Subscribe to Breaking NewsRichardson Endorses Obama
The governor of New Mexico goes for the senator from Illinois.
Bill Richardson will endorse Barack Obama for president later today at a campaign rally in Oregon, media sources report.
“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 provided by the Obama campaign early Friday morning, adding, “[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.”
Richardson’s endorsement was eagerly sought by Hillary Clinton as well as Barack Obama, with Bill Clinton even inviting the New Mexico governor over for a Super Bowl party last month. Hillary’s failure to secure Richardson’s endorsement is especially embarassing, as he had served in her husband’s administration as ambassador to the United Nations and has more foreign policy experience than either of the two remaining Democratic presidential candidates.
“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,” Richardson said in the statement from the Obama campaign, speaking directly to the attempt by Hillary and the Clinton campaign to portray Obama as a naif unprepared to be commander in chief. “He showed this judgment by opposing the Iraq war from the start, and he has shown it during this campaign by standing up for a new era in American leadership internationally,” Richardson was also quoted as saying.
Richardson’s endorsement takes on additional significance given that the governor of New Mexico is the only sitting Latino governor in any of the 50 states, and Hillary Clinton has so far won the lion’s share of the Latino vote, which proved decisive in the Texas primary on March 4.
Richardson’s own presidential bid never took off, and he withdrew from the race on January 10, following a poor showing in the New Hampshire primary, after a disappointing performance in the Iowa caucuses. But the Clintons reportedly were furious with Richardson over what they thought was a deal with the Obama campaign over the Iowa caucuses to encourage Richardson supporters to go over to Obama in precincts in which Richardson didn’t reach the 15 percent threshold for viability; in exchange, according to media reports, Obama supporters would go to Richardson at caucuses in which Obama had more backers than needed to win any additional delegates. Still, Richardson’s endorsement was viewed by the Clintons as being valuable enough for them to contain their anger over the Iowa fracas.
But with the longstanding relationship between Richardson and the Clintons, the question will most certainly be asked as to why he chose to endorse Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton, becoming the most prominent Clinton administration official to go over to the other side. In Richardson’s letter to his supporters explaining the decision to endorse Obama, the governor seems at pains to try to make it seem less of a slap at the Clintons, writing,
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.
Richardson also references Obama’s speech on race, and it is worth quoting that passage at length:
Earlier this week, Senator Barack Obama gave an historic speech. that addressed the issue of race with the eloquence, sincerity, and optimism we have come to expect of him. He inspired us by reminding us of the awesome potential residing in our own responsibility. He asked us to rise above our racially divided past, and to seize the opportunity to carry forward the work of many patriots of all races, who struggled and died to bring us together.
As a Hispanic, I was particularly touched by his words. I have been troubled by the demonization of immigrants — specifically Hispanics — by too many in this country. Hate crimes against Hispanics are rising as a direct result and now, in tough economic times, people look for scapegoats and I fear that people will continue to exploit our racial differences — and place blame on others not like them . We all know the real culprit — the disastrous economic policies of the Bush Administration! Senator Obama has started a discussion in this country long overdue and rejects the politics of pitting race against race. He understands clearly that only by bringing people together, only by bridging our differences can we all succeed together as Americans.
His words are those of a courageous, thoughtful and inspiring leader, who understands that a house divided against itself cannot stand. And, after nearly eight years of George W. Bush, we desperately need such a leader.
Whether or not there are any unspoken reasons for the endorsement, it is worth noting that Richardson is a superdelegate, and his vote will now go for Obama just as Clinton loses the vote of another superdelegate, Richardson’s gubernatorial counterpart in New York — the disgraced ex-governor, Eliot Spitzer.
Richardson on Superdelegates Last Month: Vote the Way Your State Votes (Oops)
Superdelegate and new Obama-backer Gov. Bill Richardson told the New York Times in February that a superdelegate’s vote “should reflect the vote of my state, it should represent the vote of my constituency. It shouldn’t be because you’re a fund-raiser or a big-shot delegate. Superdelegates should reflect their state or constituency. If superdelegates decide this nomination, it’s going to look like big-shot politicians and fat-cats decided who should be president.”
Er…Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, won New Mexico, Governor.
As an Independent, there is few things I have never liked about the democratic party. First, democrats fall in love with a nominee candidate quickly without vetting. Barack Obama is a excellent speaker. Via Obama’s resume, his leadership skill have yet to be proven. No disrespect to Senator Obama, but for Bill Richardson to state “once-in-a- lifetime leader”, to date, there is no evidence to validate that statement. Potentially?!
The timing of Bill Richardson endorsement seem to convenient. Barack Obama desperately needs a headline change from the Rev Jeremiah Wright scandal. So out steps, Bill Richardson for more face time, end of the week endorsement. Positive headline change for Barack going into the holiday weekend. Gold points for Bill Richardson to be on Barack Obama’s short list for VP.
While we have the freedom to support who ever we wish. I find it disheartening, for people like Bill Richardson, to be willing to step into the lime-light to endorse Obama. Bill Richardson, Al Gore, and many others, would be no name fame aging government employees, if not for the hand of Bill Clinton. I guess that politics – no loyality. Maybe, I am to loyal.
Bill Richardson knows the Clintons as well as anyone. If Hillary couldn’t close the sale with him, then she might as well pack it up, call it a season, and go home in order that the rest of us can preserve what is left of the Democratic Party.
Good thing Hillary never quit her day job prior to running for President. And if she gets tired of being the junior Senator from NY, then she always can pack her carpet bag and move to Ohio to make a run for the governorship; after all, in her little world nothing mattered more than Ohio (and the heck with the rest of the voting states). God bless her little heart.
Bill Richardson and every other backstabber haven’t seen the end of it. It’s amazing to see all the miserable, little souls selling themselves cheap.
If the super delegates start making a move now and help this guy win before everyone has voted it would be a disaster.
I have no doubt that Hillary is going to be our nominee!!! The idea that the numbers don’t mach is just something that all of OB supporters are playing to get this over with, and the timing of it is very suspicious.
Well I don’t think so…his numbers are down, he’ll be going down even more in the coming weeks. I don’t think all of this press is helping him at all because he lost all credibility, he’s not really charming or particularly likable on TV, he stutters his way throw interviews and leaves an impression of someone that’s up to something no good. I know, I never liked him so it’s easy for me to see those things, however I never liked Huckabee either, but at list I enjoyed seeing him on TV.
Obama makes me turn the channel.
I can feel that there is more about Obama that is just about to come out and we need the time.
Hillary will win huge! Just wait till she starts wining, this party will really start in Pennsylvania!!!!
Dendy, denial ain’t a river in Egypt!
Now that the primary race is more than 3/4 over, exactly how does Hillary expect to win the nomination given her deficits in terms of pledged delegates, number of states won and popular vote? It is mathematically impossible for Hillary to surpass Obama in terms of pledged delegates and number of states won, and highly unlikely — although not impossible — that she will at this point be able to surpass Obama on the popular vote.
The Democratic Party leaders have made it clear that the superdelegates who have not endorsed to date are unlikely to overturn the democratic results of the voters who expressed their popular and majority support for Obama. Although Hillary believes that she is entitled to rule by the divine right of queens, the remaining superdelegates will not disturb the will of the people.
Hillary now should bow out gracefully. It’s over, and if she were anyone but a Clinton, she would have done so by now in order that the Democratic Party could unify and rally behind Obama in order to defeat McCain and the Republicans in the general election. Unfortunately, Hillary would rather destroy the Democratic Party than sacrifice her blind (and quite unrealistic) ambition for power. It’s time for Hillary to retire those yellow and brown pantsuits which make her look like a derivative version of Pat Nixon.
Bill Richardson:
Nunca votaré por usted que usted es otra vez un traidor y un mentiroso apenas como obama, usted ha traicionado a toda la comunidad hispánica pues no deseamos Obama – TRAIDOR.
You are a JUDAS!
@Alex
To call Gov. Richardson a “Judas” implies that Hillary Clinton is “Jesus.” Although I understand the passion among some of those who support her, I think comparing her to Jesus Christ is going just a little too far, don’t you think? You can call Hillary a diva or a queen or even a power-hungry cold-hearted calculating maniac but I really do not think that she is the Messiah.
History of Gay Bars,
You are correct Hillary CLinton is not Messiah. According to some Senator Obama’s supporter, that word has been saved for him.
I have actually heard supporters of Barack Obama call him the second coming. It’s frightening the level of stupidity in this country!
I believe, Alex is commenting on Richardson betraying Bill Clinton, not Hillary.
I agree with Parker’s remarks. Richardson has no loyality, he is supporting Obama to better potion himself as a VP option.
I cannot help recalling the words of my grandmother: “Do not bite the hand that has feed you.”
Richardson is where he is today, directly because of Bill Clinton’s hand. While he may not be Judas. Richardson is just another back stabbing, double talking politician with no loyality!
@Cannon
Are you suggesting that Bill Richardson’s loyalty to Bill Clinton should have trumped his duty to the nation? If Bill Richardson thinks Barack Obama is the better candidate over Hillary for President, then I applaud him for putting his personal relationship with Bill Clinton aside in order to do what he believes is best for the nation. This makes me like Bill Richardson only more, and I think he would make a fine Vice President.
P.S. If there are Obama supporters calling him the Second Coming I agree with you that it’s a tad silly. However, maybe it’s been so long since the Democratic Party has had a candidate as our standard bearer with the promise of restoring progressive liberal values that Obama’s appearance does strike some as the Second Coming! I bet you a quarter that unlike Bill & Hill, Barack Obama will never execute mentally retarded people.
History of Gay Bars in New York City ,You asked for it and here is how Hillary will win the nomination:
As it stands now, you can count the popular vote any number of ways — not including Michigan or Florida, nor certain caucus states which have not provided estimates as to how many people turned out — http://www.realclearpolitics.com gives Obama the edge with 703,723, but acknowledges that number changes depending on what other states you add to the mix: For example, if one includes the popular vote totals in both Florida and Michigan, then Obama’s lead shrinks to 80,642. However, if you discount those two states, but include estimates from certain caucus states — Iowa, Nevada, Washington (where a competing primary was held with a different percentage outcome, more favorable to Clinton, but the results of which were irrelevant), and Maine — then his numbers balloon up to 813,945.
It seems, nevertheless, that a composite number seems the most appropriate to use. If one incorporates these caucus state estimates along with the results of Florida and Michigan, then Obama’s current lead is calculated at 190,864. That does not seem the best number to use, either, though: Only Clinton’s name appeared on the ballot in Michigan, and although each of the candidates was well-publicized by the news media, neither candidate campaigned there. So, instead, we’ll use the composite popular vote totals only of a) all the sanctioned states whose vote totals we know; b) the estimates of the four caucus states, whose final number are not currently known; and c) Florida, where all the candidates were on the ballot, but where none of the candidates were allowed to campaign (and where only Obama aired any commercials, through a cable television site).
That gives us the magic number, 519,173 more popular votes for Obama than Clinton, out of nearly 28 million cast — an advantage of 1.8%.
By the end of the primary season, I estimate that Clinton will net at minimum 576,000 more popular votes, and therefore edge out Obama by a narrow but significant 50,000 — and shall be the ultimate winner of the popular vote as among the Democrats, Independents, and occasional Republicans who participated in this process.
How do I come to that number? The following states still have primaries: Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Indiana, West Virginia, Oregon, Kentucky, Puerto Rico, Montana, and South Dakota. Based on polling numbers and comparative results in other states, I came to the following net gains/losses for Clinton:
Pennsylvania +350.000: Pennsylvania is the next state to vote, and offers 158 delegates. Poll averages currently show Clinton up by 17%. If she wins by that number on election day, and turnout is the same as it was in Ohio, then she will receive 350,000 more votes than Obama. It is worth noting, however, that 17% is only an average of the upcoming polls. The most recent poll, conducted on Thursday, Mach 18 by the PPP, shows Clinton with a lead of 26%. In other words, her net gains her could be even greater.
North Carolina -100,000: After Pennsylvania, North Carolina votes, and has 115 delegates to offer. Obama was once considered to be the clear favorite in this last-southern state to vote, but his numbers have been slipping lately. An average of all polls taken up through the present show a downward trend, with a median of 5% for the Obama. I’m giving him 100,000 net votes out of this state, despite the fact that the most recent poll, released today by the PPP, shows a dead heat in the state, with the Illinois Senator only up by a single point. This may be the single most competitive state left, and could be the most important for the Clinton campaign to target. I would advise Clinton supporters to visit http://www.hillaryclinton.com to take advantage of opportunities to visit John Edwards’ home state and campaign door-to-door there on her behalf. This is where a lot of beef is, so to speak.
Indiana +150,000: Indiana is third on the list of remaining states, and has 72 delegates to offer. Bill Clinton recently drew another line in the sand, and said Hillary would win the nomination if she could carry Indiana, a state next door to Obama’s home state of Illinois. Nevertheless, most pundits agree that, despite an absence of polling there, Clinton is the heavy favorite. Indiana looks a lot like Ohio politically, but with a smaller African-American population. My estimate that Clinton will net 150,000 votes in Indiana is based on her winning the state by 10 points, which seems like a safe prediction, taking into account the comparative lack of black electorate but also proximity to Illinois.
West Virginia +20,000: Again, there have been no polls in West Virginia, but again, this is expected to be a slam dunk for Clinton: a low African-American population, and a lot of blue-collar workers living in a state which borders Ohio. It’s a small state, however, and so I’m only awarding a net of 20,000 for Clinton here.
Oregon -14,000: Clinton lost the Washington State primary by about 5%, and so I’m assuming that Obama will carry the Beaver State by a similar margin. (Note that Clinton lost the Washington caucus in a landslide; however, Oregon has a primary, and a closed one at that. Clinton tends to do better when only Democratic voters are allowed to participate — and so should do better than she did in the Washington primary, which is open.) Clinton could, in fact, do somewhat better in Oregon than she did in Washington for other reasons — the Washington primary came after a 10-state losing streak for Clinton, at a time when Obama was enjoying considerable momentum. That momentum has lapsed. Also, Portland, Oregon’s only major metropolitan, latte-drinking-liberal bastion, is smaller than Seattle, and has less influence over Oregon’s politics than the Emerald City has in Washington’s. Clinton notably does comparatively well in suburban and rural areas. Still, to be safe, I’m giving Clinton a net loss her, based on the results of the Washington primary.
Kentucky +50,000: I’m giving Clinton 50,000 out of Kentucky. She carried neighboring Tennessee by about 15% of the vote, which is par for the course for her in this region of the country. This would net her 50,000 votes there. (Virtually no one is suggesting that Obama is going to win this state, is going to come close.)
Puerto Rico +150,000: Although Puerto Rico was scheduled to have a caucus, this state, heavily-laden with Clinton supporters (both in government and in the electorate at large) quietly announced it was going to change to have a primary instead. This move seems to be a thinly-veiled attempt to help give Clinton an edge in her race to win the popular vote, and she is widely expected to romp here by large double-digit margins. I’m giving her a conservative 150,000 vote edge here, although in reality, it might be considerably more brutal. One can credit the heavily Hispanic population of this US territory (which may one day be the fifty-first state) with that impending and resounding victory for Clinton.
Montana and South Dakota – 30,000: Last, and least are Montana and South Dakota, lumped together not only because they are similar demographically, but because they have a combined 31 Democratic delegates. Assuming Obama wins in both these states by 20%, as he did in Utah and North Dakota, he’ll net about 30,000 votes.
And that leaves us with 576,000 or more net votes for Hillary Clinton between now and the Democratic National Convention. That’s enough to overcome Obama’s mere 80,642 vote lead as it stands now, including every state which has voted, and enough to overcome his 519,173 vote lead, which includes every contest but the one in Michigan (which seems the most reasonable count, especially considering that Obama advertised in Florida on cable.) Of course, it’s not enough to overcome his 703,723 vote lead excluding Florida; however, the Democratic party, which has had so many problems in Florida with counting votes, and which said in 2000 in the Florida presidential election and in 2004 in the Washington State gubernatorial election that every vote should be counted, would have serious problems running a general election campaign if they disenfranchised Florida, all just because the Republican legislature and governor in that state moved up both parties’ primaries to a date which offended Howard Dean, the Chair of the Democratic National Committee. The problem in Florida is compounded by the fact Floridians have been taking to the streets and demonstrating against the DNC, demanding that their votes be counted. Can the party that wanted to count their votes eight years ago ignore their calls now?
And that segues into my second point — that the Democratic Party will heed the will of the popular vote.
Now, super delegates can vote however they want to — there is nothing that says that they should vote for Clinton because she’s the establishment candidate; there is nothing that says they should vote for Obama because John Kerry tells them to; nor is there anything that says they should even vote for either candidate because he or she has won more caucuses, primaries, or overall votes. In fact, they were originally created to give party insiders a voice to overrule the choice of the people in a close election, if the people happened to choose an insurgent candidate who might not otherwise be electable. (I would argue on this basis alone that they should choose Hillary Clinton. Given all of Obama’s huge scandals recently, I give him a very small chance of winning in November, and think the super delegates really ought to consider this when casting their ballot. But more discussion on that another time.)
However, in this election, people have urged that the delegates choose the winner of the contests. Poll after poll have shown that the Democrats would be grievously upset if the super delegates “overturned the will of the people.” If that is the universe in which we’re operating (and the propriety of that is arguable), it seems to me that the will of the people is best determined by who won the most votes; after all, it is on that very premise that the concept of democracies is based.
But Nancy Pelosi says that the super delegates should support the winner of the pledged delegate contest, and not the winner of the popular vote. (Of course, Pelosi, the theoretically neutral chair of the Democratic National Convention, has made little secret of her support for Obama, leading to the appearance of news articles such as, “Nancy Pelosi Endorses Barack Obama (Almost)” and “Nancy Pelosi’s Not-So-Secret Support for Obama.”) However, if the Democrats are to effectively neuter the role of the super delegates and drag them in line behind the will of the people, it seems highly arbitrary to use pledged delegates over the popular vote as the basis for making that determination.
In 2000, Al Gore won the popular vote, but lost Florida. This led to demonstrations outside of the Capitol at Bush’s inauguration; it led for calls to have Florida’s electoral votes invalidated by the Democratic Black Congressional Caucus; and it led for calls among Democrats to have the electoral college, which does not always reflect the will of the popular vote, to be abolished. In the face of this clear preference among Democrats for democracy (their namesake, after all), it would be disingenuous now if pledged delegate totals were deemed to be more important than popular vote totals. If Hillary wins the popular vote, she should win the super delegates, assuming they vote in support of the so-called will of the people.
Of course, Nancy Pelosi remains notoriously unpopular among the Democrats, and even though she is the Speaker of the House and the Chairwoman for the Democratic National Convention, it is not a sure bet that her will shall be carried out with respect to super delegates: Her leadership has never been seen as particularly effective. When she first took office, she urged the Democrats to choose as her second-in-command her friend and fellow anti-war representative, Jack Murtha. The House balked, and instead went with the more experienced choice: Steny Hoyer, from Maryland. So maybe the super delegates will, if they feel the pressure to abandon their independent judgment, whatever that may be, and follow the ethereal “will of the people,” — perhaps they will abandon Pelosi’s edict and go with the winner of the popular vote (and, ironically, the more experienced choice), who (for reasons I just explained) will quite likely be Hillary Clinton.
there is also a shorter way…
Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, who backs Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for president, proposed another gauge Sunday by which superdelegates might judge whether to support Mrs. Clinton or Senator Barack Obama.
He suggested that they consider the electoral votes of the states that each of them has won.
“So who carried the states with the most Electoral College votes is an important factor to consider because ultimately, that’s how we choose the president of the United States,” Mr. Bayh said on CNN’s “Late Edition.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/us…l?ref=politics
I hope with this we can establish that Obama is still far from being the nominee and there are still 10 more states to go before we make any decisions.
@Dendy
When I asked how Hillary could possibly win the nomination given her deficit in pledged delegates, popular vote and states won, I was assuming that you would provide a strategy predicated on the rules and the law that govern the democratic nominating process. Instead, you offer a prolix speculative theory that only convolutes, ignores and distorts the governing rules and law that applies to the democratic nomination process — very Clintonian, I might add.
The simple truth is that Barack Obama has won the most pledged delegates, the most states, and the popular vote to date. Based on the remaining states who have not yet voted in the primary, Hillary will not catch up to him in terms of pledged delegates or states won: it’s a mathematical impossibility. Moreover, she is unlikely to surpass him in the popular vote.
The convoluted path by which you hope to secure a nomination victory for Hillary requires nothing short of the willing suspension of disbelief — and the law and rules that actually govern — and smacks of deus ex machina by which the heaven’s open to provide divine relief.
I do not believe that the remaining superdelegates will become party to the corrupt path of victory for Hillary Clinton that you apparently are proposing at the sacrifice of the democratic process and the will of the people.
@Dendy
I recommend that you read David Brook’s op-ed piece — The Long Defeat — in the NYT today: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/opinion/25brooks.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
The pundits are giving Hillary a 5 percent chance of securing the nomination, and for this 1 in 20 chance she is dividing the party, alienating her allies, and providing aid & comfort to John McCain.
It’s really quite scandalous.