And then there were three — Richardson to bow out

It won’t be official until later today, and there’s some question about whether his campaign will officially end or simply be “suspended” indefinitely, but it appears that Bill Richardson is poised to withdraw from the Democratic presidential race.

Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico is pulling out of the presidential race, after coming in fourth in both the New Hampshire primary and the Iowa caucuses, according to people with knowledge of his decision.

Mr. Richardson made the decision after returning to New Mexico Wednesday and meeting with his top advisers, they said. He is expected to make an announcement on Thursday.

His withdrawal removes a candidate who had a hard-edged message of immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq, but tempered it with humorous television advertisements that emphasized his wide-ranging resume in a clever way.

Amusing ads notwithstanding, Richardson’s campaign struggled to connect. In Iowa, he finished with 2% of the caucus vote, despite heavy campaigning and an ad blitz that began last summer. In New Hampshire, where he spent considerable time and was eyeing a third-place finish, he finished a distant fourth, winning less than 5% of the vote.

It’s not my intention to kick a guy when he’s down, but it’s probably worth taking a moment to consider two angles: why Richardson floundered and where his support may go moving forward.

On the first point, Richardson, on paper, was as good a candidate as could be imagined. He’s been a governor, a congressman, a cabinet secretary, an ambassador to the United Nations, and a successful hostage negotiator. He’s from a swing state that Dems will want to win in November. He speaks Spanish fluently and has a Mexican-American background. He’s known for having a gregarious, back-slapping personality. For that matter, as the only governor in the race, Richardson had a historic advantage — Democratic governors have tended to do pretty well of late.

But Richardson was, in many ways, the Bob Graham of the 2008 race — great resume, awful candidate.

Michael D. mentioned last night, “I never understood why his campaign never took off.” I imagine Richardson has been saying the same thing, but I don’t think it’s too difficult to understand.

Even if we put aside his lackluster campaigning skills, and awkward debate performances, Richardson began losing a lot of people last summer with some very conservative talk about economics. He made constant references to a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution; he bragged about being a “pro-growth Democrat” (as if Dems are usually anti-growth); and boasted that he’d buck the party’s principles and be a “tax-cut Democrat.”

All of this was more than ridiculous, it was the Republican playbook. As Ezra Klein put it back in July, “Richardson is a real fiscal conservative. And not in the imprecise way that the term is sometimes bandied about to mean ‘fiscally responsible.’ The guy is actually a conservative.”

On foreign policy, Richardson supporters will surely point out that he’s been the only Dem taking a firm stand in support of a full withdrawal from Iraq, with no residual forces. That’s true. But I’d also note that as recently as 2003, Richardson had genuine neocon tendencies, he rejected withdrawal in 2005, and maybe, just maybe, arrived at his 2007 position as a result of political convenience. (He also had a tendency of confusing African countries, and calling Russia the “Soviet Union,” which didn’t exactly help position him as an expert on international affairs.)

As for where Richardson’s support may go, it’s a highly relevant question, particularly in Nevada, where he was poised to do fairly well. Your guess is as good as mine, but there are two schools of thought here: those who were backing Richardson because of his resume will move to Clinton, who is perceived as more experienced than Obama and Edwards; and those who were backing Richardson as a possible agent of change will shift to Obama.

I doubt Richardson will endorse anyone right away, but it’s worth keeping in mind that before the Iowa caucuses, Richardson’s campaign held quiet negotiations with Obama’s team, at least offering a hint about the governor’s sympathies.

Stay tuned.

Sigh!

There goes the best choice.

  • What about Kuchinich and Gavel?

    Don’t they count?

    Of course, it really doesn’t matter because there are only TWO.

    Edwards doesn’t really count either.

  • those who were backing Richardson because of his resume will move to Clinton, who is perceived as more experienced than Obama and Edwards

    Excellent choice of words. I’m not saying Clinton is inexperienced, nor am I saying she unqualified. But it strikes me as odd that she’s granted an image of greater experience simply because she was married to Bill Clinton. Granted she’s been in the Senate for a few years, but so have the candidates she’s being compared to.
    I’m an IT professional. Nothing about my years of experience qualifies my wife to take my place if I should leave my job.

  • I thought Richardson would be a great candidate long before anyone had declared. But he lost me when he proclaimed in one of the debates his belief that homosexuality is a “choice”.

    I particularly like his proposal on energy. He seems to be the only politician out there who understands that we need to cut use of all fossil fuels, not just cut the use of imported oil. It would be nice if he would make adopting that policy a precondition for his support.

  • I think it’s important to consider a third option for the question “Where does Richardson’s support go now?”—and the third option begins to seep through with a crystalline quality when taking into account those three little words found embedded in the latter paragraphs:

    “…genuine neocon tendencies…”

    There are a good many Dems in Nevada who deserve the political nomenclature of “Blue Dogs.” Perhaps, given this, the better question should not be “who gets the support” in the primary, but rather who gets the overall support via the general election….

  • I think HRC will get most of the Richardson voters. He was a Clinton guy, not a guy who wanted to storm the gates like Obama and Edwards.

  • The reality of modern politics is that “image trumps substance”, and Richardson’s “image” is pretty boring. Regardless of your opinion of Clinton, Obama, or Edwards, all three look dynamic on TV. They “market” well. Richardson did his best to try to “punch up” his speaking style, but he was still pretty dull. The media doesn’t have time for dull policy debates, and the majority of voters don’t pay attention to them. If experience and policy were what mattered most, we’d be watching a Biden/Dodd/Richardson race. Sad, but that is the way it is in our modern media driven society.

  • I think the more important question is weather or not he would make a good cabinet member or VP for either of the two front runners..

  • Speaking of boring candidates and endorsements, CNN is reporting that Kerry will endorse Obama this afternoon.

  • Richardson and Biden have the same problem. They both have stellar resumes and credentials, and could do the substantive part of the job – President or a cabinet member – very well. But both have an unfortunate tendency to get sloppy with words, to occasionally engage mouth before brain (or in Biden’s case, keep mouth going after brain stops) resulting in gaffes. If there are two positions where every word is watched and gaffes are magnified (not to mention reflect on all of us – who hasn’t been embarassed by how ignorant Bush sounds?) they are President and Secretary of State. Instinctively people understand that, even if they like Richardson and Biden, this is a problem.

  • I totally agree that Richardson supporters would go to Clinton.

    When I originally heard that Richardson was encouraging his supporters in Iowa to make Obama their second choice, I thought I had heard wrong – it just never occurred to me that his supporters would see themselves as aligning with Obama. Maybe it was purely a strategic move, that he thought by helping to ensure an Obama win, it would knock Mrs. Experience down a peg or two, and he could come in in the later contests and be able to gain ground as the other candidate of experience.

    As for whether he would make a good cabinet appointee, or VP, I guess we’ll have to see.

    I hope the Dems’ biggest problem after the election is choosing from among the abundance of qualified candidates for the Cabinet and positions in the administration.

  • I had high hopes for Richardson going in. Except for an uneven stint at Energy, he has been highly effective at all of the wide variety of things he has done. He’s obviously extremely capable of working effectively in an environment of competing interests, and his diplomatic successes indicated he might do well with foreign policy.

    But, really, the bottom line is he has little charisma. The mild, slightly clumsy persona that makes him so appealing as an individual, and probably contributes to his ability to work with opponents, also makes him appear ineffectual on the grand stage that is national leadership. As much as I still like and respect him, I quickly saw that his candidacy would inspire few followers.

  • I will look back fondly on Richardson’s ads…

    Unless he publicly comes out and supports Obama, I suspect his support flows towards Clinton. Like graham, Richardson suffers from being more appearance-challenged (and unfortunately, looks probably DO have an impact) and had a habit of talking about 20% longer than necessary in nearly every possible case. Making him gaffe-prone and tough to comprehend/digest.

  • For me there were two problems with Richardson’s candidacy. First is that he is charisma-challenged. Second, and much more seriously, I could never get a grip on where the guy was coming from in terms of his policy choices. Immediate withdrawal from Iraq, but more like a Republican on economics and taxes. And I remember hearing very little from him about how government could be a force for good in people’s lives. He is still a mystery to me.

    I think that, like Hillary, Richardson would be more of a manager than a leader as president. And we badly need a leader. Managers make good cabinet officers.

  • Of course, it really doesn’t matter because there are only TWO. -neil wilson

    Michael D. mentioned last night, “I never understood why his campaign never took off.”

    It’s because, according to traditional media, there only ever were two candidates. All the rest are treated as jokes or people who occasionally say something interesting provocative about one of the real candidates.

    I’m an IT professional. Nothing about my years of experience qualifies my wife to take my place if I should leave my job. -Eric Faulkner

    I agree 100%. Proximity does not experience make. By that logic, Laura Bush is qualified to run for President and claim experience. By that logic, Monica Lewinsky is qualified to be Secretary of the Interior.

  • For once I disagree with Okie. I do think we need a manager. The mess Bush is leaving is so big that words of comfort will not be enough.

    Richardson was a disappointment. Unlike Kucinich and Edwards, he didn’t add anything to the mix, either.

  • #3 and #15, Give me a break. Hillary didn’t sit at home and bake cookies while Bill was at the office being president. They have a partnership – they work and have worked together. She has flaws but passivity and ignorance aren’t among them. While I’m still voting for Edwards, I’m tired of the Fox talking points ending up on this site as The Truth.

  • Upthread posters got it pegged right:
    Richardson is a Clinton brownnose.

    He got out in time to throw his support to Hillary while it might still matter.
    He will make her a wonderful vice president.
    He thinks so anyways…

    And so has sacrificed himself early so as not to incur anymore wrath from the Clintonistas.
    He is a smart sychophant.
    At the very least by bowing down he has earned a cabinet spot or an ambassadorship of his choice.
    (That’s the way the Clinton/Bush junta assigns positions: as favors to be dealt out. )

  • Jen, if a Democratic leader-type President would appoint good managers to work in the administration (instead of the Democratic version of Rummy, Brownie, and other “loyal Bushies),” we both get what we want.

    Nevertheless, I see your point.

  • Okie, I don’t disagree with that. But Bush has been a delegator and I think that the next president at least needs to think like a manager and know which questions to ask, what the signs of problems look like. In a way it would be better to have a President who did the talking, inspiring, and state visits and a Prime Minister who is the manager. We expect a lot from one position.

  • According to CNN’s NH exit polls, Richardson’s support is 2 to 1 male to female and 2 to 1 college eductated and are fairly evenly spread across most age groups (with 30-39 being his weakest area). Over 70% of his supporters feel Obama has the best chance of winning in November.

    They are split pretty evenly in their favorable opinions of both Hillary and Obama, although Obama has a slight edge: 60% see Clinton as unfavorable and about 45% see Obama as unfavorable.

    Looking at this data, it seems to fly in the face of the assumption that most Richardson supporters will gravitate towards Clinton. I see a much more even split with Obama getting a slight edge, around 60%. Overall, I don’t think this will have a significant impact. It certainly doesn’t hurt the Richardson suggested Obama as a second choice in Iowa.

    The most interesting thing about the exit poll, I think is the question about who they’d vote for if Bill Clinton was running also.

    68% of Hillary supporters said they’d prefer Bill to her; 34% of Obama supporter said they’d prefer Bill over Obama; Richardson was evenly split; Edwards was given a slight advantage over Bill in the fictional race.

    This says to me that a lot of people think Hillary is just a end run around to get Bill back into office.

    http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#NHDEM

    #3 and #15, Give me a break. -jen flowers

    No. No breaks. It’s disingenuous to act like she was gaining experience to be President while she was first lady. The evidence I just cited about suggests that first lady is all people really want her to be anyway because the overwhelming majority of her supporters just want Bill back in office.

    I’m certainly not claiming she doesn’t have experience; I happen to believe the contrary, but I also believe she’s selling a line of bullshit when she acts like she has more experience that Edwards and Obama. She simply doesn’t.

    While I’m still voting for Edwards, I’m tired of the Fox talking points ending up on this site as The Truth. -jen flowers

    Nice, subtle ad hominem, there. Next you’ll be joining Swan in calling me a Republican troll.

    Whatever, every time Hillary’s camp makes the argument that she’s got so much more experience than her competitors because she was first lady it makes me sick. Calling out a genuine concern of mine doesn’t make me a Fox News operative.

  • Sorry to offend you, doubtful. I certainly don’t think of you as a troll. I do think that many of us have absorbed Fox talking points because they have been ubiquitous for the last fifteen years.

    I have observed several partnerships like the one the Clintons have. My cousin is a minister. His wife could take over his job tomorrow morning because she works with him. Friends in the publishing industry are the same. For partnerships like this there is no line separating personal from business.

    I have substantial problems with Clinton but I do think she is more experienced than Obama. Being a true partner with Bill during his tenure as President is policy experience.

  • melior said: I’d like to see Clinton put Richardson in charge of ending the War On Drugs debacle.

    I’d like to seem her put Ron Paul in charge of ending the War on Drugs 😉 If ever there was an issue needing a libertarian mindset.

    As for Hillary and experience, I think she was policy wonking along with the rest of the White House gang. And I think she’s worked very hard as a Senator (at least for the first six years) learning everything she could to prepare for this run.

    Certainly she worked harder than Fred Thompson.

    So for everybody who claims she’s not experienced (enough), I still think she’s more experienced that Obama or Edwards.

    Just not as much as Richardson, sadly.

  • jen flowers,

    I guess I’m just overly tired of hearing the Clinton campaign drone on and on about experience when the truly experienced candidates were all ushered quickly out by the media and, to some extent by the voters.

    No offense taken.

  • Richardson lost me a long time ago–I’d initially been excited about his candidacy–but he absolutely confirmed his irrelevance in the debate Saturday when he essentially admitted that his mention of Byron “Whizzer” White as his favorite Supreme Court justice was pulled entirely out of his ass.

    I’m actually hoping that the incident took him out of vice-presidential consideration… though any VP to Hillary Clinton would be totally marginalized anyway, given Bill’s prominence. (That’s a great note about views of Bill, Hillary and Obama from doubtful, btw.)

  • I was interested in Richardson from the word go.
    I sought word of organizations forming but heard of none.
    He had about the same level of grassroots organization of Mike Gravel and that’s fine if you’re underfunded like Gravel.

    It’s curious how he could win a statewide office yet seem to have virtually no ground network nationally when taking on this campaign.

    Many people liked Richardson, but it was never made clear to me where the supporters could go.

  • Richardson would make a much better Secretary of State than Vice President. I don’t think he’s much of a galvanizing force on the stump. He’s better with the behind-the-scenes diplomacy in which the U.S. needs to engage in order to restore its reputation around the globe. Put him where he is needed most– in foreign policy, where his blunders on social issues and strange positions on the budget won’t matter.

  • According to CNN’s NH exit polls, Richardson’s support is 2 to 1 male to female[…] — doubtful, @22

    It’s certainly so in our house; my husband has been a great fan of Richardson, while, for me, he was at the very bottom of the pack — well below Edwards (my first choice), Obama and even Clinton. And, although I could defend my position honestly enough with arguments based on his policies (there was enough there for me to disagree with), the plain fact is… He gives me the creeps. Unreasonable, but visceral nevertheless.

  • We’ve drifted well off the topic, but we’re here now. . .

    I think the argument that if Hillary is qualified so is Laura is both offensive and exceedingly weak. No one is saying that Clinton is qualified solely on the basis of being First Lady. There are several problems with the “so is Laura qualified” rebuttal.

    First, it makes a difference what you did as First Lady – they do not all treat the job equally. For example, neither Laura nor her unelected President husband have done much in terms of meeting foreign leaders and dignataries, reaching out to bridge and understand other cultures compared to the predecessors. Nancy Reagan was great at china – the tableware, not the country. Babs wore pearls well. I don’t think anyone here, even doubtful when he makes his arguments, believes that is the kind of First Lady that Hillary was.

    Second, the “First Lady” argument starts from the knowledge that HRC has more time served in the US Senate than Obama or Edwards. Other than Senate, what has Edwards done? He was a plaintiffs attorney. He and several million others – are they all equally qualified to be President? If this is an experience test, the one that really out to be under fire is Edwards — that he is not while HRC is suggests some subtle sexism may be at play in the whole debate (by all accounts Elizabeth did better than John in law school – maybe he is qualified solely because of who he married?)

    Third, I do think that in the current environment being First Lady is relevant. In part this is because i agree with comments Jen Flowers has made occasionally that a really good manager is the first priority at this time – even more than inspiration. “Inspired leadership” is running when the government can’t even walk correctly right now. We need someone all about the details more than the big picture. This next term will be lost entirely to simply finding and fixing the literally thousands of problems at the nuts and bolts level with BushCo’s cronyism and utter disregard for governance. There is no job like the Presidency – almost everyone ends up naming a Cabinet more slowly than originally promised, everyone makes rookie mistakes. But at least Hillary has seen up close the innerworkings, the magnitude of the spotlight, etc (yes, Laura may have too – if she cared to pay attention – but unlike HRC she has no other qualification to serve as the “cake” for which such insider knowledge is the “icing”) I believe HRC’s stump line about being the most ready “on day one.”

    Let me finish with this from Slate which I think makes a point that is often given short shrift when HRC’s qualifications and whether they are solely about her marriage comes up:

    But she really did not hitch her wagon to this upwardly mobile guy and the rest is history. It was Hillary, even more than Bill, who was the superstar at Yale Law. Life magazine had already written glowingly about her ballsy Wellesley commencement address—in which she rebutted the guest speaker—and she was already “on her way to becoming a political meteor” before she ever said hello to Bill Clinton, according to Carl Bernstein’s excellent Hillary bio, A Woman in Charge. In fact, when they fell in love, campus cynics suspected that he was the one working an angle: “Some fellow students thought Clinton’s attraction to Hillary was calculated, that he was trading on her renown to advance his own stature on campus and beyond.” And most of her friends thought she was throwing away her shot at national prominence when she married him.

    That she let him go first was a supportive, humble act of the kind that takes place in a lot of marriages where careers of spouses conflict. It hardly seems like something we should penalize her for now.

  • I don’t think anyone here, even doubtful when he makes his arguments, believes that is the kind of First Lady that Hillary was. -Z

    Granted, I am marginalizing it for the sake of cheap humor, but I still don’t buy that her tenure as First Lady qualifies her as more experienced.

    Again, I’m certainly not making the argument that she’s inexperienced. Just not more experienced that most of her counterparts. It’s just different experience.

    And the argument that Bill’s and Hillary’s marriage is a partnership where “there is no line separating personal from business,” only reinforces the negative perception that they are overly ambitious.

    I’d like to know how many of the partnership relationships jen flowers has observed could survive chronic infidelity when the dangling carrot isn’t a shot two shots at the Presidency?

    Despite all of that, however, I do see some wisdom in zeitgeist’s comment at 30. Hillary certainly isn’t Laura and understanding how Washington works could be perceived as a plus (some might also consider this a negative as part of the Washington insider meme that Obama likes to talk about). On the other hand, I do believe I hit the nail on the head at comment 22, and that Hillary’s experience isn’t what’s driving her supporters, it’s Bill’s, and one would be hard pressed to make an argument that he doesn’t have Presidential experience.

  • Just an anecdotal note from the ground in Nevada. I was a Richardson supporter, as were most of my friends. A quick poll of them just now reveals that everyone who responded has independently decided to stand for Obama at our caucus. Admittedly very small sample, but I thought it was mildly interesting!

  • Hillary’s experience isn’t what’s driving her supporters, it’s Bill’s, and one would be hard pressed to make an argument that he doesn’t have Presidential experience.

    At the very least he should make an above-average advisor on such issues. 🙂

  • doubtful,

    Marriages based on partnership – where both partners are dedicated to the same goals – are remarkably resilient to infidelity. Think Lady Bird and LBJ. Think FDR and Eleanor Roosevelt.

  • I would tend to see Richardson as more of a Political opportunist rather than truely a Neo Libra-Con (See Hillary trade vote for power with friend Dick Chenney for Definition). With that said, I liked him and his personality but never thought of him as a National Level Leader. Then again I never thought George was either, so what do I know.

  • Comments are closed.