"As I'm chatting with Obama, the moderator says, 'Governor Richardson, what do you think of that?' And I look at him like a deer in the headlights. I was about to say that I hadn't heard, when Obama puts his hand over his mouth and says, 'Katrina.' So I gave my four-point plan on Katrina. When I was done and the debate moved on, I looked over and said, 'Thanks, you're okay.' He said, 'Nothing to it, brother.'"
Commerce Secretary-designate Bill Richardson on how his new boss saved him during a Democratic primary debate.
Showing posts with label Bill Richardson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bill Richardson. Show all posts
Saturday, December 06, 2008
Sunday, January 06, 2008
New Hampshire Debates
If you missed the New Hampshire debates, WMUR provides a great compilation of video highlights. Nothing Earth-shattering, but it's interesting how the two approaches in the Democratic field are solidifying (Obama and Edwards preaching change and Richardson and Clinton preaching experience), and it's interesting how much each of the Republican candidates enjoy taking pot-shots at Mitt Romney (article and video).
CQ provides its "Mosts and Bests" on both the Republican and Democratic debates.
Oh, and Hillary's angry response to Edwards taking sides with Obama is getting a good deal of press. See below:
CQ provides its "Mosts and Bests" on both the Republican and Democratic debates.
Oh, and Hillary's angry response to Edwards taking sides with Obama is getting a good deal of press. See below:
Thursday, January 03, 2008
The Caucus Breakdown
Chuck Todd provides a thoughtful breakdown of the potential outcomes of the Iowa Caucuses and what they would mean to the various candidates.
In summary, John Edwards has to win because he has invested so much time and effort in the state over the last few years. A loss would be devastating. Because of the resources at their disposal, both Clinton and Obama need to win but could stomach a loss. Meanwhile, Richardson, Biden and Dodd are fighting for 4th place. Finshing behind the Big 3 would be considered a victory while anything less would make their campaigns more irrelevant and most likely knock them out of the race.
A win for Huckabee would obviously be huge but, considering the amount of time and money spent by Romney in Iowa, he could also declare victory with a strong 2nd place finish. A win by Romney gives him momentum going into New Hampshire while a 2nd place finish would shift that momentum over to a surging McCain (who will be rooting hard for Huckabee) in New Hampshire and South Carolina. A respectable showing by McCain ("north of 15%") would be considered a victory for a candidate who hasn't put much effort into the state. And the only thing keeping Thompson in the race would be a top 3 finish and if that doesn't happen, he will likely throw his support to McCain.
It's still muddled but I can see some possible trends developing. The significant outcome of the Democratic Caucus will be the fate of Edwards and to whom the third tier candidates will shift their support. My guess is an Obama victory in Iowa, followed closely by Edwards and Clinton in a near statistical tie. Biden comes in a strong 4th followed by Richardson and then Dodd.
On the Republican side, it seems more clear. Huckabee wins in Iowa, followed by Romney then McCain (at around 17%), Thompson, Paul then Giuliani. Thompson then drops out and endorses McCain, who then crusises to a victory over a staggered Romney in New Hampshire and South Carolina. Romney has to bow out and Giuliani's irrelevance in the early states prevents him from competing with a surging McCain. McCain then outlasts Huckabee, who has a more difficult time winning with less resources and in states with smaller Evangelical populations. Soon after, Huckabee bows out and is picked as a running mate by McCain who attempts to shore up support from the Republican base.
In summary, John Edwards has to win because he has invested so much time and effort in the state over the last few years. A loss would be devastating. Because of the resources at their disposal, both Clinton and Obama need to win but could stomach a loss. Meanwhile, Richardson, Biden and Dodd are fighting for 4th place. Finshing behind the Big 3 would be considered a victory while anything less would make their campaigns more irrelevant and most likely knock them out of the race.
A win for Huckabee would obviously be huge but, considering the amount of time and money spent by Romney in Iowa, he could also declare victory with a strong 2nd place finish. A win by Romney gives him momentum going into New Hampshire while a 2nd place finish would shift that momentum over to a surging McCain (who will be rooting hard for Huckabee) in New Hampshire and South Carolina. A respectable showing by McCain ("north of 15%") would be considered a victory for a candidate who hasn't put much effort into the state. And the only thing keeping Thompson in the race would be a top 3 finish and if that doesn't happen, he will likely throw his support to McCain.
It's still muddled but I can see some possible trends developing. The significant outcome of the Democratic Caucus will be the fate of Edwards and to whom the third tier candidates will shift their support. My guess is an Obama victory in Iowa, followed closely by Edwards and Clinton in a near statistical tie. Biden comes in a strong 4th followed by Richardson and then Dodd.
On the Republican side, it seems more clear. Huckabee wins in Iowa, followed by Romney then McCain (at around 17%), Thompson, Paul then Giuliani. Thompson then drops out and endorses McCain, who then crusises to a victory over a staggered Romney in New Hampshire and South Carolina. Romney has to bow out and Giuliani's irrelevance in the early states prevents him from competing with a surging McCain. McCain then outlasts Huckabee, who has a more difficult time winning with less resources and in states with smaller Evangelical populations. Soon after, Huckabee bows out and is picked as a running mate by McCain who attempts to shore up support from the Republican base.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Lets Try This Again
Coming on the heels of the “Alan Keyes et al. GOP Debate”, the Democratic presidential candidates squared off in what would be their final debate before the Iowa Caucuses . In what seemed to be a much more fluid and substantive debate (either the moderator worked out the kinks from the day before or the candidates were simply more polished and substantive - probably both), all of the candidates showed us glimpses of why they deserve to be in this race.
For the most part, Obama and Clinton fought to a draw - an outcome that will undoubtedly be seen as an Obama victory. The two also provided one of the best off-the-cuff moments of the debate – score another for Obama.
It's also becoming clear that as Joe Biden continues to impress on the issues and as folks begin to learn more about the man and his life’s journey, the more plausible a top-3 finish in Iowa becomes. Much of his growing support will likely come from the front-runners and the undecided vote, but the rest could largely come from Richardson and essentially knock him out of the ballgame. Despite an impressive resume and tremendous experience, Richardson is simply not that good of a candidate and fails to impress each step of the way.
On the other hand, John Edwards showed us glimpses of the John Edwards that captivated Democrats in 2004. For supporters, his ability to reach voters through his eloquence hasn’t shown through as much this time around, but it’s certainly refreshing to see.
Chris Cillizza offers his debate winners and loser.
For the most part, Obama and Clinton fought to a draw - an outcome that will undoubtedly be seen as an Obama victory. The two also provided one of the best off-the-cuff moments of the debate – score another for Obama.
It's also becoming clear that as Joe Biden continues to impress on the issues and as folks begin to learn more about the man and his life’s journey, the more plausible a top-3 finish in Iowa becomes. Much of his growing support will likely come from the front-runners and the undecided vote, but the rest could largely come from Richardson and essentially knock him out of the ballgame. Despite an impressive resume and tremendous experience, Richardson is simply not that good of a candidate and fails to impress each step of the way.
On the other hand, John Edwards showed us glimpses of the John Edwards that captivated Democrats in 2004. For supporters, his ability to reach voters through his eloquence hasn’t shown through as much this time around, but it’s certainly refreshing to see.
To remember that in the midst of political hoopla, the glorification of politicians and presidential candidates, that somewhere in American tonight, a child will go to bed hungry; somewhere in America tonight, a family will have to go to the emergency room and beg for health care for a sick child; that somewhere in American today, a father who's worked for 30 or 40 years to support his family will lose his job.Given that Edwards has the best organization in Iowa and got his kick-start in 2004 from a solid showing in the Caucuses, a top-3 finish for his campaign is critical.
And if that's what's at stake in this election. What's not at stake are any of us. All of us are going to be just fine no matter what happens in this election. But what's at stake is whether America is going to be fine.
Chris Cillizza offers his debate winners and loser.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
