Why Does Richardson’s Endorsement Matter?
March 21, 2008 – 5:50 pmFor some unknown reason, the mainstream media treated the announcement that New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson endorsed Senator Barack Obama for President as a major newsworthy event. But why? Despite his very impressive resume and experience in government, Richardson’s candidacy was barely a blip on the Democratic radar and he consistently polled somewhere between Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel.
Is Obama expecting all ten of Richardson’s supporters to observe his endorsement and now become enthusiastic Obama supporters? It seems to me this entire endorsement business is a formality of the past and merely a way for losing candidates to grab one more minute in the spotlight (in Richardson’s case possibly auditioning for a spot on the ticket) while the individual receiving the endorsement is heretofore obliged to do the proper behind-kissing said endorsement requires and consider whether the endorser is worthy of becoming his or her running mate.
Really, fellas. There are much more important issues that require serious attention and deserve much more media coverage than who someone supports for President.
So Richardson supports Obama. So do a lot of people!
9 Responses to “Why Does Richardson’s Endorsement Matter?”
I agree that most endorsements fall into the “ho-hum, who cares?” category.
But of all the candidates who began this race, Richardson can lay claim to having the most impressive resume and the ONLY ONE with executive experience. So his endorsement of Obama carries some weight — more so when you consider that his close ties to the Clintons might well have led him to come out for Hillary.
Richardson says he loves being governor, so I don’t think he had his eye on the VP slot when he made his endorsement, but I think he’d make a perfect running mate for Obama, and would give the ticket the foreign policy credentials that some feel it lacks.
By Steve Levine on Mar 22, 2008
It’s ironic that an individual whom, as Josh puts it, had a candidacy ‘barely on the blip of the Democratic radar’, has the right stuff to stand one heart beat away from the Oval Office. Something is gravely wrong in Denmark, when those kinds of qualifications fail to bring the bearer the nomination in the eyes of the electorate. Good enough to be VP is good enough to be the sitting President in my eyes. Apparently, not good enough for the majority of the electorate. That,good or bad, should speak for something.
By DAD on Mar 22, 2008
Steve: another observation….The extent to which Obama would take counsel from Richardson on foreign policy can only be mere speculation, unless we see him as Secretary of State, which would likely be a better choice than VP. His background and experience with respect to the VP slot makes him a good candidate for the ‘center seat’ in Congress. To vote for Obama because Richardson is the second is mindless. Johnson was a plus for Kennedy because Kennedy was stellar. Obama has been playing the ‘JFK wannabe card’ through this entire gambit, even to the family’s endorsement. Kennedy he is not. Given more years, maybe, but not in this campaign.
By DAD on Mar 22, 2008
D: If we elected presidents purely on the strenght of their resumes, then certainly Richardson should have been the voters’ choice.
But of course, it’s more complicated than that. Voters more often make their choices on the basis of a candidate’s intangibles — his smile, his TV personality, his hair. And obviously, Richardson, who seems enormously likeable to me, didn’t move the needle at all on those measures.
And like Hillary, he had the misfortune to run at the same time that a charismatic Obama sucked all the energy out of the race by casting all other candidates in the shade.
As for Richardson as VP: I agree he would be put to better use as Sec. of State. I was making the observation (perhaps an elitist one) that having Richardson on the ticket would make many voters feel comfortable that the Democrats had sufficient foreign policy gravitas, allowing them to pull the lever for Obama.
By Steve Levine on Mar 23, 2008
Steve: If we take the essence of your analysis as a given, then the substance of your last sentence is in conflict with your second paragraph. The response to the phrase “sufficent foreign policy gravitas would likely be…”Say, what?!?!?!?
THAT is essentially what we seem to agree on in this case
By DAD on Mar 23, 2008
I thought Richardson’s endorsement counts for something among Hispanics.
Since the AP article mentions that he’s the nation’s only Hispanic governor in its first sentence, you seem to be dissing him.
I think an Obama-Richardson ticket could steamroll McCain-whoever.
By Vince Williams on Mar 24, 2008
Vince: To the contrary…both Steve and I have observed that the kind of credentials we’ve recognized in this man don’t appear to hold much weight among the electorate. His post of 3/22 (pp2) is in full agreement with you. That of 3/23 really says it all.
By DAD on Mar 24, 2008
Sorry, D__, I didn’t make my meaning clear.
I was responding to Josh’s statements that denigrate Richardson’s endorsement.
I thought it was newsworthy.
I’m simpatico with Steve’s thoughts here. It’s terrible how he always writes things I agree with, thus depriving me of the satisfying delusion that I thought of them myself.;-)
By Vince Williams on Mar 24, 2008
Vince: Do not reproach yourself. You’ve had your shining moments.
By DAD on Mar 24, 2008