well, eventhough richardson defended bill clinton, he sure didn't "turn the other cheek" on the Judas comment...

he could have hit back at carville without expanding the battle to the whole clinton campaign.

"...typical of many of the people around Senator Clinton. "

That is not expanding it to the whole campaign.

Massive props to Richardson for saying what many of us are thinking- including busting out the 'e'-word.

Bill, Carville, Terry McAuliffe, Patti Solis-Doyle, they all act as though of course Hillary Clinton should be the nominee; why shouldn't she, since the Clintons have meant so much to the Democratic Party in modern times?

Being a Democratic convert, I've noticed that this party, moreso than the Republicans, is fond of political 'royal families.' The Rockefellers (nowadays at least), the Roosevelts, the Kennedys, the Gores (to an extent), and now the Clintons, all with a multi-generational grip on intraparty power. This isn't necessarily a bad thing- I can't deny the Kennedy family has turned out some excellent progressive politicians. But it can lead to a sense of entitlement, as we're seeing here.

And since the Clintons came to the party as unapologetic outsiders, far more centrist than leftist and from the South rather than New England or the West Coast, I wonder if this sense of extreme personal loyalty is fueled by feelings of inadequacy, a desire to prove that their name can be as powerful and influential within the party as the Kennedy name is.

Bill Richardson has worked for the Clintons. Bill Richardson has been courted by the Clintons. If anybody knows the Clintons and their feelings about "entitlement" who isn't named Clinton, it's Bill Richardson.

Bill is giving you his honest assessment here. He likes the Clintons and is loyal, but he fired a grenade into the Clinton bunker for a reason.

Thanks Bill Richardson, for speaking out about the sense of entitlement pervasive in the Clinton camp.

No one is entitled to the Presidency.

You would think at this juncture where they are behing in popular votes, states won, and total delegates that the Clinton camp would start getting it.

They are too inbred though to realize that it is the new millenium and what Bill and Hill say is no longer the democratic party social gosepel.

The only thing they are entitled to do is retire for the national stage with the little grace and integrity they have left.

I think one of the vilest arguments Clinton supporters have made against Obama's candidacy is the suggestion that "it's Hillary's turn" and "Obama can come back in 8 years and really be ready!"

Bull and shit. There is no line, no cue people get into to have their 'turn' at the office of the Presidency. Circumstances shift and change, the nation and the world are rocked by crises and restored by times of peace. The president comes out of that as much as he or she does out of their politics and policies, perhaps more.

The times shape the presidential race, and in the best of circumstances, there will be a candidate who can sense the currents of society and ride them to victory- and hopefully to success in leading the nation.

I think Barack Obama is the man of the hour right now. This is his time because he's the one who sees the state of affairs most clearly, and who speaks to it most accurately.

If you lived through the McCarthy period, in which guilt by association was the norm, the negative campaigning from the Clintons seems mighty familiar.

"The times shape the presidential race, and in the best of circumstances, there will be a candidate who can sense the currents of society and ride them to victory- and hopefully to success in leading the nation."

Hillary was at center stage after 9/11 as Senator from New York. She had the perfect opportunity to lead. Instead, she followed Bush into Iraq. We needed you Hillary. You had a chance to prove you were entitled to our vote. You let us down. We don't owe you a thing.

If Bill Richardson is playing Judas, I guess Hillary Clinton is playing Jesus Christ. So IF you believe in cosmic jewish zombies who are their own father coming back from the dead, Hillary is in good shape .

Calling a man Judas because he doesn't support your candidate, despite the fact your candidate's husband gave him a couple appointments reeks of entitlement. (i.e. "Hey Richardson, don't you know you owe us? I mean do you really think we would have picked you on merit alone?").

Then there's suggesting the frontrunner should be the vice president of the person lagging behind in pledged delegates, total delegates, and popular vote. Because, didn't you know, the person trailing is actually more entitled to the nomination.

Then there's suggesting that a couple state's primaries should only count, after agreeing they wouldn't, when it's politically expedient. After all, now that they voted they aid the candidate that is entitled to the nomination ... and if you don't agree with me, or my entitlement, then you are in favor of disenfranchisement.

Then there is trying to win via a superdelegate coup because they should surely realize that it is the second place candidate, not the frontrunner, who is really entitled to the nomination. And when they fail to immediatly buy that argument, then you should attack the frontrunner with everything you have because you are entitled to what he is presuming to take from you.

Then there's arguing that caucuses shouldn't count because the caucus-goers apparently have failed to digest that the candidate they keep dissing is actually entitled to win their state's delegates ... but then again, they don't count anyway because they haven't contributed to aiding the entitled candidate.

Then there is failing to concede when you are obviously defeated, despite the fact that your continued candidacy is hurting your own party's chances of winning in November. "Whatever, f*@k my party if they can't figure out that I am entitled to the nomination."

Yup, Richardson must be off his rocker.

"I'm not going to get in the gutter like that," Richardson said. "And you know, that's typical of many of the people around Senator Clinton. They think they have a sense of entitlement to the presidency." -- Bill Richardson

This is the sentiment many of us have been expressing for several months now. The party leadership perennially lags behind the electorate curve. Kudos to Mr. Richardson for finally proclaiming it in the light of day.

The Clintons spin Mr. Richardson's endorsement of Mr. Obama as traitorous on the one hand yet unimportant on the other. So which is it?

The empress has no clothes, and more and more of us are discovering this each day.

Also, comparing Richardson to Judas makes Clinton Jesus...I know someone brought that up already, but it interests me because I thought Obama supporters were the ones who thought their candidate was the messiah.

Interesting.

Carville is a corn-filled turd.

I have accepted that Hillary has a right to carry on her campaign up until now. But I agree the super delegates need to step up and end this.

Obama needs to hit the trail and start campaigning for "down ticket" congress people and senators. If he able to do that soon enough he could stretch his coat tails and we could actually have a chance to have a veto proof Congress and with a little stretch, approach a filibuster proof senate!

Imagine what Obama could achieve with such a congress behind him! The Clintons are smart-they know that the math suggests that the only way she can get the nomination is to wrest it from Obama at the convention which will have dire consequences. Under those circumstances she could NOT win the general election and the Dems could be severely hurt in the congressional/senatorial races.

If either of them cares for Democratic values and the country they would not contemplate winning the nomination under these circumstances.

Time to show some true leadership Hillary and step aside.

Big Bill returns!

A gift from the Easter Bunny

Tena....

I think this may be the first time that 'Clintons' and 'gracious' have appeared in the same sentence.

jed757 nailed it again. The Clintons' arrogance is breath-taking.

And they are junk-yard dogs: if they can't win, they don't care what anyone else (including the party and the country) loses.

If the Democratic party actually had any leadership, or even more than a handful of people who are not decerebrate, they would close this down.

I genuinely admire Bill Richardson's career and continue to support his leadership regardless if I believe the article above better demonstrates his own tactical approach to playing "tit for tat" American politics than it is an example of any substantial shift for either him or the Democratic Party into a new era of political discourse.

Tit for tat tactical politics seem to score mainly in reinforcing line divisions. Richardson is no exception to the rule. Even if all that is offered by a politician is substantially tonal, it would still be refreshing if politicians could live up to the standard of the non-gutter politics they argue to represent.

Ironically, the use of the old line about "entitlement" was once used by Bill Clinton, who at the time, challenged the Bush/GOP and the stereotype white male belief of "self-entitlement". The old barb is pushed back into the "Clinton Camp" [sic] to reinforce the notion they represent oligarchy and Obama represents a people's revolution. Yet, there is no true royal crown or entitlement in American politics. Maybe that is one of the reasons we Americans seem to have this absurd love to watch leaders fail and to cheer for the alleged underdog. This cynicism is real, and it is successfully used to effectively dehumanize Hillary Clinton as “Bush” and a last hold out of 20th century politics. Richardson shows no hesitation to employ these two parlor tricks when he frames politics as "Bush Clinton Bush Clinton" with his call for something new.

While it is Richardson's decision to continue to argue main reasons he selected Obama are his own alleged personal disagreements over campaign tactics and personality conflicts with Clinton campaign surrogates, it’s hard for me to see his arguments as something more than an intentional reinforcement of the base.

By the several “thank you”, “amen” type responses here on this TPM thread, I realize Richardson's tactical statements are viewed as a form of self-affirmation for some. I’m beginning to feel secure in my belief that his announcement to side with Obama isn’t intended to persuade new Obama votes as much as his alignment is intended to reinforce past judgments and hold-the-line. Thus reaffirming the late February line of thinking that Hillary Clinton should withdrawal from the race.

Therefore, when Carville calls Richardson Judas, the point is to equally match Richardson’s assertion "...Clinton Bush Clinton Bush..." are the same, and that Clinton should withdrawal. There isn’t anything biblical to Carville's message. It is tit for tat and Richardson knows his own tactics are dirty pool. There isn’t a highroad here. It’s now up to Richardson to prove he can live and die by his own words, but it is unrealistic for Richardson to stand on the same muddy street and proclaim everyone else is in the gutter.

The superdelegates aren't dumb; they are as aware as any person watching (who isn't completely blinded by partisanship) that to swing the nomination to Hillary would be the equivalent of flipping off the party's biggest and most loyal voting bloc. Who I fully expect would, in such event, stay home in droves. And who would blame them? It's no secret that the Democrats have never really delivered for African Americans despite their stalwart support. Certainly it's no secret to African Americans themselves. For party insiders to step in and hand the nomination over to the candidate who won fewer states, fewer pledged delegates, and fewer actual votes, it would be the equivalent of the Man once again sticking his thumb on the scales to deny a victory hard fought and fairly won. Which is why it won't happen, and Hillary Clinton of all people should be able to see this. That she cannot is a continuing embarrassment for herself, which is sad, but not really the problem.

Amazingly there are people over at Kevin Drum's who are still trying to deny the reality, who are in the "why should we let African Americans hold us hostage" mode. Amazing. As if we were talking about some fringe group, and not the party's biggest and most loyal voting bloc - one which has never been rewarded commensurate with its support. Not to mention that awarding the nomination to the frontrunner isn't a "reward" so much as "fair play".

That's the problem, people like that who will not face reality. If Hillary has any claim as a leader, she needs to acknowledge reality and help those of her followers whose grasp of it is more tenuous than her own to face it as well. Her continuing refusal to face reality and "damn the torpedos, full steam ahead" attitude towards "winning" the nomination, knowing full well the disaster it will bring in November, says everything I ever needed to hear about her leadership qualities.

Much as it seems appropriate to "end it now" the failure to carry on through the remainder of the primaries would be interpreted as a "stab in the back" by those who have not yet voted, and could come back to haunt.

We would be better off just critiquing the operatives who are particularly nasty, and pushing for more civil campaigning -- try to keep it on the high road for the next several months, at least till the April and early May primaries are out of the way.

Likewise -- nothing is stopping us from going after McCain on a range of issues, and not letting him have a free ride for a couple of months. I'd like to see us do something with his economic record, remember he said Economic Policy was not his strong suit. I suspect we already have all the votes from those informed on Iraq who disagree with McCain's stated policy and voting record -- but I believe he is very vulnerable on Economic Policy, and this just might be where voters who now support Hillary, but might vote for McCain could be moved to a heightened sense of McCain's weaknesses on ecomonic matters. I suspect Economic matters will share top of the ticket billing this fall with the Iraq mess.

Hillary (who is playing Jesus Christ to Bill Richardson's Judas in James Carville's {why doen't he go away} new Easter special of the Gospel according to the Clintons),has my permission to take equal credit with Bill for the good he did-IF-she will accept equal blame for the bad ! Including the Monica mess.How can she say she is ready to be Commander-In-Chief on day one, to command the US military-when she could not control ONE man-Bill ? She is a LOSER ! Do the math-for her there is NO Democratic path to the White House ! Want to ignore the will of the people ? You WILL be sorry !

Think about it folks . What has the Bush or Clinton clan done to make YOUR life better ? Are you better off now than you were before you ever heard of them ? What have they done to make YOUR life better (or safer).Do you have more money in the bank ? Is your job more secure? Is the air cleaner ? What does the future look like for the next generation? Well, I KNOW we need a change-so I support Senator Barack Obama !

Tena....

I think this may be the first time that 'Clintons' and 'gracious' have appeared in the same sentence.

Right about now, I regret having put the word so close to the Clintons in the sentence.

Gracious ain't in it - obviously.