Friday, March 21, 2008 - Posts
-
sponsorship
Remember how during the Democratic debates, Bill Richardson was always the can’t-we-all-just-get-along candidate? Whenever things got too heated, that's when Richardson would start intoning (to the point of irritation) about ending divisions, bringing people together, and rising above petty differences.
Now, in his endorsement of Barack Obama today, he’s sticking with that message, this time as a way of calling for an end to the Democratic race:
It is time, however, for Democrats to stop fighting amongst ourselves and to prepare for the tough fight we will face against John McCain in the Fall.
People say Richardson should have endorsed earlier—that he could have been more effective before the Texas vote. Perhaps. But on the other hand, Richardson now gets to do what he does best: intervene at the moment of greatest tension and say, Come on people, bring it in. He was always better at playing the peace-making voice of reason than the partisan warrior. So from that perspective, if Obama’s new strategy is to convince superdelegates to wrap this thing up, Richardson’s timing couldn’t have been better.
-
sponsorship
In a scathing memo today, the Obama campaign describes Clinton’s “history of misleading voters” on issues like—deep breath—NAFTA, the Family Medical Leave Act, her Iraq vote, her foreign-policy experience, Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s religion, and her “35 years of public service.” It weaves these examples into a larger case that voters consider Clinton too untrustworthy to be president, citing as a coup de grace a new Gallup poll showing that only 44 percent of Americans consider Clinton “honest and trustworthy,” whereas 63 percent would say that about Obama.
But they ignore the poll’s most telling numbers: that a whopping 67 percent of Americans think John McCain is trustworthy.
If you’re surprised to see that McCain’s trust rating is so high, that’s probably because you’ve been paying attention to his reversal on Bush’s tax cuts, his recent 180-degree embrace of the religious right, and his close relationships with lobbyists. Needless to say, most people don't know or don't care. However well-known among reporters and commentators, McCain's deviations from straight talk haven’t penetrated the national consciousness. To the average voter, McCain is still a maverick. And the Gallup numbers reflect that.
McCain’s relative strength on the “trust” question could also owe to the relative quietude on the Republican front right now. While Clinton and Obama shred each other on the front page, McCain gets to schmooze donors, write legislation, and take long diplomatic trips, pausing only to lob the occasional hand grenade over into the Democratic bunker. Maybe that’s also why 20 percent of Dems say that if their candidate doesn’t win, they would vote for McCain, according to one poll. Given the state of both contests right now, no wonder voters think McCain has more integrity.
-
sponsorship
The other day we discussed how both Clinton and Obama have stepped up their "disenfranchisement" rhetoric to tweak each other over revotes in Michigan and Florida. Now Clinton has taken it a step further. Here's a clip from her campaign's latest e-mail to "Interested Parties," describing the Obama camp's strategy:
First, disenfranchise voters - Prevent new votes in Florida and Michigan. Stop voting in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Oregon, West Virginia, Puerto Rico, Kentucky, South Dakota, Montana, West Virginia and Indiana.
So now Obama's attempt to wrap up the nomination before Pennsylvania is tantamount to disenfranchising the remaining states? So if Clinton had sealed the deal on Super Tuesday, that would have disenfranchised half the nation? Also, the idea that Obama wants to "stop voting" in North Carolina—a place where he's all but guaranteed to win—is just ... I'm not sure there's a word for it. The Clinton camp has a reputation for poll-testing messages, but I can only imagine a test audience laughing at this.
-
sponsorship
Of all the explanations floated as to why three State Department employees were snooping around Barack Obama's passport files—and, it now turns out, Hillary Clinton's and John McCain's—the most plausible one is also the simplest: "imprudent curiosity."
That's what State Department spokesman Sean McCormick called it, and although his job is to spin, it rings true. Temp jobs are inherently unaccountable—you're in, you do your work, you're out. You're less likely to want to develop a lasting relationship with your employer and therefore might be more willing to take a peek at federal records, especially if they're sitting there under your nose.
Naturally, the State Deptartment had to react forcefully, lest anyone believe suggestions that the security breach was political motivated. Condoleezza Rice called Obama personally to apologize and promised a full investigation. But all signs so far point to plain old nosiness. It's hard to see partisanship playing a role: Andrea Mitchell points out that Maura Harty, the person in charge of management and consular affairs, has worked in both Republican and Democratic administrations. Plus, the same employees peeked at Clinton and McCain's files, too. Seems more like a case of managerial incompetence than partisan skullduggery.
But hey, at least Obama got another umbrage-taking opportunity out of it.
-
sponsorship
A: To get superdelegates to the other side.
Two months and dozens of primaries after dropping out of the race, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson finally went public with his undying love for Barack Obama. He’ll be in Oregon with Obama today to officially announce his endorsement.
This isn’t exactly a surprise. There have always been rumors that Richardson’s precinct captains told their Iowa supporters to back Obama if Richardson didn’t meet the viability threshold at their caucuses. Earlier this month, just before the Ohio and Texas primaries, Richardson showed up on Face the Nation with a beard and a definitive message: “Whoever has the most delegates after Tuesday, a clear lead, should be, in my judgment, the nominee.” Richardson knew that Obama had the lead going into that Texahio Tuesday, and that he still would coming out of it.
We’re still not sure endorsements matter—Ted Kennedy flubbed miserably—but if they do, then this one might carry some weight. Richardson gained some national recognition when he was running for president, but his lack of star power doomed him. His résumé remains impressive, and he polled reasonably well in Iowa before Iowans decided a caucus threesome of John, Barack, and Hillary was exciting enough.
The significance of the endorsement isn’t what it would have been two months ago. If Richardson made an endorsement pre-Super Tuesday, his support would have been seen as simply a high-profile Latino supporting Obama. But now, Richardson’s a high-profile superdelegate who wants the primary to be over even more than he wants Obama to win. He could have continued to sit on the sidelines until after Pennsylvania’s primary, but he sidled up to Obama now to try to end the race before it hurts the party. When you dovetail his support with it's-about-time media reports that Clinton’s path to the nomination is blocked off, Richardson knows this could be a clarion call to other superdelegates.
There's been a smooth, if unimpressive, flow of superdelegates to Obama since Super Tuesday, but Clinton's victories have forced superdelegates to think twice about crossing the street to hang with the cool kid. Uncommitted superdelegates have spent the last two months nervously looking both ways before they cross. Richardson had the stones to be one of the first to start walking. He won't be the last.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?