Richardson says Leader In Delegate Count After This Week's Primaries Should Be Considered Nominee

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, a former candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, predicted that the results of this week's primaries will decide the party's race.

“D-Day is Tuesday," he told Face The Nation host Bob Schieffer. "Whoever has the most delegates after Tuesday should be the nominee."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/02/...in3897476.shtml

[Sofiyya 1,687]

If anyone cared about what Bill Richardson says, they would have voted for him.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, a former candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, predicted that the results of this week's primaries will decide the party's race.

"D-Day is Tuesday," he told Face The Nation host Bob Schieffer. "Whoever has the most delegates after Tuesday should be the nominee."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/02/...in3897476.shtml

There's a rumor that Richardson will endorse Obama after the March 4th Primaries. Being a long time friend of the Clinton's and former Clinton appointee, I think he's preparing the Clinton's for his defection.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

There's a rumor that Richardson will endorse Obama after the March 4th Primaries. Being a long time friend of the Clinton's and former Clinton appointee, I think he's preparing the Clinton's for his defection.

Hillary is headed for 3 out of 4 victories this Tuesday. Bill R. will look silly defecting after that.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

There's a rumor that Richardson will endorse Obama after the March 4th Primaries. Being a long time friend of the Clinton's and former Clinton appointee, I think he's preparing the Clinton's for his defection.

Hillary is headed for 3 out of 4 victories this Tuesday. Bill R. will look silly defecting after that.

................................ Obama .........................Clinton

Total Delegates ............1389..............................1279

Pledged Delegates.........1193..............................1038

Popular Vote.................10,305,403.....................9,379,822

Popular Vote (w/Florida).10,808,816.................10,250,808

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

Edited March 2, 2008 by Mister Fancypants

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

There's a rumor that Richardson will endorse Obama after the March 4th Primaries. Being a long time friend of the Clinton's and former Clinton appointee, I think he's preparing the Clinton's for his defection.

Hillary is headed for 3 out of 4 victories this Tuesday. Bill R. will look silly defecting after that.

................................ Obama .........................Clinton

Total Delegates ............1389..............................1279

Pledged Delegates.........1193..............................1038

Popular Vote.................10,305,403.....................9,379,822

Popular Vote (w/Florida).10,808,816.................10,250,808

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

Doesn't matter. If she wins either TX or OH she will have the wind of momentum at her back and Obama will be history. All those votes won't make a difference.

[garya505 2]

Even a lot of us here in NM don't pay much attention to Richardson anymore.

[Alex+R 0]

I guess this means richardson is campaigning for vp. yay

[garya505 2]

I guess this means richardson is campaigning for vp. yay

I believe you are correct on that one, but I think his Iraq policy would eliminate him as a running mate for either one.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

There's a rumor that Richardson will endorse Obama after the March 4th Primaries. Being a long time friend of the Clinton's and former Clinton appointee, I think he's preparing the Clinton's for his defection.

Hillary is headed for 3 out of 4 victories this Tuesday. Bill R. will look silly defecting after that.

................................ Obama .........................Clinton

Total Delegates ............1389..............................1279

Pledged Delegates.........1193..............................1038

Popular Vote.................10,305,403.....................9,379,822

Popular Vote (w/Florida).10,808,816.................10,250,808

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

Doesn't matter. If she wins either TX or OH she will have the wind of momentum at her back and Obama will be history. All those votes won't make a difference.

I think (and hope) you're wrong on that. Richardson certainly seems to be making a push to end the divide and start bringing the party together behind a nominee. It would be the right thing to do and it would be great if he remembers what he said here on the morning of 05 March. All Obama has to do, IMHO he's got to win two out of the four and he has to take either TX or OH. I don't see him pulling it off in backasswards OH. But if he takes TX and keeps Hill's lead in OH in the single digits and takes either one of the other small states, then I see the much of the party establishment do what Richardson indicates he will do in such event: line up behind Obama who, at the end of the day on the 4th, will have the majority of delegates.

[Peikko 1,575]

Serious question and not rooted in support for either candidate but...imagine the figures were reversed and Clinton had this narrow lead over Obama and there were some delegates suggesting that for the good of the party Obama should drop out of the race, would you still think this was the 'right' thing for the person in second to do?

I have to say that I don't understand the logic. They are very closely tied and the only thing that seems to be significant is if somehow continuing the race plays into the hands of the Republican party (which may or may not have as much import as some give credence to). Obama may be the best man for the job but surely it's ok for this to be decided by all states and not just by those who have had their say up to now? Or is there somehow some rule that makes the first past the post at this point the inevitable winner because...

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Serious question and not rooted in support for either candidate but...imagine the figures were reversed and Clinton had this narrow lead over Obama and there were some delegates suggesting that for the good of the party Obama should drop out of the race, would you still think this was the 'right' thing for the person in second to do?

I have to say that I don't understand the logic. They are very closely tied and the only thing that seems to be significant is if somehow continuing the race plays into the hands of the Republican party (which may or may not have as much import as some give credence to). Obama may be the best man for the job but surely it's ok for this to be decided by all states and not just by those who have had their say up to now? Or is there somehow some rule that makes the first past the post at this point the inevitable winner because...

PH, the close numbers are a bit deceiving. Sen. Clinton was the favored candidate way before the Primaries. Already widely known around the country, Clinton had thrown in the hat for the race long ago. Even a few months ago, she had a commanding lead in the polls. However, the trend has been across the country, across all demographics, Obama eclipses her once established lead as voters across America have gotten the chance to get to know about him.

Hillary rode in on the coat tails of Bill's legacy but voters are gradually realizing that she is NOT Bill and there is another candidate who actually speaks and sounds a bit the Bill Clinton of 1991.

Edited March 3, 2008 by Mister Fancypants

[Peikko 1,575]

The numbers are not decieving, the intepretations of what the numbers mean can be depending on who you are. As an outsider as it were, there seems to be double standards going on which I find disconcerting.

Your intepretation is just one side. I am not sure I agree that people just see Hilary as Bill's shadow for instance.

[SteveLaura 0]

The numbers are not decieving, the intepretations of what the numbers mean can be depending on who you are. As an outsider as it were, there seems to be double standards going on which I find disconcerting.

Your intepretation is just one side. I am not sure I agree that people just see Hilary as Bill's shadow for instance.

She is, however, running on 'experience' - some of which includes being First Lady. I dunno, maybe she feels she's the best candidate to be in the White House as she already knows where the towels are kept.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The numbers are not decieving, the intepretations of what the numbers mean can be depending on who you are. As an outsider as it were, there seems to be double standards going on which I find disconcerting.

Your intepretation is just one side. I am not sure I agree that people just see Hilary as Bill's shadow for instance.

What I described has been the trend...it's not pure opinion. Every state that Obama has campaigned in, he has eaten away from Hillary's established popularity. Read any political analyst's view on this. In terms of views - they are very close, so the race has boiled down to character and personality. Obama beats Hillary on those two characteristics time and time again. She may have great ideas - she might even have good leadership skills, but she lacks what her husband had that got him elected twice....and Obama has it - eloquence and charisma.