Comments on: The Unanswered Questions of Bill Richardson’s Obama Endorsement

By: MarkH

MarkH — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 04:54:26 +0000

Obama/Edwards ’08

Clinton is done. Richardson signaled it.

By: PatrickBradish

PatrickBradish — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 04:51:19 +0000

Jane,

I have been reading your site for a long time, and have learned so much. This is my first post. I have never strongly disagreed with anything I have read here, but I had to take issue with what you’ve written. I believe that Bill Richardson has been completely consistent.

That view takes some analysis. Rather than do that here in a comment, I put it in a dailykos diary entry.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/.....007/473950

PatrickBradish

By: nc11cd

nc11cd — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 03:44:51 +0000

This may have been said already, but, um, guys, if superdelegates are expected to vote according to whoever wins the primaries, or whoever wins their state or congressional district, you can assume that some of them, at least, are going to have to vote for their less-favored candidate. Some prominent superdelegates (like Ted Kennedy) may find themselves expected not to vote for a candidate they actually endorsed.

But until Richardson actually votes for someone other than the person who won his state, I’m not sure his endorsement means that he’s being inconsistent. And Richardson may feel that endorsing Obama will help ensure that Hillary withdraws from the race before the convention - in which case I’m assuming everyone here will be fine with him voting for the presumptive nominee.

By: ChrisO

ChrisO — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 01:25:43 +0000

For all of those who are making the point that Hillary won New Mexico by “only” one percent, I might point out that Obama’s lead in delegates right now is one-half of one percent. So I guess they’re tied, right?

By: landreau

landreau — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 00:55:11 +0000

Yeah, really. And your response is a riot.

As far as Richardson is concerned, I think he heard The Speech and found it very special, like, once-in-a-hundred-years special. Looks like he had an epiphany to me. But what do I know?

By: Jane Hamsher

Jane Hamsher — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 00:21:48 +0000

Oh rock on! We hardly ever get GBCW.

I think that may need to be elevated to front page status.

By: SueN

SueN — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 23:13:08 +0000

It appears that Obama rules are the political variant of Calvinball rules. Superdelegates must vote according to who won their state, unless, of course, the state went for Hillary. Thus no one expects Kennedy or Kerry to cast their superdelegate vote for Hillary, or California’s superdelegates to all end up in Hillary’s tally. But if you come from a state that Obama won, you had better be in his pocket or else… John Lewis was posed the question how it would be if his vote prevented Obama from becoming the first Black president and he capitulated; and no one in the progressive world saw anything wrong about this kind of argument being made. Bill Richardson shows that he is just another run-of-the-mill conviction-less politician, expediently speaking from both sides of his mouth.

By: RonCantrell

RonCantrell — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 21:41:09 +0000

Why wast our time arguing about unpledged (Super) delegates. They are entitled to vote any way they want to, and no one can take the vote away from them. The rules cannot be chaged until the convention, after the nominatinions are completed. Repeat, they can vote any way they want to, for any or no reason. No caucus or meeting of super delegates can bind them in any way.

By: jenmarie

jenmarie — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 20:57:06 +0000

Not to be contrary, but you should be aware that Hillary supporters feel the same way. i.e. don’t expect a large turnout of women if Obama wins the nomination by eeking out a win in the popular vote without FL and MI included in that count.

By: cinnamonape

cinnamonape — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 20:24:10 +0000

Jane~

Could it be that Richardson is espousing a position about the rules he thinks that Superdelegates should “collectively” be committed to, but will vote in the manner they are allowed to vote for the present?

This is analogous to Obama (or any candidate) espousing that they support changes in the campaign financing rules or support that candidates be required to use public financing in their campaigns to level the playing field. They would support COMPULSORY and BINDING rules. But at the same time they may forgo the VOLUNTARY system simply because if they don’t they might actually lose to a better funded candidate who doesn’t voluntarily commit.

One can only get the rules changed if one wins.

In this case Richardson sounds ambivalent about his Superdelegate status at all. He knows other Superdelegates who are not voting the wishes of their constituencies (and defining such can be difficult).

The way that you are arguing here is that New Mexico delegates should be allocated in a sort of “winner take all” manner (like Electoral College delegations). Have you considered that perhaps half of New Mexicos superdelegates might be supportive of Hillary, and thus Richardson’s vote might be reflective of the other half of NM’s electorate?

But if the Superdelegates are awarded in an Electoral College manner I suspect that Hillary may already have enough since she has “won” all the larger states. But why should this be the criteria, rather than splitting the delegations up proportionately?