As I was turning in late last night I received a couple of emails that Bill Richardson was endorsing Barack Obama. I was surprised — but not. The NY Times notes that Obama’s speech on “race” was apparently the deal maker:
Mr. Obama’s address on race in Philadelphia on Tuesday appeared to sway Mr. Richardson, who sent word to the senator that he was inspired and impressed by the speech, in which Mr. Obama called for an end to the “racial stalemate” that has divided Americans for decades. Aides said the endorsement was locked down over the following two days.
Richardson “joined Obama at spirited rally” today and said Obama “demonstrated his leadership abilities this week with his speech on race.”
As Jane Hamsher points out today, there are a “few unanswered questions” about Richardson’s endorsement. Those questions have everythingto do with the role of the Superdelegates and the fact that Richardson “seems to be talking out of both sides of his mouth” on the issue.
What I have a problem with are people espousing a set of rules strictly on the basis of advocacy for their candidate, without regard to whether it’s a good thing for the party, long-term. Just because it’s Good For My Candidate Now doesn’t make it a smart way to run the party over time, and those who are indulging in these kinds of proclamations at a volatile moment without taking that into consideration are not showing either good judgment or leadership.
If Bill Richardson has changed his mind regarding the rules that should govern superdelegates, he should say so. With all the talk of him being a potential vice presidential nominee now, this dramatic about-face when it becomes convenient smacks of political opportunism.
Richardson has always struck me as a bit of an opportunist.