Woot woot!

Richardson backs Obama!

I actually really like Richardson - it's such a shame there probably wouldn't be an Obama/Richardson ticket. Apparently, he's close with Bill Clinton (who did contribute a lot to furthering Richardson's career) - but I think this was a little dramatic:

The reaction of some of Mr. Clinton’s allies suggests that might have been a wise decision. “An act of betrayal,” said James Carville, an adviser to Mrs. Clinton and a friend of Mr. Clinton.

“Mr. Richardson’s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic,” Mr. Carville said, referring to Holy Week.

Update: Succinct Slate commentary on the Richardson move. I specifically liked this part of the argument:

There's nothing wrong with making these arguments, and by the party's rules, it's perfectly legal for Clinton to reverse Obama's pledged-delegate lead with superdelegates. But in listening over the weeks to Clinton's advisers make their superdelegate case, you can feel the criteria changing as the conversation ensues. I am reminded of the movie Stripes. John Candy, playing a new Army recruit*, hoodwinks another member of his troop. "You gotta make my bunk," he says earnestly. "See, we're in Italy. The guy on the top bunk has gotta make the guy on the bottom's bunk. He's gotta make his bunk all the time. See, it's in the regulations. See, if we were in Germany, I would have to make yours, but we're in Italy, and you gotta make mine. It's regulations."

This whiff of hokum is one problem. The second problem for the Clinton pitch is that even if superdelegates buy it, no one on the Clinton team can explain why Obama's coalition of African-Americans, liberals, and first-time voters is going to buy it. In a recent CBS News poll, 92 percent of Obama supporters said they would feel disappointed and angry if Clinton won by superdelegates. When I asked Mark Penn how he would soothe these hurt feelings, he had no real answer other than hope: Democrats have come together before.

So, Clinton claims that Obama's campaign of hope that Americans can come together for a better future is unrealistic and just words etc. etc., even though thus far in the primaries it seems to be happening, at least in a small way. And he hasn't done anything to really offend the voters (I could be wrong, and I'm certainly biased, but Wright and Revko seem to be the shadiest parts of his life so far, and I don't think they're a big deal, personally). Clinton, on the other hand, expects to gyp Democratic voters out of representation (whether or not this is entirely true is irrevelant, the voters are going to FEEL betrayed) and then HOPES that come general election time, they'll put all of the petty primary crap out of mind and rally. This in a year when Nader is re-running. Yeah, that sounds like a GREAT idea. Ugh.