And then there were five - Richardson to bow out *
By Steve Benen Wednesday Jan 09, 2008 7:20amIt won’t be official until later today, and there’s some question about whether his campaign will officially end or simply be “suspended” indefinitely, but it appears that Bill Richardson is poised to withdraw from the Democratic presidential race.
Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico is pulling out of the presidential race, after coming in fourth in both the New Hampshire primary and the Iowa caucuses, according to people with knowledge of his decision.
Mr. Richardson made the decision after returning to New Mexico Wednesday and meeting with his top advisers, they said. He is expected to make an announcement on Thursday.
His withdrawal removes a candidate who had a hard-edged message of immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq, but tempered it with humorous television advertisements that emphasized his wide-ranging resume in a clever way.
Amusing ads notwithstanding, Richardson’s campaign struggled to connect. In Iowa, he finished with 2% of the caucus vote, despite heavy campaigning and an ad blitz that began last summer. In New Hampshire, where he spent considerable time and was eyeing a third-place finish, he finished a distant fourth, winning less than 5% of the vote.
It’s not my intention to kick a guy when he’s down, but it’s probably worth taking a moment to consider why Richardson floundered.
Richardson, on paper, was as good a candidate as could be imagined. He’s been a governor, a congressman, a cabinet secretary, an ambassador to the United Nations, and a successful hostage negotiator. He’s from a swing state that Dems will want to win in November. He speaks Spanish fluently and has a Mexican-American background. He’s known for having a gregarious, back-slapping personality. For that matter, as the only governor in the race, Richardson had a historic advantage — Democratic governors have tended to do pretty well of late.
But Richardson was, in many ways, the Bob Graham of the 2008 race — great resume, awful candidate.
Michael D. mentioned last night, “I never understood why his campaign never took off.” I imagine Richardson has been saying the same thing, but I don’t think it’s too difficult to understand.
Even if we put aside his lackluster campaigning skills, and awkward debate performances, Richardson began losing a lot of people last summer with some very conservative talk about economics. He made constant references to a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution; he bragged about being a “pro-growth Democrat” (as if Dems are usually anti-growth); and boasted that he’d buck the party’s principles and be a “tax-cut Democrat.”
All of this was more than ridiculous, it was the Republican playbook. As Ezra Klein put it back in July, “Richardson is a real fiscal conservative. And not in the imprecise way that the term is sometimes bandied about to mean ‘fiscally responsible.’ The guy is actually a conservative.”
On foreign policy, Richardson supporters will surely point out that he’s been the only Dem taking a firm stand in support of a full withdrawal from Iraq, with no residual forces. That’s true. But I’d also note that as recently as 2003, Richardson had genuine neocon tendencies, he rejected withdrawal in 2005, and maybe, just maybe, arrived at his 2007 position as a result of political convenience. (He also had a tendency of confusing African countries, and calling Russia the “Soviet Union,” which didn’t exactly help position him as an expert on international affairs.)
As for where Richardson’s support may go, it’s a highly relevant question, particularly in Nevada, where he was poised to do fairly well.
I doubt Richardson will endorse anyone right away, but it’s worth keeping in mind that before the Iowa caucuses, Richardson’s campaign held quiet negotiations with Obama’s team, at least offering a hint about the governor’s sympathies.
Stay tuned.
*Title changed to reflect the correct number of official candidates.
Login or Register to post comments.
Correction: And then there were FIVE.
Yeah, you're not going to be BFF's with the Kucinich and Gravel backers anymore.
Guys come on now, Kucinich and Gravel don't count. They want the troops out before 2013. They're not serious.
And then there were three. Now THAT'S quality journalism right there for ya. And people wonder why bloggers get short shrift... I get my news from blogs (such as this) and news sites (such as Salon), but when someone completely BLOWS a headline on something as simple as "how many democratic contenders are left?" it really screws with the public's perception of the varacity and usefulness of bloggers.
El Cid @ 2:
what, thats like three people?
jus sayin
A rather pointless announcement (as if we don't already know the only real contenders are Clinton and Obama) coupled with a pointless analysis of this candidate's campaign given that we as Democrats never cared a whole hell of a lot about him anyway.
So what does this make him? A crook or a liar?
So it goes...
Kucinich.
what, thats like three people?
jus sayin
Why is it three people? Because the candidates are ignored in the pony show the media puts on?
Take this test and see which candidate matches you on the issues: http://www.dehp.net/candidate/
I've sent it to friends and most everyone gets Kucinich and Gravel, including Ron Paul and Obama supporters!
So he is supporting Obama then? My hunch is also that he won't come back as a VP candidate.
O-kay, lemme get this straight:
Two days after piledriving Fox News for FALSELY reporting that Mark Penn was being sacked by Team Clinton, and Paul Begala and James Carville were poised to take the wheel;
And one day after crucifying Chris Matthews and MSNBC for speculating hog-wild on dodgy exit-poll disinformation;
C&L goes one better, and broadcasts the RUMOR that Bill Richardson is pulling out.
Do you have a CONFIRMATION? Or are you merely passing along Drudge-style "gotta be first-first-first!" GOSSIP?
In years gone by, people remembered what was good for the goose, was also good for the gander. "Do as I say, not as I do" is also doubtlessly lost somerwhere in the 21st century translation. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss, etc, &tc. It's irresponsible, and by any other name, it's rank hypocrisy.
I don't think Kucinich and Gravel have a chance to win, but they are still candidates and their messages/platforms are an important part of the primaries. If it were not for them, we would be missing a good deal of the debate (although one could argue that they hardly get air-time to debate)... but my point still stands. The primaries are not simply about selecting a "winner," they are a time for a party to sharpen its edge and establish a national identity.
We truly have five candidates right now, with each contributing to the national consciousness about what it means to be a Democrat in 2008.
Another correction: Richardson is not the only Democrat, let alone candidate, advocating for immediate withdrawal! How absurd to suggest this. I too expect more from independent bloggers.
Maybe I'm misreading it, but don't you mean 'it’s probably worth taking a moment to consider why Richardson foundered'. The answer would be 'because he frequently floundered'.
I thought he was running for Secretary of State.
I just wanna say I think it totally rocks! that Crooks & Liars is joining the frontlines by channeling Fox News and Drudge by reporting unverified rumours with phony misleading headlines. Awesome guys, give yourselves a big pat on the back. You've finally grown up and started behaving like real media mavericks. Maybe now you'll get the Howie Kurtz invites, too.
hopefully this next admin will take advantage of his talents...And find a spot for him.After all...the guys been nominated 4 times for a Noble Peace Prize and Has a vast amount of Foriegn Policy experience.Good Luck Gov Richardson.
Total disinformation. You should be ashamed. Nice demonstration of press pack mentality.
Rupert Clone @ 15:
Are you referring to the dropping out itself or something else? I heard on Countdown last night that although they had denied the AP story, a Richardson campaign rep confirmed to NBC news that Richardson would be withdrawing.
Richardson had to be the most uninspiring candidate amongst the entire field, including Republicans, too. At least the nutty ones who never had a chance aren't so boring!
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/
With Barack pulling in so many union endorsements, Edwards' realistic chances are waning rapidly as well.
Richardson lost my interest when he was asked if he thought that people were born homosexual and his answer was that he didn't know.
I want it made abundantly clear, I have not pulled out of the race for the White House in 2008. Neener.
Barry Halpern @ 18:
A more appropriate headline:
"And then there were five...? Richardson rumoured to be bowing out."
Is that so hard. Or is that, like, too responsible and, y'know, b-o-r-ing?
The gizzed-up C&L headline stinks of Drudge vapors. All that was missing was the flashing red siren.
Breaking News:
A squadron of Iranian naval fighters was seen donning waterwings and getting into their kayaks.
US goes to red alert.
-GSD
Please stop channeling the main stream press with your lies, there are more than three candidates left. I don't care how little chance they may have, but a large part of their difficulties is a direct result of being ignored by the media you are supposed to be critic of. Shame on you.
Did nobody get the in-cheek reference to a classic Genesis album ? Ignoramuses ...
and considering "spreading rumors" : it says so in the first sentence of the first paragraph. you don't get more responsible than that ...
"And then there were three". That's sounds like a mainstream media statement. MSM spent much of 2007 not giving due coverage to the candidates, then before most of America votes, they exclude them from debates and write them off because the public doesn't know them (due to not covering them in the first place).
GSD @ 23:
Additional C&L copy edit: IMPACTING!
Fred in Elmira @ 22:
Good point on the number of candidates. I still think the rest is fine given the strength of the evidence at hand. The link to the NYT story is there and further detail is presented there.
spiritcatcher @ 25:
Totally agree. Nothing wrong with misleading tongue-in-cheek headlines. It's totally responsible, totally serious, and totally just like Big Brother corporate media. Nuthin' wrong with it. Read the headline, and move along.
Barry Halpern @ 28:
I totally agree with that, too.
Judith Miller was right, after all.
Seriously, Steve, are we going to get a correction on that factually incorrect headline? I read this site every day and don't want to turn myself against it over this of all things.
pissed off patricia @ 20:
So what's the right answer for that? I'm just asking cause here in Europe I've kind of, sort of, missed on all that political correctness hype...
Does not knowing the answer mean that I'm a gay hatin' bigot?
Anyway, I know the answer. Just wanted to make a point. I do not think that there is a scientific prove for one or the other thesis - or just don't know of it. I find it fascinating when a strive for political correctness distorts such a basic fact - we just don't know...
Anyway, if such a paper exists I would love to read a peer reviewed article on the subject.
Best wishes,
Georgi
Barry Halpern @ 28:
*Sigh.* O-kay, let's try this:
"And then there were five...? NYT reports Richardson will bow out."
How hard is that?
He's too fat to be president. I think he was running for VP from the beginning and I reckon he's the most likely VP candidate for both Clinton and Obama.
why was he even still there in NH? freaking douche! how many of his votes could have gone to Obama?
pissed off patricia @ 20:
Barack Obama is showing us a new way of politics, offering the nation a message of hope and change, standing on stage with gay-baiting homophobe bigot Donnie McClurkin, and Bill Richardson is the problem because he's unsure whether people are born gay. Thanks for cheering me up!
Bill Richardson? I thought that guy was Horatio Sanz.
-GSD
donviti @ 35:
Or Edwards.
Barry Halpern @ 28:
Kewl. That completely absolves Chris Matthews of almost everything, because that's what he does, quoting NYT polls and commentators, including Bill Safire, Maureen Dowd and NYT newbie Bill Kristol. No crooks, no liars in that lot, nuh-uh.
Soooo many sensitive C & L readers regarding Benen's head count! Yes, in the Twilight Zone there are, in fact, five Dems still in the "race". (And I do hate to pull the "race card on y'all). But here on planet earth, in the land of the MSM, there are only 3 candidates, No, check that, only 2 candidates left in the BIG RACE.
Wait a minute. Senator Obama is also a tax cut Democrat. He repeatedly boasts that he will cut taxes for the Middle Class.
Hey give Steve Benen a break for this story title! It’s not easy coming up with a catchy news story headline.
Before I even started reading all the nitpicking about the candidate count, it was obvious to me that Steve Benen must be a Genesis fan. “…And Then There Were Three…” is the title of an album released by Genesis in April of 1978. Geez, don’t get your panties in a bunch over it!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...And_Then_There_Were_Three...
I “get it” Steve, even if most readers don’t.
centavo @ 40:
I agree. People are attacking human nature. I wish the public would be more forgiving of mainstream news outlets. Fox and NYT try their hardest to provide rapid, accurate news reports, and the public is too unhinged and sensitive when they flub it, and seldom consider that these news organs are, in fact, heroes in error, just like Ahmad Chalabai and Paul Wolfowitz have always, correctly, insisted.
I think Richardson's main problems were 3:
Clinton
Edwards
Obama
With any of them gone, he might have taken a significant percentage of the field. With two of them gone, he might have been a serious contender. With all three of them, he never really had a prayer.
pissed off patricia @ 20:
Yeah, that's just pathetic. He probably asked psychologists, neuroscientists, and/or behavioral geneticists, all of whom say that we don't know (yet). He should have asked religious leaders and/or left-wing activists, all of whom do know.
Some people are still drinking the Kucinich cool-aid -- the Dems' own Ron Paul, he talks about UFOs -- and Gravel's campaign might as well be Pat Paulsen.
Actually, I am amazed by the similarity in the personalities of Kucinich and Ron Paul supporters. They seem to be tapping the same lode. They make me want to run away.
#32, i'm going to have to join u on that. I'm not a scientist & don't have that peer-reviewed material (i'd like to read it as well), but it would seem that the strongest hypothesis is sexuality is not determined by either birth or choice but by very early childhood development. The idea that sexuality comes programmed at birth would require the existence of a "gay gene" would it not? Such a thing seems extremely unlikely from an evolutionary standpoint.
When will the crazy elf Kucinich finally fade from public life? I hope he gets primaried out this cycle.
Clevenative @ 42:
So very true.
"There's an old saying in Tennessee, I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee, that says, 'Fool me once, shame on . . . you. Fool me . . . can't get fooled agin'!'"
Before I even started reading all the nitpicking about lack of WMD, it was obvious to me that Dear Leader Lord Bush must be a Pete Townshend fan. "Won't Get Fooled Again” is the title of a song on the album "Who's Next" released by The Who in July of 1971. Geez, don’t get your panties in a bunch over it!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who%27s_Next
I “get it” George, even if most flaming libs don’t.
Three? Come on.
pissed off patricia @ 20:
So uuhh, you do?
pissed off patricia @ 20:
Mike Huckabee gained my interest when he and most every other baptist preacher were asked that same question and their answer was infallible.
the Richardsoniacs won't take this lying down
the fix was in for new hampsters!!!!!!!!!!!!misspelled on pourpose, diebold counted the votes, why ? did it go for clinton? because the msn is trying to force john edwards from the race!!!!!!!!!!! and make it a three republicans race! john MCcain hillary clinton and barack obama !!!!!!!even if diebold fails the repigs they still own the whitehouse!!!! the news media own you , and they own clinton and obama , anyway they cut it clinton and obama will continue the war in iraq, the corruption of the lobbiests , the policys of israel, my first choice is kucinich , if im given no other choice id settle for edwards, other then that ill just give up and stay home, i wont vote for clinton i wont vote for obama , its just wasted effort , with thoes two nothing will change, and dont give me that do you want the repigs to win by not voteing! because with obama and clinton the repukes have allready won!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
FIVE. WE need DEMOCRATIC process here, and Kucinich and Gravel are IN. Do NOT become a Fox.
clearlyalec @ 56:
This isn't democracy. This is anointment. Go Hillary!!
I f Dennis doesn't come home to defend his seat against well-liked councilman Joe Cimperman, he'll have to look for a corner in the Don Quixote Hall of fame.
Man I'm pissed that even you guys apparently don't count Kucinich anymore. How the hell will he ever get more attention if our most liberal bloggers even discount him?
Shame, shame.
Shame on you, Steve Benen.
Just gotta join the barage of people on here saying shame on you for not including all of the candidates!
Seriously, how can you blame the MSM for anything when you publish a headline like that?
wheresarah @ 59:
No doubt. I guess we should just shrug our shoulders and slink away. If the so-called liberal and progressive blogosphere marginalizes or, worse, excludes our candidates, then why the flying-f#ck should we ever expect anything different from the corporate mainstream media? It's beginning to make me wonder if C&L even knows who Bill Moyers is, the way it's BillO-this and Tweety-that all the time, and now we're downsizing Dem candidates too. It's a sad day when the ideas of a non-entity like Michelle Malkin attracts more headlines than Dennis Kucinich. We really are amusing ourselves to death and begging to be outraged, instead of seeking inclusiveness, information and truth.
how can anyone - except feminist nazis - support that witch
http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/01/10/hillary/?source=whitelist
........
Hillary's disdain for masculinity fits right into the classic feminazi package, which is why Hillary acts on Gloria Steinem like catnip. Steinem's fawning, gaseous New York Times op-ed about her pal Hillary this week speaks volumes about the snobby clubbiness and reactionary sentimentality of the fossilized feminist establishment, which has blessedly fallen off the cultural map in the 21st century. History will judge Steinem and company very severely for their ethically obtuse indifference to the stream of working-class women and female subordinates whom Bill Clinton sexually harassed and abused, enabled by look-the-other-way and trash-the-victims Hillary.
doolittle @ 36:
All the while, Hillary Clinton refused to answer whether homosexuality is immoral. What's so hard about that? Gravel and Kucinich both unequivocally support gay marriage. But yeah, they're not serious: they don't count.
It's sad that on a progressive blog we see the sidelining of the genuine progressives.
I fear the closer we liberals reclaim the reins of power in this nation, that the more we're becoming awfully close to replicating red-state clones and dittoheads, cherry-picking million-dollar-babies and excluding minority voices. It looks like a coronation, not a democracy, and it's self-abuse.
sheik yerbouti @ 62:
Some candidates catch fire, others don't. Don't blame the blogosphere for that.
“And then there were three - Richardson to bow out”
What the hell, Steve? Change the headline.
And enough about the Genesis allusion. Please.
The current wave of support for Barack Obama from Democrats, independents, and even some Republicans is partly based on his vision of a new political discourse that breaks with the petty, destructive polarization of the past 20 years. Whether Obama can build up his foreign policy credentials sufficiently to reassure an anxious general electorate remains to be seen.
But Hillary herself, with her thin, spotty record, tangled psychological baggage, and maundering blowhard of a husband, is also a mighty big roll of the dice. She is a brittle, relentless manipulator with few stable core values who shuffles through useful personalities like a card shark ("Cue the tears!"). Forget all her little gold crosses: Hillary's real god is political expediency. Do Americans truly want this hard-bitten Machiavellian back in the White House? Day one will just be more of the same.
You can pretty much clear up how people are going to take this by having somewhat responsible headlines. If it was/is still a rumor, stick a question mark at the end. Problem solved.
And, really, I hope anyone that listens to Genesis doesn't really think that even anywhere near the majority of people out there are going to recognize references to their old material that are also simply just common sayings in the English language. It's not specific enough to come off as a joke to most people. It's not that hard to see that.
Andrea @ 61:
dennis and gravel run not to win but to shake things up and this race doesn't need that right now we got a tight race of proportions we have never seen
a messianic figure vs. a nazi feminist corporate whore
Ba'al @ 46:
Getting out of Iraq is not a joke. Gay rights is not a joke. Health care that doesn't leave corporations in charge is not a joke. Drug legalization is not a joke.
As365 @ 64:
It's classic pandering.
Well, "straight-shooting" honesty and taking positions like that might make you a "maverick," and we all know there's only room for one of those in the mainstream (and now, I suspect, "alternative") media narrative. Pick your poison. The MSM has - and C&L are now bandwagoneers. Very disappointing.
I lean towards the Genesis interpretation, which raises the question of which of the three front-runners is which.
Clinton is clearly Phil Collins, since she "recently found her voice" and I think that this was the first album where Phil did most of the singing (which is one reason it's so awful ... "more fool me" on Selling England was great, but that should have been the first and last time).
Obama is Tony Banks, since he wrote "the lady lies."
Edwards is Rutherford, as his family appears to have pushed him in a way that echoes "deep in the motherlode," while "say it's alright, Joe" could be seen as his message to labor.
stogoe @ 49:
Most people know little about Kucinich and his political history. I am a Cleveland native close to his age, have grown up in nearly the same environment, and supported his strong stand against corporate greed and support for "the little guy". Being called names like "elf" is like water down a ducks back for Dennis - he has more backbone than 99% of any politician you can find. Some of his ideas were called "crazy" 40 years ago and most wrote him off as finished after he left City Hall, but those who know his true commitment and believe in his cause won't let him "fade from public life" - so just get used to it.
Any Democrat who thinks Kucinich is a nut case, have either been listening to too much MSM, never researched his record, or simply don't understand their party's own ideology.
sheik yerbouti @ 65:
I was thinking about this today: our system of government is so utterly screwedm and it's primarily because we have a system that shuts out opposition from government participation. This happened for 6 years under the GOP, and it's sure to happen even with total Democratic control. We really need a parliamentary system of government, and one that doesn't foster a winner take all mentality in the elections. If you want to increase democracy, bring as many people into it as possible, don't shut out even the dittohead morons.
As365 @ 71:
Then why is it, at the times when this issue is most relevant to me, I'm often giggling uncontrollably?
myiq2xu @ 66:
It's not easy fundraising or "catching fire" when the liberal blogosphere spends more time analyzing Michelle Malkin's lunatic rantings than they do policy positions of Dennis Kucnich.
But hey, if you enjoy the status quo, think everything's peachie, prefer being entertained rather than informed, and endorse the exclusion of progressive liberal presidential candidates, then by all means knock yourself out 'cos you're getting everything you want -- from the MSM -- and now, from the new & improved C&L.
I've been a regular reader of this blog for a few years. I am merely stating my opinion. You are free to disagree and wrap your arms around disinformation and distractions. Suit yourself. Just don't expect a lot of "change" from your narrow choice of candidates, or the way elections are covered. Because if ignorance is the way the liberal blogosphere is going to cover the nomination process, then we can hardly expect MSNBC to operate any differently, and we're hardly in a position to criticize them for doing many of the same things "we" do.
Tony @ 69:
Well, if you are going to count viable electable candidates, the arguement has to be made then that "And Then There Were Three" was the case BEFORE Richardson bowed out.
Hey, I'd vote for Kucinich if I thought he could win. We need all these other 2nd teir candidates, from both parties, to speak out with honestry on the issues that the "real contenders" are afraid to address. But to make this thread a nitpick of the story title just seems a little shallow to me, sorry.
And BTW there was just a 2007 SACD/CD/DVD release of the Album, so I'm sure there are a lot of fans (maybe Steve Benen?) who don't consider it "old material" - even though it is.
stogoe @ 49:
Kucinich has consistently voted against funding the war, he has called for the immediate withdrawal of troops and is the only candidate to support a single-payer healthcare system. He is against NAFTA and corporate control of government. Why must you marginalize him to be a "crazy elf" when he is the only true voice of reason against the status quo?
It's the new double-standard--
Criticize Fox/CNN/MSNBC: Good.
Criticize C&L for doing same thing: Bad.
(Akshully, it's not a new dbl-stnrd at all. It's just the same playbook the mouth-breathing Repugs have been using for the past 40+ years.)
sheik yerbouti @ 77:
BINGO! That circus with clowns and all is merely a distraction.
Glad he's out. He was one of them talking about National Service for youth with the SS waiting in the wings to completely pervert the concept like the theft of the National Guard from the states.
He's got a lot of nerve making a suggestion like that giving the dark darkside a fantastic chesspiece to complete the fascist process come 2013.
I put Richardson on Mute during the NH debate as he boorishly read off his resume again and again. What a stupid fuck he is, I honestly thought the man had some intelligence and vision before this race began.
In times like these Richardson's stupidity and legislators like him are DANGEROUS and ought to be shoved aside and out the door and away from our population who pay the price of their stupid-fuck ideas.
And then there were three? Even money says Genesis is on the LNMC tonight.
budda @ 70:
Why do you assume Dennis Kucinich runs not to win? Perhaps he could win if the MSM (and Crooks and Liars now) stopped pretending that he didn't exist.
Kucinich's campaign has not raised as much money as Obama and Clinton because he doesn't take money from the healthcare lobby like Obama and Clinton do (opensecrets.org). So do you think when Obama and Clinton revamp healthcare they will not look out for their buddies who gave them money? Politics as usual.
Dennis Kucinich is against corporate control in government and wants to end the war NOW, which I'm sure the mega-corporations and those in the military-industrial complex (getting rich off the war) do not like. It is no coincidence that Kucinich is ignored by the MSM. If the MSM ignores you, of course mainstream America will not know of you.
You talk about what this race doesn't need right now. What America doesn't need right now is more of the same -- continuing this stupid war and not changing healthcare (read: Obama and Clinton).
And Obama repeatedly saying the word CHANGE doesn't equal things changing. His record of voting for funding the war and his coziness with corporate lobbies speak for him to anyone who really cares to listen. Don't be fooled by speeches that bring memories of JFK -- Obama has hired JFK's speechwriter. Maybe we should let the great speechwriter be president.
P.S. To call Obama a "messianic figure" and Clinton a "nazi feminist corporate whore" is a little extreme on each side, don't you think?
Woohoo! Steve Benen is bringing us Fox News style number counting! Finally the blogs are catching up to the Main Stream Media. Please keep us up to date with that brilliant analysis. Way to go Steve, maybe you can do double shifts at the Drudge Report. You certainly earned it.
And the Lamb Lies Down --
D'oh! That's when we were good.
Su-su-sudio -- oh-oh!
We're slopping at the exact trough designed for us by Murdoch, Rove et al. Seamlessly overnight it's Obama/Clinton with their identical senate voting record. We've swallowed it exactly as they've served it up. Even the ones I thought were the sharpest knives in teh drawer are going along like sheep to slaughter without a baaaaa-ah!
Isn't this horrifying how seamlessly we ACCEPT the vanishing of Edwards, Kucinich and Gravel as if they never existed? Especially Edwards being the clearest bell of the manufactured "top three".
Why is it so easy for them to fuck us again and again.
Hmm, downsizing the field for the Dem nom, eh?
Looks like the narrowminded peabrain virus that infects the Republican wing is contagious and quickly working it's way to the other.
Cause for hope? Think not.
ABC excluded Kucinich and Gravel from their debate, so it is only perfectly appropriate that C&L comply and do the same. Both candidates are non-serious peacemongers. Shut them up and ignore them. End o' discussion.
With the "I'd vote for him if I thought he could win" attitude of Liberals in this country, is it any wonder we end up with bullshit middle of the road candidates?
At least the republicans vote for people who espouse their values, as we can see by the lack of support for Giuliani and Romney. Instead they vote for Huckabee who is a crazy as f*ck christian like themselves.
But on the Democratic side we get corporate shills who are anything but liberal or progressive. Kucinich and Gravel have platforms that contain basic progressive/liberal values, and yet Dem's won't vote for them cause they want to back a winner.
Well this isn't a horse race my friends, and sadly you'll get the government you deserve because of it.
Rupert Clone @ 15:
Take it down a notch, pal.
Richardson's campaign confirmed it. There will be a press conference today.
How large a slice of humble pie would you like?
I don't like Richardson for the shallowest of reasons:he reminds me of an annoying blowhard Uncle of mine..just a big turn off.
If either Clinton or Obama get nominated, I won't vote in the general. I can accept Edwards, Kucinich, Gravel, or Richardson. Not those other two.
I have never ever skipped an election, but I couldn't bring myself to vote for either an aipac whore or an empty suit. Or a republican.
Correction, if the repubs nominate Ron Paul, I'd consider voting for him. Not because I like him - I don't, not at all - but he would shake things up, and god knows things need shaking up.
[deleted--off topic]
Thanks for the correction C&L monitors. You sure raised some hackles there. Can anyone imagine FUX news correcting an inaccurate headline?
But for the candidacies of Clinton, Edwards, Obama, Kucinich, Gravel, Dodd, and Biden, Gov. Richardson could have been a contender. As for all of the back-and-forth regarding the discounting of certain remaining candidates from headlines, I urge everyone to keep in mind a lesson offered by Bill Cosby: "A word to the wise ain't necessary. It's the stupid ones who need advice."
Phil C @ 86:
Firth of Fifth - period
Nicole Belle @ 91:
Really? Bill Richardson has scheduled a press conference today announcing the Dem field is now down to three candidates? His campaign confirmed this? Are your sources really that impeccable? I look forward to it.
Nicole Belle: Your snarkiness is unwarranted. One, I just corrected the headline. It's only 9:00 am where I live and I don't work 24 hours a day. Two, I confirmed that Richardson is pulling out of the race with his campaign staff. I was addressing that it was not a rumor of his leaving the field, not the number of candidates.
Me, why don't you try thinking of it as a vote against whoever the Republican is.
As365 @ 9:
I took it. Kucinich came on top by a pretty wide margin, followed by Gravel. Richardson and Edwards
tied for third.
Nicole Belle,
I agree with you that the tone of some of the criticisms should be taken "down a notch." No argument there whatsoever.
It's the misleading headline that's pissed a lot of us off.
Of course Kucinich isn't going to win. We all know that. But it's his message that needs to remain in play. While progressive-minded sites have the right to dismiss his chances of winning, they shouldn't dismiss the candidacy and the message he's been pushing since before the war began.
For the last five years I've read on this site (and so many others) about the lawlessness, immorality and unconstitutionality of this administration, specifically with respect to the war. And to some degree (a great one, I believe), Kucinich has been a catalyst in marshalling our collective anger. Regardless of his standing in the polls, Kucinich deserves better than such a dismissive headline as we have here. I'd expect such headlines from the mainstream corporate media, not from Crooks & Liars.
Sam Jack @ 99:
I always vote against republicans. I don't always vote Democrat - why should I? Half of them are republicans anyway - but I always vote against republicans. They are pure evil.
But I am SO SICK of the Dems' argument: Vote for me, or else you'll get a republican. (Sounds like the repubs: "Vote for me or the terrorists will kill you.") They think that allows them to get away with anything. Well it doesn't, not any more.
Dagmar @ 101:
I do understand that. When I logged in this morning, I saw the headline and quickly contacted Steve to see if it was okay to change it. I don't write the headlines for Steve, nor am I going to change it without his permission. I have since amended the title.
However, the vitriol aimed at this site is completely hijacking this thread and taking it completely off topic.
This thread is about Richardson, not about C&L.
snoopy @ 98:
That's another reason why I don't like Richardson. He can speak for himself, but his campaign has no business scheduling press conferences to announce that Kucinich and Gravel are withdrawing.
I hope when Richardson bows out, he does it with his back to the other candidates, and drops his trous and shorts.
He was more qualified to be a president, in terms of ability, though not appeal to the celebrity-struck MSM slaves of the citizenry, than almost anyone else.
snoopy @ 98:
Bill Kristol used a similar excuse for his first NYT commentary yesterday. But that was dead-tree version, and too late to make a correction. Maybe we should start cutting some slack to the "heroes in error" from now on. Mistakes happen.
me @ 102:
Hillary was talking nuke attacks on Day One of the next administration - straight outta the Rudy Giuliani playbook.
snoopy @ 108:
See what I mean?
She sucks. She takes orders from aipac. And Obama is a big zero.
me @ 100:
I took it again, answering all the questions wrong for kicks. All the repubs sucked of course, but Hunter, Tancredo, and Romney blew the others out of the water. No surprise there I guess.
Oh, please! Snark is the m.o. of the website. It's why many of us visit. We like snark. Snarkiness hits bullseyes. Nothing humiliates and makes the GOP wither than to be ridiculed with snark - and C&L generally excels doing that. But I gather when the shoe is on the other foot, and mild snark is directed inwards, the laughing stops. It's not funny any more. Or maybe we lost our sense of humor?
Nicole: I'm trying to get the thread back on topic. Help a girl out, please. This thread is not about C&L
GSD @ 37:
LOL! Thanks for the laugh, GSD.
With Governor Richardson gone there is little chance for Dems to get the presidency this year. When was the last time a senator became prez? Iowa and New Hampshire are killers of democracy, how I hate them.
Just as a point of observation, but there hasn't been a post by Steve Benen that hasn't been absoutely one-sided and biased in favor of the candidates hand-picked and funded by private healthcare, hedge funds, and weapons manufacturers.
Not that every blogger doesn't have their POV, but most keep their peronsal preferences in check.
When I read C&L, I read it because I like that you post videos and comments cutting away from the typical list of the media.
We cynical souls need hope, and the media's preferred candidates simply don't provide that. Oh, and Richardson's withdrawal was reported on the local news last night. Odd that it hadn't been confirmed, isn't it?
good, now take Clinton, Edwards, Obama and Dennis with you!
#48
Is there also a gene which preprogrammed you to have a favorite color, a favorite shape. Some heterosexual men are breast-men, some are leg-men, others are ass-men. Some gay men are tops, some are bottoms, some are size-queens. Some lesbians are butch, dikes and others completely feminine.
Sexuality is in-born. Some litle girls are tom-boys, and some little boys play with dolls.
How do explain this?
danger @ 1:
HAHAHA, that's a good one...
And then there were two!
ronhohn @ 115:
I can't explain it, but I'm a sucker for redheads.
ronhohn @ 115:
You two are barking up the wrong tree. Whether sexual orientation is genetic DOESN'T MATTER. It's a person's own business, regardless of its "cause". The real question is, should the government be sticking its nose into people's private concerns? I say HELL NO!
So you guys did not like Richardson because he wants to balance the budget, not increase the size of a wasteful government? Is the nanny state that important?
medlakeguy @ 5:
Count me in for the K-man, so that makes us four.
Anyhow, if there were power in numbers... we would all be eating shit... afterall 1 trillion flys can't be wrong, eh?
Preacher Boob @ 105:
I'll agree with you there; I'm apparently one of the few on here who are sad to see him go. It's also sad to see how many C&Ler's have about as much grasp of the political spectrum as Billo and the Freepers: instead of anyone who raises any tax being called a "tax-and-spend liberal", we get anyone who cares about a balanced budget called "actually conservative".
me @ 118:
I'm not barking up any tree. It was humor.
Hmm...why did the Richardson campaign flounder? im sure it has nothing to do with the media's (and the blogosphere's) absolute hard-on for Clinton, Obama, and Edwards
please...they kept referring to any other Dem candidate as a 'second-tier' candidate and the only coverage i saw was of the part of that debate where kucinich is asked if believes in UFOs...friggin ridiculous...
so, next time theres a poll where at least 10 per cent of GOP voters would vote for Ron Paul is ABC going to say that theyre voting for 'other' or simply pretend that they werent polled in the first place?
Thank you kindly, Steve!
Uncle Bruno @ 34:
I see Richardson as a Secretary of State...and an effective one, for a change. I'm not sure, honestly, why Richardson didn't get a better hold of more than 2-5% of the populace. It might just be that the top three, Edwards, Obama and Clinton are all so dynamic on their communication skills, and when you have a woman, a black, and a southern white man in the race, there is little room for a Hispanic, an Asian, a Native American, nor a gay.
I believe Richardson has a LOT to offer to the cabinet, but being the preznit takes somebody who can electrify the crowds, and he just doesn't have the charisma.
snoopy @ 110:
All we ask is that people recognize that we'll get hammered no matter what we post. If there is the slightest hint of a positive note directed toward one individual candidate, we get hammered from supporters of all the other candidates. I have personally posted numerous positive posts about all the Democratic presidential candidates - all of them. I have also been accused of drinking the _______ kool aid time and time again. The campaigns all read this blog, we know that for a fact. It's understandable that supporters of one candidate would want to see more about their candidates and less about others, but reality doesn't work that way. We've endured countless attempts to intimidate us from supporters (supposedly) of just about every candidate,(in the comments, not from the campaigns) to no avail. We will continue to cover the race, the media and the pundits in precisely the same way we have always done, you can count on that.
Craig Lister @ 6:
Please don't presume to speak for me or anyone else in the Democratic Party - not even if you're the national chairman, which you most certainly are not.
I support Obama, but I admire Bill Richardson for his service to our country.
I will vote for the Democratic nominee, be he, or she, Bill the Cat.
chris @ 119:
No, I liked him for that reason.
I think he could have immediately jumped to the head of the pack if he had called for the impeachment and prosecution of Bush and Cheney, but he didn't have the guts. Too bad.
After all, what did he have to lose? At the very least it have opened up debate on the topic, and that's something that really, really, REALLY needs to be done.
diamondmc @ 117:
The only reason left to read Maureen Dowd.
I blame the media. He received almost no attention at all. Maybe that was his fault, but still...
In fact this site has him listed in the blogroll only 6 times, less than any other candidate. So I blame the media, including you......
"and then there were none" is an Agatha Christie novel inspiring Genesis.....
David Hill @ 123:
Yr bein' too kind. If they mention Kucinich at all, it's always as a "fringe" candidate, or, wow! cute wife, heh!
I too once saw a UFO. UFO stands for unidentified flying object. It was dark. It was foggy. I was on the Pacific Ocean. There were lights hovering above the horizon that made no sense. It looked like something out of Close Encounters. The following day I discovered it was an illusion. On water, the distant horizon at the vanishing point appears to be higher than it actually is. The lights, it turned out, was actually a Coast Guard engagement with an illegal Korean fishing trawler. Hence, the UFO (Unidentified Flying Object) became a IFO (Identified Floating Object). I never said I saw aliens. All I wanted was a reasonable explanation. I got one. Just because somebody steps forward and says they saw something eerily mysterious, and wants to know what they saw, and doesn't receive an adequate explanation, does not mean the observer is a believer in Vulcan death-grips, little green men or Shirley MacLaine. I any event, I would hope any prospective employer would refrain from asking me about such an irrelevant event at a job interview. The only purpose served in asking that question to Kucinich at a candidate debate was to marginalize him as a wacko. It was a deliberate ploy, it worked, but it's still dirty assclown politics.
F P @ 44:
Word!
I just got the email from Richardson that he is leaving the race. He lamented the leak to the media stating he wanted his supporters to hear it from him first. He thanked me for my contributions and had this to say about his fellow candidates:
"Senator Biden's passion and intellect are remarkable.
Senator Dodd is the epitome of selfless dedication to public service and the Democratic Party.
Senator Edwards is a singular voice for the most downtrodden and forgotten among us.
Senator Obama is a bright light of hope and optimism at a time of great national unease, yet he is also grounded in thoughtful wisdom beyond his years.
Senator Clinton's poise in the face of adversity is matched only by her lifetime of achievement and deep understanding of the challenges we face.
Representative Kucinich is a man of great decency and dedication who will faithfully soldier on no matter how great the odds.
And all of us in the Democratic Party owe Senator Mike Gravel our appreciation for his leadership during the national turmoil of Vietnam. "
He also states: "At this time, I will not endorse any candidate."
And while Richardson is bowed over will he let loose with a juicy fart in our general direction?
I think part of Bill Richarson's problem is the same as Linda Ronstadt.
He's only Hispanic when it suits him.
Fred in Elmira @ 33:
I just do not agree with that. The headline as written leads with the meat of the story, which is that a candidate has dropped out. That the source is the NYT is secondary/supporting and that is addressed properly with the link. Otherwise everyone would lead every story they didn't personally break with 'XYZ says etc'. The story is not that XYZ is saying it, the story is what happened.
I am a Richardson supporter and today I received an email from him announcing his withdrawal. Richardson informed his supporters that he is not going to endorse a candidate at this time and that his supporters should pay close attention to the other candidates and choose who we think is the right candidate. Richardson stated that his going to go back doing the job that he loves which is governor of New Mexico, the Land of Enchantment.
As a Richardson supporter, I have not chosen an alternative candidate. It will be fun to watch the last three candidates standing attempt to influence voters to vote for one of them. In 2004, I voted for Howard Dean even though he dropped out of the race. I may just write-in Bill Richardson. I have until the 3rd Tuesday in April to make a decision.
I'm surprised that not more people supported Richardson. After all, Richardson supports the decriminalization of medical marijuana use.
I am sick and tired of people thinking that there are only 2 or 3 possible candidates to vote for.
Do what you think is right. Vote for the person who you think can do the best job to fix the damage done by G.W.B. and company.
If you want to vote for Representative Kucinich, then vote for him. If you want to vote for one of the others, then vote for that person. When it comes down to the final election, you will have a chance to vote again. Don’t screw up your vote!
Pick the person YOU want to be the candidate for president. You can always write in a candidate's name. No vote is ever wasted. Even when you vote for a third party candidate, you shake up the 2 major parties.
The debates have been a farce. Let the league of women voters set the debate.
Since our tax dollars support public television, how about giving all the candidates a free half hour or hour to present their positions, or what they have to say. If you don’t like who the Democrats select, then there may be an opportunity to vote for a third party candidate. In may be time for an independent to be in the White House. Michael Bloomberg was a Democrat then became a Republican then an independent.
As Mike Malloy pointed out on his program last night, if a Republican wins the presidency, it is not the end of the world. That person will have much to contend with, and if that person fails or screw up, the Republicans will be to blame. As long as we have a large veto proof majority in congress and the senate the progressives and liberals can still havegreat things accomplished..
Make sure all votes are counted accurately
Logan Murphy @ 126:
The case here is not being biased towards a candidate, its a matter of being factual. Doesn't that matter? Raise you hand if you think he meant "the three" to mean Kucinich, Gravel and Edwards. LOL We know exactly what he meant and he should respect the intelligence of C&L readers, not insult it. Steve KNOWS that there would be five candidates left but he wanted to make the title say "And then there were three" because is more dramatic. It was style over substance, and thats exactly what the MSM does. I do appreciate the correction, so thank you C&L, if Steve needs a proofreader then do it.
Nicole: Thanks, we'll do that just as soon as you send a check to pay for the proofreader.
Well a check from me won't work, you can ask my creditors. So I got a fair compromise. I found my old abacus so if Steve has any more higher math problems he can send it to me, and heck, I'll do it for free. ;)
Americans are idiots it's that simple. Dodd, Biden and Richardson were all qualified and experienced. It's not a presidential election at all you morons are voting for prom king or queen. Your empire deserves to crumble. Good riddance.
There is a lot I like and admire about Bill Richardson. I hope our next Dem president has the good sense to make him an integral part of the team.
withnail @ 133:
That's pretty great to hear from him. Kind of underscores how bad this post it in characterizing him, no? As my wife said, it's bad he dropped out because now all the Mexican Amnericans she knew here in Texas, they were previously dedicated to Richardson because he's Hispanic. Same could go for a large part of the Southwest.
Just as Rev. Jackson is committed to Obama because he's African AMerican, and Mrs. Rev. Jackson is commited to CLinton because she's a woman. And idealists like us (And I thought like you) who actually wan the Iraq War to end, who want single-payer healthcare, and who want a return to Democratic values support Kucinich (then Gravel, Richardson, Edwards - in that order).
Problem is, those people supporting Richardson for that reason alone don't necessarily think anything about Obama or Clinton. They'll probably not bother with the primary now, and vote Republican in November, even if Richardson is a VP potential.
Fun Fact: With Richardson gone, now Kucinich is the only Presidential candidate who's pledged to withdraw all troops form Iraq immediately. He remains the only one on record calling for an impeachment of the current administration. WHY WASN'T THIS MENTIONED HERE?
At least I have the (presumptive) Willie Nelson fund raiser for Kucinch to look forward to (again).
Login or Register to post comments.