For Richardson, it’s no longer about winning the race

When he finished with the support of 0.02 percent of caucus goers in Iowa on Thursday, Chris Dodd had the sense to withdraw from the presidential race. After his 0.93 percent finish, Joe Biden did the same.

So what’s the difference between those two and Bill Richardson, who finished the night with an embarrassing 2.11-percent finish?

If his focus remains on winning the race, there’s not much difference. Richardson will not win the presidency. It’s over. If winning is his only goal, he should withdraw.

But if his goal is securing another position in Washington, Richardson has lots of incentive to stay in the race, at least a little longer.

For starters, because he finished fourth in Iowa – albeit a dismal fourth – Richardson gets to participate on Saturday in ABC News’ nationally televised debate along with the three frontrunners. That gives him one more chance to gain national exposure and go head-to-head with the cream of the crop in his party.

In addition, Richardson has enough money, sources tell me, to compete in New Hampshire, so he may as well do it.

Beyond that, Richardson has said he’ll stay in the race at least through Feb. 5, when Democrats in several Western states will pick their nominee, but he’s also said if he loses the presidential race he will return to New Mexico to serve out his term as governor, not seek another job in Washington.

If Richardson really planned to remain governor of New Mexico, he would be foolish to stay in the race past Tuesday. He would miss most of the legislative session and lose further control of state government to the Senate, setting the stage for a frustrating final three years as governor.

The fact that Richardson plans to stay in the race though Feb. 5, assuming that statement is to be believed, suggests that Richardson has no intention of returning to New Mexico.

My prediction on Richardson’s future

Take my prediction for what it’s worth, but here’s what I see as the most likely scenario:

Richardson does compete in New Hampshire and finishes, again, in fourth place. He continues on through Feb. 5, with similar results. Meanwhile, the state Senate calls the shots in Santa Fe.

Richardson drops out after Feb. 5, having won New Mexico but placing fourth or worse in all other states, and returns home to cheering supporters. He immediately jumps into the last week of the legislative session, doesn’t get what he wants, and calls lawmakers back for a special session reminiscent of the 2007 fiasco.

Richardson tries to get one or two résumé-boosting bills out of the special session – health-care reform, maybe an ethics bill, and perhaps he’ll shoot for domestic partner benefits again – then wages a behind-the-scenes campaign for vice president, secretary of state or some other high position in Washington. By Feb. 5 we’ll know who wins the party’s nomination, and Richardson can offer to lead the candidate’s Hispanic outreach movement or help in some other way.

He’ll spend the rest of the year on the campaign trail in an attempt to leave New Mexico a year from now to work in the new Democratic administration. If Richardson really planned to stay in New Mexico, why would he continue his campaign at a time when it’s critical for him to be in Santa Fe, and after a defeat that must have shocked and demoralized his campaign?

Huckabee wins, but it’s Obama who shines

Mike Huckabee’s resounding Iowa victory, which came because of the support of evangelical Christians, showed that the culture group that elected George Bush in 2000 and 2004 is still fairly united and single-mindedly focused on electing another conservative Christian. The GOP Caucus had record turnout, with evangelicals showing up in huge numbers.

Evangelicals across the nation were responsible for Bush’s victories. If they carried Huckabee in Iowa, there’s good reason to suspect they will carry him to the Republican Party’s nomination.

But it was Iowa’s Democratic caucus that will be remembered. Barack Obama accomplished on Thursday a feat that is nearly impossible in politics: He got young people so excited that they turned out in large enough numbers to make a difference.

That wasn’t the only unique aspect of Obama’s victory. The turnout was even higher for the Democratic Caucus than it was for the GOP. Independents and even Republicans showed up to back Obama. Those who picked him overwhelmingly said they were voting for change. Change, not experience or electability, carried the night, and Obama’s victory reflected the mood of the nation.

The other candidates knew it. When John Edwards spoke after finishing second, he talked about change. Huckabee did too. Most obvious was Hillary Clinton’s new message. The candidate who has, throughout the campaign, contrasted her experience with Obama’s message of change suddenly focused in a speech following her third-place finish on – you guessed it – change.

“We’re not just trying to elect a president. We’re trying to change a country. That is what I’m committed to doing,” she said. “… I am so ready for the rest of this campaign and I am so ready to lead.”

Obama gave the most rousing speech following the caucus.

“This was the moment when we finally beat back the politics of fear and doubt and cynicism, the politics that tear us down instead of building us up,” he said. “… Years from now, we’ll look back and say this was the moment, this was the place where America remembered what it means to hope.”

“Hope is the bedrock of this nation, the belief that our destiny will not be written for us, but by us,” Obama said. “… That is what we started in Iowa and that is the message that we can now carry to New Hampshire and beyond… the one that can change this country brick by brick, rock by rock, callous hand by callous hand, that together, ordinary people can do extraordinary things, red states and blue states, because we are the United States of America.”

This was Obama’s night to shine. The fact that even the GOP winner adopted Obama’s message of change in his victory speech foreshadowed what’s to come.

The alleged Obama-Richardson deal

Many will wonder about the reported deal between Obama and Richardson that, if it really existed, helped Obama win Iowa. Both campaigns denied that there was a deal that had Richardson sending support Obama’s way in precincts where his supporters didn’t reach the 15-percent viability threshold. Throughout the night, various news agencies reported that, at some precincts, Richardson supporters moved en masse to Obama’s camp for the second round after they failed to reach 15 percent in the first round.

But in other precincts, Richardson’s supporters split among the three frontrunners. In the end, it’s clear that Richardson’s supporters did give Obama a boost in many precincts, but it’s not clear whether they did it because there was a deal or because the day’s news reports made them believe there was a deal that didn’t really exist.

Speculation is rampant that Obama and Richardson are in cahoots, and the fact that the governor is staying in the race could fan the flames. Already, a blogger for The Politico has labeled Richardson an Obama “ally.”

On to New Hampshire

One more interesting note: Sources who were at Iowa precincts and anecdotes from some news articles indicate that Richardson’s support in Iowa was greater than the final numbers suggest. A pre-caucus survey placed Richardson’s support at about 7 percent.

But that’s far short of the 15 percent that was necessary. I’m told that, at many locations, Richardson had at least half the caucus goers needed to reach viability but, under the Iowa system, that means no support.

Under New Hampshire’s primary system, on the other hand, a vote is a vote. Perhaps Richardson will do a little better on Tuesday. But don’t expect much. For the governor, it’s no longer about winning the race.