Bill Richardson not endorsing Hillary is quite revealing...

Despite being lobbied by Bill Clinton for an entire football game,
Bill Richardson did not endorse Hillary Clinton.

The Clintons have been going after this endorsement for a long time.

I find that telling.

It seems as if the Clinton power plays and strong arm tactics of the
past--no longer have the leverage they once had.

We also heard that the Clintons are spending a lot of time vociferously
lobbying the Super Delegates and asking for up-front, pledged support.
It has been reported that many Super Delegates are not bending and
saying that they will wait.

During this campaign, the Clintons seem to have damaged themselves quite
a bit. When you have Democratic stalwarts, such as Ted Kennedy and John
Kerry, calling you up and telling you to stop your dirty campaign
tactics, it's obvious that a shift in power has taken place.

Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Barack Obama was more than an endorsement.
It was a public admonishment of the Clinton tactics and their slash-and-burn
campaign strategies. Kennedy annihilated Hillary Clinton's main arguments about
Obama, which had been the bedrock talking points of her campaign.

Kennedy stood on that stage and said that Obama was ready
'on day one' and he gave evidence of Obama's hard work in the Senate.
Kennedy also said, "no matter what anyone says, you were against
the Iraq war from the beginning"--a direct rebuff of Clinton's assertion
that Obama was not against the war from the onset.

Kennedy politically kneecapped the Clintons and forced them to quit
the unfair campaigning. When you publicly call out bullying tactics,
those who were also bullied---have less fear.

It was as if Kennedy, Kerry and other Democrats usurped the Clintons, and
this took the air out of their ham-handed tactics.

Everyone expected Richardson to endorse Hillary. It was a given. However, I
suspect that despite the heavy lobbying by the Clintons, Bill
Richardson resisted--because the Clintons no longer have the leverage or the
political clout that they enjoyed before
this campaign.

...lobbying Gore or Edwards, during a football game.

We all know what they discussed during their time together.

Bill Clinton came up empty handed.

It's revealing.

I may not be accurate on every point I made in my OP. However,
the fact that Bill lobbied Richardson hard, and didn't get what
he wanted---means something.

Just another thoughtless thread based on meanspirited conjecture!

...to understand that Bill Clinton wants Bill Richardson's endorsement.

Are you actually denying that Clinton wants his endorsement?

It's not "mean spirited" to acknowledge reality. Bill and Hillary
have openly said they would like Richardson's endorsement.

as anecdotal evidence inadmissible in a Court of Law..

This thread is no more than unsupported malicious gossip worthy of a headline in Supermarket Tabloids.

But don't let us stand in the way of your addiction, it says volumes about the thread starter's need for attention.

http://www.taylormarsh.com/images2/hillaryclinton_wideweb__470x308,02.jpg

GO-HILLARY!

This is not a 'court of law'.

Please.

It's a messageboard.

Pointing out the FACT that Richardson, has not endorsed Hillary,
amid Clinton pressure in asking for that endorsement--is noteworthy.

If you want to stand on your soapbox, pretending that we're all
in a courtroom, and throw around words like "heresy"--I guess
that's your fantasy.

:rofl:

That is hardly reality. What it is... is creating infotainment for bathroom visits..

:rofl:

....

This might explain some of Richardson's neutral stance

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/04/AR2008020403217_2.html?sid=ST2008020401936

... climate change and poverty, to want to throw-in with a single candidate, as doing so might great barriers to working with the eventual nominee.

Also, Edwards has never been linked to the Clinton Administration and the Gore/Clinton relationship has been publicly reported as strained, so neither politician was viewed as Clinton-leaning.

Richardson, on the other hand, doesn't have a well-known "cause", and was a member of the Clinton Administration, so his not endorsing Hillary *SEEMS* to be telling. It may as insignificant or as cautious as Gore and Edwards not endorsing, but Richardson's having been in the Clinton Admin creates the perception that he would endorse Clinton -- and not doing so raises questions as to why he hasn't.

edit: p.s. Though, have any other *Democratic* Pres. candidates (from this cycle) endorsed those remaining? Is endorsing after dropping-out considered bad form? (Personally, I would prefer some sort of agreement that candidates dropping-out NOT endorse others prior to the convention, as this would discourage stalking horse candidates -- like we've seen on the Republican side this cycle, and some Dems from last cycle. (You know who you are, Gephardt.)

:evilgrin:

...that Richardson and Bill Clinton had "the munchies"?

;)

nada to do with :smoke:. Hell, I stayed outta the girls' room all through high school just to avoid inhaling!

look after his own skin than gamble on either.

is deciding to let the voters speak on Super Tuesday.

Bill Clinton tried to talk Richardson out of that mindset.

Richardson resisted. It's relevant, considering that Richardson
was part of Bill Clinton's cabinet.

Political heavyweights are resisting Clinton overtures. This is
relatively new. For a long time, the Clintons have fostered political
relationships, based on "I did this for you, now you owe me".

It appears to not be working this time around.

Obama didn't spend the entire day with Richardson.

Obviously, Richardson has doubts about Hillary and he's not afraid
to stand his ground.

Don't put too much weight on Teddy's "endorsement" - he came in anti-Bill Clinton, not pro-Barack Obama.

I also think a big part of it was a condemnation of the slash and burn, divide and conquer politics the Clinton's were displaying-we went through two administrations of it with Rove/Bush and enough is enough is more my take on it

he would have come out before today especially with the southwestern Hispanic vote being so critical to Clinton support-I wonder if Edwards will hedge HIS bet after today if Obama does well

The pushback is becoming very aparent. Remember the start of this primary season when they were presuring their donors not to donate to anyone else? They play a mean game of politics It does my heart good to see so many resisting it.

The Clintons are mean. We hear about their behind-the-scenes tactics, such as the pressure
to donors that you mentioned. We saw how they were conducting their campaign. It was like
watching a buzz saw tear through the political landscape.

People tolerated this from the Clintons before, even though they were disgusted by it.

Now, that the Clintons have been put in their place, and their tactics revealed--those
who were disgusted and went along before--are now not capitulating to the Clintons.

This is good. Ted Kennedy is helping to keep this race competitive--but honest and above board.

He would be better qualified than either one of them.

were and still are considered "outsiders" of low economic and breeding status. It was a myth that the MSM brougt to you just so more people would learn to hate them. FOLLOW THE MONEY. If you want to know who the real "insiders" are follow the money. Obama is being pumped by the MSM as the outsider but behind the scenes he is being bank-rolled by some really well-heeled powerful folks. His "surge" is the reality that proves that. Otherwise, who is this guy. What is his actual claim to fame besides two best selling books, parents of different races, and a great cheerleader? When you look deep into the positions on the issues and the plans that have been discussed, he pales in comparrison to HC. He is a rock star like Reagan was a movie star. With what this country is going to face in the next 4 years, I wouldn't want to have to depend on Obama's making the right choices for this nation and come the general election that is the way most voters will think about it. An Obama nominee means the Rethugs will have the WH once again. In that case, we had better hope it will be McCain.

Obama is a great leader and an inspirational candidate, no doubt--but many people, including myself,
are voting for him because of his experience and his ability to turn this country around.

I'm a 43 year old, stay-at-home mom to two girls. I'm deeply concerned about their futures. My vote
and support for Obama did not come easy. I researched for a long time.

In the end, it came down to Obama's commitment to the American people, our Founding Fathers and The
Constitution. Obama doesn't tout his stature as a Constitutional Scholar. Maybe he leaves that to
his supporters to do. Obama taught Constitutional Law, and other law classes at the University of Chicago.
He respects the Constitution. He knows it inside and out. It guides his policies, his ideas and his desire
to turn this sinking ship around and repair the damage.

One of Obama's primary goals is to reinstate Habeas Corpus. Bush and Gonzales decided that we no longer
needed this longstanding right. Right now, the government is no longer obligated to present evidence
against people who are arrested. We should be out in the streets screaming for this right. Fortunately,
Obama will make a mad dash to reinstate Habeas. Obama is also going to close Guantanamo, end illegal wiretaps
and abolish the "Unitary Executive" playground that Bush has built for himself and his successors.

Obama is not a movie star. Or a rock star. Or is he like Reagan. He's brilliant. He's got the Founding
Fathers in his back pocket, as he decides how he will govern and what he will do as President.

Focusing only on Obama's eloquent speeches and his talent for inspiring--and then twisting those things
into something sinister--is disingenuous and really unfair.

Most Obama supporters are thoughtful, intelligent people who support him because of his great ideas,
experience, integrity, policies and intelligence.

Lastly, if you want to ignore the polls that show Obama trouncing McCain (and Hillary losing to McCain), maybe
you could recognize that Obama is appealing to Independents and disenfranchised Republicans. He crosses
party lines, in spades in ways that no other Dem candidate can.

I'll admit that I'm over the moon about Obama, but that enthusiasm is based on a great deal of substance,and the
fact that he has the appeal to galvanize Dems and garner Independent and some Republican votes.

trying to wrest control back from the Clinton side, and to hell with what's best for the country. Teddy and John Kerry know they'll never be president, so they've decided to prop up a charismatic novice like Obama against the massively qualified HRC. They want to be the power behind the throne.

They signaled their intentions back in March 2006, when John Kerry kicked Wes Clark to the curb (again) after Wes had spent six months getting the congressional Dems on the same page vis-a-vis Iraq. Dubya pre-empted the Dem press conference announcing their new Iraq unity, so no one ever saw it, and two days later Kerry announced his own plan. Of course Dubya didn't bother to pre-empt that announcement, and after that it was as if that Clark/Pelosi/Reid/congresscritters press conference had never happened. The MSM meme was the same it had always been: the Dems were "hopelessly divided" on Iraq.

Obama is an empty suit with what looks to be some serious scumminess in his background, just waiting to be exploited by the MSM as soon as he gets the nomination, and it's his campaign that's been playing hard and and dirty--and managing to get it all blamed on the Clintons while he sits back and plays victim.

I still haven't figured out what's going on with Richardson. I have some theories, of course, but I think I'll do some checking around before I say anything more. In any case, when he announced that he and the Dawg would be watching the game together, he made a point of reiterating that he would not be endorsing at that time, and possibly never. Said he thought endorsements were pointless and silly, IIRC.

and running as far away from the failures of the DLC as he possibly can. Good for him. :)

he's the best choice.

So he's riding the fence to see which way the voting goes... doesn't want to bet on a loser

not endorsing Obama.

Someone not on top of things would have thought, from reading your OP, that Richardson had endorsed someone. Maybe it says more about Richardson than any of the candidates.

n/t

as would Edwards or the other candidates who have since moved on.

Each of them would likely be pleased by an offer of VP or a cabinet post. This is a very tight race. If they endorse Clinton and Obama wins...or vice versa, they anger the other side.

If the race wasn't so close, endorsements might have happened.

I would guess that he (and Edwards too) will wait a while. I wouldn't be completely surprised if either waited until we have a clear-cut nominee, and endorse for the sake of unity, to defeat the Repugs in November. Just sayin' here...

I mean, what if he endorsed Clinton, and Obama won? Or he endorsed Obama and Clinton won?
No VEEP ticket for Richardson.