As she tried to talk New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson out of endorsing Sen. Barack Obama's presidential bid, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton insisted that Obama cannot beat Republican Sen. John McCain in the fall. "He cannot win, Bill. He cannot win," Clinton told the governor, "sources with direct knowledge of the conversation" have told ABC's George Stephanopoulos.

 

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/...hats-new-1.html

Now add today - a Clinton "associate" said that Bill Richardson privately had confided to the Clintons that he thought Obama couldn't win a general election.

I read an article this AM, that I cannot find now, that said the opposite - that Clinton told Richardson herself that Obama could not win in the general. And it was from an actual news sourcem not a blog. I'll see if I can track it down.

 

Here it is.

 

I read an article this AM, that I cannot find now, that said the opposite - that Clinton told Richardson herself that Obama could not win in the general. And it was from an actual news sourcem not a blog. I'll see if I can track it down.

The content was not from the TPM. It was from Time magazine...

http://thepage.time.com/2008/04/03/source-...obama-cant-win/

 

It's all he said, she said.

The content was not from the TPM. It was from Time magazine...

http://thepage.time.com/2008/04/03/source-...obama-cant-win/

 

It's all he said, she said.

Its a Clinton aide saying it, after the original story broke. I wouldn't trust it either.

 

Its a Clinton aide saying it, after the original story broke. I wouldn't trust it either.

I'm not saying I BELIEVE Bill "I did not have sex with that woman" Clinton and Hillary "Sniper Fire" Clinton. I am just reporting what is being reported.

 

Personally, i think the Clinton campaign is going out of their way to try and discredit anyone who endorses Obama. James "Skeletor" Carville said blatantly that he was trying to send a message to other "Clinton people". My translation: "we'll knee cap you if you DARE go against us".

athomeboy, you should post Richardson's editorial. I believe talkingpoints had it in one of their links.

athomeboy, you should post Richardson's editorial. I believe talkingpoints had it in one of their links.

hmmm.... I didnt know Richardson wrote an editorial. I;'ll have to look into as soon as I am done with Dell tech support.

actually, i'm not sure why I asked you, I'm out of class with nothing to do. This is Richardson's editorial in the statesman. Is it alright for me to post it here?

 

Link: http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/e...=7&cxcat=45

 

story: COMMENTARY

Richardson: Obama endorsement comes out of loyalty to my country

Bill Richardson, GOVERNOR OF NEW MEXICO

Thursday, April 03, 2008

My recent endorsement of Barack Obama for president has been the subject of much discussion and consternation — particularly among supporters of Hillary Clinton.

 

Led by political commentator James Carville, who makes a living by being confrontational and provocative, Clinton supporters have speculated about events surrounding this endorsement and engaged in personal attacks and insults.

 

While I certainly will not stoop to the low level of Mr. Carville, I feel compelled to defend myself against character assassination and baseless allegations.

 

Carville has made it very clear that this is a personal attack — driven by his own sense of what constitutes loyalty. It is this kind of political venom that I anticipated from certain Clinton supporters and I campaigned against in my own run for president.

 

I repeatedly urged Democrats to stop attacking each other personally and even offered a DNC resolution calling for a positive campaign based on the issues. I was evenhanded in my efforts. In fact, my intervention in a debate during a particularly heated exchange was seen by numerous commentators as an attempt to defend Sen. Clinton against the barbs of Sens. Obama and John Edwards.

 

As I have pointed out many times, and most pointedly when I endorsed Sen. Obama, the campaign has been too negative, and we Democrats need to calm the rhetoric and personal attacks so we can come together as a party to defeat the Republicans.

 

More than anything, to repair the damage done at home and abroad, we must unite as a country. I endorsed Sen. Obama because I believe he has the judgment, temperament and background to bridge our divisions as a nation and make America strong at home and respected in the world again.

 

This was a difficult, even painful, decision. My affection and respect for the Clintons run deep.

 

I do indeed owe President Clinton for the extraordinary opportunities he gave me to serve him and this country. And nobody worked harder for him or served him more loyally, during some very difficult times, than I did.

 

Carville and others say that I owe President Clinton's wife my endorsement because he gave me two jobs. Would someone who worked for Carville then owe his wife, Mary Matalin, similar loyalty in her professional pursuits? Do the people now attacking me recall that I ran for president, albeit unsuccessfully, against Sen. Clinton? Was that also an act of disloyalty?

 

And while I was truly torn for weeks about this decision, and seriously contemplated endorsing Sen. Clinton, I never told anyone, including President Clinton, that I would do so. Those who say I did are misinformed or worse.

 

As for Mr. Carville's assertions that I did not return President Clinton's calls: I was on vacation in Antigua with my wife for a week and did not receive notice of any calls from the president. I, of course, called Sen. Clinton prior to my endorsement of Sen. Obama. It was a difficult and heated discussion, the details of which I will not share here.

 

I do not believe that the truth will keep Carville and others from attacking me. I can only say that we need to move on from the politics of personal insult and attacks. That era, personified by Carville and his ilk, has passed and I believe we must end the rancor and partisanship that has mired Washington in gridlock.

 

In my view, Sen. Obama represents our best hope of replacing division with unity. That is why, out of loyalty to my country, I endorse him for president.

 

Richardson is a former Democratic candidate for president. This column first ran in The Washington Post.

 

 

Richardson sure comes of as rather clean in all this, in my opinion.

I am trying to restrain my Hillary bashing, but I thought this brought up something interesting...

It's interesting to finally see this in print (I have no idea who the Cayman Net News is), but this does back up something I heard Dick Morris say about the Clintons on the radio a few weeks ago...

Clinton's Cayman funds under scrutiny

Edited April 3, 200818 yr by Athomeboy_2000

FYI: Clinton is on MSNBC right now talking about how she is trying to win over Obama's pledged delegates. Basically lying and saying that they should "vote their concession". Even though the heart of the rule is to allow someone to vote for another candidate if their candidate drops out of the race.

Another Poll Out of PA:

Clinton 45%

Obama 43%

H Christ this is a machine. Another $40 million in March for Obama's campaign, 442,000 donors, 218,000 NEW donors. With basically no primaries after the first week of the month.

H Christ this is a machine. Another $40 million in March for Obama's campaign, 442,000 donors, 218,000 NEW donors. With basically no primaries after the first week of the month.

Yea. It's freaking incredible. I am holding off until the general when he'll need a lot of money to over take the Republican hit machine.

H Christ this is a machine. Another $40 million in March for Obama's campaign, 442,000 donors, 218,000 NEW donors. With basically no primaries after the first week of the month.

I guess I don't see the Clintons' claim that he is not as electable. More money, more delegates, more states, and more votes. Sounds like a losing combination.

Another interesting bit of news...according to Bloomberg, Obama now holds a narrow lead amongst superdelegates who are actually elected officials (governors, senators, congresspeople, etc.) while Hillary's lead is made up entirely out of people who do not hold elected office. Obama also leads 16-6 amongst first-term congresspeople.

RResearch 2000 polls Indiana, Clinton 49 Obama 46, 5% MOE.

 

Public Policy Polling, the one who showed BO in the lead in PA, has called out the doubters, including Kos by name, on their blog. And they got a call from this "Obama" guy.

Our Pennsylvania poll yesterday generated 176,063 visitors to the blog and a call from 'Barack Obama.'

 

The call from Obama was probably the most bizarre incident of the day. It sounded like someone had created some sort of program where you could type words and it would come out in Obama's voice. So Obama, talking the slowest he's probably ever talked in his life, called to thank us for the poll.

 

We received many vitriolic e-mails and phone calls. That's par for the course but some people are stupid about it. Most people send them from yahoo or gmail accounts that are untraceable. But one person sent a particularly ugly message from his work email at a hospital in Massachusetts. So I looked up the head of the hospital and forwarded the email to him and asked what their policy was about employees using their work time and resources to send such nastiness was.

 

There is a gender imbalance in the preferred medium for these irate communications from Clinton supporters (and Obama supporters too when they were mad about our Texas poll.) Men call and leave the ugly voice mails. I've never received an unpleasant call from a woman, but I still hear from them. However, they stick to email.

 

The most frequent question I got from more level headed media folks yesterday was whether we were surprised at the results. Of course we were. Usually this far out from the election, we'll put out a poll based on one night of polling. But we were surprised when Obama led the poll on Monday so we did a second round on Tuesday. It showed the same results and we ran with it.

 

Several folks have suggested we shouldn't have released the poll because it was an outlier. Well our South Carolina and Wisconsin polls were outliers too, and at the time we released our final Texas poll it was an outlier too before several other polls showing Clinton ahead came out later in the day. Those polls all ended up being pretty good.

 

I'm very confident that this poll correctly gaged public opinion as it stood in Pennsylvania on Monday and Tuesday. We'll do it weekly from here on out.

 

Anyway, I'm sure we'll never have a post get 457 comments again. But who knows.

Public Policy Polling, the one who showed BO in the lead in PA, has called out the doubters, including Kos by name, on their blog. And they got a call from this "Obama" guy.

Am I the only one that finds it a bit ODD that PPP has a blogspot page? Why wouldnt they just... i dunno... host the blog themselves? It very well may be legit, but ti seems strange.

I guess I don't see the Clintons' claim that he is not as electable. More money, more delegates, more states, and more votes. Sounds like a losing combination.

 

Technically the polls support her

 

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/polit...ain_unique.html

 

I'll start putting stock into whatever those things say when it's October.

from someone else: Rock Paper Scissors Politics:

McCain will beat Obama

Obama beats Clinton

but only CLINTON can beat McCain.

I'll start putting stock into whatever those things say when it's October.

Indeed.

Then why is this thread full of polls?