Richardson Explains How Obama and Clinton Woo

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


richardson_headshot.jpg This whole article is worth reading because it has Bill Richardson’s personal thoughts on the Clinton and Obama campaign’s attempts to court his endorsement. But this passage is particularly interesting:

Their manner of courtship — one wooing, the other arm-twisting — seemed to reflect the candidates’ different personalities and campaign styles, he said.

Obama preferred the soft sell, calling Richardson every three days or so — “dialing the phone himself, no operator” — for long discussions about policy and campaign issues. The two developed a bantering relationship, building on the camaraderie they shared off-camera during debates, when they would roll their eyes at some of their rivals’ statements.

Clinton was more persistent and tactical. There were eight or more phone calls a day, Richardson said: “Bill calling, Hillary calling, friends of mine that were in the Clinton administration, Clinton operatives, Clinton Hispanic operatives, New Mexico Clinton Hispanic operatives.”

Some callers, who suggested Richardson had an obligation to back Clinton, did more harm than good. “I think the Clintons have a feeling of entitlement . . . that the presidency was theirs,” Richardson said, and the persistent lobbying from “Washington establishment types” convinced him of a need for some fresher faces on the scene.

The Clinton campaign must be pulling out its collective hair — a persistent, efficient, and professional full-court press got bested by one dude picking up the phone himself and calling once every few days.

That sense of entitlement that Richardson describes must have been awfully strong. Or maybe it was this.

A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS?

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and we can't afford to come up short. But when a reader recently asked how being a nonprofit makes Mother Jones different from other news organizations, we realized we needed to lay this out better: Because "in absolutely every way" is essentially the answer.

So we tried to explain why your year-end donations are so essential, and we'd like your help refining our pitch about what make Mother Jones valuable and worth reading to you.

We'd also like your support of our journalism with a year-end donation if you can right now—all online gifts will be doubled until we hit our $350,000 goal thanks to an incredibly generous donor's matching gift pledge.

payment methods

A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS?

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and we can't afford to come up short. But when a reader recently asked how being a nonprofit makes Mother Jones different from other news organizations, we realized we needed to lay this out better: Because "in absolutely every way" is essentially the answer.

So we tried to explain why your year-end donations are so essential, and we'd like your help refining our pitch about what make Mother Jones valuable and worth reading to you.

We'd also like your support of our journalism with a year-end donation if you can right now—all online gifts will be doubled until we hit our $350,000 goal thanks to an incredibly generous donor's matching gift pledge.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate