Showing posts with label Bill Richardson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bill Richardson. Show all posts

Sunday, January 04, 2009

Richardson to Withdraw As Commerce Secretary

From MSNBC.com:

Richardson to withdraw as Commerce secretary
New Mexico governor cites pending investigation of business dealings


New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, tapped in December by President-elect Barack Obama to serve as secretary of Commerce, has withdrawn his name for the position, citing a pending investigation into a company that has done business with his state.

"Let me say unequivocally that I and my Administration have acted properly in all matters and that this investigation will bear out that fact," he said Sunday in a report by NBC News' Andrea Mitchell. "But I have concluded that the ongoing investigation also would have forced an untenable delay in the confirmation process."

A federal grand jury is investigating how a California company that contributed to Richardson's political activities won a lucrative New Mexico state contract.

A person familiar with the proceedings has told The Associated Press that the grand jury is looking into possible "pay-to-play" dealings between CDR Financial Products and someone in a position to push the contract through with the state of New Mexico.

Richardson said he plans to continue in his role as governor. "I appreciate the confidence President-elect Obama has shown in me, and value our friendship and working partnership. I told him that I am eager to serve in the future in any way he deems useful. And like all Americans, I pray for his success and the success of our beloved country."

Obama said Sunday he accepted Richardson's decision to withdraw with 'deep regret.'

"Governor Richardson is an outstanding public servant and would have brought to the job of Commerce Secretary and our economic team great insights accumulated through an extraordinary career in federal and state office," Obama said.


I always thought it was ' extracurricular' rumors that would get him.

Friday, March 21, 2008

Gov. Bill Richardson Endorses Barack Obama

Here is Richardson's Letter:


Dear Friend,

During the last year, I have shared with you my vision and hopes for this nation as we look to repair the damage of the last seven years. And you have shared your support, your ideas and your encouragement to my campaign. We have been through a lot together and that is why I wanted to tell you that, after careful and thoughtful deliberation, I have made a decision to endorse Barack Obama for President.

We are blessed to have two great American leaders and great Democrats running for President. My affection and admiration for Hillary Clinton and President Bill Clinton will never waver. It is time, however, for Democrats to stop fighting amongst ourselves and to prepare for the tough fight we will face against John McCain in the fall. The 1990's were a decade of peace and prosperity because of the competent and enlightened leadership of the Clinton administration, but it is now time for a new generation of leadership to lead America forward. Barack Obama will be a historic and a great President, who can bring us the change we so desperately need by bringing us together as a nation here at home and with our allies abroad.

Earlier this week, Senator Barack Obama gave an historic speech. that addressed the issue of race with the eloquence, sincerity, and optimism we have come to expect of him. He inspired us by reminding us of the awesome potential residing in our own responsibility. He asked us to rise above our racially divided past, and to seize the opportunity to carry forward the work of many patriots of all races, who struggled and died to bring us together.

As a Hispanic, I was particularly touched by his words. I have been troubled by the demonization of immigrants--specifically Hispanics-- by too many in this country. Hate crimes against Hispanics are rising as a direct result and now, in tough economic times, people look for scapegoats and I fear that people will continue to exploit our racial differences--and place blame on others not like them . We all know the real culprit -- the disastrous economic policies of the Bush Administration!

Senator Obama has started a discussion in this country long overdue and rejects the politics of pitting race against race. He understands clearly that only by bringing people together, only by bridging our differences can we all succeed together as Americans.

His words are those of a courageous, thoughtful and inspiring leader, who understands that a house divided against itself cannot stand. And, after nearly eight years of George W. Bush, we desperately need such a leader.

To reverse the disastrous policies of the last seven years, rebuild our economy, address the housing and mortgage crisis, bring our troops home from Iraq and restore America's international standing, we need a President who can bring us together as a nation so we can confront our urgent challenges at home and abroad.

During the past year, I got to know Senator Obama as we campaigned against each other for the Presidency, and I felt a kinship with him because we both grew up between words, in a sense, living both abroad and here in America. In part because of these experiences, Barack and I share a deep sense of our nation's special responsibilities in the world.

So, once again, thank you for all you have done for me and my campaign. I wanted to make sure you understood my reasons for my endorsement of Senator Obama. I know that you, no matter what your choice, will do so with the best interests of this nation, in your heart.

Sincerely,

Bill Richardson


This is positive news.

Wednesday, January 09, 2008

Out Of New Hampshire: The Race Is On

Wow. What a difference a few hours can make! Going into tonight, many were writing the Clinton campaign obituary and now she is perhaps the favorite again. The Obama campaign expected to win. Heck, even the Clinton campaign expected Obama to win. All the pundits, Political Realm included, were wrong and the race was turned on its head.

How did Clinton do it? In New Hampshire, Clinton dominated the female vote, easily out-pacing Obama, who had won the group in Iowa. Whether that's the result of Clinton's near tears yesterday or a more open campaign that shifted focus somewhat, we don't know. The polling we've seen over the past few days gave Obama a lead of nearly 10 points, but perhaps those numbers were simply soft. Perhaps there were a significant number of late deciders that broke for Clinton. Perhaps the questions raised about Obama's experience, record, and readiness to lead paid off for the Clinton campaign. Perhaps the voters of New Hampshire wanted this thing to turn into a race, rather than a coronation.

In the end, it seems like we simply misjudged the state of the race. Obama was over-hyped out of Iowa, while everyone underestimated Clinton's superior organization, establishment backing, and appeal with voters in New Hampshire. Most suspected the vast number of independents would provide fertile soil for Obama, especially compared to Iowa. However, the number of first time participants was down tonight from Iowa and it's likely that those independents fit right into Clinton's target profile--blue collar workers. We do know one thing--the Clinton campaign won't badmouth New Hampshire as it did Iowa a few days ago.

Of course, let's not get ahead of ourselves again. The narrative out of the first two contests is decidedly unclear. Barack Obama's Iowa victory was a huge shock to much of America. Will this Clinton win be as surprising? For political junkies, sure it is, but for the average voter who may not be as tuned in to this race I'm not so sure. The Obama campaign will be quick to point out that Clinton had a lead in New Hampshire just a week ago. To the contrary, the Clinton campaign is hoping that she will be portrayed as the "Comeback Kid" tomorrow, just as her husband was 16 years ago. Indeed, the shift in the Granite State over the past few hours has been simply stunning. For all the talk that Iowa and New Hampshire hold too much power, look at what they have given us--a real race on both sides.

So where do the Democrats go from here? It's on to Nevada and South Carolina, where Obama seemed to have all the momentum this morning. He is apparently going to pick up a major union endorsement in Nevada tomorrow--one earned more because of his victories (they were likely assuming a New Hampshire win just like everyone else) than because of his positions. Many believed that endorsement could have gone to either of Obama's key rivals and we have to wonder if the union is rethinking things tonight. In South Carolina, Obama's Iowa victory showed black voters, who will make up much of the electorate, that he can win in white America. Clinton, however, has strong ties in the black community, so will a New Hampshire win bring those voters back to her campaign?

The campaigns of John Edwards and especially Bill Richardson will likely reevaluate after tonight's results. Richardson clearly has no chance of winning this thing, while John Edwards is all but out of it as well. Both campaigns should be running out of funds soon, making it even more difficult to compete going forward.

On the Republican side, things played out in a much more expected manner. John McCain was the clear winner, though his margin was surprising to some. He overcame a campaign in shambles this summer, a media that left him for dead, an unpopular immigration plan, and support for a surge in Iraq that wasn't working. In the end, the campaign was tightened up, the media came back to him, his immigration position remained unpopular, but better explained, and the situation in Iraq started to improve. He is now well positioned for the contests to follow in Michigan and South Carolina and the win tonight will infuse some much needed cash.

For Romney, the collapse is shocking. His control of the first two contests looked insurmountable this summer and into the fall and now he finds himself in perilous position. He has family ties in Michigan, but faces McCain with momentum and Huckabee in a more friendly environment. If he can't somehow defy the odds there, Romney is certainly done. Fred Thompson has already moved on to South Carolina and Huckabee will join him there tomorrow. Huckabee's strong third tonight--New Hampshire was never expected to be his state--sets up the rest of the race as seemingly Huckabee vs. McCain. Giuliani, though happy that the early contests are producing mixed results, has seen his national lead deteriorate. In Florida, a state where he has devoted much of his recent attention, he now finds himself in fourth place in a new poll.

What do we take away from tonight? Both sides have major comeback stories--Clinton in the short term and McCain in the long term. There are no frontrunners anymore. Look for a fresh set of presidential rankings from us before the week is out as the campaign resets for the next phase. Without a doubt, the race is on.

Cross-posted at Political Realm.

Tuesday, December 04, 2007

Hear The Democratic Radio Debate From NPR


NPR hosted a great Democratic radio Debate earlier today.

Hear the entire debate here. This was one of the best debates so far.

Sparks flew on the subject of Iran, in light of the recent NIE Report on Iran's so-called nuclear weapons program.
Clinton supported the Bush Administration's effort to label part of the Iranian Army as a terrorist group, providing the Neo-Conservatives with all the approval they need to launch an attack against that Country. But Clinton bought into the Bush Administrations disinformation campaign on Iran far too easily, with little skepticism, just as she did when she voted in favor of the invasion of Iraq. When you vote in favor of an ill advised war once, you may be able to get away with calling it a mistake. However, when you do it twice in a row, there is a thing called "judgement" that has to be called into question.

Monday, November 12, 2007

Democrats Take Big Stage At Iowa Fundraising Dinner

The Democratic Presidential Candidates gathered In Iowa for a major fundraising event past this weekend. The Jefferson-Jackson Dinner is one of the major events of the Iowa campaign season.

Below are the speeches from John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Bill Richardson. According to observers, Barack Obama scored points at the event. John Edwards also did very well.





Thursday, November 01, 2007

Another Look At The Democratic Debate In Philly


Hear a great analysis of Tuesdays Democratic Debate at Drexel University in Philadelphia. Is there a chink in Hillary's armor? Some think so. The On Point Radio program digs a little deeper and comes up with some interesting possibilities.

Some of the panelists believe that Edwards looked good on Tuesday and that Tuesdays event could be seen as a more defining moment in the campaign. Others believe that the other candidates did not do enough.

Jack Beatty was bothered by poll numbers that indicate that the public is beginning to support war with Iran. It looks like Bush & Co.'s war propaganda (and fear) machine is starting to reap some benefits for the neocons. We are seeing a replay of the kind of PR that took place before the invasion of Iraq. It appears that Bush & Co. is dead set on a military conflict with Iran and they are simply attempting to sell it to the public... But I don't believe that the American public really understands all of the consequences of an attack on Iran.

The debate focuses on the fact that Hillary Clinton does not stand by her decisions, and she can't seem to take a solid position on any major subject. Yet, she somehow remains the media's choice. The panel seems to suggest that Hillary should not get too comfortable. I am personally losing hope that any other candidate will have a chance, considering that she has been annointed as the media's preferred candidate. Other candidates are not getting equal time, yet they are critized by some of the pundits for not have substance of for not challenging Hillary. Perhaps if the media would share the camera and the mic... perhaps the other candidates would be able to compete.

The debate also drew respectable ratings for MSNBC.

Guests

· Julie Mason, national political correspondent, The Houston Chronicle
· Joe Klein, columnist for Time magazine and author of "Politics Lost: How American Democracy Was Trivialized By People Who Think You're Stupid"
· Harold Jackson, editorial page editor, The Philadelphia Inquirer
· Jack Beatty, On Point news analyst and senior editor at The Atlantic Monthly

Listen To Program

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Roundup of the Democratic Debate In Philly


The Democrats squared off at Drexel University in Philly tonight for yet another highly controlled debate event. I would rather see another Youtube style debate, or a debate where the audience gets to ask real questions (and where they are allowed to follow-up).

But that day will never come. Unfortunately we will have to settle for these staged PR events.

I knew that there was going to be a debate tonight...but I was not sure exactly where. When I saw the news clips, I noticed that they had my hometown in the background for some reason, even though they were in Philly. Wouldn't it make more sense for the City of Philly to be the backdrop...uummmmm since they were in Philly? I prefer Philly's skyline anyway (apologies to my hometown). Anyway... when I saw my city in the background I went into WT_ ... Hell mode. "There was a debate here, and I didn't know it?.... That can't be, as much as I keep up with the news".

But of course I figured out that it was at Drexel.

St. Louis will have its chance once the big dance starts though. St. Louis should get one of the major General Election Debates next year....as it has for the last several elections.

This meeting was more focused on domestic issues. It was also hyped as the moment when Hillary was going to be confronted by the other candidates. However, they did not seem to put together any meaningful attack against the media's chosen favorite.... despite the fact that there were plenty of things that her opponents could have thrown her way.

Here is a play by play of the festivities from a NY Times liveblogger: (scroll down and read from the bottom up).

Licenses for Undocumented Immigrants 10:58 p.m. Interesting discussion on whether illegal immigrants should be able to get drivers’ licenses, as New York’s governor has proposed. Mrs. Clinton had said two weeks ago in New Hampshire that it made “a lot of sense,” but tonight gave a pretty indecipherable answer. She said that “what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is fill the vacuum left by the failure of this administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform.”

Mr. Dodd said a driver’s license was a privilege and to extend it to illegal immigrants was “troublesome.” Mrs. Clinton came back to say that she didn’t say it should be done, but that she recognized what the governor was trying to do. She and Mr. Dodd got into a spat about what she had said. She dismissed it as a “gotcha” question.

Both Mr. Edwards and Mr. Obama called her on what seemed to be a shift in her statement. Mr Edwards said, “Unless I missed something, Senator Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes just a few minutes ago.” And Mr. Obama uttered a devastating phrase for anyone who remembers the 2004 campaign: he said he couldn’t tell if she is “for it or against it.”

Alternative Minimum Tax 10:39 p.m. The final third of this debate is considerably less intense than the earlier portions. The audience tends to drop off as these things go along, and reporters tend to turn their focus to preparing their stories for looming deadlines. So the moderators try to bring out any “news” early on.


Still, Mr. Russert tries to nail down Mrs. Clinton on whether she supports proposal by Representative Charlie Rangel to eliminate the alternative minimum tax and institute a surtax on those with higher incomes. (The alternative minimum tax was created to prevent millionaires from using loopholes to avoid all federal income taxes, but it can hit people with incomes as low as $50,000.)

Eventually, she says, she will not campaign on Mr. Rangel’s plan, but on the way to saying that, she noted that she and Mr. Clinton had never expected to be in the nation’s top income bracket, that it was a new experience and one she wasn’t entirely comfortable with.

Mr. Obama also said he would not campaign on the Rangel plan, but here he made a smart tactical move, turning the discussion to problems faced not by the richest people in the country but by struggling single mothers.

Social Security 10:13 p.m. Mrs. Clinton is getting a tough grilling tonight from Mr. Russert and she’s being very assertive, very adamant, in making her points. She spurns a suggestion that she has had one position on raising the Social Security payroll tax that she discussed privately with a voter in Iowa and another that she stated in public. In saying she won’t advocate a “specific fix” for Social Security, she reveals a little of her own strategy: “I’m not going to be repeating Republican talking points,” and says that to act like Social Security is in crisis is a “Republican trap.” Mr. Russert quotes Bill Clinton saying that Social Security is in crisis and asks if that was a Republican talking point.

Mr. Obama says he agrees that everyone is against privatization of Social Security, but then raises his bigger objection to Mrs. Clinton, which is an inclination to “muddle through and give convoluted answers” and says Mrs. Clinton “hasn’t been truthful.”

Mrs. Clinton says “I don’t see a difference here,” and that she supports a bipartisan commission on Social Security.

Biden on Giuliani 10:03 p.m. Mr. Biden rises above all this and says he’s not running against Hillary Clinton and turns on …. Rudy Giuliani! As he did in the last Democratic debate, Mr. Biden says Mr. Giuliani is “the most uninformed person” on American foreign policy, adding that all of Mr. Giuliani’s sentences, he says, consist of “a noun, a verb and 9/11.”

On Second Thought 9:44 p.m. Bill Richardson suggests that the candidates should not be going after Mrs. Clinton: “You know what I’m hearing here, I’m hearing this holier-than-thou attitude toward Senator Clinton. That it’s bothering me because it’s pretty close to personal attacks that we don’t need.”

Christopher Dodd raised the question of Mrs. Clinton’s electability, but also adds, “Look, at the end of this process here, we need to have a Democrat in the White House come Jan. 20, 2009.”

Releasing Documents 9:43 p.m. After the break, Mrs. Clinton says that in a “perverse way,” the Republican obsession with her means they think she is “communicating effectively” about what she’ll do as president.

Mr. Russert asks her whether she will let the National Archives release her documents from your years as First Lady? She says the archives is releasing documents “as they do their process.” Mr. Russert notes that Bill Clinton had written a letter saying that their private communications should not be made public; would she lift that ban? She says it’s not her decision.

Mr. Obama steps in here, which is a place where he makes a clear distinction with Mrs. Clinton. Not releasing these records, when she is making the claim that her years as First Lady are the basis for her experience, he says, is part of the problem. “We need to rebuild trust,” he says and that means being open and accountable. He adds that the Republicans are obsessed with her because it’s a fight they’re comfortable having, and that means she can’t change things. Mr. Edwards continues along these lines. Mr. Richardson urges his fellow Democrats not to bash her, even as he notes his own differences with her. “We need to stay positive,” he says.

‘Tell-the-Truth Mode 9:38 p.m. John Edwards’ experience as a trial lawyer shows, making his case very clearly to the jury. He suggests that Mrs. Clinton voted for the Iran resolution because she was moving from primary mode to general election mode. “Our responsibility should be in tell-the-truth mode,” he said. Mrs. Clinton calls this a semantic difference.

Pledge 9:31 p.m. Interesting exchange when Tim Russert, the moderator, asked Mrs. Clinton to “pledge” that Iran would not develop nuclear weapons on her watch. She said she pledged to “do everything I can” to prevent Iran from doing so. He notes that she’s not making a full pledge. She repeats that she pledged to do everything she could. Whether this works for you probably depends on your definition of pledge. Mr. Edwards will also not make an air-tight pledge, but says, “What I will do is take all the responsible steps that can

be taken to keep Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.”
Mr. Obama says, “I think all of us are committed to Iran not having nuclear weapons,” and adds: “I think there is a larger point at stake, Tim, and that is we have been governed by fear for the last six years, and this president has used the fear of terrorism to launch a war that should have never been authorized. We are seeing the same pattern now.”

Iran 9:11 p.m. Mrs. Clinton is asked why she voted for the measure declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. She’s certainly not defensive about it. She says her vote was an expression of support for using economic sanctions and “vigorous diplomacy,” not a rush to war. Will this be enough to quell her critics? Mr. Obama says the resolution doesn’t send the right signal to the region and weakens our capacity to influence Iran but does not draw a clear distinction with Mrs. Clinton (he missed the vote himself). Mrs. Clinton, in her clarity of her position, also blurs the lines with her fellow Democrats, saying everyone on the stage “agrees” that President Bush has “made a mess” of the whole situation. Mr. Edwards again is the one who picks up where Mr. Obama left off, saying the resolution “looks like it was written by the neo-cons” and gave Mr. Bush everything he wanted, playing on the idea that Mrs. Clinton is a hawk and part of the Washington establishment.

Out of the Gate 9:02 p.m. Barack Obama is given his chance off the bat to distinguish himself from Hillary Clinton. (And to make the first “Rocky” reference.) After a long wind-up, he says Mrs. Clinton has been on both sides of Nafta, torture and Iraq and says, “I think what we need right now is honesty with the American people about where we would take the country. That’s how I’m trying to run my campaign.”

But wow, if that was his opening shot, it was pretty soft. Mrs. Clinton got the signal and goes after the Republicans, not Mr. Obama. But John Edwards picked up the baton from Mr. Obama and also starts in on Mrs. Clinton and says, “I think it is crucial for Democratic voters and caucus-goers to determine who they can trust, who’s honest, who is sincere, who has integrity.”

The Fight in Philadelphia 9 p.m. Hi everyone. We’re watching the Democratic debate in Philadelphia tonight from South Carolina. This one goes for two hours. All aboard!

_____________________________


Friday, September 28, 2007

Democratic Candidates Square Off At Dartmouth College


The Democratic Presidential candidates squared off at Dartmouth College on Wednesday.

They were all still lying about pulling troops from Iraq, especially Hillary Clinton. However, they also appeared to be more cautious about how many troops to pull out and when. I plan to make a huge post about the "Iraq Withdrawal" question and I will highlight the fact that the whole discussion is a fraud. WAKE UP! There will be no end to the U.S. occupation of Iraq anytime soon, no matter who wins the Presidential election in November of 2008.

The Iraq post is quite long and I have not even begun to type it up. No rush though... since troops will be in Iraq indefinitely, and since the candidates will be lying about withdrawal until election day, I figure I have plenty of time.

Talking Points Memo has provided a video of the highlights from the debate.

Tuesday, August 07, 2007

Watch the Yearly Kos Presidential Debate

Intro


Watch The Debate in 3 Parts

Part I

Part II

Part III

Another love fest for the Democrats....

Hillary Clinton continues with her lies in Part II (About pulling troops out of Iraq).