- Joined
- Oct 25, 2001
- Messages
- 2,888
Richardson was promised something. We'll find out soon enough.
Do you think it likely that the Clintons promised him nothing?
Richardson was promised something. We'll find out soon enough.
Just tell em what the want to hear, and HOPEFULLY move fast and get out before they find out.
Do you think it likely that the Clintons promised him nothing?
Do you think it likely that the Clintons promised him nothing?
Yes. I do.
I think its more likely that Obama promised him something than Hillary did.
Just not what he wanted! I smell VP. Obama choose him for the Hispanic vote!
Three Myths About the Democratic Race
by Peter Daou
3/24/2008 11:26:17 AM
MYTH: Barack Obama is running a positive campaign that will unite Americans.
FACT: Barack Obama and his advisers have conducted a divisive "full assault" on Hillary's character.
While talking a lot about the politics of hope, change and unity, Sen. Obama and his campaign have been conducting a relentless and singularly personal assault on Hillary's character. They have blanketed big states with false negative mailers and radio ads and have described Hillary and her campaign as "disingenuous," "divisive," "untruthful," "dishonest," "polarizing," "calculating," "saying whatever it takes to win," "attempting to deceive the American people," "one of the most secretive in America," deliberately misleading, literally willing to do anything to win, and playing politics with war."
This "full assault" on Hillary's integrity and character has reached a new peak since Hillary's victories on March 4th. One of Sen. Obama's top surrogates equated President Clinton with Joe McCarthy; another called Hillary a "monster;" and his campaign manager held an angry conference call claiming that Hillary is "deeply flawed" and has "character issues." That's neither unifying nor hopeful. If Sen. Obama really is the prohibitive favorite some say he is, these negative attacks make absolutely no sense. Why would a frontrunner seek to attack and divide? If Sen. Obama can't unify Democrats in a primary, how can he unify Americans in a general election?
=====
MYTH: The delegate "math" works decisively against Hillary.
FACT: The delegate math reflects an extremely close race that either candidate can win.
"The Math" is actually very simple: with hundreds of delegates still uncommitted, NEITHER candidate has reached the number of delegates required to secure the nomination. And EITHER candidate can reach the required number in the coming weeks and months. That is indisputable. No amount of editorials, articles, blog posts, charts, graphs, calculations, formulas, or projections will change the basic fact that either candidate can win. Pundits who confidently proclaim that Hillary has no hope of winning because of "the math," have counted Hillary out of this race three times before. Each time they based their sober assessments on 'facts' and 'realities' -- and each time they were wrong.
In a campaign with dozens of unexpected twists and turns, bold prognostications should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism. Look no further than Sen. Obama's "full assault" on Hillary's character to judge whether he thinks this election is over. The fact is this: Hillary and Sen. Obama are locked in a very close, hard-fought campaign and Hillary is demonstrating precisely the strength of character required of a president. Her resilience in the face of adversity, her faith in the voters, her capacity to rise to every challenge, are part of the reason she is the best general election candidate for Democrats. And it is why she is increasingly strong against John McCain in the polls at the same time that Sen. Obama is dropping against Sen. McCain.
=====
MYTH: For Hillary to win, super delegates must "overturn the will of the people."
FACT: The race is virtually tied, the "will of the people" is split, and both candidates need super delegates to win.
The Obama campaign and Sen. Obama's surrogates have engaged in a sustained public relations effort to convince people that the election is over and that if super delegates perform their established role of choosing a candidate who they believe will make the best nominee and president, they are somehow "overturning the will of the people." They have the audacity to make this argument while quietly and systematically courting those very same super delegates. They are courting them because they know that Sen. Obama needs super delegates to win. The Obama spin is being parroted daily by pundits, but it is patently false. The race is virtually tied; the "will of the people" is split. By virtually every measure, Hillary and Sen. Obama are neck and neck -- separated by less than 130 of the more than 3,100 delegates committed thus far and less than 1% of the 27 million+ votes cast, including Florida and Michigan. Less than 1%.
An incremental advantage for one candidate or the other is hardly a reason for super delegates to change the rules mid-game. Despite the Obama campaign's aggressive spin and pressure, the RULES require super delegates to exercise their best independent judgment, and that is what they will do. Even Sen. Obama's top strategist agrees they should. If not, then why don't prominent Obama endorsers like Senators Kerry (MA) and Kennedy (MA), and Governors Patrick (MA), Napolitano (AZ) and Richardson (NM) follow the will of their constituents and switch their support to Hillary? After all, she won their states. And if this is truly about the "will of the people," then Sen. Obama's short-sighted tactic to run out the clock on a revote in Florida and Michigan accomplishes exactly two things: it disenfranchises Florida and Michigan's voters; and it hurts Democrats in a general election. Apparently, for the Obama campaign, the "will of the people" is just words.
I'd be the last to say that. I know most endorsements come down to what can it do for their careers. I think Richardson is a nice enough guy, but honestly, he won how many delegates? I told this to someone in Jan. I figured they were just keeping him around the debates in case there was a wild party after one of them and someone needed a ride home.My point is that just like the Obama supporters, too many people here think the Clinton camp is being honest and forthright in their campaign...Not. They're all politicians. They're all trying to do what's best for them first.
![]()
Come on guys...Some of you are sounding as rigid and unreasonable as the Obama supporters that are driving me crazy.![]()
My point is that just like the Obama supporters, too many people here think the Clinton camp is being honest and forthright in their campaign...Not. They're all politicians. They're all trying to do what's best for them first.
![]()
I think Obama believes that richarson will help with the Hispanic vote (as VP or in another way), but when Richardson and Hillary were candidates the Hispanic population whent big to Hillary over him. I thin his endorsement will have zero cross-over effect
Come on guys...Some of you are sounding as rigid and unreasonable as the Obama supporters that are driving me crazy.![]()
Of course Richardson was promised something. But come on, he's a politician. Yes I'm supremely dissappointed in his choice and I can see clearly through his accolades but I believe the Clinton camp offered him (or was dangling) the EXACT same thing and he chose Obama. Remember, Richardson has to keep the Edwards factor in mind as well. He wants to be VP and (maybe too) so does Edwards. IMO, Richardson pre-empted Edwards by picking the front runner (not that I think Edwards is leaning that way, I don't, but who knows).
My point is that just like the Obama supporters, too many people here think the Clinton camp is being honest and forthright in their campaign...Not. They're all politicians. They're all trying to do what's best for them first.
![]()
I think Edwards is a bigger fish. Especially with NC still up for grabs. Even though the Kennedy endorsement didn't exactly win Mass for Obama. They only do so much for votes.