home

Richardson Criticizes Obama Campaign For McCarthyism Charge Against Bill Clinton

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 05:18:45 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Newly minted "huge Obama endorser" Bill Richardson criticized the Obama campaign for its attack on Bill Clinton:

Prominent supporters of Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama on Sunday both faulted Obama's campaign for allowing a retired general and backer of the Illinois senator to equate comments by Clinton's husband to McCarthyism.

"I don't believe President Clinton was implying that," said New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a former presidential candidate who endorsed Obama last week. "But the point here ... is that the campaign has gotten too negative — too many personal attacks, too much negativity that is not resounding with the public."

Asked whether Obama's campaign was being too negative in accusing former President Clinton of McCarthyism, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, a Clinton supporter, said, "Of course ... the Obama campaign tries to have it both ways," he said.

More . . .

I will tell you what is funny - I first saw this line of attack by Obama supporter and NBC Obama pundit Keith Olbermann, on the same program where he interviewed Bill Richardson. The irony is delicious. Richardson praised Olbermann for his Special Comments, particularly the one criticizing Hillary Clinton.

Think Bill Richardson will criticize Keith Olbermann for his negativity? Me neither.

< VT. Supeme Ct to Hear Arguments in Prison Food Case | The Missing White House E-Mails >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Richardson Criticizes Obama Campaign For McCarthyism Charge Against Bill Clinton | 131 comments (131 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    heh, indeed (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 05:26:13 PM EST


    is it too late (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by Turkana on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 05:26:24 PM EST
    to hope for al gore?

    Heh (5.00 / 7) (#4)
    by standingup on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 05:29:02 PM EST
    This entire primary is about hope, so why not!

    [ Parent ]
    My fantasy ticket (none / 0) (#77)
    by Iphie on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:59:56 PM EST
    before this whole election got under way was a Gore/Edwards ticket. Actually, I still think that would be pretty good.

    [ Parent ]
    If the primary was about Hope... (none / 0) (#106)
    by lentinel on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:58:40 PM EST
    I prefer Hope Lange.

    [ Parent ]
    to run or to endorse? (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:15:03 PM EST
    If you mean to run, I'd rather see John Edwards.

    [ Parent ]
    Hey what about Gore AND (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by derridog on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:52:14 PM EST
    Edwards. Count me in with that hope!

    [ Parent ]
    he's still my dream (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Turkana on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:06:46 PM EST
    candidate. i'd be happy with edwards, but i'd be thrilled with gore.

    [ Parent ]
    Angry (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:12:10 PM EST
    I guess I am still angry about the "Obama" persona, marginalizing the populist Edwards agenda.  We could have been really arguing about nuts of bolts of healthcare, we could have been really talking about reform of Wall Street, banks etc, but no, we are talking about a story.  A story that will somehow emerge as the President of the US at one of the most critical crossroads.  

    We could have been contenders but we ended up with a one way ticket to Palookasville.  

    [ Parent ]

    "You was my brother, Barry, (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by tree on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:21:31 PM EST
    you shoulda looked out for me a little bit. You shoulda taken care of me just a little bit so I wouldn't have to take them dives for the short-end money."

    But my favorite quote from OTW was this one:

    Edie: Shouldn't everybody care about everybody else?
    Terry: Boy, what a fruitcake you are!

    [ Parent ]

    Fruitcakes! (5.00 / 0) (#117)
    by echinopsia on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:11:35 PM EST
    Obama-mania and the cult of self-esteem

    [ Parent ]
    I'd like to see endorsements (none / 0) (#56)
    by TheRefugee on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:30:53 PM EST
    from both Gore and Edwards go to Hillary right before PA primary...give her one more boost that voters in IN etc will have to consider...though at this stage I think 99% of voters in the remaining states already know who they will be voting for...but hey, the endorsements would look good for waffling superdelegates as well.

    [ Parent ]
    I can see that (none / 0) (#69)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:48:37 PM EST
    I think Al Gore is a better match for me, both in terms of policy and temperament.

    [ Parent ]
    I was hoping for Gore for a long long time (none / 0) (#86)
    by litigatormom on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:21:14 PM EST
    But I think that it's too late for him now.  If Obama supporters think it would be undemocratic for superdelegates to vote for Clinton, and Clinton supporters think it is undemocratic to refuse to permit re-votes in MI and FLA, would be be the reaction to a Gore candidacy now?  Would he be greeted with flowers and chocolates?  More likely, at this point, he's be greeted by Bronx cheers.

    But it does make a nice daydream.

    [ Parent ]

    I think we're approaching the point (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:50:44 PM EST
    where no solution will be acceptable to everyone.

    [ Parent ]
    overide? aren't we simply talking about (none / 0) (#63)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:42:49 PM EST
    endorsement? are you saying that aa's would leave the democratic party if gore endorses hillary. i sort of think you meant something a little more forceful from gore, right.

    [ Parent ]
    long day! the ole reading comprehension (none / 0) (#107)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:06:51 PM EST
    is way down. thanks for your response.

    [ Parent ]
    Please don't change history. (none / 0) (#116)
    by ghost2 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:08:23 PM EST
    Is this the new order now? to attack Al Gore?

    The supreme court sealed the fate of that election; Tom Daschle cut a deal with Republicans in power sharing, and the rules (yes, the roolz) required a senator to also raise the objection.  I remember that episode.  No senator seconded the motion of the congressional black caucus, and after all the hell Al Gore had been through, why would he ignore the rules of the proceedings and start mayhem all over again?  

    Next, people are going to blame Al Gore for the last 8 years, b/c they'd claim he didn't fight enough.  I am sure Al has a soft spot in his heart for Hillary.  After all, if it wasn't for her, he would be the favorite scapegoat for all that has gone wrong.  

    [ Parent ]

    Bill Richardson... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by hopeyfix on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 05:31:07 PM EST
    ...seems to want to eat the cake and keep it too. Whereas I do understand taking sides, he has to choose one only. You cannot be close to the Clintons and decide to back Obama and then try to keep it clean, not at this point, I am afraid. Live with your statement, I guess... And with the disappointment of people who once admired you. It won't make it better to defend the side you left behind in your past now.

    I actually saw him say that on Fox... (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 05:37:12 PM EST
    ..and he didn't say it with a lot of conviction. It was as if he got tricked into saying it because shortly thereafter he went back to talking about how special the Obama campaign was. I don't think camp Obama will be sending him out by himself anymore.

    [ Parent ]
    They Should Know Better than to Send Him Out (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by BDB on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 05:47:21 PM EST
    just based on his debate performances.

    [ Parent ]
    Amen (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Lil on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:23:30 PM EST
    Richardson was a terrible shoot from the hip guy. He alwasy came off sounding a little dumb. Hate to say it but reminded me of some of Bush's dumb answers.

    [ Parent ]
    OMG! (none / 0) (#54)
    by dannyinla on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:25:27 PM EST
    Richardson endorsees bama ergo he reminds you of Bush.

    [ Parent ]
    how did you arrive at that conclusion? (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by TheRefugee on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:33:25 PM EST
    the comparison between Bush and Richardson as individuals is obvious...unless you are trying to see things that aren't there.

    [ Parent ]
    I was talking about his dumb answers (none / 0) (#60)
    by Lil on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:39:13 PM EST
    not his politics.  He said some rally dumb things campaigning and often looked unsure of himself...maybe it's a Texas thing.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm sure the Obama campaign has (none / 0) (#97)
    by Anne on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:41:51 PM EST
    Carnival Cruise Lines on speed-dial, so look for Bill's next appearance to be on the Lido Deck...


    [ Parent ]
    Richardson, Like WJC (none / 0) (#10)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 05:40:39 PM EST
    is beyond control...been around too long.

    Obama campaign can of course ask but the reality is that you get what you get with the old war horses.

    [ Parent ]

    it all depends of course (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 05:39:21 PM EST
    upon one's point of view and whose ox is currently being gored (no pun intended).

    Richardson is thinking beyond this campaign - good for him because the back channel chatter from the campaigns to the media is so entirely negative from both sides and since day 1 that it can get a bit disheartening to monitor.

    Ana Marie Cox has been uploading the daily audio on the Swampland site (Time). I just don't have the desire to listen but Jeralyn has posted her takes from the audio from time to time.

    The 'Politics of Hope' never existed and whatever hope their was, has long since rode off into the sunset - not that I'm saying that Obama has been any better or worse then Clinton. The only difference has been that most of the main stream media has given Obama a pass on the negative stuff while haranguing Clinton for the same...which seems to have changed a bit the past few weeks.

    I agree it's like seeing (none / 0) (#101)
    by stopcomplainingandact on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:46:45 PM EST
    the evolution of Obama.  I believe in Hope and portraying a positive message.  Then he becomes front runner and gets punched so many times that everyone in the world is asking why don't you punch back.  When he does he is blamed for not running the campaign of hope.  It's a thin line that I must say looks more blurry everyday.

    [ Parent ]
    He drew the line for himself. (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by echinopsia on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:21:10 PM EST
    He can walk it.

    Whereas Hillary's fine line was drawn for her - not too tough, not too soft; not too wonky, not too inspirational; not too feminine/feminist, not too bad-ass; not too angry, not too nice; and you can't attack your opponent without looking racist. She's not whining.

    I have no sympathy for Barry.

    [ Parent ]

    It's not hope that anyone is against (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:28:53 PM EST
    It's:
    • the notion that he represents hope as no one else can
    • that he has no discernible track record that tells us how he will act
    • that he seems even more calculating in his positions than Hillary while claiming transparency
    • that he claims to transcend politics as usual and his campaign organization has campaigned very typically
    • that he has unfairly been the beneficiary of favorable media coverage because the main stream media wanted to knock Hillary and Edwards down while completely ignoring Biden, Dodd, Richardson, Kucinich and perhaps forgivably, Gravel
    • that he has engendered too many insipid followers who parrot talking points everywhere, all the time.
    • that his followers actually believe that he hasn't run a negative, viscous campaign all along, forgetting that it was he and Edwards who were running behind and attacking Hillary last December
    • that the first time he actually addresses racial issues is when his ratings are tanking because of the attention paid to his pastor of 20+ years
    • that supporters of all other candidates don't actually see Obama as representational of hope at all...only a pretense

    Some of us who have been around and saw Eugene McCarthy get beat back or McGovern walloped have seen this before...and as the Who sang...We Won't Get Fooled Again.

    Perhaps it's an alternate reality thing and you and I just will always see things differently

    [ Parent ]

    So you would love (none / 0) (#110)
    by zyx on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:24:55 PM EST
    for Obama to just be able to keep campaigning about Hope Hope and more Hope?  

    It seemed a bit airy and silly to me after just a few weeks.  Sorry, I'm just an ol' cynic.

    [ Parent ]

    Richardson also went off (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by frankly0 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:01:25 PM EST
    the reservation, I think, when he proposed that after all primaries were done, the Democrats should immediately consider whether to rally behind a candidate.

    This was a very different, and far more reasonable position from the standard Yglesias, Obama supporter line that we have to make that decision Now! Now! before our precious candidate is further dinged by actual criticism from people who dare to be opponents! Because our candidate can't win if anyone points out his faults!

    Oh, gosh...that used to be (none / 0) (#31)
    by oldpro on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:26:46 PM EST
    one of my favorite expressions...but I've been told to give it up and find a substitute.  Never found one, though.  I see you have the same problem...or...

    ...is it OK now?

    Keep me posted.

    [ Parent ]

    I read (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by tek on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:10:42 PM EST
    in MSM that Richardson said on Faux News that Clinton should drop out before there's "bloodletting" that will alienate voters.  Does he think that hasn't already happened?  The DNC's whole pitch seems to be to shut Clinton up to protect Obama.  I really don't like the tenor of this campaign on the part of the Democrats.

    Poor Richardson (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by herb the verb on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:21:40 PM EST
    One of the saddest developments of this primary campaign season is seeing how over-matched Bill Richardson has been in bare-knuckle politics. He has really done himself no favors, and I was a big fan. He may be very persuasive in a diplomatic setting or as a negotiator, but when it comes to campaign politics, he is really pretty weak. He just doesn't seem to get it.

    I would even go so far to say that Hillary may be lucky Richardson endorsed Obama rather than her.

    Yeah, now she doesn't have to... (5.00 / 5) (#35)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:31:31 PM EST
    ...give him a job in her administration. ;-)

    [ Parent ]
    Today he said 'what about rest of us'? (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by catfish on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:47:10 PM EST
    He said on Fox "enough of the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton, what about the rest of us?"

    Thought that was funny - like when am I gonna get my turn?

    [ Parent ]

    I sure hope that isn't the real (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:49:18 PM EST
    reason why he endorsed Obama. That would be pretty shallow and self-centered.

    [ Parent ]
    I know he was pretty blunt about it... (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:50:15 PM EST
    ...really funny moment. Glad someone else caught it.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, I saw that.. (none / 0) (#113)
    by TalkRight on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:50:19 PM EST
    he looked so mean..

    [ Parent ]
    I didn't get the sense that Richardson was all (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by nycvoter on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:22:15 PM EST
    that harsh about the McCarthyism comment.  He seemed to swing right back to it being Clinton's campaign that was negative and that Obama's campaign was positive and that's why he is sticking with him.  I think it's outrageous that the Clintons allowed themselves to be called racists and while I don't want them to be the ones always clamoring for apologies and people being 'dismissed' from campaigns (because it looks silly), I don't how Democratic leaders can stand around while WJC is compared to Atwater and now McCarthy.

    I also think Obama can't distance himself from that comment at all because he stood there, heard it and then went on with his hope and change message without missing a beat.

    He handed McPeak the mic. n/t (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:45:00 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I thought that was really strange (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:19:39 PM EST
    It was like 'And now, some words from my attack dog.  I'll be right over here.'

    [ Parent ]
    Yes. (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by lentinel on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:51:54 PM EST
    It reminds me of when Obama stood by and let Chris Rock refer to Hillary Clinton as "that white woman" at a rally at the Apollo.

    He said nothing, and the media didn't say anything either.

    [ Parent ]

    Why don't his ardent supporters see this?! (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:35:07 PM EST
    It drives me nuts!! Don't they see the transparency? It's right in front of them . . .

    [ Parent ]
    Didn't know that about Chris Rock (none / 0) (#144)
    by shoephone on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:44:27 AM EST
    Very disappointing. I always liked him a lot. And I love the "Everybody Hates Chris" show.

    [ Parent ]
    The comment (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by DaytonDem on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:27:39 PM EST
    that most disturbed me was the "we deserve better than Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton" from Richardson this morning. I don't see the transcript yet on the Fox website, but it jolted me when I heard it because it is MSM talking point. No one ever mentioned being sick of two Bush presidents, but two Clintons is a dynasty.

    Where have you been for the last 8 years? (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by JoeA on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:30:22 PM EST
    I can think of many many people who are sick of a 2nd Bush presidency.

    [ Parent ]
    What made me laugh is that... (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:33:49 PM EST
    ...he was a part of that first Clinton so it was kind of funny to hear him say that. And actually, when this campaign started I wasn't sure that I wanted to return to the Clinton days but much has happened since and going back to before bush2 sounds pretty good to me.

    [ Parent ]
    No one (none / 0) (#37)
    by DaytonDem on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:35:23 PM EST
    in the MSM. I thought that was clear.

    [ Parent ]
    IOKIYAR (none / 0) (#48)
    by JoeA on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:04:32 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Saw that too (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by catfish on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:49:15 PM EST
    he said "what about the rest of us" like "when do I get a chance"?

    [ Parent ]
    I love when they blurt out (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:04:43 PM EST
    the real reasons for their endorsements, like when Ted Kennedy admitted he endorsed Obama because he felt like Hillary slighted RFK in her MLK-LBJ comments.

    I'm sure some Hillary endorsers have equally petty reasons, but up until now they are shutting up about them.

    [ Parent ]

    Richardson spent several minutes (none / 0) (#92)
    by litigatormom on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:35:26 PM EST
    during his endorsement speech telling the audience about the time Obama saved him from humiliation during a debate. Richardson's mind was wandering, and he didn't hear a question directed at him.  Obama kindly leaned over and whispered, "Katrina." And then Richardson "launched into my Katrina answer."  From this he concluded that Obama was a really good guy.

    [ Parent ]
    Interesting. (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by lentinel on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:45:32 PM EST
    I knew something was fishy about RIchardson's endorsement - especially with the "once in a lifetime" b.s.

    But I also assume that Richardson thinks that Obama has it locked up and he's looking to be V.P. in exchange for handing him "Hispanic" voters.

    In any case, it's politics of a very low order.


    [ Parent ]

    He can't be VP (none / 0) (#143)
    by Foxx on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:17:06 AM EST
    No way they can run two brown men. Maybe Secretary of State?

    [ Parent ]
    funny. (none / 0) (#119)
    by ghost2 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:27:37 PM EST
    Richardson always had that look in the debates, like he was lost or something (who am I and what am I doing here?)  Now he actually confirms it!

    [ Parent ]
    "We deserve better than (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by litigatormom on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:26:41 PM EST
    Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton...oh, was I part of the first Clinton administration? Oh, right, well the Energy Department and the UN were great during that period...."

    [ Parent ]
    I think Richardson (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:53:14 PM EST
    would have been a disastrous nominee. Can you imagine him handling questions about how he handled the fire or Wen Ho Lee?

    [ Parent ]
    Man, he went there?! oy. n/t (none / 0) (#67)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:46:31 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Wow, I clicked on the link to TPM and (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Teresa on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:04:58 PM EST
    that advertisement on the right is a really bad picture of Hillary.

    danny, in all honesty, can you not see the (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Teresa on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:38:48 PM EST
    change in KO? He started out the race pretty fair, to the extent on DKos they accused him of being, gasp, a Clinton supporter.

    He did a "special comment" on her campaign which has been at most no worse than Obama's. His dislike for her couldn't be more obvious.

    I used to watch him except when he was (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:58:09 PM EST
    paired with tweety. now, he just ticks me off. i could see him sliding, but i wrote it off to spending too much time with tweet. then he just flat out became unwatchable.

    [ Parent ]
    In all honesty... (none / 0) (#111)
    by dannyinla on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:27:01 PM EST
    do you not see how, suddenly, KO is villified by the people who weeks and days before thought he was the the second coming of Murrow???

    I've never been completely enamoured of the guy, but this turnaround (based entirely on the fact that he pled with HRC to change her tactic) is almost comical.

    [ Parent ]

    Keith's slide into Biasville (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Imelda Blahnik2 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:53:58 PM EST
    began awhile back. It was obvious the night of the New Hampshire primary, and got worse from then on. His "special comment" on HRC was utterly predictable and par for the course. HRC supporters (and neutral individuals) are not simply reacting to one segment on Countdown.

    [ Parent ]
    your first comment was deleted for (none / 0) (#123)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:51:12 PM EST
    insulting other readers and containing profanity. Please abide by the comment rules or don't comment.

    [ Parent ]
    That's weak (none / 0) (#152)
    by dannyinla on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:48:48 AM EST
    I don't even remember what the comment was, but my tone here and at DKos is extremely mild. I strongly doubt there was anything worthy of deletion.

    Although the other day I used H-E-Double hockey sticks and offended someone.

    [ Parent ]

    Hmm (none / 0) (#126)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:04:49 PM EST
    Since that does not describe me, I wonder who you mean?

    [ Parent ]
    Nope. Wasn't referring to you. (none / 0) (#153)
    by dannyinla on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:52:22 AM EST
    If I was I would have made reference specifically to you.

    You have never struck me as the type who would hang on Olberman's every word like so many in the blogosphere.

    [ Parent ]

    no, Olbermann (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by TheRefugee on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:44:28 PM EST
    attacked one candidate for the same thing that he condones from the Obama campaign...race-baiting.  He ordered Clinton to own any and all of her surrogate's words that might be inflammatory while saying nary a word about Obama owning the comments of his surrogates.

    the rest?  you have a point but Obama supporters are going to continue to slam Clinton endorsements and Clinton supporters will do likewise concerning Obama endorsements.  Support is fine...distortion and histrionic finger pointing...ala Olbermann...is not.

    You are 100% correct (none / 0) (#109)
    by kenosharick on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:23:42 PM EST
    As a former loyal Olberman fan(I still watch on and off) he has become complete hypocrite and Hillary basher.

    [ Parent ]
    This campaign is the worst I have ever witnessed. (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by lentinel on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:50:19 PM EST
    Obama will get the nomination.
    He can do no wrong.
    Every day the Times has three or four stories about Obama.
    Obama says this. Obama has lunch. Obama goes to church.
    Nothing about Clinton unless it is a story about the trials of her campaign.

    Obama, who was going nowhere, took the advice of folks like Arianna and Dowd and went negative.
    Everybody jumped in. Bill is defined as a racist. Now he is defined as the new McCarthy.
    Hillary is called a racist.

    Confronted by Wright's statement that the attack on the U.S in 2001 was a direct result of an imperialist foreign policy, Obama
    talks about race and his grandma.
    The press loves it.
    It is part of Easter sermons.

    Obama will face McCain - probably with Gov. "let's make a deal I can get the Hispanic vote for you" Richardson.

    The press has been giving passes to both these guys.
    They will have to choose which one to abandon.

    We will be stuck with whomever they choose.

    Thanks Obama for a lousy campaign.
    Thanks media for rekindling your soppy love affair with McCain.

    Our present media are the same ones who gave us the war in Iraq. Now they are giving us McCain v/s Obama.

    Friend of mine fell into (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by litigatormom on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:30:51 PM EST
    conversation with James Carville at an airport recently.  Carville says he believes that Obama will win the nomination, but will lose to McCain.  At first I thought this was Carville spinning -- "Better nominate Hillary or McCain will win" -- but as I think about it, it makes no sense for him to make that point in that way.

    I'm still supporting Clinton, but do people really think that John "More Tax Cuts, More Iraq, Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran" McCain can win an election against Obama?  Or am I simply hopelessly optimistic and naive?

    [ Parent ]

    I agree w/Carville. (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:28:42 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Me too. (none / 0) (#127)
    by echinopsia on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:05:20 PM EST
    Richardson betrayed his friends and his own stated principles. There's no doubt he did it because he expects a reward.

    May be a case of a rat jumping onto a sinking ship, though.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree w/Carville that Obama (none / 0) (#128)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:06:44 PM EST
    will be the Dem. nominee and McCain will win the GE.  As to Carville's Judas comments, kind of strong, but that's Carville.  I like his style.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't see (5.00 / 0) (#122)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:43:48 PM EST
    any divorces in McCain's past/present that will get unsealed to reveal entirely embarrassing crap that would get Obama past the fact that he is getting creamed by McCain in many key battleground states.

    Toss in the crap with Jeremiah Wright, the misogyny that turns off women and the only question unanswered is will he be beaten worse than McGovern?

    The smears, the racist back channel stuff, the racist 527's, the drip of details about his past...it's going to be one ugly GE

    CNN played a 10 minute clip of Jeremiah Wright tonight...

    [ Parent ]

    McCain divorced his (none / 0) (#124)
    by caseyOR on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:52:33 PM EST
    first wife, but I have not heard of any proceedings tobe unsealed.

    [ Parent ]
    he began dating Cindy before the divorce (none / 0) (#125)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:56:36 PM EST
    but I think Giuliani has rendered the public indifferent to adultery -- unless it's with pros like Spitzer -- and McCain was separated from his wife he says when he and Cindy began dating.

    [ Parent ]
    it's a strange story to be sure... (none / 0) (#130)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:14:27 PM EST
    His first wife was in a very bad auto accident while he was still a POW in Hanoi and was never the same. He lost interest in her and started fooling around.

    They were estranged but still living together when he met Cindy, much younger and daughter of major Budweiser distributor...one of the largest in the country.

    Cindy's father was a partner of Kemper Marley, who was largely suspected as linked to the mafia and responsible for the car bombing that killed Arizona Republic reporter Don Bolles but nothing has ever really been proven and that is now a very old story.

    His first wife still defends him and will not speak ill of him and so there is no story there because she won't say an unkind word. My guess...he's found a way to provide financial support for her - but hey, that inures to his credit.

    [ Parent ]

    That is really sad (none / 0) (#142)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:13:54 AM EST
    more than strange, I think.  Two people who went through so much -- he's a POW, she's wondering whether he's even alive, then has a bad accident before he finally returns.  Being from that era, once married to a Viet vet, I knew many who simply could not connect again afterward, even without all that the McCains went through.  

    Good for her for moving forward, and I hope she is left alone.  They both lost a lot.

    [ Parent ]

    What was the clip like? n/t (none / 0) (#135)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:46:24 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    i dont know if you are naive (none / 0) (#99)
    by sancho on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:43:32 PM EST
    but i think carivlle's comment is probably conventional wisdom aomng the party elite. if so, makes you think doesn't it.

    which would mean that a vote for obama in the GE would be a vote against Pelosi and the democratic power elite. I've come to think that she is more comfortable staging symbolic opposition against a repub. president than actually being on the hook to enact "real change."

    remember, the democrats never accepted bill as president either. the party has been vague and uncertain since johnson destroyed the old alliances by aligning with mlk to get the civil rights acts passed.

    [ Parent ]

    You blame the media (none / 0) (#91)
    by stopcomplainingandact on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:31:17 PM EST
    the Obama campaign and I'm sure everyone else in the world.  Last time I checked his campaign is winning.  So a lousy campaign maybe but a better campaign than Clinton is undeniable.  

    [ Parent ]
    Obama's lousy campaign. (5.00 / 0) (#96)
    by lentinel on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:40:36 PM EST
    I said Obama's campaign was lousy.

    I didn't say that it wasn't successful.

    [ Parent ]

    Newly minted endorsers (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:10:26 PM EST
    seem to be a little overeager.  They are almost giddy.  Richardson, like some of the other endorsers (Kerry for one, if I remember correctly) mentioned how amazing it felt to be in front of that Obama crowd.  I think they want their five minutes on a stage like that - they never got that much adulation for themselves.

    Sweet, sweet Kool-aid....

    Anyway, they tend to be loose cannons at interviews.

    clarity (5.00 / 0) (#147)
    by nobrainer on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:41:02 AM EST
    can I just clear this up?

    Bill Clinton was talking about a MCCAIN and CLINTON fight!  

    K?

    This story has spun and spun and it seems nobody read or saw it!!

    terrible

    The Obama campaign has spun this and the poor Prince's passport breech (but wait his own advisor did that)...poor boy

    Exactly! (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:48:46 AM EST
    And like so many statements made by either Clinton it has been spun until it suits all the Obama supporters in their never-ending quest to take down the Clintons.

    Richardson was never a favorite of mine and I always thought, there must be more to this guy in private than meets the eye in public.

    Rendell on the other hand is smart, articulate, and right on target in front of the cameras.

    [ Parent ]

    Heh heh (none / 0) (#1)
    by BrandingIron on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 05:21:46 PM EST

    wouldn't it be funny if Richardson only openly endorsed Obama to keep close to him until the end when he switches his vote at the convention?  I don't think he's that sly, but a boy can dream.

    I'm sure that (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by badger on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 05:51:15 PM EST
    at at least one blog there's a diary accusing Richardson of being a Hillary operative.

    In fact, I'd be surprised if there's only one.


    [ Parent ]

    Buyer's remorse... (none / 0) (#6)
    by Angel on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 05:31:52 PM EST


    No. Unlikely. (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by oldpro on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:19:07 PM EST
    Bill Richardson is still an FOB and will defend Bill.

    He is, however, a sexist, who - if Hillary fell overboard, would more likely throw her an anchor than a life preserver.

    [ Parent ]

    I would love to the media press Obama for his resp (none / 0) (#15)
    by TalkRight on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 05:51:06 PM EST
    response to what he thought of Richardson's comment vs what his retired general friend's McCarthyism Charge Against Bill Clinton While he was standing adjacent to him with his face down, arms crossed over shoulder. Isn't that what he called "The Old Politics"? or "Just Words"!

    Yes you would love (none / 0) (#98)
    by stopcomplainingandact on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:43:04 PM EST
    to distract the campaign more and talk about what you feel is weaknesses for Obama in your blind attempt to get your candidate Clinton elected.  Clinton made a statement which even in the most conservative perception would question the Patriotism of Obama.  Worst case it directly attacks it.  Hence the McCarthyism comment might be overboard but based off merit is fundamentally within bounds.  The blame here is not on B. Clinton or Obama's supporter it's on the media bleeding this playing to the emotion of Clinton supporters, Obama supporters and the GOP.  

    [ Parent ]
    No I want to understand where he stands seriously (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by TalkRight on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:47:06 PM EST
    because his words don't meet his actions..

    He says he wants to go above Old Politics.. but then asks his general to make that McCarthyism while he was standing beside him... if he was not standing he could have easily said "his supporters sometime raise rhetoric that is not good" .. but Now he does not have any excuse left.

    [ Parent ]

    This just isn't true. (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by mm on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:44:16 AM EST
    I've seen President Clinton say essentially the same thing many times before, long before anyone had even heard of the Great Senator from Illinois.
    He's talking about how Republicans always distract the debate from important issues that actually impact people's lives.

    It's very funny.  Obama is always claiming that he is above partisan politics of the past - he doesn't demonize the Republicans -  yet anytime one of the Clintons says something nice about McCain, he squeals like a stuck pig.

    [ Parent ]

    You're proven wrong on this (none / 0) (#140)
    by tree on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:01:11 AM EST
    you said:

    Clinton made a statement which even in the most conservative perception would question the Patriotism of Obama.

    Here's a take on Clinton's comment from a conservative columnist who was there:

    It isn't often that I'm called to defend Bill Clinton, but since I was present in Charlotte, N.C., Friday when he made the remarks -- now being spun by the Obama campaign as "like McCarthy" -- I'm compelled to set the record straight.

    The AP is reporting that Hillary Clinton is trying to clarify comments by her husband that "seemed to question" Barack Obama's patriotism and that an Obama aide likened to Joseph McCarthy. Nonsense.

    In no way did I interpret Clinton's remarks as questioning Obama's patriotism....

    LINK

    I don't think the question is a "distraction" to the Obama campaign. Obama was right there when McPeak called Clinton "Joe McCarthy". Its seems like this is standard campaign talk for Obama. "I approve this message."

    [ Parent ]

    Off topic comment galore from you folks (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 05:59:03 PM EST
    in addition to attacks on me.

    Your punishment is no Open Thread form me for a while.

    Keep them on topic please.

    And you do not get to attack me either.

    IMO you missed one (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by badger on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:23:19 PM EST
    comment #7 above

    [ Parent ]
    I just deleted one from Sybill (none / 0) (#52)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:17:04 PM EST
    and the responses to it. Sybill had best read the comment rules.

    [ Parent ]
    gee jeralyn, (none / 0) (#151)
    by cpinva on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:03:00 AM EST
    i think her (i'm assuming it's a her) nic should have been a clue right there: sybil

    [ Parent ]
    I (none / 0) (#22)
    by tek on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:12:51 PM EST
     can't tell if he's saying the Obama camp is too negative or the Hillary camp.

    the rest of Richardson's speech (none / 0) (#27)
    by diogenes on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:21:43 PM EST
    The part where Carville condemned Richardson as being like Judas (which Richardson also referred to today) was skipped.

    you gotta love Carville... (none / 0) (#44)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:51:58 PM EST
    he speaks his mind.

    The comparison to Judas seems to be fair, at least in Carville's mind and not mindless name calling but rather a considered characterization of what his expectations were.

    I do feel that the concept of government should be not to just have your friends but rather get the best/brightest to staff departments and it seems that Bill Clinton held Bill Richardson in esteem and named him to several posts within his administration and that doesn't obligate him to support Hillary in my mind but apparently it does in Carville's mind.

    I think that says something for Carville's thinking...a parallel to Rove thinking for sure.

    But you have to appreciate Carville's candor...he has a way of cutting to the nut.

    [ Parent ]

    I though Rendell did well defending Richardson (none / 0) (#85)
    by Manuel on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:20:09 PM EST
    And overall did a better job presenting Clinton's case.  But them again, I am biased.

    [ Parent ]
    Disagree on Carville (none / 0) (#145)
    by shoephone on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:56:46 AM EST
    The Judas comment was unnecessarily incendiary. He constantly embarrasses himself, IMO.

    [ Parent ]
    Loyalty (none / 0) (#154)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:20:18 PM EST
    Man, you don't stab your mentor in the back in politics and expect to escape scot-free.  Richardson didn't have to endorse Hillary, but he could have just stayed the hell out of it.  It's a phenomenally stupid move on his part, and totally unnecessary.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't see the quote justifying the headline (none / 0) (#33)
    by JoeA on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:29:25 PM EST
    Bill Richardson didn't criticise the Obama campaign in the quoted comments,  the criticism comes from Ed Rendell.

    Richardson just says that he doesnt believe that Bill Clinton "meant" to disparage Obama with his patriotism remarks.  That is not a criticism of the Obama campaign.

    You'd better (none / 0) (#38)
    by badger on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:42:52 PM EST
    let Josh Marshall and the AP know too, because both used similar headlines, and you didn't read the second part of the Richardson quote.


    [ Parent ]
    hmmm, read the 2nd part of the quote (none / 0) (#42)
    by JoeA on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:46:46 PM EST
    Still don't see it as a dig specifically at the Obama campaign.  It's the "campaign" in general has become too negative,  of which McPeak's comments are one element.  He wasn't particularly pleased with Carvilles riff on Judas Iscariot either.

    [ Parent ]
    hey mister (none / 0) (#46)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:55:24 PM EST
    that's me up on the jukebox...

    I'm the one who's singing this sad song.
    And I cry every time, you slip in one more dime.
    And play me singing the sad one, one more time.

    Pleased that Carville stated in honor of the season that Richardson appears to him to be like Judas?

    I suppose he's not pleased but he certainly knows Carville and he knew what Bill, Hillary and Carville had expected of him. Did he think it would come without notice or comment?

    [ Parent ]

    Patriotism (none / 0) (#39)
    by Natal on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:43:02 PM EST
    If Bill Clinton considers Obama patriotic as is his wife and McCain, then it would go without saying that the Republican and Democratic nominees (whoever it is) are both going to be patriotic. There's no one else who could be an nominee and unpatriotic. I don't understand why anyone would need to make a statement on the obvious unless he had some other motive or was confused in his thinking.

    there are some questions out there (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:37:32 PM EST
    as who is best prepared to lead this country and who would best represent our interests. mccain's 100 year war leaves me saying wtf! michelle's not ever being proud of her country till now leaves me say the same. obama sitting in a church daxxxxx america leaves same. at first when i saw obama didn't wear a flag pin, i could have cared less. in fact i think it is sorta hocky and gave it a pass. but now with the goings on in his church i have to wonder just what is that all about. and if i wonder about it, so will others.

    perception is important in campaigns like this.

    [ Parent ]

    A few statements taken out of conext (1.00 / 0) (#94)
    by stopcomplainingandact on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:36:17 PM EST
    lead by the GOP and suddenly even Democratic perceptions are changed.  Perception is when opinion isn't supported by factual knowledge.  And yes perception is more important then facts. But you can educated the populas on the truth and change the perception to facts.  Obama is patriotic, he has dedicated his life to public service.  He could have been one of the most prominent lawyers in the country but chose to dedicate his time to helping the people of America.  We are at a point where people can only criticise the people around him.  And now it's time to shed truth on the hate filled message being promoted by the media, GOP and Clinton campaign.

    [ Parent ]
    Hate from the media? (none / 0) (#95)
    by Dave B on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:39:57 PM EST
    What I see is a lovefest.

    [ Parent ]
    sorry but i have to take issue with (none / 0) (#108)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:09:18 PM EST
    the spin that the media and hillary are the bad guys here with all the hate. it is a campaign, and i don't make any claim that hillary's campaign are angels. far from it! but the media has bent over backwards to give obama a pass. and i haven't seen anything coming from her campaign like i have obama's.

    [ Parent ]
    Rendell cleaned Richardson's clock (none / 0) (#61)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:40:25 PM EST
    Rendell made several good points.   Rattled off all of the popular vote scenarios, including MI and FL in the totals without Wallace or Richardson arguing the point.   He several times repeated that it is incumbent on the superdelegates to pick the candidate best able to win in November.  He made that case better than anyone i have seen yet.

    I looked for a video link on the Fox News site, but could not find one.  It is worth watching if you stumble on it someplace in the net.  I was listening in the car on the c-span radio Sunday show replay, so I'd like to see the video myself.

    I'd say Hillary got the better deal in gubernatorial endorsements this weekend.

    Ready for prime time (none / 0) (#78)
    by waldenpond on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:03:45 PM EST
    Rendell does well.  Unflappable. Richardson looked less than strong next to him.  Richardson doesn't do the hope and unity message well.  Saying it's time for a new generation is just offensive.

    [ Parent ]
    "New Generation"? (5.00 / 0) (#88)
    by magisterludi on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:25:13 PM EST
    So that's why he grew the hip new facial hair! That old chestnut from the 1960's-"Don't trust anyone over 30"- seems to have been resurrected recently. Bill came across to me as wanting to be all down with youth vote in a rather pathetic way.

    [ Parent ]
    LOL, used to be you got a red convertible.... (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:36:13 PM EST
    ...for a midlife crisis. I guess these days you get a unity pony instead.

    [ Parent ]
    Clinton aides impatient to join Obama (none / 0) (#105)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:54:45 PM EST
    according to Peggy Noonan today. (Consider the source)  She says she has spoken to at least one very senior campaign staffer that very much wants to move on. That Kool-aid is very tempting stuff.

    [ Parent ]
    And she used that to back her statement (none / 0) (#137)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:49:39 PM EST
    that Clinton voters would vote for Obama and Obama voters would not vote for Clinton. Didn't she look at exit polls or do any research before she went on the show?

    [ Parent ]
    A comment (5.00 / 0) (#148)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:39:14 AM EST
    from Peggy Noonan? Whew, that's really scrapping the bottom of the barrel. The underside of the bottom of the barrel.

    [ Parent ]
    Here's a link to (none / 0) (#114)
    by sander60tx on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:51:25 PM EST
    Rendell on Fox this morning.  It's not the interview that includes Richardson, but it makes similar points,  I think.  Rendell is a good spokesperson for Clinton.  

    [ Parent ]
    Olbermann (none / 0) (#62)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:42:42 PM EST
    Is a journalist and pretends he hasn't endorsed anyone.

    I always figured a liberal O'Reilly was unnecessary, but I understand the audience needs something.

    Richardson was over-rated before his endorsement of Obama.  No.  He wasn't even over-rated before his endorsement of Obama.  He was an afterthought.

    Good for him (none / 0) (#80)
    by delandjim on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:04:47 PM EST
     I was glad to hear him say that.

    Praise to Richardson (none / 0) (#134)
    by Fired Up on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:40:07 PM EST
    I praise Bill Richardson who probably felt he owed the Clinton's his life for that job in the White House.  I'm glad he felt he paid his debt to the Clinton's by doing a fine job he was hired to do while in the White House.  If others would stop hiding behind the Clinton's and show their courage and endorse who they really want to endorse, maybe we can get on with this election. My God, is there a Clinton Mafia out here or what? People act like they are scare to make a move on their own, do we have a bunch of cowards?  Again, I'm glad Bill Richardson made up his OWN MIND, and not let someone talk him into an endorsement, he followed his OWN heart. Ed Rendall also needs to let the people in Pennsylvania make up their own minds.  Pennsylvania politicians are afraid of being cut off with funding if they go the opposite way of Rendall.   Again, you want to question Obama's weaknesses and strenghths, while we already have cowards who are afraid to make up their own minds?

    Ha-ha! Funny hypocrisy! (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by tree on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:10:52 AM EST
    Praise to Richardson for endorsing Obama, and urging Oregonians, and voters at large, to vote for Obama, but Ed Rendell needs to "let the people of Pennsylvania make up their own minds", instead of endorsing Clinton.

    [ Parent ]
    Are you aware of Jesse Jackson Jr.'s (none / 0) (#139)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:58:47 PM EST
    threats Super-Ds?

    [ Parent ]
    Richardson should criticize; neutral better 4 him (none / 0) (#146)
    by ConsiderChange on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:46:49 AM EST
    Richardson provided faithful service during the Clinton administration and ran a decent campaign during his bid for the presidency.  Though I believe he should honor the comments made in February's NYTimes of voting in the way your consitituents did, he claims now that New Mexico supported Clinton by 'a slim majority' - that shouldn't matter b/c we've seen that it can take a 'slim majority' to win the presidency....

    Regarding the McCarthy comments - just recently, the Washington Post commented that Obama's Iraq policy was a Fairy Tale as well (review the Larry King Live transcript with Obama as the guest). So if others can view the actual point of simply asking if the other contestant in a political campaign is being hypocritical, why must they face accusations of them "targeting" the opposition?  What of Obama's comments of facing those who embrace 'special interests and lobbyists'?  Obama is a hypocrite; he, at one time, called Unions 'special interests' (search in the Chicago Tribune).  Obama is also a hypocrite stating in his nationally televised Tuesday speech on race that he did hear several sermons when he, initially, indicated that he was NOT present during the sermons with the inflammatory comments.  Then, on Larry King Obama returns to stating that he was not present.  Sheesh!  Rev. Wright knew that his background may harm Obama and stated that he would probably have to leave.  But, with the prominent congregation  and >10,000 members Obama spoke with just prior (or not??) to his declaring his candidacy to become president, the benefits far outweigh the 'controversy'.  Besides, how many shows has Obama been on to discuss the 'controversy' while dropping hints of:  his 2 books, what Americans are truly concerned about (the economy, 5 years in Iraq, etc.), how Clinton has run a 'tenacious' campaign while he has run a campaign that he's proud of, and how he believes, despite MI and FL, that the democrats can come together) - trust me, I viewed about 3 of them and CNN's replay of Obama's Larry King 3 times on Sunday alone - sigh.

    I was a fan of Bill Richardson; not since Henry Cisneros has their been a nationally prominent Latino with a very good chance to become president.  Richardson simply favors Obama with the opportunity of becoming a VP.  By America demanding if Hillary or Obama win that they have their counterpart be the VP, Obama is the only candidate who wavers on the chance that Hillary would be the VP (or, as Obama says, "a Cabinet" position).  So, the opportunity does exist of a Obama-Richardson ticket.  I don't blame the man for seeking the goal, just the fact that he should vote the way his state did-- and I sent a memo stating this.  At least his state is clear; Texas was a debacle.  The primary should have final say, but we had a caucus too :(.....

    Thank you for the opportunity to post.

    Richardson Criticizes Obama Campaign For McCarthyism Charge Against Bill Clinton | 131 comments (131 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment