Bill Richardson and Obama

[Carmen813]

http://www.swamppolitics.com/n...ons_tough_call_sh.html

The media has been putting a lot of pressure on Richardson to endorse someone and he seems to be leaning towards Obama. I really liked Richardson in the debates, and in this article above he shares a story that I think shows you how classy Obama can be.

 

[Moonbeam]

VP for Obama, I hope.

 

[chowderhead]

Richardson is a walking, talking gaffe machine. I can't help be think of his meet the press interview which was painfully inarticulate and incoherent.
He is clearly aiming for a VP selection but I hope neither will pick him.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
VP for Obama, I hope.

Hillary agrees. Oh, wait . . .

 

[StageLeft]

Bidet for VP.

 

[Rio Rebel]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Bidet for VP.

Bidet? Isn't that a European toilet?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Bidet for VP.

Bidet? Isn't that a European toilet?

I think it's a cat washer.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Bidet for VP.

Bidet? Isn't that a European toilet?

I think it's a cat washer.

Biden!

 

[Fern]

Richardson criticized the role the superdelegates will play in the decision, saying that the nomination should be decided by voters.

^That looks to be the important part. Sounds like he'll casting his SD ballot for Obama.

Fern

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Fern

Richardson criticized the role the super delegates will play in the decision, saying that the nomination should be decided by voters.

^That looks to be the important part. Sounds like he'll casting his SD ballot for Obama.

Fern

how do you define voters, though? which is to say, are the people of FL and MI in fact, voters?

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Fern

Richardson criticized the role the super delegates will play in the decision, saying that the nomination should be decided by voters.

^That looks to be the important part. Sounds like he'll casting his SD ballot for Obama.

Fern

how do you define voters, though? which is to say, are the people of FL and MI in fact, voters?

Not in this case.

 

[Starbuck1975]

how do you define voters, though? which is to say, are the people of FL and MI in fact, voters?

The Hillary supporters are going to cry about Michigan and Florida all the way to the DNC.

Yes the people of FL and MI are voters...their idiotic state leadership stripped them of their vote...end of discussion.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

how do you define voters, though? which is to say, are the people of FL and MI in fact, voters?

The Hillary supporters are going to cry about Michigan and Florida all the way to the DNC.

Yes the people of FL and MI are voters...their idiotic state leadership stripped them of their vote...end of discussion.

FL's primary was pushed early by the state's republicans, though I'd certainly agree to a point about MI.

in any event, it seems likely that FL is going to have a do-over in June.

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

how do you define voters, though? which is to say, are the people of FL and MI in fact, voters?

The Hillary supporters are going to cry about Michigan and Florida all the way to the DNC.

Yes the people of FL and MI are voters...their idiotic state leadership stripped them of their vote...end of discussion.

that is definitely not the end of the story. There will probably be a re-vote. The Democratic party cannot be for the disenfranchisement of millions of people from Florida and Michigan.

Richardson has flip-flopped so many times, I would wait a few days before taking his word as anything solid.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Fern

Richardson criticized the role the super delegates will play in the decision, saying that the nomination should be decided by voters.

^That looks to be the important part. Sounds like he'll casting his SD ballot for Obama.

Fern

how do you define voters, though? which is to say, are the people of FL and MI in fact, voters?

We'll seems significant to me.

Firstly, all this "who has the best chance to win the gen election" stuff the Clinton camp is pushing seems out of consideration. In fact, I think it would be a good idea if all the SD's would take that as a pledge. As I said for a while, I think Hillary's gonna try to make Obama look bad so he falls behind in head-to-head polls with McCain and then use that as leverage to get herself chosen by the SD's. Hillary is thought to have a higher "floor" than Obama, so she should theoretically benefit from dirty campaigning.

For the SD's to chose popular votes over delegates strikes me as stupid. First, it's an admission that the very system they devised sucks. You've just overruled every state and how they chose to allocate their delegates (between districts etc). They made those choices for what they believed was good reason. Overrule it and you're gonna have some very unhappy campers.

Secondly, there's be a lot of comment about how unfair that is to the candidate who did better in caucuses (Obama of course) E.g., Colorado has a decent number of delegates and is a fairly populous state, but Obama is only credited with 80K votes and Hillary at 40k. IIRC a pledged delegate is worth about 10K votes. But Colorado has far more than 12 delegates, it has 55.

The caucus states are also gonna be pissed because counting popular votes vastly diminishes their importance and vioce/influence in the selection of the nominee. They'd end up being punished for following the rules, and people are gonna scream if they do that. Based my Colorado example above, the state would effectively be reduced from 55 delegates down to about 12 (about an 80% difference).

If the Dems wanna a repeat of the '68 convention, fine. But I think cooler heads will prevail and the nomination w/b chosen based on pledged (elected) delegates.

Fern

 

[Vic]

I don't think Richardson is going to get the VP nod. Not that it wouldn't be an ideal ticket, just that I don't see him bringing much to the table voter-wise. Edwards would have been the obvious choice if not for his unfortunate involvement in Kerry's disastrous run.

Off topic, I am now more or less certain that the Pub ticket will be McCain/Romney. I'd say that deal has been signed, and now they're just waiting for the ink to dry.

 

[nageov3t]

I'd take that bet against McCain/Romney... I think it'd be pretty disastrous for McCain, who's trying to run as a man of principles, to run with someone he so obviously dislikes, not to mention it'd bring Romney's flip-flopping back up for discussion.

 

[Slick5150]

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

how do you define voters, though? which is to say, are the people of FL and MI in fact, voters?

The Hillary supporters are going to cry about Michigan and Florida all the way to the DNC.

Yes the people of FL and MI are voters...their idiotic state leadership stripped them of their vote...end of discussion.

that is definitely not the end of the story. There will probably be a re-vote. The Democratic party cannot be for the disenfranchisement of millions of people from Florida and Michigan.

Richardson has flip-flopped so many times, I would wait a few days before taking his word as anything solid.

Speaking as a MI voter, I'd feel more disenfranchised if they DID some half-assed revote. We made the mess, we have to live with it.

 

[boatillo]

Bill will be with Obama or no one, end of story.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Vic
I don't think Richardson is going to get the VP nod. Not that it wouldn't be an ideal ticket, just that I don't see him bringing much to the table voter-wise. Edwards would have been the obvious choice if not for his unfortunate involvement in Kerry's disastrous run.

Off topic, I am now more or less certain that the Pub ticket will be McCain/Romney. I'd say that deal has been signed, and now they're just waiting for the ink to dry.

That would be pretty surprising to me.

Romney certainly brings economic cred to the ticket. Something McCain really can't defend well since he's on the record as saying he doesn't know much about it.

Romney might be able to bring in some big bucks. That's not unimportant in the least.

I just don't see him as McCain's first choice (or even 2nd). While I think the two lack any significant policy differnces, McCain strikes me as having a petty personality and one inclined to hold grudges among other things.

If Romney gets the nod, I'll be thinking McCain couldn't get some of the governors previously mentioned to agree.

If he offers it to Romney, I don't see any reason why he shouldn't jump on it. He has no other elected office to give up, and he's young enough to run later. Might be some motivation to break a "glass ceiling" in national politics for Mormons.

Fern

 

[Vic]

Well, that's my opinion, I could be wrong.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Vic
I don't think Richardson is going to get the VP nod. Not that it wouldn't be an ideal ticket, just that I don't see him bringing much to the table voter-wise. Edwards would have been the obvious choice if not for his unfortunate involvement in Kerry's disastrous run.

Off topic, I am now more or less certain that the Pub ticket will be McCain/Romney. I'd say that deal has been signed, and now they're just waiting for the ink to dry.

Bill Richardson opposes the assault weapon ban, and holds a concealed handgun permit. He would bring a lot to the Obama ticket, in my eyes, anyway.

 

[chowderhead]

Obama once wanted to ban all handguns in Illinois. Once that gets put in a ad across the country, I think his support in will drop in his battleground states (midwest/Southwest, far west, and VA) regardless of adding a pro-gun rights VP.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: chowderhead
Obama once wanted to ban all handguns in Illinois. Once that gets put in a ad across the country, I think his support in will drop in his battleground states (midwest/Southwest, far west, and VA) regardless of adding a pro-gun rights VP.

I'd like to think that Obama's views on guns are a result of a lack of experience with them, and living in a place where only criminals had them (chicago.)

And he actually said he wanted to ban all semi-automatic weapons, (rifles and handguns.)

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: chowderhead
Obama once wanted to ban all handguns in Illinois. Once that gets put in a ad across the country, I think his support in will drop in his battleground states (midwest/Southwest, far west, and VA) regardless of adding a pro-gun rights VP.

I'd like to think that Obama's views on guns are a result of a lack of experience with them, and living in a place where only criminals had them (chicago.)

And he actually said he wanted to ban all semi-automatic weapons, (rifles and handguns.)

That almost sounds like a misunderstanding of the terminology to me. Considering I've NEVER heard the "semi-auto" gun control position from anyone besides Obama, I can't help but wonder if he meant automatic or simply doesn't really understand the phrase.