it didn't show up until 8PM, and by then, all those 'lovely' quotes had been discussed. But they can still use it through the next few news cycles today. And he has been trying everything else. Policy speeches, major network interviewing and stumping to reduce McCain and Clinton's positives.

    Speaking of Wag the Dog (5.00 / 0) (#16)
    by PennProgressive on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:37:27 AM EST
    could it be DeNiro who is "orchestrating these alternative news stories"? He is an Obama supporter. Just kidding guys---attempt at late night humour.

    lol!~ fun thought ;) (5.00 / 0) (#18)
    by nycstray on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:39:50 AM EST
    and on that note, sleep for me!  :)

    Well let me run this by you real quick (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 07:18:32 AM EST
    Why do you think Clark and Joe Wilson endorsed Clinton and her vote on Kyl/Lieberman?

    Maybe because they agree with her? (5.00 / 0) (#51)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:00:57 AM EST
    Just a wild guess.

    Seeing as the Clintons have not... (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 07:50:40 AM EST
    ..to my knowledge...lashed out at any of the people whom they have helped for supporting Obama, I don't think they will start now.

    I doubt (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by tek on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 07:54:47 AM EST
    you'll hear that because the Clintons have a habit of being gracious to the opposition.  They are good politicians, which is why she would be a great president.

    There were rumors that Richardson was going to endorse Obama at the time Bill Clinton watched the Super Bowl with him.  What this tells me is that the DNC is not going to back down from Obama being the nominee, a thing that is unconscionable IMO.  The DNC is no doubt behind this.  It reminds me so much of how the Republicans pressured and threatened everyone in the party to get Dubya on the ticket.

    What this shows me is that the DNC still doesn't understand how unelectable Obama is.  Someone said on here yesterday that the danger is the DNC wants to prevent Hillary from having the WH so much that they will keep promoting Obama no matter what. This would seem to confirm that.


    Got any sources. (5.00 / 0) (#53)
    by Arbitrarity on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:01:45 AM EST
    For that wild speculation and conspiracy theory?

    Before Teks wild speculations (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by MMW on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:10:34 AM EST
    It was prefaced each with "what this tells me...". The operative words indicating opinion.

    Reading comprehension is good.


    no problem! richardson doesn't much (none / 0) (#161)
    by hellothere on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:00:31 AM EST
    think about what he says and loyalty he would have to look up in the dictionary. there you go

    Wright is wrong! (2.75 / 4) (#36)
    by Mawm on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 07:31:12 AM EST
    Obama can't win.  Period.  I and many Democrats who care about this nation won't vote for the guy.  He is too radical.  He associates himself with the likes of America Hating Wright, Syrian slum lord and Sadam Hussein friend Rezko, and our own home grown terrorists William Ayers and the weather underground.
    I know it upsets the Democratic elites that someone might actually want someone who loves America to be president, but that is how stupid we, the working class Democrats, are.  We don't like being lectured about racism from a guy who tried to paint as a racist, the politician who has probably has done the most, out of any single person in the last 20 years to advance the cause of black America.  
    The race baiting by Obama camp was the final straw.  His naivete, and lack of any meaningful experience were enough not to vote for him, but now seeing how he and his supporters have trashed the party, I will be voting for McCain in the general election if he is the nominee.  I believe divided government would be better than to have these crazies running the country.  Democrats are not to be trusted at this point.  They are willing to sacrifice their principles by excusing Wright and his anti-white, anti-America rantings.  They are now no better than their crazy right-wing counterparts.

    newsflash (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:27:26 AM EST
    this is not some fringe point of view.
    this is what I am hearing from more and more midwestern bluecollar democrats.

    Dang it! (none / 0) (#172)
    by Claw on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:14:47 AM EST
    Every time I try to make the point that Obama supporters are resonable, solid dems, and not kool-aid drinking acolytes, someone posts something like the above.  I got to "loves America" and stopped reading.  They're BOTH politicians.  They both want to win.  They will both be much, much better than McCain.  
    I swear I'm right about the Obama-supporter thing.  We are just like HRC supporters, except we think he'd be a better President.  And we ALL, I hope, will vote for her, should she become the nominee.

    LOL (none / 0) (#184)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:34:09 AM EST
    Two weeks ago Obama was too dogmatic and conservative.

    Now he's too radical.  

    What I find amusing is that there are people on TalkLeft that will give a 5 rating to a comment that has these gems in it...

    First the obligatory "He hates America" statement.

    I know it upsets the Democratic elites that someone might actually want someone who loves America to be president, but that is how stupid we, the working class Democrats, are.

    Of course Democrats are no good...

    Democrats are not to be trusted at this point.

    And lastly...

    They are now no better than their crazy right-wing counterparts.

    When people look back and wonder when TalkLeft finally jumped the shark it was when THIS comment was praised.  


    And slews of folks who voted for Obama (none / 0) (#194)
    by riddlerandy on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:41:04 AM EST
    will never vote for Hillary.

    It's a suicide pact that will very, very likely lead to an angry, confused, conservative man leading our country for the next four years.

    Congratulations Democrats, this ending seemed impossible six months ago.

    And if things break right for the GOP, they could take back a bunch of House seats when the Obama/Clinton supporters sit on the sidelines.

    Have fun with the reading those lone Breyer dissents for the next 20 years.  


    I won't vote for Obama either... (none / 0) (#241)
    by CentristDemocrat on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:34:47 PM EST
    ... and I supsect the GOP may actaully be able to split the Latino vote this year... which would devestate the Democratic campaign (depending on how that split was distributed). The GOP may also be able to get hte Asian American vote as well... which is importnat mostly in California. That's about 10 - 12% , and if any one candidate carries that number, it could with Latino votes prove decisive.

    That would also be the greatest blow to DNC politics as well, to loose california.


    Enjoy your rightwing (none / 0) (#248)
    by riddlerandy on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:26:19 PM EST
    Supreme Court for the next 20 years

    Cheers for Richardson and America (1.00 / 1) (#76)
    by JohnHarris on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:27:43 AM EST
    As one who originally supported Richardson and switched to Obama after Bill dropped out, I am glad to see Richardson following me!
    It has been obvious for some time that Richardson believed Obama to be the better presidential material. But he did feel close to the Clintons and was truthful in his statement that endorsements probably meant very little to the voters.
    What made him come out publically for Obama now? I think it was the outrages of the Neocon media race card and Hillary's eagerness in taking  advantage of it.
    It is long past the time that such indecency should be tolerated. I was happy to see my fellow Southerner, Mike Huckabee, speak in praise of Obama's response, and even to give an honest assessment of Rev. Wright. See that onYouTube.  That gave me faith that our American people might finally live up to our stated ideals.
    And if that can be left behind us, I believe that Obama will be a great president. He has unique knowledge of America and of other cultures which can only help him diplomatically.
    How will he handle tough problems? We have just seen him deal with one that would have defeated most, but he took it head on, and true to the way he has campaigned all along, he has beaten it - if Americans are as good as their ideals and actually look at what her said.
    We have a unique choice now: we can take the path of love (for our values and ikdeals like justice for all) or the path of hate (and exploitation, bullying, war and eternaql divisions.) It is up to us.

    LOL. (5.00 / 0) (#79)
    by rooge04 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:34:11 AM EST
    Have you actually ya know been watching this primary?  Yeah, Obama is all love and sunshine.  HRC is evil. Except for when she's a monster.

    love vs hate (none / 0) (#92)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:02:32 AM EST
    light vs dark, bulls**t vs straight talk.
    thanks I need a laugh this morning.

    your unique choice (none / 0) (#111)
    by TheRefugee on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:15:08 AM EST
    leaves me NO choice, Hillary Clinton for President.  Healing the wounds and righting the wrongs only Hillary can make us strong.  Proud and steadfast, standing tall to the last, only Hillary can lead us out of the past.

    Please explain (none / 0) (#145)
    by ChrisO on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:47:22 AM EST
    "I think it was the outrages of the Neocon media race card and Hillary's eagerness in taking  advantage of it"

    Could you please clarify what you mean by that?


    dont you know (none / 0) (#146)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:48:44 AM EST
    a talking point when you see one?

    i would be amazed if you wrote that with (none / 0) (#162)
    by hellothere on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:01:28 AM EST
    a straight face. this is snark right?

    john, i can go to the obama site (none / 0) (#165)
    by hellothere on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:07:58 AM EST
    for any commercials i want to see.

    good honest post, John (none / 0) (#182)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:29:28 AM EST
    I hope you didn't expect any honest criticisms of it.  Dismissive rhetoric is the preferred tactic for these sorts of comments.  

    Positive comments about Obama are not welcome here.  


    Samantha Power (none / 0) (#207)
    by zyx on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:56:54 AM EST
    is that you?

    After Richardson dropped out (none / 0) (#30)
    by stillife on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 06:50:40 AM EST
    I got a letter from him asking for money to pay his campaign debts.  I wonder if the Obama campaign promised to help him out.

    That would be illegal (none / 0) (#186)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:35:37 AM EST
    So I doubt it.

    This is a real cut above (none / 0) (#34)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 07:26:44 AM EST
    All the other Obama endorsements I've read where the endorsement seems more about taking down Clinton than supporting Obama.

    I also think it outlines the race in a way that I think might be accurate.

    There is a chance that Obama could be a once in a lifetime leader who truly does bring about a post-racial/post-parstisan sort of utopia.  I have to admit that while I think the chances of such things happening are remote, that chance does still exists.  If that happens, I'll be the first person to go over to DailyKos and say "You were right.  I was wrong."

    I just still have more mundane concerns.  And with Clinton, it isn't left to chance that those things will be addressed and resolved over the course of her administration.

    I'm sorry (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by tek on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:01:19 AM EST
    but after the recent flap, I'm not sure how anyone thinks Obama will be a breath of fresh air or a unifier.  I think we've now seen the real man and his objectives are not the lofty things he "preaches" about in his speeches.  

    Why do people see that a politician is being a hypocrite and telling outright lies and then still believe that person has the potential to do great works for the country?


    Suspension of disbelief (none / 0) (#55)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:03:56 AM EST
    They want to believe.

    Exactly (none / 0) (#71)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:22:27 AM EST
    In my discussion with my Florida Obama supporter friend, she kept saying but he brings hope for a change in DC. And she really believes that. She also thinks they should split the vote in Florida. Guess that means, 'here Obama, let's share. Take these extra 150k votes from me. Yep, that is a win win situation for sure. But not for Hillary.

    A lot of people like Bill Richardson but I always thought he seemed a bit full of himself IMHO. And he is not going to like the picture of himself on CNN.com.


    Well, hate to be un-PC, but I don't (none / 0) (#108)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:13:45 AM EST
    care about improving race relations in this country nearly as much as I do about energy policy, global warming, pollution, agriculture, foreign policy, tax policy....

    This election is NOT going to solve our racial (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Angel on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:37:10 AM EST
    or sexism problems no matter how many people wish it would.  This is supposed to be about who leads this country; who can do the job of taking care of the American people; keep us safe; give us health insurance; keep us from going broke by paying too much in taxes; get us out of this fricking war; bring our soldiers home; get our country in the good graces of the rest of the world.  This election is about so many things other than racial healing.

    I know I sound angry about this but I think I have good reason to be.  Anyway, off to the gym to work on it.  Y'all have a great day!  Go Hillary!


    Well said (none / 0) (#220)
    by TruthSpeaksVolumes on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:32:11 AM EST
    Mr. Obama diverts our attention to his supposed 'strengths' and not weaknesses. Mr. Obama is adept at this.

    Mr. Obama has no 'real' policy strengths of his own. He actually poaches bits and pieces from others and makes it his own. It is quite comical if it were not so serious a matter.

    Mr. Obama "preaches" that racism and slavery is an ISSUE BUT LET'S MOVE ON.

    140+ years ago since the real slavery issued occurred, who brought the issue up the "typical" afro-centric church as was stated by Mr. Obama or Ms. Clinton?

    How many churches do you know of that preach the style of "black church" religion as presented by Mr. Obama?

    Do we have "white, yellow, red, brown church religions" that throw derogatory remarks at other races from the pulpit too ?


    Hillary is once in a lifetime also (none / 0) (#205)
    by diplomatic on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:54:27 AM EST
    It's ridiculous for anyone to consider Obama once in a lifetime, but not Hillary Clinton--one of the smartest and most prepared women (and a Senator) that we have in government.

    As far as his Hispanic Influence (none / 0) (#38)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 07:31:48 AM EST
    I do believe there is some name recognition value there.

    But my understanding has always been that that community is more influenced by folks like Antonio Villaraigosa and Dolores Huerta.

    Richardson is someone they could have self-identified with to a certain degree, I supposed.

    At this point (none / 0) (#236)
    by shoephone on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:17:01 PM EST
    I don't think Villaraigosa holds much sway with anyone, regardless of ethnicity. He's damaged goods due to his own zipper problems.

    What about energy policy? (none / 0) (#42)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 07:50:30 AM EST
    That's the one area where Richardson has some expertise.. no mention of it?

    Except his tenure as Energy Sec (none / 0) (#171)
    by oldpro on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:14:17 AM EST
    wasn't exactly stellar...some might even say, an embarrassment.

    Perhaps Wen Ho Lee has a comment. (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:20:19 AM EST
    I have a New Mexico friend (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by zyx on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:50:24 AM EST
    very loyal Democrat, who has no use for Richardson.  One of her biggest complaints is the Wen Ho Lee case.  Okay, she lives in and formerly worked at Los Alamos.  She said it was a travesty how he handled that case.  And the final charge--careless handling of classified documents--she said basically everyone in Los Alamos could be thrown in the pokey for that.

    She has other complaints, too.  I don't know how much love this guy actually has by those who know him.  (And he didn't get too far with those who didn't, either.)


    Wasn't Richardson also energy sec when (none / 0) (#238)
    by shoephone on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:22:08 PM EST
    it was discovered that Loral Corp was selling secret rocket technology to the Chinese?

    Where is the RICHARDSON stance on (none / 0) (#234)
    by TruthSpeaksVolumes on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:11:57 PM EST
    Alternative Fuel projects so as to cut
    dependence on OIL from the Saudi's, Venezuela
    or whomever it profits.

    Was he PRESENT that day? That is why you don't hear about Mr. ENERGY SEC. It's a huge weakspot


    Jeralyn (none / 0) (#45)
    by Kathy on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 07:53:47 AM EST
    Might want to look around for video of the Ferraro statement on MSNBC this morning wherein she went apesh*t and the commenters actually agreed with her.  I know-I was shocked.

    (tried the email link but it wouldn't work for me)

    Is this the quote (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Grey on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:26:42 AM EST
    to which you're referring?

    "To equate what I said with what this racist bigot has said from the pulpit is unbelievable," Ferraro told the paper. "He gave a very good speech on race relations, but he did not address the fact that this man is up there spewing hatred."

    If so, I found it here.


    Good for her. (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:15:45 AM EST
    All of a sudden. (none / 0) (#57)
    by Arbitrarity on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:07:35 AM EST
    I see lots of hate for Richardson.  I get the impression this would be a different tune had he endorsed Clinton.

    It happens (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:13:11 AM EST
    You should see what the Obama folks are saying about Murtha right now.

    I don't hate him (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Kathy on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:16:35 AM EST
    I just think he's woefully ineffectual.

    I also think it's in poor taste considering that WJC gave him so much, but Richardson is a politician at the end of the day and politicians are not known for their loyalty.


    I know (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:20:11 AM EST
    And Bill was on the campaign trail with Kerry a week after a triple by-pass.

    It is what it is and I expect nothing less.


    i hold kerry in greater distain for his (none / 0) (#169)
    by hellothere on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:13:35 AM EST
    positions here due to the fact he was the last presidential candidate. also he owes the people who supported him a fair shake and not ted kennedy. and yes lack of class after bill got off his recovery bed to help him says a lot about him.

    Me too (5.00 / 0) (#83)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:40:01 AM EST
    I don't hate him at all.  He seems to be a good person, and sincere in his beliefs and endorsement.  I, like around 95% of Democrats, did not vote for him. His endorsement does not have the weight of an Edwards or Gore or Kerry endorsement. He will not help Obama much.

    So. (none / 0) (#72)
    by Arbitrarity on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:23:04 AM EST
    He shouldn't have chosen on his personal belief but rather should have been loyal?

    You sure (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by Marvin42 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:27:39 AM EST
    Its personal belief not politics? Because I find it very interesting that his "personal belief" is identical to the Obama campaign talking points. I mean man, his personal belief is so strangely attuned to the Obama campaign its almost uncanny.

    Are you sure (none / 0) (#85)
    by Arbitrarity on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:46:31 AM EST
    That it's not?

    Circles (none / 0) (#166)
    by Marvin42 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:09:52 AM EST
    Huh? I was just commenting to your comment. I have no idea what is going on in anyones head, but I know how to read a press release and I don't immediately assume everything is sweetness and light. Everyone has self interests, and beliefs, and everything is a mixture of the two.

    We do know that he is definitely now swayed by loyalty, whether this is good or bad depends on your viewpoint.


    do you honestly believe this is his (none / 0) (#173)
    by hellothere on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:15:11 AM EST
    personal belief and not a politcal decison or quid pro quo? sorry but i don't agree.

    Richardson (none / 0) (#204)
    by cal1942 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:53:36 AM EST
    in an interview with one of the Las Vegas papers said he wanted to pipe Great Lakes water to the southwest.  He later backed off from his statements but his backpeddling did not contain a actual disavowal. And by the way also destroyed any environmental cred that some people mistakenly give him.

    As a Michigander I basically loath him and would continue to loathe him no matter who he endorses.

    Before I learned of his 'demand' for a national water policy (that stole water from the north) I disliked his strident support of "free" trade.

    Doesn't matter who he endorses, he can go piss up a rope.


    Yep, as your Wisconsin neighbor (none / 0) (#255)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:25:03 PM EST
    across our mutual lovely Great Lake, I gotta say that hard as it was going to be to vote for a ticket with Obama on it, with all the sexist stuff . . . it would now be REALLY hard for me to vote for a ticket with Richardson on it for the same reason plus his disdain for the serious issue of our Great Lakes.

    What the heck, only a fourth of our nation's population is in the region reliant on the Great Lakes.  So as long as such an Obama/Richardson ticket can do without us Great Lakes states, fine.  So they lose, let's see, New York, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin . . . and as long as that ticket takes the South, the West . . . all will be just dandy.  Enjoy the endorsement, Obamans.

    p.s.  Good news that Richardson has foreign relations experience.  We can hardly wait to see what happens when you send him to Canada, which is a tad concerned about the Great Lakes, too.


    There is no hate.... (5.00 / 0) (#80)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:38:24 AM EST
    ..and my fellow Clinton supporters needn't deny it. Criticism is not hate, never will be, and in fact, using the hate card to silence criticism seems anti-democratic to me.

    I realized the (none / 0) (#82)
    by rooge04 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:39:49 AM EST
    somewhat dumb-dumbness of Richardson when he was at a panel and was asked a question about gay rights by Melissa Etheridge. His response was downright embarrassing and made him sound not bright at all.

    Not for me (none / 0) (#61)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:10:34 AM EST
    I've been vocally opposed to Richardson for a long time.

    Nor from me (none / 0) (#62)
    by Grey on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:12:02 AM EST
    I've never liked him and I continue not to.

    Moot for me (none / 0) (#65)
    by smott on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:14:25 AM EST
    HRC does need Hispanic help or particularly foreign pol help....BOP does so this makes more sense for him.

    I don't see hate (none / 0) (#67)
    by Marvin42 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:16:52 AM EST
    Maybe disappointment and the belief his endorsement won't make a huge impact with Latino community. Where do you see hate?

    I don't think that is the case (none / 0) (#68)
    by Virginian on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:17:56 AM EST
    It was/is fairly obvious not many folks were ever really excited about Bill Richardson; this is just an opportunity in which people can attempt to rationalize why it was that they never really got behind Richardson...

    And perhaps. (none / 0) (#86)
    by Arbitrarity on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:47:14 AM EST
    This is rationalisation to make the endorsement 'not matter.'

    No (none / 0) (#95)
    by Virginian on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:04:18 AM EST
    The endorsement doesn't matter because in reality, no endorsement matters...we're voting for the candidate, not the endorser...endorsements serve one purpose, to attempt to legitimize individual candidates through the works of other - on their own, endorsements are both illogical and meaningless -

    Then. (none / 0) (#118)
    by Arbitrarity on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:24:56 AM EST
    Why is there a post on it here if it doesn't matter?

    Seems to me that it does.  


    it matters just as much as (none / 0) (#122)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:28:31 AM EST
    Kerry and all the dems endorsment in MA.
    JUST as much.

    Because it is news (none / 0) (#125)
    by Virginian on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:31:51 AM EST
    just like Britney Spears' newest mishaps or American Idol results...(in fact, probably much more similar to American Idol results)...I am assuming those things matter to you too?

    But it seems more questionable that you have instead decided to tacitly agree that endorsements of candidates are illogical, yet you seem to argue instead that the illogical and superficial (endorsements) have meaning beyond their existence


    that is soooooooo not needed! (none / 0) (#175)
    by hellothere on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:16:44 AM EST
    number one it didn't matter before he gave it. it doesn't matter now. richardson has no impact or he would still be in the race.

    Funny, I was just thinking the same thing n/t (none / 0) (#77)
    by independent voter on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:30:52 AM EST
    i don't see the "hate". (none / 0) (#141)
    by cpinva on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:44:08 AM EST
    you are free to do so of course, but my feeling is it's self-delusional. again, merely my opinion.

    my wife was a big supporter of richardson as a pres. candidate, i didn't see it myself. his debate performances didn't impress me either, he seemed like he wasn't really there. in fairness, i must point out that my wife and i are also still arguing the root cause of the civil war. :)

    i don't see this endorsement, other than being nice for sen. obama, being particularly critical to either candidate's chances in the remaining primaries, since none of the states left have significant hispanic voting populations.

    let's be blunt, it is as fact that gov. richardson was less than compelling as a candidate. as someone noted above, he was not successful in bringing in the hispanic vote for himself. that hardly qualifies as "hate".


    Count me out on the "hate" (none / 0) (#240)
    by shoephone on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:26:57 PM EST
    I simply wasn't impressed with him as a candidate. I can take him or leave him, and I'd bet most Dems have forgotten about him. Hence, his endorsement doesn't ratchet up the stakes much.

    Off topic, but I'm new here (none / 0) (#78)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:33:39 AM EST
    and I was wondering...when does Jeralyn sleep?

    I'm not exactly an old-timer here, (5.00 / 0) (#81)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:39:35 AM EST
    ...but in the couple of months I've been posting here, I've been wondering the same thing!

    I mean (5.00 / 0) (#84)
    by rooge04 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:40:46 AM EST
    let's not try and act like any side is above anything here.  But somehow the "Obama is above it all" still gets passed around.

    Jeralyn (none / 0) (#212)
    by cal1942 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:10:38 AM EST
    is amazing.

    oh bill, we hardly knew ye! (none / 0) (#128)
    by hellothere on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:32:21 AM EST

    a leader, finally! (none / 0) (#135)
    by joe in oklahoma on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:39:57 AM EST
    damn, there's alot of bitterness in these comments above. snark city anyone?

    i have been waiting on some "leaders" in the democratic party to step forward, speak out, and end the bloodletting.

    I think this took guts on Bill's part.... especially considering his friendship with the Clintons.

    and, o yes, he should keep the beard...even when he is Vice President!

    now, the next one who should step up is John Edwards to slam the nail in the coffin of the old politics!

    nail in the coffin (none / 0) (#137)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:41:17 AM EST
    of old politics
    EXACTLY he should do as he hinted he would and endores Hillary and get this over with.
    I agree completely.

    Obama IS old politics. (none / 0) (#138)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:42:17 AM EST
    hmm, end of old politics? (none / 0) (#179)
    by hellothere on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:22:03 AM EST
    now that is snark city! your candidate, obama, promised old style chicago politics and that's just what we got. his religeous mentor is a 60s radical style speaker/thinker. so where is the new? it is spin that's all.

    a leader speaks (none / 0) (#151)
    by joe in oklahoma on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:53:48 AM EST
    Bill Richardson said this:

    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!

    Not to sound naive (none / 0) (#156)
    by ChrisO on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:56:54 AM EST
    but I don't know why we should dismiss out of hand the notion that he actually thinks Obama would be a better President, or at least more electable. I have no illusions about the self interest of politicians, but I also happen to subscribe to the old fashioned belief that politicians also take stands based on their personal beliefs and principles.

    I can't say for sure why Richardson endorsed Obama. I just think it's wrong to automatically dismiss the possibility that he means what he says.

    Given the quality of political judgment (none / 0) (#178)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:21:23 AM EST
    he demonstrated in the race, I think you could be right.

    any thoughts on the appearance in Oregon? (none / 0) (#157)
    by tree on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:57:22 AM EST
    Richardson is going to be appearing with Obama in Portland today. Any thoughts on why he's appearing with Richardson in Oregon? Oregon's got about an 8% Hispanic demographic, and I'm not sure that Richardson is much of a pull there. Is this because of a lack of Oregon specific endorsers? I didn't see much of a list of Oregon figures, outside of Rep. Earl Blumenauer(D-Portland), endorsing Obama on the Oregon Obama site.

    I thought Obama was leading in Oregon. Does anyone have current polls for Oregon?

    Oregon (none / 0) (#191)
    by americanincanada on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:39:56 AM EST
    is the only state that is not either a Hillary stronghold at the moment or that Hillary is not rising is. (NC)

    And, Oregon is (none / 0) (#206)
    by oldpro on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:56:11 AM EST
    a 'maverick/guy-state!'

    Ya just never know...

    Remember Portland Mayor Bud Clark's poster, "Expose Yourself to Art?"

    It's Oregon...


    I don't see much effect (none / 0) (#176)
    by Christopher MN Lib on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:17:25 AM EST
    In the upcoming states. The states where he could have had a conciderable effect--New Mexico obviously, California, Texas Arizona--are already done with. He may be after VP. I would have doubts he has much pull with the hispanics in Puerto Rico.

    i think this is simply richardson owes (none / 0) (#181)
    by hellothere on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:25:26 AM EST
    some politcal debts and is paying them off. it is the same with kerry. oh and throw in a dash of clinton hate too. i honestly don't believe that many of these endorsements indicate they have all fallen for obama. it is politics to them. in recent years that is all it has been to these so called leaders in the democratic party.

    Obama ...Hypocritical AND (none / 0) (#183)
    by TruthSpeaksVolumes on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:31:37 AM EST
    you can count on him to "CHANGE" his stance to suit his "current" standing in the public eye.

    Sounds like "POLITICS OF OLD" to me by Mr. Obama.

    Choose Kerry and Kennedy to suit your needs in MA Mr. Obama and then say ."Change" the way politics have been conducted. Hmmmm .....REALLY?

    Choose to sit in a church for 20 years whether it is every other Sunday or not and then speak that you have "CHANGED" now that you know some of Mr. Wright's REAL views. Hmmmmmmm.....REALLY?

    Your Wife, Mr. Obama...sure.. I would like to see her in the White House now that she is actually proud to be an AMERICAN and no longer angry at the USA...... Hmmmmm... REALLY?

    Onto Mr. Richardson,

    We are not pleased that he has aligned himself with Mr. Obama. In Addition, Mr. Obama AND MS. Clinton have given many "inspirational" speeches. As a former energy secretary in the Clinton administration, it "appears" that that was OK for Mr. Richardson when he aligned himself with the Clintons at that point in time. NOW Mr. Richardson can't find it in his heart to suupport Ms. Clinton?.....REALLY?

    Since "typical" hispanics WILL NOT support Mr. Obama, Mr. Richardson and the rest of the politicians who NEED A CABINET POST are going to SHOVE THIS CHOICE down our throats. That is taking our VOTES out of our hands and literally attempting to influence the nomination amongst superdelegates. On the otherhand, Mr. Obama who doesn't say the words himself and has people out there to imply that superdelegates should not make the choice all the while Mr. Richardson and others influence peddle to get EXACTLY THAT.....REALLY?

    Mr. Richardson and Mr. Obama ARE HYPOCRITES to name a few and it is pissing people off. Many see that treating people like we aren't intelligent enough to see what you are doing is "POLITICS OF OLD". Go Ahead!!!!

    Many of us will stand UNITED. Voting 3rd PARTY ... [NOT REPUBLICAN] or WRITE IN to demonstrate WHAT is being DONE is politics of old and not FAIR PLAY.

    Look at that. Not one specific mention of RACE related hated here. That's because Mr. Richardson and Mr. Obama ARE PRACTICING POLITICS OF OLD FOR THEIR OWN SELF INTEREST. It has nothing to do with RACE and it is HYPOCRITICAL to be "preaching" CHANGE when Mr. Obama and now Richardson is BRINGING RACE INTO THIS ELECTION AGAIN by attempting to INFLUENCE THE "Typical" HISPANIC PERSON. Good Luck with that!!!!

    This is insulting to AMERICANS and places defeat in the jaws of victory for all democrats.

    Stand up PA and NC and PUERTO RICO
    Mr. Obama is out in WV while the "typical" old school politicians Mr. Obama "USES" cover his trail with twigs and branches over the holes.

    It appears that Howdy Doody Dean is the guy orchestrating these politicans to get out front and behind of Mr. Obama.  [Doody] won't actually have to do something to GET the FL AND MI DELEGATES SEATED and Howdy Doody gets Mr. Obama the superdelegate votes.

    Close to zero Hispanic votes from Hillary (none / 0) (#198)
    by diplomatic on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:47:26 AM EST
    Richardson was not all that popular with Hispanics across America, (not unpopular either) but just kind of "meh."

    There was a poll in December (Pew Hispanic Center) showing how much Hispanic support each candidate had and Hillary was ahead by a 40 points with over 50 percent while Obama had 11 and Richardson only 8.

    Too bad he waited until after Texas anyway (none / 0) (#199)
    by diplomatic on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:48:24 AM EST
    It might not matter for Obama anymore.... damage is done.

    Mr. Richardson had a chance to support (none / 0) (#209)
    by TruthSpeaksVolumes on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:01:52 AM EST
    Mr. Obama BEFORE the primary in his own HOME state of New  Mexico.

    Hmmmm...where was he there and why didn't he support Mr. Obama then?

    Ms. Clinton won that state by a very close vote.
    Seems to me that Mr. Richardson had a better chance to SHOW how much influence he had over the "typical" hispanic vote in his own backyard.

    Could it be that he didn't want to be embarrassed in his OWN backyard?


    had he endorsed him back then (none / 0) (#219)
    by diplomatic on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:29:10 AM EST
    and considering how close the vote total was in New Mexico, he probably would have made the difference for Obama.

    But nationwide Richardson does not have any kind of huge or even mediocre following.  Just because he is technically Hispanic has not made Latinos everywhere look up to him and embrace him.  The issues and the character of the person are what matter.  I happen to think Richardson has shown a very poor character.

    He claimed that he would support whoever won New Mexico, but he didn't.  I will never forget it.


    AND (none / 0) (#228)
    by TruthSpeaksVolumes on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:01:57 PM EST
    he is interjecting Race back into this primary season. It is convenient.

    He knew of Mr. Obama's stances on issues prior to throwing his support to Mr. Obama.

    SO, he stays in a race and DISAGREES with Mr. Obama's view on many issues. NOW, Mr. Obama what "CHANGED" Mr. Richardson's mind?

    Is this the change Mr. Obama is flashing?


    Since the polls are slipping for Mr. Obama (none / 0) (#201)
    by TruthSpeaksVolumes on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:49:53 AM EST
    and Mr. Richardson is now backstabbing to serve his own political future, Is the KITCHEN SINK being thrown by the Obama campaign with the release of a photo of Bill Clinton and Mr. Wright at a breakfast meeting?  

    It certainly looks like a plumber is on staff with Mr. Obama's campaign.

    WInner of New Mexico to get endorsement (none / 0) (#208)
    by diplomatic on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:58:03 AM EST
    "just words"

    BR as VP (none / 0) (#215)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:17:32 AM EST
    I've like Richardson - but once he started campaigning it was obvious he was not President material, too many gaffes and missteps.
    In a VP role he'd probably be fine. Remeber most VPs do not run the country like now. BR would help w/ diplomacy, energy policy etc. Not a strong campaigner but he would add the western balance and experience to the ticket.

    As for his endorsement - well I guess VP would be fine for him to contemplate. I would prefer for Obama to have a fighter on his side, since Obama doesn't fight. Actually - Obama needs a wman to balance his sexist leanings. And ..... Obama needs for himself to be VP under Hillary but I think that ship has sailed.......

    So now its ok to (none / 0) (#218)
    by Jgarza on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:23:01 AM EST
    call Obama sexist on this site?

    Mr. Obama will be lucky if his ship FLOATS (none / 0) (#230)
    by TruthSpeaksVolumes on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:05:59 PM EST

    Ms Clinton when she is nominated will select Bill Nelson from Ohio or John Glenn from Ohio.

    Mr. Obama is not going to get the VP at this point.


    Isn't John Glenn dead? (none / 0) (#242)
    by shoephone on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:37:19 PM EST
    Richardson, SD, will of the people (none / 0) (#225)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:43:15 AM EST
    Obama rule:  will of the people does not apply when it comes to SD that support Obama, only applies to Clinton.  

    Richardson viewed from Republican eyes (none / 0) (#235)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:15:24 PM EST
    My Republican co-worker just caught the CNN video of the endorsement, and is laughing at the fact that he never saw Rischardson with a beard until now, when he is launching his career as 'the bringer of Hispanic votes'. I told him Richardson grew the beard right after he dropped out of the race, and I thought he was just cutting loose a little bit. He replied that Richardson was obviously trying to look more Hispanic.

    I never thought of myself as naive, but maybe he is right. Is Richardson just trying to accentuate what he thinks of as his main positive? If so, how sad is that for a man with a distinguished career?

    Richardson is pandering to his "AMIGO" (none / 0) (#239)
    by TruthSpeaksVolumes on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:26:35 PM EST
    One can also wonder where he would be if he were not the Energy Secretary under the Clinton Administration?  Seemed to serve his purpose then
    ohh but it might be that "Change" thing.

    I don't find anything wrong with the beard (none / 0) (#243)
    by shoephone on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:40:51 PM EST
    and I generally don't like beards. I hardly think it's a political calculation! C'mon. Gore grew a beard after 2000 too, remember?

    beard = hispanic? (none / 0) (#251)
    by amde on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:07:29 PM EST
     thats racist, I might be inclined to take offense- if only I cared what a Repub. has to say about hispanics.

    As for his strength over hispanics, it doesn't really amount to anything. I live in El Paso, TX, which works closely with NM, we're basically tied at the hip; and a lot of people respect him but knew he wasn't candidate material.

    Speaking from  a heavily pop. hispanic city, this endorsement wont cause a wave of hispanic support for the O-man but anything can happen.


    Mr. Richardson.. Is it NOT about Race? (none / 0) (#244)
    by TruthSpeaksVolumes on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:42:23 PM EST
    In this election, if Mr. Obama and Mr. Richardson say it is not about race, then WHY doesn't Mr. Richardson SPEAK ENGLISH in his OPENING remarks in his backing of Mr. Obama?

    Veep (none / 0) (#252)
    by bettym47 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:51:30 PM EST
    Richardson is dying for a Veep slot. It's funny though since Obama and Richardson say they are above the politics and they want change, but they so stink of same old dirty politics. The sad thing for Richardson is that Obama will drop him as fast as lightning if the polls show that he won't win with Richardson as Veep. Sad.. I use to like Richardson. Now he's just a traitor. Feel free to bash Obama on my blog as well at www.elections2008online.com. Thanks!!