Loyalty to My Country

Bill Richardson writes:

My recent endorsement of Barack Obama for president has been the subject of much discussion and consternation -- particularly among supporters of Hillary Clinton.

Led by political commentator James Carville, who makes a living by being confrontational and provocative, Clinton supporters have speculated about events surrounding this endorsement and engaged in personal attacks and insults.

While I certainly will not stoop to the low level of Mr. Carville, I feel compelled to defend myself against character assassination and baseless allegations.

Carville has made it very clear that this is a personal attack -- driven by his own sense of what constitutes loyalty. It is this kind of political venom that I anticipated from certain Clinton supporters and I campaigned against in my own run for president.

I repeatedly urged Democrats to stop attacking each other personally and even offered a DNC resolution calling for a positive campaign based on the issues. I was evenhanded in my efforts. In fact, my intervention in a debate during a particularly heated exchange was seen by numerous commentators as an attempt to defend Sen. Clinton against the barbs of Sens. Obama and John Edwards.

As I have pointed out many times, and most pointedly when I endorsed Sen. Obama, the campaign has been too negative, and we Democrats need to calm the rhetoric and personal attacks so we can come together as a party to defeat the Republicans.

More than anything, to repair the damage done at home and abroad, we must unite as a country. I endorsed Sen. Obama because I believe he has the judgment, temperament and background to bridge our divisions as a nation and make America strong at home and respected in the world again.

This was a difficult, even painful, decision. My affection and respect for the Clintons run deep. I do indeed owe President Clinton for the extraordinary opportunities he gave me to serve him and this country. And nobody worked harder for him or served him more loyally, during some very difficult times, than I did.

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.

As for Mr. Carville's assertions that I did not return President Clinton's calls: I was on vacation in Antigua with my wife for a week and did not receive notice of any calls from the president. I, of course, called Sen. Clinton prior to my endorsement of Sen. Obama. It was a difficult and heated discussion, the details of which I will not share here.

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. In my view, Sen. Obama represents our best hope of replacing division with unity. That is why, out of loyalty to my country, I endorse him for president.

Disloyalty That Merits An Insult

James Carville writes:

Last Friday the New York Times asked me to comment on New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson's endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama for president. For 15 years, Richardson served with no small measure of distinction as the representative of New Mexico's 3rd Congressional District. But he gained national stature -- and his career took off -- when President Bill Clinton appointed him U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and later made him energy secretary.

So, when asked on Good Friday about Richardson's rejection of the Clintons, the metaphor was too good to pass by. I compared Richardson to Judas Iscariot. (And Matthew Dowd is right: Had it been the Fourth of July, I probably would have called him Benedict Arnold.)

I believed that Richardson's appointments in Bill Clinton's administration and his longtime personal relationship with both Clintons, combined with his numerous assurances to the Clintons and their supporters that he would never endorse any of Sen. Hillary Clinton's opponents, merited a strong response.

I was fully aware of what kind of response calling someone a Judas would evoke.

Certainly, it didn't take long for the resign-renounce-denounce complex to kick into high gear.

In a bit of bloviation that brought joy to my heart, Bill O'Reilly pronounced himself "appalled."

Keith Olbermann, about two degrees shy of the temperature necessary for self-combustion, quipped, "So if he's Judas in this analogy, who's Jesus?"

Even Diane Sawyer took the analogy to the extreme, questioning, "Are you saying that he made a deal of some kind when you talk about 30 shekels?"

Others opined that my remark was "tactless" and "ugly."

Heck, I give myself some credit for managing to get the Clinton and Obama campaigns to agree on something -- that neither wanted to be associated with my remarks.

I know enough to know that comparing a former Cabinet secretary and sitting governor to Judas is inflammatory and provocative. I expected the coverage that it evoked.

Was it a desperate gambit for attention? Was I just trying to prove my point that both Samantha Power's resignation from the Obama campaign for calling Sen. Clinton a monster and the Obama campaign hysterically promoting Geraldine Ferraro's misguided statements were equally silly and superficial?

Not really. I was saying what I felt as an individual who -- with no encouragement from the Clintons but as someone who is proud to consider himself a friend of theirs -- thought that Richardson had done something deeply disloyal.

Earlier this month I decried the political environment in which, by whining about every little barb, candidates seem to be trying to win the election through a war of staff-resignation attrition. Politics is a messy business, but campaigning prepares you for governing. It prepares you to get hit, stand strong and, if necessary, hit back. I've worked on enough campaigns to know that the most aggrieved candidate rarely emerges victorious. And for all of the hypersensitivity we're seeing this cycle, this campaign has not been particularly negative or nasty compared with previous elections.

Fully aware of this supercharged environment in which the slightest slight is elevated to the most egregious insult, I waded in -- okay, dove in -- by demonstrating what constitutes a real insult.

I believe that loyalty is a cardinal virtue. Nowhere in the world is loyalty so little revered and tittle-tattle so greatly venerated as in Washington. I was a little-known political consultant until Bill Clinton made me. When he came upon hard times, I felt it my duty -- whatever my personal misgivings -- to stick by him. At the very least, I would have stayed silent. And maybe that's my problem with what Bill Richardson did. Silence on his part would have spoken loudly enough.

Most of the stuff I've ever said is pretty insignificant and by in large has been said off the cuff and without much thought to the potential consequences. That was not the case in this instance. Bill Richardson's response was that the Clinton people felt they were entitled to the presidency. In my mind, that is a debatable hypothesis. But, even more than that, I know that a former president of the United States who appointed someone to two Senate-confirmed positions is entitled to have his phone calls returned.

If Richardson was going to turn on the Clintons the way he did, I see no problem in saying what I said. Because if loyalty is one virtue, another is straight talk. And if Democrats can't handle that, they're going to have a hard time handling a Republican nominee who is seeking the presidency with that as his slogan.

Wealth Is A Common Factor Among 2008 Candidates

The NYT reports:
Former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York, who just six years ago told a divorce court he had only $7,000 in assets under his control, has amassed a net worth of more than $30 million, much of it from paid speeches.

Former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, who has spent the last three years crusading against poverty, also reported about $30 million in assets. His income included nearly half a million dollars for advising an elite investment fund and $40,000 for directing a poverty studies program at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Edwards reported their assets in personal financial disclosure forms released Wednesday by the Federal Election Commission. Federal election laws require all the presidential candidates to file the forms. Together, they offer a glimpse of the general affluence of all the primary candidates and the truly extreme wealth of a few.

Neither Mr. Giuliani, a Republican, nor Mr. Edwards, a Democrat, is the richest of the White House hopefuls. That title belongs to Mitt Romney, a founder of the private equity firm Bain Capital, who has said he expects to report as much as $350 million in assets, including a trust for his heirs. Mr. Romney and Senator John McCain of Arizona, both Republicans, and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, have all received extensions of the filing deadline for their forms.

Mr. Giuliani’s $30 million fortune is the most unexpected information to emerge from the disclosure forms so far. During his divorce from Donna Hanover in June 2001, a lawyer for Mr. Giuliani said he had only $7,000 in personal money “under his control.” His salary as mayor of New York at the time was about $195,000, and his local financial disclosure forms showed less than $800,000 in deferred compensation, pension, retirement and mutual funds. He had also signed a contract to write two books for an advance of $3 million.

The latest disclosure form suggests that his biggest source of income was speeches, capitalizing on his celebrity after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. For the period covered by the form — roughly the calendar year 2006 — Mr. Giuliani reported making 124 speeches for as much as $200,000 each and earning a total of about $11.4 million.

Self-help and motivational rallies were his top audiences. He made about 26 speeches at events staged by Get Motivated Seminars, the company of the impresario Zig Ziglar, and 8 more at major events put on by the executive education group HSM.

Mr. Giuliani put a value of $5 million to $25 million on his stake in his consulting firm, Giuliani & Company, which he said paid him about $4.1 million last year. He said he received about $1.2 million in income from his law firm, Bracewell & Giuliani. Mr. Giuliani, who opened a New York office for what had been a Texas firm, said the $1.2 million he received reflected a guaranteed payment of $1 million a year from the firm, plus 7.5 percent of the New York office’s revenue.

Mr. Giuliani’s book has apparently sold well enough to earn royalties covering his $3 million advance; he reported $146,092 in book royalties in 2006. In addition, Mr. Giuliani reported $496 in theatrical royalties. A spokesman for his campaign said Mr. Giuliani earned that money for playing himself in the films “Anger Management” and “The Out-of-Towners,” as well as for guest appearances on the television programs “Law & Order” and “Saturday Night Live.”

Mr. Edwards, who earned his millions as a trial lawyer before running for the Senate in 1998, reported assets worth $14.3 million to $44.7 million in 2004. Since leaving office that year, he has devoted most of his energy to promoting efforts to help the poor, but he has recently faced questions about signing on part time in 2005 as an adviser to the hedge fund manager Fortress Investment Group.

Like many hedge funds — loosely regulated investment companies open only to the rich — some Fortress funds are incorporated in the Cayman Islands to avoid taxes. Fortress has invested in a firm that lent high-interest rate mortgages to low-income homeowners. A recent wave of foreclosures on such so-called subprime mortgages has elicited accusations from Mr. Edwards and others that some firms had engaged in predatory lending. Mr. Edwards has said he was not involved in any specific Fortress investments in that business.

Mr. Edwards’s financial disclosure form shows that he received $479,512 from Fortress in 2006; the forms did not cover 2005. In addition, the forms show that Mr. Edwards sold several million dollars in other assets to personally invest in Fortress funds. His disclosure form put the value of his holdings in Fortress funds at $11.2 million to $24.7 million.

Mr. Edwards has said he joined Fortress both to make money and to learn about finance.

Mr. Edwards’s campaign said he gave $350,000 to charities in 2006, including $333,334 in book royalties.

Eric Schultz, a spokesman for Mr. Edwards, said: “The bottom line is, if you look at where John Edwards comes from and his record, it’s clear what makes him tick: helping those who haven’t been as blessed as he has been. John Edwards is running for president to give every American the opportunities that he’s had.”

Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, another Democratic candidate, also disclosed an investment of more than $50,000 in the Fortress Investment Group. Mr. Dodd reported total assets of more than $1.5 million and a cottage in County Galway, Ireland, that he valued at $100,000 to $250,000.

Not all the candidates were so flush. Representative Duncan Hunter, Republican of California, reported assets worth hundreds of thousands of dollars but also said he owed more than $30,000 in car loans and more than $75,000 in credit card debt. His was the only disclosure form to be filled out in handwriting.

Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, a Democrat, reported owning more than $100,000 in stock and options worth at least $250,000 in a major oil refiner on whose board he once sat.

Former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, a Republican, reported assets valued at less than $700,000, including his retirement benefits as a former Southern Baptist minister. He earned about $150,000 in royalties from his book about his weight loss.

Representative Ron Paul of Texas, a libertarian-minded Republican who often warns that excessive government threatens the economy, has put his pessimism into his portfolio. If the dollar collapses, Mr. Paul will be ready: his favorite investments are real estate, silver and gold.