Gov. Bill Richardson’s endorsement last week of Barack Obama has sparked quite a controversy.
Richardson is being accused of disloyalty and hypocrisy. Some of the criticism is fair and some is not.
Several people have e-mailed me to express anger because of this quote Richardson gave the New York Times in February when discussing how superdelegates like him should vote:
“It should reflect the vote of my state, it should represent the vote of my constituency,” he said. “It shouldn’t be because you’re a fund-raiser or a big-shot delegate. Superdelegates should reflect their state or constituency. If superdelegates decide this nomination, it’s going to look like big-shot politicians and fat cats decided who should be president.”
You’d think that would indicate that Richardson would support Hillary Clinton, not Obama, right? After all, she won New Mexico, even if it was only by a slim margin. His words were clear: Following his own logic, Richardson should have endorsed Clinton.
Then again, as I’ve written in the past, Richardson has a tendency to govern based on the do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do philosophy.
So it’s fair to call Richardson a hypocrite for endorsing Obama, and some have done that. But there has also been unfair criticism tossed at the governor.
Clinton supporter James Carville has gained widespread attention for comparing Richardson right before Easter to Judas. He called Richardson’s endorsement of Obama an “act of betrayal.” And Albuquerque Mayor Martin Chávez, another Clinton supporter, told the Albuquerque Journal that Richardson’s two jobs in Bill Clinton’s administration meant Richardson should never have considered backing any other candidate.
“They (the Clintons) shouldn’t have even had to ask for his support,” Chávez told the newspaper. “There is no loyalty there.”
Such criticism of Richardson is completely unfair and based on a sorry reality in politics. While good policy and doing what’s right should drive politicians, too many instead sell out their ideas in the name of loyalty. That creates a system that is based on who owes who instead of doing what’s right.
Chávez and Carville reveal their true colors by leveling such unfair criticism at Richardson.
Democratic Party shenanigans
Will Richardson’s endorsement have an impact? Not nearly as much as it might have had before New Mexico or at least Texas Democrats went to the polls.
But it may have some impact. Richardson is a respected, experienced negotiator, and that’s an area where Obama is sometimes criticized for his lack of experience. Richardson is also a high-profile Hispanic, and though his endorsement might have had an impact on more Hispanics if he had given it earlier, I’m guessing the Obama campaign believes the endorsement is better late than never.
But there’s more about this that is leading to criticism of Richardson. The governor has said repeatedly, when pressed about whether he would endorse, that he doesn’t think much of politicians’ endorsements. Well then, why endorse? It’s another example of the sometimes walking contradiction that is Bill Richardson.
Many Clinton supporters are up in arms about Richardson’s contradictory statements, his lack of loyalty and the fact that he endorsed Obama. But I come back to the same point I’ve made before on other topics: This isn’t a government-run election in which citizens have guaranteed rights. It’s a party primary process. Democrats empower their leaders to create a system that superdelegates have the potential to control.
It does seem contrary to the principles of the Democratic Party to give the superdelegates the power to override the will of average Dems. All Richardson is doing in this instance is exercising the power rank-and-file Democrats and their leaders give him. I don’t particularly like such party shenanigans either, but that’s part of the reason I’m not a registered member of any political party.
Gov. Bill Richardson’s endorsement last week of Barack Obama has sparked quite a controversy. 
You’d think that would indicate that