WASHINGTON, Mar. 2, 2008
Richardson: Tuesday Is "D-Day" For Dems
Says Leader In Delegate Count After This Week's Primaries Should Be Considered Nominee
-
Photo
New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, a former candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, predicted that the results of this week's Super Tuesday primaries will decide the party's race. (CBS)
-
Play CBS Video
Video
Richardson Talks Negative Ads
New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson tells Bob Schieffer that the recent string of negative campaign ads from candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton could ultimately hurt the Democratic Party.
-
Video
Democrat Gov. On Campaign '08
Gov. Bill Richardson (D-N.M.) speaks with Bob Schieffer about his indecision to endorse a Democratic presidential candidate, as he is still divided between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
-
Video Library
On The Campaign Trail
An up-close look at life on the road with the major presidential candidates.
“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.
© MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Video and Galleries from Face The Nation
-
Video
Face The Nation, 7.5.09
-
Video
The Debate Over Healthcare
-
Video
U.S. Global Military Efforts
- Latest in Face The Nation
- Separating Icons From Heroes
- A Guide To A Successful Father's Day
- Remembering Tim Russert
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 126 CommentsYour right on the mark and I couldn''t agree more, the gop republicant slime machine is waiting its turn, she is giving the neocon immoderates more ammo.
Barack Obama dropped exactly the same "fear bomb" with a nearly identical "red phone" ad touting his judgement when he answers the 3am phone call. It included the same house, same kids, etc. Copy cat. VOTE FOR HILLARY - she initiates the ideas and plans that Obama copies.
Hey, could''t care less about who you support. But bald-faced lying about like that is pretty disgusting.
The media and democratic elders are preventing voters to know anything about Obama. Only in the past few weeks has the media started to put his feet to the fire. He is just one great big secret.
Also, Obama did NOT vote against the war. He was not in the US senate. All he did was give a speech. There is a huge difference between the words: "against and vote". Now he is try to use this speech as the basis for having good judgement ! Wow
Anyway, the way Hillary''s been talking I think she''s going to have to be pushed out of the race by superdelegates - she''s not going to leave until the lights are off. She still seems to believe that the position is hers and the burden''s on Barack to prove that it''s not hers and that people are going to see things her way in due time. Combine this with the fact that she''s not one inclined to take one for the good of the team and she''s liable to stay in the race and start talking about lawsuits, Michigan and Florida, giving the rest of the States a voice, superdelegates, etc . . .
Wrong! I am an independent who support Hillary Clinton. If she does not win the nomination, I will vote for Obama. Definitely not McCain.
Obama has also said that if he had been in the Senate, he is not sure how he would have voted on the Iraq resolution. It''s all politics.
Well, The New York Times today gave a hint. It looks like Obama''s 19 year relationship with Rezko could be the answer. It sure would have been nice if this information came out earlier before so many had placed their vote.
Tell that to Hillary Clinton
Posted by hoygie10
hoygie10, that''s not fair - we the people didn''t have a chance to vote on whether or not to go to war with Iraq, and 5 years later we have our chance. It''s we the voters who are making this election about the war and it''s cost . . .
Posted by hoygie10
Since the Constitution gave We The People the power to decide our destinies as a democracy rather than a be forced to accept the rule of a military dictatorship.
It''s the paradox of power in a democracy that we''re the boss of the Commander in Chief. He is in power because we choose to give it to him or take it away. If we choose to give power based on the issue of whether or not to continue a war, that is our choice.
At least that''s what the majority in this country seems to believe I think . . . clearly there''s room to disagree . . .
That''s not to say that I don''t think Bush has totally ignored the Constitution - as he once said, he believes ''it''s just a piece of paper'' . . .
Posted by hoygie10
hoygie, you''re right about that - that''s why Hillary isn''t going to get the nomination . . . that''s basically the perception even amongst the majority of we Democrats . . .
If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary''s than they had ever been before or since.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.
If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-)
Best regards
The red flags for me were the fact that all our allies with access to the exact same intelligence were actively speaking out against going to war and saying stuff like ''listen to us, we''re your friends'', and ''if you really think there might be wmd''s why don''t you let UN inspectors actually do inspecting first''?
Bush''s chief argument to us was ''trust me'', but Bush didn''t want to do inspections. And the only countries who did decide to sign on were countries you''ve never heard of sending like 2 guys to do peacekeeping, probably as gratitude because US taxpayers are probably responsible for like 85% of their country''s GDP. Also, the bullying to try and silence people . . .
Also what was with all the bullying - intimidating the Dixie Chicks to silence dissent . . .
Point taken about me not having the 24/7 experience of the military/intelligence community, but when the alternative is ''trust us'' and Bush is in charge, no can do!
Posted by hoygie10
But hoygie, Bush isn''t listening and has a different idea of what is ''right'' and ''wrong'' from the rest of us. Also, politicians are people too, and Barack doesn''t believe in the war just like the rest of us, so we''re not asking him to be or do anything that he didn''t already agree with before he started running. That''s not fair to say we''re using him to further our own agenda . . . it''s a team effort . . .
This war has increased the global threat of terrorism and has inspired several home-grown terror threats . . . we''re a much weakened military for getting bogged down in Iraq rather than going after Bin Laden, and the majority of the country believes that''s the case, although I respect your right to disagree. We will have to agree to disagree I suppose . . .
Wow, I must be in the alternative America, ''cause all I see are lackluster turnouts in a primary where the guy who''s doing best is such a social moderate no-one really wants him all that much, and the guy doing second-best is such a hard-right Theocon even Republicans are afraid of him winning.
...And both the Democrat front-runners are showing record turn-out numbers across the board.
Another difference between people who ''believed'' there were wmd''s and people who didn''t was suspiciously the desire to go to war ASAP rather than wait for inspectors to finish. This indicates that it wasn''t JUST the belief that there were wmd''s in Iraq it was more likely irrational FEAR that was driving the push to war. If one actually just thought there were wmd''s in Iraq, why not wait for inspectors to finish?
The third difference with those who ''thought'' there were wmd''s is that they were not open to considering the consequences of possibly being wrong. Nobody wanted to consider the power vacuum that Iranians, Saudis, and Turks might seek to fill. Nobody wanted to consider the challenge of trying to establish a new government. Nobody wanted to consider that maybe not everybody would be cool with having a ''crusade'' come into their country.
In sum, maybe it''s not accurate to say that there were those of us who believed there were wmd''s and those of us who didn''t. I think it''s more about FEAR, and how if we don''t learn from our past and how that FEAR got manipulated we''re liable to continue to make decisions that hold the promise of greater security that paradoxically make us worse off. Perhaps the antitode will be for the candidates to focus on actions and consequences rather than rhetoric like ''chaos''.
---Sam, I''m not gonna talk to ya either. Until you concede: "Everybody thought Saddam Hussein had WMDs."---
Posted by hoygie10
Haven''t left yet - the question is never just did he or did he not have wmds, the paramount concern is SAFETY. Thus the national dialogue SHOULD have been about:
1. Does Saddam have wmds?
2. How do we know for sure, how can we tell?
3. What are the consequences of guessing wrong and then choosing a different path?
One difference between people who ''believed'' the answer to 1 was yes instead of no was scope of information - the people who believed that he did seemed to be relying solely on Bush for info. Those of us who didn''t seem to take the global feedback into perspective. It''s always better to have more info rather than less.
And he needs to explain why he''s seeking to establish employment programs in Iraq but not at home.
And he wants to continue to spend billions of dollars in Iraq and cut taxes but has as much spending on his platform as the Democrats - what if anything does he plan to cut?
And what about strength of the military - McCain''s voted against every bill has sought to give troops more humane rotations. How is he going to sustain the ''surge'' and ''expand it'' as he pledges if recruiters are already having to put down payments on peoples homes and are still having problems signing people up?
Enough with the fear-mongering ''chaos'' arguments - fool us collectively once, shame on you; fool us collectively twice, shame on us . . .
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/29/AR2008022902784.html?nav%3Dhcmodule&sub=AR
Barack Obama was a community organizer more than 20 years ago. He has spent all of his time since then as a lawyer, activist, and/or legislator. He''s older than Bill Clinton was when he was elected president, and his background is more varied than Clinton''s was, while at the same time all being relevant preparation for the presidency.
He is a well-qualified, middle-aged man who has devoted his life to service, and who has displayed extraordinary wisdom and judgment throughout this campaign as well as at many other points in his life, of which his early opposition to the Iraq war is merely the most notable example.
There is nothing mysterious nor even particularly rapid about his rise. He is no stranger to hard work. His stances on the issues have all been outlined on his website, and covered in his speeches, for many months.
Hillary Clinton knows all of this to be true, yet she has chosen to portray him otherwise. Which adds up to a bunch of good reasons to vote for Barack Obama, and one very good one not to vote for Clinton.
---------------
hahahaha....the dude is almost 80 years old....how strong can he be.
The longer the Democrats wait, the more likely it is that they will lose the senate and house, not to mention losing what was once a sure thing for a democratic president.
Both Hillary and Barack are running for the Democratic party support. Meaning, they believe the party MUST come first. Anything else would mean they should not be in the Democratic party.
Posted by Policrypt at 05:38 PM : Mar 02, 2008
Because what you''ve written about her is not true, obviously. LOL.
In addition, he looked terrible and did not get himself in shape for the very TV oriented election.
What a shame.
The realtor wanted to sell 2 lots as one(the one with the house and the empty lot). The Obamas only wanted the lot with the house. Rezco facilitated the deal for Obama by puchasing the other lot.
Obviously, Rezco was either trying to ingratiate himself to Obama, possibly with the hope of obtaining some reciprocal favor down the line or else he thought he could turn the lot for a profit if a rising politician lived next door.
Either way, Obama didn''t do anything that was either unlawful or particularly egregrious for that matter.
What politician doesn''t accept favors from unsavory characters who might want something in return? If there were evidence that money exchanged hands or there was a quid pro quo in reciprocal actions taken by Obama to benefit Rezco this would be more meaningful. No such evidence has surfaced.
What we do know about Obama''s opponent is that her active fundraiser Mr. Hsu was facilitating illegal contributions to her campaign by giving money to poor tenants of his to be forwarded to the Clinton Campaign.
In both of these cases suspicions have been raised but no direct links to or wrongdoing by the candidates themselves has been proven. The same is true of the Mccain-lobbyist alleged romance.
To repudiate one candidate for unproven suspicions while exonerating the other 2 makes no sense.
You mean you did not know all of this was a farce including the current so called choices? McCain will win in the fall the democrats married Ronnie along time ago and there is no difference.
haha....the dude is almost 80 years old....how strong can he be.
Posted by shanev137 at 05:01 PM : Mar 02, 2008
probably stronger than you
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 126 Comments