Uh, the "dynamics" of the race changed a long time ago.

Puerto Rico has a large block of Latino voters.  

The reason this is a big story is that it shows that the Party Elders believe the Wright affair isn't such a big deal.  

Richardson crossed Hillary when he made his deal with Obama in Iowa.  It became clear he lost any opportunity of then.  He wasn't thinking to clear when he did that.  That's why he tried making it up in the following debates.

But Richardson ALWAYS goes to where the money is.  Thats what determines his decisions.  True to form.  

I'm not sure how many voters this affects, but it is a huge signal to superdelegates.  Earlier this week, some thought that the Wright issue would cause superdelegates to come out for Clinton. When this high-profile superdelegate, who is also the only Hispanic Governor in the US, does otherwise - and cites Obama's great speech in doing so - it tells the others that they should do the same and that Obama most certainly not irreparably damaged.

The endorsement also has a major impact on media coverage, now through Sunday.  Richardson is often on the Sunday talk shows and perhaps he will be this Sunday as well, so that will carry into the early part of next week as well.  

But, it is a big endorsement.

Obama/Richardson?

You may be on to something. Richarson would bulk up Obama's foreign policy credentials, solidify latino and western state votes, and strengthens his domestic policy credentials, since Richardson is a governor, and a governor of a border state. Obama needs to win in western states if he's the nominee, but could Richardson bring in any more 'independents'? I doubt that.

Si Se Puede! New Mexico and the West has now been won for Obama in the GE.

Richardson will be a great champion in this campaign for the White House.

Jerome,

Don't you think that the endorsement carries the weight of a larger implication?  Specifically, that the party may be trying to signal a desire to end the contest for the sake of the party, coming on the heels of the FL/MI (in)action?

His comments seemed to offer a means by which to form a narrative of healing as well.

The endorsement of Obama by 2 former candidates is pretty big.  Edwards is clearly waiting to endorse ANYONE until after the dust settles, hoping for a primetime speech at the convention, no doubt.  He may endorse right before NC...but I doubt it now after hearing his comments on Leno.

Gore and Biden are the two remaining big fish.

If it's just a Richardson endorsement, I don't see this meaning much. Sorry, but based upon the Massachusetts primary results alone (Kennedy, Kerry and Patrick all supporting BHO, and Clinton still kicked butt), this just confirms what most pols have known all along. Good for some short-term media coverage, for the most part, but that's it.

HOWEVER, a nod to Richardson by Obama as his V.P. choice now would change everything, IMHO.

I like Richardson and think he's a great guy; I just wonder why he waited so damn long.  If he endorsed back before Super Tuesday, this race may have looked entirely different.

This is a great endorsement for Obama.

The Richardson endorsement doesn't matter anymore and was expected since he dropped out of the race. The hispanics love the Clintons, always have and always will. As far as Puerto Rico is concernced, Hillary is going to do very well in their primary despite Richardson turning his back on them. The man obviously has no loyalty. BTW: Murtha endorsing Hillary the other day is a much bigger story than this. Were looking forward to the Edwards endorsement coming up soon.

favor.  BO probably asked Richardson to announce now just to do what you said...try and knock his negative press off the front page.  This may win him the VP slot if BO is the nominee - I mean it's ass-kissing, big time.

I guess I wonder what, if anything, this endorsement means...some of the Kennedy's endorsed him.  Kerry endorsed him.  All dead horses.  And Richardson ran such a terrible campaign I suspect voters will say "Who" and "So What".  This will slide off the "front page" in short order!

There's a long piece in Politico today http://www.politico.com/news/stories/030 8/9147.html laying out the popular vote issue and running through some numbers.

Here's how it the story ends:
"A high, rough estimate of all the remaining states then would leave between 5 million and 6 million popular votes on the table.

For Clinton to pick up her lead in the popular vote with 6 million ballots cast, she'd need a 12 percent margin across the states -- that's a 56 percent to 44 percent average win. With 5 million ballots, she would need a 14 percent margin -- that's a 57 percent to 43 percent overall victory, including expected defeats in states counting for well over 1 million votes.

Removing North Carolina and Oregon from the list, Clinton's wins would likely have to tally well over 60 percent of the vote.

So far, however, Clinton has broken 56 percent in just four states, including her home state of New York. Her two best states have been Rhode Island, where she topped 58 percent, and Arkansas, where she won more than 70 percent of the votes.

Now her path to victory seems to depend on all her future wins going the way of Arkansas."

Primary season is a contest measured in delegates.  That means Obama won Texas.  

Obama WON Texas WITHOUT Richardson's help.  He got more delegates.  But that info probably hasn't been allowed to seep into your brain yet, huh?

And about Hillary's Decisive win in Ohio?  Netted her 9 delegates.

Obama netted more in frickin' Idaho.  Big states?  You mean the states that ANY Democrat would win?  And Hillary uses this as a selling point?  What a joke.............

Where do you buy your official "Hillary-rose-colored-glasses"  I'd like a pair myself.  Actually, scratch that.  Reality is better looking.  Especially after eight years of Bush.

until the nomination was locked up. He thought it would be after Ohio / Texas. He was wrong, it was locked up when Michigan and Florida decided not to revote. That is why he's endorsing today.

Given how reluctant Richardson was to endorse prior to this (like, when it would have done the most good), I have to think that there are two factors that may have played a hand in his decision.

1) A More Perfect Union.  One of the best dissertations on racial issues in decades has got to affect a hispanic candidate quite deeply.  The hispanic and black communities have had their struggles in the past, and he could believe that Obama is the candidate that will try to heal those divides by addressing poverty and social problems that exaserbate the issues.

2) Clinton's Wright scaremongering.  Olbermann reported last night that there is a strong possibility that Clinton has been addressing the superdelegates with the popular trope here on MyDD, that Wright is making Obama unelectable.  Richardson may have just plain had enough of the politics of fear, and decided that he can't endorse Clinton, so Obama it is.  This is a cynical approach, and I don't think that it's necessarally completely accurate, but it's definitely possible.

Regardless, I hope the other supers follow suit and end this thing after PA at the latest.

Personally, I am very disappointed in Richardson, but not surprised. He all but showed his hand before the "Mini" Super Tuesday in TX and OH. I do think the BO camp is desperate to get the Wright story off the front page since his race relations speech did nothing to facilitate that. AND he lied AGAIN on Larry King last night about "I wasn't present, I was present during those racist, anti-American sermons" on the pulpit. For Richardson to say that BO is "I believe he is the kind of once-in-a-lifetime leader that can bring our nation together and restore America's moral leadership in the world," is absurd at this juncture. Does that mean despite the retoric that Richardson believes thi is the only time an AA candidate might have a shot at the WH??? BO will never bring our nation together, for we now know how he really feels about using the race card. His remark that his grandmother is a "typical white person" is outrageous and Richardson lost my respect with his endorsement of the most devisive candidate the Democratic Party has ever seen, YES, hands down more devisive than HRC---who I don't believe is devisive at all, but gets portrayed as such in the media. If BO is the Dem nominee, John McCain will COAST into the White House in Nov. I will not forget BO's primary revelations and I am sure I will be joined millions (just in MI ad FL alone!) in casting my vote for any candidate than BHO, or staying home. By the way, for those who advocate the Super Dels voting the way their state has, does this mean aside from his endorsement of BO, Richardson will cast his vote for HRC? After all, she did WIN NM...

I think Richardson screwed Obama by not endorsing him sooner.  I don't see how this helps Obama that much.  It would have helped in Texas or before.  I do think Edwards will endorse Hillary.  He was more complimentary of her than Obama on last night's Leno.  He could Hillary tough and tenacious..i.e. a fighter.  He only called barack inspirational to young people.  I think Edwards gave us a hint as to who he will endorse: The Fighter.

This is a FANTASTIC endorsement for Obama, and right on time! GO OBAMA!!!!!!!!!!

Richardson's endorsement does knock a big story and narrative that's been building against Obama over the past two weeks off the front page.

It wouldn't surprise me to learn that Obama's campaign has been saving this "surprise" Richardson endorsement for this exact moment, just so it might , and I stress might, take some steam off the Reverend Wright scandal. There is absolutely no way Obama's campaign didn't know Wright would blowup in his face. Fortunately for Clinton, I don't think it will help Obama. Richardson garnered weak support as a candidate that even the Latino vote couldn't help.

i have been waiting on some "leaders" in the democratic party to step forward, speak out, and end the bloodletting.

I think this took guts on Bill's part.... especially considering his friendship with the Clintons.

and, o yes, he should keep the beard...even when he is Vice President!

now, the next one who should step up is John Edwards to slam the nail in the coffin of the old politics!

Wasn't it Richardson himself that said that endorsements don't matter?

Bill Richardson has zero political skills.  Every time he opens his mouth he sticks his foot in it.  I don't think an Obama/Richardson ticket has a chance in hell.  Maybe in New Mexico, but that's it.

I think the good thing about this endorsement is that Richardson can go on the Sunday shows and talk about it. Better we hear the name Richardson than Wright.

However, past that, it really only means anything if this signals that more SD's are about to come out publicly for Obama in an attempt to end this thing.

Maybe he came out because Hillary got caught lying on Nafta.

Hillary Clinton won Ohio largely on the issue of Nafta.  Even though Nafta was a major "achievement" in the Clinton Administration, Hillary Clinton said she is and always was against it.  She even questioned the sincerity of Barack Obama's position on Nafta.  

Ohio voters know that Bush has not stood up for American workers on trade.  Bush doesn't understand the "fair" part of the phrase "free and fair trade."  Making American workers compete against exploited cheap labor with pennies for wages and horrid working conditions is not fair.  As Obama has said, we need to make our trade partners implement work standards to stop them from making products on the cheap so American workers can't fairly compete.

So in view of her clear positions on her husband's Presidency, we wondered why Hillary Clinton fought the release of her records as First Lady.  It didn't make sense.  After all, she touted her experience as First Lady saying it makes her more qualified to be President than Barack Obama.  She and the Democrats also criticize the Bush Administration for its secretive manner of running our government.

Now we know.  Hillary Clinton's First Lady records, which were just released over her objections, reveal that Hillary Clinton was not against Nafta.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080319/pl_n m/usa_politics_clinton_records_dc
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/ 2008/03/clintons-1993-n.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/200803 20/cm_thenation/1300860  

It always sounded weird that Hillary Clinton would be against Nafta, something Bill Clinton considered a major achievement of his Administration.  In fact, she wasn't against it.  She even lobbied for it.  

To put it bluntly, Hillary Clinton lied.  She lied about something important.  She lied to pander to voters.  Hillary Clinton stole a ton of votes in the Ohio election on a lie.

This is really no surprise coming from the candidate who says the vote in Michigan should count even though she, her opponents and the Democratic Party itself had all agreed that Michigan broke the rules and its vote would not count, and even though her opponents' names were not even on the ballot.

The unfortunate truth is that Hillary Clinton has a serious credibility problem.  Add that she failed to deliver on key issues, like her failed effort at healthcare reform in the early 1990s, like her vote for the Iraq war, and like her failing Presidential campaign in which she has repeatedly taken cheap shots at her opponent who is the likely Democratic nominee for President.

It's time to end the two decades of Bush-Clinton rule in America.  It's time for a change.  We need someone who will play it a little straighter, listen a little harder, and encourage us to rekindle hope and work together for positive change for all Americans.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/ 2008/03/clintons-1993-n.html

"Clinton's 1993 NAFTA Meeting

March 19, 2008 4:58 PM

One interesting event in Sen. Hillary Clinton's just-released schedules from the 1990s comes on Nov. 10 1993, when the former first lady was to serve as the closing act during a briefing on NAFTA, the trade agreement she now assails.

11:30 am -
11:45 am

NAFTA BRIEFING DROP-BY
Room 450, OEOB

PARTICIPANTS: Approx 120 expected to attend
(See briefing book for further info)

FORMAT:
- Alexis Herman intros HRC for brief remarks
-HRC concludes program

(pp. 1375 and 1376)

Two attendees of that closed-door briefing, neither of whom are affiliated with any campaign, describe that event for ABC News. It was a room full of women involved in international trade. David Gergen served as a sort of master of ceremonies as various women members of the Cabinet talked up NAFTA, which had yet to pass Congress.

"It wasn't a drop-by it was organized around her participation," said one attendee. "Her remarks were totally pro-NAFTA and what a good thing it would be for the economy. There was no equivocation for her support for NAFTA at the time. Folks were pleased that she came by. If this is a still a question about what Hillary's position when she was First Lady, she was totally supportive of NAFTA.

That first attendee recalls that the First Lady's office in the East Wing put together "the invitation list, who was invited authorizations and all that stuff."

And what is this attendee's response to Clinton today distancing herself from NAFTA? "For people who worked hard to pass NAFTA and who support the importance of markets opening for the economy in the long term, they're very upset. A number of the women who were there are very upset. You need to have some integrity in your position. The Clintons when Bill Clinton was president took a moderate position on trade for Democrats. For her to repudiate that now seems pretty phony."

Recalls a second attendee, "they were looking for women in international trade who supported NAFTA. Senator Clinton came by at the end. And of course she asked for our support and help in passing NAFTA."

Women who attended that event, the second attendee says, have been incredulous to see Clinton distance herself from the trade agreement as she campaigns today. "They're all saying, 'What's this all about?' We all heard it firsthand." She says Clinton isn't being honest with voters today."

Well, there is a large Hispanic population in PA (like Allentown) and there is a number of Hispanics in North Carolina (poultry farms), but I don't think Richardson holds that kind of influence over the Hispanic community.

He might be vying for the VP spot, for sure.  That's what I first thought of when I heard about the endorsement.

I don't think any endorsements can help Obama now.  

Hillary Clinton is a member of a radical cult.  This is going to make the Obama story look like small potatoes boys and girls.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008 03/20/7798

whatta ya mean the press isn't biting into this story?
it's the number 2 story on the radio news coverage at the top of the hour...3 hours in a row now.

it's the NYT leader, as well as leading CNN, google news, yahoo news.

MSNBC has buried it.

Took a lot of guts, considering how close he was to the Clintons.  John Edwards is obviously still bitter that Obama snatched the prize that was to be his.  Too bad!

It will be in the news for a day, but it is not a surprise to anyone who has been watching him speak in favor of Obama on all the TV shows for the last two months while pretending to be "uncommitted." In fact, the orchestration of the whole thing leaves me with a feeling of another example of the hypocrisy that now seems to infest the entire Obama campaign narrative.

Whenever Richardson was interviewed he was clearly espousing Obama talking points, but then he'd say with that coy twinkly in his eye, something about still being undecided--like it gave his 'unbiased' opinion more credibility. The only persom more obvious in their faux impartiality is Donna Brazile. Expect her to 'wait until the very last minute' to 'decide."

I understand this is politics, and people chose when to endorse for what they think is the maximum effect, but the Obama campaign seems to run so much on these sorts of disingenuous tactics. The NAFTAgate, "It didn't happen," interview. So much trickery in squashing revotes in MI and FL. His immediate statements that he never heard incindiary language from Wright in church, which he now admits he did.

There is a pattern here, and it is a pattern of gaming the electorate with hypocrisy and lies. Sure this Richardson thing is not a big whopper like some of the others, but it is frustrating to turn on the TV everyday and see some sort of clever disingenuous nonsense coming from the Obama camp. Like today, the foolishness about Hillary Clinton attending a few meetings on NAFTA back in the 90's. They know that's a specious issue, but they are floating it out there for the fawning media to pick up anyway.

I know, Obama supporters are going to get all worked up defending Obama on each of the examples that I've listed and saying stuff like, "There is no proof....", "Show me some links that prove what you are asserting..." --maybe even some things a little more rough edged.

But, there is a pattern here. Doesn't it get tiresome having to watch these transparent maneuvers? Don't his supports feel queasy everytime, they are asked to pretend that he is a straight shooter? He is a brilliant orator, and people seem to be mesmerized, perhaps that's it. When he levels those eyes at the camera and speaks in that low slow baratone, it just drips with sincerity. It is quite a gift to be able to sell so much snake oil and keep your customers coming back for more. I just wonder how he pulls it off again and again and again.

Si Se Puede! New Mexico and the West has now been won for Obama in the GE.

Richardson will be a great champion in this campaign for the White House.

Seriously, Jerome.  "Obama Richardson?"  I'm surprised you didn't put "Hussein" in the middle.

You're such an ass.

NOT surprised by this at all. Richardson is Obama's best choice for Veep by far. Richardson has the credibility and international reputation to answer for Obama's lack thereof.

This is a good endorsement for Obama.

However, I do wonder why Richardson is endorsing now after he said that if Clinton won Texas and Ohio, as she did, then "all bets are off" or something to that effect.  I thought that meant he was going to wait and see what happened if that were the case... and not just for Wyoming, Mississippi, and a pastor scandal - but for the rest of the primaries to play out.  

Richardson is going to help carry the West?  I doubt it.  If Richardson had that much pull I think he would have endorsed Obama BEFORE the Texas primary.  

Richardson has been a weird dude throughout this campaign.  To wait until now for an endorsement suggests a deal--I think the VP spot is way too much to offer at this point and I don't think it is Obama's to offer.  He may have his hands tied in this regard by the closeness of the race and the need for some pre-convention brokering, especially if he gets pounded in Pennsylvania.
Perhaps HRC has made it clear that she doesn't want VP if it comes to that, but that would surprise me.

Please remember that the Dems lost NM in 2004 with Richardson as asitting governor.  He did squat for the ticket.

Actually this does nothing to erode the Wright controversy.  

In betraying the Clintons and betraying his own very anti-Obama Hispanic community, as well as the results of his own state primary, it is Richardson who is the loser.

The Kennedys thought their "magic" among Hispanics would register.  It mattered not a damn.  From California to Florida to Texas, Hillary Clinton won them all.

Hispanics distrust Obama and remain loyal to the Clintons.  

Richardson, having done dismally in his own trek to the White House, wants now to be an Obama veep.

It won't happen, because Obama won't happen.  

The Wright story will be sending White voters in mass away from him come November.  

And poor Bill Richardson, who could barely muster a single percentage on his own path to the nomination, will look like the village idiot alongside the landslide loser Barack Obama.

Of course as far as Pennsylvania is concerned, this is a non-story.  Expect a huge Clinton blow-out--at least by fifteen, probably twenty percentage points.

Clinton haters--whether from the MSM or GOP--are the real Barack core.  His nomination exists only to defeat the Clintons, which has always been the #1 priority of the MSM.

Sadly, bedrock Democrats never bought Obama.  Not anywhere, and with thousands of newspaper endorsements, huge numbers of key Democrat endorsements from Kennedys to Kerry to Bradley to Napolitano and now Richardson--it never affected the vote in bedrock blue America one iota.

The Kennedys sang the praises of Barack.  Massachusetts and Rhode Island voters clobbered Barack.

Governor Janet Napolitano sang the praises of Barack.  Her owen Arizona went big time for Hillary.

Richardson now worships at the altar of Barack.  Planet Obama people (many bloggers here inhabit that planet) believe it makes a difference.

Nope.  Hispanics aren't voting for a guy at the top whose twenty-year pastor hates White America, even if the guy at the bottom is Latino.

Voters vote the top of the ticket, not the second spot.  

Geraldine Ferraro gave little movement of women to Walter Mondale.  Mondale still lost a landslide.  

Respected, urbane Texan Lloyd Benson did nothing in Texas to help Dukakis--another landslide loser.  

And John Edwards didn't matter a Fig Newton in changing any Southern states into the column for John Kerry.

And what do all of the above have in common?

Of course, they are LOSERS.

During his campaign, Bill Richardson had all the allure of a stiff board.  Nobody warmed up to him.  Nobody will now.

Help Obama?

I do indeed hope that Richardson made a deal with team Obama.

All the more reason for bedrock Democrats in Pennsylvania to give all those fawning Obama types a "what-for" in their primary.

In my native Ohio, where team Obama out-spent us by more than four-to-one, ran ads blanketing the state day and night, and had all but two of the state's major newspapers endorsing him, Ohioans afterwards sent this resounding message: No to Obama!

Obama lost in 83 of 88 Ohio counties, ensuring a blow-out win for the GOP here if Obama is the Democratic nominee.

If you're a Clinton supporter, you know how the Clintons overcome insurmountable odds.  That is the reason the entire MSM loathes them.

They're counted out throughout the 1990s--from "sex scandals" to WhiteWater to Starr Inquisition to Impeachment--but nothing gets them down.

The Kennedys sing the praise of Obama.  The MSM tells us that spells trouble for the Clintons.

Guess what?  Today the Kennedys, John Kerry, and Duval Patrick are in big trouble in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, and NOT the Clintons.

Bill Richardson is going to find himself soon in a heap of trouble with his own core constituancy.

Betrayals only work in the world of the MSM and blogosphere, most of whom have been living on planet Obama.

They believed Obama's speech staunched his bleeding after the Wright commentaries.  The very recent polls suggest the opposite.  It only called attention to it.

Team Obama believes Richardson's endorsement is a big deal, like they once did all the Kennedy praise.

Nope.

Only on Planet Obama.

Hillary will blow away Obama in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Kentucky, and take all those winner-take-all delegates in Puerto Rico.

And the Wright story will be very much alive.

Then let the Democrats choose the sure landslide loser.

Hillary can run independent--and prevail.

Taking Hispanics in New Mexico along the way.

Top ticket Clinton would best bottom ticket Richardson, whose own top Obama has been corronated by a White-hating minister.

Richardson's endorsement, like all team Obama endorsements, means squat.

Losers do like to back losers.

And the Clintons, who triumph in the end over everything, know how to win.

Richardson doesn't belong in our Clinton camp.

Many have betrayed the Clintons before--it is the Clintons who are still standing.

It's a simple signal for all to read! Richard is known for being a straight shooter--------if he see's the wright story as a no brainer an endorced obama over his long time friend Hillary Clinton-----------Richard is saying stop this------- It's time to pick our candidate, and that is obama. He brings with him 8 to 12% of hispanic vote, and those others that truely believe Richards would make a wonderful leader. I think this might be trend for the Delegates to stand up now and be counted. A whisper to Hillary (no more)!  This can carry this out-------and lose in Nov.---------or finally support the candidate that is the most electable.

as this is when the superdelegates are SUPPOSED TO excerise independent judgment, especially considering the Clinton won his state and with Bill, gave him his career. what an ungrateful bastard. especially when Obama's electability is in HUGE question, considering Wright and the "typical white person"

Not an iota. He's a Mexican American and doesn't have Puerto Rican roots. They are two different communities. It's arguable about  how much Richards would have even helped outside of his home state anyway, given that clinton was already cleaning his clock among Latino/hispanic voters.

This smells like a belated attempt to make himself relevant.  The timing is so strange that it seems like he's maybe trying to get out in front of something else.  I wonder if something bigger is on the horizon?

Richardson's endorsement will as be as effective and influential as the endorsements of Kerry and Kennedy in Mass. LOL

Further, there seems to be a similarity between Richardson and Kerry. Both are losers. (Unfortunately, as a loyal Democrat, I was a Kerry supporter. I've learned my lesson. I am leaning to vote for McCain in the event that Hillary will not be our nominee.)