Happy (early) April Fool's

Quid pro quo... or tit for tat

Slate's John Dickerson brings up an interesting question: How did Barack Obama win the support of former candidate Bill Richardson?

Dickerson suggests the two pols might have worked out a deal, where Obama gets the endorsement, while Richardson gets picked as the vice presidential nominee or wins a cabinet role if Obama is elected.

It's not hard to imagine Richardson as Obama's running mate.

The current governor of New Mexico's long resume would add experience to the Democratic ticket, and his Mexican heritage would help bring the Latino vote into the fold.

But, I think there may be other factors at play.

Maybe the governor felt miffed by Hillary Clinton's suggestion that Obama would make a fine vice presidential candidate, on her ticket.

After all, this winter, Clinton was making similar (and maybe more realistic back then) invitations to Richardson.

Of course, most people saw Clinton's suggestion that Obama take the VP slot as a ploy, rather than a genuine invitation.

But maybe Richardson felt passed over by the former front-runner, and wanted to let her know she can't have it both ways.

Or maybe after Clinton used the hypothetical VP pick to undermine Obama, the New Mexico governor looked back at her hints this December with a new set of glasses.

When compliments become condescending, the formerly flattered might feel miffed.

And this wonderfully written piece in the New York Times shows just how pissed the Clintons were about the endorsement - and that Richardson knew perfectly well how the former first lady would see it.

Ferraro flap

Whether by chance or design, Barack Obama and his supporters have been lured into attacking former vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro.

That is a mistake, because on the face of it, there is not a real argument you can pick with Ferraro's original comment.

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color), he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept." - Ferraro as quoted in the Daily Breeze

It is a ridiculous argument to make, either for or against it.

Obama is neither of the two, and nothing Ferraro says is ever going to change that.

Obama could have turned ignored it or spun it around into something positive, but he, and more importantly his supporters, took the bait, and Ferraro started reeling in.

Because of the back and forth between the two campaigns, it Ferraro's comments may have sounded like another over-the-top insult, like "monster" or Kenneth Starr.

But they weren't.

And by responding to it as though it were an overt attack, the Obama camp starts to sound paranoid about his ethnicity.

Sure, Ferraro's comments are dismissive of Obama's candidacy, but they are rooted in a Bizarro world, so they are meaningless and without substance, a glimmer of nothing.

Responding to the comments just gives them more validity, and - worse for Obama - more play in the news.

Plus, now Ferraro has gone out on a limb claiming any criticism of Obama's campaign is considered racist, which is bound to be supported by the public's response to this skirmish.

Ferraro knew what she was doing: Make a seemingly harmless comment about Obama's race in the middle of a food fight between the two campaigns.

The only way for Obama to avoid race baiting is to not bite the worm.

TrendVigil, we hardly knew thee

This is my first post in a long time. I have been very busy doing other things. I'm cooking something up in my head that I will put down on paper later this weekend.