This isn't a shot at War Room, or Alex, but could someone who has reported this make at least a vain effort to tell us when this conversation happened? Or in what context they were discussing it?

Because frankly, if they were talking about this in early January, I might have agreed with someone who said it was unlikely that Obama could win (granted, we didn't know the GOP nominee then, but I actually always thought it would be McCain). But once they saw the momentum he built, saw the kind of campaign he could run (grassroots organizing beyond the expectation of anyone not actually in the campaign, etc), they might have come around to think maybe experience wouldn't be the central issue of the campaign, especially once they saw him beat an "experienced" candidate time after time (it was only after they split Texas and Ohio and we got this lovely seven week navel-gaze that her claims of experience have been questioned). Maybe, after all that, Richardson was able to say "hmm, maybe I was wrong."

Or maybe he was just being polite and trying not to p*ss off his friend Bill by complimenting an opponent.

Even with all that, I still doubt this happened. I was a huge supporter of Bill Clinton, but his relationship with the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is casual, at best.

@Xrandadu: the arm-wrestling movie is called, no kidding, "Over The Top" (which is in fact a reference to a style of attack in competitive arm wrestling, not an analysis of the movie's "arm-wrestling to regain the love and respect of my son" theme).

The James Woods-Dolly Parton abomination was called, again, I swear I'm not making this up for campaign season, "Straight Talk"

It's with a peculiar mix of pride and shame that I say I've seen both of them, and probably more than once.

@ several others...the fight in the first Rocky wasn't a draw, Apollo won by split decision. The fight in Rocky II WOULD have been a draw had neither of them been able to get up after the hokey and implausible double-knockdown (ok, so it strains credulity, but it still gives me goosebumps).

Teach us a lesson? Are you effing kidding me? A lesson? What, that we should "stay the course" and nominate old-guard loser Democrats every single time so that whatever half-dim homonculus comes out of the jesusfreak primary is automatically given the nomination? Do you really not see the straight line from Walter Mondale to Dukakis to Al Gore to John Kerry to Hillary Clinton as establishment loser Democrats? Sure, her husband won two 3-way elections, but that isn't going to happen again, now, is it?

Mind you, I'm only addressing the rest of Salon's readership, not lolcait, who does very well see the striaght line, and would like nothing more than to extend that line by one more name.

right, because I remember that time there was that e-mail circulating about how Clinton was secretly a Muslim, and that picture of her in scary Muslim-looking native garb showed up in the media, and that time that media outlets ran 30 second clips of her pastor saying mean things and then putting the blame on her, or that time when one of her advisors, acting on her own, said something embarrassing to the Canadians about NAFTA except it turned out his people said something worse and did it first.

Yeah, somebody calling her a bad name in front of a couple hundred people...that really is reason not to support the candidate that person supports.

...can I stop reading Salon, too, Joan? Really, may I? I mean, it's one thing that you are playing the take-my-ball-and go home card over your preferred candidate's terrible campaign, but you're trying to tank your website, too?

Is your new friend Rush allowed to read? I'm sure he would never, ever, call anybody a mean, mean name like that other radio person did.

Adios, Joan, I'll check in with King Kaufman, but I'm done with the rest of you.

but no.

One candidate is playing by the established and agreed upon rules, and one candidate is trying to change them. And the candidate that is playing by the rules, is winning by any measure. Period.

Your half-formed analysis is like saying with 5 minutes to go in last night's basketball game "hey, let's say that the free throws counted for 3 points and the 3 point shots counted for 1, ok?" Well, then don't you think both teams would stop trying 3 pointers?

It's a cheap analogy, but it is perfectly illustrative. Tactics matter, and there's nothing to say that if the Democrats did go winner-take-all, Obama would have used resources differently, would have made different campaign choices, and would have executed on a different strategy. And there's nothing suggesting that he wouldn't then be wiping the floor with her that way also.

Hate the system if you must, but you're going to have to bring more to the table than "my candidate wouldn't have lost if the scoring system was different"

And I'm not even going to address the laughable suggestion about getting Obama to cede delegates in Nevada or whatever that was. That was just sad.