Breaking News: N.M. Gov. Bill Richardson drops out

So now we're down to the Final Four.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, whose presidential campaign ads showed him in a job interview, did not get the job. And today he decided to pull the plug on his campaign for the Democratic Party nomination. He is expected to announce his withdrawal from the race Thursday after another disappointing fourth-place finish in New Hampshire with only 5% of the vote, according to the Associated Press.

According to MSNBC, a Richardson spokeswoman claimed the governor was not ending his White House bid and another source suggested he might just suspend active campaigning on Thursday without completely canceling his bid.

Those Democratic candidates left: Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich and Barack Obama.

-- Andrew Malcolm

Comments

[Phil]

Good thing, Bill. You are a fine candidate and I can't wait to see you as Obama's VP or Sec of State. But you did a fine thing by allowing that you were not a viable candidate so that more people can vote for Obama and against Clinton.

[KP]

He was a great addition to the NH debates, but I've assumed he was really running for VP for a while now. His 4% might have been the margin of victory in NH had his voters gone to Obama instead.

[JDC]

Thanks a bunch, mainstream media, for choosing to cover only three Democratic candidates. You've successfully whittled the field down to four. Now if only you could cover Kucinich any less, perhaps then he'll drop out.

[Ed]

After hearing that Clinton won the NH primary, not only did I go and donate $25 to Obama's campaign, I convinced 3 others to do the same - all within 3 hours. I actually felt as if I made some sort of difference. A shame about Richardson though; I like him better than Hillary. I swear if Hillary becomes the nominee I'm voting Green again.

[Gerrrg]

So sad.

He was a fine, jovial man with integrity and intelligence. It's an awful shame he didn't get the spotlight that the other two candidates had, from the media.

[Wendy]

Richardson should and will ask his supporters to support Clinton. Bill Clinton gave him two jobs. He should be grateful and loyal. I know Obama has been shamelessly recruiting Clinton advisors by offering them jobs if elected. I hope richardson is someone who has a soul and will not sell his soul for money nor for pretentious job offers.

[stew]

uh? more breaking news, Richardson communictaion director says the story is not true? 8:07 pm est msnbc.

(Right, instead of "withdrawing" his bid he may "suspend" it, according to another source.)

[Makeba]

So sad Wendy!
So now people vote based on what they "owe". This is exactly why the Hill candidacy repulses me. If she gets the nomination based on these "relationships", well the Democratic party will no longer be something to be proud of, much less a part of.

Bill Richardson should endorce the candidate whose message he believes in. Not make a decision basedon who once signed his checks.

If you are what the Democratic party has become...it may be time for me to leave. And I am not alone.

[George Adriaansen]

He was the best of the lot. So tell me again what a great job our byzantine nomination process does.

[Phil]

Wendy, your comment is the most hypocritical thing I've read in a long time.

You wrote: "Richardson should and will ask his supporters to support Clinton. Bill Clinton gave him two jobs. He should be grateful and loyal. I know Obama has been shamelessly recruiting Clinton advisors by offering them jobs if elected. I hope richardson is someone who has a soul and will not sell his soul for money nor for pretentious job offers."

So what you're saying is that because Richardson was previously in the Cabinet of Bill Clinton, he must be "grateful and loyal" and be support Hillary. Because she is his former colleague's wife. Right. That's not "selling his soul," you say, but supporting someone else -- Obama -- who he genuinely believes in is. Right.

Gives a little taste of what blind Clintonistas are like. Good riddance.

[threeriverscrossing, Raleigh, North Carolina]

Governor Richardson we are proud of your positive, gracious and noble moral advocacy of your campaign. You inspired us to think about what is the true meaning of freeing the Iraq people, that the American spirit in not about nationalism of occupation, genocide, or destain for free will and human values around the world but that the American spirit is about innovation, economic growth, moral prerogatives and freedoms that are by measured by results in the quality of lives of the American people and as well as in the world community as a whole. Foremost, a master negotiator with legendary outcomes that exemplify risks, courage, and freedom.

[Stephen Cassidy]

To the person that complained about the press not giving any but the top three on the Democratic side attention, I am generally supportive. However, in the case of the LA Times, the paper covered Richardson and carried stories about him.

I strongly supported Richardson yet knew it was always going to be an uphill battle. Clinton and Obama spent tens of millions more in Iowa than Richardson. Clinton got more than twice the votes that Kerry received in 2004, yet still lost. Richardson would have been viable in Iowa, if the turnout was 150,00 (which still would have been a record). Instead, Obama generated a massive turnuout - almost twice the amount in 2004. Richardson had to finish at least a close fourth in Iowa to have any chance of continuing on. It didn't happen. Obama knocked Richardson out of the race and did the same to Edwards - just Edwards hasn't run out of money yet. Despite what happened in NH, it's Obama's race to lose. He should take NV and SC and win the nomination on Feb. 5th.

[Ray]

You have to give credit due to anyone who admits when it's time to pull the plug. I liked Richardson but knew his team wouldn't have a chance against Obama and Hillary. Lets hope that that 4% of his vote now go for the right candidate, Hillary.

[Jason]

"The right candidate, Hillary." Come on. That sounds about as genuine as "Iron my shirt." Plants from the Hillary campaign.

[Gerrrg]

Whoa, back up. Even though the Times covered stories about Richardson, that was still a drop in the bucket compared to the ad nauseum daily - no, hourly - coverage of Obama and Clinton (and Edwards) by the entire national media and most of the excerpts that got picked up by local media.

IMHO, Richardson should have waited until AFTER Feb. 5 Super Tuesday. Toss your campaign team and go for broke.

[Kim Johanson]

I really enjoyed hearing Richardson's comment during the last debate after that heated exchange. He has a fine sense of humor (and timing) and most importantly was a viable candidate to the many of us who want the Iraq war to end asap. He has a unique blend of strengths and talents and I am among many who will not forget his important contribution to this year's political process.

[Ronald Loui]

BR was hoping to pick up delegates, I suspect, for endorsing-power around convention time. But it looks like only Edwards will be in that position, and if the election is close, he might indeed hold the key.

People who are really offended by Wendy's way of thinking should look up the practice of superdelegates. Fortunately, even with such loyalty-based rigging in a party primary, decency and popularity often do win in America. Anyone notice the endorsements of Bill Bradley AND John Anderson? Here are a pair of the more decent Americans, who probably do not see themselves as political equivalents of the Sopranos.

For the wealthy and powerful, here is my new Obama appeal (and it's exclusive to the LA Times, not the NY Times!):

if you study socioeconomic history, a stable middle class is important for the maintenance of social order. People have been talking about the white collar revolution, where lawyers and doctors, not just professors and poets, lead the call to major economic and political reform. Huckabee, Paul, and Edwards are all non-starters for the elite class, because their economic proposals are, let's call them, "bombastic." Whom then to back? Obama appears to have more reform in mind than Clinton -- but Clinton promises to enrich the democratic elite garishly, as payback for the Bush generosity to the upper-Republican class. That's an unsustainable feudal war. Obama meanwhile asks only to right the most egregious imbalances to restore long-term order and a prosperous peace. He is not a Chavez (choose your Chavez, here); he believes more Americans should have a bigger piece of the pie -- he doesn't want to spoil the whole pie. Clintonians would have the pie passed back and forth like a Stanley Cup. The highest situated in a society should actually welcome a moderate and reasonable centrist reformer, with an even hand and a steady constitution, because that is who can ensure the system's long-term viability. Probably there has never been such an ardent champion of the poor, and defender of the middle class, who has been so unthreatening to the rich, or at least, to those who have legitimately earned their wealth and power. There are Republicans who want to continue the Bush ways, but anyone who has coxed a crew, can tell when a boat is too far to the right. If America passes on Obama and later descends into paradigm-shifting economic revolution because of resonating horizontal instability or sheer vertical imbalance, then mark my words: I told you so. If the powerful and wealthy think that a better chance at much needed reform is going to pass by soon, good luck on that.

[Barry Curran]

A mistake. I voted for you in the California primary. Another ghost vote. You should have stayed in even at 2%.

[Jonathan Hilts]

Governor Richardson was (is?) the best candidate running. He is a skilled and experienced diplomat, he is a fiscally responsible chief executive, and he has high popularity even in a mostly red state. His diverse background (he lived much of his life in Mexico) might have made him very adept at handling the unwieldy issue of illegal immigration in a way that is responsible, fair, and effective.

But the media has chosen to pretend there were only three people running. In any other election year, he would have been the one to beat. I hope the eventual winner has the sense to pick Richardson as VP, and I hope Richardson has the foresight to take it. America needs him on the world stage.

I also hope this report is all a media mistake, like Paris Hilton concerned about drunken elephants. I would hope Richardson would wait until the early primaries in the West, like Nevada and California. A second place showing or better there might make the media sit up and take notice.

[Myron]

Wendy, you are kidding right? " Bill Clinton gave him two jobs. He should be grateful and loyal. I know Obama has been shamelessly recruiting Clinton advisors by offering them jobs if elected."

Here's a question for you Wendy - If your current employer ask you to take a 50% pay cut, would you just do it and be greatful and loyal? Keep in mind that they did give you a job. I don't think you would.

Also, how do you know Obama has been offering anyone a job if he's elected? Did he share this info with you because it is the first time I've heard this?

[Fred]

Do all of you really want to live in a country where government runs everything? If so, vote Democratic, or better Green.

[Saint Subversive]

Screw "loyalty". Hillary doesnt deserve to be president, and I wont vote for her, even if she were to chose Richardson for her running mate. On the other hand, Ill support an Obama/Richardson ticket. Wake up to reality, Clintonoids, before its too late and you drag your party into another losing battle. Take your dynasty and shove it, we dont want your mannequin and her horny hound dog.

I dont care who he "endorses". In the upcoming Nevada caucus, Ill swing my vote over to Obama if Richardson cant meet the 15% threshold. Then Obama can return the favor by choosing the most qualified man in the race to be his running mate. That'll be a winning combination, if Democrats can get enough of a clue to realize it. If they dont, then they deserve to lose in November, and they will.

[Jenna]

Uh-oh. The Obama people are starting to turn into an annoying cult just like the Paulites. Yes, yes...Obama can unite us all and there will be rainbows and puppies for everyone. The truth is that the Republicans will never let that happen. There is a reason why the Clintons ended up doing battle with the right-wing and it’s not all their fault. I am so sick of people painting Hillary as a cold unfeeling robot for having the strength and intelligence to take them on and try to beat them at their own game. Unfortunately for her she is a woman and held to an impossible standard. Be strong but not cold. Be warm but not soft. Be assertive without being a b****. Too bad that being assertive is often synonymous with being a b**** when you are a woman.

Politics is never pretty and it never will be because we are talking about power. Power concedes nothing without a fight. And even though I think Obama is ultimately capable of doing battle with the right-wing, all these people suggesting that somehow his presence will ensure that the red-blue state divisions will end are crazy.

[Joe]

"Rainbows and puppies," eh, Jenna! That's good. I like that. But I think the only dog in the race is Clinton.

I'd hoped Richardson would do better. He was easily the most qualified candidate on the democratic side. Did not like his illegal alien ideas much however. Too much amnesty, not enough honest effort to boot them out.

[Gabe]

Hillary and Obama or as I like to call them affectionately "Obillary" are basically the same candidate except one is black and one is a woman. I really don't care who gets picked as the primary candidate. I wouldn't be able to make a difference anyway in the primaries because I am not a registered dem/republican...ironic that registered independents are excluded from picking whom should be a viable candidate (sort of reeks of disinfranchisement doesn't?). Regardless, if you read their positions Obillary says the same thing on most issues. I also think they believe in evolution like most of the rest of the world (60% of Americans don't and so does Mike Huckabee), which is an important requisite for any candidate. As long as either Hillary or Obama can beat Huckabee (remember he is in tune with most of America on the evolution question and probably fondness for Bud light), then as a scientist I can say "there is a god".

[bill Tomlinson]

I know it might be too early to hope for greatness in this country. But I hope we don't give up. There was a more idealistic time when it seemed more possible. Now, while we are trying to extricate ourselves from this Bush mess, it's reasonable to set lower sights. But if there is a chance for greatness, maybe we ought to take it, huh?

[Ignatius Anyanwu]

Wendy:

Shame on you, for suggesting that the only reason why Gov. Richardson should ask his supporters to support Hillary Clinton is because, Bill Clinton offered him a job. Bill Richardson was qualified for the positions he served in, in the Bill Clinto administration.

Ed:

I agree with your comments -donating more to Sen. Obama's campaign, and convincing others to join his campaign to make sure Hill ary is defeated.

I would go a step further than you: If the Democratic Party rigs the process and imposes Hillary on us, I would, and convince alot of people to stay home on election day, or better yet, help the Republicans win.

[OneifbyLand-LA]

Bill Richardson would never make it in the real world.
He is a big fish in the very small pond of New Mexico
and his views on legalizing the invasion from south
of the border alone disqualify him!
One more pretender down, on the road to a
MITT ROMNEY Presidency!

[Raj Jones]

Kucinich will not drop out so early. His campaign is one with tried and true principles. Given the media worship of Obama---err Obama's nice speechs, sympathy-for-tears vote for Hillary, Edward's vilification of corporations, and Richardson's call for UFO disclosure no less than three years ago, the lack of coverage of Kucinich's campaign trail is deplorable.

[Chris]

Richardson's support for an immediate and full withdrawal from Iraq didn't help him much either.

I don't support Obama because I think his position on Iraq is naive. He would not stand a chance against a moderate Republican and war veteran like McCain.

[Marks]

Obama's pre Iraq war belief's were naive? Who thought Saddam was responsible for 9/11? That's naive! The choice war Bush set in motion taking the military from Afghanistan was to grab Iraq's oil.

I saw back it then, believing the war in Iraq was about oil first and in the process, take out Saddam. Bush lied and said it was only about Saddam.

Bush and Cheney made up the worse lie, Saddam was then trying to acquire nuclear WMD and he had to be stopped immediately. Colin Powell was given faked pictures promoting Saddam's deadly gas production trucks on the loose in Iraq.

Colin Powell can't believe what he said in front of the UN, it was a bunch of lies.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030205-1.html

Saddam was terrible, a tyrant killer before Donald Rumsfeld shook his hand. Ronald Reagan sent him to Iraq in 1983. They were naive!

Ever since, America has spent Millions to Billions nearing Trillions of dollars in Iraq, being Saddam's friend, then bombing the country, Gulf War, until Saddam being bombed out of office and chased underground. Millions in cash provided on pallets so the Iraq government could put Saddam on trial. The trial cost plenty of American cash the length of time it took.

Bush said Mission Accomplished, naive.

Anyone who disavowed reasons Bush went to war in Iraq, they were right.

Saddam could have been taken out quieter and simpler than bombing the whole country and ruining its infrastructure.

But to take the oil, it required every soldier Bush sent over there, some of the ground troops without enough armor.

The Iraq war began with lies, because it was about oil from the beginning. Vice President Cheney assumed it would be "easy". Cheney had oil companies here salivating they would be processing Iraq's oil. Haliburton at the ready given no bid Federal contracts, the corporation Cheney used to run.

Haliburton eagerly overcharged and ripped off the military for food, materials, gasoline and equipment.

Prior to the Irag war, Bush didn't know the difference between Sunni and Shia Muslims in Iraq, naive. They fired Sunni's that worked for Saddam and Shia began their insurgency because they are majority people in Iraq.

Rumseld and Cheney made statements the insurgency would be short, they are dead enders or something stupid. The Insurgency in Iraq has lasted years and got worse. The Iraq war is the longest war America has ever been in. The most expensive too, Billions and Billions of dollars. What an incredible expensive choice by Bush to do.

Anyone who says Obama is foreign policy naive, look what happened when Bush with years of political experience made decisions. Bush and Cheney had experienced political lies, knew how to spin the Iraq war in speeches and processes to fool the Pentagon.

Obama may not know those tricks how to manipulate the Pentagon and that's a good thing.

He's likely not to make up reasons to cause another choice war.

[B. V. Scott]

Governor Richardson, I generally do not have any use for the Socialist Democrats that your party seems to be entirely made up of at this point in our history. Am not in agreement with your foreign policy at all, but I really did appreciate the dimension that you brought into the Democrats' debate. You are absolutely correct in that a person's government experience should count for something. I hate to see you have to drop out. I, Republican Man, do wish you the best in your political career.