New York Times:
New Mexico Governor, Bill ("The Turncoat") Richardson Endorses Obama (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/us/politics/21cnd-endorse.html)

By JEFF ZELENY
Published: March 21, 2008

PORTLAND, Ore. — Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico delivered a forceful endorsement of Senator Barack Obama for president on Friday, urging Democrats to unite behind his candidacy to move the nation beyond its racial and partisan divide.

All I can say is that I'm totally stunned. I was certain that this guy was the leading VP candidate for Clinton upon her possible nomination for president by the Democratic party (having been a Clinton insider, supporter and close amigo for over twenty years-- he attended young Chelsae's graduation party for Allah's sake). Carville compared this side-switching to Judas's selling out Jesus (that's pronounce "hay-zoos") for thirty pieces of silver.

With friends like this...

What's odd, is that he stands ZERO chance of being the VP of Obama-- that's a little "too" diverse for Americans to swallow. I wonder if he was promised State or Defense (having been UN Ambassador and Energy Sec. under Mr. Clinton).

~String

New York Times:


All I can say is that I'm totally stunned. I was certain that this guy was the leading VP candidate for Clinton upon her possible nomination for president by the Democratic party (having been a Clinton insider, supporter and close amigo for over twenty years-- he attended young Chelsae's graduation party for Allah's sake). Carville compared this side-switching to Judas's selling out Jesus (that's pronounce "hay-zoos") for thirty pieces of silver.

With friends like this...

What's odd, is that he stands ZERO chance of being the VP of Obama-- that's a little "too" diverse for Americans to swallow. I wonder if he was promised State or Defense (having been UN Ambassador and Energy Sec. under Mr. Clinton).

~String

in an interview with olbermann he said the reason that made him choose obama was his speech on race

Really, are the Clintons that bad... or is she just cursed with being a white devil? 'Cause that seems to be a horrible sin in the Democratic party these days.

~String

Really, are the Clintons that bad... or is she just cursed with being a white devil? 'Cause that seems to be a horrible sin in the Democratic party these days. "White devil?" Please. A lot of people are not impressed by Hillary's campaign of late, and her poll vulnerability to McCain is scary - her negatives are very high, and unlike Obama lack of familiarity is not involved.

Meanwhile Richardson is well aware of where NAFTA and welfare "reform" and so forth came from and what it's done to his state and region, he's seen the Dem leadership roll over in Washington, and he is not a Beltway Dem himself.

He may actually prefer Obama for President, and have the good of the country in mind, strange as that sounds to the calculators.

Besides, his VP presence - if he really wants that - under Obama would take care of Obama's biggest repairable demographic weakness geographically and ethnically. It's not that strange a shot - Richardson does not look particularly ethnic.

and her poll vulnerability to McCain is scary - her negatives are very high, and unlike Obama lack of familiarity is not involved.

I can't disagree there. Though, I still think that on election day, most caucasians will show up at the poll booth and vote for the "white guy". Pardon my skepticism at America's claim to be "ready for a black man".

Meanwhile Richardson is well aware of where NAFTA and welfare "reform" and so forth came from and what it's done to his state and region

Odd, since he was a part of it's early days and was a driving force in the administration that brought it in to being. Also odd, since New Mexico is one of only handful of states that stands to benefit at the outset from expansion of NAFTA's looser borders and freer trade.

he's seen the Dem leadership roll over in Washington, and he is not a Beltway Dem himself.

Huh? No. He spent over a decade in Congress and 8 years under the gentle tutelage of Slick Willie (Ambassador to the UN and Energy Sec). So, sure, Ice... he's not a beltway Democrat.

If he's not, then no one is.

He may actually prefer Obama for President, and have the good of the country in mind, strange as that sounds to the calculators.

That's valid, but also a bit obvious: for ANYBODY to turn on such longtime friends, he would obviously have to have a powerful ideological shift to attach himself to a new camp. Good for him. Though there's something to be said for loyalty, there's much more to be said for idealism.

Besides, his VP presence - if he really wants that - under Obama would take care of Obama's biggest repairable demographic weakness geographically and ethnically. It's not that strange a shot - Richardson does not look particularly ethnic.

The man has sold himself on an ethnic bill of goods. He campaigned in Spanish in New Mexico. The sizable and duplicitous Republican machine will spin every word of that in TV to make an Obama-Richardson ticket look as alien as possible to the 225 million skittish white voters. Such a ticket all but guarantees a McCain win in November.

~String

John Edwards is hoping to be the VP, whom ever wins....Richardson may take State.

Maybe he asked if he was going to be the VP and when was denied, switched...

I'm loving the Judas and turncoat comments. Other than among hardcore Hillary supporters, those words don't actually hurt Richardson and make his endorsement worth a lot more.

Maybe he asked if he was going to be the VP and when was denied, switched...

That seems to be the case. He should have known, John Edwards has the first right of refusal...Handsome vibrant young white male...that Richardson is not...

Minus the young, and, imo, handsome and vibrant part!

I thought Edwards was looking for another position besides VP, anyway. He seems to have disliked being VP for Kerry. I also do not want to see him in another VP debate for the Democrats, after he got beaten by Cheney.

Two minorities for President and VP would be too much for the majority white American to swallow...

I think Richardson seems like a affable person. Perhaps that is more important for VP, since most people really don't care too much about the position. Cheney has been a unique exception.

I'm starting to think that he should go for Hillary as VP though. I disliked the idea before, but the divisiveness in this campaign is probably going to require repair, and that is the way to assure it is done. It also sells well, the idea of Hillary balancing out experience in a Obama administration, whether it is true or not.

Two minorities for President and VP would be too much for the majority white American to swallow...

Really? So the truth is America is just that racist and sexist that we believe that behind every great women or great black man, a white man was needed to keep it stable because "them bitches and niggers can think right together"? you make me sick!

If a Democrat is going for Obama, they aren't going to object to the hispanic Richardson. He is well respected for taking the high road in the debates, which is less like Hillary's compaign and more like Obama's. I don't blaming for switching, but that hardly rates the term turncoat. His values haven't changed, but one candidate seems to be reflecting them more.

you make me sick!

Take some Dramamine and get over it. White males have been racist since Columbus days and has not changed an iota. Truth hurts, that is why it makes you sick, and chances are that you are a white male and hence feeling guilty and trying to pass that to the observer. That is what happens (the sickness that is!) to weakminded people who can not stomach the truth! (not intended as personal attack, just directed to people who are!)

"dramamine", lol.

Take some Dramamine and get over it. White males have been racist since Columbus days and has not changed an iota. Truth hurts, that is why it makes you sick, and chances are that you are a white male and hence feeling guilty and trying to pass that to the observer. That is what happens (the sickness that is!) to weakminded people who can not stomach the truth! (not intended as personal attack, just directed to people who are!)

Actually I'm Hispanic, but good try, true there are many racist but I'm one of those modern generation kids that thinks the majority of the nations will judge character first over the color or gender of a candidate.

Really? So the truth is America is just that racist and sexist that we believe that behind every great women or great black man, a white man was needed to keep it stable because "them bitches and niggers can think right together"? you make me sick!

Actually I'm Hispanic, but good try, true there are many racist but I'm one of those modern generation kids that thinks the majority of the nations will judge character first over the color or gender of a candidate.

Yes, YOU aren't racist. That's nice-- but most WHITE Americans just won't elect a ticket that's too diverse. Call it racist. Call it what you want. Stating this very obvious fact (which are just a little too naive to accept) doesn't make one sick: it makes them aware. Furthermore, it doesn't mean that they are themselves advocating or defending that fact, it just means that they are aware of it.

~String

I'm not sure it is obvious, though. Spidergoat made a good point. Another colored person wouldn't seem likely to affect someone already voting for Obama.

Definitely not racist, in any case.

Yes, YOU aren't racist. That's nice-- but most WHITE Americans just won't elect a ticket that's too diverse. Call it racist. Call it what you want. Stating this very obvious fact (which are just a little too naive to accept) doesn't make one sick: it makes them aware. Furthermore, it doesn't mean that they are themselves advocating or defending that fact, it just means that they are aware of it.

~String

It there a way you can prove that most Americans won't elect an Obama/Clinton ticket because of their over-diversity? If you can I'll accept it as truth, if not shut up and let me live in my fantasy world!

It there a way you can prove that most Americans won't elect an Obama/Clinton ticket because of their over-diversity? If you can I'll accept it as truth, if not shut up and let me live in my fantasy world!

You're telling me to "shut up" and let you live in a fantasy world?

I can see that I'm dealing with someone of little maturity. Sorry.

As for "proving" that Clinton and Obama can't win... well, you need to learn to read. Kmguru and I were talking about an Obama/Richardson ticket and not a Clinton/Obama ticket. In fact, I think that a Clinton/Obama ticket stands the best chance of beating McCain. That said, however, I think that an Obama/Richardson ticket is just a little too diverse on racial basis for most white Americans to swallow. No, I can't prove that. I don't need too. This is a forum for discussion and speculating. If you can't participate without acting like a crybaby and blasting people for "making you sick" for stating the obvious and telling me to "shut up" over stating my beliefs, then I'd enjoin you to leave the discussion and post somewhere else.

~String

You're telling me to "shut up" and let you live in a fantasy world?

I can see that I'm dealing with someone of little maturity. Sorry.

As for "proving" that Clinton and Obama can't win... well, you need to learn to read. Kmguru and I were talking about an Obama/Richardson ticket and not an Clinton/Obama ticket. In fact, I think that a Clinton/Obama ticket stands the best chance of beating McCain. That said, however, I think that an Obama/Richardson ticket is just a little too diverse on racial basis for most white Americans to swallow. No, I can't prove that. I don't need too. This is a forum for discussion and speculating. If you can't participate without acting like a crybaby and blasting people for "making you sick" for stating the obvious and telling me to "shut up" over stating my beliefs, then I'd enjoin you to leave the discussion and post somewhere else.

~String

Well I can see I'm dealing with someone that doesn't know sarcasm or know when their leg is being pulled.

Here one for you: would the combined Hispanic/Black vote be stronger then the bigot White vote against?

Here one for you: would the combined Hispanic/Black vote be stronger then the bigot White vote against?

I don't know. None of us knows until election day. That's why all this is called "speculation". My hunch: the +/-100 million (that's a small fraction of the +/- 200 million) white voters will be a bit too squeamish to vote for an Obama/Richardson ticket come November. Do I think this is a good thing, or an ideal thing? No. Hell, I just voted in the recent Democratic primary, so obviously I'm okay with a Democratic win of any kind. I just think that America is populated with enough white people who want to see SOMETHING of "themselves" on the ticket when they vote this fall.

Furthermore, you are acting like it will just be the "bigots" who decide. First you need to know that about HALF of all voters will vote Republican, and most of them will vote along party lines NO MATTER WHO THE NOMINEE IS. Therefore, all it would take is a small enough racial motivation to shift the outcome of the election in a very big way. That's a lot of risk to take, especially the Democrats should , otherwise, be sitting on a solid win this fall. It would be a serious and sophomoric blunder for them to put it past the Republican machinery to not use this "difference" to energize the base and bring out enough skittish voters to guarantee a McCain victory.

~String

PS, Sarcasm is next to impossible to convey without a pitched voice. Typed words can seldom carry the message adequately.

I don't know. None of us knows until election day. That's why all this is called "speculation". My hunch: the +/-100 million (that's a small fraction of the +/- 200 million) white voters will be a bit too squeamish to vote for an Obama/Richardson ticket come November. Do I think this is a good thing, or an ideal thing? No. Hell, I just voted in the recent Democratic primary, so obviously I'm okay with a Democratic win of any kind. I just think that America is populated with enough white people who want to see SOMETHING of "themselves" on the ticket when they vote this fall.

Furthermore, you are acting like it will just be the "bigots" who decide. First you need to know that about HALF of all voters will vote Republican, and most of them will vote along party lines NO MATTER WHO THE NOMINEE IS. Therefore, all it would take is a small enough racial motivation to shift the outcome of the election in a very big way. That's a lot of risk to take, especially the Democrats should , otherwise, be sitting on a solid win this fall. It would be a serious and sophomoric blunder for them to put it past the Republican machinery to not use this "difference" to energize the base and bring out enough skittish voters to guarantee a McCain victory.

~String

PS, Sarcasm is next to impossible to convey without a pitched voice. Typed words can seldom carry the message adequately.

How many of those 100 million are already republican? A small shift in the Mexican vote giving Obama/whater the necessary south west states to win the election might be all that is needed to overcome the racist white vote.

The republicans looking racist by pointing out race might just backfire on them, McCain has stop with a hammer all talk by anyone near him about Obama's middle name or his supposed Muslim or anything else that could make McCain look bigoted, maybe if it was Huckabee it would be different.

Oh you'll know when I'm being sarcastic... OH HOW YOU WILL KNOW!

Actually I'm Hispanic, but good try, true there are many racist but I'm one of those modern generation kids that thinks the majority of the nations will judge character first over the color or gender of a candidate.

Here you are thinking inside the box...comparing you to the masses...Think about the population and the percentage of people in the blue collar range, then you will have a better idea.

Here you are thinking inside the box...comparing you to the masses...Think about the population and the percentage of people in the blue collar range, then you will have a better idea.

Oh I suspect they are quite ignorant, even racist, but I believe that can tell the difference between an Oreo/Coconut and a Gangbanger/Wet-Back.

How many of those 100 million are already republican? A small shift in the Mexican vote giving Obama/whater the necessary south west states to win the election might be all that is needed to overcome the racist white vote.

How many of the 100 million are Republican? Few. How many usually vote Republican? More than half. When you add in the staggering numbers of minorities who vote only Democratic, you get about half the total voting pop of the USA.

There aren't enough minorities in the entire USA right now to overcome a squeamish white voting public. Mexicans and Blacks historically vote in fewer numbers (by percentage) than whites do. Latinos especially. Perhaps an ALL minority would "get out the vote" but just consider the vote getting that it would do for all those rednecks that can't stand the ideal of such a ticket.

The republicans looking racist by pointing out race might just backfire on them

That's pretty dull. First off, the Republicans won't "do" anything. All they will do is utilize the most common form of spreading the word: viral marketing. They won't even have to post a single advert on race (and they won't). They will nonchalantly use Richardson's previous campaign adds that were in Spanish, and "lower" the volume on his voice, have an interpreter translating his words, and then pretend to be attacking his message, and not his speaking in Spanish. Trepidations Americans (of any non Hispanic origin) will pick up the message: "This guy is just TOO foreign". As for Obama, I live in Ohio, which just voted overwhelmingly for Clinton, and the non-stop talk on the street is "...secret Muslim..." and "inexperienced". Republicans need only play up these tremendous weaknesses and that would spell disaster for the Dems.

McCain has stop with a hammer all talk by anyone near him about Obama's middle name or his supposed Muslim or anything else that could make McCain look bigoted, maybe if it was Huckabee it would be different.

McCain won't say one word. Political groups non affiliated with McCain (can you say, "Swiftboat"?) will buy up oodles of air-time. McCain will denounce them as "nonsense" but that's an easy thing to do, and that's what THEY want him to do. It makes him "look good" while the dirty business still gets done (you know... the same as Bush did with the Swifboaters).

~String

Oh I suspect they are quite ignorant, even racist, but I believe that can tell the difference between an Oreo/Coconut and a Gangbanger/Wet-Back.

The psychological marketing sophistication used in the politics is comparable to the advertising in media for even crappy products. If majority could know the difference, the advertising industry would go belly up. And our financial services people, they can sell ice to eskimos...watch a few C-Span house and senate subcommittee testimonies, you will know what I am talking about.

superstring01,

I find your points valid, but I disagree on how powerful they will be, are most Americans racist enough to get out and vote over there normal stance of just sitting at home and watching TV? Obama's peter petter like attraction of the young shows that he could get out the vote of people who just want to vote for him because he black, can he also get out the vote of the normally apathic racist, if he did I don't think he would have gotten this far. Will rumors of him being a Muslim out scream his constant admission of christen faith or his pearcher. I was like you I didn't think obama had a chance, then he started winning.

kmguru,
As soon as Obama and Richardson opened their mouth and not speak in the stereotypical slang that blue color Americans expect, their fears of racisms diminish.

Time will tell...:D

Really, are the Clintons that bad... or is she just cursed with being a white devil? 'Cause that seems to be a horrible sin in the Democratic party these days.

~String

I agree with everything you've said thus far. This is totally shocking on a political level. Here's what I think that did it. When Bill Clinton invited himself to watch the Superbowl with Richardson, and made into a spectacle. On all the tapes I see, Richardson seems really uncomfortable sitting next to Bill. Can you imagine that phone conversation, when Richardson informed Hillary he was going with Barack? Yikes:)

You guys have got to see this David Chapelle on having a Mexican VP! Hilarious!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QullehqLQ78

All I can say is that I'm totally stunned. I was certain that this guy was the leading VP candidate for Clinton upon her possible nomination for president by the Democratic party
It is a surprise, but I really think that with the nomination of McCain on the Republican side, the Left is feeling its oats. They figure, what the hell. Why settle for Clinton, a center Left candidate, when they can have the most liberal man in the Senate! And, if they over-reach, they've got McCain waiting in the wings. McCain's not a Leftist, but he's someone they can definitely live with. So why not go for broke?

It is a surprise, but I really think that with the nomination of McCain on the Republican side, the Left is feeling its oats. They figure, what the hell. Why settle for Clinton, a center Left candidate, when they can have the most liberal man in the Senate! And, if they over-reach, they've got McCain waiting in the wings. McCain's not a Leftist, but he's someone they can definitely live with. So why not go for broke?

Exactly what makes Obama more "Liberal" then Clinton, If they wanted liberal they would have got Gore to run again.

Exactly what makes Obama more "Liberal" then Clinton Nothing.

The label is handy precisely because it means nothing in particular but sounds vaguely pejorative somehow - it can be adjusted to fit whichever candidate the Dems run for Pres. In 2004, John Kerry was "the most liberal Senator". Google for the headlines if you don't believe me. Before him, Al Gore took the honors for his Senate record before becoming VP.

In off-election years, Russ Feingold gets to keep the trophy in his closet.

Nothing.

The label is handy precisely because it means nothing in particular but sounds vaguely pejorative somehow - it can be adjusted to fit whichever candidate the Dems run for Pres. In 2004, John Kerry was "the most liberal Senator". Google for the headlines if you don't believe me. Before him, Al Gore took the honors for his Senate record before becoming VP.

In off-election years, Russ Feingold gets to keep the trophy in his closet.

I agree with you on that, but I would like to hear Anthony's take on it.

Exactly what makes Obama more "Liberal" then Clinton,
Nothing.

Here's a ranking of the various Senators with a high score indicating you're more liberal:
Coming in at number 1 is:
Obama, Barack, D-Ill. with a score of 95.5
and number 17 is
Clinton, Hillary Rodham, D-N.Y. with a score of 82.8
This is from: http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib.htm
Here's a description of who they are from their homepage:
National Journal Group Inc. is a leading publisher of magazines, newsletters, books and directories for people who have a professional interest in politics, policy and government. Based in Washington, D.C., National Journal Group Inc. is committed to providing publications and services that are nonpartisan, reliable and of the highest quality.

National Journal Group Inc. is a leading publisher of magazines, newsletters, books and directories for people who have a professional interest in politics, policy and government. Based in Washington, D.C., National Journal Group Inc. is committed to providing publications and services that are nonpartisan, reliable and of the highest quality. I defy the Onion to better that, as a caption for the headline ranking of John Kerry as "the most liberal" Senator in 2004.

It is a surprise, but I really think that with the nomination of McCain on the Republican side, the Left is feeling its oats. They figure, what the hell. Why settle for Clinton, a center Left candidate, when they can have the most liberal man in the Senate! And, if they over-reach, they've got McCain waiting in the wings. McCain's not a Leftist, but he's someone they can definitely live with. So why not go for broke?

mccain ruined any chances aT THAT BY BEING BUSHES HEIR

mccain ruined any chances aT THAT BY BEING BUSHES HEIR

Any Republican (no matter how independent from the party line), right now, is considered to be a "Bush heir", so that really means nothing. McCain is soft on all the issues that are core to the Republicans-- a fact which makes him favorable to the centrists and tollerable to the leftists. This, also, could spell trouble come election day. Americans may be tired of Right-wingers, but they aren't all atwitter over the notion of a left wing president with (what they believe) is a sketcy background.

The Republican machinery won't let Americans rest for a moment without making sure they know that Obama has Muslims roots and that his current religios mentor is an America hating wacknut.

~String

I think it was a smart move on Richardsons part. He saw the damage to the party being inflicted by Hilllary in her attempt to win the nomination. He saw the Limbaugh's and the "Republicans for Hillary" movement during the primary only, continue to inflict damage on the party, thus he made this difficult move. Frankly, I was quite shocked with his announcement as well.
This also sets him up as the senior statesman of the party....good move on Richardson's part.

Huh? No. He spent over a decade in Congress and 8 years under the gentle tutelage of Slick Willie (Ambassador to the UN and Energy Sec). So, sure, Ice... he's not a beltway Democrat.

If he's not, then no one is. Ah, you may have a point there - but being Governor of a state right next to Texas is bound to give him a little perspective. As far as "benefitting" from NAFTA - not too likely, overall. The damage on the Mexican side easily trumps any net (and largely deceptive) benefits on the US side.
As for Obama, I live in Ohio, which just voted overwhelmingly for Clinton, and the non-stop talk on the street is "...secret Muslim..." and "inexperienced". Republicans need only play up these tremendous weaknesses and that would spell disaster for the Dems. Republicans cannot "play up" such unrealities on their own - they need, and apparently can count on, complicity in the media.

That's a weakness in the country, more than Obama. That kind of factor becoming decisive would prevent specifically the better candidate from winning most races. The only way to combat it by one's choice of candidate would be to run a more corrupt, less honest, less job-capable candidate.

If that factor has become overwhelmingly decisive, the presumption that the Dems "should" win this - or any national - election is unfounded. If you know the refs are bought, how do you bet ?

Honestly, is there any signifficance to it? I mean can Richardson influence a shitload of voters? If not, who cares really?

Superdelegate voters, yes.

Here's a ranking of the various Senators with a high score indicating you're more liberal:
Coming in at number 1 is:
Obama, Barack, D-Ill. with a score of 95.5
and number 17 is
Clinton, Hillary Rodham, D-N.Y. with a score of 82.8
This is from: http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib.htm
Here's a description of who they are from their homepage:

Yeah but what exactly is used to determine those scores?, if it things like pro-choice, Universal Health Care, etc, then I don't have a problem with a high liberal score.

The Republican machinery won't let Americans rest for a moment without making sure they know that Obama has Muslims roots and that his current religios mentor is an America hating wacknut.

~String

Funny how perspective colors judgment, because I would have given the Clinton's more credit for the Wright flap than I would have the Republican machine.

...I would have given the Clinton's more credit for the Wright flap than I would have the Republican machine.

A very good point.

~String

Superdelegate voters, yes.

Exactly, and Richardson would be a hot commodity in the general election, as far as swinging the hispanic voters towards Barack.

I hope so. :O

Superdelegate voters, yes.

OK, that is exactly 1 vote out of 800? Big fucking deal.... OH you mean he can influence superdelegates? Evidence please....

I don't know if I can, but it has been suggested in the news, haven't you seen it?Since his endorsement was particularly news worthy, and given it's timing, and the argument he has made (that the ongoing primary is harmful for Democrats, which many superdelegates probably agree with), I find it plausible.

Suggested in the news? It was also suggested in the news that this election will be decided by the voters, but of course we know better. :)

The reason why they talk about this so much:

1. It is a long way until November and they have to talk about something.
2. Richardson was a government member under Clinton (or what), so this switch is kind of not very loyal.

Otherwise Richardson has no power among the Dems that I know of...

Funny how perspective colors judgment, because I would have given the Clinton's more credit for the Wright flap than I would have the Republican machine.I think you're entirely correct in that assumption. There's no need for the Republicans to do anything but sit back and watch the democrats tear each other apart at this point. Except, that is, cross over and vote in the primaries to keep the Democratic nomination process going as long as possible so these two are at each other's s throats.