Sure, James Carville is brilliant . . . so brilliant that even on the one-in-a-million chance that Queen Hillary secures the nomination he’s ensured that no Obama supporter will vote for her in the general election. That Carville sure is genius, sheer genius.

You got love James Carville, he’s brillant! Via his metaphor, he gave you the clue to why Bill Richardson endorsed Barack Obama.

Richardson left the race with a large campaign debt. I wonder how long it’s going to take for that to debt miraculously gets paid off?

After all Barack Obama’s campaign has given the most money to the super delegates, almost a million bucks.

Hillary has also never addressed homophobia or transgenderphobia with a non-LGBT audience, unlike Obama, who spoke passionately about the need to combat homophobia in the African American community in the speech that he made — in a black church — on Martin Luther King Day.

So I agree with you that we should judge these candidates on how they’ve treated the LGBT community. Hillary has treated the LGBT community shabbily at best (and I’m being charitable in that characterization), and so LGBT voters should most definitely take that into account in deciding who to support for president.

Look at how Obama’s national communications director Robert Gibbs treated the reporter at the Gay People’s Chronicle – an Ohio gay newspaper:
http://www.bilerico.com/2008/03/the_story_behind_the_reporting.php

Excerpt:
“In my 12 years as a reporter, I have never experienced anything quite like Obama’s national communication director Robert Gibbs, either.
I wasn’t biting on the crap he tried to feed me, and he got offended. When I stood there not writing any of it down, Gibbs said to me, “Let me tell you how this works. I talk and you write down what I say. I’ll write down what you say when you answer the question,” I responded, adding that “I’m no campaign’s stenographer.”
Gibbs actually took the pen and pad out of my hands and wrote his own answer! He also asked for the Donnie McClurkin letter to be e-mailed to him, claiming he didn’t remember what it said. It was. He didn’t comment further.
Would Gibbs treat a New York Times reporter this way? How about a Cleveland Plain Dealer reporter?

“Asking the campaign to explain the difference between McClurkin and Farrakhan is a fair question. The Obama campaign, however, treated the question with indignation, claimed that the reporter mischaracterized events, and erroneously claimed that “Senator Obama spoke out against the hateful views of both Donnie McClurkin and Louis Farrakhan. Obama spokespeople pivot to the MLK Day speech as though it settles every debt to the LGBT community, past and future.”

The Obamas are as guilty as any other campaign when it comes to attacking but the only difference is they like to portray themselves as somehow above the fray and better than other politicians (Remember, “The Audacity of Hope”). In one breath the Obamas will decry “old style gutter politics” and then in the next breath go on to excoriate anyone who dares disagree with them. It’s hypocritical and offensive.

We worked hard to be sure Obama didn’t win Ohio, and I encourage other LGBT brothers and sisters to work hard in other states to expose the hypocrisy of the Obamas. We’ll be there to help!

@ Jose and Maria: For those who call this an affront to the Hispanic community, who call him a snitch and a backstabber…I’d ask: where the hell were you when this man was running for President?

The reality is that Richardson had very little in the way of institutional support from the Latino community during his run (sans, perhaps, Jimmy Smits). His decision to drop out of the presidential race before Nevada is proof positive of that fact.

Why should Bill Richardson show loyalty to a group that, for the most part, showed absolutely no loyalty to him?

That’s crazy.

As for ‘the will of Hispanics,’ if your argument is that politicians and elected officials have an obligation to support the candidate who has won the overwhelming majority of votes from the community from which they come, by that logic, the fact that Obama has won close to 90% of the African American vote obligates all black elected officials and superdelegates to support Obama for president; isn’t that the logical conclusion of your argument…?

The lowest form of life in almost any segment of American society is a snitch or a back stabber.

Bill Richardson’s actions proved that he can be on your side one day and on the other side the next. “Typical” politican.

Endorsement of Senator Clinton would have proven Bill Richardson to have at least have a semblance of loyalty. Besides, what good is his endorsement now?

Endorsement of Barak Obama shows that Bill Richardson will turn on anyone if he thinks it will benefit Bill Richardson.

More change we can believe in…