See, Jane Hamsher gets it. Although she’s an Obama supporter, she calls out Bill Richardson on his inconsistencies:
Richardson seems to be talking out of both sides of his mouth on this one. New Mexico went for Clinton, and Hispanics in the New Mexico caucuses went 2-1 for Clinton. If Richardson thinks superdelegates should “vote according to who they represent,” “because they’re Hispanic or a governor,” who does he think he’s representing?
I don’t have strong opinions one way or another on the superdelegate situation, or whether they should even exist. Neither do I have a fear that they’re going to go renegade and override a clear popular winner (and I don’t see any way that’s not going to be Obama). I also think The Huffington Post’s superdelegate transparency project is a good one, but that’s based on general considerations regarding the good of transparency.
What I have a problem with are people espousing a set of rules strictly on the basis of advocacy for their candidate, without regard to whether it’s a good thing for the party, long-term. Just because it’s Good For My Candidate Now doesn’t make it a smart way to run the party over time, and those who are indulging in these kinds of proclamations at a volatile moment without taking that into consideration are not showing either good judgment or leadership.
If Bill Richardson has changed his mind regarding the rules that should govern superdelegates, he should say so. With all the talk of him being a potential vice presidential nominee now, this dramatic about-face when it becomes convenient smacks of political opportunism.
Obviously Richardson wants to be VP — BAD! He could be a big help to Obama — because at least he knows the ins and outs of the Senate and would be able to get things done. Hilary doesn’t need him — she knows what to do.
I’m for Hilary — but if Obama wins this thing and takes along Richardson, I would actually feel relieved. It’s just like a friend was saying yesterday — JFK had some great ideas — but it took LBJ to get them through to become law. Face it we’re going to need all the help we can get!
Richardson, my gov, is the worst sort of pandering, political whore. He waits for the wind and follows its direction. There is no doubt in my mind that he would have endorsed Clinton if he thought she was going to win and he could gain from it. Me, I don’t care who gets the nomination. I just want the Party of torture and war crimes driven from power.
in spite of comparing Richardson’s endorsement of OB being compared to Jesus’ last days and betrayal (anything to get people to stop talking about monica and the blowjobs, eh?) if Richardson had chosen hrc instead we would be hearing loud and long how this was a sign of OB faltering, superD’s acting rational, true electability shining through, etc…lip bites and enjoined hands among smiles and beams of clouds parting and the comeback kids have struck again….
fairly tales indeed…
in spite of comparing Richardson’s endorsement of OB being compared to Jesus’ last days and betrayal (anything to get people to stop talking about monica and the blowjobs, eh?) if Richardson had chosen hrc instead we would be hearing loud and long how this was a sign of OB faltering, superD’s acting rational, true electability shining through, etc…lip bites and enjoined hands among smiles and beams of clouds parting and the comeback kids have struck again….
fairy tales indeed…