Richardson bails out on the Clintons

WASHINGTON -- So much for the importance of experience, past alliances and consistency as major factors in the selection of a presidential candidate, at least as far as Bill Richardson is concerned. It seems that in the New Mexico governor's political handbook, opportunism trumps nearly everything, including loyalty.But then, whoever said politics was about anything more than expediency. Loyalty plays a role only when one is on top. Seldom, however, is the lack of it so nakedly apparent.There is no doubt that Richardson owes much in his political career to the beneficence of Bill Clinton, in whose administration he served two important roles, including secretary of energy. But despite his former boss's entreaties to at least remain neutral if he couldn't endorse Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination, the governor proudly announced for Sen. Barack Obama, refusing even to take the former president's calls for a week before making an "unpleasant" call of his own to Hillary Clinton.Richardson's endorsement of the short-time senator was completely inconsistent with the "been there, done that" theme of his own hapless campaign for the Democratic nomination, which drew heavily on his achievements as a Clinton team member. He constantly cited this Washington savvy as putting him head and shoulders above the crowd before bowing out in January when it became evident that, as far as presidential aspirations were concerned, he was the wily coyote and Clinton and Obama were the road runners."I have the experience. I've been in Iraq. I've negotiated with Saddam Hussein. I was secretary of energy. I increased energy efficiency in this country. I've been a governor. A lot of people give speeches about these issues. I've actually done it," he said in a television interview early last year when asked about his political plans."This nation needs a leader with a proven track record," he said when he officially launched his bid for the nomination a few months later.During a debate in the final days before the New Hampshire primary, he again harped on the importance of past political accomplishment."Whatever happened to experience? Is experience a leper? We want to change this country. But you have to have, you have to know how to do it," he said. But that was all before Obama had become the favorite to win the nomination, a development that obviously convinced Richardson that Obama had somehow overnight gained the missing element and become experienced enough to bring about the change he promises in every speech.If there was more than just a hint of "and I can help" in the governor's endorsement, who can blame him? Someone has to fill out the ticket or become secretary of state. After all, politics is all about the moment. Personal relationships seldom get in the way of practicality. So watching football games with Bill Clinton and schmoozing with Hillary Clinton hardly is any reason for them to believe they could expect at least a measure of neutrality and a touch of decency in the nominating war from their one-time friend and political beneficiary.What goes around comes around, however, and the Clintons understand this about as well as anyone, having been involved over their long political partnership in making some of the same decisions based on expediency. Nevertheless, Richardson's dramatic announcement was almost Shakespearean, bringing dire predictions of Hillary Clinton's final wound from the unkindest thrust of all. Perhaps. But it is always difficult to assess the value of endorsements, other than to note that one coming this late generally reflects the endorser's keen sense of smell, particularly for blood.Richardson isn't the first former Clinton team member to defect. The list includes former Vice President Al Gore, who eschewed his president's support eight years ago and, many believe, lost the election because he did so. Old alliances frequently mean nothing in politics. For instance, Sen. John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, announced his support for Obama while his own vice-presidential running mate, John Edwards, was still a viable candidate.Loyalty is too often measured by what one has done for you lately or can do for you in the future. Richardson clearly asked those questions and felt that Hillary Clinton's chances of answering them were fading fast.Whether the governor's fellow Hispanic voters will follow to any degree remains to be seen. But he, too, should remember the cliche about reaping and sowing. Richardson seems very accomplished in the art of flexible politics. He may need to be. Long memories are customary in Washington politics. His thrust won't be forgotten.(Dan K. Thomasson is former editor of the Scripps Howard News Service.)

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Endorsement

Thanks for following the will of the voter's of your state Gov Richardson. A few months ago you stated you would endorse the candidate who the voter's in your state did. What a two-faced turnaround. All I can say is...what did Obama offer you? VP, cabinent position....?

We So Sorry to Disagree with You

Dear Dan:

I understand from your editorial that receiving an appointment from a president makes one a "beneficiary" of that president's largesse. And by extension, so your argument goes, failure to support that president's wife demonstrates a lack of "loyalty". Let's examine these assumptions. I imagined that president Clinton appointed his cabinet members more for their ability and less for their perpetual indebtedness to their spouses, should they ever run for president. The description of politics and loyalty that you describe sounds like the mafia. I also imagined that Richardson, touting his experience, would cut against your argument. For if he did indeed have the experience he described, then wouldn't he be in the best position to say that sometimes true leadership and vision may in fact trump experience. Governor Richardson certainly did not endorse Obama when he was highest in the polls but rather when he was suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. That makes him not opportunistic, but relevant. Your tirade about loyalty is frightening, because it so aptly describes the sense of entitlement that the Clinton campaign has displayed, and it reeks of the tactics of the Bush campaign. It amazes me that you would defend it.

Richardson

Here is the scoop.
Poor Richardson called Clintons first but was likely told no for a chance to be the VP candidate.
So he went to Obama.

Govenor Richardson, why have

Govenor Richardson, why have you not followed your voters wishes as promised? Has Obama offered you a post. Did you question Obama about his endorsement of his pastor for 20 years and only denounced him when he was hurting him politically.

"What goes around comes

"What goes around comes around, however, and the Clintons understand this about as well as anyone."

And yet knowing the Clintons' reputation for settling scores, Richardson endorsed Obama anyway. Well done! Huzzah, Bill Richardson!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
+ six = fourteen
Solve this math question and enter the solution with digits. E.g. for "two plus four = ?" enter "6".