One Delegate at a Time...

<p>Bill Richardson endorses Obama.</p>

<p>Richardson</a> to endorse Obama's White House bid: source | Reuters</p>

<p>( I still think he would be a good VP choice.)</p>

<p>I agree that Richardson would make a good VP selection. I don't however understand why people put so much weight in which governor is supporting who. I mean, there are going to be just as many politicians and people of name supporting both sides. Think about it; You've got Wright supporting Obama and you've got Manning supporting Hillary. That's one extreme to another. While we're at it; you've got Richardson supporting and endorsing Obama, and you've got the KKK endorsing Obama. Heck, one Klan group alone has donated over $250,000 to the Obama campaign,</p>

<p>Ku</a> Klux Klan Endorses Obama</p>

<p>Not sure if it's true, but it's posted. Probably not true.</p>

<p>The point is, I will not vote for or against a candidate because Richardson says so, or Arnold says so, or Bush says so, or the KLAN says so, or Oprah says so. Maybe the truth is; there's a lot of ignorant voters out there that have no idea what the candidates can or can't do for them; and as such give their votes by proxy to someone else that they respect. They let the person they respect do all the research and studying of the candidate and they vote for whomever they suggest.</p>

<p>I don't understand why endorsements are so influential. I always look at the person making the endorsement, and what he stands to gain from the endorsement. I have never voted for anyone because someone I like is endorsing them.</p>

<p>How many superdelegates does the kkk claim ??</p>

<p>I don't get the connection at all. </p>

<p>As Governor, Bill Richardson is a superdelegate. His endorsement provides another tally in the superdelegate column for Obama.</p>

<p>The source of the link and claim in Post #2 is <em>questionable</em> at best. The link I provided was Reuters, a valid news source. :o</p>

<p>I agree your post was about the super delegates. I was trying to piggyback on that with how many people in our country put their support on a candidate based on what some public figure has said. I.e. How many people will vote and support Obama because OPRAH says that she endorses him? How many won't do any background or look at the issues for themselves and will support him because Oprah said so? </p>

<p>Same with all these high profile people. Yes, when it comes to the super delegates, you are correct. There is significance to Richardson's support. But I wonder how many New Mexicans will support him because of Richardson's support.</p>

<p>Richardson could be a big help with the Hispanic vote, though it is not such a big factor in the remaining States. Edwards could make a big difference in North Carolina.</p>

<p>Regardless, I am convinced it is going to be President McCain who will swear in next January.</p>

<p>Bill Richardson is a very well respected politician. He was a presidential candidate himself. He had direct experience interacting and debating with both democratic candidates. He is also a very popular Governor with an influence on hispanic voters. In that sense, I think his endorsement may have more value than you think.</p>

<p>Another telling bit of information about Richardson , "Richardson, 60, was energy secretary and U.S. ambassador to the United Nations under President Bill Clinton and served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1982-1997."</p>

<p>1sokkermom; I am not disagreeing with you. I agree 100%. You are missing my point. I'm saying "IT'S A SHAME" that people take these people's endorsements instead of doing their own research and supporting/voting who THEY believe is the best choice. They shouldn't be voting because some governor or celebrity says so.</p>

<p>Didn't a poster, some months ago, mention that Bill Richardson is a womanizer? Well, what politician isn't, really, but it's hard to believe with him. What woman in her right mind would find him attractive? :eek:</p>

<p>I guess it doesn't really matter; all these womanizers can still function in their careers, I guess. With Richardson, though, he looks like a heart attack about to happen. He needs to lose some weight and get out and exercise. If he doesn't, the VP role might be too much for him, and he could croak at any moment. My 2 cents.</p>

<p>And I am saying that if someone is "on the fence" about a candidate, an opinion or endorsement by someone like Bill Richardson may be beneficial. Richardson has extensive experience, and actually was a member of the Clinton administration.</p>

<p>I don't think all endorsements are equal. ;) This is a good one.</p>

<p>Re: Post #9</p>

<p>Are you talking about McCain? :eek:</p>

<p>Oprah !</p>

<p>Is Oprah a Superdelegate? :o</p>

<p>We're not going to agree, or maybe "we" just aren't going to understand each other. No problem. If a person is "on the fence"; then they should do some research. They WON'T. That is the point. This forum; all forums; all politically active voters; etc... are the VAST MINORITY. That is why the endorsements are so important to a candidate.</p>

<p>The VAST MAJORITY of people who go into vote on the magic day, will vote for their candidate because they were influenced by editorials, endorsements, air time on the tv, talk radio endorsements, etc... The VAST MAJORITY doesn't even know what the candidates stand for. The VAST MAJORITY will look at party line. From there they will go with buzz words like "Change". Then they go with the endorsements. I know they're important. It's just a shame. Why even have people vote? why not just have all the governors, senators, and rep for the party get together and decide who the democratic nominee will be? Wouldn't need primaries or caucuses.</p>

<p>Oprah is an example. It doesn't matter who she is endorsing. Same with anyone else. And yes sokkermom; superdelegates and endorsements in general are 2 different topics. Let's get beyond that</p>

<p>Bill Richardson was U.N. Ambassador during the promulgation of the Clinton/Tenet Big Lie of 1998 (January/February) as a result of which "experienced Democrats" called for military action against Iraq because Iraq was an "imminent threat" to the United States, and which paved the way for the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998", illegal under international law.</p>

<p>mini, Is that a positive or negative?</p>

<p>He's not supporting Hillary.</p>

<p>Well, the question is to what extent Richardson was in on the conspiracy that eventually led to the invasion and hostile, aggressive occupation of Iraq (and the current policy of ethnic cleansing), and helped formulate an action by the U.S. Congress illegal under interntional law.</p>

<p>As to whom he supports, well one might wish to know whether his character is closer to that of a Mohandas Gandhi or a Slobodan Milosevic before deciding what such an endorsement represents.</p>

<p>sokkermom: Regarding my post #9, no-- I remember someone here mentioning that Richardson was a womanizer. It was a shock to my system, too, but there you have it.</p>

<p>Regardless, he's too fat for me. I wouldn't vote for him for dog-catcher.</p>

<p>^ Hi janieblue. :D </p>

<p>(The next high profile endorsement (and superdelegate) will probably be Edwards.) My guess is that he may endorse prior to NC primary.</p>

<p>This ain't Oprah's endorsement!</p>

<p>This is a very important endorsement for many reasons. For starters, it sends a clear message about BOTH candidates, one who is expected to accomplish certain things and one who is NOT. The lack of endorsement of Hillary is telling as he has been a long time friend of Bill and a member of the Clintons' close entourage. Last month, Richardson and former President Clinton watched the Super Bowl together at the governor's residence in Santa Fe. Does anyone doubt that Bill was pressing Richardson hard for his important endorsement and weight among Hispanics. </p>

<p>
[quote]
In a statement provided by the Obama campaign, Richardson said, "I believe he is the kind of once-in-a-lifetime leader that can bring our nation together and restore America's moral leadership in the world," according to the New York Times.</p>

<p>"As a presidential candidate, I know full well Sen. Obama's unique moral ability to inspire the American people to confront our urgent challenges at home and abroad in a spirit of bipartisanship and reconciliation," the Times quoted Richardson's statement as saying.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Governor Richardson, who was one of the more qualified and electable candidates, would be a formidable addition to the Obama ticket. While he hardly matches the charisma and eloquence of Obama, his presence on the ticket would bring REAL international experience, diplomatic skills, an understanding of energy issues, and the all-important independent hispanic voters. All things that HRH Clinton sorely lacks. </p>

<p>The Clinton campaign made a huge mistake in not courting Richardson in *earnest *as opposed to clinging to the nutty notion that the true frontrunner would be impressed by her bravado in offering him the VP seat.</p>

<p>At this time her only salvation would be an Edwards endorsement before the NC primaries.</p>