What a fake farce. I am not impressed with this overweight arrogant pig.

Obama and Edwards are losing and so attacking Clinton. The Republicans are doing the same thing to their front runners. Richardson is correct, talk about the issues! Both Obama and Ewards ironically said they weren't going to get negative. Obviously they're the flip floppers and weak.

Richardson's comments made me look twice….hey maybe he can be Hillary's V.P.

Edwards always gets negative, and Obama the guy who spouts Hope is full of crap and where he is now because of his color, not dispite it. Plus dude, your Mom is white, she raised you alone so give her some respect.

I agree with Governor Richardson. If we want to win this election in 2008 we should not be putting words in the Republican mouths by being negative against our own Democratic candidates. We have a very good set of people running for the office of President. Let's keep things positive from now on. I am leaning towards one candidate but if he continues to be negative, he will not get my vote.

If posters here think Governor Richardson is angling for a VP shot, then the entire Democratic Party is angling for a concession speech in 2008 and four more years not in the White House. Read your history folks I the last 100 years only two Senators have been elected to the Presidency – Warren Harding and John Kennedy. 4 out of the last 5 Presidents were Governors. I guess 12 years out of office will make the Democrats serious for 2012.

Its true JE/Bo they didn't get a knock down punch out there whimps…thumbs up to Bill R.Hillary was sound ,and I could tell she is tired of there nonsense,when they should be running there campaign,strong and confident.

Bill Richardson couldnt be trusted to run the DOE, why would one believe that he could properly run the US Government?

Bad attitude alert:

“There’s going to be plenty of time to get negative with the Republicans but now is not the time to start food fights,” Richardson said.

Why can't he plan on taking the high road – and focusing on the issues – in the general election? He thinks it ought to be a mudslinging contest between the parties? What good is that for the USA?

Do we want candidates that will seriously discuss issues or just sling mud at each other? He does not impress me.

I agree with Governor Richardson. Democrats should support their candidate of choice due to individual preferences on the issues, not because they are against another candidate. I would be willing to support any of the Democratic leaders in a general election, considering they are leaps and bounds ahead of the Republican “frontrunners” in the critical areas of ideas and competency.

I think this heading should be, "Richardson Blasts Obama and Edwards For Being Negative."

Richardson is angling for Hillary's VP slot. He's as transparent as her..

Bill Richardson you've lost my support. It feels like you're sucking up to Hillary to me. Just desperate!

While it would nice if no one went negative, it is also unlikely. It seems to me that Richardson is angling for the Veep spot.

What the heck are you talking about Richardson, Obama has not been attacking Hillary, just ask the media.

I respect Bill R.'s political resume. It is the most impressive of all the presidential candidates running Democrat or Republican. But pointing out differences between Hillary and themselves is not negative campaigning. Obama and Edwards are trying to overcome the Democratic electorate position that Hillary, Barack and John are all the same, therefore, Hillary has Bill Clinton and she would be the best Presidential candidate. Bill Richardson already knows he doesn't have funding and/or charisma that some of the lending candidates have. Obama has already publicly stated that he is running for President, not VP. Edwards has already been a VP candidate and I'm sure he doesn't want to be Hillary's VP candidate. Its plain to see that Bill R. has given up running for President and is running to be VP (preferably to Hillary). Bill Richardson should just drop out of the presidential race and endorse Hillary. That would be the honest thing to do!

Really? I haven't heard anything negative come from Obama. Just pointing out some flip-flop or policy blunder she has made is not negative campaigning. It is pointing out why she isn't as well qualified to be president as he is.

Sure, she'll jump in and say "what happened to the politics of hope" but it sort of falls short since she doesn't have a clue as to what the term "politics of hope" means. It means that we don't have to assume that we must hate all conservatives as our enemies. It means we can have strong differences and talk with each other and come to a reasonable consensus. This seems impossible to some, but in fact, not only is it possible, it is simply common sense. Clinton should get some, along with Richardson. Just saying something and repeating it long and loud does not make it true.

Go to the candidate campaign sites, look at the issues, the speeches and the blogs there. Then you will be informed and able to make up your own mind. Don't support a candidate simply because someone else told you to. You do have a mind, use it.

Mr Bill Richard is right. Stop all the negative stuff,against each other, concentrate on the repubilican if anything. Not whole lot there.

So he's basically proposing to not hold other democrats responsible for their actions/votes/statements then right? I would hope that someone who wants to be president would have the fortitude to stand up and say something is wrong, or what s/he disagrees with.

We need to know where the candidates differ and how they act, because when they become president we're not going to hold a national election for every decision, they're going to make them on their own. If they are two-faced or their actions don't match their idealistic rhetoric, then that IS an issue.

Thank God someone has the guts to step up and say something. It is one thing to speak about policy differences but when Edwards calls into question Clinton's honesty or purpose for running that is crossing the line.

Its no secret Richardson is running for VP — so what does he do – suck up to Hillary – thats reprehensible.
THESE ARE NOT NEGATIVE ATTACKS – THEY ARE DRAWING CONTRASTS ON THE ISSUES.

Koodos to Richardson.

I think the negative campaigning within our own political party is juvenile at best. At the end of the day, we need to ALL stand behind our candidate whoever he/she is so this bashing upfront makes the bashers look foolish. Especially if one is selected to be a running mate.

Everyday more and more it sounds like Richardson is running for VP, Debating with another candidate about differences on issues is what politics is about, get out of the way if you can't handle it. I believe the debate should be focused on issues not a candidates personal life.

Richardson,
Shut up, we know you are irrelevant at this point and that you are running for VP for Hillary so dont give us that BS about negative campigning!

Clinton and Richardson are two serious candidates. Obama and Edwards are playing childish games.

Shame on Obama and his sidekick, Edwards…! Do losers like them have to state crap when their campaigns are falling to a bottomless pit?

Shame on these loosers.

I have to agree with Sen's Obama and Edwards on this one, I think lobbists should be bared from politics altogether. Whats so negative about thay?

Governor Richardson – If you can't understand the need for candidates for office to point out their differences (which Barack Obama has been doing)and negative campaigning (calling another candidate "naive" which Hillary did) then you sir have no business running for the office of President of the United States of America.

Richardson is just realizing he needs to try and hedge a VP spot, incorrectly assuming that Hillary Clinton will win the primary… pretty sick, Richardson. Your baseless allegations against other candidates is obviously politically motivated. Grow a backbone!

What is Bill's mother doing with him on the Campaign trail (in photo)??

Bill Richardson – competing for VP position against Obama and Edwards!

I agree but it's like a necessary evil to be negative against each other in campaigns. If Bill R. would take the lead and tell voters how he has a better record and just keep the focus on past leadership qualities, not on attacks, maybe voters would see that. Yeah, that'll work.

I totally agree with Richardson.

Obama hasn't launched a -single- negative attack. Like Richardson says, “The differences on the issues should be highlighted, but personal attacks I believe should not take place.”

Obama called Hillary's policy on Iran flawed. Hillary called Obama naive. Obama attacks Hillary's policy. Hillary turns around and launches personal attacks on Obama. "He's naive! He's irresponsible!"

Get real! Someone has to question Hillary, since she refuses to answer the hard questions! And obviously, the media isn't going to do it for us! Outlining policy distinctions is crucial for democratic voters to make educated choices.

Sounds like someone is buttering up someone else for a possible vice-presidental appointment. Although I feel that Richardson would make a great add on as vice president. His pole numbers would suggest that I have as good of a chance as becoming president as he does. So I don't blame him for doing this.