WASHINGTON, Mar. 30, 2008
Richardson: Voters Decide, Not Big Shots
Says Party Superdelegates Should Not Overrule Popular Will Of Voters In Choosing Nominee
-
Photo
Gov. Bill Richardson, D-N.M., says superdelegates should not overrule the wishes of primary voters. (CBS)
-
Play CBS Video
Video
Richardson On Obama Support
In a conversation with Bob Schieffer, Gov. Bill Richardson (D-N.M.) explains his decision to endorse Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama as opposed to Hillary Clinton.
-
Video
Closer Look At American Power
Bob Schieffer notes that the U.S. has encountered the most success when working with others in a diplomatic situation, which could perhaps explain the current setbacks facing the War in Iraq.
-
Video Library
On The Campaign Trail
An up-close look at life on the road with the major presidential candidates.
He also criticized the "personal venom" of some Hillary supporters, like James Carville, who criticized Richardson for his announcement of backing Obama, saying they feel a sense of entitlement, "that the presidency is theirs.
"I think loyalty to the nation, loyalty to the party is a lot more important than personal loyalty," Richardson, D-N.M., told Face The Nation host Bob Schieffer. "I owe the Clintons a lot. I served in the president's cabinet. That loyalty is to President Clinton. That doesn't mean that I'm going to for the rest of my life be in lockstep with whatever they do."
To underscore his point, Richardson pointed out, "I ran against Senator Clinton. I was a presidential candidate."
With regard to recent suggestions on how to resolve the tight race between Clinton and Obama, a race that may come down to the party's superdelegates choosing a nominee, Richardson said a meeting of superdelegates (who could convene to make their choice known weeks before the August convention) was an "interesting" idea but should not overrule the choice made by voters.
"What you don't want is for the big shots in the party, the superdelegates, to determine the nominee," he said. "It should be voters. It should be delegates chosen according to proportionality.
"But, maybe, what can happen is some of the major party leaders like Governor Dean and Speaker Pelosi, Al Gore, John Edwards … find ways that superdelegates can have discussions, can have some kind of consensus emerging so that we don't have a bloody convention where we're weakened.”
Also appearing on the program was Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter, D., who said discussions about vice-presidential options for the Democratic ticket were “getting the cart before the horse” before the remaining primaries - including Pennsylvania's - are done.
"Let's try to stay focused on the election at hand," Nutter said.
Read the full "Face the Nation" transcript here.
© MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Video and Galleries from Face The Nation
- Latest in Face The Nation
- Separating Icons From Heroes
- A Guide To A Successful Father's Day
- Remembering Tim Russert



- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- next
See all 202 CommentsThis whole situation with Clinton & Richardson just proves what a nut-job Carville is, what a creepy guy. I''ve listened to the debates and educated myself about the candidates. And when I do cast my vote, I will vote my conscious. I have no right to put down someone else for doing the same thing, even if my choice isn''t the same as their choice.
flood gates from Mexico so that all those Mexicans can
steal away all the good American jobs as cheap labor.
He is also looking for a cabinet position. Bill
Richardson is a political ***. I hope he is careful
not to choke on all those Tacos.
You guys are good fer outlawing cigarettes, but thats about it.
Posted by smokemonster
**********
You got that right!
I couldn''t agree with you more. But if he were doing that, he would have backed Hillary.
The truth is he is putting the good of Bill Rishardson ahead of both personal loyakties AND the good of the Country.
I have been a loyal democrat all of my life and I can tell you that supporting Hillary Clinton does not override party unity. That is what the Obama people want us to think. Nobody has locked up the nomination yet.
Also, MY wife is Republican and we get along just fine because we are grown up enough to respect the others right to their own opinion. One thing we do agree on though is G W Bush has got to go!
If Richardson is such a "untrusting" and poor character person, why are the Clinton people crying and whining about losing him to Obama ??
I would''ve given my caucus vote to Richardson if he''d been viable. If this is the kind of politics he practices, I''m glad now he wasn''t.
You will not regret it.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/iacocca.asp
P.S. For some insane reason, CBS splits links into two lines. You''ll need to be sure you have the whole thing copied. Now do that.
All this %u201CFlowery Charm and Speech%u201D of the great Deceiver Obama is a lot of %u201CHot Air%u201D HE KNOWS HE CANNOT PULL OUT OF IRAQ IN THE %u201C%u2018RUSH%u201D He is now talking about doing - he will give us %u201CCHANGE%u201D but it will not be what he promises - he will Raise our Taxes - place his cronies in power - through his racist agenda - and he will further %u201CDIVIDE%u201D Americans by his %u201CBlack Liberation Theology%u201D - that His mentor Wright has been Brainwashing him with for the past 20 years!
However, Hillary will be behind in pledged delegates from the states regardless.
The Democrat''s system of nomination is not based upon popular votes, biggest states or polls; it is based upon number of delegates.
Any way you slice it Obama will have more pledged delegates. While neither will have enough, he will be the leader.
So for Hillary to win, the very foundation of the Democratic nomination process will have to been thrown out the window in favor of subjective interpretation by party "leaders". The result will be that voters from the majority of the states will be disenfranchised - and the results of each of these states'' primaries will be overturned.
And if that happens it WILL hurt the Democratic party.
Posted by broncfan1661 at 03:21 PM : Mar 30, 2008
But the winner takes all method is inherently unfair and should not be used. The same applies to it''s use in the Electoral College, which should be done away with completely in favor of a straight popular vote.
The Democrat''''s system of nomination is not based upon popular votes, biggest states or polls; it is based upon number of delegates.
You are so correct. But it is also not based on who is ahead either, but who attains 2024 total delegates. That is the reason for the convention in August. Since neither candidate will have enough delegates by then (Unless Obama supporters can browbeat enough super delegates into giving him their votes early) it will be played out on the convention floor. That is how it works.
I totally agree with you that the popular vote is the only fair way to hold elections. It would eliminate all of this bickering. But our wise politicians have chosen the method we now are having to live with.
Richardson should spend his time explaining to the voters the rules so that they can undestand fully that the voters count (pledged delegates) and the super delegates are mutually exclusive and the nominee is the one with the most delegates irrespective of the popular votes.
But Richardson, the Judas he is, instead is trying to create division in the democratic party by design just like Nancy Pelosi and others. In fact I firmly believe that there is a group of people in the party who wants to take over the democratic party even if it means dividing the party or destroying the country for power at all cost.
Their call for Hillary Clinton to drop out when she has the momentum strikes me that they have no respect for the basic democratic right of the american people. They are so selfish that they can destroy democracy in the process.
I will now officially call on OBAMA to drop out of the presidential race now before it is too late and he be brought down by his own associations and bad deeds that will resonate with the voters in the remaining primaries.
First, Richardson, whom I have respected HIGHLY, knows better than to call the so called "super"delegates Big Shots." HE is one. I doubt he would call himself that. And how many of you have ever even heard the name, Pat Notter? She is one. She is a party official ELECTED by the PARTY members to a PARTY position. Never held elective office in her life. She is part of the majority of super delegates who are NOT in Congress.
AND,,, In all of history the parties have SElected a nominee. NOT Elected a nominee.
The primary elections have been PART OF the process. They have never been intended to be ALL of the process. Although, because of the fact each state wants "to be heard" which means to get a moment in the spotlight, the number of primary elections has grown and so has the "importance"of them.
MAINLY,,, The existence of a large group of delegates NOT determined by primaeries, came about because the left wing of the PARTY IN 1972, enacted policy at the same convention that selected McGovern. They wanted these delegates so that no Presidential candidate could lock up the nomination by focus on a series of primary elections stretch out over a year. A much different campaign strategy than a national one which one must win to win the Presidency.
Situation ethis,,, at it''s worst is at play here.
Senator Obama has NOT said he will not accept these "Big Shot" votes has he Governor R?
Obama said:
"So the Kennedys decided, ''We''re going to do an air lift. We''re going to go to Africa and start bringing young Africans over to this country and give them scholarships to study so they can learn what a wonderful country America is,''" Obama continued. "This young man named Barack Obama got one of those tickets and came over to this country. He met this woman whose great great-great-great-grandfather had owned slaves; but she had a good idea there was some craziness going on because they looked at each other and they decided that we know that the world as it has been it might not be possible for us to get together and have a child."
OUTRAGEOUS LIE! His dad came over in 1959. FACTCHECK!
Where is the outrage, where is the attack, where is the media when Obama lies. WE ARE FED UP WITH OBAMA BIAS IN THE MEDIA and we are going to make sure that it stops! WE THE PEOPLE HAVE POWER, WE THE PEOPLE WANT EQUAL COVERAGE, NOT CUSHY TREATMENT FOR ONE CANDIADTE OVER THE OTHER.
OBAMA LIES ABOUT REZKO, REV. WRIGHT, and SELMA. THE LIES just keep on coming. He''s out Clintoned the Clintons as one hateful reporter wrote. WAKE UP AMERICA.
NOBAMA, NOWAY!!!!
If Barack goes into the convention with a lead in commi9tted delegates and the popular vote and Clinton gets the nomination anyway because of superdelegates, then I don''''t see how I (or any other democrat) can vote for her.
I can see your point. I also would be upset if the reverse would happen. Unfortunately we live in a two party system and if we don''t agree with either parties rules or even their choices of candidates there are very few alternatives.
Ask McCain who he would rather face in a general election. The Republicans salivate at the thought of taking on Clinton. As for Rev. Wright, he spoke his mind vehemently. He actually said some of the same things MLK said back in the 60''s, but with less tact and professionalism. Maybe he is a loose cannon, but he''s also an ex-Marine. And he isn''t the one trying to run for President. I''m not real sure Caroline Kennedy owes any political favors either. I respect her supporting Obama, because she has nothing to gain. Jim Carville has his nose so far up Clinton''s jock, he needs to get some air.
The "Virginia Plan" which addressed the need to balance geographic (states) power with over-all population is still a major debate even though the
constitution "solved" it in a general way. "State''s rights" was NOT an on-off switch topic eliminated by the Civl War. It is a matter of degree and will always be in play.
The "small states" vs "large state" debate IS INDEED a matter for debate. Read the notes made by Monroe, Madison, Washington and others at the Constitutional convention. Please. The theories apply even in party politics which EVERY delegate to the Constitutional Convention feared. And THAT convention was populated based on the power base of the large states as far as numbers of delegateswere concerned. Despite this, they took care to protect the influnce of the small states.
Why? - That is a good question solved perhaps by the reading.
Have mercy on us.
The superdelegates are free to support whoever they choose regardless of public opinion or how the designated delegates fall. And that''s OK.
But they need to be mindful that if they decide to overrule the will of the electorate they do so at their own peril in the coming general election.
If it''s McCain vs. Clinton I''m staying home.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- next
See all 202 Comments