The Alan Grayson Page

The Anthony Weiner Page

Guest Contributors


  • BN-Politics' administrators respect, but do not necessarily endorse, views expressed by our contributors. Our goal is to get the ideas out there. After that, they're on their own.
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 05/2007

Blog Catalog

  • Liberalism Political Blogs - Blog Catalog Blog Directory



« Pelosi Met with Dalai Lama re: Tibet | Main | Dept of Desperate Diversions: Obama Aide Compares Bill Clinton to Joseph McCarthy »

March 22, 2008


JC Garrett

But - But This Was My Turn!

This kind of thinking is exactly what is wrong with most politics today, and especially wrong with with the Clinton mindset of entitlement.

Because Richardson was appointed by a Clinton, he somehow "owes" them his endorsement, regardless of whomever his best judgement leads him to believe would make the best President for the nation.

His "ingratitude" is such that it constitutes a betrayal of Judas-like proportions- the obvious implication of which assumes that Hillary holds the rightful claim to the title of "Savior".

Then there is the audacity (I realize the irony of using that word here) of belittling Richardson's qualifications and resume - the very same traits which the Clinton's would have lauded to no end had he endorsed the "rightful" candidate.

And the arrogant dismissal of the "importance" of his carefully considered decision to choose the candidate he truly believes would do the country the most good - only because he chose the non-Clinton.

Is it really any wonder why Obama will be the people's choice to represent them?


Well, it was Carville and not the Clintons who said it. And it is I who am arrogant enough to dismiss my former favorite and all his qualifications. So attributing my comments to the Clintons or their campaign and asking if it is any wonder that obama will be the people's choice is a substantial leap in logic. I do realize that one well-used Obama tactic is taking any statement about Obama said by any supporter and attributing it to the Clintons and that his supporters are particularly apt to deploy it. It is not particularly rational to do so, however, and it has come back to bite him with the Rev. Wright.

It's also worth noting that Obama is NOT the choice of a substantial portion of Dems who voted in the primary and that his poll numbers seem to be dropping in states that have already voted.


Well, it was Carville and not the Clintons who said it.

And if you think Carville wasn't saying that at the behest of the Clintons - to whom he owes a great deal of his standing, no less - then you're kidding yourself. Sure, Bill Richardson may owe some of his current standing to the Clintons, but let's not forget this is a guy who got elected as governor of New Mexico twice, so he's perfectly capable of standing on his own two feet. Ultimately, Richardson's endorsement of Obama speaks volumes about the current state of Hillary's campaign, as well as how "turned off" Democrats are becoming by her campaign's increasingly shrill negative attacks.

Heck, maybe she can parlay her attacks against Obama into a spot on John McCain's ticket, since she seems to be so willing to do so much dirty work for the GOP before the general election.


I didn't see this coming. Actually I thought Bill Richardson would be the last person endorsing Senator Obama. But this campaign season's been weirder than fruity Jell-O...

Senator Clinton supporters in my family feel the same as you and Carville, Damozel. That Richardson betrayed the Clintons. But I keep wondering why Richardson would endorse Obama now after all the negative press. I don't know.

Either way, I feel Senator Clinton will get the Dem nomination after a rough and tumble convention. I think that the superdelegates will just switch to the proven rather than un-proven. But I'll tell ya this, that dream ticket is a must. I know some people think that's "too much minority on the ticket" but I call BLAH! Both have them have ignited voters to participate. And they have to carry that into the GE.

Obama would be a strong VP IMO. Better than Ol' Cheney by 10,000 miles.


BLUE BLOGGER: I presume that the 'turned off Dems' to whom you refer don't include the nearly half the party who still support Hillary. You can't just behave as if a tiny minority of Democrats support her. That is not true. She has almost as substantial a base of support as Obama.

As for Richardson, he can do what he likes, of course, and I in my turn am free to think what I like about him. As are you. I believe that he betrayed the Clintons and so do a very, very large number of Hillary supporters.

I am not sure it's fair to cast Carville as the Clinton's puppet, whereas you assume that Richardson 'can stand on his own two feet.' This business of surrogates is starting to get very old.

In any case, if there is one Democrat known for speaking his own mind, it is James Carville. He isn't anyone's puppet.

T-STEEL. You're right, of course, about the need for those two to come to terms. I'm not sure what will make that happen, but I wish something would occur to make it come soon.

JC Garrett

When this race started, I was all for Hillary being President. I was excited about getting rid of 'W', and about the possibility of America's first female President. I hated her vote that helped take us to war in Iraq, but was willing to overlook it since many Dems made the same mistake.

But then she wouldn't even acknowledge that it WAS a mistake - in a transparent political tactic to never admit she was wrong about anything. Seven years of a President like that is more than enough.

Then we learned that she never even took the time to read the intel report on Iraq before she voted- which by any standard is grossly negligent.

Then she voted for ANOTHER measure that anyone with half a brain could see was just another permission slip for yet another war that Bush and Cheney have been slobbering over.

Three strikes and you're out.

But Hillary didn't stop at three. No, she goes and adopts Bush's ignorant policy of not talking to anyone who disagrees with her. That is the very opposite of wise diplomacy. The Presidency is not a position of royalty that conveys to the occupant some inherent glory or prestige that exempts them from negotiation and statesmanship with nations that they don't like. I want my President to meet face-to-face with every vile dictator on Earth, to do everything possible to ensure that American interests are protected, to effect change when possible, to condemn when necessary, and to make his or her position crystal clear.

Nothing good ever came of a leader unwilling to talk to his enemy. You give up nothing by talking. Wars ALWAYS end with the leaders of the warring nations sitting down and talking. Why not do that from the beginning, on the off chance that a war might be prevented in the first place?

But the thing that ended any chance of my voting for Hillary was when I saw that she was willing to do absolutely anything to win.

It's kind of sad, really. Hillary could have made a good President - if only she hadn't wanted it so badly.


I think James Carville’s point was that Bill Richardson has materially and politically benefited because of the Clinton’s. Bill Richardson served at the pleasure of Bill Clinton.

Bill Richardson’s endorsement of Obama is a manifestation of disloyalty towards a family that, right or wrong, has provided him with many opportunities.

In the end, I suspect that Bill Richardson will end up more like Pontius Pilot — just another despised Governor in a remote land.


Personal loyalty is probably what kept Richardson from endorsing Obama far earlier. He is endorsing now because he feels Hillary's chances of winning are minuscule, and he's hoping to start a superdelegate wave that will wrap the nomination up. That, and he wants to be VP. He'd be a very good choice for Obama.

Hillary's current strategy appears to consist of comparing Obama negatively to McCain, and then claiming to the superdelegates that that she's more electable because Obama's numbers against McCain are dropping. In other words, she's running McCain's fall campaign for him. Meanwhile, Obama has said consistently that Hillary would be a better president than John McCain. It takes a healthy dose of cognitive dissonance to claim that Obama is running a more negative campaign. It's expected for the trailing candidate to to run a more negative campaign, but the relative endorsement of McCain is really below the belt.

D. Cupples

JC Garrett,

I don't challenge your feelings about Hillary, but there are two things I'm not sure I agree with.

First, at the debate with Tim Russert (Ohio, I think) Hillary admitted that she REGRETS the Iraq war vote. That's tantamount to admitting a mistake.

Second, in earlier debates, she (and Richardson) repeatedly advocated for diplomacy. I remember her saying that she thought we should be talking to Iran.

D. Cupples


Let's assume (for the moment) that Hillary was trying to thwart Obama via the McCain comparison, though I don't actually know what her intention was.

Let's consider the context (including timing).

First, as I said in our conversation at another post, January was when Obama started inherently comparing himself to all Dem candidates in the race (esp. Hillary) with the "Change" v. "Experience" and "New" v. "Old" politics.

The inherent implication was that H is old, is dirty, wants things just as they are, and is at the root of the problems in Washington (which Obama can clean up).

That made Hillary seem very distasteful. Who would want to vote for an old, dirty, politician like Hillary if Obama lost the nomination? [Even Satan's surrogate might be better.]

Now consider Michelle Obama's Good Morning America statement, which happened BEFORE Hillary made the McCain-experience comment.

I know you think that Michelle got caught off guard on GMA, but I don’t think so. She’s too experienced, and the topic was too important.

Even before Michelle’s GMA interview, both Hillary and Barack had made special points to NEITHER admit nor deny that they would support one another.

On GMA, Michelle said that she might not support Hillary if Hillary wins the nomination.

What's the inherent message: that the ultimate Republican candidate might be alright (or, at least, less distasteful than Hillary).

I DON'T believe in attributing all supporters' words to the candidate (i.e., I DON'T attribute Wright's comments to Obama).

Michelle is Obama's closest surrogate -- kinda like Bill Clinton, whose every word has been attributed to Hillary. How many standards should we have here?

When Michelle indicated that the Republican nominee MIGHT be a better choice than Hillary, Michelle did what litigators call "opening the door."

How should Hillary have responded to that?


Bill Richardson just proved he is just politically ambitious and something was offered to him. Gee I hope that Obama makes good.

LOL... did Bill think that his entering the race is going to change PA???

Richardson...shaking head....he just said that he believes that Super Delegates should vote with their constituents..... and this endorsement has him going against the people of New Mexico and the Latinos.

Way to go Bill, man of integrity... ya right, not wonder you bonded with Obama... bird of a feather.


I don't think it's fair to compare Michelle Obama and Bill Clinton. Michelle is an experienced political spouse (just like her husband is an experienced politician!) but not every political spouse is good at holding their tongue or making politically wise statements. Bill Clinton, on the other hand, may be the most politically savvy American of my lifetime. When he says something, he means to say it.

Bill's recent "two people who love our country" comments were distorted and taken out of context. But with Bill, I think he probably realized that there was a chance of that happening as he said it, and decided it wasn't an issue. I say that out of my respect for the rhetorical quickness of Bill Clinton, and it's a respect I don't have for Michelle Obama. The fact that Michelle Obama is not doing more interviews tells me that the campaign doesn't want any more ill-conceived comments from her in the news.

The proper response to Michelle Obama's comments were the rebuke/disapproval that Hillary's campaign gave it at the time. They had every right to take umbrage and they did. But I don't see any link between Michelle's comments and Hillary deciding to make McCain's experience a talking point.

D. Cupples


First, the inherent and undeniable implication of Michelle's statement on GMA is that a Republican might be a FINE alternative to Hillary Clinton.

McCain can use that clip in an ad against Hillary in November (if Hillary is the nominee).

Second, Michelle knew that it would be bad strategy for her husband (and Hillary) to admit that they would support the opponent in November -- and equally bad strategy to say that they wouldn't.

Third (you're right), Michelle doesn't have the experience that Bill does, but she has ENOUGH.

Michelle is not "just" a political wife. She's been one for a dozen years -- and in Chicago, no less -- while her husband jettisoned up the political ladder.

She has impressive legal training (it's all about words and subtleties, which I know first hand). She's been a hospital exec (pretty public-relations-oriented stuff).

That, alone, makes her savvy enough to grasp the implication of her statement on GMA. It also made her savvy enough to know (as her husband did) that such a question could come up at any time.

I think she had anticipated such a question, but that's just my assessment.

Robert Zuckschwerdt

It was pointed out to me Mr Richardson has problems paying off campaign debt, and after his Obama endorsement it will mysteriously go away, maybe that's what Carville meant about his Judas statement about Richardson. Maybe Richardson sells out for the right price! Some friend.

The comments to this entry are closed.