Carville has always been the attack dog, and in Richardson's case he undoubtedly reflects the Clintons' thinking - which is why he reaffirmed his statement the next day, saying, "I'm not apologizing, I'm not resigning, I'm not going anywhere."

Richardson was stuck in Congress with little influence despite growing seniority. Clinton plucked him from the House to be UN Ambassador, the biggest and most important job Richardson ever held - until Clinton promoted him to Energy Secretary a couple years later. Before those posts, he would have had a tough time and lots of competition to win, say, the Governorship of New Mexico. After Clinton, it was his for the asking.

Any credibility Richardson has as a national candidate (for either spot) exists because of the huge boosts Clinton gave his career. So long as Hillary was the "inevitable" nominee and leader in national polls, he even defended her from attack while running against her. Many accused him of running to be her Veep. But when Obama overtook her as Richardson ran out of money, Bill decided to wait and see what happened before endorsing.

He's now made his calculation, and believes Obama will win, so he endorsed him during a tough couple of weeks. It couldn't stop the bleeding, but any good news was a band-aid at the time. Perfect timing for a guy angling for the Veep spot, hoping to get back to DC after being bored in New Mexico (he had been in DC most of the time from 1983 - 2002). He gave Hillary one day's notice.

If he was a guy whose career my spouse made, and treated me like that, I would consider it a betrayal, too.

But even Carville and Hillary won't "threaten to come after" super delegates who don't support them. That would be dumb, since they don't have a position of strength at the moment. Instead, they will continue to argue electability, secure in the knowledge that the super delegates are more concerned with what happens to the Party (especially themselves) than to any particular Presidential aspirant.

They have to hope at least three of the following things continue to occur and remind those delegates of this theory every day: 1) Hillary must exceed expectations in the remaining states, finishing with obviously stronger momentum; 2) she must hope Obama continues to suffer from bad news, or makes unforced mistakes; 3) she must avoid major mistakes on her own which could derail her momentum; 4) Obama's numbers versus McCain continue to weaken, either nationally or in key states. This enables the electability argument to gain traction.

And Sen Ried and DNC chief Dean are working hard to drop a house on Hillary. How cool is all this?

Loyalty normally runs one way with the Clintons as with the Bushes. Bill was tiffed when Bill Clinton wouldn't come out and campaign for him in his New Mexico 2004 governorship race, plus he lost his chance to be Veep running mate with Gore in 2000, because of the bad handling of the energy Lee spy scandal by the Clinton administration, Richardson included. He has said he has paid back the Clintons enough for his service which has far as I remember is not to the president but to the constitution and citizens of the nation. He is a free man and at the same time can say what he thinks now (within reason); albeit, it may also put him good stead, for a job with the Obama adminstration in 2010 when his second term limit governorship ends in NM.

I think this should put aside any doubts about who would be running the show in a Hillary administration. Richardson's loyalty should be to BILL, not Hillary. The fact that Carville is coming after him proves in my mind that Bill is still back there pulling the strings.

Now I like the idea of a woman or any minority running for public office because it "feels good". But I have always felt that true affirmative action is when race or gender doesn't matter in any selection process, meaning that it's all about the most qualified individual. But a woman running on her husband's coattails, trying to claim experience when she was just busy selecting the White House china, and lying about her actions is just not a qualified individual.

I also think that a political newcomer whose vast experience was in the Illinois legislature trying to decide whether or not to declare war on Iowa is not qualified either. In spite of how gifted he may be in the giving speeches department.

Richardson's loyalty should be to BILL, not Hillary.

I was going to make exactly this point in response to Jim's comment.

And let's not forget that Richardson helped Bill Clinton fill his "Latino quota" in the cabinet.

This enables the electability argument to gain traction.

I think more than that is required. Someone said that they need to "break his back" politically. They need to make Obama so toxic in the public's eye that he becomes unelectable. That's her only prayer of seizing the nomination.

"The unmistakable message that the Clinton campaign is sending to any prominent undecided superdelegates out there is that if you turn against us we are going to come after you and destroy you."

Lol. Sorry to see your anti-paranoia medication is still back ordered, Larkin. Get well soon -- just watch out for the Clintons - their probably going to hunt you down and destroy you for writing this. Quick! Put on the tin-foil hat so they can't scan you.

I'm mean really...

Elect-ability matters a great deal. It doesn't matter who gets the Democratic nomination if they can't beat McCain in November, and Barack Obama has so polarized and divided Democrats he hasn't a prayer in November.

Supedelegates need to weigh that in their decision -- when they're not being told by Barack that Florida and Michigan Democrats shouldn't have a say in the nomination process.

I can't believe that "Mr Change and Hope" pulled that stunt, fighting tooth and nail to stop the primary do-overs. What a two-faced putz, disenfranchising two large, important states lie that. I bet lots of Reagan Democrats will switch over as a result of that, and we're already seeing a shift in the polls that reflect that.