This past week former Democratic presidential candidate and current New Mexico governor Bill Richardson gave his endorsement to Barack Obama in the nomination battle. As has become apparent, this does not sit well with Clinton supporters.
Given Richardson server as both UN ambassador and Secretary of Energy under former President Clinton, some amount of strain can at his announcement is to be expected. Richardson described his discussion with Hillary when he let her know of his plans as cordial, but heated. One Clinton staffer noted that Richardson's announcement came too late to make a difference, presumably alluding to the fact that states with significant Hispanic voting populations such as Texas (Richardson is the nation's only Hispanic governor) had already had their primaries. Snide, yes, but of course the Clinton campaign has an interest in playing down the announcement.
The reaction of Clinton adviser James Carville is a different matter.
The New York Times reported Carville described the act as "An act of betrayal", and went on to say "Mr. Richardson’s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic."
Just how much does Carville think Richardson was paid for his endorsement? On exactly what grounds does Carville consider Richardson to be a disciple of Hillary? When, exactly, is she scheduled for her cross-fitting? Inquiring minds want to know.
No, the reaction of of the Clinton campaign is the reaction of someone who feels they were "owed" something and didn't get it, sulking 10-year-olds denied a much-desired toy or a sleepover outing with a friend. The truth is Richardson owed neither campaign anything other than his sincere opinion ... and the fact the decision was clearly a difficult and painful one for him simply points out how heartfelt his choice is.
The reaction of the Clinton camp, and Carville in particular, points out why it's the right one.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
At this point, everything that comes out of the Clinton camp is crap. And, of course, Hillary Clinton is owed the endorsement of everyone associated with Bill. After all, Hillary is owed the presidency.
My momma always told us to be good losers. After all, you never know when you might have to play with those people again.
Clinton (and her camp) are never good losers. They are scorched-earth losers -- which I personally think is hilarious -- because I am not a fan of theirs. For all their supposed "intelligence", they show remarkedly short-sightedness and they demonstrate it again and again.
I understand Carville's comments only because he is a paid pit bull -- "Sic 'em, James !" "RAWR !" That is his raison d'etre and I don't fault him for it. Sometimes you just have to play to your strengths. =D The Clintons just have to remember that you aren't supposed to let your dog loose in your own neighborhood -- he might bite someone you lik. . . err need.
Insightful post. I am very disappointed in the Clinton campaign, and also disappointed in those who continue to exhibit the behavior we are seeing.
It leaves me sad. They have really tarnished their image in history. As hindsight gets sharper and sharper, even if they win, they have hurt their legacy.
What a shame. If they lose to Obama, bad enough. If they somehow pull the nomination off, and fall to McCain, they are scum for all eternity.
I fail to understand the pro-Clinton angle at this point.
X4mr,
I think that Clinton believes she has a decent shot at the nomination right now, and she is willing to do whatever it takes to get it. She also believes she will defeat McCain. As for the collateral damage left in the wake of her "gutter campaign," she is counting on the short memory of the citizens. She believes that the greatness of her presidency will trump the dirt she slung to get it. Hillary knows best, is what she is about.
However, another theory that seems to be floating is that she wants Obama to lose to McCain in 2008, so that she can run again in 2012 as the "I told you so" candidate.
I don't buy it. She wants it NOW.
I guess it depends on what you cal decent. I figure she still has a 20 or 25% chance at the nomination, which is a lot better tan all but one other candidate who began the race.
I do believe she would defeat McCain if she were to be the nominee. What I don't think would happen is that she would beat him "decisively", which I think Obama can do, nor do I think her coattails will have nearly the effect on lower raises that his would (in fact, hers might be counter-productive).
I can't see that final scenario ... to much hope involved. What if Obama beats McCain? She may have to wait eight years to try again, something that won't happen. This is her one shot.
Post a Comment