Richardson picks a side, will back Obama

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (D) has been one of the more sought after endorsements in Democratic circles over the last month or so, with aggressive lobbying from both the Clinton and Obama campaigns. It’s not hard to figure out why — Richardson is a popular governor of a key swing state, and arguably the highest profile Latino politician in the country.

After hemming and hawing for quite a while, today Richardson will back Obama at a rally in Portland, Oregon.

In an e-mail to supporters, Richardson said Obama will be a “historic and a great president, who can bring us the change we so desperately need by bringing us together as a nation here at home and with our allies abroad.”

Richardson also said in the e-mail that he was touched by Obama’s recent speech on race in America, saying he “understands clearly that only by bringing people together, only by bridging our differences can we all succeed together as Americans.”

Richardson is the nation’s only Hispanic governor. Hispanics have tended to support Obama’s rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

This comes as a mild surprise, given that Richardson seemed to favor Clinton when he was still a candidate — no one came to her defense more during the debates — and the fact that Richardson joined Bill Clinton for a recent Super Bowl party, interpreted in some circles as a hint of his intentions.

Indeed, with the background in mind, the Clinton campaign will likely perceive today’s endorsement as something of a betrayal.

I’m reminded of this exchange in January.

The preternaturally jolly [Terry] McAuliffe is a good mad to have spinning for you in a pinch. But his good cheer dimmed when I asked him about Bill Richardson, who appears to have made an 11th-hour deal to throw his supporters to Obama [in the Iowa caucuses].

“How many times did [Clinton] appoint him?” McAuliffe marveled. “Two? U.N. Ambassador and Energy Secretary?” He looked at me, half-glaring, awaiting confirmation. “I don’t know,” I joked, “but who’s counting?” “I am,” McAuliffe said firmly.

As for the current campaign dynamics, the AP noted, “Richardson’s endorsement also could help Obama pick up support among Hispanics, who are the nation’s largest and fastest-growing minority.” That’s likely true, though there are fewer Latino voters in the next few contests (Pennsylvania, Indiana, Oregon, Kentucky, West Virginia) than the last few (Texas and Ohio), but given Clinton’s edge with this key constituency, Obama will welcome the help.

More importantly, though, I suspect this might help shift the broader narrative a bit. The impression has been of late that Obama, due almost entirely to the Jeremiah Wright controversy, has been on his heels, playing defense. A high-profile endorsement like this one gives the media something new (and positive for Obama) to talk about.

And, of course, Richardson is a superdelegate, making his endorsement all the more significant.

With that, attention now shifts to some of the other uncommitted heavyweights, including John Edwards and Al Gore.

Good news. Edwards and Gore need to get off the sidelines and excercise some judgement and leadership. Of course, I’d prefer they endorse Obama, but there doesn’t really seem to me to be any good excuse for holding out longer…

  • Kind of a betrayal. On the other hand, there are not a lot of state primaries left with great amounts of Hispanic voters, so one can question just how much Richardson’s endorsement really means. Richardson’s endorsement would have meant more prior to Texas – at least in my opinion.

    As I see it, for Obama, anything that moves the media’s attention from the Wright fiasco is a good thing! But I think the Sean Hannity and the Bill O’Reilly types on the right are going to keep it going as best they can for as long as they can.

    I think Obama’s in trouble.

  • Richardson is important because of his profile as one of the Final Four contenders. Edwards is the real prize, but he may hold his fire until closer to the NC primary.

    In any case, the floodgates may open as a result of this one. I never thought I’d say this, but Biden’s endorsement would actually be important now, given Delaware’s proximity to Pennsylvania and his profile with white middle-aged Democrats.

  • Frank (2) Bill O’Reilly types on the right are going to keep it (Wright) going as best they can for as long as they can.

    Isn’t this amazing? The wars, the economy, wiretapping immunity, gas prices, etc. And yet it is hard to disagree with Frank. Worse, there are a lot of Bill O’Reilly types.

  • No one has carped more about the Democratic party shooting itself in the knees than me…
    And now at last, a party leader, a man most regard as a world class negotiator steps up and takes the conn.

    Why now? Seems to me one should suspect there is something going on beneath the surface.
    Read this part of his endorsement again:

    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.

    Again: My own hunch is that the Dems are past the time for venom and in dire need of antivenin.
    Richardson understands this. The burning question is: will the rest of the party ken the math and end this internecine mess?

  • The McAuliffe quote was a month before the Super Bowl. Sounds like the Clinton camp has known about Richardson’s endorsement for a while. I’ll bet the Super Bowl invite was a last gasp arm twisting session.

    I’m disgusted that McAuliffe thinks this should be all about calling in favors rather than Richardson doing what he thought was best for the country first and the party second.

  • So McAuliffe and Clinton feel they are entitled, and that people owe him.

    If they believe in quid pro quo so much, how are they going to fight special interests I wonder?

    Nothing new here.

  • Scarborough also threw Olbermann and Shuster under the bus, talking about the “spin” campaign beginning with word that the supervisor was a former Clinton ambassador. His own co-workers reported that, and the fact itself doesn’t seem to be spin to me.

  • Perhaps this is a signal from Gov. Richardson to the rest of the supers that it is time to get off the pot and get this thing settled. The continueing feeding frenzy and the divisive intra-party snarking that is our present day political news cycle is damaging the Democratic Party and whoever the eventual nominee is. The sooner someone is selected the better it is for all;and then we can get down to the real business of defeating mc-lame…

  • This announcement does nothing to quell the outrage the Jeremiah Wright controversy has stirred. Now Obama is not only being ridiculed for having thrown his own Grandma under the bus, but also for calling her a “typical white person” going on to talk about her having racial bias bred into her, you know, like the rest of us negro hating whites.

    Pennsylvania will be a huge determining factor that shapes the rest of the race for the nomination, especially now that Michigan and Florida don’t seem likely to be have re-votes.

    It is significant to note that Clinton appears to have the moral high ground in this situation because of Obama’s apparent resistence to compromise in order to have a re-vote. You could argue that Clinton was pandering, and you may be right to some degree, but how this is being percieved by voters in those states is damaging to his message of equality and fairness. Analysts are saying that to have millions of voters disenfranchised in 2 of the biggest swing states in the nation would be a catastrophe for democrats. 24% of Florida democrats say they would not vote in the general election if their votes are not counted for the primary.

    Stay tuned for the outcry from thousands of people who will demand that their votes for Obama be changed if Obama somehow manages to survive the primary season.

  • This couldn’t be more old school.

    “How many times did [Clinton] appoint him?” McAuliffe marveled. “Two? U.N. Ambassador and Energy Secretary?” He looked at me, half-glaring, awaiting confirmation. “I don’t know,” I joked, “but who’s counting?” “I am,” McAuliffe said firmly.

    Is that the politics of the people? Is that the politics for the people? NO! That is the politics that will continue to screw the people.

  • In reality while its positive for Obama I think outside political junkies no one really cares much about this endorsement or any other. Richardson doesn’t have that much juice in Pennsylvania or in any of the next primary states and those who previously supported him (the few there were) have moved on.

    What is curious is why if he was going to support Obama he didn’t do it until now. His support of Obama especially combined with some campaigning would have been most helpful to Obama right before the Texas primary.

    I am wondering if there is a deal behind this- an endorsement for the promise of some decent cabinet position or consideration for the VP spot. This week would have been the one where Obama really needed some good news so would have been most willing to make a deal unlike when he was riding high.

  • Since the rest of the superdelegates are the usual gaggle of spineless scum who end up in public office, it is incumbent on Edwards and Gore to go blow up the dam and endorse Obama. This will end the Clintons and stop the crap.

  • I really don’t understand the entitlement of the Obama people who think it is incumbent upon Edwards and Gore to do their bidding,
    This is a democracy and Edwards and Gore are entitled to endorse who they waat and vote however they want as superdelegates despite how many times Obama supporters stamp their feet and demand that they declare their support for Obama.

    And what I find ironic is that there is no doubt in my mind that if either Edwards or Gore came out and endorsed Hillary or said let the primaries play out- there would be a sudden stampede of comments here about that Edwards and Gore should be summarily ignored because no one cares what those guys say.

    Moreover, if you were paying attention you would have seen that Edwards made it pretty clear last night that he is endorsing nobody both stating that both would be great nominees.

  • Speaking of Bill O’Reilly, is he now ready to join the “lynching party” of Michelle Obama?

    He wasn’t going to join unless she really did hate America. He must have enough proof by now.

  • Worse, there are a lot of Bill O’Reilly types. -Danp

    Worse yet, they like to troll progressive blogs pretending to be Democrats and bringing up Wright over and over.

    I’m sure they’ll just spin this as unimportant, like so many states.

    …I think outside political junkies no one really cares much about this endorsement or any other. -Squad

    Oh, look, right on cue.

    You spin me right round baby, right round…

  • …they like to troll progressive blogs pretending to be Democrats and bringing up Wright over and over. doubtful

    OK – so here is what I don’t get. Are Democrats, progressive or otherwise, just supposed to not consider and/or talk about the Wright incident and its impact on the electoral process? If we do, does that mean we are “trolls” just bringing down Obama (or anyone and everyone)?

    And if most Democrats really don’t care about Richardson endorsing Obama, does that mean that some how we are negligent?

    Can a Democrat be interested in the elections and look at them and talk about them objectively (at least in my view) without having to push any particular candidate?

    just asking…

  • As soon as Hillary blew away her big popularity leads in Ohio and Texas that was the end of it. The rest is a deception. Even if Hillary was allowed to have a re-vote in FL and MI she would have needed to win all the remaining states including MI by 60%. Without a re-vote in FL she would have needed 62%. And without a re-vote in MI and FL she needs to win each and every State by 64 %. It is insurmountable task, especially taking into account her spotty performance in this primary race. She has never won 5 states in a row.

    She is not staying in the race because she is a fighter or stubborn. It is because she needs money to repay her loan and back wages to her fat cat advisers. With Michigan gone away, Hillary needs to have an exit strategy after the PA primary if she fails to win by 64%. But for the reason stated herein, she will not.

    Watch her campaign expenditure from now on. It will be trimmed low in order allow a higher saving level. Politics is a fat cow especially, if you have voters who have stronger passion or ties to their candidate than their party. It is a blind reality. Cash is collected from the poor masses to enrich a few. That is a Republican trickle down policy – – As the rich get richer, the poor get happier! Let us not forget, Hillary was once a Republican in her early life. It appears that this value or policy has never left her.

  • Jesse

    Yopur post misses the simple point that NEITHER Obama nor Hillary will have enough delegates to clinch the nomination based on elected delegates and if Hillary goes on to win Pa. and most of the next few states by decent margins the difference in delegates and popular vote will be so slim as to be not that significant especially if Florida ends up getting seated
    So the nomination will be decided by the super delegate who under the RULES are allowed to vote anyway they want to using any criteria they wish. They don’t have to vote for Obama and indeed a vote for Obama would not be the best choice if he doesn’t recover his lost momentum.

    I really wish you Obama supporters would stop pretending that rules are different than they are while at the same time screaming that people who don’t follow your non existent rules are somehow “breaking them”

    Typical of this is Obama’s decision to block the re-votes when the RULES quite clearly allowed re-votes if a usitable plan was submitted.

  • Are Democrats, progressive or otherwise, just supposed to not consider and/or talk about the Wright incident and its impact on the electoral process? -Frank

    Actually, it’s fine to talk about it, and I’m certainly not suggesting we don’t. Just noticing a trend among a few specific commenters to, no matter what the relevant topic at hand is, continually bring up Wright.

    By doing so in a topic completely unrelated to Wright, yes, it is trolling because it’s a deliberate attempt to derail on-topic conversation.

    For example, read comment 14, which brings up Wright and re-votes in Florida and Michigan and doesn’t mention the endorsement except as a weak seque to Wright. It’s completely off-topic. This is an example of what I’m referring to.

    And if most Democrats really don’t care about Richardson endorsing Obama, does that mean that some how we are negligent? -Frank

    Do you speak for most Democrats? I simply noted there was a certain faction of commenters who would undoubtedly spin this as irrelevant, and they have, as of yet, to dash those expectations in any way.

    If you don’t particularly care about Richardson’s endorsement, the best two options are to make a case why it’s irrelevant or to not comment on an article whose topic is a Richardson endorsement.

  • Doubtful,

    OK. What you write in #24 makes sense to me. (Not that it needs to, I guess – but I appreciate your response all the same.)

    I don’t speak for most Democrats, I can only speak for myself and I did in #2 as to Governor Richardson’s endorsement. While newsworthy, I do think it would have meant a whole lot more before Texas.

  • Typical of this is Obama’s decision to block the re-votes when the RULES quite clearly allowed re-votes if a usitable [sic] plan was submitted. -Squad

    Obama only ‘blocked’ one revote, Michigan’s, because they didn’t think it would be fair. Are you suggesting we hold a redo that isn’t fair? Assuming you meant a suitable plan, then isn’t possible that a plan is not suitable?

    These are very complicated situations, which made this a nigh impossible task to begin with. I can understand why they can’t throw together a new primary in a few days that doesn’t skim over or overlook some issue.

    I want there to be revotes (albeit for only half of their delegates), but I think they had some legitimate concerns. Nothing is stopping Michigan’s state legislature from addressing those concerns.

    Florida’s state legislature didn’t even present plans to the campaigns, so there was nothing for anyone to ‘block.’

  • I don’t speak for most Democrats, I can only speak for myself and I did in #2 as to Governor Richardson’s endorsement. While newsworthy, I do think it would have meant a whole lot more before Texas. -Frank

    Also, sorry for the phrasing of ‘Do you speak for all Democrats?’ That came of as unintentionally harsh.

    I completely agree that Richardson sat on the fence past the apex of his usefulness, but I also think this endorsement will help Obama continue his record fundraising and it also seems like a negative for Clinton, since Richardson was viewed as closer to her.

    It will also help Obama secure some Latinos in the general who may have been hesitant, but I hate using the term Latino vote because it is too encompassing.

  • Yes, the supers are supposed to vote whichever way they please. Their duty to select the most electable candidate but at the same time, they have to make sure that they do not have a split party. Their job is to put the need of the party over their political needs and they need to close ranks around a candidate so that we can focus on John McCain (who is our real opponent). If Hillary Clinton were ahead, I don’t doubt that she would be calling on Obama to quit for the good of the party and supers would close ranks around her because she was the front runner. The problem is that the rules that apply to other candidates, don’t apply to a Clinton and that’s really unfortunate.

    I don’t trust Florida to have a revote. As for Michigan, it was an open primary and democrats and independents who voted Republican because their first choice wasn’t on the ballot, aren’t allowed to vote. If the process is opened to everyone again, then there’s the danger of Republicans voting in mass numbers just to swing the vote one way or another. That’s an injustice. Michigan and Florida should have followed the rules that they agreed to in the first place.

  • Doubtful,

    Thanks. I don’t know what most Democrats think about Richardson and wasn’t trying to imply that I did. I need to be more specific in future commenting.

    I do agree with you that the endorsement is helpful to Obama. And it does seem a negative for Clinton. I think the question becomes does it tranlate into votes for Obama? And I agree that it helps his fundraising.

  • Good to see Richardson is doing what’s right no what’s convenient. Despite all the pressure from Bill Clinton, Richardson followed his convictions and joined a growing number of leaders who reject the candidate of the past.

  • I know its technically off-topic, but why don’t the Dems just follow the GOP lead (thus negating any attack from those quarters) and seat the two states delegations, but with only 1/2 of the normal total. Award FL’s according to the actual results. MI can have their’s awarded by all the “none of the above” votes going to Obama.

    As I said it negates any potential attacks from the GOP. It slightly benefits Clinton in the delegate count and popular vote count, but also doesn’t change the fundamental positions of the two campaigns. Also, very importantly IMHO, it doesn’t reward FL and MI for flaunting the rules. it seats their delegates so their voices are included, but rightfully punishes them for breaking the rules.

    What am I missing?

  • This comes as a mild surprise, — CB

    Came as a big surprise to me; I had him pegged as “pro-Clinton, for sure”. Shows how much I know… 🙂 Makes me wonder even more now about Edwards, other drop-outs from the presidential race and Gore.

    Bit curious timing, too; seems to indicate a bit of “I’ll not bow down to right-wing crappy smears, but will stand by my fellow Dem”. ’cause, the bit about it being a “historic” candidacy is not convincing — either one is a “historic” candidate, if we apply only shallow measurements like “black”, or “woman”.

  • As for the actual topic…

    I agree with several commenters that the timing is odd. Having said that this clearly helps Obama and, at least to me, raises the odds that Richardson will be on the short list of VP candidates should Obama win the nomination.

    Talk about regional balance and ethnic cross-over appeal. Not to mention, its salience regarding an Obama administration’s priority on foreign affairs.

    FWIW, I think Obama (should he win the nomination) needs more of a legislative powerhouse in the VP slot to advance his agenda in Congress. However, either Sibelus or Napilitano would also make great running mates and would have their own cross-over appeals.

  • JUDAS!!! He only wants a position in the Cabinet and is rolling the dice. If something the speech addresses more questions and doubts about Obamas’ ability to be commander in chief.

  • Edo (#31),

    I just looked at your html (view > page source, on a Mac). You put the bracket-slash-i-bracket at the end of the post. Perhaps you meant to put it at the end of an earlier paragraph?

  • Richardson’s endorsement will not mean much at this time nor in the general election. Latinos are very faithful. The Latinos in Action group will make sure that if HRC is not the nominee, then they should vote for McCain. The group is already getting prepared in case Obama gets the nomination. The group will not follow Richardson as he is not really a Latino. He should know the loyalty that the Latinos carry. All he did is create some caos for himself. You always find out who your true friends are in needed times. He will be remembered. Paybacks are a B****.

  • All the only reason Richardson endorsed O is because he got promised a position and possibly the VP…

  • Florida and Michigan since Dean and the DNC will not allow your votes, then you should show the DNC come November who has the louder voice and vote republican. The DNC needs to revisit its current rules as they are out of date. The DNC is the one who decided to have the early elections not you the people. So you the people need to show the DNC that your vote is more powerful.

  • Personally, I’m wondering if Mike Huckabee’s reaction to the speech is what sealed the deal.

    The objection to Obama has always been the fact that Democrats can’t simply lobby for change; Republicans have to be receptive to it. Or the Democrats have to be ready to twist enough arms to make it happen. Lacking any evidence that Republicans were willing to meet the Democrats halfway, I can see how many people would prefer the person they see as the more aggressive of the two.

    I think Huckabee’s support of Obama after his speech is historic. He went further than Obama did defending Wright, even going so far as to say that he would probably have been angrier and more prone to compromising outbursts if he had been in Wright’s position, and he made it okay for Republicans to support a Democrat publicly, which is something that the Republican heirarchy have carefully discouraged for over twenty years.

    If Huckabee’s reaction is typical among southern evangelicals, and I think it is very possible that it might be, Obama may have won the biggest victory any Democrat has won since 1980. Whatever you think of Mike Huckabee, he is probably the most popular Republican in the Bible Belt right now and it’s hard to think of anyone whose support for Obama could carry more weight.

    I also think he may have torpedoed his own chances of being McCain’s VP candidate by saying what he did. In some respects, it was worse than Clinton saying that McCain had “crossed the threshold to be Commander in Chief”. With him on the ticket, the Republicans can’t bring up Wright at all, and even if he isn’t, attacking Wright separates the dittohead base from Huckabee and his bloc of evangelical supporters.

    It’s possible that Richardson was personally touched by Obama’s speech and floored by the fact that Huckabee was too.

    In any case, I think Huckabee is worth keeping an eye on. If he starts speaking his mind more and more, the Republicans could be in deep trouble. In many ways, he is the real agent of change in this election – not Obama or Clinton.

  • Today’s endorsement signals the end of the Clinton campaign.

    Without Florida and Michigan, it became almost impossible for Clinton to overtake Obama in the delegate count. But with the Richardson endorsement, Obama has (1) cracked the Clinton BubbleDome, and (2) identified with a strong probability for VP—effectively leaving the Clintons completely out of the picture in an Obama administration.

    Add to that the heavy support that Obama has in some of the remaining states, and Hillary will need a Pennsylvania win that surpasses 75% of the popular vote. Note even the sycophantic Mark Penn will predict winning by such a huge margin—and even then, it will be almost impossible to force the popular vote-count into her favor.

    Remember—the remaining 50-some percent of Texas’ caucus-votes have yet to be tallied. There’s most certainly a reason as to why the Clinton campaign does not want those votes counted—and it’s not because those votes are in her favor….

  • I think it’s interesting that many people you might expect to support Clinton–like the Kennedys and Richardson –gravitate towards Obama. HRC seems to have antagonized many Democrat leaders. I also think it’s interesting that many people who worked for the Clintons–like Richardson did–became disenchanted with them.

  • Looks like the Obama camp worked out a deal with Richardson to win his endorsement. Perhaps Obama could ‘appear’ a bit more pleased with the decision during Richardson’s announcement. Hard to fake delight when forced to take drastic measures that you don’t agree with I guess.

  • Bill Richardson once again has proven that he is more interested in his own self-seeking agenda then supporting what the people of New Mexico have indicated they want. HRC won the NM primary. For months now after dropping out of the race Richardson made very public his non-committal position by repeating on a weekly basis if not more in the national media. He repeatedly stated that it wasn’t his job to endorse candidates but to govern the state of New Mexico and yet just like during his pitiful campaign for the Presidency he took time away from his job as Governor of NM to make the public appearances to state that his job was not to endorse candidates but govern NM. Just admit it Bill, you were hoping to be offered the VP spot to get you to climb off the fence. I got news for you Barack, neither the Hispanics of this nation much less the Hispanics in NM are in lock step behind Richardson. Don’t worry he will be trying to see what he can squeeze out of you too. What Richardson has done in his term and a half as NM Governor is certainly commendable but it is obvious that for the most part it has been to promote himself for the Pres. Since even before the campaign moved into full swing Richardson was claiming to have made NM one of the top states in the nation in renewable energy which if any one has checked they would find was more then just a real stretch, but since he has dropped out this along with many other initiatives have fallen by the wayside. The good news is that Richardson has now held every public office in NM that he might be interested in except for possibly a US Senate seat (which by the way one is currently being vacated) but Richardson instead opted to run for King and lost. Bill, maybe you can once again convince someone who doesn’t really know you and of what value you really are just as you did the Clintons. Watch your back Obama.

  • Looks like the Obama camp worked out a deal with Richardson to win his endorsement

    Oh, please. Does that mean that the Obama camp worked out a deal with John Kerry and the Kennedy family, too? It seems more and more likely to me that many top Democrat leaders are either turned off by the Clintons and/or do not think HRC would be a viable nominee.

    Mike @46, since I don’t live in NM, I don’t know what kind of governor Richardson is. To me, it seems he has the right to endorse whoever he wants, even if NM went for Clinton.

    I sense that if Richardson had endorsed HRC, there would be a long stream of posts here singing his praises.

  • I don’t really care if Michael the Archangel supports Obama. He still not getting my vote. If Hilary does not win, then McCain will get my vote. It’s that simple.

  • Comments are closed.