Clinton Administration Infighting Impacts IA Caucuses: Richardson Knifes Hillary (Field Report Four)

According to another campaign colleague, during the Iowa Caucuses, Richardson decided to ask his supporters to back Obama if he wasn’t “viable” in their precinct. In the Democratic Caucuses, a candidate must receive 15% of the vote on the first round in order to be eligible to win delegates. Supporters of candidates deemed “unviable” are cajoled, sweet talked, persuaded and threatened by their neighbors into supporting their 2nd preference. Richardson was always the only viable candidate among the 2nd tier under these rules and this actually explains why he didn’t come in with more than 2% of the vote.

Going into the Caucuses, Edwards was the 2nd choice of a majority of caucus goers. In fact, many political observers thought that he would win on that basis alone. By asking (and getting) his supporters to back Obama on the 2nd round instead of Edwards, Richardson essentially threw the election to Obama, kneecapping Hillary in the process. She would have been able to withstand an Edwards victory (after all, he has no money) but as we’ve seen an Obama victory is something else – a victory for the forces of real change and an inspiration our nation hasn’t felt since the days of RFK (apparently – I wasn’t here yet). Ironically Hillary really is not perceived as “a change agent” since she has been on the national scene at least since failing to get Congress to enact her misbegotten health care plan. Obama on the other hand, really is a new fresh face who does represent change and a new direction for the Democratic Party (i.e. away from the Clinton’s).

Now the question arises as to why Richardson, whom many perceived as angling for Hillary’s VP or Secretary of State slots, would do this. It’s quite simple really and it goes back to the Clinton Administration: Terry McAuliffe. Apparently there was some dust up between the Governor and the former Democratic Party Chairman/fundraiser extraordinaire in which it was strongly intimated that not backing Hillary would result in some type of retribution. Given McAuliffe’s position it could either be a threat to cut off Richardson’s funding for the NM Senate Primary (assuming he gets in during the short deadline after Feb. 5) or the promise of being excluded from a future Hillary Clinton Administration.

Ironically, whatever threat McAuliffe made obviously backfired and put Clinton in the position she’s now in – on the verge of losing a 2nd straight primary/caucus by double digits (assuming the David Duke Statistical Lie problem isn’t affecting the polling outcome, which based on my previous posts I believe it is though I still think Obama MAY be able to squeak through a victory). Should Hillary be unable to regain her footing before Feb.5, she will tarnish the Clinton legacy and effectively end the Clinton Machine’s hold on the Democratic Party. It would be morning in the Democratic Party.

To paraphrase Nixon, “Richardson knows a little about politics too.”

Oh, and just for the record, Hillary saying she knows how to beat Republicans is bunk. A Republican Minority, lead by Senator Phil Gramm of Texas beat her health care plan to smithereens in 1993. In both 1992 and 1996 more people voted against Bill Clinton than voted for him. He only received 43% of the vote in 1992 and 49% in 1996. The Clinton’s only know how to beat Republicans in a three-man race (Perot ’92, Buchanan ’96) in which the 3rd guy appeals to core Republican values. Put her head to head with anyone but Huckabee and she’ll have a hard time of it – Romney’s actually achieved universal health care in his state, McCain is definitely more trustworthy and likeable despite the establishment’s attitude towards him and can play the military b ackground card in a way she can’t, and Giuliani can counter the change argument easily (“I changed the country by bringing down the mob,” “I changed Wall Street culture, at least temporarily, by bringing down Ivan Boesky,” “I changed New York City, the untamable city, and made it livable for families again” – how does she counter that?).

Of Course Hillary Won't Pick Obama - She'll Pick Harold Ford, Jr. Instead

Robert Novak wrote last Saturday (8.18.07):

Against Clinton-Obama

Anticipating that Sen. Hillary Clinton will clinch the Democratic presidential nomination, some supporters are beginning to argue against her principal rival -- Sen. Barack Obama -- for vice president.

They maintain that Obama provides no general election help for Clinton. As an African-American from Illinois, Obama represents an ethnic group and a state already solidly in the Democratic column.

This school of thought advocates a Southerner as Clinton's running mate. The last time Democrats won a national election without a Southerner on the ticket was 1944. Prominent Democrats from the South are in short supply today. The leading prospect: former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner.

Novak is right that Obama brings nothing to the table, and it is debatable wheteher he really does share much of the African-American experience in the United States. (It doesn't matter what I think about this, but it does matter with African-American grassroots and grasstops members think). However, Novak is wrong in predicting Mark Warner as the leading Veep candidate.

The leading dark horse candidate should be, and I believe is, Harold Ford, Jr. Unlike Obama he hails from a red state in the South, has actually had to run competitively statewide (does anyone really think Obama gained a lot of solid campaign experience beating Alan Keyes?) and many Democrats believe (incorrectly or not) that he was robbed of the Senate seat due to blatant race-baiting which should increase Democratic turnout in Tennessee if he is on the ticket. This could be especially important if Fred Thompson upsets Giuliani to become the GOP 2008 Nominee.

Ford also is the current Chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council, formerly chaired by Bill Clinton during his days as Governor of Arkansas. Additionally, the Obama phenomenon and the decent results achieved by Bill Richardson have acculturated Democratic activists to the idea of a minority on the ticket (beyond a privileged white woman of course). However, picking Richardson or any hispanic politician would enrage the nation's black community who beleive their time for a more prominent place on the national stage/in the national debate, and who likely would view an hispanic pick as "skipping over" one of their own.

Additionally, while it's crass to say this, Harold does not look especially black, thus blunting nationally any latent racism. In fact, the emergence of narrowcasting means that his ethnicity would be more promoted in some regions of the nation and less in others, and the liberal media would do much to protect him this time around from a nationwide repeat of 2006. Additionally, while his family is from Tennessee political aristocracy, it is much harder to argue that he doesn't understand or hasn't shared in the African-American experience, or "isn't black enough."

Clinton-Ford '08. The ticket even sounds like the name of a reliable friend who'll help you out. It also subtley evokes fond memories of former President Ford, making him an even better choice and a familiar name in Michigan (a potential battleground state) even if he's not from there.

Hillary-Harold or H2 would be good campaign bumper stickers too.