The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Archives

The Democrats

Richardson's Choice

By Jose Antonio Vargas
SANTA FE, N.M. -- Gov. Bill Richardson's phone has been ringing off the hook. Sen. Hillary Clinton called Sunday night. That was followed by a call from former president Bill Clinton, then a call from Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, who's supporting Clinton. Sen. Barack Obama called twice Monday morning.

And, at around 4 p.m. Monday, as we entered Richardson's office on the fourth floor of the state Capitol here, Richardson was finishing up a 15-minute phone conversation.

"That was Teddy," Richardson told The Trail. Sen. Ted Kennedy, who alongside his niece Caroline and son Patrick endorsed Obama at a packed rally at American University just hours before, is scheduled to stump for the Illinois senator in northern New Mexico Wednesday night. Kennedy is urging Richardson to support Obama. "Teddy's argument is that Obama can bring people together," Richardson said. "That's his rationale."

As the highest-ranking Hispanic in the Democratic Party, Richardson's endorsement is being aggressively sought by the Clinton and Obama campaigns. California, Colorado, Arizona, Utah and New Mexico are among the 22 states voting next week, and each have sizable Hispanic electorates. Richardson, who cruised to re-election as New Mexico governor in 2006, is a popular figure in the Hispanic community.

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.'"

Richardson, like Clinton and Obama, waged a historic campaign. He was the first Hispanic -- he's half Mexican -- to run for president, yet his candidacy was overshadowed by Clinton and Obama. He finished fourth in the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire and dropped out of the Democratic race on Jan. 10, citing a lack of funds. Some political observers here are surprised that he's waited this long to endorse a candidate, though they wonder if he's negotiating a vice presidential spot in the Democratic ticket, or perhaps a place in the cabinet.

If Richardson is to endorse either Clinton or Obama -- "I might, I might not, how's that for an answer?" -- he said he'll do so by the end of the week.

"If I do endorse, it's going to be a gut feeling. It's not going to be about statistics, about past ties," Richardson said. "I've been on the campaign trail with both of them. I feel that I know them. I feel I know the issues. I feel I know what makes them both tick."

Posted at 5:53 AM ET on Jan 29, 2008  | Category:  The Democrats
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Previous: Criss-Crossing the Sunshine State With Romney | Next: Many Lobbyists Among McCain Fundraisers


Add 44 to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Trail. This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Trail.
Get This Widget >>


Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Posted by: futuroazivgqemboxbugv | April 27, 2008 1:23 PM

Posted by: io00pr | April 26, 2008 6:37 PM

Posted by: io00pr | April 26, 2008 5:24 PM

Posted by: io00pr | April 26, 2008 5:18 PM

Hi, nice very nice page..!

Good luck !

Posted by: Oppers | April 23, 2008 4:44 AM

Bill, Obama needs you! I know you worked for the Clintons and that they gave you a lot, but you have to consider what is BEST FOR THE COUNTRY, not the loyalty to friends.

If you don't feel that you can do this, please do continue to stay out as you have. Appreciate your class in this and I know it's tough!!

Posted by: originalstoic | February 11, 2008 1:30 AM

One of the worst sins of the Bush administration: People were made to feel and think(?!) that even a mediocre like an Obama could be good enough to be a president. From observations, Obama is just another product of drum-beaters and mob psychology. If Clinton is not nominated, I will just vote for a third party (or even better, NO PARTY) candidate. After all the so called parties are useless 'names.' In US "elections," there are only CANDIDATES and "fund suppliers."

Posted by: mannyc59 | February 10, 2008 12:14 AM

Why is America so afraid to vote in a women president? Is it because this country has always been run by men? There are many countries in this world who have voted in a woman president and they have all done very well. Let's give Hillary Clinton a chance, afterall, this is a country of opportunity. I truly believe that she will prove her critics wrong and be one of the most succesful democratic presidents since Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Posted by: paralegl | February 9, 2008 8:14 PM

I don't know if voters are unattentive or simply forgetful of the past, but the fact of the matter is, is that the best economic years this country has had in a long time, were under the Clinton administration. Voters need to put aside the personal issues the clintons had while in the White House and instead focus on the good the administration did for this country. I truly believe Hillary would make as good or better President than her husband.

Posted by: paralegl | February 7, 2008 9:57 PM

As a Democrat, I would have been happy -- ecstatic -- to have seen Richardson, Edwards or Obama as our nominee. I'm a little less happy about seeing Clinton in that role. Why? Because I think she's less electable, for a host of reasons, almost none of which are her fault, that can be grouped under one heading: Married to the Past.

That's why I urge New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson to offer to begin campaigning with Barack Obama -- endorse him, don't endorse him, but campaign with him. And if Obama should ask Richardson to be his vice president, I would implore the governor to recognize that he is the best person for this crucial job. The best, period. Richardson will not only help Obama win, he'll help Obama govern, and help this country come back together.

Riley Stokes
Wisconsin

Posted by: thorstad | February 7, 2008 1:34 PM

Latinos will vote for Hillary regardless of who endorses Obama, O-Who, he only has two years of experience. Will you trust your country to THE FLAVOR OF MONTH POLITICIAN

Posted by: JACRUZ1 | February 3, 2008 11:01 PM

Richardson should be Obama's pick for VP. (So, Richardson should endorse Obama)
Consider:
* It would balance the ticket (Illinois-Midwest) vs (New Mexico-Southwest)
* It would give the ticket strong foreign-policy experience credentials (note: Richardson was UN Amb. & the N. Koreans have traveled to Santa Fe to meet with Richardson because they trust him)
* It might rally Latinos for the ticket
* It counters McCain's western credentials

Posted by: john_mcneely_lopez | February 2, 2008 11:33 AM

I don't think Obama will get the support of Gov. Richardson. Ted Kennedy just ride the wave of Mr. Obama and yes there's impact but not that big damage. I can't afford our country will be reign by someone who are just good in speaking and promising hope and change but have a controversy in dealing with Mr. Rezko and being present in the state senate for 100 times but not making judgement either yes or no. I am proud to vote for Hillary for good of our country!

"My whole Family will Vote for Hillay!"

Posted by: boyjessy | February 2, 2008 11:05 AM

I will never lie to you, says Mr. Obama. Well I for one am still waiting for BO to tell us why Rezko's wife paid $600K for the lot next to his mansion and sells it to Obama for $125K. And while you are at
it Mr. Obama can you tell me how an experience legislator, with good judgement, can mistakely push the wrong button when voting on critical issues in the IL house? BTW, Mr. Obama did you push the wrong button when you voted present 100 times? I want to believe, but I need an answer from you.

Posted by: frank | February 1, 2008 4:33 PM

There is no doubt that Gov. Richardson was the most experienced of the entire field. However, for a range of issues, the field has been whittled down to two. In the spirit of all that Richardson has come to embody, he can only endorse one candidate: Obama. Obama is a mirror image of Richardson when it comes to ethics, putting people first, doing the right thing over the political thing, and bringing people together.

Posted by: yadyboy | January 31, 2008 6:19 PM

Let me start off by saying that I was a big Richardson supporter for the nomination, from the time he declared to the time he dropped out, and my commitment never wavered. He was the best candidate on either side, and I find it very disappointing that Democrats didnt realize that. Im a 44 year old caucasian, and a proud independent who has voted for both parties at one time or another, so race or partisan status never entered into my decision to support Richardson. Experience (and his moderate ideological stances) did.

I think that, analyzing Richardson's words, its pretty obvious that he's probably going to endorse Obama. He didnt tell a story about Hillary helping him out in a debate (or anywhere else), and he said "past ties" wont be influencing his decision. That was a pointed reference to his service in the Clinton administration. I think his "gut feeling" is telling him the same as many other Democrats: Obama should be the nominee. He has a very strong appeal to independents, and he will win the general election.

An endorsement from Richardson will hopefully help Obama get more of the Hispanic vote on Super Tuesday. I also think that if Obama gets the nomination, youre going to see an Obama/Richardson ticket. After Richardson dropped out, I changed the endorsement on my website to Obama/Richardson. Id still personally prefer that it was reversed, but I think it will be a winning combination that the Republicans cannot beat.

I will NOT vote for Hillary under ANY circumstances (not even if she chose Richardson for her running mate), and I can guarantee you that most of my fellow independents will feel the same way about her. Democrats will be making an unforgivable and infuriating and fatal error if they nominate her, and theyll have nobody to blame but themselves when she concedes defeat on the evening of November 5th (which will also be my 45th birthday). They wont have Al Gore to play the martyr for them this time, and we will be cursed with madman McCain for at least 4 years, with his leering buddy Rudolph the red nosed 9/11 leech as his probable VP (waiting for McCain to die in office so he can LBJ himself into the job).

We may know the answer in the next 48 hours, there are rumors that Richardson will be giving his endorsement very soon. I sincerely hope that he makes the right choice, and I think he will.

OBAMA / RICHARDSON
VOTE FOR SANITY IN 2008

Posted by: saintsubversive | January 31, 2008 1:54 PM

I am not a religious man. But if Richardson endorses Obama I will bow down and sincerely thank God. ..The sooner the better..

Posted by: jjsmith85 | January 30, 2008 10:53 PM

I would ask the question, "if I endorse Hillary and Obama gets the nomination, what kind of negative pushback will I get and if I endorse Obama and Hillary gets the nomination, what kind of negative pushback will I get" - my sense from watching what has been happening so far is that Hillary would never forget and punishment would be ongoing - look at the comments that were made to John Kerry when he endorsed Obama - Hillary and Bill will do anything to get elected - some pundits quoted Bill as being upset with Richardson and made comments about "after I gave him a job" - Richardson owes nothing to Clinton in that Richardson was a wonderful spokesperson in the administration - they were lucky to have him. In the debate that Richardson described, Hillary would have probably just sat there - as one who supported Clinton both times, I am appalled by the behavior of both Hillary and Bill - it doesn't have to be politics as usual this time - we actually have a choice.

Posted by: wigerg001 | January 30, 2008 5:04 PM

It would almost be funny if it were not so sad: Clinton supporters argue on the one hand that Obama is supported by some hypothetical "good ole boy" network determined to prevent a woman from becoming President. (I think for one poster it was a "Freudian" slip to call Hillary a "women," in the context of acting as if the fate of all women were wrapped up in the campaign of this one woman.) On the other hand, they appeal to that very "good ole boy" mentality of insisting that Richardson and others should decide based on "loyalty" (you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours).

Anyone who think Obama is a "good ole boy" is just not paying attention. Nothing could be further from the truth. He wants to dismantle that whole dysfunctional way of doing government, since it doesn't work.

And people yielding their political allegiance based on "loyalty" for favors done is part of the problem. THAT IS the "good ole boy" system. And you don't have to be a man to play those games.

As for all of the "Clinton haters" labeling, I have had tremendous respect for the Clintons, though with reservations about some of the compromises made with the Republicans (NAFTA, IIRAIRA, etc.). But like many others, I was extremely disappointed at the way the Clintons injected race into the campaign (and then tried to say it was Obama who did so) and practiced some very Republican campaign tactics of taking Obama's words and voting record out of context and twisting them into something totally different than the reality. I don't "hate" the Clintons and will probably vote for Hillary in November if she wins the nomination (though in that case I feel certain I'll be on the losing end once again, as with Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry). However, these hardball and unethical campaign tactics have caused me to lose a lot of the respect I had for them. And I know I'm far from alone on that.

And can someone explain to me just how a woman becoming President substantially on the name, record, and campaigning of her husband is supposed to advance the cause of women? It seems to me that it will be a more meaningful victory some day when a woman is elected solely on her own merits. But then, that might require a different kind of politics, one that is not so beholden to the "good ole boy" system (even while trying to label one's opponent as part of that system--another Republican trick--label your opponent with your own characteristics).

Posted by: PastorGene | January 30, 2008 3:37 PM

I mean, vote wisely and vote in the primary, just lets not be idiotic about it. While 20-30% of the population might call themselves the Democrats (or liberal) Party at any given time, you need to go after the 50% who consider themselves moderate in the general election. Primary politics does not equal the general election. The results are better if you are a good choice for 70% of the country, rather then a good choice for only 20% (or 30% whatever it is now).

*Note very rough statistical arguments but just trying to make the point, about half the pre-2000 electorate in this country considered themselves moderates, and many post-2000 independents are likely to be bipartisan and well read on their political history.

Please pick a candidate who can win, not just one who is obvious.

Posted by: persimonix1 | January 30, 2008 3:35 PM

The winnability argument, for Hillary or Obama, seems to rest on which Republicans they can poach from the rapidly disintegrating party. If it is a choice between average economic republicans and moderate-liberal republicans (the somewhat richer and more pessimimstic of the independently minded groups), I'd say lets go with the liberals and re-unite the moderate-liberal party under a well constructed modern consensus coalition. We can work on the common ground, social investments that are reasonable and do what they are supposed to do and work to cut out unintended consequences (ie badly written laws).

I don't think we should be as happy taking the populist elements from the Democrats and Republicans and calling that a winning strategy. If Hillary wins, she's likely to lose to McCain (who is a serious Republican contender these days as Independents are influential in both primaries this election cycle.) She's one of the few candidates that Independents, who are a growing segment of the population, agree is not very honest, as she blatently glosses over too many policy details. Use some common sense, if you can see something dishonest in a candidate, everyone else can too.

Having heard the Clintons have invited Tom Delay, one of my least favorate politicians from the Bush years, to speak at their public policy school (along with Karl Rove), has not made me more inclined to support her candidacy. Sure I am a woman, but I don't believe every poor little rich girl's sob story about how she needs to be in charge of a multi-billion dollar economy because she wants to cement into policy what is at this point the status quo (as there is no consensus to get rid of abortion- as there are only 30% of the population who labels themselves hard core conservatives who want to go back to the 1950's.)

Over half the country is post-MLK. The median age in the United States is 36.7 years old (born about 1971). We are the majority. Lets get over it.

Posted by: persimonix1 | January 30, 2008 3:23 PM

This debate is very interesting. Here's my take. I liked and voted for Bill Clinton twice. I was favorably inclined towards Hillary but I've decided that if she wins the nomination I will not vote for her. What did it for me was the supposition that somehow Obama is not qualified, that he should wait his turn and the sense of entitlement and outrage that the Clintons have exhibited towards him. In many ways he's more qualified than Hillary. I can live with either a President McCain or Romney. I do not want to go back to the 90s with the Clintons. We will truly be getting 2 for 1 and it won't be pretty. I am Clinton weary and don't want to relive the wars. I saw a slogan that captures my feeling perfectly: "No More Drama, Elect Obama"
A Obama/Richardson ticket would be perfect.

Posted by: sarobinson | January 30, 2008 2:53 PM

I'm still waiting for a list of concrete *accomplishments* by Hillary during her 35 years of service. It's nice to have held important jobs, but it's more important to have gotten things done. If anything, the length of time she's spent in positions of power suggests she really ought to have a long list of accomplishments that she can trumpet. Yet the only significant accomplishments I can tell that she's made were to salvage some piecemeal health care legislation out of the wreckage of her health care plan in the '90s.

If she's learned so much from her mistakes -- Travelgate, health care, legal nominations in the Clinton administration; heck, the Iraq war vote, support for NAFTA, support for the 2001 bankruptcy bill -- then where is the evidence that she's learned from it? Where is her record of achievement in the Senate, aside from her ability to troll for pork for New Yorkers? Where is the evidence that she has a vision for serious change in America, and that she has the ability to make it happen?

I notice Clinton supporters complaining about criticism of their candidate, and especially criticism of her honesty. First it was the right-wing conspiracy. Now it's the left-wing conspiracy. Have the Clintons and their supporters ever considered that the problem might not be other people?

Posted by: davestickler | January 30, 2008 2:30 PM

He will endorse Obama. He telegraphs it with this:

"If I do endorse, it's going to be a gut feeling. It's not going to be about statistics, about past ties."

The "past ties" are of course with the Clintons. Every comment he makes about Obama is about the emotional admiration he has for Obama and their mutual mentor, Ted Kennedy.

Posted by: douglasdao | January 30, 2008 10:56 AM

WWHD?

If Hillary had been sitting next to Richardson instead would she have saved his hide or shoved a knife in his back?

When has a senior political leader ever told a story about Hillary like that? I can't think of one.

Posted by: jeffg | January 30, 2008 10:41 AM

Teddy Kennedy has been friends with the Clintons for years, and so has Richardson. It would be nice if ONE of them showed a little loyalty. Maybe since Richardson doesn't have a dynasty to seek the greater glory of, it will be him. They say if you want a friend in Washington, buy a dog. I hope that isn't true of Albuquerque.

Posted by: classact57 | January 30, 2008 9:12 AM

One last point ..Obama was the only candidate to run ads in Florida. He used another one of his chaep have truths and said he didmn't realize that the CNN ads he ran would run in Florida...So Obama broke the rules first by running ads in Florida on CNN.I guess it is kind of like the story about his 1.6 million dollar house which his crimminal buddy help buy for him ..gives us the truth on that Obama

Posted by: harry.farr | January 30, 2008 8:23 AM

Gov. Richardson, please consider endorsing Barack Obama and say no to the politics of division. While it is true that we have two strong candidates, Barack Obama is the only candidate that stands a chance to unify the country in a meaningful way.

Posted by: jkbowman | January 30, 2008 8:22 AM

IT seems that the old boys club and the gang of 4 are determined to stop Hillary Clinton at any cost. KERRY, KENNEDY, DEAN and GORE should be ashamed of themselves as they want a candidate they can control and they have that with Obama. He has become the candidate of the old back room boys and I hope Richardson doesn't fall in to this and make it a group of 5. Is it the fact she is a WOMEN? It really doesn't matter because women are going to make sure Hillary is the nominee and but a stop to the old bak room boys of the party...Thank God for that and my advice to Richardson is be a real man and endorse HILLARY the only candidate who has the experience to fix the US economy....VOTE HILLARY

Posted by: harry.farr | January 30, 2008 8:17 AM

Regarding the idea that Obama will look inexperienced on foreign policy in a debate next to McCain it doesn't matter who gets the Democratic nomination. Hillary Clinton will look inexperienced on foreign policy next to McCain as well. With McCain's background there is not a candidate on either side who can beat him on foreign policy from in terms of the public's perception. I think counting this against Obama is meaningless. What Obama has been showing is that he can rally support from independents and possibly Republicans as well. There is no chance in hell of Hillary Clinton doing that. I really don't put much stock into the experience debate either, some of our greatest presidents were very thin in terms of experience but they were smart and could rally people. On paper GWB seems to have a lot of experience and look at how incompetent he's been. With Hillary Clinton, on the off chance she wins the general election, we'll have another 4 or 8 years of extremely bitter partisan politics, that much is guaranteed. The Republican establishment will make sure of it.

Posted by: ravin.gupta | January 30, 2008 7:00 AM

Obama doesn't need Richardson, he has brothers and sisters in SC and Iowa, he doesn't need Richardson, he has Oprah as runningmate, Obama doesn't need Richardson and VP because he will be defeated in Super Tuesday night.

Posted by: kreisch | January 30, 2008 12:15 AM

A million (just about) Florida Democrats can't be ignored. HRC did no campaigning there either, so it was a level playing field and the best team won.

Posted by: hrlcjd | January 29, 2008 11:17 PM

All my family members are independents and have been voting candidates from both parties. But if Obama is the Democratic nominee, we are going to vote for Ron Paul by write-in. Granted, Obama is great in speeches and his messages of hope sound all great, but so far we have NOT seen much substances on how he will achieve those hopes. So my conclusion is just simple, good talker rarely is a good doer.

Also, I don't mind Obama is an African American candiate. What I mind is how he manipulate his black race to sell to the black population then turn around to blame others for using the race card. So, that's a question of integrity here. If Obama using his black race card for black votes, then it seems he doesn't need other population in America then.

Posted by: peacemaker74991 | January 29, 2008 10:45 PM

Governor Richardson would have been a formidable candidate in the national election. I hope that he refrains from endorsing any of the remaining demcoratic candidates. Indeed I hope the endorsement train gets derailed. Unfortunately, I think both Senator Kerry and Senator Kennedy have damaged the Democratic Party far more than President Clinton might have with his silly remarks. In the long run, their endorsements will hurt Obama far more than help and will certainly not help either Clinton or Obama or Edwards win the national election. Americans are smart enough to decide on candidates based on their own analysis of candidate positions and their own cut feelings as to who might actually stabilize the economy and get us out of the quagmire in Iraq. If I ruled the world, I would ban pollsters and their poles, pundits and their commentaries, and faded politicians and tv celebs who get their kicks playing the endorsement game. The Media should just report results and not handicap "the race" -- it is not a race, it is a Presidential election with major consequences for every man, woman, and child in America and around the world.

Posted by: krutkow75 | January 29, 2008 10:44 PM

Dear Govenor Richardson,

I thought you were great in the debates and I really appreciated how you stood with Senator Hillary Clinton. I hope you will continue to stand with our future nominee for President Senator Hillary Clinton. You know how serious, dedicated and informed she is on the issues. You know the work she does everyday for the people of the USA and will continue to do for all of us! Please if you are going to endorse someone let it be Hillary Clinton our next President of the USA.

Thanks and I really enjoy New Mexico beautiful state!!!

Posted by: joyologist | January 29, 2008 10:17 PM

Someone...send this message to Governor Richardson...

Prior to your exit from the race, I was a huge supporter. You represented to me, the guy who is everyones guy.

The best ticket of our time will include your name and Barack Obama.

Turn the page!

Posted by: kristina.kasper | January 29, 2008 10:15 PM

Of course, Richardson needs to endorse Obama, and the sooner-the better. With this McCain victory over Romney the empire is taking toll again, and it should be stopped fast, at least by dems. Neo con Hillary would be worse than Bush; and neo con McCain would yield her, as he did before for Bush. Endorsement for Obama is now the duty of every person with any real patriotism.

Posted by: aepelbaum | January 29, 2008 10:10 PM

Hillary's phony "victory" speech in Florida really says it all - a phony victory for a phony candidate. No more Bushes, no more Clintons, turn the page...

Posted by: waldengreenwood | January 29, 2008 9:55 PM

The democratic party, at least if you go by the myriad posters on the internet and racist/sexist pseudo-journalists like Eugene Robinson, Maureen Dowd, and Bob Herbert, has become the party of hatred and intolerance.

I had been a liberal my entire life because the Rethugs were supposed to be intolerant, hateful, and vengeful. But seeing the endless hatred of the internet posters to the Clintons, it is not clear to me that the democrats are any different. The posters on this forum and a million other sites like this would put any Rush, Savage, and Hannity to shame with their hearts full of retribution and venom.

At least the Rethugs only had contempt for their enemies like democrats, gays, minorities and Moslems, and they never showered their 2-term presidents in a torrent of invectives. Leave that to the democratic idiots on these boards, to pour scorn on their only 2-term president since FDR.

It is impossible for me and may be some others how all of us can stay under the same tent - whehter Hillary wins or Obama wins, it is becoming difficult to imagine that all of us would vote for the same nominee. I know I won't - if Obama is the nominee, I will write in Bloomberg's name, or may be even Romney's name - as long as it is not Rudy, which it looks it won't be. Then I will go home and get drunk.

Posted by: intcamd1 | January 29, 2008 9:27 PM

Dear Governor Richardson:

It is my hope that you will endorse Senator Barack Obama. I read the article and he really is a man of honor and will keep his word. The Clintons play the field, and always seem to escape under the radar. I have read much of their history, and there are many chapters that show their true politics.

Posted by: nu800761 | January 29, 2008 9:26 PM

I like to ask Governor Richardson to endorse Senator Clinton, not because Senator Obama is bad or this or that or anything, just because I believe Senator Clinton has good policies and also experience to carry out for the benefit of the country.

If Senator Obama doesn't stop his followers, they will destroy the country with their venom soon.

Posted by: ing1 | January 29, 2008 9:17 PM

I trust Dolores Huerta a whole lot more than Bill Richardson.

Posted by: bghgh | January 29, 2008 06:01 PM

Hmmmm, you might want to rethink that.

Richardson has done alot for the country and is in a much better position to know what is best that Dolores.

Also, Richardson has worked to hard solve problems with immigration in New Mexico. He and Obama have the similary policies with respect to immigrants.

Posted by: kiku | January 29, 2008 9:12 PM

lpeter59: you comment on Hillary winning Florida.

In Florida, there were no opponents to contest her. No one campaigned there. So, running by herself, to get just 62% is actually quite bad.

Hillary shouldn't use Florida, it makes her look silly and desperate.

Posted by: kiku | January 29, 2008 9:00 PM

I'm tired of hearing the Clinton campaign's spin about Florida. Florida will not have delegates. It violated the rules. All the candidate's agreed not to campaign there and initially respected the party's ruling. It's a bit disingenuous for Clinton to go back on that now since she perceived it might work to her advantage.

It's not that voters in Florida are "thinking for themselves." It's that no campaign happened there, which left the status quo (Clinton's lead there from the beginning) intact. But you can't decide to change the rules in the middle of the campaign. If Clinton wanted the delegates from Florida and Michigan counted, why didn't she speak up back when the decision was made, rather than waiting to see whether that would work to her advantage later?

No, if Michigan and Florida were to be counted, it needed to be from the beginning, so that all candidates could have an equal shot at campaigning there and getting their message out. You can't wait and then change the rules midstream just because it might work to your advantage. That's Republican strategy--typified by Reagan back in the 1976 campaign for the nomination, when he chose a running mate before the convention (without being the nominee) and then tried to change the rules to force Ford to do the same.

Posted by: PastorGene | January 29, 2008 8:48 PM

"You are the people, as President Kennedy said, who have "the least ties to the present and the greatest ties to the future." I urge you to learn the harsh facts that lurk behind the mask of official illusion with which we have concealed our true circumstances, even from ourselves. Our country is in danger: not just from foreign enemies; but above all, from our misguided policies--and what they can do to the nation that Thomas Jefferson once told us was the last, best hope of man. There is a contest on, not for the rule of America, but for the heart of America. . . . I ask you to go forth and work for new policies--work to change our direction--and thus restore our place at the point of moral leadership, in our country, in our hearts, and all around the world."

Si Se Puede!

OBAMA is the right choice

Posted by: epsotto | January 29, 2008 8:47 PM

Gee, what exciting comments. Obama supporters hope/think he'll endorse Obama. Clinton supporters etc. A lot of minds being changed here. Not.

Posted by: lostintranslation | January 29, 2008 8:33 PM

Obama did not "cry" about the Clintons' attacks. He fought back. And based on his overwhelming victory in South Caroline, it would appear that he fought back quite successfully. He turned their attacks back on them. He will do the same with Republicans' attacks in November. One of the main reasons John Kerry lost in 2004 was not fighting back against the vicious, false statements smearing his record. It appears Republicans will have no such luck with Obama.

Actually, the telling thing about the Clintons' attacks on Obama was just how Republicanesque they were--right out of Carl Rove's play book--take a person's statements and actions out of context and distort them into something totally different than they were.

Now, some posts have injected gender into the mix, as if endorsements for Obama are a rejection of a woman as president. The National Organization of Women (NOW) said something similar about Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Obama. So much for Hillary Clinton claiming that she's not running as the female candidate.

I have been a strong supporter of women's rights, feminism, and NOW, and I plan to continue that support. However, gender is not the only--or even primary--issue in the campaign. I have watched closely the results of Presidential elections for many years. I have seen several intelligent, well-qualified, but uninspiring Democratic leaders for whom I voted lose to inferior Republicans: Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry. Bill Clinton had the personal charisma and inspirational qualities to break the pattern. Hillary Clinton does not. Barack Obama does.

I'm tired of the Democratic Party nominating people who cannot get the independent and unaligned votes that decide the election in November. Obama has already shown his inspirational qualities and ability to get independent votes--and bring in new voters. Hillary Clinton will only win the traditional Democratic constituency--though she and Bill have perhaps alienated a huge part of that constituency--African Americans--with the racial overtones of their attacks on Obama. It's not that Blacks will vote Republican, but if she's the nominee they may stay home.

Hillary Clinton is a polarizing leader, and the Republicans will chew her up and spit her out. They've been eagerly anticipating a campaing againtst her, while they are blindsided with the prospect of running a campaing they have not prepared against Obama.

Just because Hillary Clinton is the first woman with a serious chance to be elected President does not mean that all votes for or endorsements of someone else are rejection of the idea of a woman being President. That is extremely reductionistic. I will be very glad for the day when we do elect a woman to be President of the United States. But Hillary Clinton cannot win in November. She has basically the same qualities as Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry--all of whom I personally liked and voted for, but all of whom lost.

And with all due respect for NOW, the statement that Kennedy's endorsement of Obama was a resistance to a woman President is way off base. That goes against everything Kennedy has stood for and also ignores the facts at hand--including the fact that the final decisive factor in Kennedy's choice was his anger about the Clinton's injecting race into the campaign. He had personally spoken to Bill Clinton about this, but his counsel was ignored.

By the way, Obama just picked up the endorsement of the Governor of Kansas--a woman! He also has endorsements from many other prominent women in politics. This is not about race. It's not about gender either. It's about who can win in November and who can change the dysfunctional ways of Washington politics and break through the gridlock and actually solve national problems.

Posted by: PastorGene | January 29, 2008 8:24 PM

Clinton is leading the vote in Florida 52% to Obama's 29%. If the Kennedy's hadn't endorsed him, it would have probably been 62% to 19% (that was sarcasm).

Either way, it means that voters are not listening to the media, endorsements or obnoxious Obama supporters. They are thinking for themselves. Bad news for Obama.

Posted by: lpeter59 | January 29, 2008 7:58 PM

It seemed to me that Richardson had always been edging for a VP nod, particularly with Hillary. I'm surprised that he has waited this long to endorse her. But I suppose he wants to be fair to Obama and hear his argument as well... and perhaps he likes being courted so heavily by both camps. It gives him the opportunity to get a favorable deal in exchange for his endorsement. Then again, he could just wait it out until there emerges a clear winner and just hedge his bets that way. He'd make a good VP in that he has had a range of experience, including that of a chief executive, and is popular among Hispanic Americans.

Posted by: sgsilver | January 29, 2008 7:57 PM

Ojalas and Richardson comes into the light and endorses BARACK OBAMA. He will be the better leader sine he is trustworthy and can acknowledge the plight of the Latinos like myself. I want our man OBAMA in the white house so we don't give up any more Latino blood on the sands of Iraq a war that Hillary voted for.

BARACK AND ROLL IN 2008!!

Posted by: pedraza1 | January 29, 2008 7:56 PM

No matter what the republicans say they want Obama they will eat him alive. Hillary is a figther, She know how to play there game.Do anyone think they don,t have there playbook for him , he cry about Bill & Hillary & the media get on his side that won,t stop the republicans.

Posted by: dadio4003 | January 29, 2008 7:41 PM

Dear Governor:

As you are also from a mixed heritage, your gut feelings make your judgment particularly accurate and carries a powerful message as the same hormones (serotonin) act in the guts and in the brain. ( I am a psychiatrist).

For America, for the next generation and for the nations of the world who are watching , I urge you to endorse Senator Barack Obama.

Joël Des Rosiers

Posted by: joel.des_rosiers | January 29, 2008 7:35 PM

Breaking news from the radio! The Florida delegates are going to count, and Al Gore is ready to endorse Hillary Clinton because her stance on foreign trade, foreign policy, the environment, the domestic economy, and social issues are closest to his. What a great evening for Hillary so far! :)

Posted by: Stephanie78 | January 29, 2008 7:31 PM

someone asked the question: what states that gore lost in 2000 could Hillary possibly win in 2008? They are Ohio, Arkansas, Colorado, Nevada and Florida. Ohio, Arkansas and Nevada are most likely picked up if opponent is McCain, but she'll have tough time defending blue turf in Maine, NH and other spots. Colorado and Florida are more likely pickups against Romney, but she'll have a much easier time defending the states that have been blue recently.

Posted by: davidloiter | January 29, 2008 7:29 PM

Stevenlreed says:

"Feeling good won't cut it in the general election, because rhetoric with out a plan is useless."

That's the Clinton campaign spin about Obama, but it could not be further from the truth. Obama has as detailed a plan as Clinton. Check it out on his website: http://www.barackobama.com/index.php.

Both candidates have a plan. Both candidates have experience, though different types of experience in some ways. The difference between them is that Obama is a visionary and inspirational leader who can actually motivate and mobilize people to get things done, while Hillary Clinton tends to polarize people instead.

The Clintons have even injected race as an issue in the campaign, in spite of Obama working very hard to keep it from being a racial campaign. The latest Clinton campaign ploy is to try to set Hispanics/Latinos over against African Americans, insisting that Hispanics don't tend to vote for Black candidates.

Obama will unite the country. Clinton will unite the divided Republican Party for a Republican win in November.

Posted by: PastorGene | January 29, 2008 6:46 PM

I was for Bill Richardson for president and was sorry he left the race. I agree with Sarah BB that Obama and Richardson would be exellent running mates. I do hope Govenor Richardson will play a big role in the next administration regardless of who the winner is. You are a superb person Govenor! I do hope Obama wins. jwhurst (86 years and mad as h---)

Posted by: jollyjulie | January 29, 2008 6:42 PM

When I hear Bill Richardson say something like Hillary is "genuine" then I have to reassess my views about his sincerity. And is anyone sick of all this Hispanically Correct pandering amongst the media and other one world elitists?

Posted by: jbowers | January 29, 2008 6:33 PM

I am beginning to sense a brittleness and shrillness emanating from the Clinton camp, that has now migrated to the supporters. Stop. This does you no favors. It was that sort of behavior that turned off South Carolinians in their droves. Both candidates are more than able to take this country forward, and restore its formerly respected position among Western nations. But one candidate is becoming progressively more and more unelectable. If a candidate is unelectable, experience matters little. Bill and Hill could do this country a favor and dial it down a little. I know it's inevitable that the eventual nominee will be Swift-boated anyway, but when your nominee starts off with such high negatives to begin with, the Swift-boaters have had half their job done for them already.

Posted by: nowukkers | January 29, 2008 6:12 PM

rhetoric with out a plan is useless.
Posted by: stevenlreed | January 29, 2008 11:01 AM

It is a slap in the face of qualified, older, experienced women everywhere that these men come out in droves for the younger, less qualified, male candidate.
Posted by: nkivlen | January 29, 2008 03:29 PM

How (if at all) will he weather the GOP slime machine? Won't he look like an untrustworthy novice standing next to McCain at a debate discussing foreign policy? Obama can only use his trill "stop trying to scare us" lines a few times before McCain points out he (McCain) has not played that game. Wake up people.
Posted by: JSnapper | January 29, 2008 03:40 PM

As an Edwards supporter, who will wind up voting for HRC or Obama in Pennsylvania, I have to say that the Clinton talking points are tired, silly and insulting to anyone's intelligence.

Obama is not all rhetoric: he has laid out detailed proposals. More importantly, he clearly has a strategy or plan for winning elections, which is the matter at hand. What is HRC's strategy for winning in November? How will she retain the states that Kerry won and regain some or all of the states that Gore and Bill Clinton won? Via Nostalgia. By becoming a "good ole boy."

It's ridiculous to keep talking about how one of them is more qualified than the other.

-Obama and HRC share the SAME threshhold "qualification," having been elected to the U.S. Senate. If she had not been, her candidacy would be a non-starter. Ditto for him.

-The issue is who is more likely to win in November. Neither of them have done it before, so there can be no question of choosing a more "qualified" over a lesser "qualified" candidate. Edwards has run in a national race and is, therefore, the most "qualified" candidate left.

Equally silly, is the notion that the most important attribute for the nominee is dealing with Republican slime or that HRC is necessarily better at it.

--Slimeball politics is really a Bush art, developed by Bush 41 and Atwater (Willie Horton) and perfected by Bush 43 and Atwater protege Karl Rove (Swiftboating). Ford, Reagan and Dole did not use such tactics and it is unlikely that McCain will.

--The other leading practioner is Bill Clinton, who (to his credit) mastered the art in order to counter Bush 41 in 1992 and Gingrich and the other conservative "revolutionaries of the 1990s. The fact is that Obama has held his own with a master, Bill Clinton.

--The best way to deal with slime is such the oxygen out of the room with a superior personal presentation and oratory. Nobody will even hear the "slime." Clinton managed to do that as well, and Gore and Kerry didn't, much to their detriment. Obama seems more like Bill Clinton '92 than does Hillary Clinton '08.

Posted by: mnjam | January 29, 2008 6:09 PM

Posted by: ovwong | January 29, 2008 05:47 PM

What does experience mean when you have no good judgement or foresight?

------

In fairness to Hillary Clinton, her vote was not for war as described in her floor statement on October 10 2002 on the matter. Also, it was based on a monumental 935 false statements that were given by the Bush administration, and Obama has admitted that he wouldn't know how would have voted if he was in the Senate at the time and presented with so many lies. He wasn't though, so every Senator that voted 'yay' deserves a pass, while extra credit should be given to those that have always opposed the war such as Ron Paul, and the opposite to those that have always supported the war such as John McCain.

Now, here is an example of bad judgement...

Obama has said..."There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans," he said. "They are plotting to strike again. . . . If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.

On the other hand, Hillary has said...

"If we had actionable intelligence that Osama bin Laden or other high-value targets were in Pakistan I would ensure that they were targeted and killed or captured."

The difference in phraseology shows what a naif Obama is in foreign policy. To add to this, he has not shared any depth of policy details of how change is actually going to occur, unlike Clinton who has gone into great depth during exhaustive question and answer sessions during this campaign, and God help us if he is elected.

Posted by: Stephanie78 | January 29, 2008 6:01 PM

Barak Obama helped Richardson out in a tight moment at a discussion, Bill Clinton appointed Richardson to his cabinet and to his post as Ambassador to the United Nations. But Richardson threw his votes to Obama in Iowa.
As a spokesperson for Hispanics in the US, I trust Dolores Huerta a whole lot more than Bill Richardson. He's just trying to figure out which side has more to give him.
Richardson is a slippery character and his endorsement won't mean a thingto me.

Posted by: bghgh | January 29, 2008 6:01 PM

My first reaction to reading this story about the debate moment was to say "oh, how embarrassing for him to admit that!". It took an instant but then I realized what a classy thing it is to admit this with such candor. I'm sure we can't imagine how hard it is to be laser-focussed for two hours amid all the pointed questions. A good story about Richardson actually, and another confirmation about how fairminded and positive-oriented Sen. Obama is. I sure hope the Governor comes out for Obama. The country needs it. (He can still say a nice thing or two about Hillary, there's no need for it to be all-or-nothing of course.)

Posted by: B2O2 | January 29, 2008 5:54 PM

Dear Gov. Richardson,

The impressive thing in the anecdote is not that Obama helped you recover. It's that he was sensitive enough to notice your dilemma and quick enough to offer useful help in time. I regret very much that you have withdrawn from the Presidential race. I hope that you will again someday share your leadership with all Americans nationally.

I also think that Mr. Obama's instinctual behavior really reflects the type of person and candidate that he is. Our country needs a leader who is willing to show compassion and 'do the right thing' even if it means not doing the most politically advantageous thing. That is a sign of strength and character - something that will be required of the next president in order to accomplish many of the goals that you share with Mr. Obama in areas such as universal healthcare and immigration reform. For these reasons, I do not just ask you, but I beg you to please use the strength of your standing and reputation both in New Mexico and across America and endorse Mr. Obama. Despite your history and friendship with the Clintons, I am sure that you realize that this is the 'right thing to do'.

It is your turn. Please for the sake of ALL Americans, show us that you, too, make your decisions based upon 'doing the right thing', and not simply based upon that which is most politically expedient.

Posted by: lkusluski | January 29, 2008 5:50 PM

I often read about Obama and lack of experience. And I think that's a tribial question or comment.

Lets think about this. How much longer do you need to be in the U.S. Senate to have the "right" type of experience or be experienced enough?

Lets say that he's there for 2 terms, that's 12 years. If that's the case, then people would charge him with being a Washington Insider. If he's there for one term, then people would say that he was just there for one term (not six years mind you).

What about other type of experience? Do we not count his state senate experience? Or his community organizing experience?

How many bills does he need to pass to be experienced enough? Wouldn't Ted Kennedy be a better presidential candidate than Hillary Clinton? Or how about Chris Dodd? They both have more Senate experience than Hillary. If we are so focus on experience then heck, Bill Richardson would have been the nominee already (Secretary, Ambassador, Governor -- probably missing more).

OK, now lets see what Hillary brings. She's been in the Senate 8 years (give or take). That's one term plus. OK, lets also give her the experience in the White House when her husband was President. That's 8 years. That's 16 years, more or less, of being in Washington.

There is a point to consider. She has been in Washington for 16 plus years and she still voted for the war in Iraq. Basically she trusted the Bush administration wealth of 'experience' (Powell, Cheney, Rice, Runsfeld), with her vote, to launch and win the war in Iraq. How did that go?

What does experience mean when you have no good judgement or foresight?

Posted by: ovwong | January 29, 2008 5:47 PM

Bill Richardson is considering endorsing Barack Obama because Ted Kennedy rang him, and had done some nice things for him before in the past? Is that right? Ted Kennedy isn't the candidate here, but Barack Obama is, and hopefully he will endorse the candidate, and not someone that has endorsed a candidate, such as Ted Kennedy. Thankfully though, he then followed up that by stating that he will not make a decision based on the past, and it's quite clear that the Hispanic population won't be switching from Clinton to Obama even if he does endorse Obama, so I expect both Richardson and Biden to endorse Clinton. Hillary Clinton was disappointed that Richardson dealt with Obama for second choice votes in Iowa, and now here is his chance to even things up.

Posted by: Stephanie78 | January 29, 2008 5:44 PM

I will say this ... it's nice to see the Democrats are so passionate about the top two candidates. Every time an article is put up by the Post, it is followed by a few hundred comments.

The articles about the GOP candidates (which is an even dirtier primary) get a couple dozen comments.

It's nice to see the interest.

Oh... and Obama is a doofus. ;)

Posted by: ghokee | January 29, 2008 5:36 PM

An early supporter of Gov. Richardson because I thought he had the broadest and best experience of all the candidates in both parties, I was sorry that his star failed to rise. His endorsement is an important one and I hope that he gives it to Barack Obama.
As a woman who has held several "first time woman" positions, you might think that I would be firmly behind Hillary Clinton. I have nothing against her - she's smart, capable, and has lots of experience. But, in my opinion she is not electable and were she to be elected would preside over as divided a country as we have now because she has so many vicious enemies who will never stop attacking her.
We need to make a leap of faith and go with Obama. He is the one candidate who has a chance of bringing bright minds from both parties and the private sector together to produce solutions to our country's many problems. He can be as much a uniter as Hillary is a potential divider.
So, Governor Richardson, please give Barack Obama your endorsement and your counsel. If you can not be the nominee, you can best help your country by supporting fresh blood and a new outlook in the White House.

Posted by: patjpalmer | January 29, 2008 5:35 PM

PatrickNYC1, I agree with your statemens. When GOP get a hold of Barrack, they are going to make mince meat out of him. I don't think this world is progressive enough to have a black or a woman president, however, I believe they will take a white woman with experience and highly intelligent before a black man that makes the world have hopes and dreams and whose highly intelligent. I beleive Hillary can handle the republican candidate and all they have to throw at her and still be able to work with repbulicans. Her Husband worked with a repbulican congress (and they hated him)and was able to get a balance budget and a booming ecomny. The Clintons knows how to comprimise in order to get things done. I am not sure about Barrack, I think he can, but I know what the Clintons have done.

Posted by: butterfly2 | January 29, 2008 5:35 PM

joep1, you provide a nice list of the positions that Hillary has held over the last 35 years. More importantly, though, what has she actually done with those positions? Aside from vague discussions of advocating for kids, please give concrete accomplishments.

For example, Barack Obama's signature bills in Illinois expanded health care coverage, reformed the criminal justice system to reduce the number of innocent people convicted, and he authored the most major ethics and campaign finance reform in decades. In the US Senate, he's passed legislation to round up loose weapons around the world, improved preparedness for an avian flu epidemic, and passed ethics reform. He correctly opposed the Iraq war before the invasion, despite the strong political winds to support it.

Can you write a similar summary of Hillary's accomplishments?

Posted by: davestickler | January 29, 2008 5:28 PM

"If I do endorse, it's going to be a gut feeling. It's not going to be about statistics, about past ties," Richardson said. It means to me he is going to drop his endorsment to Senator Clinton.

Go Senator Clinton!

Posted by: alexm_ethio | January 29, 2008 5:26 PM

Mr. Barrack is enticing and hipnotic, but I am a realist and do not believe he is ready for to be president. I watched all the debates and Barrack came off looking inexperience. I remember when the question was asked about energy and he replied he would go with neclear energy, but did not have a full plan as to how or where to store it nor did he investigate the cost. On the other hand, Hillary answered the question with a detail plan. Barrack does not seem to be methodical, therefore, he will definitley depend on Ted Kennedy and others in which they will own him. Obama is a bright guy, but he has a way to go. I agree with the NYT: The NYT has stated:
"Hearing her (Hillary) talk about the presidency, her policies and answers for America's big problems, we are hugely impressed by the depth of her knowledge, by the force of her intellect and by the breadth of, yes, her experience.

A good speech is good, but it will not solve the problems we face in today.

Posted by: butterfly2 | January 29, 2008 5:14 PM

Endorsing Obama will be the right choice.

Welcome aboard for Change.

Posted by: info | January 29, 2008 5:09 PM

Could we get off this "immigration" sob story effort and separate legal and illegal immigration. Obama has made it perfectly clear he desires a continued stream of immigrants and for an amnesty for the 20-30 million illegal aliens in the U.S. regardless of the cost to taxpayers.

For extra measure and votes, he now endorses a drivers license be made available to all illegals. So, here's a guy wanting to be president while openly condoning the presence of those who flaunt a federal immigration law.

Oh yeah. I can see a big change on the way. Brush up on your Spanish if you elect a Democratic president and have a majority of Democrats. This country will be Mexico in no time at all.

I was a Democrat for nearly 50 years but they are traitors to every legal citizen in this country.

Posted by: tinyt55 | January 29, 2008 5:06 PM

Hey Kevineras, were you looking over my shoulder?

Amen. Once I saw that Biden/ Obama (or Obama/Biden) wasn't going to happen.

Let's do it.

Posted by: sprice1 | January 29, 2008 4:56 PM

For months, I've told friends that my dream ticket would be either Obama/Richardson or Obama/Biden. If not on the ticket, I hope he can be in the administration.

Obama/Richardson 2008 would be fantastic for the Democrats (and for the country).

Posted by: kevineras | January 29, 2008 4:54 PM

I would love to see Richardson do the right thing for the Democratic Party and the country by endorsing Obama. I'll go you one better: I think he would make a heck of a vice-presidential running mate for Obama (do the math) and a good vice-prsident for a country with a booming Hispanic population.

Posted by: sprice1 | January 29, 2008 4:54 PM

For the first and last time. Please, I emplore all of you. If you want to know what Obama substantive plans are, economic and otherwise, please visit his website. Its all there for you to review at your leisure. Don't fall into the talking point trap that he's no substance. Investigate for yourself. You'll see that he by far is exactly what this country needs: strength, experience, judgment and wisdom.

Posted by: icr7 | January 29, 2008 4:45 PM

Bill Richardson has a great opportunity to walk the walk (just as he has clearly talked the talk) toward putting an end to our war on Iraq. He can do so by endorsing Barack Obama, who has opposed this war unwaveringly from the outset and, as Ted Kennedy points out, has opposed it clearly, notwithstanding the aspersions cast by Bill Clinton.

It's a great opportunity for Governor Richardson. And it might not prove to be his last great opportunity.

Posted by: FirstMouse | January 29, 2008 4:35 PM

Jsnapper, your points are well taken but largely moot. No one but democrats will vote for HRC. Without the independent vote there's no way she can win.

The democratic candidates who actually have significant experience (Governor Richardson for one) are already out.

We are left with two candidates, one electable, one not electable.

Posted by: eriks | January 29, 2008 4:30 PM

JSnapper-Obama has served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as well as the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee.

Hillary Clinton has visited Walter Reed-so has Obama. He's on the Veterans Affairs Committee, and he and Senator McCaskill co-authored legislation to require more frequent inspections of military hospitals and better care for wounded veterans.

Hillary Clinton has visited Iraq-so has Barack Obama, in January of 2006, when he traveled outside of the Green Zone to visit military leaders on the ground.

My point is, Obama has substance, including more time in elected office than Clinton, (and please don't discount his time in the Illinois State Legislature as irrelevant). He has solid proposals on health care, energy, foreign affairs, etc. And he wants to work with Democrats and Republicans, instead of with Democrats and against Republicans.

And to answer your question; no, the GOP won't hate him. Sure, there will be GOP-ers who attack him, but Obama has shown a remarkable ability to successfully reach across the aisle and collaborate with Republicans. They don't have reason to hate him. Obama's policy is not divide and conquer, but include and unite. It's a good thing for this country. I hope Richardson will realize it, and I hope the Super Tuesday voters will realize it.

Posted by: ASinMoCo | January 29, 2008 4:26 PM

In response to unclefole comments re: Hillary Clinton's experience, she is a very accomplished person who has spent her life in service to others. How many world leaders has Barack Obama met with? He's been in the Senate for 3 years and he has spent 2 of them running for President!

The NYT has stated:
"Hearing her talk about the presidency, her policies and answers for America's big problems, we are hugely impressed by the depth of her knowledge, by the force of her intellect and by the breadth of, yes, her experience.

It is unfair, especially after seven years of Mr. Bush's inept leadership, but any Democrat will face tougher questioning about his or her fitness to be commander in chief. Mrs. Clinton has more than cleared that bar, using her years in the Senate well to immerse herself in national security issues, and has won the respect of world leaders and many in the American military. She would be a strong commander in chief.

The potential upside of a great Obama presidency is enticing, but this country faces huge problems, and will no doubt be facing more that we can't foresee. The next president needs to start immediately on challenges that will require concrete solutions, resolve, and the ability to make government work. Mrs. Clinton is more qualified, right now, to be president.

We know that she is capable of both uniting and leading. We saw her going town by town through New York in 2000, including places where Clinton-bashing was a popular sport. She won over skeptical voters and then delivered on her promises and handily won re-election in 2006.

Her ideas, her comeback in New Hampshire and strong showing in Nevada, her new openness to explaining herself and not just her programs, and her abiding, powerful intellect show she is fully capable of doing just that. She is the best choice for the Democratic Party as it tries to regain the White House."

Full text of article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/opinion/25fri1.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

In my opinion, the Republicans are hoping to face Obama, not Clinton because they know they can easily defeat him based on no experience. Why do you think conservative Matt Drudge keeps pushing Obama?

Posted by: joep1 | January 29, 2008 4:23 PM

Re Monrovia, CA: "The day Barack Obama steps into The White House, not a single person in this nation will be a minority anymore, not a single person will stand in the shadows.
We all will be the majority, the majority voice of the future speaking not for one, but as one and for all. . . ."
"Si Se Puede!"
YES WE CAN!
Lo que dice es VERDAD!
Y tambien Oakland California dice:
VAMOS California VAMOS!
VAMOS por Barack Obama 2008!
Let's go for Barack Obama 2008!


Posted by: Victoria3 | January 29, 2008 4:21 PM

This comment is not a jab at Hillary.

I agree that with the comment that Hillary Clinton would be a polarizing candidate who would energize the Republicans in November. And if she were to win the general election, she wouldn't be able to accomplish much, and that would boost the Republicans in four years.

I am from Arkansas, and there is much hostility toward our former first lady in my state. Barack Obama has support from the Democrats and moderates, and even the sound-minded Republicans. Those who would actively oppose Hillary Clinton would either give their support to Barack Obama or simply stay home on election day.

It is very important that Democrats nominate Barack Obama before another Republican takes the White House. There's too much to lose at this point. Whether or not you like Hillary Clinton, she cannot win in November. And that's a big, big deal.

Please vote for Barack Obama, and Gov. Richardson, please endorse the candidate you know will usher in positive change.

Posted by: Chris28 | January 29, 2008 4:15 PM

@stevenlreed _ Jeb's wife is COLUMBIAN therefore please expalin to us how their children are HALF-MEXICAN.

@Governor Richardson you know very well Hillary will be slaughterd in the SouthWest in the Genral election if she wins the nomination. Perhaps you should follow your neighbor lead Gov. Napalitano of Arizona(ex-USAG Arizona appointed by Bill CLinton, first female, etc.) ENDORSE SENATOR OBAMA!!

Posted by: LAGCII | January 29, 2008 4:15 PM

eriks,

I think you partly miss the point of my post. There is little point trying to avoid the fact that Obama has NO foreign policy experience at all. Zilch. He will look like a novice standing on a stage with McCain (if McCain does indeed get the GOP nomination).

I'll bite on Clinton and respond. Even if you discount her first lady "experience" (even if she did not actively take part in foreign policy, she at least observed and learned) at least Hillary Clinton has served on the Senate Armed Forces Committee. She has visited military installations, Iraq, Walter Reed, etc. and knows what is going on. She is well known (and liked) abroad, giving her an instant in with foreign leaders.

I ask again. What do you really know about Obama? What specific programs would he champion? Most importantly, outside of his campaign speeches of "hope" and Bush-esque promises to bring people together, what do you like about him? Do you really think the GOP won't hate him as well? His palette is a blank one, and the GOP will be all too eager to paint.

Posted by: JSnapper | January 29, 2008 4:06 PM

Richardson was my second choice for the Democratic nomination. He would be an ideal complement to my first choice-Barack Obama. Two incredibly smart men, both dedicated to once again making America great. I recognize that Richardson has a tough choice to make, because of his positive relationship with the Clintons, but I hope he will do what is best for the country and endorse, and then campaign for, Barack Obama.

YES WE CAN! ¡SI SE PUEDE!

Posted by: ASinMoCo | January 29, 2008 4:04 PM

"Gut=Obama I think.

I agree, my gut says I'm sick of all these Obama heads who think this racist country is actually going to vote for a person of color. They all complain about how unfair it is that the Clintons point out his short comings, wait until the GOP slime machine gets at him if he does get the nomination.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | January 29, 2008 4:04 PM

Richardson opposed the Iraq invasion so it's only natural that he should endorse the only candidate still in the race who showed the same good judgement: Barack Obama.

I think it's pretty clear, reading between the lines of his words, that that's what he plans to do.

Obama/Richardson would be a great ticket.

Posted by: kevrobb | January 29, 2008 3:58 PM

what are the dems afraid of? Clinton the Godfather with killer henchmen ready to fire? Oh - O forgot. There was a loyal friend who wound up shot dead at a Washington landmark. hmmmmmmmm, anyone else?

Posted by: jwoods2 | January 29, 2008 3:50 PM

Obama Raised $5 Million Online Since South Carolina Win
Politico | Ben Smith | January 29, 2008 02:05 PM

Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, stressed on a call just now that Obama is going up on the air in all of the February 5 states, and is ramping up his media buy in one of the most expensive markets: Los Angeles.

How he's paying for it? $5 million raised online since Saturday night ...

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | January 29, 2008 3:48 PM

@jsnapper,

What experience does HRC have?

She was a lawyer in Arkansas.

She held a ceremonial position in the WH. She had no security clearance. She had no responsibilities that she was held accountable for.

She has been a Senator from NY for 7 years.


Please, tell me where all this "experience" is.

Posted by: eriks | January 29, 2008 3:48 PM

Can anyone tell me why the consensus is that hispanic voters cannot or will not support Obama? I'm confused and I don't believe the hispanic community could be overtly racist so that can't be it.

I understand the concept of leaning towards a candidate out of cultural pride, all other things being equal, just as I understand leaning towards a candidate because he/she has outshone the opposition on merit, inspiration, judgment, whatever. I do not understand choosing *against* a candidate because he/she does not share the voters cultural/racial heritage. That's not legal in the job world, and there has to be some other reason that everyone keeps claiming Obama can't get the hispanic vote.

Could someone clear this up for me? Thanks.

Posted by: mishte | January 29, 2008 3:47 PM

It seems to me that most Obama supporters are behind him because: (1) He speaks a message of hope; and (2) Republicans do not yet hate him like they hate Hillary Clinton. Do Obama supporters ever stop and look behind the rhetoric? The man is 4 years out of the Illinois legislature! Where does he even get the kahunas to run for President on that "record" to begin with? Just what programs will he champion? How (if at all) will he weather the GOP slime machine? Won't he look like an untrustworthy novice standing next to McCain at a debate discussing foreign policy? Obama can only use his trill "stop trying to scare us" lines a few times before McCain points out he (McCain) has not played that game. Wake up people.

Posted by: JSnapper | January 29, 2008 3:40 PM

It's the Clintons who want to use identity politics and corral the boomer dems to vote for them. Obama is the one who wants to move past the cultural divides from the 60s. It's a noew poltics, folks. Either a Dem or a Repug will instigate it. Why not let it be a Dem.

Posted by: gnostic19 | January 29, 2008 3:38 PM

I hope Governor Richardson will do right by the Clintons and by women around the country and move away from the "Old Boys Club" of Kennedy and Kerry and go with the truly progressive Democrat and first woman president, Hillary Clinton.

Women make up 52% of the vote and I for one will leave the democratic party if Obama is the nominee.

It is a slap in the face of qualified, older, experienced women everywhere that these men come out in droves for the younger, less qualified, male candidate.

I would feel completely betrayed by the democratic party if Hillary Clinton did not become the nominee due to these high ranking male endoresments.

I hope Gov Richardson does what right FOR WOMEN and for the Country. Hillary Clinton is READY NOW.

Posted by: nkivlen | January 29, 2008 3:29 PM

Governor Bill Richardson's international and executive experience, combined with his stature in the Latino/Hispanic community, would make him the ideal running mate for Barack Obama. Obama supporters should therefore be bombarding the Governor with requests for him to endorse Obama in time to make a difference on February 5th. We should promise, in return, to persuade Obama to choose Richardson (at the proper moment) as his running mate.

Richardson is the perfect complement to Obama. Hillary, in contrast, doesn't need him. Not only does she already have Bill (for the "experience thing") but she will almost certainly have to choose Wesley Clark (an early supporter) as her V-P, since she will need to counteract male misgivings about a female commander-in-chief.

Running this year with Obama is Richardson's one real chance to become, in 2016, our first Latino/Hispanic President, as he obviously wants to do. I hope he is astute enough to realize this on his own, but an outburst of encouragement, together with pledges of support, from Obama supporters could help nudge him into timely action.

Posted by: williamhunt | January 29, 2008 3:27 PM

As one poster said, I'm deeply touched with Richardson' story about Obama help "Katrina.. Katrina.." Really both men have character.

Mr. Richardson, endorse it by your heart.

If your decision transcends any racism, a dark part of America to unite us in a whole, your legacy making America as a great country again would write one chapter in American history, I believe.

Posted by: sukkee | January 29, 2008 3:25 PM

Gov. Richardson, this country needs to move forward, look to the future, have a vision and that is Senator Obama. Please don't bow to the pressure from Billary. Endorse Obama.

Posted by: GraceMN | January 29, 2008 3:15 PM

Obama Camp Makes Gains In California Ground War
Posted January 29, 2008

With a southern wind at his back, Barack Obama is surging in California. Nine days from the primary, Obama California is waging day-to-day skirmishes to take the lead from Hillary Clinton, who has so far prevailed in this state but is slowly losing ground. Over the weekend and through Monday, the Obama grassroots has been on the offensive. All day Saturday, long before the polls closed in South Carolina, Obama California held a statewide phone bank in thirteen field offices with a goal of 100,000 calls and a place in the Guinness Book of Records. Not only did volunteers make 220,000 calls but also they targeted the "decline to state" voters, who in California can participate in the Democratic Primary.

By Sunday, the Obama Campaign was holding a conference call with the press to announce the California Truth Squad, which will be quick "to respond to misleading negative attacks from the Clinton Campaign." Unless the Clintons harbor a political death wish, likely they have already set a new course, with a new tone--same as they did after Iowa. Therefore, the California Truth Squad may never muster; nevertheless, the nine pols, led by Congresswoman Barbara Lee, are ready--just as the Obama Campaign, stung, and perceiving, rightly or wrongly, that they were the object of dirty tricks at the Nevada caucuses, sent out the call nationwide for lawyers to come to South Carolina to monitor the voting. On Sunday, the San Francisco Chronicle endorsed Obama and thereby brought to twenty the senator's endorsements from California newspapers (to date, Clinton and Edwards have one endorsement each). Yet more evidence that the Clintons' and their surrogates' misstatements and insinuations about Obama have backfired is this reasoning from the Chronicle editorial board in making their decision: "Especially in recent days, her [Clinton's] campaign has shown the sharp elbows that evoke the ugly underside of the Clinton years. . . ."

Now more California politicians are jumping on the Barack Express. Also Sunday, Xavier Becerra, the ranking Latino in the House of Representatives and assistant to Nancy Pelosi, announced his endorsement of Obama. Suddenly, California Latinos are coming out of the woodwork. Just before the South Carolina primary, state senate majority leader Gloria Romero was made a national co-chair of the campaign. By Monday noon, Joe Coto (chair of the CA Latino Caucus), Nicole Parra, Gilbert Cedillo and Dean Florez--all state legislators--were standing with Romero on the steps of the state Capitol in Sacramento to speak out, in both English and Spanish (Univision was rolling the camera), in a press conference for Obama. Why these folks didn't start campaigning last fall is the big question, but one drowned out by the bigger endorsements of the day from Ted Kennedy, his niece Caroline and Toni Morrison. Topping this good news--if such a thing is possible nine days out from primary--is the four million dollars the Obama Campaign raised online over the weekend.
...

(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/obama-camp-makes-gains-in_b_83750.html#postComment)

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | January 29, 2008 3:12 PM

I've been a Richarson supporter this entire campaign. He was my top choice because what he is, what he has done, and what he proposed for the nation's future.

Richardson's top concern was to END THE IRAQ WAR, because it is morally wrong, politically stupid, military nonsense, and an economic blackhole. His approach to the problems in the Middle East is proactive diplomacy, not war. Obama was against the war in 2002, but in the Senate he voted repeatedly to keep the war going. Hillary voted to authorize the war, and has done nothing to end it. Both Hillary and Obama have refused to pledge to end the Iraq war.

Richardson has IMPLEMENTED universal health care in New Mexico, not just talked about it. His proposal was to bring universal health care to the entire United States, very much in line with Hillary's plan, and something completely different to Obama's.

Being the governor of a border state, Richarson UNDERSTANDS the problem of immigration better than everybody else. His approach goes well beyond Obama's and Clinton's ideas. He proposes to work closely with Latin America in order to: (1) strenghten regional security, and (2) create jobs south of the border, so that people dont need to leave their countries.

In contrast to Clinton, Richarson's mind is not trapped in the dot-com prosperity of the 1990s. In contrast to Obama, Richardson is not dreaming the same dreams MLK and JFK had in the 1960s. Richarson understand THIS CENTURY's problems and challenges.

And, in contrast to Ted Kennedy, Richardson is not endorsing anyone for the sake of ending a too-long political career with a few minutes on national TV.

Obama and Clinton are lots of fun to watch. Their fights have been are epic. But if Democrats expect to win in November, and to start moving America forward, and to regain a position of leadership around the world, they should be endorsing Bill Richardson.

Posted by: tropicalfolk | January 29, 2008 3:09 PM

Richardson owes his national and international standing to the Clinton administration. Candidate competencies being fairly equal, loyalty ought to tip the scales. However, opportunism almost always trumps loyalty in politics.

Posted by: tmann | January 29, 2008 3:04 PM

One reason i cant even consider voting for Hillary shows over and over again, her supporters cannot resist but to put Bill's record like it is Hillary's. When talking about Bill's economic success we hear Hillary and when we talk about about Nafta, Hillary isn't in the mix.Talk about the 35 yrs of experience that you say she has, i know most of it working to advocate for kids, that's a good thing but i want to know more, you know what, i know nothing, her record is nothing more that it sounds in the number of years!

Posted by: unclefole | January 29, 2008 3:04 PM

"If I do endorse, it's going to be a gut feeling. It's not going to be about statistics, about past ties," Richardson said.

=========

That sounds like an Obama leaning comment to me. Prediction: Richardson to endorse Obama by the end of the week.


------------------------

Actually, it sounds much more like he's leaning Clinton. He's saying when he does endorse Clinton it won't be just b/c of past ties, like he feels he owes it to her and/or Bill. It will be because she is the best candidate to win in November and run this country from Day 1.

Posted by: mmcallis25 | January 29, 2008 2:59 PM

Wake up folks. If you are honest with yourselves you will admit that the Clinton administration delivered results for this country in a way that no other Democrat has in the last 40 years. When he left office they had turned an inherited budget deficit into a budget surplus and a we had a surplus of goodwill internationally. We were at peace. The idea that the Clintons have created division is pure FICTION. Why is it when the Republicans critisize each other (Romney and McCain)it's called politics. But when HC calls attention to BO's lack of experience and accomplishment it's called racist? The next president needs to be able to hit the ground running, not take 4 years to learn the job. BO is a wonderful speaker and writer, but he lacks the expertise to get us out of the mess the current administration is going to leave. Everyone always says, "We need to change Washington". Didn't we hear that from GWB when he ran? He was going to be a "uniter, not a divider." Did he say how he would do that? Did he deliver on that campaign slogan? The answer is no. We can't afford to rely on slogans and rhetoric this time around. We need a leader that will deliver solutions. After much reflection, I have decided that of all the candidates, Hillary Clinton is the most qualified and best prepared for the most difficult job in this country.

Posted by: joep1 | January 29, 2008 2:50 PM

""Being of service is not enough. You must become a servant of the people. When you do, you can demand their commitment in return." Cesar Chavez
Clinton 08
Posted by: oliviajimenez711 | January 29, 2008 10:13 AM

That being said by Caesar Chavez, then Hillary is definitely not the person who reflects this eloquent quote. Hill/Bill are in this for their own egos and their own ambitions. Their sick sense of entitlement is pathetic. They have time and again thrown friends and acquaintances under the bus to further their ambitions (ask Lani Gunier and Jim Guy Tucker and Webster Hubbell, to name a few).

I hope Governor Richardson will do the right thing and endorse Obama by week's end (if not sooner).

Posted by: meldupree | January 29, 2008 2:39 PM

To all those misled Clinton Campaigners, Hillary doesnt have 35 yrs experience, she was still in college 35 yrs ago. How bout that? then you have the guts to say she has more experience than Obama? if you talk about legislative experience, Obama has 12 and Clinton has 8? if you talk about working underground where the cameras dont go, then you know Barack as i do from the streets of Chicago and not a Walmart Lawyer.
Mind you, all you female voters, how would you like to see a woman win a nomination relying heavily on a man? thats unfeministic, iam ready to vote for Claire Mcaskil or any other female, who i know isnt relying heavily on the back hand of a man stronger than she is.
If you want to vote Hillary, do so but not on the premise of experience because John Mcain in the General elections will use that word and will decapitate Hillary and if my man Obama does't get it, i will say, well it's all about experience and i will do the right thing, give my vote to Mccain

Posted by: unclefole | January 29, 2008 2:35 PM

After the historic voting of the past weeks, do we really think we can accurately predict what will happen next? A union supports Obama but the members vote differently. We are not robots! As for whites not voting for Obama, that is a fallacy in our house. My husband a lifelong democrat will never vote for Hillary because he thinks the Clintons have hurt the party he has supported for 40 years. He is a white man who has already voted absentee for Obama in California. As for me, I have never voted for a democrat and have been a registered republican since the 1960's. I am voting for a man who I disagree with on immigration (a big issue here) and many other things but he has managed to give me new hope for the future of our country. This is hope that died for me with Bobby Kennedy. I am voting for Barack Obama! Did I forget to mention we are both white and 60 . . the voters who don't go for Obama according to the pollsters and pundits!

Posted by: lindambahlman | January 29, 2008 2:32 PM

Hilary Clinton should stay in the Senate. That way Bill can't cause any more trouble, she can become the Senate Majority Leader and fight the evil Republicans. She won't keep the USA divided for another 8 years. No more Drama, elect Obama!

Posted by: thebobbob | January 29, 2008 2:27 PM

DON'T ENDORSE!
This primary system is a democratic farce.
Obama and Cloton wil lose to that fascist
McCain.
Richardson/Dodd '08 to wion in a hamstrung democratic convention!

Posted by: lockmallup | January 29, 2008 2:25 PM

I`m tired of the wall to wall pundits telling me how great Obama is and how bad and racist the Clintons are.
Thank God I have a mind of my own and my mind tells me Obama is no JFK.
I have to laugh at the media how well they managed to cover the Rezko arrest.

Posted by: strass3 | January 29, 2008 2:23 PM

For the record. I'm a black man, John Edwards supporter, and immigration attorney. I've always found it odd that the Hispanic community and African-American community seem to support the Clinton's, not with just tepid support but enthusiastically. Bill Clinton passed into law one of the most draconian immigration bills in recent history. It ripped apart (and does so to this day) many Hispanic families. There would seem to be no rational reason to support the man after that. Any good he may have done in general which was spread across the US population should be overshadowed by the serious damage he's done to the Hispanic community (and immigrant community in general).

Senator Clinton is going around speaking about how any immigrant (undocumented or otherwise at this point though this isn't entirely unclear) that has committed a crime should be deported with no legal process. Though the layperson might not know this there are immigration courts and immigration appellate courts set up to hear cases where an immigrant might have some relief available that would prevent banishment from the realm. Immigration laws are draconian enough without removing the remaining due process that immigrants have in the system. Again I see no reason why Hispanics would support her as such draconian measures would disproportionately harm the Hispanic community.

Posted by: jr_1123 | January 29, 2008 2:23 PM

DEMOCRATS WHO INSPIRE

Franklin D. Roosevelt
Adlai Stevenson
John F. Kennedy
Robert F. Kennedy
Barack Obama

DEMOCRATS WHO USE RACIAL APPEALS TO GET ELECTED

Strom Thurmond
James Eastland
George C. Wallace
Bill & Hillary Clinton

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | January 29, 2008 2:22 PM

Who hired Bill Richardson, Bill or Hillary? Because I'm starting to get the impression that there are those who believe we owe Bill and Hillary Clinton our lives. Sorry ya'll, we don't. They owe us big time. They abused and we protected and now we're saying enough. Go away and don't come back. You've both had your extended 15 minutes and we are revoking the licsense to play. Later.

Posted by: Gharza | January 29, 2008 2:19 PM

Richardson has always been a pragmatist, so I will be interested to see who he backs. It won't change my vote, although I would have voted for Richardson had he stayed in.
It would be hard to picture him running as veep to Hillary: Richardson likes to be in charge and you know the Clinton chain of command will be 1. HRC, 2. WJC, 3. the running mate.
BTW he is more than "half-Mexican." Although born in California, Richardson grew up in Mexico, plus he represented the most heavily Spanish-speaking section of NM -- a state that is at least 1/3 latino -- in congress for many years.

Posted by: ViejitaDelOeste | January 29, 2008 2:17 PM

I also agree with cakemanjb, Richardson needs to do what is right for our country. We cannot continue in this division. The Clinton's will only continue the status quo.

Posted by: claudiam1 | January 29, 2008 2:15 PM

Gov Richardson was my first choice for the nomination. But I also would have voted for Biden or Dodd. Living in North Carolina however means that my choices will be somewhat limited come primary day.

Regardless of which candidate the gov. endorsement goes to maybe they could return the favor,by getting us out of Iraq as quickly as BR promised.

Posted by: frankinnc | January 29, 2008 2:08 PM

Though I will be standing for John Edwards in Maine's caucuses next month, I feel that Gov. Richardson would be a wonderful choice for Vice President no matter who is at the top of the ticket. As important as his resume or ethinicity is the need to have a "Western" presence with some visibility. Most of my younger friends (my 1st campaign volunteerism was for Barry Goldwater;)are working for Obama, and hoping that if he emerges the winner, he'll ask Richardson. Looking forward...

Posted by: BoYerxa | January 29, 2008 2:08 PM

Vuestra Excelencia Sr. Gobernador Richardson:

!Obama para presidente y Ana la Destobillada para ama de casa desesperada!

Posted by: sawargos | January 29, 2008 2:07 PM

Obama is an exceptional orator. He is also a whiner. Bill Richardson is exceptional in every way. Too bad he is no longer a candidate. He will follow his own intuitions regardless of what we say.
Washington is in shambles and Hillary Clinton knows Washington. Go Hillary 2008!

Posted by: Kansas28 | January 29, 2008 2:01 PM

I would urge Governor Richardson to endorse Hillary Clinton for two reasons. First, she is the right person at the right time: so much damage has been done to this country in the last 7 years, it takes someone with her strength, wisdom, experience and vision to get this country back on the right track. Second, Clinton is the clear choice of hispanics generally, and Governor Richardson should support his own community's choice.

Posted by: embermom | January 29, 2008 2:00 PM

Who would energize the Republicans to get out to vote more--Hillary or Barack? There is a huge amount of anti-Hillary sentiment among Republicans (check the blogosphere or Fox News or talk radio). Even though Barack is a fairly liberal Democrat, his ability to listen, compromise, and even reach across the aisle for one or two Cabinet positions (he's mentioned Dick Lugar or possibly Chuck Hagel, for example), suggests that an already disheartened Republican party might not turn out in as high numbers as they might if they get a chance to vote against a Clinton. Of course, if the Democratic party turns out in record numbers in the general election as they have been doing in the primaries it wouldn't be as big of a potential problem. But there is also a concern that many Democrats have been so disheartened by the Clinton campaign tactics and Hillary's Iraq and Iran voting record, that their numbers might not be as big in a general election as they would be for an Obama candidate. Polls, of course, show Hillary or Obama beating Romney. But polls show McCain beating Hillary (only slightly) and tying with Obama. What those polls don't take into account is voter turnout. If the Republican versus Democratic general election polls are tight, results may hinge on who gets out the vote. And don't forget that Obama has gotten more young people and new voters out than every before--and much more than Hillary. Those may be statistics--but may not be the statistics that Bill Richardson says that he won't be considering when he consults his gut....

Posted by: lauraquackenbush | January 29, 2008 2:00 PM

As a non-American living outside the US it baffles me how anyone can think Hillary Clinton is the way forward for the US at this TIME. To elect Hillary is to AGAIN hit the snooze button. Can the US really afford another 4 years of the same old same old? Do Americans honestly believe Hillary can bring the country together? Even if she could, the media will not let her. As for Bill Richardson, what an incredible man! What common sense and skill he would bring to any administration. In a Obama administration he will shine. In a Clinton administration I fear his luster would soon tarnish. Good Luck America on whomever you put in the White House ... you need it. Don't screw it up this time by playing to the LOWEST common denominator all of us have in common .... fear. It was horrible watching Americans being manipulated this way. It came as a shock that they could be! The rest of the world is eagerly awaiting your return to the fold as a shining star. I personally would hate to have to wait another 4 to 8 years to see that happen. (I am a 50 year old Caucasian woman.)

Posted by: ac11 | January 29, 2008 1:46 PM

Not hispanic. Not from NM. Did think Gov. Richardson was the most qualified candidate. Will be interested to see who he endorses, if he endorses.

Posted by: bumpm | January 29, 2008 1:42 PM

let's just wait and see who richardson endorses and not overplay it again.

Posted by: mikel1 | January 29, 2008 1:39 PM

I am a 60 year old white female supporter of Obama (as is my 89 year old mother). I appreciate his unifying talk, coupled with actions (legislatively and in the community). I appreciate his respectful demeanor in dealing with people--even those he does not agree with. I believe he has exhibited the best consistently sound judgment on votes in the Senate (as others have discussed previously). As a former diplomat, I would hope that Bill Richardson would value these traits in our country's leader. Inspiring rhetoric is not just for the campaign trail. It is immensely valuable in the bully pulpit--something our nation has missed for some 46 years. I find substance in Obama's 64 page plan (available on his website under "Issues"). I wonder how Bill Richardson feels about Hillary's secretiveness while conferring with people over her health care plan in the early 1990's (names I don't believe she's cared to divulge ever since, despite requests). Is that more appropriate than seating interested parties around a table and opening it up to viewing by the public on CSPAN (Obama's proposal)? Which seems more democratic both in spirit and action, especially when the viewing would be open to public comment? If we are to move away from divisiveness, I believe there needs to be more sharing with the public about the complexities of the issues--so everybody can understand the other side's concerns. As a negotiator, Bill Richardson would understand the value of hearing all sides and working out compromises that people can live with now. The my way or the highway approach didn't work for Hillary or George W. Bush. Obama has demonstrated that he can be an effective negotiator in the legislature. I believe he would be able to take that skill and use it effectively in the White House working with Congress. I hope Bill Richardson chooses Obama. If he chooses Hillary Clinton, I hope it will be for who she is and would be as a leader--not because he served in Bill Clinton's administration. If there is an appropriate position for him in either an Obama or Clinton administration, I hope he will be asked to serve--but I would hope that he would not make his endorsement based on such a quid pro quo. (It's true. I am idealistic!)

Posted by: lauraquackenbush | January 29, 2008 1:38 PM

Richardson in a nutshell: He's going to endorse Obama. Not hard to decode. Hey, Kennedy did him a big favor a while back - hell, he's a mentor, even. He owes Kennedy this Obama endorsement. He owes his gut. He can't be guided by the past. Obama, Obama, Obama. Yippee!

Posted by: cascom | January 29, 2008 1:29 PM

I'd love to see Gov. Richardson endorse Obama. I'd also love to see him as Obama's running mate!

Posted by: SarahBB | January 29, 2008 1:28 PM

Dear Gov. Richardson, As a Texas born third generation Mexican American I implore you to endorse Obama without reservation. One does not OWE the Clintons for giving themselves a boost. (We know Henry Cisneros was a disaster). Thank you for having greater ideals and being a true Patriot and role model for millions. That said, the Clintons cannot own civil rights just for hiring minorities around them Bush wins that battle: Condi and Powell to questionable results. You above all know the partisan policies that will continue if Hillary wins. I don't think she can win a single independent vote and will lose the election and get no 'day one'. By supporting Obama now, you will help quiet the frightening tone the Clintons have introduced into this formerly inspiring contest. They would have to listen to your endorsement.
PS You would make a great VP.
L. Munguia

Posted by: lindaemunguia | January 29, 2008 1:22 PM

As a Mexican-American myself, I would urge Governor Richardson to endorse Hillary Clinton but that is ultimately his choice.

I can make a comment about Hillary's Latino support. I grew up in TX and still have lots of family there who are also supporting Hillary. What sealed the deal for them was watching pictures of her walking through Latino neighborhoods in Las Vegas...that hits home and especially, for my mother and sister who support her. Its going be really hard for Obama to overcome that even with a high profile Latino endorsement. If Clinton wins in Southwest states, its going to be with the Latino vote.

Posted by: dmoralestx | January 29, 2008 1:17 PM

I just don't see a scenario where Clinton can win the general election. You can't win in November without the independents, Hillary polls terribly with indy voters. You can't win in November without at least one southern state.

The strategy she is using against Obama (experience) will allow McCain to hoist her on her own petard.

Simple question: What state that Gore lost in 2000 does Hillary manage to win in 2008?

Posted by: eriks | January 29, 2008 1:13 PM

Obama is a sad choice

Posted by: SeedofChange | January 29, 2008 12:59 PM

PLEASE DON'T ENDORSE ANYBODY GOVERNOR!!!

I think the Governor is the best politician and most qualified person in America today for the job, but people need to decide for themselves the way to vote, not with his sway. That goes against exactly what democracy is supposed to stand for.

Posted by: mmendieta | January 29, 2008 12:57 PM

If Richardson goes with his gut feeling for the country he will endorse Obama. But right now there is a real bidding war for his endorsement. Cabinet posts are at stake and Richardson will be offered a lot by both sides. But they have to be careful.
My guess is that Obama camp will not stoop to the level of the Clintons in terms of offers.
Stunning that there are still DEms who still can not see the damage the Clint machine is doing to Progressive causes and the Democratic chances in 2008. Kennedy endorsed Obama in part because he realized that Clinton is no longer electable in a general election.
What about all of the female elected officials who have endorsed Obama like gov. Sebelius. Women who have risen to positions of leadership WITHOUT their husbands getting them elected and without their husbands dragging them across the finish line. It's generational. Younger women see this while many older women do not. But that is changing.

Posted by: awg1967 | January 29, 2008 12:52 PM

ecbogle said "What a pity Obama did not wait until he had gained experience. Talking about change is attractive, but change can be bad as well as good, especially in the hands of an inexperienced person--just look at the change that W has caused."

Bush had a lot of help causing the damage he has over the last 7 years. Experience didn't seem to help Hillary when she voted to authorize him to use force. She didn't seem to learn from her mistake either when she started talking up the the nuclear threat of Iran and only recently backed off. And, as big a fan as I was of Clinton while he was in the White House I can't help but wonder where his voice and outrage has been over the last seven years. He finds it only now in the fight against his own party because his wife's candidacy is questioned.

Posted by: whoffman | January 29, 2008 12:50 PM

There were a couple of interesting, if odd, phrases in the article.

"As the highest-ranking Hispanic in the Democratic Party..."

Really. Is there an AP poll out or are these the computer rankings? How many #1 votes did Richardson get? Is Villaruigosa in the top 10? You can be ranked within the Senate or House leadership. One could describe him as a prominent Hispanic politician, not as the highest ranking.

"he's half Mexican"

Again a bit odd. More conventional writing would be Mexican American or of Mexican descent. Or having a Mexican parent. I'll admit that I grew up thinking of myself as 1/4 Swedish (grandmother born from Swedish immigrants).

Incidentally, Romney nor his father are not Hispanic. The Mormons had a completely separate colony. As I recall, the eligibility of Romney's father came up and the territory where he was born (he ran for President, remember?) was considered American soil.

The analogous example would be someone born on a military base in Germany. That person isn't German as the base is considered U.S. soil.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 29, 2008 12:41 PM

I'm holding out hope that Richardson will endorse the one candidate who I believe can lead this country back to economic prosperity and being a strong world leader again - Hillary Clinton. Sen Obama's a nice guy and quite charismatic but charisma isn't going to provide jobs for us or deal from a position of strength with foreign governments. In 4 or 8 years, maybe Sen Obama will be ready - he's just not there yet. Hillary has demonstrated a real intelligence without the naivete of a more junior politician. I believe wholeheartedly that she's the right candidate for America today.

Posted by: Pete4 | January 29, 2008 12:22 PM

As an American of Mexican descent, I find it interesting to read comments by non-minorities minimizing the effect of race on Americans voting decisions. It is a fact that all people tend to graviate toward those with whom we find affinity. What gets overlooked is that the color of skin is not what draws affinity. It is shared culture, language, customs, values, history, & socio-economic standing. That, however; only partially influences my voting decisions.

More signigicantly, my voting decisions are influenced by my desire to see America overcome the cultural divisions in which we are mired.

I choose to vote for Barack Obama. This was my choice even when Gov. Richardson was still in the race. Why? Because Barack Obama inspires me to believe that America can get past the poisonious politics of fear and division and once again be a beacon of light and hope to all its' citizens and to the world.

This is more important to me than sharing a history of nationality and culture with Gov. Richardson.

Posted by: florgan | January 29, 2008 12:21 PM

I'm pretty sure that if Hillary had been sitting next to Richardson, she would have whispered, "education vouchers, education vouchers ..."

Posted by: evomark | January 29, 2008 12:21 PM

The whole "gut, not past ties" statement actually sounds like a Clinton-leaning statement to me, like he's trying to legitimize his choice and preempt any attempts to brush it off as cronyism.

I hope I'm wrong, though.

Posted by: atomic.sigep | January 29, 2008 12:18 PM

I agree with cakemanjb:
"I know it takes a lot of courage for these people to go against the Clinton's , but the bottom line is , this country is torn apart from all these Bush years , and Hillary Clinton offers more of the same or WORSE.

I really hope Bill Richardson does the right thing for America and endorses Barack Obama."

To me "it is about the war stupid". Hillary made a life and death decision that gave GW Bush the right to preempt war. Her decision was not about her inability to see the future. It was about her inability to judge the present. She was so enveloped it politics as usual, going by the mood of the times, instead of seeing that there were no facts about WMD or an Iraqi/Al Qaeda connection to justify risking American lives and treasure. Now that almost 4,000 Americans are dead, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead and 2 trillion dollars have been spent, she is still unapologetic and is trying to drag Obama down with her by smearing up his very good, clear headed position which was against the war. Hillary has shown that when it counted the most she was a poor leader. All the policy wonking in the world will not bring back the lives that have been lost in part because of her little error in judgement at a crucial moment.

Posted by: maddymappo | January 29, 2008 12:06 PM

"If I do endorse, it's going to be a gut feeling. It's not going to be about statistics, about past ties," Richardson said.
---------

Sounds like an Obama endorsement. I don't think Obama and he have any past ties.

Posted by: ohio4580 | January 29, 2008 12:01 PM

Have you noticed that endorsements for Obama don't include anything negative about his competitor Clinton? That endorsements for Obama are not given out of a sense of debt or submission to a fear of past backward thinking? Whoever Richardson selects to endorse will speak volumes about his character and courage!

Posted by: anthonylee | January 29, 2008 11:57 AM

A speech given shortly before he died by President John F. Kennedy is perhaps the best refutation of the Clinton approach to politics, and captures the Obama magic ...

"When power leads man toward arrogance, poetry reminds him of his limitations. When power narrows the area of man's concern, poetry reminds him of the richness and diversity of existence. When power corrupts, poetry cleanses."

America is tired of the arrogance, corruption and lack of that elusive thing called grace that characterized Bill Clinton's "co-presidency" with Hillary.

Or, to put it another way, as the ancient Romans said: "When Cicero had finished speaking, the people said, 'How well he spoke,' but when Demosthenes had finished speaking, the people said, 'Let us march.'"

America is on the move again.

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | January 29, 2008 11:55 AM

I think that a lot of people seem to be so enamoured with Obama's rhetoric that they have not focused on the issues. I have watched every Democratic debate this election cycle, and while Obama sounds good, I fear it may be all fluff and little substance.

For the record, I highly respect Gov. Richardson, for his record and his performance in the debates. I think whomever gets the dem. nomination would be a fool to not seriously consider him as a running mate. He has a long, proven record of public service, and has valuable executive experience as governor of New Mexico. I also think he'd be a welcome voice of moderation in this whole illegal immigration kerfluffel that seems to be dominating the issues war.

That said, my opinions regarding the primaries is that you should pick the person most likely to win the general election in November. National polls show Sen. Clinton with a double-digit lead; so, my support goes to her.

Clinton/Richardson '08

Posted by: waflan | January 29, 2008 11:54 AM

Whatever - I know who is running. Maybe you didn't understand so I will repeat again. Hispanics admire Bill. Hispanics don't care about the Kennedy's anymore. Oh by the way let's not forget that Henry Cisneros is also supporting Clinton. Hillary has the best guy backing her - Bill Clinton.

Posted by: oliviajimenez711 | January 29, 2008 11:50 AM

Re Bill Richardson's Choice: I perceive Richardson as an intelligent, thoughtful and even-tempered guy. When he makes an endorsement decision, it won't reflect gender or racial or personal friendship issues. Indeed, it won't -- and shouldn't -- be influenced by considerations of what's best for the Democratic Party, but rather what is most needed by our nation and the world at large. And that overriding need is for a U.S. President who will bring about genuine unity, change and global cooperation in addressing and solving problems by first eliminating "toxic politics." So eventually, only one candidate will come to mind for Richardson . . . Barack Obama.

Posted by Newport1256

Posted by: navelbase | January 29, 2008 11:46 AM

Since Bill Clinton's previous phone call had such great influence with Ted Kennedy, maybe Obama will pick up another endoresement with Richardson. For those who missed it, here's the site and please add your support to the fastest growing movement in America.

http://www.shutupbill.com

Posted by: NoMugwump | January 29, 2008 11:29 AM

How revealing is Richardson's story about Obama whispering "Katrina" to him during the debate? Both men have a lot of character.

Posted by: TStew1 | January 29, 2008 11:25 AM

I supported Governor Richardson because he was the most experienced and qualified candidate. Surely he will not endorse a young man who is "not ready for prime time," no matter how good a speaker he is. What a pity Obama did not wait until he had gained experience. Talking about change is attractive, but change can be bad as well as good, especially in the hands of an inexperienced person--just look at the change that W has caused.

Posted by: ecbogle | January 29, 2008 11:24 AM

Is it just me or does anyone notice a trend? Bill Clinton spends more time lobbying those who seem inclined to endorse OBAMA to either endorse Hillary or remain neutral. I would really like to know what Bill says to them. Perhaps it is along the lines of, "The DLC & DNC are behind Hillary. Barack cannot get the White vote. He will not be the nominee. Do you want to be an inside or outsider in the next administration?" The simple reality is that many of those who the Clintons have had dealings with or simply "USED" seem reticent to endorse Hillary. Bill lobbied Kennedy to remain neutral. They probably are lobbying Richardson much in the same way. Either endorse Hillary or remain neutral. Hey Hillary, where is Mariana Wright Edelman's endorsement? You highlight your experience as a Children's Rights Advocate working for the Children's Defense Fund...yet its founder does not endorse you, what does that say? Where is Al Gore's endorsement? He was your husband's Vice President by the way. Perhaps Richardson is wary how the Clintons threw Black Voters under the pass in an attempt to lure Latino's and White Votes. Perhaps Richardson realize that Clinton's flirtation with Latino voters is temporary or at least pragmatic at best.

Posted by: LondonInNY | January 29, 2008 11:23 AM

If I do endorse, it's going to be a gut feeling. It's not going to be about statistics, about past ties," Richardson said. "I've been on the campaign trail with both of them. I feel that I know them.

--Bill Richardson

Sounds like another American about to jump the divide, for Obama.

Hillary's case partly rests on the Dark Period created by the Bush years, and the trance it has cast over all of us to think we need a Nominee who can fight the Death Star.

Obama will demolish any GOP candidate in the Fall, and it will be a sight to behold.

The hoax of the Clinton campaign is that she is the safe bet for the Democrats. Hogwash. That is nothing more than a thin membrane of consensus reality that can be melted easily.

What's been proven by the data on the ground, from IA, NH, NV, and SC is that Obama converts voters to his column and Hillary actually sheds them. Hillary does very well as long as she is flying at 10,000 feet. Once voters see her face to face, the attrition begins.

Obama is the safe choice for Democrats this fall.

Posted by: cowyard | January 29, 2008 11:17 AM

Here is my letter to Bill Richardson. Please feel free to forward to your lists and use it yourself and add your own touches or name if you don't have time to write one yourself. Here's the link to either write your own letter or to send another version of mine. Link: http://action.richardsonforpresident.com/page/s/contact

Dear Governor Richardson,

I'm writing this letter to emplore you as strongly as I possibly know how to endorse Senator Barack Obama for President.

Unite your party and unite your nation and by that act unite the world. Help us to deliver a future we can all be proud of. Be a strong voice of hope and change for the greater good. Show, as you have before, that you are a leader in the finest sense by making the hard call and helping to put the best person in the White House.

It is not the time to stand by. Inaction is our only enemy. To do nothing would be disasterous. As you know, this process comes to Southern California in a few short days, and all evidence points that the race may likely be decided there, in the barrios of East L.A. and El Monte. Your voice counts there. It can be heard loudest today. Today your voice can be heard around the world, if only you'll join us in using it.

Use it.

Use it for the the rainbow of faces I've seen in the crowds. I've heard their strong voices, of all creeds, colors and backgrounds across this nation as they've started paying attention, started hoping again, starting engaging in this process, started engaging in and owning their own futures, thanks to the clarity of vision and clarity of spirit that Barack Obama possesses in abundance. They join me in asking you to join us now.

I was impressed with the candor and good nature of your own candidacy. We ask you, keep this line going forward, be a positive example for your culture, your family and your nation. We need your right now more than they ever have. I say this sincerely and with all my heart.

Bring us together sir. Make us whole again. Make Barack Obama the next President of the United States by lending your voice to ours. Have the courage of your convictions and make your country proud.

The day Barack Obama steps into The White House, not a single person in this nation will be a minority anymore, not a single person will stand in the shadows.

We all will be the majority, the majority voice of the future speaking not for one, but as one and for all.

Use your voice sir. We can change this world and the way the world looks at us forever, if only we speak loudly and with more clarity than we could have imagined only a few short months ago.

Si Se Puede!

Lance Mungia
Monrovia California

Posted by: lancelotcq2 | January 29, 2008 11:16 AM

A self-described Hispanic on another thread noted:

"If Ted had any clout with Hispanics in California, how come Dolores Huerta who stood right next to Bobby Kennedy and who was praised by Bobby the very same night that he got assasinated, has endorsed Sen. Hillary Clinton?

Dolores Huerta knows our community well and she's well respected. Most Hispanics (especially the young ones) have no clue as to who Ted Kennedy is.

And, if Dolores Huerta's endorsement and active participation in Sen. Clinton's campaign isn't enough, then Hispanics will also look up to our Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and he too, has endorsed Sen. Clinton.

So really, who is Ted Kennedy kidding? Not Hispanics."

Posted by: JakeD | January 29, 2008 11:15 AM

Of the Clinton-supporting posters, we have oliviajimenez711 who thinks Bill rather than Hillary is running, p_peppermint who thinks the Clintons have nothing to do with 60's politics(!), and stevenlreed who thinks endorsements are 'owed' rather than doing what's best for the country.

By her supporters you will know her....

Posted by: TomJx | January 29, 2008 11:08 AM

Governor Richardson is also qualified to be president & if he looked like George P. Bush (Jeb's half Mexican son), he might have gotten the media attention to prove it. However, I believe he will go with his gut that Hillary Clinton is the best candidate to WIN in November and move this country forward. Feeling good won't cut it in the general election, because rhetoric with out a plan is useless.

At the end of the day, it wasn't Teddy who appointed him to the cabinet or helped him campaign for governor. The worst crime of all, Governor Richardson, is that of ingrattitude!

I look forward to you joining the team with best candidate, regardless of press coverage, who will get this country back on track.

See you on stage with Hillary on Saturday.

Posted by: stevenlreed | January 29, 2008 11:01 AM

I would urge Richardson to follow Kennedy's lead. The Clintons have proven themselves to be as divisive as Bush and Rove. Lets put the past to rest and make a choice for real cahnge.
Support Obama in 2008!!!!

Posted by: spriel | January 29, 2008 11:00 AM

I agree, that sounds like he is leaning Obama. If it isn't about statistics (Clinton leading in polls) or the past. Gut=Obama I think.

That would be a real blow to the Clintons and their hispanic bloc, especially after his touting of the importance of experience during his campaign.

It is too bad for the Clintons but endorsements probably have twice the impact for Obama as they do for the Clintons. Endorsments for the Clintons are seen as going with the safe choice but when they go for Obama, they are seen as riskier so the endorser must really believe in the endorsement which I guess is probably accurate for the most part.

I am beginning to get the impression that Hillary is just in the wrong campaign at the wrong time. She is capable but I think she may get run over by the Obama express.

Before the Clinton fans read me the riot act -- I am undecided, this is just an impartial observation.

Posted by: newfapalooza | January 29, 2008 10:48 AM

I think Obama needs Richardson more than Clinton does.

Posted by: egc52556 | January 29, 2008 10:48 AM

Well hopefully he comes out for Clinton, or the party is doomed in 08, only Liberals Clyburn, Kennedy, Kerry and the Liberal hack jobs on cable believes the country is willing to return to the romanticized Liberal Left 60s group grievance identity politics social justice agenda that almost did the party in at putting out a weak candidate to be the heir is a mistake, It is what people hate about the party a myopic inability to look beyond the civil rights cause of the 60s as the burning issue of the day and it is Hillary Clinton who is the only candidate who has a comprehensive Immigration reform priority and the strength to get it done. She will not be beholding to the old grudge groups and liberals stuck in the injustices of the 60s who are afraid of their emergence as a new identity group in the Party. There is no doubt that the Partys wallowing in these old name calling grudges from the 60s and their ugly myopic focus and now Liberal fringe support and their viscous slandering of the Clinotns to move left from center they who have a clear honorable record on civil rights and the Partys Liberals deeming this not enough not black enough in fact bigoted has ruined the chances of the candidate I had been supporting for the open Republican seat in my district in a swing State. I am an unaffiliated voter but was leaning left now I am leaning straight up waiting for Feb 5th and I have no interest in Liberal left leaning Policy or priorities.

Posted by: p_peppermint | January 29, 2008 10:43 AM

Secret confession: My wife and I both back Obama (Go Oxy Tigers!) But, on our fantasy presidential teams, I went for Joe Biden and she went for Bill Richardson. He was my close second. Today's column just shows what a decent guy he is. Whoever wins it, please have this class act in your administration.

Posted by: twstroud | January 29, 2008 10:31 AM

I respect Bill Richardson and his judgment. i hope he picks the candidate that will grow the party - that candidate is Sen. Obama. The Clintons have damaged the party in the name of self-interest. Some leadership. My vote is with Obama.

Posted by: maq1 | January 29, 2008 10:24 AM

Obama is the right man for the job. The Democrats will win and this website tells why. www.WhyTheDemocratsWillWinIn2008.com. If Barack is good enough for the Kennedys he's good enough for me.

Posted by: littlelordf | January 29, 2008 10:24 AM

It doesnt matter if Richardson endorses Clinton or Obama. I will continue to support Hillary. Kennedy thinks he has this hold on hispanics. He doesn't. It is Bill Clinton the hispanics admire.

""Being of service is not enough. You must become a servant of the people. When you do, you can demand their commitment in return." Cesar Chavez

Clinton 08

Posted by: oliviajimenez711 | January 29, 2008 10:13 AM

"If I do endorse, it's going to be a gut feeling. It's not going to be about statistics, about past ties," Richardson said.

=========

That sounds like an Obama leaning comment to me. Prediction: Richardson to endorse Obama by the end of the week.

Posted by: zb95 | January 29, 2008 9:23 AM

I have repeatedly written to this blog to urge Governor Richardson not only to endorse Senator Obama, but to actively campaign with him across the southwestern states. This would be good for Obama, good for the party, and good for Governor Richardson. I would also urge Senator Obama to offer Governor Richardson a very high place within his administration. I truly feel that there is a natural synergy between the two.
I hope that the governor does not wait too long to make his decision. Time is truly of the essence. Now is the time for all good Democrats to come to the aid of their party.

Posted by: rarignac | January 29, 2008 9:18 AM

Dear Governor Richardson,

Your endorsement is one that many will receive with great interest because you have brought the same brand of caring and pragmatism that Senator Obama is providing. Your early endorsement could sway many.

Posted by: Millington1 | January 29, 2008 9:00 AM

I agree with cakemanjb. Our country needs someone other than the polarizing Clintons.
I think Richardson knows we need to move on to something other than the toxic politics of the past 20 years.

Posted by: vwcat | January 29, 2008 8:59 AM

"He was the first Hispanic -- he's half Mexican -- to run for president"

So if just being half Mexican makes you hispanic, technically isn't Romney also hispanic since his dad was born in Mexico?

I would say the whole obsession with race is going off into its own orbit in this election. I think hispanic voters will vote for the best candidate not the one Richardson tells them to, because he is "half-Mexican".

Posted by: Southeasterner | January 29, 2008 8:56 AM

I know it takes a lot of courage for these people to go against the Clinton's , but the bottom line is , this country is torn apart from all these Bush years , and Hillary Clinton offers more of the same or WORSE.

I really hope Bill Richardson does the right thing for America and endorses Barack Obama.

Posted by: cakemanjb | January 29, 2008 7:55 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2009 The Washington Post Company