Letters to the Editor
-
Stop the Lies Hillary
Lets see two stories, one truth. OK I believe Richardson. Since Ickes has confirmed they are trying this same desperate story on other delegates, it is pretty clear Hillary is a liar. Nothing uglier than a lying desperate pol trying to win the already lost.
-
Whoever Said It
Or didn't say it--after reviewing the up to date hypotheticals between Hillary and McCain and Obama and McCain in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida--there seems to be some substance to it.
-
let's really think about it
All this hear say and hype needs to stop. Why in the world would Richardson support Obama if he really thought this?? He wouldn't. He believes Obama stands the best chance over McCain than Hillary. The Clinton's are disappointed I'm sure. But Richardson is not a man to say one thing and do another. What I've seen is he pretty much says whatever he thinks. He made himself clear by supporting Obama as the best candidate to win over McCain. Too many republicans dislike the Clintons. Hillary would probably do a good job as pres. but the idea is for the Dem's to win and get as many crossover republicans as possible. We can not stand another Bush term. And its clear McBush is more of the same.
-
"I am proud to endorse the man....
...I don't think can win in November!"
Between Bill Richardson and the Clintons who would you believe?
If Hillary Clinton's campaign is even just a hint of what her presidency would be like...I shudder to think.
-
Although It's A Ways Off
There does seem to be one thing fairly certain right now. Obama loses Florida, Hillary would have a real shot.
-
This makes sense.
Of course Richardson, a man of less-than-legendary political courage, would endorse Obama. But only if he could in so doing make an enemy out of his famously vindictive and still-powerful former patrons. And only if - and this is the key point - he also believed Obama could not win.
Somewhere right now, Baghdad Bob is hanging his head in shame, because he knows he is no longer the master.
-
My God Alex
You are making me insane! Do you realize how hard is not use words that start with F and A and D when responding to this crap. You are quoting and unnamed source via Mark Halperin. Do us all a favor. Go down the hall to Glenn Greenwald's office and ask him to tell you how to do honest journalism in ten minutes or less. You should be ashamed of yourself for staining the pages of Salon with this crap.
-
Alex dumps more chum in the water.
This is not news. This is a cheap shot to stir up the trolls and get Salon a lot of easy hits. Salon is deteriorating rapidly.
Don't feed the trolls.
-
Obama's running mate will be
Obama. Only Obama is omnipresent. The 10,000 faces of Obama will rule the planets.
-
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.
-
Of course!
And where did they have this conversation? Why, in Bosnia, under withering sniper fire! How could anyone doubt Hillary's word?
-
Unnamed Sources
Alex, let's review:
Anonymous sources MAY be valid when they are whistle-blowing or otherwise contradicting the party line.
Anonymous sources who are clearly advancing the interests of the party they represent ARE NEVER NEWSWORTHY.
This is true whether it is a "highly placed Bush official" smearing a Democratic opponent or a "Clinton associate" smearing a Democratic opponent.
Do they not HAVE journalism classes at Penn? Did you just not take any? Have you read any of Glenn's work?
Does anyone else think that Glenn Greenwald must have an extraordinarily high capacity for cognitive dissonance to continue to work at Salon while he dissects the sham of a press corps we have?
-
I Think This Is Much More Common
Than advertised. Many of the influential people going to Obama are doing so on the grounds that the important minority constituency cannot be angered for futuristic considerations. This is what we got, this is where we are, so we just have to go with it now in the general and hope our asses off.
It's a reasonable position to take.