Yeah, sure. When it comes to telling the truth, given Richardson's track record and Clinton's track record, I think I'm going to believe Richardson. Is there anything the Clintons WOULDN'T lie about?

Richardson endorsed Obama so apparently he does at this point think he'd win. A lot of superdelegates who have recently thrown their support to Obama have now done so because they were convinced he was of presidential timber. Non-story.

"Look a Mexican"

That makes absolutely no sense. Why would Richardson (or anyone) think that Obama can't win? Richardson isn't a fool, he knows the polls, he knows about Hillary's high negative ratings, he knows that the GOP would tear her apart.

Richardson said Obama can't win? Yeah right, that would be why he is endorsing him.

Is is just me or are the Clintons being EXTREMELY childish and vindictive over the Richardson endorsement? He's already had to write one op-ed defending himself from Clinton surrogates and Bill himself, and now they are calling him a liar?

http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/2008/04/bill-richardson-responds-to-carville.html

I'm sorry but if a Clinton is saying one thing, and Bill Richardson is saying another, it is a no-brainer who I'm going to believe. Richardson is Mr. Do-Gooder, and the Clintons are pathological liars. Give me a break. Pathetic..

I believe we've seen from past performance who the liar is in this instance.

Funny, after all the talk recently of the Clinton camp lobbying to flip Obama delegates that when one of hers flips it's tantamount to treason in her eyes.

Jesus Christ. They really are like children. First they want to change the rules after the game has already begun, just because they're losing, and now they're running to the teacher and playing "he said/she said." Grow up.

I guess now we know the reason behind the "Judas" comment.

If Richardson even said such a thing it was most likely in the very beginning when Obama first announced he was running for office. At that time, almost everybody thought Obama would more than likely be Hillary's VP instead of actually beating her for the Presidential spot.

Since that time, Obama's proven to Richardson that he can INDEED beat Hillary and he's shown how he can bring new voters into play.

Richardson opened his eyes and saw the facts. Bill and Hillary are keeping theirs shut like a child does (if I can't see it, neither can you).

So, let me get this straight. Richardson endorsed someone he thought was a loser? God, what does that say about the Clinton's?

If I was in the Clinton campaign, I'd reject and deny this new line of attack. It has HUGE boomerang potential.

Just who is running things over there anyway?

Wow, the Clinton's really love the mud. Back-stabbing comments like these make me hope even more that we can sever the hold of the Clinton's on the democratic party FOREVER.

Could be they're trying to intimidate other potential Obama supporters - "Watch out, if you don't pick Hillary, we'll call you 'Judas,' 'big fat liar,' 'flip-flopper' and 'idiot.'"

Multiple choice:

Q. How do you know if someone's lying?

A. They're quoted in a mainstream news story as an "unnamed Clinton associate."

B. His name is Mark Penn or Howard Wolfson.

C. Both of the above.

So Richardson changed his mind. So what? The real question is, will Bill and Hillary change THEIR minds once Obama gets the nomination?

20 mg Zyprexa b.i.d. for each -- that should put a stop to the auditory hallucinations and delusional thinking.

I don't get the strategy behind this.

We're supposed to believe an unnamed source over Richardson himself?!?

And what does the Clinton camp expect to happen? Richardson will come back to them after being called "Judas" and now, a liar?!

Can't wait to hear Richardson's response, and then furious denials from the Clinton camp that this was an official statement, and that "no one, to our knowledge, ever said that about Richardson."

To me, the problem for the Clinton camp is not Richardson. The problem is a lot of SD about to jump sides. The message is to them: "Jump sides and we are gonna throw a lot of mud on you".

The Clintons should be embarrassed. If what they say is true, and Richardson doesn't beleive that Barack can win, the fact that he endorsed Barack over Hillary probably means he thinks her chances are even worse in November.

They're making fools of themselves. Only fans of soap operas are down with this kind of nonsense. And, I mean, it's just not credible. Yeah, hi, Hillary. Your'e out and I'm supporting Obama now because he can't win. If Richardson ever said anything close to that, it was likely a year or more ago, and in an entirely different context. In the current context, it makes no sense.

Maybe I'm missing something, but so friggin' what? Who cares what Richardson said while he deliberated about who to support? Even if Richardson had at one point said, "Obama can't win," he's obviously changed his mind. Either that, or he simply can't make himself endorse Hillary regardless of who he thinks is going to win.

In any case, it's a ringing non-endorsement of Hillary.

Obama raised over $40 million in March?!?!

Good fucking lord, this is starting to get obscene.

No, you guys, It's true! Hillary remembers the whole thing vividly. She was running from the airplane to an awaiting vehicle with her head down to avoid sniper fire, when she distinctly heard Richardson yelling to her over the noise of the jet engines, "Obama can't win!" Sinbad was there. He'll tell ya!

This whole mess is no different than the very things that happen between any of us and our friends, or our bosses, or whatever, and it has NO BEARING on the end result.

People hear what they want to hear. Richardson might have said at one point that he was worried about Obama's being electable. Why wouldn't he have? It was a genuine concern once upon a time when he was twenty behind Hillary in the polls nationally. Of course, the Clintons would've then heard that s him saying he wasn't electable.

Then, more recently, you have Clinton calling him up and trying to get a yes or no, and Richardson saying things to get them off the phone, probably agreeing a little more than he would've like too, probably talking a little in code. We all do this.

It's all so normal and trivial, I cannot believe it's become this other thing. He endorsed Obama. Why does it matter how he got to that point?

Is this high school algebra? Now it's not enough to endorse, you have to "show your work"?

And in the meantime, Obama's rolling SD's like gutter balls...lots of them. Isn't that what matters?

It depends on what the meaning of "isn't" is....or your definition of "ready"? It is BS, he said/she said non issue fill. Are we really going to go there, Hill? Don't. Just campaign, say what you're about and stop the HS antics. Let the people vote....and you might want to start doing your JOB in the senate.