The Today co-anchor interviewed Bill Richardson, who's gotten more media mileage out of his Obama endorsement than a Prius coasting down a New Mexico mountain. Lauer's suggestion came toward the end of the segment.
MATT LAUER: Let's talk about political reality. Right now as we stand, with the delegate count, the popular vote count, the state-by-state count. Do you see any scenario under which Senator Clinton could win this nomination where it will not appear to large numbers of Democrats as if the nomination were stolen?
Richardson wouldn't bite on Lauer's controversial suggestion.
BILL RICHARDSON: Well, look, anything is possible in a campaign, but it's very difficult for her to accumulate more delegates than Senator Obama. It's 131 ahead, Obama's won 30 states, he's gonna do well in the remaining states. The delegate count, the popular vote is in favor of Senator Obama.Matt closed with what sounded like a fond wish that Hillary would hear Richardson's message of coalescing around Obama.
And my point here is instead of having this bitter, contested effort all the way to August, that we come forth and decide on a nominee based on the reality that the Democrats need to be unified against a very strong John McCain.
LAUER: Alright. We'll have to see if Senator Clinton's campaign was listening to you, Governor. But anyway, I appreciate your time this morning.
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Humpty- Dumpty is at it again...
March 24, 2008 - 10:49 ET by ThalpyTheir words get to mean whatever they want them to mean. Humpty- Dumpty is at it again. Matt Lauer must understand that when you win something, you win it, and when you steal something, you have stolen it.
um..what?
March 24, 2008 - 14:29 ET by UndercoverConservativehow is a co-anchor allowed to refer to the Democratic Party as "we"? TFA quotes the biased S.O.B. as blatantly assigning himself membership, as if the other side of the issues are "opponents" to be contested with. How can that be considered even remotely unbiased?
What's next? KKK on college sports? Che Gueverra on Democracy and Free Speech in Latin America? Iran on the UN Security Council? oh wait...
"to call an illegal immigrant an "undocumented alien" is the same as calling a streetcorner drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist".
Matt Lauer thinks that
March 24, 2008 - 11:11 ET by marpelMatt Lauer thinks that everyone is just so stupid that they wouldn't realize how stupid he sounds. I don't understand why Bill Richardson couldn't just say, "What the hell are you talking about?". LOL
Except that Richardson has
March 24, 2008 - 11:20 ET by Mark FinkelsteinExcept that Richardson has no real interest in doing so. As an Obama supporter, he surely didn't mind Matt floating the notion that a Hillary nomination would be illegitimate.
Yes, you're right.
March 24, 2008 - 11:49 ET by marpelYes, you're right.
Nonetheless, my biggest regret out of this administration, besides the border issue, is that Bush and his staff didn't come back at the media like they should have when they would ask disingenuous questions like this.
Will Hillary Remember Lauer's Editorializing?
March 24, 2008 - 12:22 ET by allanfLimbaugh calls Richardson's endorsement of Obama an "act of political betrayal". James Carville says far worse. He is hardly the person to field such a silly question.
Hillary is not Bush. Does anyone think her campaign will let Lauer's editorializing through questioning go unanswered?
Is Richardson a SUPER DELEGATE? Matt did get him on that!
March 24, 2008 - 11:19 ET by PawpawNNot taking Lauer as good for anything, but I believe Gov Richardson is a SUPER DELEGATE and he[Lauer] did hit him on what he previously said about such and now says differently. I'm loving seeing these DIMS just duke it out! You know that AL GORE is just waiting in the wings!!
PawpawN, this will make me a leper in the NB community...
March 24, 2008 - 15:37 ET by R D Helm...but, as things currently stand, I agree with you. I think that when the dust settles in Denver (or when the fires have been extinguished and the smoke dissipates, whichever the case may be) Al Gore will emerge from the chaos at the top of the dem ticket.
If either Hillary or Obama shows up on top of their ticket, they are going to lose big in November. Maybe not as badly as Carter lost to Reagan in '80, but darn close to it.
Let's face it, there is no way that Hillary is going to quit prior the the convention, I don't care how the rest of the primaries go. Obama's "Wright problem" is going to hurt him going down the primary stretch, but not enough to knock him out of it.
Remember, Hillary has been working for this moment her entire life. She will not just walk away in order for un up-start freshman senator to just take it from her, even if it means the destruction of the party. She will have to be forced out.
Obama will go into the convention with an over all lead in the delegate count, but not with as much of one as many people think. Still, if he gets the top spot at the end of the day, it will be curtains for the dems in November as well.
I know there are many who say that, no matter who the dem nominee is, the dem voters will all close ranks just to beat the republicans in November. I don't think so this time, given the racial and gender dynamics present, and the fact the the republican nominee is nearly as liberal as the dems on so many issues. They have an acceptable alternative in McCain.
One of them is going to have to go. The only question is, which one can be booted completely without serious long-term damage being done to the party? Hillary Clinton, that's who. If she gets the hook, there will be some serious grumbling in the party, mainly among the feminists and certain others, but not the meltdown that would occur if Obama got the boot.
What the dems will need will be somebody to step in and "unify" a split and damaged party. As time will be short, they will need someone who already has national name recognition, but who doesn't conjure up memories of a recent defeat in the minds of the voters (John Kerry). There is really only one person out there capable of doing this, and that is Al Gore.
Al's AGW empire is showing signs of cracking, and he really doesn't need the money anymore. I mean, just how much money does one man need? He can't keep this scam going forever. Plus, there are many dems who will vote for him in order to correct what most of them see as a past "injustice" when he lost in 2000.
I think it quite plausible the eventual ticket will be Gore/Obama.
Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!
RD, a part of me hopes
March 24, 2008 - 15:51 ET by marpelRD, a part of me hopes you're right about the Gore/Obama ticket. I think the Republicans would win by a landslide if that happens. I don't think Gore is electable, but then I didn't think Obama would have gotten as far as he did.
That certainly would turn the Dem race into a modern-day Gong Show.
marpel, I think a Gore/Obama ticket...
March 24, 2008 - 16:04 ET by R D Helm...would be tougher for the republicans than a ticket headed up by Clinton or Obama.
Look, we all know Al is a kook, honestly, but many in the dem party still love the guy. He also has something that the other two dems in this race do not, and that is eight years experience as VP.
I really think this combination would be far more of a formidable challenge for the republicans in November. At least McCain wouldn't (hopefully) be afraid of going after Al they way he appears to be afraid of going after Obama.
I just cannot believe the dems would be stupid enough to put either Obama or Clinton at the head of the ticket.
Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!
...and in the meantime
March 24, 2008 - 16:11 ET by bigtimer...and in the meantime Hagel has silently been waitin' in the wings for a Bloomie/Hagel ticket...or anything...anybody...anyhere!
ROFLMAO!
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
RD: don't see why the
March 24, 2008 - 16:28 ET by Mark FinkelsteinRD: don't see why the reasoned argument you have put forward as to why you believe Gore will wind up as the Dem nominee should make you a leper here. All things considered I think it's more likely Obama will wind up the nominee but I'd be surprised and disappointed if people gave you a hard time for what seems to be a very reasonable and well thought-out conjecture.
Mark, thanks, you have made my day.
March 24, 2008 - 16:59 ET by R D HelmActually, I really meant the "leper" part to be more in the realm of tongue-in-cheek, really, as I have mentioned this possibility several times over the last week here and have gotten a few sideways glances (you can always tell what some are thinking, even if they don't actually come right out and say it) from some of my closer friends here. No, the names haven't begun falling off my buddy list or anything. Not yet, anyway. :-)
I know I am wired a little differently than most, but I just find it a little puzzling that many people are so sure that Obama or Hillary are going to be the dem nominee when the convention ends. I honestly believe either of them would seriously damage the party as well as get clobbered in the GE come November.
I have to believe that many in the Democratic Party see it this way as well, and just might make a serious attempt to rectify the situation while it is still retrievable.
If I were a dem voter, that is exactly what I would be hoping for.
Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!
Hey man no sideways looks
March 24, 2008 - 19:14 ET by red_dragon311Hey man no sideways looks here, August is a long way away it would not suprise me at all
I was a professional twice over - an analyst and a therapist. The world's first analrapist
RD, here's a congressman who
March 24, 2008 - 22:31 ET by Mark FinkelsteinRD, here's a congressman who thinks you're onto something: http://www.tcpalm.co...
Mark, thanks for the link.
March 24, 2008 - 22:58 ET by R D HelmInteresting take.
I also have noticed that quite a few of my HotAir com padres also think it quite possible that Gore will wind up on top when all is said and done.
It's a good thing I have plenty of Orville Redenbacher in the pantry.
Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!
3 months ago I wouldnt have
March 24, 2008 - 11:19 ET by Dan The Man 23 months ago I wouldnt have much hope for a GOP win, now I dont think there is much hope for a Dim win. If the Dims start eating their own and the mud starts slinging mixed in with rocks we will see a GOP win. Here's mud in your eye.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
The "Liberals"
March 24, 2008 - 11:27 ET by iveseenitallAs an oldtime t.v. star, William Bendix, used to say, "What a revoltin' development this is" --for the "liberals".
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
waitaminnit
March 24, 2008 - 14:33 ET by UndercoverConservativeI thought Bugs Bunny came up with that!:)
"to call an illegal immigrant an "undocumented alien" is the same as calling a streetcorner drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist".
A better question: Can the dems continue this farce?
March 24, 2008 - 11:28 ET by PamCan they continue with a straight face? I mean really! The sd's were put there for a reason..Lauer and Williams don't really want to discuss that little fact though do they?
Super Delegates Aren't So
March 25, 2008 - 00:50 ET by CGatton"...sd's were put there for a reason..."
Yes they were, and much as I hate to admit it, they were put there for exactly this reason. Because of the overly vocal lunatic left fringe of the party, and the indisputable fact that it's the feverish party fanatics that vote in primaries, the party officials could see the handwriting on the wall. Heck, they'd just been smacked up alongside the head with it when they instituted the superdelegates. They expected that more and more frequently the primary process would generate a general election candidate that was unpalatable to the public, being far too close to the edge for moderates to rally behind, and therefore inherently unelectable. So the superdelegates were charged with ensuring the party nominee would be electable.
In this case, we have Obama lowering himself into the water off the left edge of the dock, while Hillary is merely dangling her feet. In her mind, as well as in reality, she is the more moderate of the two, by a considerable margin, and if she can convince the supers of that - and she may do so - then they must, be the reason for their existence, overturn the primary, and throw the nomination to her. Unfortunately for the Democrat Party, in the big picture they see only the left 50% of the political spectrum, and a moderate position to them is someone who sits on the 25% point of the spectrum.
Only in an arena warped by their perspective could Carter be called a conservative - he actually sat on the 40% line - while Hillary is a moderate - about 20% line - and Obama too liberal - at 10%. This has been the failing of the Democrat Party for decades - their moderate is much too far to the left for the American electorate, all other things being equal. Hence, even with the 'advice and consent' of the supers, they insist on nominating unelectable candidates. In both cases where they have won the election - Carter and Clinton - the candiates were considered unelectable by the party officials, because of their 'conservatism,' however the officials lacked the ability to override the primary process.
Besides the above mentioned problem, that the supers themselves cannot determine what is an electable philosophy, there is another flaw inherent in the makeup of the party itself. When the sum and substance of the Democrats is based on divide into small groups and conquer, how do you handle the situation where two of the small groups each provide a fringe candidate, and these particular groups are steeped in political bile and bitter antagonism, real or imagined? At this juncture, choosing one must necessarily antagonize the other.
In my view, they deserve both their problem, and each other.
V/R
Clyde
"...the aspirants to tyranny are either the...men of the state, who in democracies are demagogues,... or those who hold great offices, and have a long tenure.." - Aristotle, Politics, c350BC
Oh I'm quite sure Hillary
March 24, 2008 - 12:37 ET by bigtimerOh I'm quite sure Hillary is listening loud and clear...she isn't about to quit regardless...plus who knows what is yet to come out about Obama, as if whatever Team Clintoon has would make any difference to the looney leftists everywhere anyway....I guess one problem she has here and I do believe she realizes quite well it the msm and leftist pols have picked their man....kind of reminds me of the same thing with the Clinton team when they ran.
What goes around comes around...
LMAO!
Like I heard early this morning from Richardson, he doesn't know what Obama's got...but he's got something....(pretty pathetic is it not?)
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
[[Can Hillary Win
March 24, 2008 - 13:51 ET by Nazareth[[Can Hillary Win Nomination Without It Being Seen as 'Stolen'?]]
Sure, why not? 40+ people mysteriously died who had close connections to hte clintons without it being seen as murder (Some even 'comitted suicide' according to official autopsy reports, by cutting off their own heads, shooting themselves in the back of the head several times, stabbing themselves mant times etc)- so why not a stolen election without it being seen as stolen?
We have the same problem in
March 24, 2008 - 13:57 ET by Clear thinkerWe have the same problem in NC with Democrats. My favorite to date is the one where a guy who was going to testify against some Dems was found dead with a plastic bag tied around his head, and his hands tied behind his back. It was ruled a suicide. No really, they officially called it a suicide.
"Abstain from McCain"
Yep...suicide by murder
March 24, 2008 - 14:03 ET by bigtimerYep...suicide by murder is/has always been a fact with the left.
They always have it worked out that way...new twisted logic and all to-boot....the Clintoon team just has perfected it...practice makes perfect.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
Hi bt... Hope you had a
March 24, 2008 - 14:08 ET by Clear thinkerHi bt...
Hope you had a good Easter!
I can follow-up that one with a guy who was also going to spill the beans on a Dem, but he too committed suicide before they went to court. He was found in his basement with a bullet in his head. Here's the weird part.... witnesses say they heard 2-3 shots fired.
I would think one bullet to the head would have done the trick, but this guy wanted to make sure so he fired off a couple more to make sure he had killed himself. Yeah right!
"Abstain from McCain"
Hi Ct... Right back at
March 24, 2008 - 14:12 ET by bigtimerHi Ct...
Right back at you and yours regarding Easter!
As to your post...like you say..."yeah, right!"
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
we need a new term
March 24, 2008 - 14:44 ET by UndercoverConservativefor whatever Clinton drags out to stop Obama before the nomination. We can't just call it an "August Surprise" because it's too derivative of the October variant. But it'll be something new, a dirty underhanded trick that shows it's all about power, and Party loyalty be damned if they're in the way of that lust for power.
"to call an illegal immigrant an "undocumented alien" is the same as calling a streetcorner drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist".
"Do you see any scenario
March 24, 2008 - 13:54 ET by marpel"Do you see any scenario under which Senator Clinton could win this nomination where it will not appear to large numbers of Democrats as if the nomination were stolen?"
It all depends on what the meaning of "stolen" is....
A DNC prediction... If
March 24, 2008 - 14:01 ET by Clear thinkerA DNC prediction...
If this is not settled by the DNC Convention things are going to get very, very ugly!
Just imagine Obama going into the Convention with the lead in delegates and popular vote. Then by magic Hillary steals the nomination. Can anyone say "riots"?
"Abstain from McCain"
Riots?
March 24, 2008 - 23:40 ET by shawn228Hmmm, I don't know about riots, but I can see them getting very upset. They might even be upset enough to not vote for Clinton and pencil in Obama. Imagine that eh?