First Richardson’s…

For nearly three decades, I have been honored to serve my state and our nation in Congress, at the U.N., as Secretary of Energy and as governor. So when the President-elect asked me to serve as Secretary of Commerce, I felt a duty to answer the call.I felt that duty particularly because America is facing such extraordinary economic challenges. The Department of Commerce must play an important role in solving them by helping to grow the new jobs and businesses America so badly needs.

It is also because of that sense of urgency about the work of the Commerce Department that I have asked the President-elect not to move forward with my nomination at this time.I do so with great sorrow. But a pending investigation of a company that has done business with New Mexico state government promises to extend for several weeks or, perhaps, even months.

Let me say unequivocally that I and my Administration have acted properly in all matters and that this investigation will bear out that fact. But I have concluded that the ongoing investigation also would have forced an untenable delay in the confirmation process. Given the gravity of the economic situation the nation is facing, I could not in good conscience ask the President-elect and his Administration to delay for one day the important work that needs to be done.

So, for now, I will remain in the job I love, Governor of New Mexico, and will continue to work every day, with Lieutenant Governor Diane Denish, to make a positive difference in the lives of New Mexicans. I believe she will be a terrific governor in the future.I appreciate the confidence President-elect Obama has shown in me, and value our friendship and working partnership. I told him that I am eager to serve in the future in any way he deems useful. And like all Americans, I pray for his success and the success of our beloved country.

Then Obama’s…

It is with deep regret that I accept Governor Bill Richardson’s decision to withdraw his name for nomination as the next Secretary of Commerce.Governor Richardson is an outstanding public servant and would have brought to the job of Commerce Secretary and our economic team great insights accumulated through an extraordinary career in federal and state office. It is a measure of his willingness to put the nation first that he has removed himself as a candidate for the Cabinet in order to avoid any delay in filling this important economic post at this critical time. Although we must move quickly to fill the void left by Governor Richardson’s decision, I look forward to his future service to our country and in my administration.

More as it develops…

One thing’s for sure…you can expect the Obama team to announce a new Commerce Secretary fairly quickly so they can move past this Richardson bobble.

Some surprising news today, especially since Richardson was so often mentioned as a possible VP pick:

A Democratic official says New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson has withdrawn his nomination to be President-elect Barack Obama’s commerce secretary.

He cited a pending investigation into a company that has done business with his state as the reason, NBC News reported.

President-elect Barack Obama has accepted Richardson’s decision to withdraw with “deep regret,” according to NBC News.

Here’s more about the investigation…

A federal grand jury is investigating how an investment company won more than $1.5 million in work advising the state of New Mexico after making contributions to the political action committees of Gov. Bill Richardson, President-elect Barack Obama’s choice to be commerce secretary. [...]

The FBI and federal prosecutors are focused on how the Beverly Hills-based CDR won lucrative fees from the New Mexico Finance Authority in 2004 very soon after donating $100,000 to Richardson’s efforts to register Hispanic and American Indian voters and pay for expenses at the Democratic National Convention in 2004, according to the sources. FBI agents have already asked numerous witnesses whether the governor’s aides were involved in CDR’s hiring.

Looks like there’s fire in that smoke, otherwise Richardson wouldn’t be pulling out.

More as it develops…

Looks like that endorsement paid off, but what he’s really after is Hillary’s State position.

From CNN:

Richardson, one of the leading Hispanics in the Democratic Party, had been seeking the Secretary of State post but lost out to Sen. Hillary Clinton. Obama aides have told CNN that Obama is “on track” to nominate Clinton as his secretary of state after Thanksgiving. [...]

Two Richardson advisers said privately that Richardson had been hoping State would be his prize after facing political heat for picking Obama over Clinton, but the governor is willing to accept another post in hopes that he will move up in the Cabinet later in the administration.

If I were Richardson, I wouldn’t hold my breath. If Hill is takes the SoS position, she’ll be there for a while since she’s giving up a cush Senate spot.

On a sidenote….one thing for Dems to worry about here is that two, popular high profile southwest Governors (Napolitano being the other one) are being snatched up by Obama, leaving power vacuums in both states. And since New Mexico has emerged as an important swing state, it’ll be important to watch what happens in the next couple years.

Truth be told, Richardson is more qualified for the job, but having Hillary in there would be the most beneficial for an Obama administration.

And let’s face it, I’d rather have Hillary as our face to the world right now than Bill Richardson.

The details…

CNN has learned that President-elect Barack Obama spoke with New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson Friday to discuss the post of Secretary of State.

A senior Democratic source tells CNN that Richardson’s name has always been on Obama’s list for that post. Obama has also gauged Sen. Hillary Clinton’s interest in the post if she were offered it. If Clinton does not express interest in the post, then Richardson and others would be candidates for the job.

Why Richardson too?

Well, Obama wants to make sure he has two names floating around out there just in case Hillary says no. In other words, she doesn’t get special treatment just because she’s Hillary Clinton.

More as it develops…

Here she is with David Gregory explaining Lincoln’s leadership and Obama’s intentions to stock his cabinet with campaign rivals…

First Biden. Then Hillary. And now we get word of Bill Richardson.

But who will be the Republicans in the cabinet?

More as it develops…

I stole the pic and line from Ezra, but what about Bill?

After all, he’s got the swing state, gubernatorial experience, a demonstratable post-partisan track record and his foreign policy credentials are literally second to none in this or nearly any VP crop I can remember.

Plus, his endorsement of Obama came at a time when the junior senator really needed something to take the focus off of the Jeremiah Wright dust up, and don’t think Richardson didn’t know that.

Discuss…

First, the negative campaigning and “you owe us” arguments really didn’t sit well with him…There was that “3 a.m.” TV ad, in which Clinton questioned Obama’s personal mettle. “That upset me,” Richardson said.

There were some ham-fisted phone calls from Clinton backers, who questioned Richardson’s honor and suggested that the governor, who served in President Clinton’s Cabinet, owed Hillary Clinton his support. “That really ticked me off,” Richardson said.

And after he really considered it, he was uneasy about the dynastic machinations of the Clintons…

He finally concluded that he had settled his debt to the former president: He had worked for Clinton’s election in 1992, helped pass the North American Free Trade Agreement as part of his administration, stood by him during the Monica S. Lewinsky sex scandal, and rounded up votes to fight impeachment.

“I was loyal,” Richardson said during an extended conversation over breakfast this week at the governor’s mansion in Santa Fe. “But I don’t think that loyalty is transferable to his wife…You don’t transfer loyalty to a dynasty.”

What’s interesting about the loyalty argument is how often Hillary has said Bill won’t be a significant part of the presidency…and yet Richardson should have supported Hillary because of the things Bill did for him? Seems to put the lie to that argument.

(source: LA Times)

In a column entitle Loyalty To My Country, Bill Richardson explains away Jim Carville’s ridiculous Judas comparison as exactly what it is…blind partisan nonsense.

Carville and others say that I owe President Clinton’s wife my endorsement because he gave me two jobs. Would someone who worked for Carville then owe his wife, Mary Matalin, similar loyalty in her professional pursuits? Do the people now attacking me recall that I ran for president, albeit unsuccessfully, against Sen. Clinton? Was that also an act of disloyalty?

And while I was truly torn for weeks about this decision, and seriously contemplated endorsing Sen. Clinton, I never told anyone, including President Clinton, that I would do so. Those who say I did are misinformed or worse. [...]

I do not believe that the truth will keep Carville and others from attacking me. I can only say that we need to move on from the politics of personal insult and attacks. That era, personified by Carville and his ilk, has passed and I believe we must end the rancor and partisanship that has mired Washington in gridlock.

Personally, I was actually really surprised that Carville was so forceful with his comments, because, as Richardson points out, it’s a classic illustration of what we’re trying to move away from. I guess Jim couldn’t help himself.

I’m not sure what Carville’s plan was with that remark – most likely he was just being the Raggin’ Cajun, getting into a scrap because he doesn’t know how else to compete. Or maybe he’s setting up a “Clinton as victim” storyline. After all, if Richardson is Judas, that makes Clinton … yeah, ok, that’s not going to work.

Clinton has gotten overly harsh treatment from the media and others but she’s no victim. In fact, I think the whole “sense of entitlement” aspect is the single biggest reason why she’s behind. She’s the New England Patriots of the political world – so convinced of her own invincibility that, when the tides turned, she didn’t know how to play from behind. Carville’s comment suggests she’s still struggling with the underdog role and won’t likely find a way to reverse her fortunes before time runs out.

Oh Mark Penn, you give us some more Penn Spinâ„¢ and it is a glorious thing to behold.

From Washington Wire:

“The time that he could have been effective has long since passed,” he continued. “I don’t think it is a significant endorsement in this environment.”

Perhaps sensing that it may not be effective to dismiss out of hand a popular Hispanic governor’s political clout, campaign spokesman Phil Singer chimed in. “We respect Gov. Richardson,” he clarified. “But at the end of the day this campaign is about Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama.”

Who here thinks if Richardson had endorsed Hillary, Mark Penn would say the exact opposite?

And by the way, here’s Richardson’s endorsement speech…

So why now? Because Hillary literally can’t win without Florida and Michigan and Richardson made a point to say that she should have dropped out…

It is time, however, for Democrats to stop fighting amongst ourselves and to prepare for the tough fight we will face against John McCain in the Fall.

She won’t, but she should.

By the way, Chuck Todd has been one of the most even handed pundits I’ve seen during this campaign. He should be the model, not the exception.

After weeks of speculation, Governor Bill Richardson is endorsing Barack Obama. At this point I’m not sure any endorsements are going to significantly swing voter support one way or another. But this is very good news for Obama in terms of superdelegates as Richardson is well-respected within the party. The governor had this to say:

“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, 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 would make a fantastic vice president choice for either candidate and I’d assumed that was why he’d been withholding his endorsement. Now that he’s behind Obama, we’ll see what role he assumes in the campaign and any shadow cabinet.

What else can one make from this remark about the March 4th contests?

Meanwhile, Bill Richardson said on Face The Nation today that it’s important for the party to unify behind a nominee soon, rather than continue to have a negative campaign that will further divide the party for the general election against John McCain.

“I just think the D-Day is Tuesday,” said Richardson, who has declined to make an endorsement since his exit from the race. “We have to have a positive campaign after Tuesday. Whoever has the most delegates after Tuesday — a clear lead — should be in my judgment the nominee.”

Everybody knows that Barack will have the most delegates after Tuesday. So if Bill isn’t endorsing the idea of Hillary dropping out, I need some help as to what he actually means by this.

Obama needs it. Hillary wants it. Kennedy could swing it.

From Wash Post:

Richardson’s torn. He served in the Clinton White House, first as ambassador to the United Nations, then as Clinton’s Secretary of Energy. “I have a history with the Clintons,” Richardson said. “And I’ve always liked her. She always seems very genuine.” But Richardson considers Kennedy, who’s long been respected by Hispanics, as “a mentor.” In 1982, when Richardson ran for Congress for the second time — he lost two years before — Kennedy flew to Santa Fe and campaigned for him. “That might have been the reason I was elected,” Richardson said. And he said he likes Obama, telling a story about how Obama saved him during one of last year’s Democratic debates:

“I had just been asked a question — I don’t remember which one — and Obama was sitting right next to me. Then the moderator went across the room, I think to Chris Dodd, so I thought I was home free for a while. I wasn’t going to listen to the next question. I was about to say something to Obama when the moderator turned to me and said, ‘So, Gov. Richardson, what do you think of that?’ But I wasn’t paying any attention! I was about to say, ‘Could you repeat the question? I wasn’t listening.’ But I wasn’t about to say I wasn’t listening. I looked at Obama. I was just horrified. And Obama whispered, ‘Katrina. Katrina.’ The question was on Katrina! So I said, ‘On Katrina, my policy…’ Obama could have just thrown me under the bus. So I said, ‘Obama, that was good of you to do that.’”

Election are all about moments and that one is priceless. Because at the end of the day these candidates really are just people and being able to demonstrate that you’re a good person in a pinch definitely has its advantages. You wouldn’t think that something like this could swing Richardson toward Obama, but he did go out of his way to mention this kindness, so make of that what you will.

So why is Richardson so important? Well, he’s easily the most respected Hispanic elected official in America right now, as well as one of our most experienced politicians. If he throws his considerable gravitas behind one of these candidates it means something. If Obama gets this one, the dam could break just enough to pull even with Hillary in some of the Super Tuesday states. If Hillary gets it, she’ll stop the bleeding and make sure the Latino vote won’t stray.

To close, here’s a hint to which way Richardson leans…

“If I do endorse, it’s going to be a gut feeling. It’s not going to be about statistics, about past ties,” Richardson said. “I’ve been on the campaign trail with both of them. I feel that I know them. I feel I know the issues. I feel I know what makes them both tick.”

Tick tock Bill…

Will Hillary pick up the lion’s share of his supporters because they liked Richardson experience and see her as the next best thing?

From Politico:

MERRIMACK, N.H. — New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson ended his campaign for the presidency Wednesday after twin fourth-place finishes that showed his impressive credentials could not compete with his rivals’ star power.

Richardson planned to announce the decision Thursday, according to two people close to the governor with knowledge of the decision. They spoke on a condition of anonymity in advance of the governor’s announcement.

The Richardson campaign would not comment on the governor’s decision, reached after a meeting with his top advisers Wednesday in New Mexico.

Again, I think this is great news for Hillary, but I guess we’ll see…

Hillary and Kucinich stayed steady at 29% and 2% respectively, while Edwards is now at 17%, down from 19%. This basically spells doom for him I think. Richardson has also lost a point, going from 5% to 6%, so I don’t know if he’s really going to want to stick around until the next debate or not, but maybe he’s sticking in there because he thinks he’s siphoning support from Hillary? Who knows.

Here are Zogby’s thoughts:

“Obama’s margin over Clinton has opened up. He leads among all groups except women and voters over 65. In a development that could prove significant in later closed-primary states, Obama has pulled ahead among Democrats 40% to 34% — as he did in Iowa in the closing hours.”

More as it develops.

This evening, the Democratic presidential candidates will participate in the the ABC News/Facebook/WMUR debate in New Hampshire. The participating candidates are Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson and John Edwards.

8:41: The Republican debate has ended and now all the candidates, both Democratic and Republican are on stage. Interesting to see them all together like that.

8:42: There were some hoots and hollers in the press room when Rudy and Hillary greeted each other on stage.

9:03: Here we go, from left to right – John Edwards, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson and Hillary Clinton.

9:04: Gibson starts with what he believes is the greatest threat to the U.S. – that being, Nuclear terrorism, of course. Question: How aggressively would the candidates go after potential nuclear terrorists.

9:05: Obama states that he would be willing to go into Pakistan to pursue nuclear terrorists, if he had actionable intelligence. Does anyone remember Obama jumping up and down when Pakistan signed a peace agreement with Waziristan, which makes it significantly harder for us to pursue terrorists in the region? I certainly don’t.

9:08: Edwards says that if he knew where Bin Laden is, he would go get him regardless of where he is. Gives a scary scenario of Pakistan losing control of its nuclear weapons and states that an ad hoc approach to this will not work, rather we need a cohesive policy. Indicates that he would work towards ridding the world of nuclear weapons.

9:10: Richardson says that he would always use diplomacy first in any foreign policy decision. Honestly, this statement is the equivalent of one of these candidates stating “When I get up in the morning, I promise to stand up, put on a pair of pants and then proceed with my day…always ensuring that I have pants on.” Richardson goes on to say that he would use leverage to push Musharraf out and establish a caretaker government of technocrats. Again, this is such a mind bogglingly oversimplification that a red mark appeared on my forehead without me even needing to slap it.

9:12: Hillary makes a quick reference to aggressive action taken by the Bill Clinton’s administration in the 90s. Then goes on to note 5 specific issues regarding the situation that need to be thought of and addressed. Hillary is best in the details and should stay there, although she can be a bit long winded. One thing worth noting is that she stated, ‘Musharraf is already president and these elections are about the parliament.’ She was criticized recently for a series of gaffes regarding this subject, where she incorrectly stated that Musharraf was running in the elections.

9:15: Richardson wants to remember history. Talks about Iran, the Shah, but does a terrible job making a strong connection to the present discussion.

9:18: Gibson asks another question. This time about what we wish we would have done the day after a nuclear weapon is detonated in an American city. Edwards jumps in and states that the first thing we need to do is find the people responsible for it immediately. Edwards notes that it’s important for the president to react, but react strong…oh and to also remain calm. This distinguishes him from the other candidates because…why? I mean seriously, this isn’t a real answer. The question was about what we WISH WE WOULD HAVE DONE….not….what should the demeanor of the president be after the attack.

9:20: Clinton goes back to the first part of the question. Hillary talks about nonproliferation, we would have wished we had done more and then states how she would go about doing it. She criticizes security at ports. I’m going to have to go ahead and call bollocks on this (but NOT the dog’s bollocks, for our English readers). Here’s why I say this: Hillary didn’t even vote on the US-Peru free trade agreement. One of the major issues with that legislation is the fact that it provides port security concerns (i’ll update later with a link to the post i’ve already written on this). If she really cared, she could have argued about it on the trail and voted against this legislation or worked to have the security issues resolved, but she didn’t. Oh, and Obama didn’t vote on this either.

9:24: Richardson chimes in. He says that he would “immediately seek negotiations with the Soviet Union.” Now is when I stop paying attention to someone that talks about diplomacy and experience and then still refers to Russia as the Soviet Union (would we like it, if they referred to the U.S. as “the colonies” or “the confederacy”?)

9:26: Gibson asks Hillary to contrast her and Obama on her contention that Obama is “not ready.” Hillary seriously dodges the question and says that there are still questions that people can ask.

9:28: Obama doesn’t let Sen. Clinton get away with it. Says that the story that Gibson was referring to was based on quotes from people in her campaign. Then turns to health care. He then Clinton on her major critique of his healthcare plan – the charge being that he leaves out 15 million people. Obama explains that, his plan is about reducing costs and that it’s a legitimate area for disagreement and that he offers choice.

9:30: Hillary responds. She offers a really strong first response, regarding the fact that Obama has mandates for children but not for adults…Obama effectively counters that it’s about choice and since children aren’t in a position to make that choice, it’s mandated. Hillary tries to follow up, but flubs and then launches into a new attack — that Obama is a flip-flopper (queue creepy organ music). Attempting to lump Edwards in with her “defensive” position, Hillary criticizes Obama for changing positions on mandates, the Patriot Act and war funding.

9:34: Edwards doesn’t bite. Instead, he goes on to repudiate Clinton’s claim that Obama is a flip flopper. Then he goes on to attack Hillary by saying that the real debate is about who is best to be that agent of change, calls Hillary the status quo and again references his #2 finish in Iowa.

9:35: Hillary is not having any of that. Offers examples of things she has changed – like bringing about the Family Medical Leave Act and other legislation. Money quote: “I’m not running on a promise of change, I’m running on 35 years of change.”

9:36: Richardson talks about being to hostage negations more civil than this debate, basically asks what is wrong with him. I could answer that — he has described his mind as mush and is somewhat erratic, otherwise, he would be a really strong candidate.

9:37: Edwards whines…no no, really, I know it’s hard to believe.

9:41: Question: Is the surge working? Hillary says no and explains by clarifying what the underlying purpose of the surge is. Richardson believes it’s a massive failure and talks about the need for a regional solution. He keeps pounding the table, which makes an annoying noise in the mic and undermines a rare Richardson rhetorical flurry.

9:43: Obama doesn’t say the surge is working either. Credits a significant portion of reduced violence in a mindset amongst Iraqis that America may be leaving soon. I wonder if there’s any real evidence for this, it would certainly be really interesting.

9:47: Edwards is asked about his previous support of timetables and whether he would still have a timetable if the generals said it was not a good idea. Edwards says that it’s the job of the president to set policy, and that while he would listen to generals. Then gives plan: 40,000-50,000 troops out within the first year and an end to all combat missions in Iraq.

9:49: Richardson takes issue with Edwards’ contention by noting that leaving troops there means they become targets. Stresses the need to remove all the troops within 1 year…and again, hits the table in a way that makes a very loud noise.

9:51: Hillary references her request last year that the Bush administration assure the Senate that they are preparing plans for withdrawal…then says “when” she is president, she will being a withdrawal almost immediately.

[Continued at 2008Central.net]

Tonight, the New Hampshire Democratic Party is having its annual 100 Club Dinner. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Bill Richardson and Dennis Kucinich will be delivering speeches at this event. You can watch it live on C-SPAN or online beginning at 6:30pm.

5:00: We’re inside the building and press and guests are funneling in slowly. There’s a sizable Obama contingent outside that chanted as the staff here unreasonably forced press (and us!) to wait outside seemingly indefinitely, and we saw what looked like a small mountain of Clinton supporters down the road. All 5 remaining Democratic candidates plus Howard Dean are scheduled to make an address tonight.

5:32: The place is really starting to fill up now and people are eating.

5:51: The guests at this event are staring at the people in the press area as though there’s something quite magical going on in here. (press area pictured right)

6:38: And … the program is about to get underway, to the upbeat tunes of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Nothing inspires more than monkeys arbitrarily starting to worship a giant pole simply because it’s there. For the record, all the candidates plus Howard Dean and the NH Dem Representatives (both who have endorsed Obama) and Gov. Lynch (whose wife has endorsed Clinton) are slated to speak.

6:49: They’re running the Space Odyssey video again! And once again comparing their primary to a bunch of monkey worshipping a pole that suddenly appears; worse, this appears to have been done without a lick of irony.

6:54: There’s a lot of implicit comparisons of Obama to JFK, who was the first guest of a 100 Club Dinner; JFK is referred to in opening remarks as “the young senator from Masschusetts.”

7:00: After the pledge of allegiance and national anthem, it’s time for awards.

7:05: Jeanne Shaheen is introduced just before John Lynch and she gets a significantly lower amount of applause than Lynch. Effect of Obama backers not cheering as loudly?

7:06: Lynch speaks briefly, introducing his wife who has endorsed Clinton. Touts New Hampshire as first primary. Thanks Dodd and Biden for their commitment and they are apparently here! They get a solid round of applause. Lynch continues, touting retail politics.

7:11: Former Rep. Richard Swett speaks, touting the large crowd and Jeanne Shaheen’s run for Senate.

7:19: Donators are recognized, with Obama’s campaign getting a massive ovation, and no one else cheering much; the Clinton campaign was listed second, and its people were not ready to cheer, apparently. But the Obama people have made their presence felt, in a volley past the Clinton’s campaign’s bow.

7:24: Edwards is not coming. Apparently he feels this event is too much of a bigwig event. It’s a party fundraiser, though, and it’s hard to see how allowing all the focus to be on Clinton and Obama will help him.

7:26: Howard Dean speaks. After noting his nostalgia, he talks up the big turnout, then quoting Reagan – yes Reagan – in saying it is “morning in America” once again. That should get some people huffy. Talks up 80% of youth going to Democrat caucus in Iowa, and Democratic caucuses being large. Makes a joke about him not going on lists of states, and strikes a pose. Says that the Democrats are mostly the same, there are no significant differences. That has to help Obama, right? Says that Republicans and Bush are the biggest problem.Says Hastert and Lott resigned to avoid being subject to new ethics law for lobbyists. Talks up Republican attack machine and the problems with certain voting boxes, specifically citing my home county, Cuyahoga county in Ohio. Says 3,000 people are here, and that constant involvement is what gets the vote out. Says he wants to go back to person to person contact. That’s … ummm … a bit outdated. I say that as someone who has seen canvassers up close. Says greatness has to be earned and more clichés, such as America being “healed.” Says there are no red states or blue states, just … purple states. (Obama almost had his penultimate line stolen). Says Martin Luther King would be impressed at the makeup of the Democratic candidates. Compares GOP candidates to the 50s, and finally calls for Democrats to elect the future. That speech has to make Obama’s camp smile.

7:40: Another round of applause for Dodd and Biden. Another round of applause for Dick Gephardt. And also a round of applause for Elizabeth Edwards, who is here. I’m baffled as to why John Edwards is not here; he headlined it 3 years ago!

7:45: We’ve reached the “Attack John Sununu” portion of the program. We’ll return when something we care about does.

7:50: Paul Hodes, who has endorsed Obama, speaks. He mentions Obama themes such as unity and change, while attacking Bush with Edwards-esque rhetoric. One forced applause plus a bunch of screaming into the microphone = headache for me. Obama people force some applause at the end.

7:56: State democrats are here and happy to be in the majority.

8:00: Carol Shea-Porter, another Obama endorser, speaks. She talks broadly about Democrats being right for people of all parties. Talks about the value of SCHIP while remaining otherwise neutral.

[Continued at 2008Central.net]