Richardson’s Dilemma

Bill Richardson is in the hot seat:

Richardson’s torn. He served in the Clinton White House, first as ambassador to the United Nations, then as Clinton’s Secretary of Energy. “I have a history with the Clintons,” Richardson said. “And I’ve always liked her. She always seems very genuine.” But Richardson considers Kennedy, who’s long been respected by Hispanics, as “a mentor.” In 1982, when Richardson ran for Congress for the second time — he lost two years before — Kennedy flew to Santa Fe and campaigned for him. “That might have been the reason I was elected,” Richardson said. And he said he likes Obama, telling a story about how Obama saved him during one of last year’s Democratic debates:

“I had just been asked a question — I don’t remember which one — and Obama was sitting right next to me. Then the moderator went across the room, I think to Chris Dodd, so I thought I was home free for a while. I wasn’t going to listen to the next question. I was about to say something to Obama when the moderator turned to me and said, ‘So, Gov. Richardson, what do you think of that?’ But I wasn’t paying any attention! I was about to say, ‘Could you repeat the question? I wasn’t listening.’ But I wasn’t about to say I wasn’t listening. I looked at Obama. I was just horrified. And Obama whispered, ‘Katrina. Katrina.’ The question was on Katrina! So I said, ‘On Katrina, my policy . . .’ Obama could have just thrown me under the bus. So I said, ‘Obama, that was good of you to do that.'”

I think it says something that after all those years of working for and with the Clintons, he can not automatically endorse her. Maybe my own experiences are different, but I would be able to unflinchingly endorse my boss for a job (or, just as easily unflinchingly decline to endorse them)- there would be no wavering. I would know where I stand. That Richardson can not make up his mind says something to me, and it is not favorable to Hillary.






125 replies
  1. 1
    Dennis - SGMM says:

    Cue the accusations of “Obama fanboy” in three…two…

  2. 2
    merciless says:

    The rumor I heard was that Hillary has decided on Richard Holbrooke for Secretary of State, which is the position Richardson wanted. So, if this is true (again, I have no evidence) then Richardson is looking to see who offers him the better package.

    Bill’s my governor, and I don’t think his endorsement or lack thereof has anything to do with deep-seated moral questions.

    BTW, his Lt. Gov. Diane Denish has announced that she will be Clinton’s state chair.

  3. 3
    phein says:

    Hillary wasn’t Richardson’s boss. Bill was.

    Hillary is being judged, in some respects, as if she should carry the same weight as the Big Dog, and then faulted when she doesn’t.

  4. 4
    Tlaloc says:

    “I think it says something that after all those years of working for and with the Clintons, he can not automatically endorse her. Maybe my own experiences are different, but I would be able to unflinchingly endorse my boss for a job (or, just as easily unflinchingly decline to endorse them)- there would be no wavering. I would know where I stand. That Richardson can not make up his mind says something to me, and it is not favorable to Hillary.”

    I’m not sure that’s fair.

    Let’s try this scenario- you have to endorse one of the following which essentially means denigrating the other two
    1) a former boss who was good to work for
    2) a former neighbor who was a good guy
    3) the guy or girl who tutored you through your hardest college exams

    That would seem to be the position for Richardson- he likes all of them, by endorsing any he’s hurting people he genuinely likes.

  5. 5
    Dennis - SGMM says:

    And Obama whispered, ‘Katrina. Katrina.’ The question was on Katrina! So I said, ‘On Katrina, my policy …

    I can’t help thinking that, had Richardson looked imploringly at Clinton she would have whispered “Gay marriage.”

  6. 6
    TheFountainHead says:

    I’m not sure I would care much either way. Now, if Joe Biden were to endorse a candidate, that would carry some weight with me. Biden’s experience in foreign policy and his pragmatic style would make an endorsement from him a real feather for someone’s cap. Richardson, on the other hand, is sort of a mixed bag, good for you if you get him, but bot that big a deal if you don’t, in my opinion. To be perfectly honest, the group of Gitmo detainee lawyers that endorsed Obama today means more to me than even Kennedy’s endorsement did.

  7. 7
    F. Frederson says:

    I really think this says more about Richardson – he’s angling for a cabinet post first and foremost, and hedging his bets by not declaring for somebody.

  8. 8
    global yokel says:

    Look at the endorsements coming out of the Senate- most all of the heavyweights have lined up with Obama. Those guys work with their fellow Senators on legislative business every day, and they are expressing a preference for Obama. That says a lot to me….

  9. 9
    EMPY says:

    His boss was Bill, not Hillary. Maybe he is torn because he has loyalty to Bill and not Hillary.

  10. 10
    Willard Mitt Romney says:

    So where’s the dilemma? Endorse both of them. I’ve worked my way out of many a jam using this vastly underrated technique. So has my Girl Hillary.

  11. 11
    Doofus says:

    I was about to say something to Obama when the moderator turned to me and said, ‘So, Gov. Richardson, what do you think of that?’ But I wasn’t paying any attention! I was about to say, ‘Could you repeat the question? I wasn’t listening.’ But I wasn’t about to say I wasn’t listening. I looked at Obama. I was just horrified. And Obama whispered, ‘Katrina. Katrina.’ The question was on Katrina! So I said, ‘On Katrina, my policy . . .’ Obama could have just thrown me under the bus. So I said, ‘Obama, that was good of you to do that.’”

    Is it just me, or does Richardson tell stories like a high school sophomore?

  12. 12
    srv says:

    there would be no wavering

    You always underestimate the power of TranscenderMan.

  13. 13
    MattF says:

    As an ex-Republican, you may underestimate the weight that Kennedy’s endorsement carries for a life-long liberal. Kennedy has really carried the banner through thick and thin– you don’t have to be ambivalent about Hillary to take what he thinks seriously.

  14. 14
    Jay B. says:

    I don’t know John. First, she wasn’t his boss, she was the boss’ wife. Second, from a political vantage point, he’d be crazy to endorse anyone without feeling out what can be done for his advantage (I don’t consider self-interest a bad thing necessarily, so this isn’t a criticism.) — Richardson, while not polling particularly well, might be able to swing a few percentage points and a few more Latino voters, this is nothing to toss lightly.

    Also, if he wants to be SoS, he has to go to Obama, if he’s looking at VP, he’d be better off with Clinton, so he has to go with the best offer — and all that.

    Hell, I’m even willing to consider that he’s truly conflicted. He’s a voter now, and like many of us, our choice hasn’t been finalized. I’ve gone Obama, Dodd, Edwards, Obama and Edwards since this thing started. And I even felt for Hillary for enduring the media before the New Hampshire vote. I’ll vote for her pretty easily if she’s the nominee.

  15. 15
    MNPundit says:

    Biden’s experience in foreign policy and his pragmatic style would make an endorsement from him a real feather for someone’s cap

    Wow, I heard Biden’s foreign policy plan for Iraq from his own lips and it was slightly less delusional than Bush’s “plan” of the week–but that’s about all I could say to recommend it.

  16. 16
    Scotty says:

    Does anyone know if Richardson, Biden, or Dodd count as people who hold super-delegate power?

  17. 17
    The Other Steve says:

    Whoa, now I have to decide between Holbrooke and Richardson. I like both. Although I think Richardson is a good Ambassador, the role of Secretary of State requires a bit of cunning to achieve aims, and I have to give Holbrooke the nod on that one.

    The last thing I want is another Condi Rice. God, she is so easily manipulated.

  18. 18

    Big Bill is my governor as well. He’s angling for a job, and I think all the “soul searching” has more to do with his sole ambition of returning to DC. He can’t run for Governor again, by taking a Washington job, he gives Lt Gov Denish a couple of years as Governor, so she can then run (she already thrown her hat in the ring) as an incumbent, increasing her chances for victory.

    The only “big” endorsement left is Al Gore, and I suspect Gore will go for Obama no later than Friday. Fair, or not, Gore still blames Bill Clinton’s indiscretions for his loss (not that running a piss poor campaign against a half-bright frat boy has anything to do with it) in 2000.

  19. 19

    Richardson is a super delegate.

  20. 20
    The Other Steve says:

    Does anyone know if Richardson, Biden, or Dodd count as people who hold super-delegate power?

    Super-delegates are state party committee members, and elected officials at state and federal level.

    So yes, since they are all elected officials they would be super delegates.

  21. 21
    Punchy says:

    Question to y’all:

    Who does Obama pick as a VP mate if he wins?

    I say Chuck Hagel or Kathy Sebelius. One give him Pub Cred, the other Chick Mojo.

  22. 22
    The Other Steve says:

    Also, if he wants to be SoS, he has to go to Obama, if he’s looking at VP, he’d be better off with Clinton, so he has to go with the best offer—and all that.

    I’m fairly convinced that if Hillary gets the nomination, Wes Clark will be the VP.

    He brings two things to the table:
    – National Security creds
    – He can be diplomatic, but he’s also an attack dog

    The person filling the VP slot needs to be an attack dog. This is why Gore did so well, and why Edwards was a bad choice in 2004. Richardson isn’t an attack dog, and while he brings a regional component to the table… I think what Clinton is really looking for is a national security bolster.

    But I could be wrong.

  23. 23
    The Other Steve says:

    Who does Obama pick as a VP mate if he wins?

    I say Chuck Hagel or Kathy Sebelius. One give him Pub Cred, the other Chick Mojo.

    Colin Powell… National security cred, and it’d piss off the Republicans more than you can imagine. :-)

  24. 24
    Jason C. says:

    What an insane anecdote! Bill Richardson is a madman.

  25. 25
    Scotty says:

    So yes, since they are all elected officials they would be super delegates.

    Are some of the super delegates then holding out on who they endorse in order to better position themselves in the new Obama or Clinton administration?

  26. 26
    myiq2xu says:

    Jeebus John, just come out of the closet already.

  27. 27
    Zifnab says:

    Who does Obama pick as a VP mate if he wins?

    I say Chuck Hagel or Kathy Sebelius. One give him Pub Cred, the other Chick Mojo.

    I would have loved Obama / Edwards, but I doubt it. Taking a woman as his VP would be a smart move too. I can’t see him picking Hagel, simply because Hagel and Obama only share turf on the Iraq War. He might as well pick Lieberman again, because of Lieberman’s civil rights record.

    Katherine Sebelius’s Dem rebuttle to the SOTU put me to sleep, however. Can we get an Obama/Webb ticket, maybe? I’m trying to think of another female Dem besides Pelosi, Clinton, and Feinstein.

    Haha! He could go Obama/Pelosi! I would laugh my ass off at that ticket, then vote for it.

  28. 28

    It certainly would be nice if John would just say he plans to vote for Obama in the primary. Oh wait — he did.

  29. 29
    John S. says:

    I would have loved Obama / Edwards, but I doubt it.

    Why doubt it?

    If Obama and Clinton are close on delegates, what do you think Edwards will do with his delegates? If he throws their support behind Obama (as I suspect he would do), then he will become the presumptive running mate.

  30. 30
    Kevin K. says:

    I can’t help thinking that, had Richardson looked imploringly at Clinton she would have whispered “Gay marriage.”

    Dennis wins comment of the day for that one. I need new monitor, etc.

    Regarding a VP choice for Obama, I hope you folks are joking about Hagel and Powell. The “Obama is Reagan Lite” crew would go absolutely ballistic if he picked either of those guys. I’m currently unsure who his VP should be. I think he should pick Edwards for either AG or Sec Labor, though. I like Richardson, but he just strikes me as being a little dopey for SoS. Maybe Biden? I’d like Wes Clark for Sec Def (I think he’s been civ long enough now), but don’t think that’ll happen since he hooked up with Hillary. I used to like Holbrooke, but he’s a bit too much of a hawk to be SoS, so that’s another reason to root against Hillary.

  31. 31
  32. 32
    wingnuts to iraq says:

    Biden’s idea is the only one that will work, whoever said Biden is crazy. We have to split Iraq in to 3 countries.

    It’s the only way.

    No more Iraq… kurdistan, sunnistan, and shiastan.

    The country of “Iraq” is nothing but a colonial aberration.

  33. 33
    myiq2xu says:

    That Richardson is “torn” could mean a couple things that are not negative about Hillary:

    1) Richardson is torn because he thinks highly of both Obama and Hillary.

    2) Richardson is a sleaze bag and is just trying to negotiate the best offer from the two frontrunners before making an endorsement.

    As for endorsements, they don’t mean shit. Do you decide what brand of underwear to buy because of Michael Jordon?

  34. 34
    Krista says:

    Well, if he’s concerned about some nutjob making an attempt on him, he could pick Hillary as his veep. The Republicans would assemble en masse to act as Obama’s personal shield.

  35. 35
    Punchy says:

    Colin Powell… National security cred, and it’d piss off the Republicans more than you can imagine.

    Talk about knowing exactly where Cheney’s victims are buried. Give this guy a Cabinet position or VP slot, and chances are he could help unpack more Bush criminality this side of ConRizzle.

  36. 36
    Punchy says:

    Well, if he’s concerned about some nutjob making an attempt on him, he could pick Hillary as his veep. The Republicans would assemble en masse to act as Obama’s personal shield.

    Or the nutjob brings 2 bullets.

  37. 37
    myiq2xu says:

    From kos:

    The pre-election poll average in New Hampshire was:

    Obama 36.7
    Clinton 30.4
    Edwards 18.4

    The final results were:

    Clinton 39
    Obama 37
    Edwards 17

    So the polls nailed Obama and Edwards, while Clinton picked up the undecided vote. But overall, it was about a 10-point difference between the polls and the actual results.

    Of course, this launched the Mother of All Whines, with morons across the internet charging fraud without knowing what the hell they were talking about. But it was Clinton! And she won! And of course, that meant that her victory couldn’t have been legitimate.

    So let’s go to South Carolina.

    The pre-election poll average in South Carolina was:

    Obama 43.1
    Clinton 28.5
    Edwards 17

    The final results were:

    Obama 55
    Clinton 27
    Edwards 18

    So again, the polls pretty much nailed the second and third spots, but … wait … what’s this? Obama got 12 points more than the polls indicated? Overall, the poll average was 14 points off from the final results, worse than in New Hampshire. So this could only mean ONE THING — FRAUD!!!!!!!!

    Did I mention that South Carolina uses ES&S touch screen machines with no paper trail?

    But funny how there’s nothing but silence out there. Is there any doubt that if the results were reversed, and if Hillary had outperformed the polls by 12 points, that people would once again be crying about fraud, demanding recounts in the Palmetto State, and concocting all manners of fantastical theories to rationalize their skepticism? Apparently, since Clinton didn’t win South Carolina, the voting machines worked perfectly.

    Perhaps the cries of fraud in New Hampshire had little to do with actual concerns about electoral integrity, and everything to do with irrational Clinton hatred and the pathological need to see dark conspiracies even were none exist?. (Apparently the Clinton cabal is capable of the darkest, most sinister conspiracies, but the Obama cabal is not.)(emphasis added)

    The poll results also sho that rather than driving Hillary’s numbers down, she stayed consistent (as did Edwards) while the undecideds broke for Obama.

  38. 38
    Scotty says:

    The country of “Iraq” is nothing but a colonial aberration.

    I’m fairly sure that a large percentage of people are completely unaware of that. Also, they have no idea what a Kurd, or a Shiite, or a Sunni is. And yet their uninformed opinions matter. It boggles the mind.

  39. 39
    myiq2xu says:

    Hold the stampede! Maxine Waters endorses Hillary.

    Waters is more influential in Southern California than Teddy and Caroline.

  40. 40
    cleek says:

    Perhaps the cries of fraud in New Hampshire had little to do with actual concerns about electoral integrity, and everything to do with irrational Clinton hatred

    perhaps kos should pursue a career in mass-mind-reading

  41. 41
    Jay B. says:

    2) Richardson is a sleaze bag and is just trying to negotiate the best offer from the two frontrunners before making an endorsement.

    I don’t understand what is sleazy about this — it’s politics. It also happens to be Richardson’s job. If you had two offers for a job, wouldn’t you see which one was going to give you more? And wouldn’t you conceivably play one potential employer off another to get yourself the best deal possible?

  42. 42

    I’m fairly sure that a large percentage of people are Bush was completely unaware of that. Also, they have he has no idea what a Kurd, or a Shiite, or a Sunni is. And yet their his uninformed opinion matter. Led us to war. It boggles the mind.

  43. 43
    F. Frederson says:

    Give [Powell] a Cabinet position or VP slot, and chances are he could help unpack more Bush criminality this side of ConRizzle.

    Um, no. Powell is a Bush loyalist first, Republican second, and American third. He has had plenty of opportunity to speak out about anything he knows already, and has chosen to remain silent. That he is considered some kind of honest player is media artifact, just like McCain’s “straight-shooter” image.

  44. 44
    Jay B. says:

    Waters is more influential in Southern California than Teddy and Caroline.

    Probably, at least in the area Waters represents. But the Kennedys’ endorsements aren’t just aimed at CA (although considering Ted’s stature and the fact a Kennedy is a First Lady of CA, they’re aren’t nothing either), they are meant to claim the RFK mantle for Obama. They play a lot farther and a lot louder than Maxine’s.

  45. 45
    Scotty says:

    I’m fairly sure that a large percentage of people are Bush was completely unaware of that. Also, they have he has no idea what a Kurd, or a Shiite, or a Sunni is. And yet their his uninformed opinion matter. Led us to war. It boggles the mind.

    I was going to go from the anonymous standpoint. But, your revisions are better.

  46. 46
    Zifnab says:

    Biden’s idea is the only one that will work, whoever said Biden is crazy. We have to split Iraq in to 3 countries.

    Or! Or! Or! We could pull out of Iraq and let the Iraqis settle it. Offer them food aid and advisors as well as reconstruction money to spend as they choose with oversight to match. And let the Iraqi Parliment figure out how it wants to divy up power.

    Yeah, I know. Letting Iraq decide the fate of Iraq. Fucknuts insane. But perhaps we should give it a shoot. What’s the worst that could happen?

  47. 47
    Jen says:

    Personally, I don’t think endorsements matter a whole lot w/r/t how people vote, except probably Oprah’s. I find them interesting when you can see momentum to them, though, or when they’re somewhat surprising. I think Barack has gotten some of both.

    Someone posted this one before, which I thought was interesting.

  48. 48
    myiq2xu says:

    I don’t understand what is sleazy about this—it’s politics. It also happens to be Richardson’s job. If you had two offers for a job, wouldn’t you see which one was going to give you more? And wouldn’t you conceivably play one potential employer off another to get yourself the best deal possible?

    It would be sleazy because he’d be selling his endorsement, not his services. Only the winner can give him a job. You must not be a member of the Obama Nation cuz they think Big O has transcended politics.

  49. 49
    myiq2xu says:

    a Kennedy is a First Lady of CA

    Maria is a Shriver and a Republican, which makes her trailer trash at the Kennedy compound.

    And the First Lady of California is Britney.

    This week anyway.

  50. 50

    Do you decide what brand of underwear to buy because of Michael Jordon?

    Please. EVERYONE knows Cuba Gooding is the guy to consult on these matters.

    Hold the stampede! Maxine Waters endorses Hillary.

    Waters is more influential in Southern California than Teddy and Caroline.

    You mean THIS Maxine? She isn’t on CREW’s top 20 list anymore because the Republicans from Southern California are more corrupt. Sweet. Of course three out of five Congress critters from New Mexico are also on the list (all Republicans).

  51. 51
    myiq2xu says:

    You mean THIS Maxine?

    At least she never killed anyone while driving drunk.

  52. 52
    Jen says:

    Wow, I believe the only other Democrat on that list had a bunch of cash hanging out with his fish sticks. Good catch, GP.

  53. 53
    Jay B. says:

    It would be sleazy because he’d be selling his endorsement, not his services.

    I don’t see the fundamental difference here. Because, as you say, Only the winner can give him a job.

    So if he bets wrong, and endorses the loser, he probably won’t get it. It’s still in principle, the same. He won’t be able to ply his services (which I think are pretty impressive) unless he’s able to procure some access via his endorsement. Or, rather, that’s how it could work. I just don’t think this is sleazy. If endorsements are meaningless, as you said, then Richardson’s really conflicted. If his has some meaning, then it’s smart of him to wait until just the right time, and the right deal. It’s literally no difference between a union endorsing someone and a player like Richardson. I don’t begrudge a union. Why begrudge Richardson?

    And Shriver is still a Democrat, and a Kennedy (ask a Shriver if they’re part of the clan, and they’ll nod), even if they live in a mixed marriage. It’s possible.

  54. 54
    Wilfred says:

    At least she never killed anyone while driving drunk.

    Oh, for fuck’s sake – how much more RedState can you get than that?

  55. 55
    myiq2xu says:

    I don’t see the fundamental difference here. Because, as you say, Only the winner can give him a job.

    The difference is he’s selling his endorsement, which is supposed to be his recommendation for which candidate would make the best President.

    He should be saying “vote for X, because they’re the best.” Instead, he would be saying “vote for X, because they offered me the best job.”

  56. 56
    Charity says:

    If that Obama story is true, that’s quite something. He really could have left Richardson hanging and looking like a fool.

    I like Gov. Richardson as a person, but his presentation during his campaign makes it hard to believe he’s been as successful in his life as he has been.

  57. 57
    myiq2xu says:

    Oh, for fuck’s sake – how much more RedState can you get than that?

    Oh my, I forgot, us liberals are supposed to overlook that little incident cuz he’s a Kennedy.

  58. 58

    Well other libs are throwing Kennedy under the bus too. Smart Guy isn’t the only one. Granted, Pappas seems to find sexism in absolutely anything Obama does, but we all now iq won’t stand for unfounded accusations of bigotry right? Right?

  59. 59
    Tim (the other one) says:

    “Waters is more influential in Southern California than Teddy and Caroline.”

    Disagree. I’m in So. Cal. and though I agree w/ her positions on certain issues, Maxines’ mostly a strident pain in the ass.

  60. 60
    myiq2xu says:

    Granted, Pappas seems to find sexism in absolutely anything Obama does, but we all now iq won’t stand for unfounded accusations of bigotry right? Right?

    WTF?

    I prefer bigamy

  61. 61
    gypsy howell says:

    Colin Powell… National security cred, and it’d piss off the Republicans more than you can imagine.

    If there is any justice in this world, Colin Powell will be too busy defending himself in The Hague to be anyone’s VP.

    As for ‘knowing where the bodies are buried’ — you mean, like how he knew where the bodies were buried at My Lai, and how he did everything he could to keep it that way? THAT Colin Powell?

  62. 62
    Wilfred says:

    Oh my, I forgot, us liberals are supposed to overlook that little incident cuz he’s a Kennedy.

    You get more stupid and tedious by the hour. I don’t know what ‘us liberals’ should do or not do but I know that in the 40 years since that night Teddy kennedy has been an absolute stalwart in defense of the poor, human rights and peaceful resolution of crisis.

    Kennedy has done more than make up for what happened, IMO, unlike the tee-totaling hypocrites who have cynically voted in favor of the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people and who need 4,000 years to make up for those deaths.

  63. 63
    gypsy howell says:

    Kennedy has done more than make up for what happened, IMO, unlike the tee-totaling hypocrites who have cynically voted in favor of the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people and who need 4,000 years to make up for those deaths.

    Not to mention our own dear First Lady, who mowed down her boyfriend at a stop sign.

    (And she even mowed down the wrong damn boyfriend. How different the world could have been, eh?)

  64. 64
    myiq2xu says:

    Chuck Hagel . . . Kathy Sebelius . . . Colin Powell

    What’s up with Obama Nation wanting Big O to fill out his administration with Goopers and/or far-right Dems?

    He’s supposed to be a librul! Do they know something we don’t? Is he a wolf in sheep’s clothing?

  65. 65
    Jay B. says:

    The difference is he’s selling his endorsement, which is supposed to be his recommendation for which candidate would make the best President.

    Is this your first campaign or do you feign outrage often? Christ, he could literally think they’re both super candidates and that ‘endorsing’ one over another would be unfair. I don’t know. But its entirely possible that he thinks both candidates (and Edwards) would make excellent candidates and would like to get something for his endorsement anyway.

    Jesus Christ, even St. Howard Dean was installed at the head of the DNC to drop out of the race (with the help of the netroots) and endorse Kerry. It simply happens all of the time.

    Oh my, I forgot, us liberals are supposed to overlook that little incident cuz he’s a Kennedy.

    No, but as a mantra it has all of the hallmarks of reactionary bullshit (oh, he came out against apartheid? Well, I bet Mary Jo Kapeckne doesn’t care!). Now would you say that, in the aftermath, Kennedy has a voting record that has been a benefit to humanity or a hindrance? At long last, you have to figure it out. Is he a flawed man who has done great things, or do you think all of his greatness utterly compromised by his one unforgivable action?

    Otherwise, chanting “Chappaquidick” as a retort to the guy’s endorsement really is RedState lame.

  66. 66
    myiq2xu says:

    You get more stupid and tedious by the hour. I don’t know what ‘us liberals’ should do or not do but I know that in the 40 years since that night Teddy kennedy has been an absolute stalwart in defense of the poor, human rights and peaceful resolution of crisis.

    Kennedy has done more than make up for what happened, IMO, unlike the tee-totaling hypocrites who have cynically voted in favor of the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people and who need 4,000 years to make up for those deaths.

    If he’s soooooo fucking great, why ain’t he the nominee?

    Why isn’t Obama endorsing him?

  67. 67

    He’s not the nominee because certain idiots can’t stop bringing up a certain car accident.

  68. 68
    TheFountainHead says:

    As for endorsements, they don’t mean shit. Do you decide what brand of underwear to buy because of Michael Jordon?

    Well, no, I go for the ones with cute animals on them generally, but I DO decide SOME things in part based on others’ experience and recommendation:

    – Hotels to stay at.
    – Restaurants to eat at.
    – Who to hire.
    – Where to do my dry cleaning.
    – What lawyer’s advice to seek.
    – What doctor or specialist to see.
    – Which DMV has the shortest lines.

    You are essentially insinuating that we are not, by definition, a social species.

    Endorsements are certainly not everything, but when all but a small percentile of the voting public will ever actually MEET any of these candidates, the opinion of those who work closely with them does and should matter.

  69. 69
    myiq2xu says:

    Is this your first campaign or do you feign outrage often? Christ, he could literally think they’re both super candidates and that ‘endorsing’ one over another would be unfair.

    Did you bother to read my original post on the subject?

  70. 70
    myiq2xu says:

    He’s not the nominee because certain idiots can’t stop bringing up a certain car accident.

    Awwwwww. I guess that means it does matter to some people.

  71. 71

    Did you bother to read my original post on the subject?

    This one?

    Jeebus John, just come out of the closet already.

    Ask yourself this. Did Chappaquiddick matter last Friday?

  72. 72
    myiq2xu says:

    You are essentially insinuating that we are not, by definition, a social species.

    WTF?

    Endorsements are certainly not everything, but when all but a small percentile of the voting public will ever actually MEET any of these candidates, the opinion of those who work closely with them does and should matter.

    Okay, I’ll buy that. But when that endorsement is bought and paid for, does it still matter?

  73. 73

    Awwwwww. I guess that means it does matter to some people.

    Republicans and you.

  74. 74
    TheFountainHead says:

    Awwwwww. I guess that means it does matter to some people.

    You must get lonely, not too many trolls of your kind out here today.

  75. 75
    myiq2xu says:

    myiq2xu Says:

    That Richardson is “torn” could mean a couple things that are not negative about Hillary:

    1) Richardson is torn because he thinks highly of both Obama and Hillary.

    2) Richardson is a sleaze bag and is just trying to negotiate the best offer from the two frontrunners before making an endorsement.

    As for endorsements, they don’t mean shit. Do you decide what brand of underwear to buy because of Michael Jordon?

    January 29th, 2008 at 1:41 pm

    This one.

  76. 76
    Zifnab says:

    Did Chappaquiddick matter last Friday?

    Yes, if your name is Michelle Malkin.

  77. 77
    myiq2xu says:

    Republicans and you.

    I’m the only liberal that cares about it?

    How come Kennedy couldn’t win the nomination then?

  78. 78
    myiq2xu says:

    You must get lonely, not too many trolls of your kind out here today.

    That’s funny, I thought YOU were the trolls

  79. 79
    gypsy howell says:

    I’m the only liberal that cares about it?

    Seemingly.

  80. 80
    Tim (the other one) says:

    I’m a liberal. Chappaquiddick was bad. Ted did the wrong thing. Next ?

  81. 81
    TheFountainHead says:

    That’s funny, I thought YOU were the trolls

    That’s okay, myiq, ever since I was a little boy I’ve always had the sneaking suspicion that ants were the truly dominant species on earth. It’s kind of the same feeling.

  82. 82
    ThymeZone says:

    why ain’t he the nominee?

    Because he is 76 years old and carries a lot of baggage, you horse’s ass.

    He also is really poor on the national stage. He doesn’t have his brothers’ charisma on the big screen.

    And he’s a drunk. Reformed, possibly, but nevertheless, a drunk.

    Never was a viable candidate at that level under any circumstances.

  83. 83
    myiq2xu says:

    John started this thread by opining that Richardson being “torn” was not good for Hillary.

    I responded that there were at least two reasons why he could be “torn” that were not negative for Hillary, one being he held both candidates in high esteem, the other being that he was a sleazebag who was selling his endorsement to the highest bidder.

    People ignored the first option and jumped on me for the second. I’m not saying that Richardson is doing that, I’m just saying if he was it would be sleazy. Sue me.

    Then I brought up Maxine Waters endorsing Hillary, to which GP cast the first mud. I merely responded with some mud on Teddy, but the reaction of the Obama Nation was revealing.

    How dare I cast aspersions on St. Teddy! I must be a troll from Red State!

  84. 84
    myiq2xu says:

    Because he is 76 years old and carries a lot of baggage, you horse’s ass.

    And among that baggage?

  85. 85
    TheFountainHead says:

    Then I brought up Maxine Waters endorsing Hillary, to which GP cast the first mud. I merely responded with some mud on Teddy, but the reaction of the Obama Nation was revealing.

    How dare I cast aspersions on St. Teddy! I must be a troll from Red State!

    The issue being that the mud on Ted was old, played out, and still only used by those going for the cheap political shot that’s irrelevant to Kennedy’s actual public service.

  86. 86
    myiq2xu says:

    The issue being that the mud on Ted was old, played out, and still only used by those going for the cheap political shot that’s irrelevant to Kennedy’s actual public service.

    If Teddy had endorsed Hillary the Obama Nation would think differently.

  87. 87

    I’m just baffled I have to explain Kennedy’s liberal credentials to a self professed Gore fan. WTF kind of liberal are you?

    Kennedy’s endorsement brings support from the Democratic base. Obama has to this point been running IMO an unconventional strategy by appealing to the middle during a primary, rather than veering towards the extreme and then tacking center for a general election. Kennedy will work from the Democratic base to add to the new voters Obama brings to the table. It’s a big deal, and collapsing onto right wing memes isn’t going to blunt it.

  88. 88
    ThymeZone says:

    Chappaquiddick was bad. Ted did the wrong thing

    Actually, the story is widely misstated. A careful analysis of the timeline shows that he was never in the car at the bridge. Instead, he got out of the car and walked back to the hotel, and later lied and said he was in the car because he and his friends thought that story looked better than leaving the girl to drive by herself.

    The explanation is in the Bill Kurtis anaylsis, the name of which escapes me at the moment. But once you see it, you’ll know it’s correct. The timeline has never fit the official version of the story. Kurtis’ solution fits perfectly and makes much more sense.

    Whether Kennedy has any actual blame for the girl’s accident, I can’t say. I could argue it either way, but there is certainly nothing actionable in the story. Whether he should be detested for making up the story he made up, I don’t know that either. It was a dumb thing to do, in my view, but hardly scandalous.

    However, we live in the age of bullshit. Some people still think the twin towers were dynamited. So there you go.

  89. 89
    myiq2xu says:

    The issue being that the mud on Ted was old, played out, and still only used by those going for the cheap political shot that’s irrelevant to Kennedy’s actual public service.

    I guess we’ll never hear another blow-job joke about the Big Dog.

  90. 90
    gypsy howell says:

    And among that baggage?

    Ok, so…. you — what? — want Ted to apologize to you personally?

    What *is* your point? He fucked up. We get that. He’s done a lot of good things since then. Unlike many others. Like our First Lady.

  91. 91
    Tim (the other one) says:

    I don’t understand why myiq2xu is taking flak for something we all should acknowledge about Teddy and just move on. As Fountain said, it’s played out. I admire the Clinton administration but I’m still pissed at him for not keeping his fly zipped. It’s clear that Chappaquiddick was the nail in the coffin of higher office aspirations.

  92. 92
    myiq2xu says:

    It’s a big deal, and collapsing onto right wing memes isn’t going to blunt it.

    All I’m saying is it ain’t that big a deal.

  93. 93
    myiq2xu says:

    What is your point?

    GP threw mud, I threw some back, y’all freaked.

  94. 94
    Tim (the other one) says:

    “It was a dumb thing to do, in my view, but hardly scandalous.”

    Agreed, that’s all I meant by “the wrong thing”.

  95. 95
    ThymeZone says:

    Agreed, that’s all I meant by “the wrong thing”.

    Ah, then yes, I agree.

    He ended up limiting his political future with a dumb story, but … who knows? Even the true story might have ruined him. But, they are Kennedys, and I think they believe that they have to be larger than life all the frigging time. So in a way, it’s just as well. I don’t think TK would be a good president, but that’s hardly a knock against him.

  96. 96

    And what I’m saying is you aren’t going to convince many Democratic Primary voters to discount Kennedy’s endorsement by bringing up his accident. Sure it killed his hopes for running in a general, but pretty much everyone here approves of his policies and they aren’t going to start ignoring him now, especially not with a talking point they’ve all heard.

  97. 97
    HyperIon says:

    And yet their uninformed opinions matter. It boggles the mind.

    yes, democracy is a funny old thing.

  98. 98
    Jay B. says:

    People ignored the first option and jumped on me for the second. I’m not saying that Richardson is doing that, I’m just saying if he was it would be sleazy. Sue me.

    And it’s my opinion that even if two it’s impossibly naive to think it’s “sleazy” and not rather ordinary.

    Then I brought up Maxine Waters endorsing Hillary, to which GP cast the first mud. I merely responded with some mud on Teddy, but the reaction of the Obama Nation was revealing.

    I’m still undecided, actually. But I’ve been a supporter of Ted Kennedy for the two decades I’ve been able to vote, so fuck off, that’s what I’m saying. Kennedy’s a deadly drunk and a fossil like Byrd was a Klansman and Bill got a blowjob in the Oval Office. I’ve heard it. It’s hilarious each and every time. It doesn’t constitute an argument.

    (BTW — Nixon’s greatest fear in 1972, and why he bugged Larry O’Brien’s office at Watergate in the first place, was that Teddy would be his opponent. Chappaquidick wasn’t fully developed as a mantra — ironically, it didn’t cement his reputation until years later. If he ran in 1972, it wouldn’t have been as big a deal (it would have been an issue, of course, but it wasn’t as deal-breaking as it seems now).

    How dare I cast aspersions on St. Teddy! I must be a troll from Red State! I don’t. I just think you have the simpleton mentality of one.

  99. 99
    myiq2xu says:

    And what I’m saying is you aren’t going to convince many Democratic Primary voters to discount Kennedy’s endorsement by bringing up his accident.

    T’was not I that threw the first mud.

  100. 100
    myiq2xu says:

    It doesn’t constitute an argument.

    I don’t. I just think you have the simpleton mentality of one.

    I never said it was an argument. I was just tossing mud back a GP

    If you want to see a simpleton, look in the mirror.

  101. 101
    myiq2xu says:

    And it’s my opinion that even if two it’s impossibly naive to think it’s “sleazy” and not rather ordinary.

    It may be ordinary but it’s still sleazy to sell your endorsement to the highest bidder.

  102. 102

    The problem was in the mud thrown. Waters was criticized for being one of the most corrupt congresspersons on the hill. Kennedy was critiqued for his car accident.

  103. 103
    Tim (the other one) says:

    I’m over this. It’s time to go laugh at Jonah.

  104. 104
    myiq2xu says:

    The problem was in the mud thrown. Waters was criticized for being one of the most corrupt congresspersons on the hill. Kennedy was critiqued for his car accident.

    It wasn’t just a car accident. He drove off a bridge while drunk and left his passenger in the car and swam to safety. He left the scene and did not report the accident to the police until the next morning.

    This calls into question his character.

  105. 105
    Napoleon says:

    Wilfred said:

    I don’t know what ‘us liberals’ should do or not do but I know that in the 40 years since that night Teddy kennedy has been an absolute stalwart in defense of the poor, human rights and peaceful resolution of crisis.

    I have been reading and have nearly finished a book on McGovern’s 72 campaign, and it mentions that at around the time of Nixon’s re-election that according to polls Kennedy was the second most popular political figure in the US (behind Nixon), and keep in mind that was after Chappaquiddick kept him out of the ’72 campaign. So even close to that event apparently a lot of people simply didn’t let it get in the way of liking Teddy.

    By the way, the book, “The Liberal’s Moment” has all kinds of great stuff in it and even I (who has a degree in history) am a little surprised at how much that went on in that campaign or came out of it is relevent to this day, or to what the Dem party is (which is part of the point of the book). Also I particularly like a speech McGovern gave in January of 73 (written with the assistance of Bob Shrum) in Great Britian and how relevent some of his observations are to what we have seen in the last 7 years.

  106. 106
    Napoleon says:

    Never was a viable candidate at that level under any circumstances.

    Right, thats why he nearly picked of a sitting president in a primary season in 1980.

    Also in 1972 the nomination was his for the asking but Chappiquiddick blew that.

  107. 107
    myiq2xu says:

    From Left Coast:

    There’s a photo making the rounds. I won’t post it, but most of you have probably seen it: Senators Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and Barack Obama. The trivia-obsessed corporate media, and various political partisans, are trying to spin it into yet another stupid controversy. That’s what they do. And, as is so often the case, they’re missing the real story: on the day Senator Kennedy endorsed Senator Obama, Senator Clinton reached out to shake Senator Kennedy’s hand. Classy move.

    Earlier, Senator Kennedy was interviewed by Time’s Karen Tumulty:

    This has been, of course, seen as a rebuke in some ways of the Clintons.
    E.K.: I’m for a candidate; I’m for Barack Obama. I have enormous respect for Senator Clinton; I have great respect for President Clinton. I’ve worked with them on different issues. I have as well with John Edwards. I’ve worked with him on the Patients Bill of Rights; I worked on the Judiciary Committee [with him]. I would campaign wholeheartedly if they gain the nomination. I indicated that to them. This is about who you’re for, not who you’re against. That’s the way I looked at it.

    Classy statement.

    Senator Clinton rose above her disappointment to graciously greet Senator Kennedy; and Senator Kennedy made clear that he’s not against Senator Clinton, he’s for Senator Obama. It would be nice if the corporate media and some of the candidate partisans would take note.

    My sentiments exactly.

  108. 108
    ThymeZone says:

    Right, thats why

    Nope, I stand by my post. TK has never been a viable candidate at the national level. He’s way too rough around the edges and has way too much baggage even without Chappaquiddick. He plays well in Mass, and in Dem circles.

    Winning the Dem nomination doesn’t get you the White House, despite the paranoid brainfarts of Richard Nixon to the contrary. Nixon was fascinated by enemies, but he missed one: Himself. He was always his own worst enemy.

  109. 109
    ThymeZone says:

    He drove off a bridge while drunk

    Nope, he wasn’t in the car. That’s why I pointed you to the Kurtis solution. The timeline for Kennedy’s story has never worked with the known facts. Kurtis’ solution, which has him getting out of the car and walking back to the hotel, does, perfectly. Kennedy fabricated the bridge story.

    Take the time to study Kurtis’ analysis before you argue the matter. I think you might be able to rent or buy the video somewhere.

  110. 110
    myiq2xu says:

    Take the time to study Kurtis’ analysis before you argue the matter. I think you might be able to rent or buy the video somewhere.

    Probably on the same site where they have the 9-11 conspiracy and “Vince Foster was Murdered by the Clinton’s” videos?

  111. 111
    myiq2xu says:

    Guess who said this:

    “I fear that some folks in the Republican Party in some ways are opposing John for the same reason that a lot of Democrats opposed me and defeated me for renomination in Connecticut in ’06. If you don’t agree with people on every issue, they’re going to put you out. … I’d say it’s an odd position for me as an independent Democrat to be giving counsel to Republicans. But look at the polls. John McCain is the only Republican who can defeat the Democratic candidates in November. And that ought to count for something. … And, you know, what are the consequences going to be? I don’t know. I’ve reached the stage in my career and I feel very grateful to the people in Connecticut, in November who elected me across party lines, that I’m just going to do what I think is right for our country and not worry about the political consequences going forward.”

    That’s right! It’s Holy Crazy Joe!

  112. 112
    libarbarian says:

    Is it just me, or does Richardson tell stories like a high school sophomore?

    Like NO WAY!!!!

    You like totally like have not like listened to like any high school sophomore in like 15 years or something like whatever.

  113. 113
    ThymeZone says:

    Probably on the same site where they have the 9-11 conspiracy and “Vince Foster was Murdered by the Clinton’s” videos?

    No. Nothing conspiratorial about it. A simple examination of the facts and the timeline has always made Kennedy’s story virtually impossible to believe. But the other explanation solves it. Very simple. Believe whatever you want, but I’d wager my annual salary that Kurtis is right and that he wasn’t in the car. There is just no way he could have been unless a lot of other people just made stuff up afterwards.

    And like I said, argue the case after you have examined the facts. You claim to be a lawyer, the concept should not be foreign to you.

  114. 114
    The Other Steve says:

    It wasn’t just a car accident. He drove off a bridge while drunk and left his passenger in the car and swam to safety. He left the scene and did not report the accident to the police until the next morning.

    This calls into question his character.

    Your Clinton bias has gotten to the point where now you are believing the Freeper attacks on Kennedy, solely because he dissed your favorite?

    You really need to chill out.

  115. 115
    The Other Steve says:

    And like I said, argue the case after you have examined the facts. You claim to be a lawyer, the concept should not be foreign to you.

    Lawyers don’t argue facts. They argue emotion.

    If they dealt with facts, we wouldn’t need juries.

  116. 116

    Jay B,
    Evidently what you know about the DNC and Dean could be written in large letters on my little finger nail. Dean was elected by the State Parties and it was a grass roots insurrection. The “powers that be” adamently opposed Dean and have fought his 50 State strategy since inception. The OR delegation was directed by the State delegates – true grassroots – to go Dean. The election would have gotten ugly but for the ground work laid by the States ensuring Dean had the numbers going in. I do actually know all this, for the simple reason that I am a DPO State Delegate, both DNC committee people consider me a confidant and an effective operative, as well as the State Chair & Vice Chair at the time, which Vice is now Chair.

    Anybody you’re postulating as having made promises to Dean that could effect the nomination opposed Dean. You have made something up out of whole cloth and tossed it as a fact, when the actual truth is the direct opposite of your assertion. Next time you start seeing political machinations/conspiracies ask somebody in a position to know, because you obviously don’t.

    If you have some idea that State Parties (in general) reflect DLC or the Establishment wing, you know very little about State Parties or the DNC. We’re the ones always under attack for dragging the Party left (looney left). Maybe rather than spouting off, you should get involved, I happen to know your County Party will be glad of another body – and bucks. Yes, I’m real sure you’re not, your ignorance speaks volumes.

  117. 117
    myiq2xu says:

    And like I said, argue the case after you have examined the facts. You claim to be a lawyer, the concept should not be foreign to you.

    And what are the “facts?”

    Your Clinton bias has gotten to the point where now you are believing the Freeper attacks on Kennedy, solely because he dissed your favorite?

    You really need to chill out.

    Yeah, I suddenly believe something different because Teddy endorsed Obama.

    Jeebus, the stoopid is thick in here today.

    Lawyers don’t argue facts. They argue emotion.

    If they dealt with facts, we wouldn’t need juries.

    Teh Stoopid! It hurtz!

  118. 118
    myiq2xu says:

    Oh shit, I googled Kurtis and Chappaquiddick and I got a 2 year old thread with ppgaz and the other steve freaking out on JC for saying Teddy was drunk when he drove off the bridge.

    I’m not getting into y’all’s old pet issues.

    Fuck all that.

    Teddy pled guilty. End of story.

  119. 119
    ThymeZone says:

    Lawyers don’t argue facts. They argue emotion.

    Sure they do, Steve.

  120. 120
    Jay B. says:

    Next time you start seeing political machinations/conspiracies ask somebody in a position to know, because you obviously don’t.

    I didn’t/don’t see a conspiracy. I see an ordinary principle at work — horsetrading.

    And I know it was a grassroots effort that landed Dean as the chair of the DNC. But I had heard there was tacit approval from at least some of the Party establishment. So if I’m wrong, I’m wrong.

    What I heard might have been from some Edwards staffers who were pissed in 2004 when Dean didn’t endorse Edwards, who was presumably the next best “insurgency” candidate, endorsing Kerry instead — after a wait, much like Richardson here.

    Dean may have had entirely ‘benign’ motives for coming around to Kerry, but if intense grassroots efforts resulted in wins as easily as Dean’s for DNC chair, we’d all be better off.

  121. 121

    myiq: I’m sorry I assumed that simply because you are a Democrat you didn’t dislike Teddy pre endorsement. It’s obvious by your claims you never liked him, and that doesn’t make you less of a Democrat. But neither am I less of one for not trusting Billary one iota, particularly after this last two week shitstorm.

  122. 122

    JayB,
    Since Dean was “our thing” not the power structure’s I may have come down a little hard on you, but it is an article of faith with some that the DNC is some sort of status quo political conspiracy left nut… who knows weirdness.

    DNC is grassroots, Dean may have been a Primary candidate with a lot of exposure, but obviously he wasn’t the power center. The grassroots yanked DNC back from the “money” crowd, we’d had enough, and then some, of being no more than a cash cow. We will not be a faux RNC, the ‘roots previously let the pros walk DNC into that position, “oh, they know better than us volunteer peons…” thinking. Pah. Raising more money from way more sources, gaining victories in unforseen (by pros) places, increasing (D) registration, a lot of very positive results. Hell yes we hire pros, we hire them to do our bidding, not the other way around. We were pretty darn sure we knew what we were doing with Dean, and results bear us out.

    There is plenty we could do better, but we’re moving and changing and gaining ground so things look a lot better than say 3 yrs ago. This damn MI/FL cockup is something that has to get sorted out before it can ever happen again. DNC thought it was making some good moves bringing NV & SC forward, I honestly don’t know why the line jumping wasn’t foreseen. Maybe the thinking was that the sanctions were serious enough to forestall it, guess not, or they were disregarded as mere threats. they weren’t.

    Despite Hillary’s Bullshit, DNC cannot seat those delegates and count them. This has been addressed a couple times at my blog.

  123. 123
    Tractarian says:

    Teddy pled guilty. End of story.

    You have obviously never done any criminal defense…

  124. 124
    myiq2xu says:

    myiq: I’m sorry I assumed that simply because you are a Democrat you didn’t dislike Teddy pre endorsement. It’s obvious by your claims you never liked him, and that doesn’t make you less of a Democrat. But neither am I less of one for not trusting Billary one iota, particularly after this last two week shitstorm.

    Since I’ve got insomnia I might as well waste my time here.

    I don’t dislike Teddy, I was only responding to GP’s mudslinging.

    Teddy is a flawed icon of liberal politics. I’ve watched enough elections to realize that his endorsement is not like being anointed by God. The Kennedy name no longer causes reflexive genuflecting among liberals.

    Many of us are kinda pissed at Teddy for what he did with the legacy in his younger days, the same way we’re pissed at the Big Dog for his zipper problem.

    Very few endorsements carry much weight in the Democratic party, cuz we can barely stand each other. It’s not like the GOP where the establishment candidate has to get the blessing of the Religious Right, the money men and the Wingnut Media Elite.

    The only endorsement that will carry much weight in the Democratic Party would be Gore’s, but only in the primaries. He has apparently decided to keep his opinion to himself so far.

    John’s original post was that Richardson being torn was bad news for Hillary. I don’t really see how, especially if Richardson barely had a pulse in the primary votes.

    I still say selling an endorsement is sleazy, and renders it worthless. But it’s typical of both sides.

    Politics is sleazy, but it’s the only game in town.

  125. 125
    myiq2xu says:

    You have obviously never done any criminal defense…

    You obviously have no idea what you’re talking about.

Comments are closed.