OK, so either Bill is lying when he says that Richardson is a two-faced liar, or... Richardson is a two-faced liar. Care to bet on which of these is correct?

I'll take Two-faced Lying Political Weasels for $200, Alex.

And, yeah, I'd be furious about it, too. Can you guys at least TRY to restore a little objectivity and common sense to TNR's coverage of this race?

In California, red-faced finger-pointing and long tirades count as wooing.  That explains all the single men.

Anyone still think that Bill helps the campaign more than he hurts it?

This sounds consistent with the bullying letter that Clinton's big donors sent last week to Nancy Pelosi.

I said, Show some emotion, Put expression in your eyes

Light up if you're feeling happy,

But if it's bad, then let those tears roll down.

Come on, try: learn to bleed when you get a bad fall.

Light up, light up, light up when it's nice,

But if it's bad, then let those tears roll down.

--"Show Some Emotion" (Joan Armatrading)

Ah, give the big guy a break. He should be wafting around in lear jets being high minded and pontificating about things like megatrends and here he is haggling in California with no sleep.  He's 60 something years old, I'd be snapping people's head off too.

He's been just awful the whole campaign, our Bill at his worst (well, maybe not his WORST)  but I still love the big lug.

tep, of course anyone can understand how Bill might be angry over the Richardson thing. When you hope things will turn out one way, but instead they turn out another, that kind of sucks. We've all been there. But when someone whines about it like the entire Clinton machine has done, we call that person a "sore loser."

Anyway, it's not like either Bill or Hillary Clinton has a reputation for being the kind of politician whose private word is his or her public bond.

Chris - no offense, but executive alpha male types who've been double-crossed have been known to scream now and then. Happens a lot more often than you think-- I've seen it, and No, it's not pretty, and Yes, it's totally within bounds and expected by anyone used to dealing with executives.

ratner hit the nail on the head.  Thanks, rat, for connecting the (big blue) dots for us.

Unsurprisingly, Bill Clinton dissents from the view Bill Richardson laid out in his op-ed yesterday.

Executives, maybe; politicians need to be...whats the word? Politic...

"Anyway, it's not like either Bill or Hillary Clinton has a reputation for being the kind of politician whose private word is his or her public bond."  Word, Rhubarbs

tep - true enough -- well, true that it happens, not that it's "within bounds" -- but Clinton isn't an executive dealing with his underlings.  He's a private citizen trying to persuade other private citizens to vote in a certain way.  Yelling and pointing fingers is absolutely the wrong way to go about doing that.  It's not expected and it's certainly not useful to his cause.

stgla - connecting dots was always my best subject in school!

What's with the giant font ??

I suspect Bill's facing the problem that getting Hillary elected is like pushing rope.

Fair enough, rat. I guess it all comes down to whether you view Bill C as the Big Dog or, as you put it, just another "a private citizen trying to persuade other private citizens." I still view him as the Big Dog-- smaller than he was, but still a voice to be listened to. Maybe I'm out of touch on this one.

Good point, Chris. I hear you. Not politic, or effective.

Tep whether or not he's a "Big Dog" isn't really relevant. No one wants to be yelled at, least of all a super delegate. I know if someone did that to me, I would simply leave the room, ex president or not. I have walked out people whose net worth was over 300 hundred million in similar situations.

Tep, this is from the description of The Plank on the site:

"Nor will The Plank be anywhere near the official online voice of the magazine, but rather the reflection of its primary authors (Michael Crowley and Jason Zengerle) and their occasional collaborators on the staff. In other words, our fellow writers and editors at the magazine shouldn't be held accountable for The Plank's idiocies."

If Chris is an Obama supporter, why should he maintain any facade of objectivity? Just because you're feeling outnumbered here doesn't mean TNR's staff should accomodate you.

Clinton's comments certainly characterize Obama's most recent superdelegate (whom the media held up as a trophy) as a liar and an opportunist (implied.  See Vice President).  

rozen - if and when the rest of the site offers a working, user-friendly commenting and discussion feature set, I'll gladly hie my arse thither and comment away there, leaving the Plank and the Stump as Spine-like tribal gathering grounds.

But the rest of the site has no realistic discussion option. Comments take forever to appear, and when they do, are buried in the dreck contributed by all sorts of non-sub wackos. And then there are articles that mysteriously disappear from the homepage, like the "Bush is Laughing" piece by The Editors. The Spine is increasingly unhinged, Open U has almost gone dark.

Which means that if you want intelligent conversation around political content, the only game left is Plank & Stump, which are basically now the daily diary of the Obamian Dream. Or the NW DC Chapter of the Obama FanClub, hard to tell which.

If you like cheerleading, cool, go for it. If you like intelligent and at least semi-detached analysis, well, I think this transformation is a loss. Maybe if I were a young political journalist in DC I'd feel differently, but I'm a reader first and a partisan second.

Oh barf - the self-pity party is getting on my LAST nerve with these people.  This is their least impressive quality as people and the fact that they encourage it in their supporters is worse.

It is incalculable how much more effective they would have been on so many issues had they been sly, gracious, witty or all of the above.  I have spoken to several people who have said that their vote was lost on this wailing, whining, self-pity party alone.  I live in New York City, where whining is mocked pretty savagely and the word...ahem...pussy..has been used with no shame to describe our Bill.  And this was from women.  Social workers, no less.

This is politics, not business, not family - the melodrama of the betrayed from our Bill, who would sell his mother for a vote or to save his hide, is just silly.  Bill RIchardson's career was alost destroyed by Bill Clinton, he does not owe him a thing and he knows it.

I always thought it was vry obvious that Bill Richardson was going to endorse Obama.  I think I read at least two or three hints dropped in the NYT months ago that Richardson considered himself a "Bill" guy.  That translates into: I can't be bullied into liking the Mrs.  Deal with it.

Ah Tep - please give it a rest already - if we're not up to your erudite, oh so nuetral standards, then check out for awhile for chrissakes.  I am tired of the complaining frankly.

Wasn't it the Clintons who have been urging the super-delegates to vote according to what they think will best serve the party?  I guess in Clinton-world, it is so self-evident that Hillary is in our collective best interest that it never occurred to them that voting the best interests of the party would be a vote for Obama.

This is just another example of how tone-deaf Hillary is and Bill has become.  I hope the former Big Dog keeps wagging his finger and yelling in the faces of super-delegates.  Wrap this thing up for Obama that much the sooner.

Tep, I haven't seen any single wisp of a piece of a shred of anything to suggest that Hillaristas are the slightest bit less partisan and more thoughtful and analytical about any single thing than are Obama's supporters.  You just don't seem to like being in a minority.  So don't be.  Hillary is doomed anyway.  Why not start focusing on the general and how it an be won?

hey wandrey, with the Clintons loyalty is a one way street. if they were all such tight friends, then why didn't they endorse Bill Richardson and instead betray him by having Hillary run?

roi - no "Hillarista" here. I'd like to see my preferred political discussion site offer more light and less snark, maybe scoop a story now and then, get out front of an emerging meme instead of just linking to blogs that link to other blogs that link to bloglinks to the NY Times...

Case in point is that marvelous interview with Karl Rove that's featured in, of all places, GQ, which reveals that the GOP increasingly views Obama as a fat target based on his arrogance, his and his supporters'  dismissiveness of blue-collar whites, also what Rove calls the gap between his actual congressional behavior and his nonpartisan, bridging-the-divide shtick.

We've been here before, and it was ugly. Dukakis, Kerry, Obama: the Dem as Arrogant BS Artist is an easy card for the GOP to play, especially when so many Obama supporters exemplify this snide and arrogant attitude to a T.

I'm not clear on how Bill is obviously the truth teller in this conflict. He's been known to duget the truth before, particularly when he wags his finger. Richardson seems like a more honest guy, to me. That's what makes his clumsiness almost forgiveable.

Clearly, Uncle Bill is not used to losing.  It's been almost 25 years since the last time he blew an election

Seems like it's not just Obama supporters who "exemplify [a] snide and arrogant attitude"; physician, heal thyself.

Whatever. I'll take Lying Liars Who Have Lied Under Oath Before for $1000.

My suspicion is that the real reason that Bill hit the roof is not because RIchardson is an opportunistic pol - Clinton's used to that, it's the game he plays. If Richardson had said "Bill, she's not going to win, I held out this long and didn't mess with Texas, but I have to look out for myself at this point, ok?" Bill would have still been pissed off, but not like this.

This comes from somewhere else, and I think that he just hate hate hated the fact that Richardson went with his conscience and not with the crony, that he actually believes Obama should be president and will speak out at the cost of his still very valuable alliance with the Clintons. As Carville said, R could have said nothing and things would have been fine. But noooooo.