You can argue whatever you wish of course, but you can't make all arguments with equal credibility. For example, there's a huge chasm between whatever gratitiude Obama might owe the Clintons for campainging for him and what Richardson might owe them for literally giving him two very high profile jobs. It's like saying that you owe the same debt of gratitude to the guy who held the door open for you and the guy who donated a kidney to your child. Does this mean that Richardson owed HRC and endorsement? No and I've never argued that. He did owe a little more class and decency though, IMHO.
Not all metrics are equal, however. You can argue that all Democrats owe the Clintons' something, but even if you accept this (and I don't), you can't argue that they all owe them as much as Richardson, who got two very high profile jobs which helped make him who he is today. I don't argue that he owed them an endorsement, but he did, IMHO, owe them a little more tact than he showed.
I can't believe the GOP will allow a sitting senator in a state where the Democratic governor gets to name a replacement accept an Obama cabinet position. If Franken's win holds up, as now looks likely, and Snowe would resign to take a cabinet postion, we'd get to teh magic 60 seats.
It's not, as you put it, "pure bullshit." These things do hurt candidates. They hurt Lynn Swann when he ran for Governor of PA. They hurt Jack McMullen in VT when he lost the primary to "Fred the Farmer." Clinton's lack of a record in NY did hurt her, ahtough she was obviously able to overcome it. It was very legitimate issue to use against her as Kennedy's spotty (to be charitable" voting record is against her. Arguably, it could hurt worse since Kennedy's been LIVING her, ostensibly for decades, and has a mediocre record.
I think Clinton should resign now. If she did, it would have arguably forced Patteron's hand to name a replacment. Since its an unexpired term, this hypothetical senator could have been sworn in already and would be ahead of the entire freshman class in terms of seniority.
All fair points about her qualifications, but there are some negatives too. For one, her record of voting in NY's election is pretty spotty at best. She didnt' even vote in 94 in the race for the seat that she wants. She also, being a person of wealth, hasn't donated very much to Democratic politicians in the state. There's nothing sexist in pointing out that she has flaws as well as strengths. The voting thing could hurt her badly in an election. While I think any Democrat, including Kennedy would be favored to win the special election, this might give some ammo to the opponent, whoever it may be.
It's not so much that he switched allegiances, it was the way he did it that left a bad taste in my mouth. First, he states taht superdelegates should vote the way their constituents voted. Then when Clinton won his state's caucues, he dismissed her win becaus of its narrowness, depite having not not made this qualification before. Then there's the whole nacho/football charade. He could have handled this way better than he did and I won't give him a free pass for his conduct. I dont hate him and wish him well, but he didn't behave well during this drama.
Supposedly, his endorsement was all about wooing fellow superdelegates and helping squelch Wright fallout. Any time a candidate like Richardson makes an endorsement by waffling the way he did, it does come across as a bit opportunitstic, even if it could have been more helpful if made earlier.
I think it will remain so. One, senators tend to fair much better than governors do in poor economies. Even in bad times, most members of Congress win reelection handily. Second, demographic trends favor the Dems strongly. Yes, we just won the governorship back, but that was the basically the last bastion of GOP statewide strength. We took back the AG's office, the comptroller's office, and Al D'Amato's senate seat much earlier and had been steadily pecking away at the state senate and many localities as well.I don't discount the GOP"s abilityl to win seat back as a whole, but I do discount in in NY for the foreseeable future.
Why is anyone worried about Peter King? He can't win. No Republican can. It is impossible for Republicans to win statewide here, absent a major scandal. King will probably not run when all is said and done anyway.