Wow Greg. Two posts on the same topic. And more to follw too.

Slow news day huh ?

Good work, Greg. I look forward to more reporting on this non-story.

By the way, the Clinton's don't ever lie do they?

Greg, any chance you could ask the Hillary adviser about the fact that Obama raised over $40 million in March? Or about the fact that he now trails Hillary in the superdelegate count by only 30? Or if the adviser has concerns about the recent polls showing Obama making huge gains in Pennsylvania?

No?

Oh, okay, then keep tracking down this important story! I expect at least three more posts on this today! Perhaps by the end of the day we'll know precisely what Richardson ate on the evening he may or may not have once said that Obama was not ready to be President, before he changed his mind and endorsed him and campaigned for him!

WE NEED TO KNOW THESE IMPORTANT THINGS, GREG! Get on the line, brother!

He said... she said? Is this what we've come down to? I'm lost, what's the 'newsworthy' part of this rumor echoing from a Clinton surrogate?

Note that it's the Clinton MO that if you are against them, they will throw you under the bus.

I don't know who is right or wrong on the facts here but suffice it to say even if they are right, character assassination in the papers is not exactly a classy move from the Clintons. Just another reason to despise their hardball politics.
Pick up your ball on the Richardson issue and move on. You are just looking petty and bitter.

But maybe the goal is to scare other SDs. Me think this will turn them off even further more than anything.

"Privately"? I guess not; it seems the Clintons do not respect privacy. This entire spat is so silly; it reminds us all why it would be so refreshing to have the soap operas of Clintondom over with, the constant daily drip of tivial backbiting and tactical leaks.

And why does TPM need to "discuss" this at lengh? It makes no difference who said what to whom in the back and forth between Clintons and Richardson over many months. In the end, Richardson is his own man and he has the right to reach his own decision, even to change his mind about who is and is not the more electable.

Notice the overall evolution here: right after the Richardson endorsement of Obama, the Clinton camp said it was passe and did not matter. Then they descended into unending accusations and bitterness, of the teenage variety. The message seems to be "Bill owned him, and how dare he do something we do not want?" Does anyone think this will make other superdelegates more likely to endorse HRC? It does not even make her look like her own person. As the campaign enters its death throes, she looks more and more like a package deal with her obviously frustrated husband. As a feminist, I do not see why she wants this image out there.

I betcha Obama promised Richardson a fat job - like the v.p. or some other cabinet position.

No loyalty, just in it for what he can get. Nobody woulda' ever heard of him had it not been for Bill Clinton.

It all makes sense. Hillary can't afford to conduct a proper campaign anymore and is resorting to having her "Top Campaign Advisors" feed dubious information to gullible reporters that dutifully post it as though it were news.

Not that I'm calling anyone a gullible reporter here, of course.

Let's see more 3am ads. Those were GREAT! I loved A.B. Stoddards take on 'em on Dan Abrams last night. The words "Pathetic" and "Joke" to describe a campaign can't be good.

Every time the Clinton Camp opens their mouths about Bill Richardson, they just reinforce the fact that he was telling the truth when he said that they were deluging him with hundreds of calls, and they were acting with a sense of entitlement, but Senator Obama just stayed in touch with Bill Richardson directly, and never tried to strong arm him.

Keep on reporting on how the Clintons are now going all out to destroy Governor Richardson's good name, and we will make sure that the Hispanic supporters of Senator Clinton are made well aware of how the Clintons will seek to destroy them if they every stray from the Clinton Plantation.

Big deal. Even if this were true and not just Clinton campaign sour grapes, so what? People can change their minds, can't they?

And maybe Richardson was just trying to be diplomatic, knowing the kind of furious response the truth would get from the Clintons (who, no doubt, heard what they wanted to hear). Really, isn't there anything interesting to report, that TPM is reduced to this?

Well even if thats true then it seems Richardson changed his mind. I guess watching Obama pawn Clinton all over the place and seeing how he handled the Wright issue so well he decided that Obama is the real deal and will crush McCain. If he still thought Obama cant win the GE he wouldn't have endorsed Obama.

What happened to our other thread?

Is this story accurate? Other places are reporting that it was Bill Clinton telling Bill Richardson that Obama was unelectable. Some Clinton supporters are saying the reverse, but perhaps they can't keep their Bills straight.

chant after me.

Liar liar

Sniper Fire

liar Liar!

sniper Fire!

Who gives a @#$ what Richardson said earlier?!?

He's endorsing Obama now.

God, I hope 50 superdelegates come out to endorse Obama today and tell the Clintons to $#@* off!

Greg,

This is a story, based on anonymous sources, of a claim that has no substantive importance and supports the Clinton's current campaign narrative.

If you're going to report this stuff at least let us know why its important in any real sense, and if you're going to shill a story that supports the Clinton's last ditch "he's unelectable because we say so" strategy, you owe us more than anonymous attribution.

You forgot to work Wright into the story, Greg. Your value will be slipping around the Hillary campfire.

Richardson's answer:

"Well, Clinton changed my mind. Now I feel SHE is unelectable."

So what I am getting from this is that politicians aligning themselves during a political contest said certain things to each other in order to garner reputation, favor, and position for themselves vis-a-vis each other.

And now that events have unfolded in the political realm in a public manner, they are now all realigning themselves during a political contest in order to garner reputation, favor, and position vis-a-vis the public.

There's a name for this kind of politics. It's called "politics."

I am neither overwhelmed nor underwhelmed by this information. I am simply whelmed.

I'm confused. True or not, this is relevant why exactly? If true, because it means Richardson changed his mind? Or because it suggests Richardson has just endorsed a candidate he thinks cannot win, pissing off the Clintons in the process, because we all know how much Richardson really wants to endorse a loser? Because Richardson is Judas, and Clinton is Christ, and Obama is Pontius Pilate, and we all know what happened to the Roman Empire! (Does this make Reverend Wright the Sanhendrin? The irony!)

Really, Greg:

Why is this important? So that the words "Obama" and "unelectable" can occur in the same sentence for yet another news cycle??

Why is this important? Would you please explain that to us??

And why, oh why, do you continue (even in the face of so much critique) to pass on uncritically Clinton "noise?" Do you realize how much "noise" they generate each and every day because there is not much else they can do right now?? That the noise is meant to drown out anything that may be happening with Obama? Or even McCain?? Don't you realize that???

Don't you realize that this is Richardson's "punishment" for endorsing Obama? Why do you participate in this "public flogging" of Richardson??

As someone else so eloquently commented: Who the F..K CARES what someone said Richardson said to Clinton??? Do you see how absurd this is?? Just like the story about what someone said Edwards said about what Obama said to him that blew the endorsement? (which Elizabeth E. had to say was a lie and that Obama was quite "charming" in their discussion)?? The Clintons have been criticized about being boomer-behind in how to use the web in this campaign. Well, they are quick learners. Instead of just planting stories and whispers in obscure papers that get picked up and repeated by various blogs, they just skip the middle-men (newspapers), and have phone conversations with bloggers.

Thanks, Greg. It's become clear the the Clinton strategy is to do whatever they can to make Obama unelectable so they can make the case to the superdelegates that he's unelectable.

Thanks for your continuing valuable contributions to this important work.

From SUSA some old electoral maps.

Obama beats both Hillary and McCain:

http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-obama-280-mccain-258/

Note how he wins even without PA and FL. He could still win those, but they would be gravy.

Hillary, however, desperately needs to win them. If she loses FL, the GOP wins:

http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-clinton-276-mccain-262/

It looks like Hillary is the one who can only barely win. Obama has the potential to win very big.

Guess what! At one point Richardson thought HE could be elected! And he changed his mind on that, too!

This actually made me laugh after I got over being angry for a minute.

Boy, losing Richardson's endorsement has sent Bill and Hillary into towering rage mode and they have apparently taken it so personally they can't stop making themselves look really crazy over it.

I respect anyone that can change their mind based upon new information. I didn't believe Obama could win, but he has proven me wrong.

Hillary also said she would have the nomination on Feb 5th. That has proven to be wrong.

Many people have doubted Senator Obama including myself and he has proven all of us wrong.

Obama defining expectations at every turn.

come on, tpm: bfd

(though we do have an object lesson here as to how the Clinton campaign can drive the media coverage: sad to say that even tpm can get used)

Richardson: I never promised Clintons

(CNN) — New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson on Wednesday sharply disputed Bill Clinton's reported claim that Richardson promised not to endorse Barack Obama's bid for the White House.

"I never did," Richardson told CNN. "I never saw [President Clinton] five times. I saw him when he watched the Super Bowl with me. We made it very clear to him that he shouldn't expect an endorsement after that meeting."

Bill Clinton's comments reportedly came during a recent meeting with some California superdelegates. The San Francisco Chronicle reported the former president got "red faced" when the subject of Richardson came up and said, "Five times to my face (Richardson) said that he would never do that."

In the interview Wednesday, Richardson acknowledged he was "very close to endorsing" Clinton, but decided not to after the campaign got "nasty."

"I held back. I waited. I felt the campaign got nasty. I heard Senator Obama; he would talk to me continuously," Richardson said.

"The Clintons should get over this," he added.

Richardson, a former U.N. Ambassador and Energy Secretary in the Clinton administration, endorsed Obama late last month.

One thing missing from this "revelation" -- timeframe. Did Richardson claims Obama was "unelectable" in December before the first vote was cast? After the Ohio loss? Or was this comment said more recently? Who,what,when, where, how, and why remain the bedrocks of good reporting. When, where and why are sorely missing from this post.

The clintons and their campain have been nothing if not scrupulously honest and transparent throughout this contest. I see absolutely no reason to start doubting them now. Also, reliable sources within camp hillary say Richardson's endorsment means little anyway, as he's never passed the "Chicano-In-Chief" threshold.

Now a top Hillary adviser has asserted to me that this happened, and claims that Richardson said the reason for this was that he didn't think Obama could win.

*****Why is the top Hillary adviser nameless ?hang around the Clintons long enough & you will get sh.t on you eventually.someway to try & ruin Richardson for not going with HClinton.

*Shrug* People change their minds. Sen. Clinton used believe that a Republican would make a poor CIC.

As long as you are pretending to be a reporter, Greg, how about asking for the dates that Richardson allegedly said Obama wasn't electable.

It could be a that-was-then-this-is-now situation.

If you consider this sort of petulance "news," treat it like news and ask the obvious questions.

If this is true, I would hope it means that Richardson understands what too many do not -- that "electability" is something that is determined by the outcome of the primary campaign, not an argument for who to vote for at the start of it.

That was the big problem with "electability" in '04 -- when the primary argument for a candidate is electability, that means you don't have any of the real arguments that actually determine electability.

From CNN.

Richardson says the Clintons need to "get over it."

haha, 'nuf said.

From CNN.

Richardson says the Clintons need to "get over it."

haha, 'nuf said.

O I love it I do.

They are now acting like a couple of mad wolves who will end up biting their own tails off in frustration over Richardson. This gets funnier and funnier - I'm sorry, it does.

Gosh, I think it is pretty obvious what must have happened...

"Bill Richardson repeatedly promised he would not endorse Obama -- and the reason he gave was that Obama wasn't ready -- he couldn't be elected."

Bill probably said "I won't endorse Obama because I don't think he can be elected."

The Clinton's said that means he won't endorse Obama.

But Richardson can say that his opinion of Obama's electability changed. He wasn't offering a promise but a contingent statement based on an assessment ... and the assessment changed.

He didn't promise that he would never think Obama couldn't be elected.

I'm surprised because this seems like such an obvious reconciliation of the facts as described... but I didn't see anyone above saying this.

This is all really counter productive for the Clintons. This just validates his reasons for NOT endorsing HRC.

120 comments here about meaningless hearsay, and only 21 comments about the egregious Yoo memo.

I guess it's more fun having flame wars over your very favorite candidate, but honestly!

There is finaly some hard evidence in the public sphere that clearly demonstrates that the current administration has purposefully striven to overturn established laws to engage in illegal and unconstitutional acts that subvert the notion that there will be another administration.

Get it?

Cheney doesn't want to give it up to anyone. He certainly will not allow a peaceful transfer of power to the Democratic Party if he has anything at all to do with it.

He said, she said.
Get over it!

Our country is under attack, and it ain't by little brown people in the Middle East. We're under attack by power-mad white men in suits. Cheney and his minions assisted by Bush have attacked our country. DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!

What about white women over 40 who are latte-drinkers? Demographics can be so confusing!

Maybe the venti latte drinkers alone can't carry the elcctoral college, but if you combine the tall, grande and venti coffee drinkers (not to mention those who prefer chai tea, caramel macchiato and so forth), you are talking about a lot of coffee drinkers. And coffee is our national beverage, after all. Don't be too quick to write us off ...

OMG.

The Clintons have now entered the realm of the obsessed jilted teenager. You know, the one who keeps saying, "I'm sooooo over him now", but can't shut the fuck up about him. She spends every waking moment bitching about him yet repeats "he's dead to me" after every rant.

That's the Clintons.

And we have Greg here breathlessly reporting every little snippet of gossip, every little morsel of, "he said, he said, she said, he said", like an excitable valley girl. OMG,OMG,OMG, like, did you hear the latest?

Greg, while I'm sure it's exciting having access to Clinton insiders, it does you discredit to become their mouthpiece. Just because this pointless gossip is exciting to you and to them, please exercise a bit more editorial restraint before thinking that what happens in your little access bubble is actually newsworthy.

I once admired this place. It was once my second stop for real news. Stopping by here has now become an afterthought. TPM is on its way to becoming a sad lesson in how the MSM got corrupted in the first place. Apparently access corrupts those easily seduced by its charms. It's a shame to find there are few not so easily seduced. Next thing you know you're on the Cocktail Weenie Circuit and you're a total loss as a journalist/blogger.

Just say no to the weenies, Greg.

Is Greg Sargent going to respond to any of these comments and questions? Personally, I thought it was an extremely sloppy piece of reporting.

FWIW I changed my mind about Hillary and Obama, too. Before Iowa, when Obama was way down in the polls and the numbers had not moved for some time, I thought he couldn't get elected, at least not this year. In the last few months, I have re-examined many things, including my assumption that Hillary was qualified to be President. Apart from all the other reasons that have surfaced recently, I do not think this nation would be well-served by having a self-centered, vengeful whiner, supported by another self-centered, vengeful whiner, with her finger on the button. No matter how well-coiffed-and-attired she is at 3 A.M.

Yuh, Dunyazad, a *lot* of people have changed their minds about Obama. We must be all bad guys as well, eh?

The rap was, he's not experienced and Hillary has already won it. Well, she's not really experienced either (except for her health care debacle, Iraq vote, and the Battle of Tuzla), and the more we see, the less we like -- whereas Obama has shined and impressed. Rumsfeld, now *he* was experienced. Plus Hill *hasn't* already won it, and it sure seems like she should have, so what is the dang problem, anyway?

Yep, we've changed our minds. Based on new information. Dubya ridicules people who do that. Is he your model, HRC?

Ok let me get this straight, because this story strikes me a comical and their position is hypocritical.

Richardson is a superdelegate. Isn't Clinton's arguement that SDs should be able to vote for whomever they want to? Instead, they are shocked Richardson changed his mind about Obama's electibility.

Considering the growing talk in the MSM of Clinton's own electibility, and her rebuttal with the SD arguement (provided that's current arguement, it changes so often I'm probably behind the curve) -- this logic doesn't fit.

why would richardson endorse someone he doesn't think can win?

that doesn't make sense. And if it doesn't make sense (as judge judy often tells us) its probably not true.

so the question is: why are the clintons lying? what good can they possibly do for their cause by putting this out there?

A convenient way to get the press off Bill's back for his weekend tirade. I hope Richardson has nothing or almost nothing to say. Otherwise we'll have another cycle of he said she said instead of Hillary has net -5 in superdelegates since super tuesday and barack is at +60 give or take a few

Yes and to divert attention away from the fact that we still don't have those TAX RETURNS.

Really, this story reminds me of another story by Jake Tapper (GAG!) from ABC News that I read today. It seems that he was just so sad and disillusioned with Obama (as USUAL!), because back in August or last year, he stopped Obama on his way into the Senate Building and observed that he smelled of cigarette smoke. He didn't ask him about it, though, but on further consideration felt it was so terribly important, since Obama had stated that he stopped smoking, Jake felt compelled to call the Obama campaign and ask if he had started smoking again. "No" was their reply. BUT! BUT! yesterday, on the Hardball College Tour with Barack Obama, Obama stated that he had fallen off the wagon a couple of times, but had gotten back on and was still trying to quit.

OH MY GOD!! Jake admits that it is just a "little" thing and is probably "inconsequential", but he just feels so "betrayed"!

This little story by Jake is exactly the kind of reporting we are getting from Greg Sargent. Come on, Josh. Can't you stop this silliness? TPM is starting to look irrelevant.

bill richardson and john kerry both want OBAMA's supporters when he loses in the fall. i would rather have 4 years of mccain and then work to get him out in 2012 than 4 years of OBAMA. i wonder who we will have to put forth then. if you lose the election you don't get a second chance. i also think the party will have learn a tremendous lesson from our loss and hopefully will have figured it out.

if me and half my family and friends can vote for mccain if hilliary loses than there are a LOT of folks who will be voting mccain.

As Gov. Richardson said on CNN (I think yesterday)-- "the Clintons just need to let go of this and move on." Honestly, this petty gotcha who-said-what business (not to mention the Judas crap and Bill's blow-up at the CA supers) is just beyond silly. How do they thing all this is playing with the undeclared supers?

DrJohnSmith - My sense of Richardson, is that he is an idealist first, a self-interested politician, second.

Sure, he would probably like the VP slot or a cabinet position, but Obama may very well have appointed him to one post or another, in any case.

A real opportunist would not endorse anyone, that way, he could double his chances of an appointment.

If Richardson is such a sleazebag, as the Hillbots now suggest, why is Camp Hillary pissing their pantsuits over losing his "sleazy" endorsement?

"No? You won't dance with me? Well, uh... fine then! FINE! BE THAT WAY! Who cares? I don't care! And you know what else? I never really wanted to dance with you, anyway, you, you... you SLEAZEBAG!"

No getting around it, Camp Hillary is hurting. Richardson kicked those people right smack in the junk and they cannot get over it.

Ask Richardson on the record if he will accept a position in an Obama administration if it is offered. If he answers:

Yes-he's a sleazebag.
No-it's on the record for any future purposes.
No comment-he's a sleazebag

Then ask Obama if Richardson might be considered for a position. If he answers:

Yes-he's quid pro quo scum.
No-it's on the record for any future purposes.
No comment-he's scum.

The issue isn't whether Obama's electable. It's whether Richardson is opportunist scum adn whether Obama embraces that.

Freaktown, I was only trying to imitate the androids and computers in Star Trek who are immobilized by torrents of illogic aimed at them by the Enterprise crew. The argument that Richardson doesn't think Obama can win but endorsed him in hopes of landing a cushy job in an Obama administration is illlogical enough to short-circuit the most powerful computer.

And speaking of changing loyalties, one must wonder what happened between Richardson's conversation with Bill (assuming that's not fabricated -- one must always wonder where the Clintons are concerned) and his endorsement of Obama. It must have been a fairly big deal, since Richardson must have known what would follow from the Clintons when he "betrayed" them. Given the timing, my guess is that it was "The Speech" plus Hillary's Tuzla tarmac valor theft incident which led him to wonder "Now who's unelectable?"

And Greg, if you are going to quote an anonymous "top advisor" source within the Clinton camp as being privy to a "private" conversation between Bill and Bill, don't you at some point wonder just how "private" the conversation was? Otherwise, it would seem the "top advisor" is merely passing along heresay.

When a Democratic Party politician knee caps another, prominent and respected of the party, there better be a very good reason. Calling someone a liar, out of pique, isn't one of them.

Even if Richardson, did say at one point that he didn't think Obama could be elected, that's no excuse for Clinton to try to destroy his reputation. In my experience, of thirty plus years of being a political junkie, this kind of retaliatory attack, is unprecedented.

The overarching point is that the more Richardson himself stays in the story, the less his endorsement helps Obama. The Clinton's are doing a good job just making Richardson explain himself every day. They do know how to play the game.

Seeing as how RaeK wrote the following post, it's fairly unlikely, he would have inside information from the Obama camp.

- "oops i meant "if you aren't ticked off that your donations are going to try to improve barry hussein's pastor's image!

Its very telling about obama's judgment. Here he is spending money on his pastor's image rather than getting rid of that nut.

I guess that is how he'd spend money in our white house."

Is anyone else tired of these articles based upon nothing other than unnamed "associates" or "advisors"? If people are making these accusations - they should not be quoted unless they are willing to be named. Until they do - I won't trust any story that provides nothing but unnamed sources.

Why is everything of this nature no big deal or a bother that no one should be spending time on when it involves something about the Obama campaign, as spoken by his supporters?
It seems that Richardson is being called out on his saying he would not endorse Obama by claiming he never promised to endorse Hillary. Well, no one is saying he did promise to endorse Hillary but that he would not endorse Obama. Seems Richardson on TV wants to repeatedly change the topic when asked bout this and on CNN called Bill Clinton a lier and then said but we shouldn't be talking about trivial things like this but the war or the economy instead. Well, RIchardson, if you hadn't spouted off to enough people who are calling you on it, then be ready to take the heat for it and have the war and the economy ignored til people find out the truth about what you did. Carville named 3 people on CNN Richardson said this too, so are they all lieing except Richardson? This is a big deal and Richardson made it plain and clear in his endorsement he is doing this because of race and how it would help Hispanics. I read at another blog that Obama's main course of action after he gets the nomination is to go on a blitz signing up black voters and the young. Once again -race. So, let's find out whether this endorsement did go against his word or not.

Bear,check your snark detector,it may be malfunctioning....