NM Hispanic Gov. Richardson endorses Obama

[suedanim]

Very good news. :thumbsup:

New Mexico's Richardson endorses Obama (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23740104/)

Hispanic governor says presidential hopeful a 'once-in-a-lifetime leader'


SANTA FE, New Mexico - New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, the nation's only Hispanic governor, is endorsing Sen. Barack Obama for president, calling him a "once-in-a- lifetime leader" who can unite the nation and restore America's international leadership.
Richardson, who dropped out of the Democratic race in January, is to appear with Obama on Friday at a campaign event in Portland, Ore., The Associated Press has learned.
The governor's endorsement comes as Obama leads among delegates selected at primaries and caucuses but with national public opinion polling showing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton pulling ahead of him amid controversy over statements by his former pastor.

Richardson has been relentlessly wooed by Obama and Clinton for his endorsement. As a Democratic superdelegate, the governor plays a part in the tight race for nominating votes and could bring other superdelegates to Obama's side. He also has been mentioned as a potential running mate for either candidate.

No primaries are scheduled until Pennsylvania's on April 22, a gap in time Obama hopes to use for such announcements to assert that he is the front-runner for the nomination.

'Once-in-a-lifetime leader'

"I believe he is the kind of once-in-a-lifetime leader that can bring our nation together and restore America's moral leadership in the world," Richardson said in a statement obtained by the AP. "As a presidential candidate, I know full well Sen. Obama's unique moral ability to inspire the American people to confront our urgent challenges at home and abroad in a spirit of bipartisanship and reconciliation."

Richardson's endorsement also could help Obama pick up support among Hispanics, who are the nation's largest and fastest-growing minority.

Clinton has been the favorite of Hispanics in primaries and caucuses, according to exit polls. She won the New Mexico caucus in early February with a nearly 2-to-1 advantage among Hispanics.

Richardson backed Obama despite his ties to Clinton and her husband, the former president. He served as ambassador to the U.N. and as secretary of the Energy Department during the Clinton administration. Last month, Richardson and former President Clinton watched the Super Bowl together at the governor's residence in Santa Fe.

Clinton a 'distinguished leader'

Richardson praised Hillary Clinton as a "distinguished leader with vast experience." But the governor said Obama "will be a historic and great president, who can bring us the change we so desperately need by bringing us together as a nation here at home and with our allies abroad."

Richardson was a roving diplomatic troubleshooter when he was a congressman from New Mexico, negotiating the release of U.S. hostages in several countries and meeting with a rogue's gallery of U.S. adversaries, including Saddam Hussein and Fidel Castro.

"There is no doubt in my mind that Barack Obama has the judgment and courage we need in a commander in chief when our nation's security is on the line. He showed this judgment by opposing the Iraq war from the start, and he has show it during this campaign by standing up for a new era in American leadership internationally," Richardson said.

Obama said he was "deeply honored" to have Richardson's support.

"Whether it's fighting to end the Iraq war or stop the genocide in Darfur or prevent nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists, Gov. Richardson has been a powerful voice on issues of global security, peace and justice, earning five Nobel Peace Prize nominations," Obama said in a statement.

[Buck Laser]

Endorsements by other political figures can be helpful, if not always convincing. I'm glad that Richardson endorsed Senator Obama, because he had the best resume of all the original democratic aspirants, and he was my initial choice. I hope his endorsement will carry some weight among Hispainc voters, who have tended to be Clinton supporters. I'd also like to see Richardson as a part of Obama's team.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Richardson is another part of the problem, like Obama, Clinton, McCain and the rest of the "major party" candidates.

Richardson failed to garner support as a candidate himself, and his message is in many areas, not Constitutional, much like his party cohorts, Obama and Clinton.

[suedanim]

Richardson is another part of the problem, like Obama, Clinton, McCain and the rest of the "major party" candidates.

Richardson failed to garner support as a candidate himself, and his message is in many areas, not Constitutional, much like his party cohorts, Obama and Clinton.



Richardson is another part of the problem, like Obama, Clinton, McCain and the rest of the "major party" candidates.

Richardson failed to garner support as a candidate himself, and his message is in many areas, not Constitutional, much like his party cohorts, Obama and Clinton.


Examples? I'd really like to hear how his message in many areas is not constitutional.

[4Reaganomics]

The whole idea where he supports indivual inalienable rights, like the right to chose your own doctor (liberty), being destroyed.

[suedanim]

The whole idea where he supports indivual inalienable rights, like the right to chose your own doctor (liberty), being destroyed.



I hope you can come up with other examples because that one can easily be argued that while you want the right to choose your own doctor, tens of millions just want the right to have any doctor at all.

Insuring domestic tranquility and promoting the general welfare could be interpreted to mean that sick people, children... should not suffer and/or die because they lack health insurance and cannot pay for health care.

[ViolaLee]

How does Richardson support "the right to choose your own doctor" be destroyed?

That's nonsense. In fact, Richardson supports Obama who wants all Americans to have a health care plan as good as the congress gets. I'm very sure the congress gets to choose their own doctor. My crappy plan now is an HMO, which forces me to go to one of their doctors. Who supports that? Bush? It all began with Nixon, this HMO deal, when his policy help Kaiser Permanente begin. Nixon thought it was a great idea to let them deny health care to paying customers so Kaiser could make a profit.

Obama and Richardson are not working for that kind of health care. Hillary either.

[Osborn F. Enready]

suedanim said:
Examples? I'd really like to hear how his message in many areas is not constitutional.

Example 1:
Gun Control:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm

Example 2:
Healthcare:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Barack_Obama_Health_Care.htm

Those are the two major issues, but there are several others. I don't want to be accused of bringing too much to the table at once to adequately debate each issue.

Obamas views on individual rights is "hypocritical" in many areas, from his views on forms of wealth redistribution to his views on the role of government concerning interfering in individual lives directly. His vision of UHC is entirely Unconstitutional, as are his views on gun control and the role of government relating to gun ownership of individuals.

He also supports a very Unconstitutional role of government regarding treaties and alliances with foreign nations.

His views on corporations, and what is required to achieve justice from HIS perspective are warped and will likely crush what is left of industrial USA.

Pick a particular topic where you feel strong defending him, and we can debate.


Suedanim said:
I hope you can come up with other examples because that one can easily be argued that while you want the right to choose your own doctor, tens of millions just want the right to have any doctor at all.

They have EVERY RIGHT to gain access to a doctor, but it is NOT the role of government to PROVIDE FUNDING, only to insure FAIR ACCESS.

Suedanim said:
Insuring domestic tranquility and promoting the general welfare could be interpreted to mean that sick people, children... should not suffer and/or die because they lack health insurance and cannot pay for health care.

It could be interpreted that way, if you had no concept of the forefathers intentions or the debates that took place before the ratification of the document, ONLY AFTER the inclusion of the Bill of Rights.

Your RIGHT is to have equal access to the market of healthcare. YOU HAVE THAT RIGHT. You DON'T have a right to be provided free of charge, healthcare, food, land or shelter.


The reason we accepted the worlds poor, weak and tired is because we knew if they were RECOGNIZED as competent individuals, and RECOGNIZED for their natural rights to keep the fruits of their labor, pursue happiness, own land and private property, they would provide for themselves and their famillies. Most of the worlds poor, weak and tired came from dictatorial, tyrannical or misgoverned nations, my heritage included.

They didn't come for a handout, they came for a RIGHT to work, and a RIGHT to enter voluntary choice, mutual conscent contracts.

They didn't come for a free lunch, they came for a chance to earn their money with honest labor, and the RIGHT to keep it.

They didn't come in hopes of being issued a tract of land and a shack to squat in, they came for a RIGHT to purchase and improve private property, the RIGHT to better themselves, and the RIGHT to pursue happiness by all the gifts NATURE provided them with respect to the equal rights of others to do the same.

AS an American Citizen in the United States, you are recognized as owning and being RESPONSIBLE FOR, your own body. You clean it, you maintain it, you feed it, you take the blame for the actions it committs under YOUR control, because only you can control it. Its called individual responsibility.

Once government enters healthcare, it enters the realm of "life management". It gives them "precedent" to dictate lifestyle, and outlaw those actions it doesn't "approve".
It gives government the right to THIEVE from citizens labor, or at the minimum, to intervene and control private business and interfere in peoples lives.

Under the Constitution, the government does not have that right. If you made an amendment that specified UHC, it would directly contradict other standing and recognized individual rights, therefore it COULD NOT BE PASSED without effectively making null and void other recognized rights.

It is a scham.

Viola said:
How does Richardson support "the right to choose your own doctor" be destroyed?

That's nonsense. In fact, Richardson supports Obama who wants all Americans to have a health care plan as good as the congress gets.

Who is paying for that plan congress gets?!? You think every American has the right to steal from every other American?

Viola said:
I'm very sure the congress gets to choose their own doctor. My crappy plan now is an HMO, which forces me to go to one of their doctors.

My father, who is on GOVERNMENTS MEDICARE MEDICAIDE plan as his primary provider, and on United Healthcare (recognized by the AARP) as his secondary provider can't get the doctor HE WANTS, thanks to government interference.

Whats the reason given? United Healthcare and the government don't pay their bills on time, if at all, in full.

That is not what is needed at the national level.

Viola said:
Who supports that? Bush? It all began with Nixon, this HMO deal, when his policy help Kaiser Permanente begin. Nixon thought it was a great idea to let them deny health care to paying customers so Kaiser could make a profit.

Obama and Richardson are not working for that kind of health care. Hillary either.

Your right! Obama, Richardson and Hillary are working towards full tilt Communist healthcare, the removal of individual rights in replacement of some perverted form of United Nations Human Rights, and selling your national, and individual sovereignty down the river.

:fight: