Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Bill Richardson expected to endorse Obama

By

Thus saith the Globe:

The Associated Press is reporting that Richardson and Obama will appear together at a campaign event later today in Portland, Ore. “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.”

The Globe also reports that John Edwards remains uncommitted, and is praising both candidates.

Asked on “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno” Thursday night about a possible endorsement, Edwards said he feels torn between the two candidates.

“I think they both bring great strengths, but I think the strengths are different,” Edwards said, calling Obama “inspirational” and praising his ability to bring new people into politics, and ascribing to Clinton “a toughness and a tenacity and experience that has value.”

“So I think both — either of them I think will be a great candidate and I think either one will be a great president,” said Edwards, who added he is surprised the nomination fight is still raging.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  2. Not sure this does anything else though, the endorsement could have been a bit more useful during the Texas primary.  

    • 1) Counters the notion that Clinton has regained the momentum
      2) May encourage other fence-sitting superdelegates to come forward
      3) Helps with voters in Colorado
      4) Might help a little with Hispanic vote in other states

        • This is the 9/11 one: http://youtube.com/watch?v=QOd…

          <

          p>I know I’m a Massachusetts bleeding heart liberal, but given the context of the sermon (a predominantly black church), I just didn’t find the sermon, taken as a whole, that appalling (and, I know this is shocking, I do love my country!).  At all.  

          <

          p>The core messages were really:

          <

          p>

          • Violence against innocents and payback for payback’s sake is bad
          • There was some light implied criticism of “foxhole religion” (people who showed up at  church after 9/11)

          • 9/11 was a time to examine one’s own relation with God (self-examination)

          <

          p>After being fairly dismayed with the Wright clips, I am really not bothered much by him anymore, having watched a couple complete story.  Did he say some kooky stuff?  Yeah.  Should that kooky stuff define his national identity?  I don’t think so.

          <

          p>This is a reach, and I recognize that, but imagine someone posted on Youtube clips of some dude chasing people out of a church with a whip, and in another clip lets a woman bathe his feet with expensive perfume.  And that’s all you know about him.  Unstable, violent, and selfish?  Of course I’m referring to Jesus (e.g. Matthew 21, Luke 7).  You can Swiftboat (or is it now called J-Wrighting?) pretty much anyone.

          <

          p>Democrats really need to stand together on this one.  If you want to get Obama, go after the usual arguments, hell even the NAFTA canard doesn’t bother me like this one does.  I applaud Richardson for standing up.  

          <

          p>I am very disappointed by the continued timidity of Democratic leadership for not standing together on this issue, and letting Obama hang out there.  Mike Huckabee has provided the most robust defense of Wright and Obama that I’ve seen.  Mike Huckabee?

          <

          p>Ann Coulter and her crowd says more hateful things by 9am than Wright does in a year, I think, and does so with the deliberate aim of being divisive, and yet Wright is the pariah.  I’m not trying to celebrate the guy or defend some of his kookier excerpts, but we’ve let him get unfairly demonized, and we all lose as a result.

          • …or at least the ten minute clip linked above. And as I was sitting there the theme that jumped out at me the most was violence begets violence and “an eye for an eye makes the world go blind” – how shockingly unChristian!

            <

            p>I can’t see how any thinking person who examines Wright’s contextualized remarks and Obama’s full race speech in a critical fashion can be all that upset over this whole issue. Wright and Obama are not beyond criticism here, and in fairness Wright does say some factually inaccurate things, and goes overboard on other things (if I hear that guy scream “Hillary!” one more time I could tear my ears out, lol), but the extended versions of Wright’s sermons contain a lot of truth, optimism, and thoughtfulness. It’s a shame people will just repeat the “hate” meme rather than engaging the whole intricate mess in a measured fashion.  

      • it may encourage other superdelegates to give their support now to help Obama’s campaign.  I think the last state with a significant Hispanic population was Texas.  I do still believe that Richardson could have provided Obama a better boost if he declared earlier.  

  3. …but he did also say before March 4th that whoever was ahead after that should be the nominee.  To me this sounds like one of those let’s-get-this-over-with endorsements.  I disagree; for me its Denver or bust.

  4. I think that Rep. John Murtha’s endorsement this week of Hillary Clinton will be more helpful.  His endorsement will be a boost to her in the Pennsylvania primary. Richardson could have helped Obama a lot more if he had endorsed him before the New Mexico primary vote.

    <

    p>Frankly, though, endorsements of any kind don’t amount to a whole heckuva lot…  

    • but doesn’t really help much elsewhere and PA is still weeks away. The Richardson endorsement at least has the potential to  push more superdelegates to Obama before PA.

      <

      p>Richardson will probably also help in CO where the population is almost 20% Hispanic and of a similar makeup to NM.

      • Pennsylvania is the next big prize.  So, I think the Murtha endorsement is more helpful right now.

        <

        p>Frankly, Richardson wasn’t very effective in garnering much support for his own candidacy, so I am not sure how much he can help Obama.

        <

        p>And in terms of superdelegates, Richardson was quoted a week or so ago saying that superdelegates should vote for the choice of their constituents.  Since Hillary won New Mexico, I wonder if he is going to stay true to his word?  I think probably not!

        • and she most definitely did not get the majority in every district, so there is plenty of room for supers from NM to support their constituents without necessarily going with Clinton. In any case, I don’t remember Richardson saying that. I do remember him saying that the superdelegates as a whole should not override the pledged delegate result. I did not take that to mean that every superdelegate was supposed to slavishly follow the results in their state. But if you have a link to a quote, please provide it.

          • …she won the state.  He is the Governor.  He should respect the wishes of his constituents, dontcha think?

            • If you are a Congressman whose district voted for Obama, how is it honoring the wishes of your constituents to vote for Clinton? And do you honestly believe that all of the superdelegates for a state should vote for whoever wins one vote more than the other candidate? Isn’t it more in line with the wishes of the consituents if the superdelegates split up in similar proportion to that of the popular vote?

              <

              p>I don’t know why you are pushing this point. AFAIK, Richardson never said that superdelegates should automatically vote for the winner of a state no matter how close the vote. By contining to push on this lame line of argument it just makes you appear to be bitter.

              • …I’m talking about the Governor of the entire state, whose majority voted for HRC.

                <

                p>And I’m not bitter…not now, anyway.  My candidate seems to be gathering momentum.  Actually, I’m kind of excited…she’s gaining in the polls.

                <

                p>I will be bitter, though,  when I get the usual “3” rating from you and your pal, Bean Burbs.  Bring it on.

                • Are you saying that you believe that all superdelegates should vote for whoever won the majority of their consituency, no matter by how little? Do you really believe that? Because if you do, shouldn’t you be calling for Clinton superdelegates in areas won by Obama to switch to Obama? You do realize that if that were to happen that more superdelegates would switch to Obama than to Clinton. Is that what you want? Now if you don’t believe that why does this principle apply to just Richardson and no one else?

                  <

                  p>As to ratings, I think it is kind of childish to put too much stock in those, and I am not aware that I have ever given you a three in any case.

  5. Over at MyDD, Jerome Armstrong continues his reign as America’s Worst Progressive Blogger.* He regularly drinks the Hatorade on Obama; and this time he’s got some numbers, baby!

    <

    p>

    Also, reading through the Franklin & Marshall poll out for PA, something jumped out:

    “Qual. Regardless of how you plan to vote, do you think (rotated) Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama is more qualified to be president?”

    59% Hillary Clinton
    19% Barack Obama
    8% Neither
    14% Don’t know

    <

    p>You know who’s more qualified than either of them? Bill Richardson!

    <

    p>And you know who’s reallllly really qualified — decades of public service? Ted Stevens!

    <

    p>

    <

    p>So as I’m tired of saying, maybe being “qualified” is not the whole story. You’ve got to be well-suited to the job.

    <

    p>*(Ironic, since to some extent he kind of started the whole thing.)

    • Your argument is with the people of Pennsylvania, not the person who dug up the poll numbers.  I know it stinks that not everyone is willing to hope for magic this November, but doesn’t it concern you the number of states Obama is effectively excluding from his Drive to 270?

      <

      p>As for your antipathy to Armstrong, you’re way off.  The story before that one was a largely pro-Obama look at the help Richardson’s endorsement gets him.  Armstrong is a huge force behind the 50-state strategy, the FISA fight, and energy policy.  Armstrong is a pillar of the progressive blogosphere, and the best you can offer is that he reports on polling?  Jerome continues to be a major force for progressive blogging even if he (gasp!) occasionally runs the online blockade on not-awesome-for-Obama news.

      <

      p>Besides, if you absolutely must equate “Worst Progressive Blogger” with “Doesn’t Love Obama”, at least use Taylor Marsh and you’ll be on firmer ground.

      • I met Jerome and Markos at Middlesex in Cambridge. They both signed my copy of “Crashing the Gates”, which is a fine book. I am such a jerk.

        <

        p>No, Jerome pisses me off not because he’s not an Obama true believer, but because I think he’s actually rooting for Obama’s failure, now or in the general. He’s actively whipping up Wright fears, which I think are foolish both substantively and strategically.

        <

        p>Man, sab, you throw so much straw out here I should go get me some frappes.
        a. I don’t disbelieve the “qualified” numbers, I just don’t think they’re particularly important.
        b. Hillary’s won some big states, true; but hasn’t Obama won many critical swing states? And in any event, you’re not claiming that if Obama loses the PA primary, that he’s doomed to lose the state in the general, right? That’d be just goofy. Obama and Clinton are roughly the same vs. McCain, and you need to tell me how that’ll be different after Hillary wins:
        http://www.realclearpolitics.c…
        http://www.realclearpolitics.c…

        • Yes, Obama does better on a lot of matchup polls than that stat implies.  Oddly enough, Armstrong front-pages stuff that makes his preferred candidate look good, just as a lot of Obama press releases get front-paged here.  If you have any evidence that Armstrong wants Obama to lose, I’d love to hear it.

Archives