Well, then.  He was pointing his finger.   And we know he tells the truth when finger-points in righteous indignation.  Especially when he is being intense, really really intense.  Richardson told him so; and he never had sexual relations with that woman.

Is it me or is the Clinton campaign falling apart?  I mean, shouldn't they be concentrating on winning the next ten primaries instead of arguing over what the Governor of New Mexico might or might not have said to Bill Clinton, and how many times?  I mean, if Richardson's backing is meaningful, surely attacking him like this is not going to be helpful to the Clintons; and if is not, then why all the red-faced, intense fuss?

Or is the case of the rage of the Feudal Lord being told he's no longer entitled to the droit de seigneur?

That 1% number is bogus, since it includes both Florida and Michigan (even if you want to argue for including Florida, including Michigan as a 328,000-vote win for Clinton is indefensible).  In the contests that everybody agreed would count, Obama is leading the popular vote by 3%, and the pledged delegates by 6%, and it is highly unlikely that Clinton can overcome his lead in either metric.

Also, Noam is right that if Obama went through the same stretch Hillary went through in February he would probably not still be in the race.  Noam's also right that asking Clinton to drop out doesn't really help matters, even if you genuinely think that she should.

Noam, I assume you mean the public figures/elites supporting Obama, because as a rank and file Dem I'm proud to say DTFO to Hillary if I ever saw her in person.  (DTFO = "please drop out" in less polite terms).  She can't win the nomination without destroying Obama and (further) weakening herself.  (I read that on TNR so I believe it).

Why does HRC have every right to continue her campaign but her opponents don't have the right to ask her to drop out? Here's how this should go:

Hillary: I'm still running this race.

Obama fan: Please, quit so my candidate can win right now.

Hillary: Hell with that. Make your candidate quit so I can win.

Obama fan: Hell with that.

Hillary: Fine.

Obama fan: Fine.

... aaaannd, scene. /clap

I don't understand why no one (at least to my knowledge) has been making the obvious point about the Richardson-Clinton-Carville situation. Everyone is debating about whether loyalty requires this or that, but what is being ignored is the clear implication of Carville's remark---namely, that loyalty is the *best* reason for Richardson to have supported Clinton! Carville is not mad at Richardson for getting the facts wrong, or for overlooking Clinton's positive qualities, or for believing that Obama is ready to be President. (Or at least those aren't the reasons he's speaking out.) It's as though Carville is acknowledging that the only reason Richardson should have supported Clinton is that he owes her (or, strictly speaking, her family) a favor! But if *that* the problem with Richardson---if, in other words, the only reason we should support her is that we owe her a favor---then Clinton really is in trouble.

Carville's comment suggests that our political debts should determine our votes. I think that's disgusting (even if it is commonly accepted).

Woody: I like it.

I'm thinking more along the lines of those obnoxious PC/Mac ads, with Hillary the PC and Obama the Mac.

Fits like a glove.

All well and good: I prefer Obama. However, I hate Macs.

Flies like a banana.

I think Woody put it nicely.  Saying you're not allowed to tell Hillary to drop out is a bit like saying you can't question the President after 9/11 when he rushed to invade Iraq.  If anyone BELIEVES that Hillary exiting gracefully now rather than later is a good thing, then they should feel free to say so without getting lectures or feeling like they are hurting the feelings of a powerful figure. Afraid of turning Hillary into a victim??  Are you serious?  (The only victimization she has suffered has been at the hands of her husband).

There's a difference between victim and loser.  

woody, great post.

She's allowed to keep running, but she shouldn't. We're allowed to say she needs to DTFO, but we shouldn't becase it makes people mad [even though it shouldn't]. All true.

It's really not about "allowed": I'm allowed to wear puff sleeves, but I shouldn't because my shoulders are small and broad. The absolute worst combo for puff sleeves. And if I were to wear them anyway, and someone were to tell me I shouldn't, the lamest possible response would be "but I'm allowed!"

The  the strength of loyalty in politics varies from issue to issue. Politicians have their own constituencies to worry about and so must support varying positions. So no one expects a politician to vote based his/her personal loyalty to another politician. That is why there is that old comment that goes a politician is only loyal until the next vote.

President Clinton's anger stems from what he feels was outright lies that Richardson told him as to what he would do in the future concerning his endorsement of Hillary or Obama. If Richardson had told him the truth back in January, or called him personally and told him that he was changing his mind, the pin probably would not have come out of the grenade.

Being loyal should not be minimized when the self-esteems of politicians are concerned. They are human too.

Imagine what the Obama campaign would be saying if he won the popular vote in one of the most populus states in the union, by a clear 51-47 margin, only to lose the delegate race in a caucus event that took more than a month to sort out. They would have been SCREAMING about how manipulative and underhanded the Clintons were, and how the POPULAR VOTE is what counts, doesn't it? And yet I've heard not a peep from the Clintons.

If you have the impression that Hillary attacks Obama more than Obama attacks Hillary, it's probably because it's true. Obama doesn't need to attack. The press does such a thorough job of it.

I agree with MSilvers that Carville and others are not addressing the substance (rather than the symbolism) of Richardson's endorsement.  My sense is that Richardson is actually holding back on things he might otherwise be saying about the Clinton(s) campaign precisely due to what is left of the loyalty he has to them.  He has stated positively, if vaguely, his reasons for supporting Obama, but I don't think we know the entire story of what is also evidently a rejection of Hillary.  I assume Richardson has seen the red face and loaded index finger of Bill in person on more than one occasion, and had the same response as the rest of us....

The "Poor Hillary, she is attacked unfairly by everyone" shtick has really gotten old.  I remember back to last summer when all of the inhabitants of Hillaryland were so sure that Hillary would be the nominee that they completely ignored everyone else in the democratic race and started focusing on the republicans...trying to act "presidential" and above the fray.  Heck, they were even debating on what call Bill when Hillary occupied the oval office.

Now that people have actually voted, and the majority have NOT chosen Hillary nor do they seem likely to do so, those souls who still inhabit Hillaryland try to change the rules of the game and lash out like petulant children when anything does not go their way, the once popular Bill gets nasty and indignant, and the candidate herself brays on in selfish denial like the band on the Titanic.  Frankly, it is all to sad to watch.......

I'm curious about your theory lmuscarella - exactly what manipulating and underhanded dastardly-ness did Obama DO to win the delegate count in Texas? Single-handedly re-write the rules in the dead of night two years ago? You don't even make sense.  The Texas legislature writes the rules for primaries.

I agree that it's bizarre that someone can win the popular vote, but not the delegate count - but that is not the fault of the winner OR the loser.  Them's the rules.  Bill Clnton cleaned up in caucuses, he didn't whine once.  

I wonder if you can even see how whining and self-pitying these sorts of comments are?  I thought Hillary was the tough guy in the race - all I hear is incessant self pity, whining and victimology - it's like listening to toddlers all day.  Its not tough, let alone inspiring.  It's pathetic!

Can someone explain the strategy of all this?  How in the world does it held The Clintons?  And if Richardson is such a Judas, why the need to attack him at all?  Precisely who is being persuaded by any of this?  Do the Clintons think that they are wracking up browny points with the Latino vote this way?  What oh what is it all about?  

Annabella2 there is no strategy to these outbursts. They are emotionally driven, unwise, and uncontrolled.

Is Bill Clinton on some sort of medication? Just wondering....