Didn't Chris Dodd a few weeks back say that Obama would be better than Hillary because of her Iraq war vote? Which, of course, was exactly the same as Chris Dodd's vote, prompting a friend of mine to ask if Dodd was going to return the money he raised for his campaign since, like Hillary, he clearly isn't qualified to be President and had no business running against Obama and his superior judgement.

And here's Riverdaughter's summary of Richardson's endorsement (which should be checked out on her site because she includes links):

I love change. We all are for change. But the question is, examine the record of those that in the past produced change. The 1990’s were a decade of peace and prosperity because of the competent and enlightened leadership of the Clinton administration, but experience IS a leper. Obama’s plan is inadequate and does not end the war, but he has the judgment and courage we need in a commander in chief. My affection and admiration for Hillary Clinton and President Bill Clinton will never waver, but the American people are not going to elect someone who isn’t seen as honest and trustworthy. We all know the real culprit — the disastrous economic policies of the Bush Administration, but will she finally admit to workers that she was one of the chief proponents of NAFTA? To rise above our racially divided past, I UNITE HERE with those who claim Hillary no respeta a nuestra gente.

 Heh.

What I have a problem with are people espousing a set of rules strictly on the basis of advocacy for their candidate, without regard to whether it's a good thing for the party, long-term. Just because it's Good For My Candidate Now doesn't make it a smart way to run the party over time, and those who are indulging in these kinds of proclamations at a volatile moment without taking that into consideration are not showing either good judgment or leadership.

this is how I feel about the 48 state strategy.

does he bring to Obama? He isn't popular anywhere, and he's lousy on the stump.

It's like Kerry and Kennedy going all out for him, and he couldn't even carry Mass.

What I have a problem with are people espousing a set of rules strictly on the basis of advocacy for their candidate, without regard to whether it's a good thing for the party, long-term.

This is a petard upon which many campaigns and advocates and, ahem, blogs might be hoist.

And they're not all pro-Obama.

For the record, I support Obama, but I also support do-overs in FL and MI. I also realize there are thorny problems with both, but I think they are worth doing.

He wants a VP spot desperately. When HRC was ahead, he defended her during a debate when the other guys were piling up. Now that BO is ahead, he sucks up to him... simple as that.

He's really not worth working out on.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

i'm hearing the same "this is a big deal" that they said endlessly about Kerry and Kennedy (and that whole parade of Kennedys and Maria Shriver, etc) before--it wasn't a big deal at all, and Obama lost MA and CA.

Every endorsement for Obama is always gigantically important (unless it's Al Sharpton's)--and Hillary's campaign is always over---rinse and repeat.

It would have been nice to see Murtha get a little press.

... is that nobody believes them. It's always an uphill climb.

Same deal with the Boiz on the Blogs, and for exactly the same reason.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.