Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Updated: Richardson Makes It Official

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson made it official Thursday -- he's pulling out of the Democratic presidential race.

VIDEO | Democrat Bill Richardson Announced Thursday that he is pulling out of the 2008 presidential race. (AP Video)

An excerpt from his remarks: "I knew from the beginning that this would be an upward climb. When I entered the campaign, it was clear that we as Democrats had the most talented field of my entire lifetime running to change the direction of our country. And in the end, one of them will."

Read the full transcript of his announcement.

Original Post From Wednesday:

News out on the Associated Press wire this evening is that Democrat Bill Richardson is dropping out of the presidential race, with an announcement coming as soon as tomorrow.

The AP cites two unnamed sources close to the campaign. The Richardson campaign did not respond to requests seeking comment on the report.

If the news proves correct, it should come as little surprise. Richardson's senior aides had suggested that if he was unable to show more significant support in New Hampshire than he had in Iowa, then he would withdraw. While Richardson improved his showing somewhat last night, he still only managed to get 5 percent of the vote, making him a distant fourth in the Democratic field.

Over the course of the campaign, Richardson performed surprisingly well in the fundraising sweepstakes, but it was difficult to see how he could generate the cash to stay competitive in a race that is almost certainly headed for Feb. 5, when more than 20 states will vote.

Should Richardson choose to endorse one of his former rivals before the Jan. 19 Nevada caucuses, he could play kingmaker -- given his western roots and his status as the lone Hispanic candidate in the field.

Stay tuned.

By Chris Cillizza  |  January 10, 2008; 3:00 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Kerry's Endorsement of Obama: Assessing the Impact
Next: New Hampshire Primary: Winners and Losers

Comments

Barack Obama quotes actor and comedian Robin Williams in Man of the Year and says "There are no red states, there are no blue states there are only the united states" a movie older than Obamas' campaign.

Posted by: fgad422 | January 13, 2008 6:19 PM | Report abuse

You're welcome, boko. That said, I think your HRC campaign obituary reads to me like wishful thinking.

I spend a lot of time in Las Vegas because all my sisters live there with their families, along with a few cousins. One sister and several cousins are Culinary Workers, and the endorsement is not affecting their support for HRC. I believe that HRC will win Las Vegas because of several reasons:

1. Las Vegas is a "middle class" city where rapid growth in recent years can be attributed to an influx of Asians and Latinos. While Vegas does live up to the promise of a comfortable living, many are now victims of the mortgage crisis. I believe Las Vegas may well have surpassed California's status as having the highest foreclosure rates in the country. That said, I believe Nevada's working class will care more about economic issues than about uniting the country. And rightly or wrongly, they will associate HRC with the Bill Clinton years when they were better off financially.

2. African Americans make up about 10% of Nevada's population, but nearly the same percentage are Asians and Pacific islanders who are more likely to support HRC than Obama. What no one seems to be talking about is the racial friction among Asians & Latinos/Hispanics and African-Americans. A poll during Aug./Sept 2007 found that "44% of Hispanics and 47% of Asians are 'generally afraid of African Americans because they are responsible for most of the crime.' Meanwhile, 46% of Hispanics and 52% of African Americans believe 'most Asian business owners do not treat them with respect.' And half of African Americans feel threatened by Latin American immigrants because 'they are taking jobs, housing and political power away from the Black community...Moreover, the three groups seem more trusting of whites than of each other. The poll found that 61% of Hispanics, 54% of Asians and 47% of African Americans would rather do business with whites than members of the other two groups."

To read more of the results: http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=28501933d0e5c5344b21f9640dc13754

3. Further, there is a huge retirement community in Las Vegas - the 2006 census pegs this percentage at about 11%, a chunk of which are retired military personnel. This is a highly conservative group, which will bode well for McCain and Hillary.

Obama and Huckabee may well win South Carolina, but if I were a gambling woman, I'd bet on Mac & Hill to win Nevada.

Posted by: femalenick | January 10, 2008 8:32 PM | Report abuse

Thank you, femalenick. That is what I have been trying to get across to Lyle today.

Posted by: bokonon13 | January 10, 2008 7:03 PM | Report abuse

Lyle, lyle!!! "The thought of a bunch of losers supporting another loser boggles my mind when I think of this endorsement "War" of words."

Now you know that, like you, I'm a staunch HRC supporter, but c'mon, those who don't support her are NOT losers! Obama is inspiring, intelligent, and clearly charming. I love the guy and will be one of his most staunch supporters because he will make a great president EIGHT years from now. My reasons for backing Hillary are based on the fact that I think of the Dems remaining, she is the best equipped to handle the issues that the next POTUS will inherit. Unlike others, I like that she knows how to work within the system for it won't change overnight.

And I'll admit that I'm also excited by the prospect of the first female POTUS. If successful, knowing that history will judge her more harshly than others, Hillary will work tirelessly to do what is right for America as a country. I believe that if successful, she will be one of the greatest presidents se've ever had.

Posted by: femalenick | January 10, 2008 6:50 PM | Report abuse

oops...I meant 16 years of bitter partisan politics....Has it really been that long since the Clinton's and their 24/7 war-room, win-at-any cost mentality burst on the national scene? Wow...I really AM getting old!

Posted by: steveoh1996 | January 10, 2008 5:15 PM | Report abuse

Choosing a candidate to support is a convoluted enough process for each individual, and when multiplied across a nation, becomes a mind-numbing complex thing.

For me personally, reading an EJ Dionne (sp?) column last summer here in the post about Huckabee caused me to check him out. Dionne described Huckabee's vision to rise from obscurity. It made sense to me, and I investigated Huckabee. As an evangelical Christian, many of his views clicked, and I now find myself the proud owner of one of the few "I Like Mike" signs in Ohio.

Everyone has their own stories, and somehow through this messy process clarity is achieved. Although messy and at times unfair, it seems to work. The marketplace of ideas is vibrant, as demonstrated through the diversity of views from Ron Paul, Huckabee and McCain through Clinton, Obama, and even our little elf from Cleveland, Kucinich.

It seems to me that we are past the time when candidates had a chance to "break through" or have their voice heard above the clatter and confusion. That this winnowing process (some kind of wierd biometric feedback loop between the media and us media consumers) gets pushed back earlier and earlier is sad. The days of primaries in May or June (like RFK's California in 1968) having true importance are now ancient history. I for one am not a fan of the current front-loaded and compressed schedule...feeling we are selling ourselves short, and short-circuiting any kind of true drama, like the 1968 democratic race. Although, I do see that kind of drama just starting to kindle with Obama's recent surge. His acceptance speech in Iowa sent shivers through me, and it felt to me like he was channeling MLK. I think he might be the perfect antidote for the past 12 years of bitter partisan politics. I think the nation would be well served by a thoughtful and meaningful debate on the issues by Huckabee and Obama in a general campaign.

Posted by: steveoh1996 | January 10, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, Steve. And I have to admit that I know nothing about Kucinich's performance as a Congressman. You might be right that he's a terrible representative; I have no way of knowing. The argument could be made that affecting the presidential race is more important than working as one of 435 Congressmen, but it's easier for me to make that argument, because I'm not the one he's supposed to be working for.

I don't like it when people complain about the "minor" candidates, calling for them to be barred from the debates or for them to drop out of the race. It feels undemocratic to me. Media coverage focused on 2-3 candidates from each side, at the expense of the other 6-7 who were rarely mentioned. The only time they get any attention at all is when they get a minute or two to speak in the debates. I don't want that taken away because of some arbitrary idea of who's "viable". There's no way to become a viable candidate without media coverage, and stacking the deck even further against the little guy is not the answer.

Posted by: Blarg | January 10, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Blarg:

First, I must admit that your initial response caused me to view Kucinich in a slightly different light. I think that is a remarkable thing. I had never considered his endless campaigning as having the effects you ascribe to it, especially the part about moving the debate regarding universal health care. So kudos to you.... I guess that is the power of these blogs.

To your larger question: I believe it has to do with viability, shelf-life, and some application of market economics into the political process.

I don't know that there is an easy test, but I certainly believe the election process, by its nature, is a winnowing process, and those who seem to grasp that (Biden, Dodd, Richardson) know innately when it is time to go. One indicator in the marketplace of public discourse and ideas is election results. I think it says something about the hopelessness of the Kucinich cause when those who finish above him in Iowa and New Hampshire drop out, and yet he doggedly persists in a hopeless campaign, at the opportunity cost of ignoring the many needs of his constituents.

Posted by: steveoh1996 | January 10, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

That's all fine, but it doesn't answer my broader questions. Why is Kucinich's campaign more of a useless ego trip than Biden's, or Dodd's, or Fred Thompson's, or anyone else's? Why should Kucinich (and presumably other candidates who aren't named Clinton or Obama) be excluded from debates?

Posted by: Blarg | January 10, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

"Just two days after the U.S. Navy released the eerie video of Iranian speedboats swarming around American warships, which featured a chilling threat in English, the Navy is saying that the voice on the tape could have come from the shore or from another ship.

The Navy never said specifically where the voices came from, but many were left with the impression they had come from the speedboats because of the way the Navy footage was edited.

Today, the spokesperson for the U.S. admiral in charge of the Fifth Fleet clarified to ABC News that the threat may have come from the Iranian boats, or it may have come from somewhere else.

"We're saying that we cannot make a direct connection to the boats there," said the spokesperson. "It could have come from the shore, from another ship passing by. However, it happened in the middle of unusual activity, so as we assessed the information and situation, we put it in the total aggregate of what happened Sunday morning. I guess we're not saying that it absolutely came from the boats, but we're not saying it absolutely didn't."

'because of the way the Navy footage was edited.' JImD -- a question--why would the Navy 'edit' the footage? Is that standard practice? And Mark, would edited footage be allowed as evidence in a courtroom?

I was just listening to a really interesting segment on NPR about this incident, several people with deep ME background, inclduing former ambassadors and current independent area experts--sorry, can't keep track of the names and various Councils and what have you they were attached to, but one of them said, first we have to find out what happened. Both tapes show 'anomalies' and must be analyzed.

If the US had blown one of those boats out of the water, would that be considerd an act of war by Iranians? Some of the commenters on this segment felt that the IRG wanted such a war, as it would shore up Abenijihad's base and give him political cover to crush the Iranian democracy movement.

Please God, all I ask for President is someone who understands what the f*ck is going on in the world and how to deal with it in a way that is in our national interest-- for a change.

Posted by: drindl | January 10, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

If these losers (Kerry, Bradley, et al) couldn't figure out what America was looking for when they ran for President, how can they possibly know now?

Posted by: lpeter59 | January 10, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Blarg:

The calculus regarding a decision to turn attention and resources toward a national campaign at the expense of your more local base is exceedingly complex. Factors to consider include viability, objectives, and opportunity cost (among MANY others)

I think the constituents of the Ohio 10th district were more than fair to return Kucinich to Congress in 2006, especially after he was essentially a part-time congressman. I think we expected that he had worked through his pipe-dream once, and would settle down and represent us (the poorest large city in America, with 28% high school graduation rate, highest percentage of single mothers in America, spiking crime rate, leading the nation in foreclosures....the list could go on) If any district deserves a congressman to roll their sleeves up and get serious abour providing federal aid and assistance to their district, it is right here. Yet not more than a few months after winning re-election in 2006, off Kucinich went on another ego trip.

I believe that the obvious need for true and serious leadership for the critical problems of this city--his home district--should be weighted extremely heavy against his obvious need to stroke his ego while fanning the flames of the far left.

I guess that is the core of my objection with his current (futile) campaign.

Posted by: steveoh1996 | January 10, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

If Richardson endorses anyone, wouldn't it be Clinton? As he defended her several times from her truthful past as Democratic contender's would pounce on Clinton in the debates. Besides, Clinton may would choose Richardson as a VP candidate. They could be the team of natural expansion: Clinton cries & Richardson sweats, let the water roll!

Now, if only Gravel, Kuicinich, Hunter, Paul, Fred Thompson & John Edwards would follow Richardson's exit, it would leave voters to vote for those who can actually win. If Romney loses Michigan, he should also exit the race.

Posted by: bryant_flier2006 | January 10, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Does that standard apply to other presidential candidates too? Clinton, Obama, McCain, etc. all "abandoned" their constituents to run for president. Are you going to criticize them equally?

And why is it "right" to exclude Kucinich from debates? Because you personally dislike him? Because you feel that he doesn't have a chance to win? At one point Mike Huckabee was a long shot who nobody had heard of, and he's now a leader in national polls. Would that have happened if he was excluded from the debates?

Posted by: Blarg | January 10, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

to respond to Blarg:

As a constiuent of Kucinich's, I believe his job is represent the distict he was elected to serve, and not abandon his duties as congressman to pursue the endless ego-trip he's been on the last 4 years.

What is astonishing to me is that while he is cavorting around the country clamoring about free speech anytime he is excluded (rightly, in my opinion) from any debate or joint appearance, or ballot (see Texas), he files lawsuits claiming his right to free speech is violated. Meanwhile back here in his district, he has refused to debate any opponent for the past three election cycles (probably longer)

Hypocracy and pipe dreams are a dangerous combination....

Posted by: steveoh1996 | January 10, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for the input, Steve. I invite you to read Bokonon's comments about insulting supporters of fellow Democrats and driving them out of the party.

Dennis Kucinich has a point of view that is not especially popular in the Democratic Party. He and his supporters know that he's not going to win, and that's not his role in the race. His role is to represent the left wing of the party in debates and policy discussions, and make sure they stay a part of the Democratic Party. And it works. Take a look at the Democratic candidates' platforms in 2004, compared to today. Only Kucinich was in favor of universal health care in 2004; now everyone has some sort of universal plan, though none are as comprehensive as his. He nips at the heels of the frontrunners, and it changes the Democrats for the better.

Would you prefer that Kucinich's supporters, or Kucinich himself, leave the party entirely? Think about 2000, when many liberals abandoned the Democrats for the Greens. How did that work out in the end?

Posted by: Blarg | January 10, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Dodd, Biden and Richardson -- all serious men with more than a fleeting grip on reality-- are all out, and yet we still have Kucinich yipping like the lap dog he is at the heels of Obama and Clinton and Edwards.

Anyone else wonder why the Elf from Cleveland keeps tilting at windmills when the rest of the real world knows he doesn't have a chance, and is a total laughingstock? Let's face it...the odds of him doing better than he did in 2004 are longer than his wife's legs (and that's saying something!)

Posted by: steveoh1996 | January 10, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Lyle, just curious, do you even care that by insulting others that do not support Hillary, you are affecting how she is seen by fellow Democrats?

Just a reminder - her negatives are already very high...

Posted by: bokonon13 | January 10, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse

The thought of a bunch of losers supporting another loser boggles my mind when I think of this endorsement "War" of words. I just cannot believe any of these endorsed by the politicians and celebrities have that much effect, although even if a couple thousand are swayed by them, they become VERY, VERY important in the whole scheme of things. "Oxymoron" is the word that comes to mind.

Posted by: lylepink | January 10, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

He didn't pull it. My bad :(

the fascists got me paranoid. To many years of watching fox and coming to this site for me. Who will help so I don't have to come here anymore? I can't do this forever. Help me get Fox rush savage coulter malkin ingram off teh air. Then balance to them will not be needed.

Help me elect the change candidate. once we are all working together again and are one nation again, verbal combat wil no longer be needed.

Where'e elias when I need him :)

r

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 10, 2008 12:13 PM | Report abuse

rufus

I have been saying that for months - I was a Biden supporter till he dropped out and said the same thing about him.

Posted by: jimd52 | January 10, 2008 12:13 PM | Report abuse

He pulled my post. CC pulled my 9/11 post.


What the hell

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 10, 2008 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Richarson can make an impact by campaigning in the Latino community for whomever he endorses. This will be crucial in New Mexico, California, Arizona and Texas. Richardson did not want to be painted as a Hispanic candidate, rather an American candidtate, so many outside New Mexico are probably unaware of his impact as a speaker/motivator to the Latino community. If he filled that role for Obama or Clinton, it would be a huge asset in the states I mentioned.

Posted by: NMModerate | January 10, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

"what are people saying in Nevada about the primary?
The only poll I have seen in the Real Clear Politics compiled poll, which has Clinton ahead 20 points... does that correspond to what you hear people saying?
and is Nevada an open or closed primary?
Can independents vote for either party?
Does the state offer same day voter registration?
How many delegates does Nevada have?
and why do you think Reid's son won't have any impact on the outcome? (I think you were the one who said this, right?)

Posted by: bokonon13 | January 10, 2008 11:50 AM
"

People hear are saying Obama, I live in reno. I woulnd't buy it. i don't think the reno district has ever, since the 80's, ever voted in a non republcain. The north (reno)is republian, the south (vegas) is dem. So i am not in the best place to say "What nevada is doing", as it will come down to vegas, by the numbers.

The union endorsements are a big deal, as it is all retail and tourist traps out here. A lot of cooks and service people. I think nevada will go for obama, but up here they are going for hillary or rudy, due to fear of the fascists. You have no idea what it's like being a liberal in enemy territory like I am. Not my choice. But it's hard like on mars if your not a martian? :)

It is a closed primary. The republcains are not taking any independants, their late date is over. So they are trying to force their fascist candidates. The dems are allowing indy's to change on the day of the cacues. I cahnged mine already and will be cacueing next weekend, for the future president. I'll be the one chanting "Yes we can"

I didn't talk about reid's son. Reid has no suppor there anymore from democrats. Like I said, he is a republcain now. He may sway moderate dem's who are voting republcain or for clinton, that's about it.

you must understand my mental make-up. I see the moderates in the dem part as gop sabotuers. I see those attacking and sabotaging edwards and Obama as republcains pretending to be democrats. so change IS at hand. i can only speak for myself. But I also feel as though I speak for the youth vote. and the change vote.

Research the delegates, I'm not sure.

I didn't mention rory reid, what the heck kind of name is that, earlier.

r

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 10, 2008 12:08 PM | Report abuse

I said earlier (last night)

"I might vote for Hillary - but if I am even to consider to doing so, I will have to see and hear a little more humility / commitment to the Democratic process from the candidate AND her supporters."

and lyle responded:

"Boko: It is sad you won't be voting for the Prez in 08. Your [price] conditions are out of any ballpark."

Well then...

Posted by: bokonon13 | January 10, 2008 11:57 AM | Report abuse

"So you are attempting to tell me that 30,000 people appeared out of nowhere for Hillary?


The numbers are not adding up - Obama would have had to show a much larger drop in support.

Posted by: Miata7 | January 10, 2008 10:48 AM
"

When I heard them say they ran out of ballots, my heart sank. New hampshire demcorats should look into this. The rest of us should consider the votes valid, as we have no facts.

Better, in the light of no facts (unlike 9/11 :)), to not get hyseterical. But it does seem fishy. I heard she brought people in from mass. Time will tell. We will find out if something was fishy in this political environment, we can pray.

i think women in nh fell for the fake tears in large numbers. this will not help clinton later on. It's a joke to the rest of america, crying for votes. She cannot cry her way to vicotry. She needs a new stradegy. I suggeest following edwards in what he's doing. She can't compeate on obama's level in terms of what he;s doing. She should go after edwards thunder and take up a cause.

this would do two things. Push edwards out. And it would get her some crediblity with no knowing old people. i wouldn't buy it, but that's what she should do.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 10, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

re: Iranian boat situation.

The core problem is that we, the people, no longer trust the administration. That is the real national security crisis.

The Bush/Clinton MO of "the ends justify the means" undermines national confidence.


Posted by: wpost4112 | January 10, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Rufus, if the Democratic party got rid of the moderates, the remaining 23 or so percent of the party would be powerless against the GOP. Anyway, as Democrats, we don't want to turn ANYBODY away. Also, I always thought Richardson was fairly liberal-?

A few questions -

what are people saying in Nevada about the primary?
The only poll I have seen in the Real Clear Politics compiled poll, which has Clinton ahead 20 points... does that correspond to what you hear people saying?
and is Nevada an open or closed primary?
Can independents vote for either party?
Does the state offer same day voter registration?
How many delegates does Nevada have?
and why do you think Reid's son won't have any impact on the outcome? (I think you were the one who said this, right?)

Posted by: bokonon13 | January 10, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse

"I see McCain or Obama as the only two candidates still standing who can govern effectively and have a chance of achieving a bi-partisan consensus on some of the major problems confronting us.

Posted by: jimd52 | January 10, 2008 08:44 AM
"

you came a long way jim. :)

I agree. Your agreeing with rufus. Never would have said that's 5 months ago, could we. We are all closer than we think. It's the propogandists and spinsters taht divide us. if you know what they are doing, only then can you combat.

Goo dpost jim. Now let's make it happen.
r

u

f

u

s

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 10, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse

Boko: It is sad you won't be voting for the Prez in 08. Your [price] conditions are out of any ballpark. I think The Political Cartoons about Hillary and McCain [walking out of the graveyards etc...] are rite on. The endorsement battle should be going on for the next couple days, I have my list down that Obama will get most of them and Hillary may get Richardson, if any.

Posted by: lylepink | January 10, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Thanks bsimon. :)

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | January 10, 2008 11:40 AM | Report abuse

I believe the clintonite Richardson is dropping out because hillary asked him and he will endorse her asking his people to vote for her.
wonder what richardson will get for doing what he is told?

Posted by: dwightcollinsduarte | January 10, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Indeed, Jim. that's why I say war is inevitable.

Posted by: drindl | January 10, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

"Just look at last night's numbers and the higher end of the 2-4% would have changed the outcome and entire tenor of the dem primary.

Here is what's being overlooked. McCain won the Republican side by a landslide but his number would have gotten him a distant 3rd in the Democratic race. It looks like the Dems are voting in higher numbers so far. How does that bode for the general election next year? If the party lines and independent vote hold the trend of the first two contests, a Democrat will be in the White House regardless of the nominee.

Posted by: gtaylor301 | January 9, 2008 10:59 PM
"

i feel you. Voting records are being broken. Why? to elect clinton or biden or richardson? No? Excitment for the future and change. Edwards and obama. Add tehir number sup together, that is how they should eb viewed agaisnt clinton, the establishment candidate.

People will not come out for hillary. FYI as an independant that is for obama. I will nto vote for her. Not because she's a womsn, or she cried. Or any other reason the clinton spinsters want to invent. I will not vote for her because she is attached to bush at the hip, as her husband is to his dad. The games the clinton's played is the same criminal game bush played. Yeah less was at stake. But the ridiculous scandels take americans minds off what is really important. That ship has sailed. Play time is over, remember 9/11?

I am one of those lunatics that says bush and his people were involved, based on a number of reasons. clinton will expand on what bush did (using 9/11 that the yale plan implamented to change our countries laws and mental make-up). Fear the yale plan.

Mock all you want. Many millions of americans think bush did it or allowed it to be done. Like his buddy in pakistan. Imagine the rage you would hold for an american president and his cult followers if you to believed this. Think on that for a minute. don't tsay it is impossible. think about it for a second. Before 9/11 where we were then, and now. Who benifeits? Like with terrorism, who benifets? The gop. Teh justice depratment destroyed. Who beneifets? Bush and his part.

So if criminality and terrorism help the gop, does that then make them sriminal terrorists. No one is talking about the support the anit-gop people are talking about (obama edwards paul huck). Why do they have all the support. people don't talk about it. But there it is. The mind of the youth in america. Mock if you will. Give fake reason you ahve no idea are true are not.

I've done the research. And I can tell you at the least bush knew it was going to happen. At the least. I love my country. I love my countrymen. Whether they live in oklahoma city or ny. Whther they play football and join the military or do not play football and join. Or if they don't join at all. We are all americans. Time to start acting like it again.

those that would sabotage the coutnry from coming together again, show their treasonous faces.

Ron Paul for president 08 ;)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 10, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

drindl,

Not only that, you couldn't keep it a secret for very long with several hundred people on the ship.

There are very radical and dangerous elements in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. The Persian Gulf is quite narrow near the Straits of Hormuz. I have been on the other (UAE) side of the Straits and have seen the ships lined up to await their chance to transit the straits.

Posted by: jimd52 | January 10, 2008 11:35 AM | Report abuse

"and would you gotten really excited, and laughed out loud, when the blood and guts went flying everywhere? wow, just like a video game!"

I don't want to speak for proud, but its not about seeing the blood and guts flying, its about demonstrating that you don't f*&$k with the USNA. For one thing its just stupid to zip around any vessel that large in a small boat. When its a military vessel that might misinterpret your intentions... sometimes you get what you deserve.

Posted by: bsimon | January 10, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

'As a retired naval officer, I am confident that the COs of those ships would not fake an incident like that. As for coming close to the Iranian coast,

'you cannot pass the straits of Hormuz without coming close to the Iranian coast.'

If you say so Jim, you have tremendous creditibility. However, you describe the problem. The central Iranian gov't cannot control all the elements, and eventually, given this administration's desire to go to war with them, it will happen. and it will be a disaster.

'Man, what I wouldn't give to watch them blow that jerk out of the water.'

and would you gotten really excited, and laughed out loud, when the blood and guts went flying everywhere? wow, just like a video game!

Posted by: drindl | January 10, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

"But in re momentum, it would be a big deal if Richardson threw support to Obama. It would create a green light for D Latinos (there are lots of R Latinos of course) to take Obama seriously. It will be important for people to think pretty carefully about who can repair all the damage that has been done to the national psyche.

Obama doesn't really care about "closing the borders" for example. News flash people, they are already here and the question is whether or not they are going to take this country to heart, to love it like we do.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 9, 2008 09:00 PM
"

I agree but not going to happen. He is a moderate rpublvain now as is clinton. He served under bush. He ran on a pro gun campaign, plus "Don't attack hillary".

I agree his support would help greatly for the "latino" community. But I don't think it's going to happen. Bush ties = clinton ties. Fear teh yale plan. The moderates are just trying to take votes from the change candidates. Let's not pretend gop sabotage and forcing the opposition ticket is not in play here. It is.

I say get all the moderates out of the party, make them r's. This way they can no longer sabotage change and the future of money.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 10, 2008 11:24 AM | Report abuse

"I am confident that the COs of those ships would not fake an incident like that"

jimd, It was pretty amusing to watch those dinky speed boats race toward the giant cruiser though, with that scary sounding Darth vader voice issuing it's imminent threat. OOoooh scarry! Man, what I wouldn't give to watch them blow that jerk out of the water.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | January 10, 2008 11:18 AM | Report abuse

"You are naive if you think your government would never lie to you. "

I didn't say that. I said your comment that the video looks phony is reminiscent of people buying into 9/11 conspiracy theory. Those are two different things.

Posted by: bsimon | January 10, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

proud,

As a centrist, the radical right wing of the Republican party scares me. I think Santorum is an extremist and one of the best parts of the 2006 election was seeing him lose. McCain is probably further to the right of me on most issues than Clinton is to the left of me. BUT, I will vote for McCain in a heartbeat against Clinton.

I once heard Rush Limbaugh go into a 5 minute rant on how moderates were worse than liberals and the source of much evil in the world. I see a bit of this in the anti-McCain conservatives (even though McCain is most definitely a conservative and not a moderate).

Posted by: jimd52 | January 10, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

drindl

The actions by the Iranian speedboats are consistent with some past actions - like the holding of British servicepeople for a while last year.

The Iranian government is not a monolithic body and the Revolutionary Guards are something of a power unto themselves. This has all the earmarks of a Revolutionary Guards stunt. As a retired naval officer, I am confident that the COs of those ships would not fake an incident like that. As for coming close to the Iranian coast, you cannot pass the straits of Hormuz without coming close to the Iranian coast.

Posted by: jimd52 | January 10, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

Proud - in re: numbers, Romney 1) claimed to eliminated the MA deficit, but it was $1.5 billion in the red when he left office 2) claimed not to have raised taxes, while hiking "fees" through the roof. (I guess the 2nd is more in the category of 'word games,' a la "I did not raise 'taxes' on that state, Massachusetts.")

Posted by: bokonon13 | January 10, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

jimd, I agree 100%. In a nutshell, the Romneyites want to pretend that Iowa did not exist. They are trying to act as though the Iowa delegates are still undecided. If ever you wanted to see a grown man in complete and total denial, behold Romney and his magic blinders.

I am shocked at the degree to which some conservatives are attacking our most viable general election candidates. If people buy into Santorum's "anyone who less than 90% agrees with me is unacceptable" attitude, the GOP really does deserve to lose this year.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | January 10, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse


'I am shocked to see you write that. Its right up there with the '9/11 was an inside job' lunacy. '

you should look and listen to the tapes. i have no idea. you have to keep your mind open. if you realize how much oil interests want to control the straits of hormuz [and rightly so, from their standpoint, look at a map and know that 1/3 of all the WORLD'S oil goes through there]. one side is controlled entirely by Iran. There's an enormous flotilla of heavy US warships just off the Iranian coast. Bush is over in the ME now, for the express purpose of ramping up outrage over Iran.

Two destroyers and a guided-missile frigate pass close to the Iranian coast [again a very formidable array of firepower].. this no one diisputes. Iranian speedboats [their Coast Guard or whatever] approaches the ship asking for ID. Standard practice. This is what the Iranians say happened. The US says the speedboats 'threatened' them. With what? Do you know what a destroyer can do to a speedboat? Vaprorize it. What can a speedboat do to a destroyer? I mean, huh? It just doen't make sense. And then the communications officer on the US ship adds later, we weren't really sure the voices we recorded were coming from the speedboats.

It's not a 'conspiracy theory' -- it's just the way the world works. You are naive if you think your government would never lie to you. I've been around a long time and I've seen it happen, well let's say more than once.

Do I trust the Iranian government? No. Do I trust this one? Again, no.

Posted by: drindl | January 10, 2008 11:05 AM | Report abuse

"The last time the polls were so wrong was Florida and we now know soemthing was wrong there"

The polls were close to right in FLorida in 2000 - right as far as reflecting the voters' choices. It was just that so many Gore voters in south Florida accidentally voted for Buchanon. Also over 8,000 people voted for Gore and another candidate due to the confusing design. Only about 1600 voted for Bush and another. Gore would have won Florida by around 8,000 votes if the voters cast their ballots as intended.

Posted by: jimd52 | January 10, 2008 11:02 AM | Report abuse

proud

I am sure the Mitt must have been better at Bain or he wouldn't have built up a $250 million net worth. However, his candidacy reeks of a gigantic ego trip. If ever a candidacy was packaged and promoted as if it were a new consumer product it is the Mitt Romney campaign. His convenient conversion to social conservatism and decision to try and run to the right of Giuliani and McCain is a marketing decision - given his moderate record as governor of Massachussetts. It is as if he regards his positions on the issues as selling points instead of beliefs. Now most all politicians adjust to their constituents' wishes on some things, but this was so blatant it amazes me that anyone could be taken in by it.

Funny thing, if he had run on his record as a moderate problem solver - I would be very inclined to listen to him. Instead he chose to pander to the one demographic group in the country most likely to vote against him solely due to his religion.

Posted by: jimd52 | January 10, 2008 10:53 AM | Report abuse

breaking news: Rasmussen has McCain leading in South Carolina! The current survey finds Mitt Romney running a distant third at 16%.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/el ection_20082/2008_presidential_election/south_carolina/elec tion_2008_south_carolina_republican_primary

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | January 10, 2008 10:51 AM | Report abuse

IT is crazy to think that all the undecideds went to Hillary - in fact the CNN exit poll showed that those who decided that day split 39 - 36 % for Hillary.

Maybe Edwards lost one point to Hillary.


Still does not explain where Hillary got all these votes from - she gained 9% at the end, and some polls had her at 28% or 29% which means she gained 10% or 11% -if these votes came from Obama, he had to be well into the mid 40s before election day in New Hamphire.


Something is wrong.


Something is rotten in the State of Denmark - The last time the polls were so wrong was Florida and we now know soemthing was wrong there. With 10 huge polling organizations up there, with all the professionals up there, a candidate simply does not jump their vote totals 20% or 30% (from 30 points to 39 points) out of nowhere - how many people are we talking about here? 30,000?


So you are attempting to tell me that 30,000 people appeared out of nowhere for Hillary?

The numbers are not adding up - Obama would have had to show a much larger drop in support.

Posted by: Miata7 | January 10, 2008 10:48 AM | Report abuse

drindl.

I live in Northeast Florida - not an area where "snow bunnies" and New York transplants are very common. It is, however, a reliably Republican area. Mitt had been on TV here for months with generally positive ads usually showing him speaking to an adoring crowd hitting taxes, spending, immigration and 'keeping America strong'. Mitt has pulled his ads here and in South Carolina to concentrate on Michigan. Rudy has started running some "warm and fuzzy" ads showing an old, wooden church, the flag, dad and son fishing, etc. He comes on in a head shot talking about how wonderful Americans are and that the "Islamic terrorists are making a terrible mistake if they mistake our democracy for weakness". He is smiling through all this although it could also be called smirking.

Posted by: jimd52 | January 10, 2008 10:47 AM | Report abuse

nOW IF WE CAN ONLY CONVINCE THE GREAT jOHN Edwards to drop out. :)

I'm conflicted on this, but I'll take it

"Kerry to endorse Obama
NBC confirms that Dems' 2004 nominee to throw support to Illinois senator. Full story
"

r

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 10, 2008 10:46 AM | Report abuse

OT, Now that Romney has pulled his $$ out of SC it's apparent that he's so truly desperate for a 'gold' in MI that his team is making up their own delgate counts.

Romney's Fishy Delegate Claim

January 09, 2008 10:28 PM

Why is the former Massachusetts governor telling folks that he leads in delegates?

In Boston today, Romney told supporters, "we have more delegates than any other Republican candidate running for president."

Here's the ABC News GOP Delegate Estimate:

Huckabee - 31
Romney - 19
McCain - 7
Thompson - 3
Hunter - 1
Giuliani - 0
Paul - 0

According to my pal, ABC News' John Berman, the count the Romney folks have is:

Romney - 15
McCain - 12
Thompson - 3
Huckabee - 2
Hunter - 1
Giuliani - 0
Paul - 0

Explains Berman, "the way they are doing this is by simply not counting Iowa. They say that Iowa's delegates are not technically committed through the caucus process, and so, instead of extrapolating how the delegates would be apportioned (which is what media, such as ABC News and the Associated Press, do) they just pretend like Iowa did not happen."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/01/romneys-fishy-d.html

I hope Mr. Romney was better with the numbers when he was at Bain.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | January 10, 2008 10:45 AM | Report abuse

"the US released a tape of an 'incident' that happened on sunday in the straits of hormuz, that accused iran of 'attacking' US warships/destroyers-- with speedboats? It looks and sounds very phony."

I am shocked to see you write that. Its right up there with the '9/11 was an inside job' lunacy.

Posted by: bsimon | January 10, 2008 10:36 AM | Report abuse

Miata7, one more point: Polls have an 'undecided/ none of the above' option, while ballots do not.

Posted by: bsimon | January 10, 2008 10:32 AM | Report abuse

'Drindl, I'm sure there are men who will not vote for Hillary because of her s*x. And they're equally wrong.'

Thank you blarg, I just wanted to hear a guy say that. And I agree. I would prefer to have a non-white, non traditonal president--I think it would be good for this country. Doesn't have to be a woman though. I don't need to tell my daughter she can be whatever she wants to be, she already beleives that.

I hope you are right about mmccain, boko... i just don't know, and that's scary. did you know that the US released a tape of an 'incident' that happened on sunday in the straits of hormuz, that accused iran of 'attacking' US warships/destroyers-- with speedboats? It looks and sounds very phony. then Iran issues its own, which is completely different and i am sorry, people, looks a lot more plausible. we are in deep sh*t here, folks.

bloomberg -- ego candidate? well, yes and no. he created a financial empire, [on his own, not like mitt] he runs a chaotic city efficiently... he has an enormous ego, yes. but he has real substance, he's reality-based. but being mayor is different, of course. he's not actually inspring, but he connects pretty well, because he gets the job done. far more qualified than guiliani, less personal baggage. moderate bipartisan coalition -- i expect so.

Posted by: drindl | January 10, 2008 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Miata7 asks
"However, why didn't Obama drop the same 7%?"

I don't recall the details, but have seen analysis that claims Edwards suffered more from the shift to Sen Clinton than did Sen Obama. Its also not clear that more Is went to McCain than predicted. What I recall is that Obama hit the bottom end of the pre-primary polls. Clinton beat every prediction - she was polling around 30-31% +/- a couple points.

Posted by: bsimon | January 10, 2008 10:31 AM | Report abuse

claudia asks
"Do you not think there are an equal, or greater number of men who will not vote for her simply because she's a woman? "

I find it equally distasteful, and would rather they all would think a bit more clearly, rather than presume those who rule people out chromosomally offset those who do the inverse. For the record, I went with 'chromosomally' over 'gender' in order to include other silly physical/demographic differences like race, height, etc.

Posted by: bsimon | January 10, 2008 10:25 AM | Report abuse

Claudia,

No, but it is equally dumb.

Posted by: rfpiktor | January 10, 2008 10:13 AM | Report abuse

jimD - what are they saying where you are about your "fellow Floridian," Giuliani? Do you think the NY transplant vote is strong enough to win him the state?

drindl, I didn't like McCain's singing debut either... however, he doesn't strike me as someone who would be willing to disregard the will of what is almost definitely going to be a Democratic Congress, especially after having seen the bad example set by W and the results it had had. He's hot-tempered, but he's also a veteran and a smart man, and I don't think he would be as careless with the lives of US service people as are quasi-"veterans" of the Texas ANG. That said, if McCain were president, I would sleep much much better at night if the Congress were strongly Democratic. and in re: Giuliani's tax proposals - he can't realistically expect to make those changes and still bring in the revenue needed to pay the nation's bills. He's on an ego trip - as is Mitt - and lacks any experience that's really relevant to the position he's applying for - as does Mitt. (Foreign policy? "I moved frantically around the city after it was attacked by terrorists!" -- "I was a Mormon missionary in Paris while my peers were getting killed in Vietnam. AND I ran the Winter Olympics 12 years ago!")

Mark, thank you for what you said about my post of late last night. I meant every word.
(question also for drindl) - do you think Bloomberg would be an "ego" candidate? I know he has said he would only run if he thought he could win... drindl, have you ever heard him speak? and if so, does he connect with the audience, or kind of flat? Both of you, do you think that he would be able to govern without a base in either party? or do you think he could form a moderate bipartisan coalition - blue dog Democrats and moderate Republicans?
and if so, what do you think that would mean for the 2 party system?

Posted by: bokonon13 | January 10, 2008 10:08 AM | Report abuse

Drindl, I'm sure there are men who will not vote for Hillary because of her sex. And they're equally wrong. But since women vote in greater numbers, and there are large groups of women who explicitly say that they support Hillary because of her sex, pro-Hillary women are a more visible and more important group than anti-Hillary men.

Being a woman is not a qualification for president. More than 50% of the population are women. Yes, it would be nice to break the glass ceiling and have a female president, just like it would be nice to have a non-white or non-Christian president. All else being equal, I'd prefer the non-traditional (i.e., not a white Christian male) candidate. But all else isn't equal, in this election or any other. So we have to talk about the candidates' actual merits, not their chromosomes.

This also isn't a good general election strategy. According to 2004 exit polling, 54% of voters were women, and they supported Kerry 51-48. Male voters went 55-44 for Bush. In 2000, women went for Gore 54-43. Democrats already attract more female voters than male voters. That implies that the Democrats need a candidate who appeals to male voters, because they're going to get the womens' vote anyway.

Posted by: Blarg | January 10, 2008 10:08 AM | Report abuse

Does the fact that many men openly say they won't vote for Hillary because she's a woman make y'all want to vomit too? Just asking.

Posted by: drindl | January 10, 2008 10:07 AM | Report abuse

bsimon,

So Billary isn't about a 90's Restoration but a 60's Age of Aquarius. Retro, man, that's groovy retro.

Smoke that, but do not inhale.

Posted by: rfpiktor | January 10, 2008 10:05 AM | Report abuse

"In the WSJ, Karl Rove writes: "The dirty secret is it is hard to accurately poll a primary. The unpredictability of who will turn out and what the mix of voters will be makes polling a primary election like reading chicken entrails-ugly, smelly and not very enlightening."

for once i agree with him

Posted by: drindl | January 10, 2008 10:05 AM | Report abuse

I was very interested in Bill Richardson's candidacy. His efforts to grab a little attention were unfortunately at times maladroit. It was only in that last debate that his humour came through a bit, but we rarely saw his very present gravitas. He either had to try too hard or rely too heavily on clownishness to occupy a little bit of the limelight. He found himself in a position of being very much a part of the landscape but banished from its foreground. His campaign also never came up with a consistent and coherent strategy--message included--to move him up the ladder -- a bit of the same problems that half of the senators that started out in the race have experienced. Still Bill has invaluable diplomatic, political, and legislative skills, plus administrative and executive experience at the highest levels but one, the presidency. In fact, to campaign you have to be a sales person, hammering away at the pitch, not a mere politician.
Occasionally Bill was forced to make overly extreme cases to stake out some turf in the inter-campaign debates, to try to leverage some headlines somewhere. The Dodd, Biden, and Richardson candidacies illustrate some of the difficulties with the American system. Edwards is still hanging in there because he positioned himself in the national consciousness four years ago, otherwise the stars and the well-connected fill the media leaving little room for others to be heard. The alternative is to be a shadow candidate à la Kucinich, making a point but not much else. Clearly, Richardson was hoping to break into the mainstream but failed. Good luck to him.

Posted by: rarignac | January 10, 2008 10:02 AM | Report abuse

Chris

The more I think about the democratic results in New Hampshire the more I start to wonder.the polls in New Hampshire - they show a late shift to McCain from Obama at the last minute - however one can see that in the voter totals - you can see McCain went up 2 or 3, Obama went down 2 or 3

Hillary went up a little with this because the total democratic voters changed when that happened.

But that doesnt explain it - Obama was at 38 and he finished at 36 - SO THAT WAS CORRECT - what changed ? Hillary's vote total - and it was big - the average had her at 30 before the vote, if you give her 2 more to 32, she had a 20% increase in votes at the end -- its almost like all these fantom votes showed up at the end

OK maybe it was the women who shifted at the end,

However, why didn't Obama drop the same 7%?

Put conversely - Do you think it was true that Obama was really at 46 or 47% before the shift to Hillary? The polls would have had to have gotten that wrong too.


Posted by: Miata7 | January 10, 2008 10:00 AM | Report abuse

bsimon,

That NYT article ran in our local paper, too. I'm a middle-aged woman and an Obama supporter, and the very thought that women might make Hillary the nominee simply because of her gender just turned my stomach. It contradicts my feminist principles to promote a woman based upon her husband's credentials.

Posted by: kurtrk | January 10, 2008 9:58 AM | Report abuse

' It boggles my mind that people will vote for the most powerful person in the free world based on chromosomes rather than skills or ability.'

Do you not think there are an equal, or greater number of men who will not vote for her simply because she's a woman? In polls, quite a few have stated exactly that -- a very solid percentage.

Posted by: drindl | January 10, 2008 9:55 AM | Report abuse

The article that made me want to vomit this morning was this one, picked up by our local paper:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/us/politics/10women.html?ref=us

Perhaps the evidence is only anecdotal, but the author talks to a lot of women who support Sen Clinton based primarily on gender. It boggles my mind that people will vote for the most powerful person in the free world based on chromosomes rather than skills or ability. Yes, there has been a glass ceiling in this country. But what's more important, breaking through a glass ceiling or addressing the myriad problems facing our country?

For the supporters of Sen Clinton who prefer her policies - great. Lets have a policy debate. But can we leave affirmative action out of it?

Posted by: bsimon | January 10, 2008 9:39 AM | Report abuse

What about bomb, bomb, bomb Iran, JimD? It's not funny. Our own Joint Chiefs [and you] know that would be a disaster of a magnitude that could truly ruin us -- but yet McCain has called for it. If I am wrong or he has changed his position, please tell me.

Posted by: drindl | January 10, 2008 9:18 AM | Report abuse

Richardson's western roots and his status as the lone Hispanic candidate in the field didn't give him any traction in the Nevada polls. Why would his endorsement make a difference in the Nevada caucus?

I liked some aspects of Richardson's policies. His domestic policy seemed fine, though his Iraq policy was awful. He should run for Senator or serve in the next president's cabinet.

Posted by: Blarg | January 10, 2008 9:09 AM | Report abuse

This article by Gail Collins of the NYTimes is the foundation of my 8:17AM post:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/opinion/10collins.html?scp=1&sq=collins

Posted by: rfpiktor | January 10, 2008 9:05 AM | Report abuse

Another disappointed Biden supporter here - and I am exactly the kind of swing voter the Democrats need to win the election. I was attracted to Richardson, until he opened his mouth. His 'plan' for Iraq is foolhardy and, frankly, seemed calculated to get to the left of Obama and Clinton on Iraq in order to appeal to the most hard core Democrats. He performed poorly in the debates. I do not take that, as one poster did, a sign of "non-slickness". A president does need to be a coherent communicator and Richardson fell far short of that standard. (So does the incumbent, but we need to do better).

I am a centrist, to the left of the Republicans and to the right of the Democrats. Should the general election come down Hillary Clinton versus John McCain - I will vote for McCain. I do not believe his foreign policy is the same as Bush's. He is in the realist mold of James Baker, Brent Scowcroft, etc. and not in the neo-con, Wilsonian crusader mold of Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, etc. He supported the president of his party on the invasion of Iraq but I cannot see him as president leaving the job unfinished in Afghanistan to run off an an Iraqi adventure. His criticisms of the mismanagement of the war were spot on.

If the election is between Clinton and another R - I will vote third party or write in Joe Biden. I might have supported Romney before his suspiciously convenient conversion to the hard right. Giuliani's amazingly superficial and gratuitiously belligerent foreign policy statements, coupled with his character (or lack thereof) make it impossible for me to vote for him. Huckabee is a very appealing candidate but his lack of depth on foreign policy, crackpot economic policy and extreme social views rule him out.

I see McCain or Obama as the only two candidates still standing who can govern effectively and have a chance of achieving a bi-partisan consensus on some of the major problems confronting us.

Posted by: jimd52 | January 10, 2008 8:44 AM | Report abuse

'The tax cut plan, which has multiple parts to it, begins by making the current Bush tax cuts, set to expire in 2010, permanent. Giuliani then vows to expand on President Bush's efforts by also seeking to reduce the current six tax brackets to three. Those revised brackets would include a 10 percent tax on income up to $40,000, a 15 percent tax on income between $40,000 and $150,000, and all income over $150,000 would be taxed 30 percent.

In addition, he also would seek to reinstate the Research and Development Tax Credit, cut the corporate tax rate from 35 to 25 percent, and cut the capital gains tax from 15 to 10 percent.

As he has stated several times over the past months on the trail, the Giuliani Tax Cut Plan would include his promise to give the "death tax the death penalty."

More details on Guiliani's tax 'plan' -- I'm no economist, but it appears to me that it produce about 1/4 of what we need to fund the defense department alone. what do you think, Mark? Anyway this can be viable, or is it just through the looking glass darkly?

Posted by: drindl | January 10, 2008 8:24 AM | Report abuse

bokonon13 | January 10, 2008 12:54 AM

I finally recovered from my cocai....., er -election day high and first thing I find is this amazing post.

I thought I was going to be in a minority of one on the subject.

I saw the Billary pincer operation, I saw the Bubba "I am not a crook" schtick on youtube, I saw Jesse Jackson Jr. talk about the crocodile tears, him asking why did she not cry about Katrina, n' all. It's deja vue, all over again.

Hill looks diminished by this. I knew when she brought in Bubba she had lost the nomination. Now, she might win it and lose the election, guaranteed.

Obama is young and can only win even if he does not get the nomination.

Hillary, so unladylike. She looks and acts like you would expect a Billary operation to look and sound. This coronation will not happen.

Posted by: rfpiktor | January 10, 2008 8:17 AM | Report abuse

"Could you imagine how well Biden would have looked in the debate last weekend...?"

Yep. I can.'

sigh. yeah. i'm choking on hillary and bill, but i cannot vote for any republcan, except possibly McCain, and his foreign policy is no different whatsoever than bush's. oh jeezus, imagine what the world will look like after 4 more years of just what we have now!

and the rest of the republicans, oh my god. even worse. a guy who beleives that Jews must occupy all of Israel so that Christ can return and wants to bring the US 'back to Jesus.'. a guy who can't wait to turn every ME country into another smoldering Iraq--who makes more money off this war than anyone but dick cheney -- what incentive does he have to stop it?. a guy who founded a company specificially to help foreign governments buy out US assets, who goes anyway the wind blows.

help us. help us. how did our system get so broken that we came down to this? money, my friends, money -- corrupts absolutely. i could live with edwards if i have to, obama is young but i think could do okay, i could vote for bloomberg. being in proximity, i know him well, and he is a thin-skinned, arrogant egotist, but he's sane and he gets things done.

still, i wish it wasn't this way. imagine what a Biden/Obama ticket could have done! it more than makes me sad, it makes me sick.

Posted by: drindl | January 10, 2008 8:14 AM | Report abuse

bokonon13...

Well said. At this point I still could vote for Hillary, but if the tenor of her campaign does not improve that will be in jeopardy.

I supported Paul Tsongas in 1992, but voted for Clinton when he won the nomination. Shoot, the only time I did not vote for the democratic nominee was in 1980, when I voted for John Anderson to cure the malaise. If Hillary is nominated and has not campaigned honorably, I'll probably vote third party. I could never, ever, ever vote for any of these republicans anchored to torture, rendition, preemptive war, Guantanamo, hatred of immigrants (except as slave labor), the weakening of the Bill of Rights and the dismantling of the middle class. I know that isn't a perfect description of all of them, but it is close enough.

Please don't vote republican.

Posted by: optimyst | January 10, 2008 7:54 AM | Report abuse

At 12:54A Bokonon wrote his obituary to the HRC campaign. It is as well crafted as anything you will read today from a professional columnist.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 10, 2008 6:12 AM | Report abuse

Somehow from the very beginning of this race... before anyone even announced, Clinton and Obama were the frontrunners, or Gore if he got in. Richardson was the dark horse. All of these candidates had serious flaws and no one cared. It's like we're living in zombie world.

Biden was the gem all along who was never allowed on the MONEY, MEDIA, CELEBRITY train. His biggest downfall was that he apparently talked too much, which he showed wasn't a big problem. He won all the debates, basically (at least as much as he could with the time he was allotted). He made the infamous comments about BHO upon his announcement, and a couple others later. But, it was only the elites who cared about this. Biden may be slightly politically-incorrect (I chalk this up mostly to his generation and background), but he had the mind to connect with the elites, and the tell it like it is attitude to connect with Joe Sixpack.

The division from past elections isn't North and South, it's rural and urban.

I think David Brooks' comments were right on.
http://blog.joebiden.com/?p=1626

"If Democrats somehow lose this election, they're going to look back and say, 'Why didn't we just nominate Joe Biden or Chris Dodd.' These guys are safe, generic Democrats. They have an 80% chance of winning. The others have big downsides."

Posted by: MNobserver | January 10, 2008 1:30 AM | Report abuse

bokonon13...

this is exactly how many of us life-long democrats are feeling right now.

Hilary thinks that if she gets the nomination we all will support her. But she is wrong.

They've already begun to alienate the African-American community with their low-ball treatment of Barak, as you've mentioned.

And they've alienated me and my friends by the same short-sighted calculation.

We will not vote for deceit. We want real change. Change of heart. The change of heart that brings revolution.

Someone in camp Clinton has made a massive miscalculation. Now, they stand in the way of history and besmirch their own roles in it. Ambition is indeed blind.


Posted by: wpost4112 | January 10, 2008 1:06 AM | Report abuse

russellin2000, as I said earlier to lyle, your snotty demeanor risks turning off Democrats who do not now support Hillary, and remember her negatives? and remember how she loses to McCain in trial matchups? In order to return the House of Clinton to the throne, you WILL NEED all the Democratic votes you can get, and gloating or insulting behavior makes you no friends, none at all.

I am one liberal Democrat who voted for Bill twice, and was generally happy with his presidency, but his wife is not him, and "two for one" is undemocratic (small "d"). As of now, as long as there is a Democratic Congress, I would consider voting for either McCain or Bloomberg (if he runs) over Hillary, and that is due in large part to the "inevitability" strategy, and to the attitudes of her supporters - like you, for instance.

You see, whether or not YOU think she is 'inevitable,' I like to think that my vote will be counted, and will mean something... otherwise, why even pretend that we live in a democracy? (aside to USMC Mike - THIS is a prime example of why I support equal public funding for campaigns.)

I had previously thought I could support Hillary if she were the nominee, but NH was a real eye-opener for me... her callous dismissal of the girl with cancer whom Edwards kept mentioning; Bill's self-obsessed rambling and semi-racist slams at Obama; the choking up - I may be in a minority here, but to me it honestly seemed phony; and the sense of offended entitlement, as if it were beneath her to compete on the same level as the others.

Not to mention the kid glove, preferential treatment she got from the media from the day she announced until about October 1st. We never really got to hear in detail what plans the so-called 2nd tier candidates had for the country except in very general terms, and thus really had no measure by which to judge them. Instead, it was - almost - all 'electability,' and were it not for Obama, it would have been - almost - all The Hillary Show.

She may end up winning the nomination, and she may not. I hope she does not, if for no other reason than to restore my faith in a system which is supposed to provide a level playing field so that any American (theoretically) can be elected.

If she does, I will have to think long and hard before deciding whom if anyone to support. I would pick Bloomberg over her; I might pick McCain over her, and if neither of those alternatives were available, I might not vote. Or I might vote for Hillary - but if I am even to consider to doing so, I will have to see and hear a little more humility / commitment to the Democratic process from the candidate AND her supporters.

Because my vote counts, and anyone who wants to convince me to cast it in a certain way will recognize that, and respect my criteria for choosing a candidate, or they ain't gettin' it.

Only death and taxes are inevitable.

Posted by: bokonon13 | January 10, 2008 12:54 AM | Report abuse

yes, I did vote for Clinton twice, for Kerry, etc...my political life began at the age of 11 when i canvassed Wilmette Illinois for Hubert Humphrey after the assassinations of MLK and RFK.

But for me the Clintons are toxic, just like the Bushes. Hilary will effect nothing as a president, not because she is a woman, but because she is not a leader.

I will vote Rpublican for the first time in my life only to keep the Clintons out. Their unecessary attacks on Barak (not about policy) proved to me t5hat they are more interested in their careers then in the future of the democratic party or America itself. You do not spread rumors about the future star of the party just so you can win one election.

Barak will restore the party and the nation. I feel it in my bones. And there are many of us who feel that way. whether it is now or in 16 years, it will happen.

The Clintons only bring division and hatred.

No more. No more.

Posted by: wpost4112 | January 10, 2008 12:54 AM | Report abuse

wpost: you boggle my mind. I don't understand throwing your vote to the Republicans if you are a lifelong Democrat. If Hillary ends up the Dem nominee, and you can't pull the lever for her, why not go to an other party candidate? ( Green, Libertarian, Communist) Or, just not vote for a President. I am curious though, did you vote for Clinton the second time around? Did you vote for Kerry? Have you ever voted for a female candidate? By voting Republican, you can only blame yourself, if they actually win. As a 44 year old gay man I really hope that doesn't happen!!!

Posted by: rja112 | January 10, 2008 12:20 AM | Report abuse

My guess is he won't endorse anyone. People have been saying since the start that he was angling for a VP slot. If he endorses one and ends up picking the loser then he's outta luck.

I was an early supporter and have also been a bit disappointed by the lackluster campaign. But it was always going to be next to impossible to get much traction with Clinton and Obama sucking up all of the media oxygen. He's got the best resume by far, but he has a tendency to put his foot in his mouth. And the Iraq troops thing, while a laudable goal, was always terribly unrealistic.

I guess I need to get an Obama window sticker now.

Posted by: fedssocr | January 10, 2008 12:15 AM | Report abuse

Biden was a first-tier candidate. Kucinich did more than any other candidate to take action to stop the Bush regime. Chris Dodd made a commendable move on illegal surveillance.

While Kucinich introduced bills to stop the Bush cronies from profiteering on the destroyed state of Iraq like locusts (people like loyal Bushie Ray Hunt of Hunt Oil humping the Iraqis oil in violation of Iraqi law), Richardson falsely claimed that the war had nothing to do with oil. Clearly Richardson was not qualified to be a candidate and was unable to connect the dots even in the most obvious cases.

Who will bring the collaborators of the Bush regime to justice? Who will bring John Yoo to justice? Clinton? She allowed life-threatening torture of a leading democrat to occur in her jurisdiction despite pleas for help. She saw it as a fundraising opportunity when in fact it was a national security emergency that required immediate forceful intervention. Obama? He seems more ready to forgive and forget the crimes of the regime than to aggressively restore justice and the rule of law.

Posted by: Open1 | January 9, 2008 11:59 PM | Report abuse

7-10 said:

"Could you imagine how well Biden would have looked in the debate last weekend...?"

Yep. I can.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 9, 2008 11:38 PM | Report abuse

You Obamorons are as obnoxious as Dean's orange hats from 2004. You were so cocky the past few days, but the voters of NH gave you a bloody nose. Enough with the name calling and instead talk about Obama's record - as flimsy and short as it is. Go back to your hope orgies and let the rest of us pick a real president.

Posted by: russellin2000 | January 9, 2008 11:23 PM | Report abuse

gtaylor301: You may not have been reading my comments here on "The Fix". I am almost sure Hillary is the only Dem that can win The White House in 08. I have studied this reasoning for a long time and I think the "Fear" Factor the Repubs have of Hillary is my main reason for coming to this conclusion.

Posted by: lylepink | January 9, 2008 11:22 PM | Report abuse

Now only if ambulance chaser Edwards will drop out and give Obama his one on one with the cry baby Hillary. Obama will trounce Hillary in a one on one race. The next weeks are going to be FUN! FUN! FUN!

Posted by: lumi21us | January 9, 2008 11:12 PM | Report abuse

*sigh* Richardson is a fabulous public servant, but, to put it mildly, a CRAP campaigner.

Unfortunately, it's all about the image, and not about the content. If he wants to run again in 4 years, he should seriously consider his PR and large-group interpersonal skills.

Posted by: Chasmosaur1 | January 9, 2008 11:10 PM | Report abuse

Just look at last night's numbers and the higher end of the 2-4% would have changed the outcome and entire tenor of the dem primary.

Here is what's being overlooked. McCain won the Republican side by a landslide but his number would have gotten him a distant 3rd in the Democratic race. It looks like the Dems are voting in higher numbers so far. How does that bode for the general election next year? If the party lines and independent vote hold the trend of the first two contests, a Democrat will be in the White House regardless of the nominee.

Posted by: gtaylor301 | January 9, 2008 10:59 PM | Report abuse

I used to be a Richardson supporter until I defected to Biden because I was so disappointed in Richardson's campaign. He was a lousy debater and failed to live up to his resume.

Now I am incensed at Richardson because he took the 4th ticket out of Iowa that Biden could have gotten a lot more mileage from. So now there are no more veterans in the race, at least on the Democrats' side. Could you imagine how well Biden would have looked in the debate last weekend when Edwards, Clinton, and Obama were having their little food fight?

Now we're left with the polarizing Clinton and the rookie Obama, neither of whom I'm enthusiastic about supporting. Bah.

Way to go, Iowa. And way to go, Richardson.

Rant continued here:

http://www.theseventen.com/2008/01/lamentations-of-educated-voter-part-ii.html

Posted by: theseventen | January 9, 2008 10:53 PM | Report abuse

I was volunteering for Richardson in NH for the past three weeks and had a great time. It's a shame that the media was obsessed with celebrity and not qualifications or experiences.

Richardson actually shaped the debate more than he was given credit for. He was the first to call for the scrapping of NCLB, ending the war within a year, having an energy revolution, and cutting taxes. Listen to what the "top tier" candidates have been saying recently and you will find that they are repeating what Richardson has been saying all along.

Posted by: apb_29 | January 9, 2008 10:46 PM | Report abuse

I'm with mikedow on Richardson. A promising candidate on paper, a disappointment on the issues & in the race.

Posted by: bsimon | January 9, 2008 10:43 PM | Report abuse

I sent my criticism to the push polling candidate. I'll let you know if I get a reply.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 9, 2008 10:19 PM | Report abuse

I was just push polled by the stronger of the 2 D congressional contestants in my District, against the weaker.

The push poller identified herself as calling from a "Denver political research" organization. After a series of legit questions, the young woman proceeded to ask me "If you knew...about Dan Grant...how would you feel about him?"

Distasteful in the extreme, from a candidate who prides himself on having funded an ethics chair at UH Law School.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 9, 2008 10:14 PM | Report abuse

Its too bad the guy with what was by far the best resume didn't get any support. In my mind there are three major issues facing the next President: foreign policy, immigration, and domestic energy policy. Richardson had experience in all three of these issues from his past posts and current position as the Governor of the border state. Yet you never heard this publicized in the media, they apparently thought we would rather know if Hillary prefers diamonds or pearls.

I would like to think Bill Richardson could still play a role in this campaign, but the way the race has been publicized by the media, I don't see it happening. People posting on this site would see an Obama endorsement as a big deal with Richardson's ties to the Clintons, but the average voter probably wouldn't even hear about it. Nor do most of them know Richardson was a member of Bill Clinton's cabinet. Guess I will be voting for Obama now as my choices are narrowed to a guy with a slick haircut and smile and a Senator who has done so little for her home state I am surprised they reelected her this year (I only moved here from NY fairly recently). Ask Hillary where the 200k Upstate NY jobs are. Oh yeah, you couldn't even get into her Q/A sessions during her Senate run unless you were prescreened to toss softballs up there. Guess you wouldn't be able to ask that question.

Posted by: BurtReynolds | January 9, 2008 10:01 PM | Report abuse

A Richardson endorsement of Obama is a very positive step toward winning in the desert Southwest. Richardson has a very strong relationship with AZ governor Janet Napolitano, and combined support from them would be huge in NV, AZ, and NM.

It also aides in the neutralization of the "experience" over "change" argument. Richardson is an experienced policy wonk of the highest order, and if he thinks that Obama is ready to lead, then that would go a long way as well.

Posted by: cam8 | January 9, 2008 9:48 PM | Report abuse

Well, I hope he chooses to throw his support to the person he believes in. Clinton will not win the presidency, so there's no appointment in the offing. And because of the Clinton's dirty tricks, Barak wil not win the nomination.

But Barak will be back in 4 or 8 years to win for real.

Clearly Barak is the future of the democratic party and America itself.

Let's build for the future.

Hliary is just a rallying cry for the Republicans. And as a lifelong Democrat, I can't support someone who will restore the Republican party and return the congress to them.

For the first time in my life, I'm actually going to vote Republican if Hilary is the nominee...and that's a weird thing for a 50 year old gay man to contemplate. But it's what the times demand.

No more Clintons! No more Bushes!


Posted by: wpost4112 | January 9, 2008 9:47 PM | Report abuse

For Huckabee supporters--Goldberg [the son of Lucianne Goldberg, the chief witch plotting the overthrow of Bill Clinton] is a major player on the neocon side, a 'legacy conservative' --never had to work a day in his life -- on compassion:

'Jonah Goldberg: The benefit of Bush's compassionate conservatism [in 2000] was that it was majorly a marketing slogan...

Alex Chadwick: You mean you're worried Mike Huckabee might actually mean it?

Goldberg: Yes, that's what I'm terrified of.'

the 'conservatives' are 'terrified' of compassion -- well, at least he admits it.

Posted by: drindl | January 9, 2008 9:40 PM | Report abuse

If Richardson endorses Obama it will mean alot.

First, if he has credibility with Hispanic voters, it will win over their votes.

Secondly, Richardson was a member of Bill Clinton's cabinet - so he knows the Clintons. Throwing his support to Obama would send a clear message to voters on what he thinks of Hillary's ability as a leader - she has none.

Posted by: Nevadaandy | January 9, 2008 9:26 PM | Report abuse

Now that Bill Richardson has dropped out of the race, who do you believe he will endorse?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1488

.

Posted by: PollM | January 9, 2008 9:25 PM | Report abuse

bokonon13,
My issue is with the term "kingmaker". Nevada is going to give one of the two enough momentum to get the nomination with Richardson's endorsement being the catalyst? Highly unlikely, IMO but after yesterday, I now think anything is possible.

Posted by: dave | January 9, 2008 9:22 PM | Report abuse

Actually his endorsement may matter quite a bit.

There is no such thing as "the Latino community" anymore than there is "the Anglo community".

But in re momentum, it would be a big deal if Richardson threw support to Obama. It would create a green light for D Latinos (there are lots of R Latinos of course) to take Obama seriously. It will be important for people to think pretty carefully about who can repair all the damage that has been done to the national psyche.

Obama doesn't really care about "closing the borders" for example. News flash people, they are already here and the question is whether or not they are going to take this country to heart, to love it like we do.


Posted by: shrink2 | January 9, 2008 9:00 PM | Report abuse

dave, Nevada may not have ALL that many delegates, but as someone else said on an earlier thread, it's all about momentum.

Posted by: bokonon13 | January 9, 2008 8:43 PM | Report abuse

CC - "Should Richardson choose to endorse one of his former rivals before the Jan. 19 Nevada caucuses, he could play kingmaker -- given his western roots and his status as the lone Hispanic candidate in the field."

Polling nationally between 2 and 4 percent and endorsing someone so they can win the hugely important state of Nevada can make you a kingmaker? Is there any suspense whatsoever as to who he might endorse?

Posted by: dave | January 9, 2008 8:06 PM | Report abuse

I had an open mind when I first saw Richardson, but he embarrassed himself at every opportunity by whining about how he stood for change and had experience. Some people can be described as "larger than life." Richardson always seemed small and overmatched. His signature issue, removing all troops from Iraq, made him look desperate and foolish. He may be a good person, but he certainly isn't qualified to be president.

Posted by: mikedow | January 9, 2008 8:06 PM | Report abuse

I had an open mind when I first saw Richardson, but he embarrassed himself at every opportunity by whining about how he stood for change and had experience. Some people can be described as "larger than life." Richardson always seemed small and overmatched. His signature issue, removing all troops from Iraq, made him look desperate and foolish. He may be a good person, but he certainly isn't qualified to be president.

Posted by: mikedow | January 9, 2008 8:03 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company