Hillary Clinton Told Richardson “‘Barack Obama Can’t Win’ (UPDATED)

A new ABC report sheds more light on the spirited exchange between Senator Hillary Clinton and Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson when Richardson called Clinton to tell her that he was endorsing rival Senator Barack Obama: Clinton insisted Obama could not win the Presidency:

ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos Reports: Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and former President Bill Clinton are making very direct arguments to Democratic superdelegates, starkly insisting Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., cannot win a general election against presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

Sources with direct knowledge of the conversation between Sen. Clinton and Gov. Bill Richardson, D-N.M., prior to the Governor’s endorsement of Obama say she told him flatly, “He cannot win, Bill. He cannot win.”

And herein lies what will be called the fatal flaw of the Clinton campaign if it fails — that is, besides former President Bill Clinton being accused of playing the race card or losing it in front of California Superdelegates: the Clinton campaign’s main focus now seems less on arguments for Hillary Clinton, her ideas and what she can do for the country than constant pounding on negative themes about Obama.

To be sure, she is presenting some solid proposals such as her economic plan:

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton returned to Pittsburgh on Wednesday and proposed $7 billion a year in tax incentives to encourage U.S. companies not to outsource.

At the IBEW facility on the city’s South Side, Clinton announced to a few hundred supporters the details of her so-called “insourcing” plan to eliminate tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas, and use the savings to encourage job creation.

But the campaign’s key thrust has evolved into stop, discredit and dismiss Obama rather than Clinton making the case in public and in private why she should be the overwhelming choice to be chosen as the Democratic nominee in terms of her qualities and ideas.

Meanwhile, with James Carville’s comments about Richardson being a “Judas,” and Bill Clinton turning red-faced and sputtering when the subject of the New Mexico Governor’s name came up, Richardson replied directly to Carville and the Clintons in a Washington Post op-ed in a piece titled “Loyalty to My Country.”

Among other things, he suggests Bill Clinton was not accurate in saying he ever promised to endorse Hillary Clinton — and he portrays Carville and by implication the Clintons as relics of the politics of personal destruction and partisanship of the 80s and 90s. Some key sections:

This was a difficult, even painful, decision [for former Clinton cabinet member to endorse Obama]. My affection and respect for the Clintons run deep. I do indeed owe President Clinton for the extraordinary opportunities he gave me to serve him and this country. And nobody worked harder for him or served him more loyally, during some very difficult times, than I did.

Carville and others say that I owe President Clinton’s wife my endorsement because he gave me two jobs. Would someone who worked for Carville then owe his wife, Mary Matalin, similar loyalty in her professional pursuits? Do the people now attacking me recall that I ran for president, albeit unsuccessfully, against Sen. Clinton? Was that also an act of disloyalty?

And while I was truly torn for weeks about this decision, and seriously contemplated endorsing Sen. Clinton, I never told anyone, including President Clinton, that I would do so. Those who say I did are misinformed or worse.

As for Mr. Carville’s assertions that I did not return President Clinton’s calls: I was on vacation in Antigua with my wife for a week and did not receive notice of any calls from the president. I, of course, called Sen. Clinton prior to my endorsement of Sen. Obama. It was a difficult and heated discussion, the details of which I will not share here.

And here’s his blazing finale:

I do not believe that the truth will keep Carville and others from attacking me. I can only say that we need to move on from the politics of personal insult and attacks. That era, personified by Carville and his ilk, has passed and I believe we must end the rancor and partisanship that has mired Washington in gridlock. In my view, Sen. Obama represents our best hope of replacing division with unity. That is why, out of loyalty to my country, I endorse him for president.

Indeed, these are the sentiments that polls show many independent voters share — that it’s time to move American political campaigns out of personal attack and personal destruction mode into an era with a more substantive and less personalized discussion of big issues. A quaint idea but, then, all things go in cycles.

Cartoon by Nate Beeler, The Washington Examiner

UPDATE: A new Rasmussen poll echoes what we have said here many times: Bill Clinton is sandbagging his reputation in his battle to win the White House for his wife:

Bill Clinton has campaigned aggressively on behalf of his wife during Election 2008. Forty-three percent (43%) of Americans believe that his behavior during the campaign will hurt his reputation in history. Just 17% believe his reputation will be helped while 29% say it will have no impact.

These views are found across demographic and partisan lines. Among Democrats, just 22% believe Clinton’s campaigning will help his reputation while 41% believe just the opposite. There is virtually no gender gap on the issue—17% of men and 17% of women believe he has helped his reputation. Forty-six percent (46%) of men and 41% of women hold the opposite view.

Among African-Americans, 11% say the former President has helped his reputation while 43% say he has hurt his legacy. For White Americans, 18% believe he has helped his reputation while 45% take the opposite view.

Younger adults are less pessimistic about the impact when compared to their elders. Among the youngest adults, those under 30, 27% say Bill Clinton has helped his reputation while 40% say he has hurt it. Among senior citizens, those numbers are 11% and 48% respectively.