Richardson: Tuesday Is "D-Day" For Dems

Says Leader In Delegate Count After This Week's Primaries Should Be Considered Nominee

(CBS)  New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, a former candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, predicted that the results of this week's primaries will decide the party's race.

“D-Day is Tuesday," he told Face The Nation host Bob Schieffer. "Whoever has the most delegates after Tuesday should be the nominee."

Richardson deferred from announcing a personal endorsement of either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama (“I’m legitimately torn," between the two, he said), but suggested that the leader after this week's primaries will have the presumptive title.

He also called for a positive Democratic race rather than one marred by negative ads or name-calling. “We have to have a positive campaign after Tuesday," Richardson said.

"I think we've got to be ready for a very strong John McCain. Republicans are united right now. They don't have a divisive primary. It looks like the tone of our campaign is heading much too negative. And I want to see us after Tuesday basically come together and see where we are and move on to the general election.

"This campaign is getting much too negative. The American people want us to be positive. They want us to talk about issues. And I'm just worried that the tone of this campaign has gotten excessively negative. And it may hurt us in November.”

Also appearing on the program, Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., advised the candidates against bickering.

“It doesn't serve our interests here to be demeaning the other candidate, in my view," he told Schieffer. "And I'm worried about these ads in a sense creating that kind of an environment."

However, Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., who supports Clinton, did not think her campaign's controversial television ad (in which voters are asked to consider who would best handle being alerted to a world crisis at 3 a.m.) is negative.

"It’s not a question of if we’re going to be attacked again by al Qaeda; it’s a question of when," he said.

“It is a dangerous world. And we need to have a debate about who is best prepared, for this important moment, to be commander in chief.”

---

Read the full "Face the Nation" transcript here.

[erinmicheles]

When Hillary Clinton was the presumptive front-runner, Bill Richardson had his lips absolutely attached to her posterior end. It was weak and unflattering pandering all in hopes of obtaining her Vice-Presidential nod. Even more unflattering is this most recent interview where Richardson shows that his political loyalties are only about as permanent as the "grey-away" rinse on that "hope to look hipper" facial hair growth.

[kansas1946]

However, Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., who supports Clinton, did not think her campaign''s controversial television ad (in which voters are asked to consider who would best handle being alerted to a world crisis at 3 a.m.) is negative.
**************************************
Yes, Evan, just like Karl Rove and Co., didn''t think the swift-boat ads were negative. You need to get out of the same sewer that Rove inhabits. That ad is not only negative, it is friggin'' stupid.

Here is Hillary, poised expectantly over her "red" phone, in the middle of the night, in full jewels and makeup. Who is she, June Clever??

It is a stupid, stupid, ad.

[hook1950]

Richardson is correct, but the Clinton''s aren''t listening. All they want is power--they are the most dangerous people on the planet.

[elsylee28]

BTW guys I found some brilliant/awesome analysis on Obama%u2019s campaign. I haven%u2019t seen anything like this mentioned anywhere in the MSM.
Check out %u201CAl-Qaeda Gets Offended%u201D www.savagepolitics.com/?p=162 and %u201CPredatory Lenders and the Red Phone%u201D on www.savagepolitics.com/?p=158

Plus check the news article %u201CThe Intern%u2026.%u201D

[elsylee28]

Check out the article "The Intern..." at www.savagepolitics.com
Here is an excerpt:%u201C...the start of the Tony Rezko case in Illinois%u2026The case has plenty of new prosecution witnesses and novel evidence that are prone to certainly embarrass the Presidential hopeful. Recently the head magistrate in the case, Judge Amy St Eve, declared that the presentation of evidence regarding the finder%u2019s fee ($375,000) which was allegedly skimmed from investment quotas paid by the Illinois state teachers%u2019 pension fund, must include the $10,000 which ended up in the Obama campaign through the donation of a man called Joseph Aramanda. The prosecution has found that many of these %u201Credirections%u201D of funds to Obama (and others) were done at Rezko%u2019s direct behest and not on their own accord. Additionally it has been found that Mr. Aramanda%u2019s son, John Aramanda, was able to land a %u2018highly coveted%u2019 internship in Barack Obama%u2019s Washington Senate office a year after said funds landed in the Senator%u2019s campaign bank account..."

[rushlimpdrug]

Posted by mrefling1 at 08:04 AM

If you are one of those internet savy obama followers you might consider counting the times you click your mouse.

[jack3213]

OBAMA IS A SUSPICIOUS CHARACTER WITH A GOOD STUMP SPEECH. UNDERNEATH THE WORDS THERE IS NO SUBSTANCE. PEOPLE ARE SUCKERS AND CONTINUE TO FALL FOR THIS AND SHOULD BE MADE AWARE HE IS NOTHING MORE THAN AN EMPTY SUIT. CLINTON IS NOTHING MORE THAN A LIAR. NEITHER CANDIDATE IS QUALIFIED OR CREDIBLE AND SHOULD BE IGNORED FOR THE SAFETY OF THE USA.

[formrusmcsgt]

I''''m voting for Hillary Clinton. She is tested, proven, brilliant, a fighter.

Posted by jason101othe at 03:44 AM : Mar 03, 2008

Tested how? Voting the wrong way on the most important issue she''s faced?

Proven how? Ditto.

Brilliant...well that''s your assessment.

A fighter how? She has passed no major legislation in 6 years in the Senate.

[rushlimpdrug]

What a sad little man.
Or should I say:

What a sad fat pig.

Hey Richardson, shave that racoon off your lower lip your starting to remind me of Al Gore.

[skeezix06]

I was quite disappointed with his statement. Has the democratic party become so desperate to win that they would end campaigns before the person running was ready to end it? This is so wrong.

[jason101other]

I wish that Richardson would shut up. It''s obvious that he''s just pandering for the VP spot. That is an unfair thing for him to say that whoever is ahead after Tuesday should be the nominee because it''s obvious that even if Clinton won by 15 in each of the four states, she still would be behind. I live in PA and I still want my chance to vote for Clinton. Nobody has the right to decide for her to drop out except herself. There is also still the issue of FL and MI which, if counted, would bring it to a tie currently.

[jason101other]

Obama is equally as negative as Hillary Clinton. If pointing out differences between yourself and your opponent is "negative," then how could you ever run a campaign without being negative?

I''m very turned off by the way that Obama keeps pushing that he didn''t support the war. The fact is he wasn''t even in the Senate at the time, so he didn''t vote. While he has been in the Senate, he has voted exactly the same as Hillary on every war funding vote. All Obama did was give a speech at an anti-war rally in 2002, and by 2004 he was already saying that he was not sure if he would have voted for the war or not-- once again, trying to play it both ways. Obama skips out of voting on the controversial issues; instead he votes "present," which isn''t "yes" or "no." It is disingenuous for Obama to try to paint the picture that he has been against the war the whole time. For a candidate who is running under the guise of representing a "new kind of politic," this is troubling. If the very premise of his candidacy is misleading, as it clearly is, then I think it raises serious questions about him as a choice for president. If the foundation is unstable, then that which is built upon the foundation will falter.

I''m voting for Hillary Clinton. She is tested, proven, brilliant, a fighter. We need a fighter in the White House because the Republicans are not going to lie down and abandon their principles in order to be a part of a newfound fantasy eutopia in Washington as Obama wants to portray.

[brianbwb-2009]

Both sides of the aisle have swallowed a dangerous amount of Kool-Aid.

1. Al Qaeda is a computer database of CIA-trained assassins and arms smugglers, originally used to funnel arms and support to the Afghanis during their war with Russia. There is no organized militia, and the CIA has the 411 on all the members, and their recruitment activities, and it doesn''t require launching full scale military hostilities against sovereign nations in order to neutralize them, if that is what Bush really wanted to do.

2. As has been shown by the ricin found in the Vegas hotel, There are nuts out there completely unconnected to Al Qaeda, or any so called "terrorists", but it is not impossible that one or more might succeed in creating a lot of damage, which will then be blamed on some non-existent "terrorist" organization.

3. It is also not unlikely that a CIA operative might even cause such an event, to further the cause of war profiteering politicians. Bush''s reluctance to pursue justice for the victims of 9/11 proves that such people don''t care about American lives, and will "sacrifice" them to achieve their agenda.

We need to select the person least likely to allow these people to operate with impunity. I don''t have faith in any of them, but Mr. Obama seems on the surface to be closest to the type of person we are looking for.

[popstom1]

I like Chicago politics
Obama Rezko Auchi and the funding for that Boneheaded
MISTAKE and he talks about judgement RightVoices.com

[grammawhamma]

Out of all the dem candidates..I liked Richardson the best.

[libra127]

"libra127 - because of the constant regurgitation of Bush rants - old news. Forget it. "
Posted by jimmyc1955 at 11:46 PM : Mar 02, 2008

You''re confused. I haven''t posted anything about Bush. I''m much more interested in the future than in the past.

[j-whitman]

jimmyc1955,,,,, Haven''t you even listened to her onece ??? ---- She is a leader a good strong one, so is Obama -------

------ We have all seen what bad leadership is over the last 8 years, then there''s McCain''s weak leadrship of the rubber stamp & surrenedering his own politics for the right wing.

[libra127]

She can''t run her campaign, winning a debate is not winning a campaign. Posted by jimmyc1955 at 11:41 PM : Mar 02, 2008

I don''t dispute that there have been flaws in her campaign and that she has to win big on Tues. if she''s to continue to be a viable candidate. In the end, though, it is the one who WINS who has run a good campaign. It is not yet clear who will win the nomination.

Obama is appealing as a person and has run a good campaign so far. If he is the Dem. nominee, I will likely vote for him over McCain. But I do think he is risky, inexperience, unvetted, and has had a big hand up from the fawning mainstream media. I think Hillary would make a great President, a better President in 2009 than Obama would. He is more likely to be ready in 2016.

Texas and Ohio voters: Vote for Hillary !! You won''t be sorry.

[jimmyc1955]

libra127 - because of the constant regurgitation of Bush rants - old news. Forget it.

We have had 20 years of political ranting on both sides. You got our guy so we''re going to get yours. Special prosecutors, senate investigations, accusations and counter accusations - but nobody wants to run the country.

They only want to beat the other guy. If as a nation we go down in flames it will be beacause of people who no longer discuss issues or idea but only rant mindlessly about how evil the other guy is.

A republican isn''t an enemy - they are an opponent. We can admire and respect and opponent even though we disagree with them. But when I hear people ranting about evil republicans and Marxist liberals I lose hope for our political system. Our course culture will be our own demise.

[jimmyc1955]

libra127 - it is HER campaign to run. Running the white house is not a debate - it is a matter of leadership and an ability to run a very, very large organization. She can''t run her campaign, winning a debate is not winning a campaign. She was the massive front runner - she is now behind. She had all the advantages - and lost them one by one.

And of course she can be held responsible for what her husband and done. She can''t claim the "experience" and not claim the responsibility. He almost single handedly torpedoed her campaign in South Carolina and has made mistakes over and over. For a guy who was acknowledged as a political genius he sure is *** up big time.

Hillary went negative - hard and fast. Obama went with her. I think it was a mistake on his part.

She is not qualified to be President. Her actions, decisions (voting for the war, voting to sustain spending - top 20% of earmark spending in the entire congress) and record weigh against her.