The immediate speculation after Richardson’s "defection," which has persisted in its wake, is that he desired the V.P. slot on the ticket or perhaps a Cabinet position and Obama secretly promised it to him. If, as the conventional wisdom assumes, Richardson started out in Clinton’s pocket, and if his continued support was so crucial, why didn’t she simply make a similar offer? Perhaps she did and it simply came down to a matter of preference. That would still leave Richardson in the role of an opportunist but it hardly says good things about her campaign.
Both campaigns say this is all about choice but it is a different sort of choice for each of them. The Clinton campaign, ever since it began trailing, has suggested the choice for the superdelegates is ignoring the gushing but misguided support for a popular but weaker candidate in favor of Hillary as the more experienced and vetted Democrat. She, the logic runs, has the best chance and probably the only chance to prevail over John McCain in the fall.
Her supporters agree with that logic and if the uncommitted superdelegates began lining up behind Clinton tomorrow, nobody would cheer louder. Conversely, when talk begins of superdelegates doing exactly the same thing for Obama, in order to shorten what has become an acrimonious campaign and get the Party united behind a chosen nominee, Clinton supporters and campaign alike wail that such an exodus would disenfranchise them.
The paradoxical nature of this logic is partisan and is practiced by both camps in this race but for Clinton it has become extremely strategic as well. Her best efforts to sway superdelegates to her, even if she remains behind in pledged delegates and the popular vote to the bitter end, is as strong as possible a showing in the blue states, such as Pennsylvania, where she has held her best advantages over Obama.
I don’t doubt Richardson appeared to leaning toward Clinton in the past because almost every smart Democratic politician was doing so at one time; she was the dominant frontrunner for a long time and to oppose her then would have been pointless and silly. Richardson is just walking in lockstep with a small but growing group of Democratic elites, such as Dodd, Leahy, and (perhaps) Pelosi, in a grassroots movement of their own. Maybe Obama just "grew on" Richardson over time – that has been the hallmark of his candidacy.
The Clinton argument to the superdelegates is not without resonance. The whole reason the superdelegate system was created in the first place was to fend off popular but fatally weak candidates. The thing may be that as the race drags on, more and more superdelegates may think they are doing exactly what they are supposed to by switching to Obama.
In that light, even as venerable political sage as James Carville may be blinded by his own bias in comparing Richardson to Judas, the "true believer" who ended up betraying his savior to the Romans for thirty pieces of sliver and a misguided attack of conscience. Instead, maybe Richardson should be more appropriately cast as Marcellus Gallio, Richard Burton’s character from the 1953 film, The Robe. Marcellus was a Roman tribune who crucified a savior and ends up becoming a "true believer" after he learns more about the man he once opposed.
