marjorie says...
The Clinton onslaught on Bill Richardson over his endorsement hasn’t let up, and I think it makes the Clintons look pretty desperate. Let’s think about what they’re saying for a second. We have two basic premises for why Bill Richardson endorsed Obama:
1. He’s decided that Obama is going to win and wants a new job.
2. He actually believes what he says about Obama.
Regarding the first, I want to point out that the Bill Clinton we know would act similarly, in a heartbeat, when it comes to advancing his own agenda, regardless of questions of loyalty (Lani Guinier anyone?). That aside, Bill, Hill, and Bill are all three career politicians. That the Clintons would expect Richardson to not deliberately advance his own career in order to advance that of Bill Clinton’s wife is kind of silly, if you ask me.
Regarding the second, the Clintons imply that what Richardson actually believes shouldn’t matter at all. All that should matter is loyalty to them. As though the Democratic Party is actually a large organized crime outfit and Bill Richardson is (was) one of their Lieutenants.
To follow the Clinton logic, we should want our political leaders to place blind loyalty above what is right. And even further, they are implying that they don’t respect Richardson’s opinions all that much in the first place. All they want is for him to do his duty and stay in his place.
This is very revealing about them actually, and I don't really think it inspires loyalty to begin with. While the media spins it as a “fiery break-up,” the rest of us should recognize that the Clintons are playing to the gut-check most of us have when it comes to “loyalty” for their own political gain. And it isn't very honest.
As for Richardson's motivations, I figure they're based in a little bit of both premises. When combined they clearly would create a compelling juggernaut for him.
An Aside
Speaking of ethics, did you guys see that Monahan promises the results of his "college challenge" tomorrow? Who wants to lay odds on what the general outcome will be...? An incremental approach at the Roundhouse?
|