<p>I find it amusing that the responses here are very much in line with what people’s prior opinions were about the candidates. If Richardson had come out in favor of Clinton, then the pro-Obama people would be trying to diminish the significance of that endorsement. Turns out, he has endorsed Obama, so the pro-Clinton people are claiming that it is not (or at least should not be) significant. </p>
<p>I agree with Xiggi here- an Edwards endorsement of Clinton would be a big boost for her campaign.</p>
<p>1 sokkermom: I suspect Edwards might wait until the convention to do anything. He’s sure keeping mum.</p>
<p>Bill (Clinton) is in the state today, though. He’s at the Cary Senior Center, on a “first-come, first-serve basis” (quoting the newspaper). Since the seniors are presumably slower than I am, maybe I’ll go out there, elbow my way in, knock down some old seniors on walkers, and get a good seat. :)</p>
<p>I’m still voting for Hillary. I think Obama should have gotten up and left his church and made vocal the reasons why. The fact that he stayed on gives me pause. I do think his charisma is waning, too. I doubt having fat womanizer Richardson will help with that.</p>
<p>As a super delegate, Richardson is definitely important for Obama. I’m also sure that there will be super delegates who support Clinton. But support or not, when the primaries are over; if neither candidate has the required number of state delegates, the super delegates are going to decide who the nominee is. And it’s not going to matter who endorsed who. It will be a clean slate where they get together and decide which one they think can beat McCain. If they think Obama can beat McCain, then that’s who the super delegates will give the nod to. It won’t matter if some of them supported Clinton or not. The same goes if they think Hillary is the one with the best chance of beating McCain. If that’s what they believe as a party, then the super delegates will support her. It doesn’t matter who they endorse right now. That endorsement now only helps the primaries and caucuses. </p>
<p>What’s most important come the general election and having the democratic nominee, is that the democratic party appears to be unified and in accord to supporting their nominee. They will either split the super delegates and the fight will continue; in which case they are going to have a very difficult time beating McCain. The other choice is that the winning nominee will have gotten the overwhelming majority of super delegates. This will show a united democratic party. That will give confidence to the voters in the general election. Those are the only 2 options that will give the democratic nominee a chance. And that nominee will be the one who the “PARTY” believes can beat McCain.</p>
<p>On a side note; Mini; you’ve really got to give the “ethnic cleansing” a rest. Most people don’t buy it. You can believe it if you want to, but most Americans don’t believe that the government and military have a “POLICY” where their goal is to have ethnic cleansing in Iraq. That is the same as believing that the government purposely puts drugs on the street to keep the black community down, poor, and in prison.</p>
<p>^^ Actually, the Richardson endorsement (and the yet unannounced endorsements by influential leaders such as Edwards, Gore, Pelosi, Dean, and others) will weigh very heavily with the less prominent superdelegates. The superdelegate votes (unlike ours) are not secret. While all superdelegates have just one vote each, the less prominent ones (such as local elected officials and DNC members) are sensitive to what the more powerful politicians are saying. And those politicians have long memories.</p>
<p>So, how General Betrayus presides over “ethnic cleansing” (600,000 between July and October according to the United Nations High Commission on Refugees) as reported by the BBC:</p>
<p>U.S. troops are placed on street corners. Armed militias associated with ISCI (the dominant political group within the governing alliance) choose houses and apartments occupied by Sunnis (or, in Sunni neighborhoods, Sunni militia go to houses occupied by Shiites.) They barge into homes, inform the occupants that they have two hours to leave, and throw all their clothes and personal belongings (but NOT furniture or anything that can be used by future occupants) onto the streets. They are told that they have two hours to take their belongings with them. If they or other family members return, they will be shot. Occupants leave - as U.S. soldiers watch. Once a neighborhood is “cleansed”, U.S. funds are used to hire contractors (often U.S. or Dubai-based) to build walls around entire neighborhoods. Those who attempt to return often simply “disappear”.</p>
<p>This is the face of the “surge”. At the other end, in Syria - IF they got there - families (often those of doctors, lawyers, educators, and other professionals, and often pro-Western in orientation) are reduced to abject poverty and near-starvation. The UNHCR reports that many families have resorted to having their daughters selling themselves for sex in order to survive. The United States provides no assistance whatsoever for the refugees, now totalling 2.2 million outside of Iraq, and two million within.</p>
<p>This is the face of the so-called “surge” - this is the ethnic cleansing that General Betrayus has wrought, and which will leave the United States with potential friends now turned enemy for generations to come. It is a deep betrayal of American values, and of America’s future, and, I would add, of the soldiers themselves, many of whom joined because they thought they were going to defend their country and are now complicit in war crimes.</p>
<p>If you’re tired of ethnic cleansing, well, so am I.</p>
<p>teriwitt; when I posted the KKK endorsement, I said it was probably false. I also said that it didn’t matter because it was an “EXAMPLE”. It shouldn’t matter who endorses who. When there is an endorsement, there are people that will vote for that person specifically because of that endorsement. Not because they agree with their positions or not. The KKK just happen to be an extreme opposite of Richardson. I personally don’t care if Obama is being supported by the KKK or not. That wasn’t the point.</p>
<p>Mini; believe what you want. It doesn’t matter. But many people have been asked numerous times to not make slanderous remarks about people. Even when it was in fun about Obama, Clinton, McCain, Regan, Bush, etc…; it has been accepted that “PERSONAL” slanders should be avoided. That’s because for every person who may feel it is true, that there are just as many who take offense and believe it is false. So PLEASE, for the last time, stop the General BETRAYUS remarks and that Bush, the military and their leaders, etc… are purposely executing “Ethnic Cleansing”. That is your opinion; which is fine; but it’s a slander and personal attack still the same. You need to back off. Plus, the more you say it, the less respect and credibility you get when trying to make specific points on issues that you have valid points on.</p>
<p>"So PLEASE, for the last time, stop the General BETRAYUS remarks and that Bush, the military and their leaders, etc… are purposely executing “Ethnic Cleansing”.</p>
<p>It is not personal slander. I believe, deeply, that he has BETRAYED my country. I have provided the links regarding the $190 million dollars in weapons lost on his watch, tens of millions of which ended up in the hands of Al-Qaeda, and resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Americans. I have provided the links on his public deceitful statements given to Congress and to the American people in October 2004. I have provided links to the ethnic cleansing and the number of refugees, and their condition in Syria, from the United Nations High Commission on Refugees.</p>
<p>It is not slander, because it is true. Truth is the greatest defense against a charge of slander. There are, between July and October, a minimum of 600,000 firsthand witnesses. It IS a personal attack, because he is personally responsible for the loss of military equipment and American lives, the deceit, and the ethnic cleansing. If the truth hurts, it is because it should.</p>
<p>As to the “plans for ethnic cleansing”, I am far from the first person to suggest that it is setting up of exclusive ethnic onclaves that is responsible for the reduction in violence in Baghdad. As to whether he MEANT to reduce violence in Baghdad, well, I’ll leave that one to you.</p>
<p>(From Wall Street Journal.) "New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson finally made up his mind and endorsed Sen. Barack Obama today, but a senior adviser to Sen. Hillary Clintons campaign which likewise spent months courting the former Democratic presidential candidates nod dismissed its significance.</p>
<p>Look, I think that everyone has their endorsers, said senior Clinton strategist Mark Penn, adding with a little huff I think New Mexico is a state that, actually, we won.</p>
<p>The time that he could have been effective has long since passed, he continued. I dont think it is a significant endorsement in this environment. </p>
<p>Mark Penn is way overpaid. If I were HRC, I would have fired him months ago and demanded a rebate. Just shows how well she manages people. He speaks as if he’s addressing a bunch of 3 year olds. Does he really think people are so stupid? Gov. Richardson’s endorsement is HUGE!</p>
<p>Should we take a national poll to ask how many voters outside LA know who Antonio Villaraigosa is? It’s nice to see that Mark Penn believes the votes in Los Angeles will matter more than the entire state of New Mexico in the upcoming elections when states will be in the balance. :D</p>
<p>RE: Antonio Villaraigosa, how many people IN L.A. know who he is? Haven’t seen him accomplish anything yet as mayor other than make headlines for an affair with some reporter.</p>
<p>In any event, I think this endorsement by Richardson is huge for Obama. The immediate take on this for most people I think will be that Richardson was a fellow candidate, that he was in the Clinton Administration, that he is a super delegate and he has “picked” Obama. I think that resonates with alot of people and helps too most specifically with the Latin/Hispanic vote down the line.</p>
<p>But endorsements seem to be good for a bump and then have a shelf life about as long as until the next big endorsement comes out. I think everyone is waiting to see what Edwards does. Frankly I think his sitting on the sidelines is doing nothing to help the Dem party and seems to be only for some personal agenda he has.</p>
<p>As an aside, can anyone tell me why Nancy Pelosi’s daughter is a super-delegate. Is there a superdelegate family package?</p>
<p>BW, Christine Pelosi is the Chair of CA Democratic Platform Committee.</p>
<p>It’s one of the various committees listed below:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While a cynical mind might think Pelosi’s committee must be a charge of bringing a little platform for candidates like Gary Coleman to step on when campaigning, I think it must be a tad more than that. </p>
<p>PS Christine Pelosi is an attorney, a grass-roots activist and author of the recently published Campaign Boot Camp: Basic Training for Future Leaders.</p>
LOL!! Well, that’s what Mark wants us to believe anyway.</p>