Bill Richardson lays out an endgame

Did Bill Richardson move ever so slightly toward Barack Obama's corner today?

For a split second, during his appearance on the CBS talk show "Face the Nation," it sounded like he did. But then he added a clause that muddied the waters (as he so often did as a candidate himself for the Democratic presidential nomination, when he struggled in the early debates by often giving answers that were hard to decipher).

Richardson, during his chat this morning with newsman Bob Schieffer, characterized Tuesday's face-offs in Ohio and Texas between Obama and Hillary Clinton as "D-Day."

Expressing concern, like an increasing number of leading Democrats of late, that an extended Obama-Clinton battle could start tearing the party apart, he added: "We have to have a positive campaign after Tuesday. Whoever has the most delegates after Tuesday, a clear lead, should be, in my judgment, the nominee."

Clinton may well win in both Ohio and Texas but, based on the way delegates are allotted, her margins may not be large enough to overtake Obama in the overall delegate count. So was Richardson, who remains uncommitted in the race, saying she still should drop out?

The catch, of course, was his caveat about one of the candidates claiming "a clear lead." That will be in the eye of the beholder (and subject to all manner of spinning by the two campaigns).

Here is the latest...

...delegate tally by various news organizations, conscientiously compiled by Time magazine's The Page:

ABC — Obama 1,380, Clinton 1,276
AP — Obama 1,373, Clinton 1,277
CBS — Obama 1,373, Clinton 1,265
CNN — Obama 1,369, Clinton 1,267
MSNBC — Obama 1,194, Clinton 1,037 (does not include superdelegates, who are named by party leaders, rather than selected through the primary/caucus process)

Richardson may have left us confused about his criteria for determining whether someone should call it quits Wednesday morning, but he was clear about this:

"I think after Tuesday, we as a party nationally — voters, leaders — have got to see whether it makes sense to continue a very divisive primary between now and Pennsylvania, and then the convention."

— Don Frederick

Comments

[IG]

The delegate numbers as they stand now seem quite clear to me, Obama over Clinton by about 100 or more. What can other interpretation be possible? Your article suggests it is muddier. I don't see it.

[Carolyn Barnes]

If Clinton wins Tx and Oh narrowly, can she still win the nomination? (I am not considering Ri or Vt at this point.)

[Tiffany]

One thing the media seems to continually omit when discussing Obama's recent string of wins is that the number of people in all of those states combined does not equal the number of voters in California, New York and New Jersey, states that Clinton won by a large margin. When Obama talks about the party following "the will of the people," it seems he is leaving out the huge number of people that support Hillary Clinton. Obama's arrogance has been apparent to me since he first announced his candidacy. It was as if he was doing everybody a favor by running, and that was one of the two main reasons I didn't vote for him.

[Valjean]

Depending on Tuesday's results it may be time for the Dem Superdelegates and others to begin thinking of an alternative candidate to be selected at the convention. Both O and C may have done too much damage to one another to unite their people given all those who have claimed if A or B is the nominee I'll vote for McCain. A Democrat leader who has been through the mill at other times might be their best opportunity to carry the day in November. Who would you choose if it came to that? Too bad Powell couldn't be persuaded to run as a Democrat...or could he? How many would vote for him? or Gore?

[JC]

IG, if you think 100 delegates is a "clear lead", why didn't you urge Obama to drop out a month ago when he was down by the same margins? 100 delegates is less than 5% of the number needed to win, and as has been pointed out, Obama has collected the overrepresented small state delegates, many in states that no Democrat will carry.

Neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton can win based on next week's primaries. Over a third of this country hasn't voted yet. For the first time that anyone can remember, the Democratic primaries actually mean something. We won't get saddled with a lame duck like Kerry in 2004. The reason this primary season has gone on so long is because there are two excellent choices. It's not divisive.

The people that are concerned are just having regrets about scheduling the convention so late. That was THEIR mistake, not the candidates or the voters, and to deprive either would simply be criminal.

[soflindie]

I disagree Tiffany - I remember a very confident HRC telling Katie Couric she WILL be the nominee - no ifs ands or buts.
This country is in dire need of no more Dynasties in the WH.
Do yourself a favor , please check out Obama's website and u may be surprised. I am asking out of respect .

Have a good evening

[David]

Hillary Clinton cannot catch Barack Obama in the number of pledged delegates -- even if she wins both Ohio and Texas by 5% -- without winning ove 66.66% of the vote in the remaining primaries after Tuesday. No one who is currently not attempting to buy the Brooklyn Bridge believes she can do this.

So, Barack Obama -- who has won far more states, far more popular votes, and more delegates -- can only lose the nomination if the the superdelegates vote against the democratic will. Currently, even the superdelegates who are members of the Senate and House favor him. Only the old guard superdelegates on the DNC favor Hillary and only by a small margin.

My wife and I went through Yale Law with the Clintons and worked on Bill's campaign. We think we know what kind of President Hillary would be. We strongly favor Obama over our old friend(s), and we think she -- for the sake of the Party and the country -- should get out now.

[Figgins]

I have a question for all the supporters of HRC that claim big wins in CA, NY make Hillary the better candidate. Are you suggesting that a candidate can win the general election by only winning the large coastal states? The whole point of the Electoral College is to make sure the big states don't dominate/override the smaller states.

If Her Royal Clintoness can't win the small states, she will do no better than 2nd place come November.

[Shelley]

So, when does senator Clinton stop being "Hillary the Candidate" and start being "Hillary the Spoiled Child"?

[ZoeC]

This is nonsense about Sen. Clinton being told to drop out if she does not win on Tuesday by whatever the margin of the day is for Obama supporters. Why is he precluded from having to garner all needed delegates in a primary battle like other candidates in democratic party history? why are we telling his opponent who trails only by a hundred delegates she must quit? If he is afraid of competition, it won't get easier. If Sen.Obama is truly a candidate for democracy, one would think he would want as many voters to have their say in the process as possible.
By empowering ALL voters and not short circuiting the process, I would be more inclined to think of the Democratic nominee as part of a cultural movement rather than simply yet another well-funded marketing ploy. ZoeC

[Mike]

Tiffany, the delegates are awarded propotrionally to the percentage of votes received and the total delegate count is determined by the population of the state. Under that system, the candidate with the most delegates is there COMPLETELY because of the will of the people. Nothing really to omit.

[barbara]

Currently Obama leads in both the pledged delegate count and the total number of votes cast (by about 1 million).If this is still the case after Tuesday,it is time for Clinton to bow out.

[JS]

@Tiffany, by all counts, Obama leads in the popular vote count as well and that includes both Michigan, where Obama wasn't on the ballot and Florida. Have a look for yourself:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

This is a national primary, not a primary of the 4 or 5 largest states. That is what is meant by the will of the people. So sorry that Hillary's coronation will be delayed by 4-8 years.

[Styles]

Tiffany, you bring up a good point. However, I offer a rebuttal as an independent who is fed up with the Bush/Cheney/Rove/Satan years: Barack Obama leads in the national polls. If the will of the people as a whole is examined, Barack Obama seems to be the clear winner. He also appeals to independents (the plurality of the voting public) whereas Hillary Clinton tends to marginalize and be as divisive as Bush and Kerry were four years ago. If the general mood of the nation is one of discontent with the status quo, again it seems to be Barack Obama that best addresses the political zeitgeist of 2008. I'm not advocating Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton, I'm offering a counterpoint to your argument with the purpose of exhibiting how difficult it is to decide exactly what the "will of the people" really is in this particular case. I'm very interested in finding out how you would address this conundrum logically and rationally.

[Ramos333]

Bill Richarson all but endorsed Obama a long time ago, but it seems the Clintons have been begging him not to formalize it.

The very fact that Richardson has not endorsed Clinton should be a statement in and of itself for anybody old enough to observe the Bill Clinton presidency when Richardson worked closely with Clinton.

About two weeks ago, Richardson appeared briefly on TV, and his interviewer tried hard to pin down his stance and who and when he would endorse. At first, Richardson tried to play down the importance of endorsement as a way of dodging the question.

His interviewer did not relent. As a superdelegate, would he endorse the person who won the most votes? "I think that would be the right thing to do." Does that mean that since Hilary Clinton won the most votes in New Mexico? "But she won by only 1 percent of the votes." When the interviewer inisted, "But she won," Richardson said, "Look, I don't think it will get to that."

It then became clear how Obama came within hundreds of votes of winning the state, despite Bill Clinton trying to force the impression of a camadarie with Richardson that was not there when Clinton watched the Super Bowl with Richardson in New Mexico just before Super Tuesday.

It also got me thinking: If people who worked with the Clintons and know them best are so reluctant to endorse them, there is certainly something they know that we do not.

That was one of the MANY reasons that persuaded to go Obama.

[kww]

Tiffany take your hood off and look in the mirror...you did not vote for Obama because of your racist xenophobia but before you rush out to buy a dictionary let me break it down to you in monosyllabic terms that you can handle-"dark skin" ummm the fact that he is half black not his alledged arrogance is what has your knickers in a wedgie, admit it...remember only black men are arrogant right? Obama is half black so that only makes him half arrogant...whatever...racist liberals slay me...at least we Repubs are honest about our bigotry which is far less then what I see amongst the Dems...liberal media leading the way focusing on race and gender to a lesser degree...what if Obama whined about being called black all the time even though he is only half black?

Hillary whines about the unfair treatment because she is a woman...you rarely hear she is pulling the gender card ...Obama has not the luxury to use race as an excuse...although he would never go there because it is not true... But the media and racist libs say he is black because he has dark skin and married to a black woman. If he were more fair and married a white woman, hispanic or an asian I imagine we would never here him being labeled "black". GIve me a break...racism is a cancer and I think Obama just might be the cure!

[Anne]

Ramos333 right on...well said! Unfortunately a picture says a thousand words...the media showed them watching that game and implied and inferred there was more there than met the eye. People are still thinking that Richardson holds a March 4th surprise based on the buzz leading up to this Tuesdays caucuses. Personally I think Richardson would be the best choice for Obama's running mate. Richardson completes the experience and foreign policy gaps perfectly and without the baggage. I think Obama should call Clintons bluff and announce his running mate before Tuesday! If it is Richardson it would totally take the steam out to the Clinton machine. And everyone could rally behind the nominee and focus on the general election before McCain starts picking off independents, and rallying his forces.

[Janezworld]

Well David and his wife are not alone. I personally know a fellow in Ohio that knows the Clintons quite well and worked on there campaign, fund raised for them, used their many connections to bear on the Clinton's behalf that is now applying their efforts toward the Obama campaign full force. Slow to make up his mind but when he did there was no stopping him...110 percent.

[Jennifer]

It is absolutely disgusting that people would even suggest that HRC drop out of the race if she doesn't beat BO by "large numbers" on Tuesday. I remember BO's people saying if he was within 150 delegates at the convention they could make a legitamite fight for his nomination. How quickly that's been forgotten!

[Chester Allen]

If Barack Obama has a clear lead after Tuesday, and I believe he will, and HRC does not drop out, she will give the GOP more fodder in the fall. If this is supposed to be about the Democratic Party (as she said in the second to last debate) and she wants what is best for everyone of us, she'll quit. Having said that, I'm sure she'll hang on and claw out as many delegates and do as much damage as possible, but if she does that, and if somehow she manages to be chosen in spite of the popular vote, I know I won't vote for her in the fall. Not because I want John McCain, but because at some point, it is more important to take the loss and make a statement than to yet again let the process be stolen away a la w in 2000 & 2004. I will still vote, I just won't vote for her. Many of us don't like her, don't trust her, don't want her as our President, and for you hard-core HRC supporters, you need to ask yourself a question: how badly do you want a Democrat in 2008? Because the answer is, if you want one, don't choose her. NOTHING will mobilize the right faster than an HRC candidacy, and at this point, she can't even run a campaign, bring all of us together, and win the nomination convincingly, so how the heck is she going to do that with an entire country? Answer is: SHE WON'T. Like we say in Texas, "think about it darlin'"

[irene]

The democratic party candidate will carry California and NY and the other big states, whether it is Clinton or Obama. To suggest that only Hillary Clinton can deliver the blue states in a general election is absurd, especially when the vast majority of democracts have already said they would be happy with either candidate. If consideration of how a candidate will do in the general election is the primary factor, then Obama makes the most sense, and not because of what Democrats will do. Hillary inflames the right in the Republican party. If she is at the top of the ticket she will bring out the one group of republicans that McCain himself can't manage to woo. She has high negatives and always has had them. Obama has had nothing to do with why so many Americans really dislike Hillary. He's just providing many of them with a very worthy alternative.

[Tosher]

I think it's quite obvious that unless something radical happens, she can't catch him in pledged delegates. The Clinton campaign hoped that she would maintain a huge lead in superdelegates, but that's falling apart, and many people in the party, most prominently Nancy Pelosi who holds a lot of power over certain superdelegates, have basically taken Obama's side and said they probably won't by themselves decide the election. She was also hoping to do some maneuvering for Michigan and Florida and was rebuffed.

I think they're hoping for a total change in direction to keep things going and I have nothing but respect for that attitude right now, she deserves to give it her all. I do however think that some of her rhetoric has displayed a "win at all costs" mentality, tearing things down to play even if she's going to lose anyways, or bringing it to the convention. The bottom line is if you take away NY and neighboring New Jersey, she's won a few states like California and Massachussetts, and everything else for her has been close. Conversely, Obama's won more and all over the place and by a mile. He's won 11 in a row! Think about that streak! She can't catch up, and they were hoping to win by 20 in Texas and Ohio to catch up, and now she may not make up any ground at all... It's just a matter of time, and that's why he's gained close to 30 superdelegates since Super Tuesday, and she's LOST 6.

[shirlin]

The Clintons are heartless and relentless. The real truth to Hillary's vote for the war is not her lack of judgment but her judging that she needed to appear war-like in order to be taken seriously as a potential commander-in-chief. Should there be a 3 a.m. wake-up call, it would be a militiary problem created by a fear-mongering, war-mongering POTUS like Hillary would be. Can we depend on a President who uses tears and fears to win a negative campaign againts another Democratic candidate? Can we trust a leader who is willing to tear down a speaker for a younger generation fo citizens? Should the Clinton dynasty win as they well might, it would mean the end of the resurgent Democratic Party and the start to a third party of independents. The first woman president of the US, should Hillary win, would be MRS CLINTON, the wife of a publicly disgraced sex-addicted President, who stayed with him to achieve her lust for power.

[Joseph]

"Did Bill Richardson move ever so slightly toward Barack Obama's corner today?"

Slightly? Barring a miracle for Clinton, the only candidate who could possibly come out of Tuesday with a clear lead is Obama. Richardson's comment was anything but subtle.

[Dave]

Why is everybody asking Hillary to get out of the race and the DNC still has not resolve the Michigan and Florida issue. If you count us out, then count us out of the party. I'll write my own vote in on the ballot. It will be Hillary.