A Question for ALL re Clinton/Richardson

[NanceGreggs]

As we all know, NM Governor Bill Richardson endorsed Barack Obama earlier this week.

And as we all further know, this was a disappointment to the Clinton camp, who have made no secret of their hopes to get Richardson on board for Hillary, nor their many endeavors to do so.

The immediate reaction from the Clinton campaign (via Mark Penn) was an outright dismissal of Richardson’s “usefulness” at this point in the primaries, followed by James Carville’s over-the-top comparison of Richardson’s actions to Judas – taking his “thirty pieces of silver” in exchange for “betraying” his long-standing friendship with the Clintons.

There has been no statement from either Hillary or Bill to the effect that Penn’s or Carville’s statements were not reflective of their personal views – therefore, one must accept that these are their views as well.

Much has been made of the idea that Richardson “owed” his loyalty to the Clintons by virtue of his appointments during Bill Clinton’s presidency – something which does not play well, because it infers that those appointments were based on sheer cronyism or “payback” for past favors, as opposed to Bill Clinton having chosen the right man for the job – surely that is not an image the Clintons would knowingly interject into the political discussion at this juncture.

At the same time, Penn’s comments cannot be interpreted as anything other than the idea that Richardson’s relationship with the Clintons was and is, from their perspective, measured on the basis of “usefulness” rather than anything more substantial. Ergo, the blatant inference that the Clintons only value friends and past supporters as long as they have something to bring to the table – and are otherwise completely expendable.

The vitriol that has been unleashed by the Clinton camp towards Richardson could, of course, all be put down to over-reaction wrought by intense disappointment. However, both Hillary and Bill are skilled politicians, and would be astutely aware of the impact that publicly throwing Richardson under their bus would have.

They have now turned a loyal friend into, at best, a man dismissed – and publicly so – as a “useless commodity” and, at worst, an enemy who, having been publicly humiliated as a "Judas", might be inclined to be less than enthusiastic in supporting Hillary should she wind up being the nominee. More to the point, there was no need for the Clintons to do this; it was obviously done by choice.

I don’t think anyone would dispute that Richardson is a man whose assistance, were Hillary to win the nomination, would be of great value to her. Had Hillary responded to Richardson’s endorsement of her opponent with disappointment but grace, she knows that were she to go on to the GE, the door would be open to a renewal of their friendship. And Richardson, being who he is, would have rallied to the side of the Democratic nominee without hesitation once the race came down to Hillary versus McCain.

I realize there has been much discussion about Richardson doing what he did because he is hopeful of VP spot on Obama’s ticket. However, considering his influence and the value of a Hillary endorsement earlier in the game, certainly he could have “named his price” for that endorsement, if that was his intent or the way he chose to play the game.

Now to my question: Being as I see no “up” side to this behavior on the part of the Clintons in terms of Hillary’s campaign, is this simply a sign that they have already decided that Richardson’s future assistance in the GE need not be considered as a factor, because they have already accepted the fact that Hillary won’t be part of the GE in any event?

I realize this will fall on deaf ears, but I’ll say it anyway: I am not posting this as flamebait. I am asking this as a serious question, and invite Hillary supporters to chime in with their take on it – because if there is somehow, somewhere, a political plus in all of this, I just don’t see it.

I invite everyone’s comments – but let’s try and keep it civil, please.

[LVjinx]

1. Four months ago Richardson was sucking up to Clinton in the debates for the VP spot

So this endorsement should be seen through that prism.

[NanceGreggs]

4. That may be your 'take' on what Richardson was doing ...

... but your opinion and the facts might be two different things entirely.

And even if that were the case, my question still stands: Where was the political strategy in being publicly dismissive of Richardson if Hillary truly believed she would end up as the nominee?

Both Clintons are savvy enough to know that you don't turn on someone who could be "useful" in future.

[julialnyc]

49. Even if that were the case, it's besides the point

[babylonsister]

2. I think Clinton has gotten some really bad advice and continues

to get it. I can't speak to the political savviness of the couple; they surely aren't showing it. It does seem their friends and associates are expendable.

[NanceGreggs]

6. Agreed as to "bad advice".

Based on what I saw of the pre-campaign Hillary, she would have made light of Richardson's "defection", instead of cutting off any prospect of future support.

[woolldog]

60. What does it say about her, however,

that she seems to continually follow this bad advice?

[NanceGreggs]

66. Ah, there's the rub.

At the beginning of what was inevitably going to be an ill-advised campaign, I defended Hill's position as being the victim of some very bad advice.

But comes the time when you have to be smart enough to stop taking the bad advice - or let it be known that you obviously aren't astute enough to realize how bad it is, or aren't strong enough to stand up and say, "This isn't me, and this isn't what I am all about."

At this point, we all know that Hillary has chosen to do neither - which doesn't speak well for her judgment as a potential POTUS.

[DearAbby]

3. Great Post Nance

as always, food for thought.

[saltpoint]

5. My take is that Richardson's instincts are sound and that Penn's et al

are morally askew.

A lot of people who operate country Dem orgs look at the Clinton campaign and are just puking over the lack of a moral compass.

There is a short-term bump in polling for Hillary but no long-term political gain.

Your take is sound.

[NanceGreggs]

8. It just struck me that ...

... throwing anyone who could be a positive influence in the GE into the garbage would not be the conduct of someone who believed that said influence could be "used" in future - unless, of course, they have already determined that there is no future.

[panader0]

7. I had to delete my response

when I saw you said to keep it civil. There is no plus here for Hillary, only a personal vindictiveness.

[NanceGreggs]

10. Well, that is my 'take' on it, too ...

Which is why I am wondering if she has already conceded, on some level, that her chances going forward are nil.

Hillary is an exceptionally skilled and intelligent woman - I can't imagine that such behaviour by her campaign would have been tolerated if she truly believed that Richardson's support might come in handy down the line.

The only logical answer seems to be that she knows there is no such thing as "down the line".

[John Q. Citizen]

9. I think Clinton is warning other super delegates not to follow in Richardson's footsteps and

similarly end up accused on TV of obsolescence and of being a traitor.

It's the only reason I can come up with. Which would indicate that even if Hill doesn't believe she can win, she doesn't want anybody else believing she can't win. She's not ready to end it yet.

[NanceGreggs]

13. I considered that as well, the "warning strategy" ...

But again she and Bill are both astute enough to know that such tactics (a) don't play well with public perception, and (b) have a tendency to produce the exact opposite effect.

The most dangerous animal is the one pushed in the corner; that's Politics 101 - and the Clintons are well aware of that.

[John Q. Citizen]

25. It's a tactic for a short term strategy aimed mostly at polarizing the thought process of the

super delegates.

I agree with your analysis as to public perception, but I don't think the public feels threatened because the Clinton campaign is using crazy talk about Judas on Sen. Richardson. The only people who would feel threatened would be delegates thinking of coming out for Obama.

I agree with your thesis that Hill knows it's over. I just don't think she's ready to stop yet. So she's trying to delay a migration of supers.

That's all I can come up with. Everything else doesn't make sense.

[hogwyld]

18. I think you may have a valid point there

It's a backhanded threat to the other uncommitted super's to keep their mouth shut, or face the same wrath.

[BuyingThyme]

20. That makes sense.

[XemaSab]

26. That's part of my feeling:

it was to make an example out of him.

But the aphorism that comes to mind is that you can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar. If I was a superdelegate and I knew that that was how they treated former allies, I'd be grossed out, and I'd be like, "I don't have to take this."

[Hutzpa]

42. The question I think everyone should be asking

is this, why are SD's afraid of the Clinton's ? as most of you have
clearly pointed out she knows its the end if thats the case why are
they holding back?

:shrug:

[GoldieAZ49]

11. I don't see it as relevant, neither helping Obama or hurting Clinton

Carville's words are his own. A sad choice of words given the time of year.

[NanceGreggs]

19. Agreed that Carville's words are his own ...

... but that doesn't explain the fact that Hillary did not immediately distance herself from Carville, and his words.

OTOH, Penn's words are the "official position" of Hillary's campaign - and if she disagrees with them, she has had ample opportunity to disavow them, "soften" them, or "clarify" them - which she has chosen not to do.

[GoldieAZ49]

28. no doubt Richardson has made Hillary's "list"

and while she may agree with Carville, he isn't part of her campaign.

[goclark]

48. Carville is the puppet of his wife Mary

He carries the water for her Bush buddies.

I have lost all respect for the man.

[stellanoir]

12. I don't think he was angling.

I think many of us have been put off by her campaign strategies and lamo advisors.

He said as much.

This is a once in a lifetime candidate. Hill is more of the same.

I see the divide as less racism or sexism but ageism. I'm perceiving a generational divide.

I could go into great detail but won't now.

best as always

[GeorgeGist]

14. Are you really so naive ...

that you can't recognize egoes tripping over each other trying to get to the top of the pile.

On edit: Nevermind. Stupid question.

[Divernan]

15. Yes, I posted pretty much the same thing earlier today.

HRC keeps shooting herself in the foot - needlessly antagonizes important Dems
Posted by Divernan in General Discussion: Primaries
Sun Mar 23rd 2008, 12:32 PM
From cnn.com, we learn that while Richardson tried to give HRC the professional courtesy of an advance call to let her know his decision, she did not respond in a professional manner. Richardson initially limited his comment on the telephone call as simply saying it wasn't easy.

Then Penn and other Clinton supporters began ridiculing Richardson as someone whose time was past and whose endorsement would make no difference. At that point Richardson responded, including the information:"It was painful and it wasn't easy," he said. "I've spoken to others who have had that same conversation and they say at the end, it’s not all that pleasant.

The article also stated:

"The former Democratic presidential candidate declined to elaborate further on his conversation with Clinton.Last month, Chris Dodd — another former presidential candidate who decided to endorse Obama last month — said he had a "not comfortable" conversation with Clinton informing her of the news."

I can understand that HRC might have lost her self-restraint when she got the call from Richardson, OR from Dodd. Richardson was gentlemanly in only stating that the phone call "wasn't easy." But then Clinton turned the attack dogs on him. If she truly believed his endorsement was of no value, there obviously would have been no reason to attack him/have Carville call him a Judas, etc.

And MOST IMPORTANTLY, if HRC truly believed she had any kind of shot left at winning the nomination, she would have calmed down after the Richardson call, and realized she would still need his support in the general election. I think her surrogate's attacks on Richardson reflect their need to blame someone else, anyone else for her inevitable loss of the nomination.

"At the end, it's not all that pleasant." That phrase foretells the meltdown we'll see when she finally is forced to bow out. And I think she and Bill will do what they can between that point and the GE to damage Obama.

Read entry | Discuss (0 comments) | Remove from Journal | Add/Edit Intro

[NanceGreggs]

29. I'm sorry ...

... I have only been on DU intermittently today, and did not see your post.

"And MOST IMPORTANTLY, if HRC truly believed she had any kind of shot left at winning the nomination, she would have calmed down after the Richardson call, and realized she would still need his support in the general election."

I see we are on the same wavelength. Where is the political plus in any of this if indeed she still believes she has a shot at the GE?

[Divernan]

69. No apology necessary - it's a point worth making repeatedly

and there's so much traffic around here that threads sink like far too quickly for many people to see them.

[Hutzpa]

43. On that note she needs to

get out now, because its becoming extremely clear what her motives are
she is not in it to win but in it to destroy the Democratic party
with the support of these folks;

http://journals.aol.com/sazzylilsmartazz/TheConscientiousObjector/entries/2008/03/23/clintons-spiritual-mentor-cult-group-head-coe-touts-mao--hitler/2485

:puke:

[SunsetDreams]

16. Great post

Here is my take on this, it's really been on my mind.

Thinking back to when Chris Dodd endorsed Obama, there didn't appear to be any back lash from them, so that leaves me with answering your post, with a question. What is your take on that one?

Regarding Richardson, I just can't for the life of me figure out why he is being "shunned" and "spit" on.

Hillary Clinton herself, has said that Super Delegates are independent and can make their own judgement as to which way to go. It had to be extremely hard for Bill Richardson to make that decision, considering how much Bill Clinton did for him, and their friendship all these years.

First the campaign says, that his endorsement didn't matter, that it basically held no value. Then the campaign says that he is a traitor. The two differing statements, while both negative, don't add up.
My take is, his endorsement of Obama must be valuable, otherwise you wouldn't be getting this message from their camp. Also, if it wasn't valuable, then why did they spend all this time "courting" his endorsement? They wanted it badly.

I guess I'm just not understanding the mentality here, and you are right, it could mean that they know she won't be in the GE, which is why they can feel free to throw him under the bus.

[SunsetDreams]

46. Can you see me?

or am I dead?:rofl:

[BuyingThyme]

17. I think I know exactly what's going on.

They're friggin' mad. Mad, mad, mad.

Not crazy mad, just mad mad.

[davidpdx]

21. I agree that the response was a poor one and bad advice

and only feeds into the negative perception of the Clinton campaign. I'm sure privately it was a blow to them, but the campaign definitely could have dealt with it in a better fashion. In terms of Carville, I once looked up to him, but this just proves he's a hack. The words were his, but he IS a high level public supporter of Hillary Clinton. It still reflects poorly on the campaign.

[tammywammy]

22. Excellent Post

[blonndee]

23. First of all, Richardson, technically, doesn't owe the Clintons anything.

And that is the truth. Technically, as he has said, he served his terms well, and THAT is what he owed the Clintons.

Secondly, I do understand that the Clintons would expect loyalty. I really do. And that is why I think it took so long for Richardson to endorse. HOWEVER, this is not a monarchy and the Clintons (as far as I know) are not the Democratic mafioso, so it is not for them to demand blind loyalty (that seems more fitting for the current occupants of the White House).

So, thirdly, Richardson has the right to endorse whomever he pleases, and this is based on the idea that every American has the right to speak for him/herself.

Fourthly, and more importantly: Being a long-time friend of the Clintons, given the above and their influence, for Bill to come out in favor of someone other than the Clintons, either speaks a lot to his integrity OR their diminshed status among Dems. Neither one of these bodes well for the Clintons. If one believes that Bill is just a politiican going "which way the wind blows," well, that would show that he KNOWS that Obama is where it's at in terms of who is going to get the nom. That shows a lot of savvy in terms of SDS and the way the nom is going. If, on the other hand, he truly believes that endorsing Obama is the RIGHT thing to do (despite his ties to the Clintons), well, that also shows that not only is Obama is "where it's at," but that he's willing to risk his political future with this man. DESPITE his ties to the Clintons. What does this say about the Clintons?

I believe that Richardson's endorsement shows that 1)Clintonian dominance is in its last throes; 2)Cronyism has been rejected by Dem leader, even among some DLCers; and 3)Even the DLCers see "which way the wind is blowing." Whether or not Democratic leaders will actually be leaders to support this party is yet to be seen. I realize many see Bill as a traitor, but I personally see him as taking a substantial risk and I admire him even more for what he has done. I hope others will follow, rejecting their fear of the Clinton machine in favor of what they feel/know is right for the Democratic party.

[Tatiana]

24. Look carefully at the statements Richardson has made.

Referencing "his advisers" or "these people around the Clintons"

It is almost as if Bill Richardson is willing to give the Clintons a pass because of his friendship with them. He never says "the Clintons" think I'm a token that's only good for getting out the Latino vote. I view his remarks as asking the Clintons to take a look at the company they keep and who they are surrounding themselves with.

Richardson has carried himself with class. He never called for Hillary to drop out of the race. He never specifically referenced the Clintons themselves in his rebuke of those questioning his service to this country and its former President.

This "Judas Richardson" crap has made me want to vomit. The man was thisclose to endorsing Hillary. If you listen to his words he WANTED to endorse her. But she is the one who drove him into the Obama camp. Not Obama, but Hillary. So since some of these supporters are so fond of Republican themes, maybe they should look at taking some personal responsibility for Richardson walking away from the Hillary campaign.

Hillary knows she's lost. Richardson wasn't so much her ticket to getting more primary votes and pledged delegates as he was the her ACE, the one Democrat who had enough pull to swing enough superdelegates her way to squeak out a victory. THAT'S why you see such vitriol and bitterness, IMO. Richardson was her 10% shot and she lost it.

The supers will go with Obama now. They are just waiting for a more appropriate time to come out.

[dusmcj]

27. he's portrayed himself as an amoral careerist weasel

with no loyalty to the people who put him where he is today and who were clearly courting him.

Of course, I think maybe he doesn't really want national office, and is happy operating where he does. The doofy chinstrap definitely doesn't look vice-presidential, and maybe he'll be visiting with Bill and Hill shortly and this is all hand puppet theater to hide that he doesn't want anything to do with a job in a 2008 Dem administration, not because he dislikes the candidates but because he dislikes the working environment. Time will tell.

[Strelnikov_]

32. " . . doofy chinstrap definitely doesn't look vice-presidential . . "

Explanation please.

[FatDave]

45. They're making fun of his beard

But maybe you knew that and are just looking for relevance.

That style's called a Hollywoodian. Personally, I think it's a really bold move to wear your facial hair so distinctively. Think I'll grow some mutton chops... Of course, that wouldn't look very "vice-presidential".

:rofl:

[Strelnikov_]

56. Hell, I thought he is lookin sharp

Just goes to show what I know.

[NanceGreggs]

33. So you're saying that Richardson's appointments ...

... under Clinton were based on cronyism, without regard to his qualifications - a "heckuva job" moment on Bill's part? That doesn't say much for Bill, or Hillary. And he owed his loyalty to the Clintons because they courted him? Not a positive either.

As for the "doofy chinstrap" remark, that speaks volumes about your ability to engage in serious political discourse.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

37. "Loyalty" = cronyism -- exactly what we don't need any more of.

Richardson owes Hillary Clinton nothing. Bill (not Hillary) hired him to work in his administration, and Richardson did his work (which, by the way, was for and on behalf of the United States, not Bill Clinton personally) exceedingly well. You seem to suggest that anyone who worked in Bill Clinton's administration now owes a debt of loyalty to Hillary. That sounds to me like the same kind of cronyism that has turned the Bush administration into such a train wreck. That's how incompetent but loyal guys like "Brownie" got the chance to run entire government agencies into the ditch.

[NanceGreggs]

41. Exactly.

And the Clintons' vitrioloic turning on Richardson also smacks of "you're either with us, or against us" - a phrase, and a concept, both of them surely know is abhorrent to voters after the last seven-plus years.

[grantcart]

30. No it means that sometimes they just get angry and lash out.

Bill's response about 'patriotism' comes hours after Richardson's endorsement. Bill's respons in South Carolina comes hours after Obama talks about Reagan.

When somebody does anything that diminishes Bill's legacy they go ape shit.

[SoCalDem]

31. They are miffed that he left the "plantation"..

Just the paternalistic culture in action

Richardson was a token "brown-skinned" man to them, and by "elevating" him within , they thought they had bought his neverending allegiance..

They would not have expected lifelong-gratitude from one of their true peers..

This is the same mentality that stunned some plantation owners when they saw their slaves actually leave the plantations when they were freed..

Many of them could not understand why on earth those people would leave...when they had been taken care of for all those years..

[XemaSab]

34. A good, thought-provoking post as always

I really do not understand what's going on with the Clintons right now.

As far as I can tell, the only appropriate response to Richardson's endorsement of Obama is "We were sorry to hear that."

That's the only thing to say on the phone, and that's the only thing to say in public. Any other sentiment is pretty classless. And, again, if this "Judas" comment was made to send a message to the other superdelegates, I can't imagine that would cause them to get in line behind Clinton. There's something kind of scary and threatening about the way they're handling this that makes me think we can't get them out of a power position quickly enough.

And as far as being irrelevant to the party, why were they calling him 10 times a day? Also, the man's a governor... he's not exactly a has-been.

Bizarre and tacky. :shrug:

[Yael]

35. "Grace" is not in the Clinton vocabulary

She has yet to congratulate an opponent on a victory or thank those who voted for her when she lost.

On top of Gov Richardson coming out for Obama was the reason he came out for Obama. Just like Dodd -- because they want the circular firing squad to end and the party to coalesce. For all intents and purposes, it sent a message to her that she isn't astute or mature enough to see/recognize that the inevitability thing just isn't going to happen.

[NanceGreggs]

36. I don't disagree with your assessment.

However, there was a time when both Hillary and Bill knew without question what remarks could be perceived as negatives about them, and were incredibly adept at turning those negatives into something positive.

The only conclusion I can come to in the face of their blatant unwillingness to do so in the present circumstances is the fact that they've both accepted that it no longer matters - because the war is already lost.

All that's left now is a graceful exit - as graceful an exit as can now be crafted from such graceless behaviour.

[Yael]

40. The problem I see is I don't think they know how to lose.

And they are certainly not getting good advice about how to ease out of this. Not with kitchen sinks flying with a full frontal on doind as much damage as they can right now.

[Usrename]

38. I think these are two unconnected questions.

And that in itself does seem to be one of the biggest problem with her campaign. She won't connect the dots.

First, she must know that there is no path for her to get the nomination. They must realize that there is no scenario where she can win.

Second, I think this is exactly how they behave with political allies and adversaries. It's all about "what use are you to me right now?" This may be the fundamental problem with her whole campaign, an almost adolescent ability to completely ignore any and all potential future ramifications of her actions in the search for immediate gratification. It's like she believes the "Clinton War Room" rapid response stuff is all real, and not just a propaganda ploy.

I'm afraid that normally, in any other race, no one would ever notice this, only it appears an adult has entered the contest.

[RichardRay]

39. I can't think of a game with higher stakes for Senator Clinton.

This is for all the marbles for her. She doesn't want 2012, she doesn't want the VP slot, she wants the run for god damn President of the United States of America. In the world where she lives the isn't anything bigger than this, For her to have a shot at all is extraordinary; to have the chance to be the first woman elected to the presidency is a prize too big to contemplate losing.

And it's slipping away. She wants to believe she can be Inigo Montoya confronted by the Six Fingered Man, and maybe she can, lord knows she's got the chops to try. But that doesn't make her play well with the other children, and Bill Richardson got caught in the scatter. A few days ago I put up a post asking whether Senator Clinton is able, emotionally and intellectually, to withdraw gracefully. The consensus seemed to be that, no, she can't, that, at best, she'll go down like the Jim Bowie at the Alamo and maybe like the zealots at Masada.

Good luck to the rest of us...

[Tom Rinaldo]

44. To answer your question

No, I don't think it indicates resignation about defeat at all. Call it one part genuine emotional response, one part undermining the importance of Richardson's decision by playing on a doubt that there might have been a political payoff for him that personally steered his choice, and one part rallying her hispanic base to her over Bill Richardson having been ingracious to Democratic leaders who have been there for him and their community in the past.

[mmonk]

47. Bill Richardson has been keeping his theme of party unity

the whole time. He has been witnessing what has been happening lately and I firmly believe he wants to bring it to an end. I think he wants to consolidate party support behind the leader to further allay damage.

[Bad Thoughts]

50. Too much interpretation?

HRC is probably disappointed that Richardson decided to endorse BHO. But I don't know if you can take Penn's and Carville's words as direct expressions of that disappointment. Both men, how should I say this, have a way with words that is often quite ugly, and I suspect that they say things that might even take HRC aback.

The Clintons probably were counting on Richardson's endorsement. They have short coattails, depending on others to carry them forward, and tend to offer little in return. Richardson may be one of the few whom they could say they contributed to his stature. They were probably overreaching, though. Indeed, I suspect that they knew quite early they might lose him; watching the Superbowl was a way of keeping Richardson publicly uncommitted until after Texas.

That said, you're right that they've burned their bridge with Richardson.

[NanceGreggs]

51. The only reason I might be prone to ...

... over-interpreting is the fact that I have admired Bill Clinton for years for his ability to foresee, and thereby ward-off, trouble in the making.

In -- shall I say? - "happier times", I would have expected Bill to make a statement to the effect of, "Well, I guess those chips and beer I brought to the Superbowl get-together was a waste of twenty bucks." It would have been laughed off, made light of, and left the door open for future reconciliation when, and if, needed.

As for Penn's and Carville's remarks taking Hill aback, we have had no word from her to that effect. Had I been Hill and heard Carville's comments, I would have been in-your-face with a statement distancing myself from them immediately. And there was a time, not too long ago, that Hillary would have done just that.

Again, I can only conclude that her failure to do so is a clear indication that she knows she has no future, and therefore no need to "set the record straight".

[ecstatic]

52. They have burned SO many bridges. It doesn't seem like smart politics

Their approach is so Shermanesque that I wonder if HRC even intends to stay in the Senate, when it's all said and done.

It's astounding to me. What is the rationale for discarding entire states, superdelegates, and entire ethnic groups in such an extreme way that they can never be useful again? It's mind boggling!

[NanceGreggs]

53. Precisely.

What possible rationale could there be at play here - other than a "fuck-it-we've-lost-anyway" mentality.

As I've stated over and over, Bill and Hillary are probably two of the most astute politicians we've seen in decades. Why be deliberately dismissive of those whose support you might need in future, unless you've already decided that the future, as you've envisioned it, will never be a reality?

[K Gardner]

54. A very distrubing turn of events. Thanks for discussing it calmly, Nance. I can't right now..

my heart hurts for Richardson, just as it has for Obama and Wright and all the other good democrats lying under the bus.

Happy Easter :hug:

[NanceGreggs]

55. And a Happy Easter to you and yours! n/t

[fadedrose]

57. Condemning Richardson an example to others...

Maybe they want him to be a scapegoat, warning others like Biden, Edwards, etc., that they too will be harshly criticized out of revenge if they support Obama.

Richardson seems to be having a problem with his supporters judging by posts I've seen here, and he's no doubt heaped on because of the Clinton sink thrown at him.

[NanceGreggs]

58. That would seem to be the only 'logic' ...

... that could possibly be applied here.

However, it still seems counter-productive. As I said upthread, it is commonly held that if you corner an animal, you are most likely to be attacked by it - having left it no other means of survival.

The most likely scenario to come out of publicly attacking Richardson would be for others to take up his cause, rather than cower in the corner with him.

It's just, IMHO, an exceptionally bad move on the Clinton camp's part - and as recently as a few weeks ago, I would have bet my life that they wouldn't have fallen into such an obvious trap.

[fadedrose]

61. Maybe Edwards and Biden and a few others...

care too much about party unity to come out yet.

Whatever the Clintons do to retaliate may splinter the party altogether.

Biden and Edwards are class acts and if they want to be considered for higher positions, they can't get their hands dirty by publicly defending themselves against goofy charges and insults and who knows what could come up against them...

I'm thinking how pitiful it is that Richardson has to defend himself. I wish he'd just ignore the stupid remarks, Brutus, etc. He has to "cower" in the corner himself. This is politics and only pundits can help him, not elected officials who want to remain in power.

[NanceGreggs]

63. I have no doubt that Richardson ...

... has been hurt, on a very personal level, by the barbs from his former "friends". At the same time, he has shown himself to be an extraordinary man, and will no doubt forgive and forget, as is his nature.

I was especially impressed by his participation in the last debate before he dropped out. His responses were invariably on-the-mark, based on common sense, and he never had to belittle an 'opponent' in order to make his point. A truly remarkable trait in any politician.

I can't begin to imagine the pressure that John Edwards in under these days to hurry up and endorse someone, Goddamn it!!! As much as I might wish that he'd come out for Obama, I'm hoping he will just stay out of it.

JE has GREAT things ahead of him, and can no doubt accomplish them more readily and easily without the inevitable fallout of having "taken sides" in a hotly contested primary.

[fadedrose]

64. I thoroughly agree with you... Edwards in 2016...

I hoping the economy, the war, health care, etc. will all be resolved by 2016 and that Edwards wil get in. He's young. He should stay out of this because they'll dig up all kinds of nonsense. Gees, the only thing they have now is an expensive haircut.

I will either be dead or a stranger will live in my body who thinks that JFK is president :)

[NanceGreggs]

67. I don't see Edwards as president in future ...

... I think his impact will be something longer-lasting than a mere eight-year term.

I see him more as a Gore figure, able to accomplish things that a president could not, simply because he will be free to focus on one cause, rather than have to juggle a million issues at once.

I honestly believe that John Edwards will be a leader of men in the future - and it will not be limited to leading the US, but the world.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

59. Truthfully- it would be seen by many as verification that Richardson endorsed for political reasons.

Having him on the ticket would NOT draw a lot more Clinton supporters to the ticket - which they will need. He would gain a few Latinos and maybe New Mexico. New Mexico doesn't have a lot of electoral votes.

[NanceGreggs]

68. Then why all the vitriol coming from the Clinton camp?

That's my point. If he's not important, why publicly tout his "unimportance", instead of just shrugging the endorsement off?

And if he was so unimportant, why did the Clinton clan make no secret of the fact that they were wooing his endorsement in the first place?

[EFerrari]

62. I see no up side to the Clinton's reactive behavior in general

and am at a loss to understand it.

I don't think they have decided that they won't be in the GE and I don't think they have the vision to see how self destructive the campaign's "responses" are.

Is this performance due to being insulated from so much for so long? Is Bill losing his political ability due to age? I don't know, Nance. There's a knot of dysfunction here, and I can't wait until the Clintons can deal with it in the privacy of their own lives.

[TwilightGardener]

65. I can't remember such downright ungracious treatment because of an endorsement--

it's clear that they have little respect for Bill Richardson. I'll bet they didn't dare treat Teddy or Caroline Kennedy that way--that family still has too much clout. Perhaps they just see Bill as not having enough of an impact in the general election, so they'd rather take the short-sighted chance to poop all over his Obama endorsement to minimize the political benefit of it.