Letters to the Editor
-
Why would Richardson say that?
On the face of it, the Clinton's account seems improbable because of two issues:
First it's doubtful many people outside of the Clinton camp actually believe that Obama can't win against McCain yet Clinton somehow can. And, quite honestly, I doubt many people inside the Clinton camp actually believe that too. Richardson's major reasons for "supporting" Clinton seem to be the personal links, not a belief in Clinton somehow having more electability.
The second is that it's improbable that Richardson really has those views given he's endorsed Obama. Why would he do that? Why would he endorse someone he believes cannot win?
The best explanation that fits both is that Richardson was trying to find justifications for remaining "loyal" to the Clintons and essentially made this crap up, deciding afterwards he was fooling nobody, least of all himself. I don't think that it's that likely. If I were trying to find justifications, I'd fall back to Clinton's strong points, or at least the points her supporters find strong: her tenacity, her (albeit second-hand) experience, the extent to which a Clinton presidency will not be encumbered by high expectations.
The one thing that's clear though is that they really seem to dislike Richardson, and that's a shame. I have no idea what he did behind the scenes to engender such a reaction; I recall though after one of the first caucusses the rumor-mill was full of stories that Richardson's supporters had switched to Obama where Richardson hadn't garnered enough votes, with suggestions the switch was deliberate and coordinated. Meanwhile Obama's supporters, myself among them (like I make a difference...), have been promoting Obama-Richardson as the perfect slate or a perfect slate (hey, I'll also take Obama-Dodd). Whether the caucus rumors are true or not, it's hard to imagine that a Clinton team that was following what was going on really believed Clinton would be a natural candidate for Richardson to endorse.
The notion that Richardson owed Clinton seemed to be the only reason Clinton's team had for believing otherwise; and that's a poor argument - if you're picked to work for someone, you owe them the best job you can do, and nothing more.
I'm not saying the Clinton's are lying, I just doubt what they're saying is the truth, it doesn't make much sense, and I suspect it's the product of wishful thinking.