Name in Vain

Did James Carville really compare Bill Richardson to Judas? Why, yes, it seems that he did! Maybe the Clinton camp's inner circle has just totally lost touch with reality and they really think that sort of thing is appropriate. The mindset seems a little bizarre, though. When Richardson accepted the appointment as U.N. Ambassador from Bill Clinton was he supposed to take it for granted that that constituted an implicit promise to endorse Clinton's wife's presidential campaign years in the future? That he'd signed-on for lifetime service to the House of Clinton?

Meanwhile, consider the reverse proposition -- if Clinton's key backers believed the things they're saying about the need for experience then why weren't they supporting Richardson's presidential campaign? He played a more substantive role in the Clinton administration than she did. Plus he had more years in congress and six years as governor. He's just the "former members of the Clinton administration who currently holds statewide office" who happens to have the wrong last name.

UPDATE: Of course from a Christian perspective, there's also a wee problem with comparing Hillary to Jesus.

Comments

How long until the Clinton campaign releases a statement that the planet Earth does not exist?

Posted by How Insane Is John McCain? | March 22, 2008 3:13 PM

You're either with us or you're against us!

Posted by Monster | March 22, 2008 3:13 PM

so, is Bill supposed to be Jesus, or is Hillary ? or are they both part of a two-part Godhead: two aspects of the same divine being ?

also, fuck you, James Carville.

Posted by cleek | March 22, 2008 3:17 PM

I thought that Carville was remaining studiously non-committal about the race. The last time I saw his name in the papers was when he was denying that he had any role at all in the Clinton campaign.

Posted by Justin JJ | March 22, 2008 3:18 PM

That he'd signed-on for lifetime service to the House of Clinton?

Ya know what MoDo says about the Bushes dividing the world into "peers" and "the help"? I think Bill has been spending too much time with Poppy and Bar.

As for Carville... no man of moral fiber and mental stability could stay married to a member of the Iraq Study Group. Especially after she volunteered her dark arts to "Freedom's Watch". He lets that woman touch his children with her blood-stained talons.

Posted by Jim | March 22, 2008 3:19 PM

Obama's surrogates could use the Carville statement why there is a need for change....that the Clinton are so steeped in the Washington mindset that they continue to expect quid pro quo with everyone.

Of course Clinton would say it is a betrayal of loyalty, but one's version of loyalty is another's version of reciprocity.

Posted by anonymouse | March 22, 2008 3:22 PM

How do we know Carville wasn't implying that Richardson was like the cool Harvey Keitel Judas from The Last Temptation of Christ? You know, the loyal and loving servant who had to make a difficult decision of "betrayal" in order to save the souls of man.

Posted by Tom in Raleigh | March 22, 2008 3:23 PM

While most people have heard rumors that Jesus was black, it is a little known fact that Judas was Hispanic/Latino.

Posted by Robert | March 22, 2008 3:26 PM

Matt Y.

Clintons are upset in that now HRC will have no role. With Obama and Richardson getting together, may be the VP spot for HRC is going away.

That is the story.

But here is the missing element:

Who will identify the VP first? McCain or Obama?

If Obama has Richardson (or AZ or KS govs.),
then what will McCain do?

Will McCain pledge that he will run only one-term? If he has Romney as his VP with that pledge, what will Obama do?

This is what is needed from the Press. The VP discussion.

Atlantic?

Posted by eorse | March 22, 2008 3:31 PM

Richardson accepted the appointment as U.N. Ambassador from Bill Clinton was he supposed to take it for granted that that constituted an implicit promise to endorse Clinton's wife's presidential campaign years in the future?

Um, yes?

I mean, it's pretty clear that Bill Richardson would be a nobody if Bill Clinton hadn't picked him for the position. And this is how Richardson repays that? Yikes.

Meanwhile, Obama's campaign is comparing Bill Clinton to Joe McCarthy...

Posted by Al | March 22, 2008 3:32 PM

Candidates expecting to be nominees picking their VP before the convention is a fairly recent development - certainly not before Carter picked Mondale (it might have been a few days before the convention at earliest, but might have been during it. I don't think it has ever been done more than two weeks before.

I can't imagine McCain picking his VP until the Dems do - whoever picks second has a clear advantage in waiting.

Richardson obviously has a strong chance, but he might be equally good and perhaps at some level prefer to be Secretary of State.

Posted by hopeless pedant | March 22, 2008 3:37 PM

I suppose it's only a matter of time before there's a band called Jesus Clinton. Actually, a nice ring.

Posted by Anonymous | March 22, 2008 3:38 PM

Matt,

You have lost touch with reality. If the voters of FL and MI are not included, can the Democratic nominee win in November? Do you really believe all your spin about Obama?

Even with the Richardson endorsement, the Obama camp is afraid of the upcoming primaries in PA and other states. How can you say that Obama can win when he is losing in the swing states?

One more thing, Obama is receiving these endorsements because he raised a lot of money for these politicians. They are looking out for their own self interest.

Obama is putting his own ambition before the real needs of this country. He has no track record of bring unity. If anything, he hides from controversy.

Posted by EWard | March 22, 2008 3:40 PM

Carville's entitled to an opinion. Maybe there is some behind-the-scenes stuff that we don't know about that makes Richardson's endorsement particularly repugnant.

Anyway who cares what Carville says? Not much question about his lack of class. The guy married Mary Matalin.

Posted by Undecided | March 22, 2008 3:42 PM

How can you say that Obama can win when he is losing in the swing states?

you do realize that it won't be Obama vs. Clinton in the general election, don't you ?

Posted by cleek | March 22, 2008 3:45 PM

"I mean, it's pretty clear that Bill Richardson would be a nobody if Bill Clinton hadn't picked him for the position. And this is how Richardson repays that? Yikes."

Do your homework. Bill Richardson was in the US congress BEFORE Bill Clinton ever nominated him for anything.

Also, Clinton didn't give Richardson the governor's job. I live in NM, and Richardson is very popular here. He won with nearly 70% of the vote. If he wanted to, he could probably hold the governor job for life, even if he never spoke with Clinton again. He'd probably get (now retiring) Pete Domenici's Senate seat, if he chose to run in that election.

Yes, Bill Clinton gave Richardson a job. But to suggest that Richardson would be nobody without Clinton? Give me a break. He had prominent jobs before and after Clinton. The world doesn't revolve around Clinton.

Posted by bigNowhere | March 22, 2008 3:45 PM

Dealing with two comments earlier:

To the AI troll -

If Bill Richardson is such a loser, why did Condaleeza Rice ask him to go to North Korea to do some behind the scenes neotiating with them? This is an administration that never goes outside their circle - yet they thought Richardson was valuable.

On the FL/MI situation -

Part of the reason we may see a rush to Obama soon from the superdelegates is that if he has enough to win, his campaign will then endorse seating the existing delegations, thus making the problem go away. Expect that as the most likely solution.

Posted by hopeless pedant | March 22, 2008 3:48 PM

you do realize that it won't be Obama vs. Clinton in the general election, don't you ?

Hey, you never know ...

Posted by justinb | March 22, 2008 3:51 PM

Have outraged kids all over America started burning their James Carville LPs yet?

Posted by Pesto | March 22, 2008 3:53 PM

If the voters of FL and MI are not included, can the Democratic nominee win in November? Do you really believe all your spin about Obama?

Pretty soon Hillary's going to start saying that water doesn't help plants grow and blame the resulting famine on Obama's hatred of agriculture.

Posted by Starscream | March 22, 2008 3:54 PM

Why should Richardson show undying loyalty to people who dismiss him as insignificant the minute he disagrees with them?

Posted by Monster | March 22, 2008 4:00 PM

"One more thing, Obama is receiving these endorsements because he raised a lot of money for these politicians. They are looking out for their own self interest."

So in other words, quid-pro-quo is the honorable thing to do when the beneficiary is Hillary Clinton, but is "Judas" when it benefits Obama?

By your logic, Clinton should have locked up the nomination a long time ago. Bill and Hillary have been raising money for Democrats for 25 years. Obama's big fundraising only started last year.

When would Obama have had the opportunity to raise money for Richardson? Richardson's last election (for gov) was in 2006, before Obama's fundraising took off. I was here in NM that year. Trust me, Richardson had plenty of money without Obama's help.

The other big-time demoncrat that has endorsed Obama is Ted Kennedy. If you think Obama raised money for him, show some documentation. I'll bet you can't find any.

Posted by bigNowhere | March 22, 2008 4:02 PM

While I think Carville's comments were over-the-top and inappropriate, I do not think that Bill Richardson endorsed Obama for any particularly high-minded reasons. It's classic bandwagoning -- Richardson went with the guy with the fanfare and most likely to win.

In terms of what this means for Clinton, it's a sign of her weakness with some (not all) superdelegates -- while many of them have longer relationships with her than with Obama, any loyalty was loyalty to power, not loyalty out of conviction or deep friendship. She and her campaign needs to spend more effort making a positive case for her to superdelegates and less effort intimidating and simply trying to call in chits.

Posted by dry_fish | March 22, 2008 4:05 PM

Plus, there's an implication that WJC did Richardson a favor with the appointments rather than that Richardson deserved them. Since it was as a "favor," apparently Richardson owes Clinton for life.

Posted by evie | March 22, 2008 4:16 PM

"Pretty soon Hillary's going to start saying that water doesn't help plants grow and blame the resulting famine on Obama's hatred of agriculture."

Hello! Of course this is going to happen - Hillary has been taking big money from the Brawndo Corporation. It's got what plants crave!

Posted by Tom in Raleigh | March 22, 2008 4:20 PM

For what it's worth, part of Clinton's problem with getting more superdelegates beyond the early committers has been that the Clintons have actually been crappy fundraisers for Democrats, especially IIRC outside the Northeast and Arkansas. Bill spends more time giving speeches for the big bucks than helping the party out.

Part of the reason to have a primary in the first place, especially in our era of strong political personalities and weak parties that has come into place as primaries have become a bigger determining factor in the nomination process is to see who can make a stronger party to go toe-to-toe with the GOP. Fundraising is an important part of that, especially since the GOP is a subsidiary of K Street. Somebody who does a good job fundraising for Democrats is doing a good thing politically for the party.

Posted by Reality Man | March 22, 2008 4:23 PM

Plus, there's an implication that WJC did Richardson a favor with the appointments rather than that Richardson deserved them.

Or that Richardson did Clinton the favour by accepting and doing a good job.

Posted by McKingford | March 22, 2008 4:23 PM

Richardson's endorsement is a betrayal as, according to Bill Clinton, only his wife and McCain are patriotic. So, Richardson's more like Benedict Arnold than Judas, but it is Holy Week.

Re Florida and Michigan -- how is this election different from any other? I mean, in 2004, the primary was locked down after New Hampshire, or certainly by super tuesday. We've never had national primaries, so have Florida or Michigan EVER mattered to the nomination? Isn't that why they broke the rules in the first place?(Knowing full well this would happen).

The Times points out that Clinton overplayed her hand, on these states. Essentially, she was so aggressive and desperate, she made the revote a referrendum on her, which is why it failed. Is this how she's going to be a "fighter?" To punch herself exhausted? Anyway, the lack of a revote is first on the state legislatures, then on Clinton, and lastly on Obama.

Posted by David B. | March 22, 2008 4:26 PM

so, is Bill supposed to be Jesus, or is Hillary ? or are they both part of a two-part Godhead: two aspects of the same divine being ?

Think Catholicism - the Trinity. Carville can be the ghost...

Posted by McKingford | March 22, 2008 4:27 PM

Another interesting thing about superdelegates: the list on Wikipedia shows that the elected official superdelegates lean Obama while DNC party insiders and elites lean Clinton. This means that the very people who took away MI and FL votes are the ones supporting her and who she depends on to give her the nomination. After all, Ickes, her advisor who now wants MI and FL seated, voted to strip both of those states of their supporters. It wasn't Obama who did that, but Clinton's owned supporters.

Posted by Reality Man | March 22, 2008 4:31 PM

Richardson went with the guy with the fanfare and most likely to win.

When he was chivalrously defending Clinton in the debates, back when she was still the frontrunner, folks sneered that he was angling for the VP slot.

Hmmm...

It's also interesting how everyone has praised Obama for his loyalty to Wright, but Richardson's betrayal of loyalty to Clinton is dismissed out of hand.

Posted by Swift Loris | March 22, 2008 4:38 PM

bigNowhere

The NYT ran an article about Obama and his "minor role" in the Senate. As a Senator, he has been a fantastic fundraiser for the Democratic Party. He chose to become a candidate after Tom Daschle advised him that a chance at the nomination might not come again. So, it wasn't because of any great vision, it was pure ambition. However, the U.S. is not ready to have another President learning on the job.

Hillary is basically running against a large part of the Democratic Party. Right after her victories in RI, TX, and OH, the NYT made that keen observation. Obama has had a huge advantage. A fawning media, including the esteem ones at the Atlantic and hardly any scrutiny until recently. Give me a break about her advantages.

Hillary is leading in PA and WV and is within 1% point in NC.

Yahooooooooooooo!!!!!!!

Go Team Hillary!!!

Posted by EWard | March 22, 2008 4:42 PM

"Re Florida and Michigan -- how is this election different from any other? I mean, in 2004, the primary was locked down after New Hampshire, or certainly by super tuesday. We've never had national primaries, so have Florida or Michigan EVER mattered to the nomination? Isn't that why they broke the rules in the first place?(Knowing full well this would happen)."

Apparently they were given the choice of having an extra 30 delegates each if they waited. Oops.

Posted by Reality Man | March 22, 2008 4:44 PM

EWard, you are so utterly out of touch. First, Clinton's campaign is dead in the water. Second, all the cool people use Google, not Yahoo.

Posted by phil | March 22, 2008 4:48 PM

That NYT piece used Lindsay fucking Graham to deride Obama's Senate career. Enough said.

Posted by Monster | March 22, 2008 4:51 PM

However, the U.S. is not ready to have another President learning on the job.

when was Hillary president the last time ?

Posted by cleek | March 22, 2008 4:57 PM

Of course from a Christian perspective, there's also a wee problem with comparing Hillary to Jesus.

FWIW, from Bartleby.com's New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy's notes on the phrase "thirty pieces of silver":

“'Thirty pieces of silver' is also used proverbially to refer to anything paid or given for a treacherous act."

http://www.bartleby.com/59/1/thirtypieces.html

Posted by Swift Loris | March 22, 2008 5:03 PM

Al said: Um, yes?

Wow. Then he should support Chelsea when she one day moves to some new state and runs for office as well?

He was loyal to Bill. It does not extend to Hillary. we passed the 22nd amendment for a reason. Only 2 terms to a customer.

Posted by swarty | March 22, 2008 5:08 PM

EWard .... hmmm. advantages.

Hillary had double-digit poll leads in every state last year. She had more national name recognition, and was the presumed democratic nominee. In superdelegates who pledged early, she held a substantial lead over Obama.

Many of the big-shots in the democratic establishment (like Richardson) worked for Bill Clinton in 1990's and are working for her on this campaign. CNN's main liberal commentators were James Carville and Paul Begela, both of whom work for Clinton.

And finally, her husband has been the defacto leader of the democratic party for the past 8 years.

But, in the end, despite all of that, I think you are correct. Hillary Clinton has been at a disadvantage. Why? because Barak Obama is a much better politician and candidate than she is.

Posted by bigNowhere | March 22, 2008 5:08 PM

I remember a few years ago, some radio talk show called Mary Matalin for an interview. The host asked her where her husband (James Carville) was. Without missing a beat Mary said, "He's out on a rock in the back yard, shedding his skin." Truly a marriage made in Heaven.

Posted by Stillman | March 22, 2008 5:08 PM

eWard,

Obama won Texas. Hillary did not have a big win in Texas, Obama did.

Posted by texasdem | March 22, 2008 5:10 PM

Swift Loris-- Yes, and it means that entirely due to the story of the last supper and the betrayal of Christ. It has no other origins, and James Carville is a grown man who knew what the phrase meant and exactly what he was doing.

EWard-- so? Obama won 11 states in a row (I'm not counting the 12th, for obvious reasons). You seem to be arguing that the states from here on out should count double, because if they didn't then Hillary can't win. But in reality, in a race with no momentum, later races won't be looked at as anything special.

Posted by soullite | March 22, 2008 5:14 PM

How long until the Clinton campaign releases a statement that the planet Earth does not exist?

Earth exists. It's just not one of the significant planets.

On to the Jupiter primary, baby!

Posted by EarBucket | March 22, 2008 5:15 PM

Barack: I knew Jesus, Jesus was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jesus!

Posted by Gordon Tryon | March 22, 2008 5:25 PM

Barack: I knew Jesus, Jesus was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jesus!

Posted by Gordon Tryon | March 22, 2008 5:25 PM

Give Carville some credit. At least he's not suggesting that Hillary is bigger than Jesus. Yet.

Posted by Helter | March 22, 2008 5:33 PM

The vitriol from the Clinton supporters every time she or her flunkies make some bizarre and ridiculous social gaffe and get exposed for it is getting tedious.

I can't wait to see the comments from these trolls when her lie about the Bosnia trip sniper attack is exposed.

Hillary Clinton - not to mention Bill - is a corrupt, lying bitch. (And we know Bill is a corrupt, lying bitch - he told us so when he said, "I did not have sex with that woman." - not to mention the Marc Rich pardon.)

End of story.

Now Obama might be just as corrupt - but he's clearly better at hiding it. Q.E.D., he's the smarter candidate.

Or maybe he just hasn't had "thirty five years" worth of corruption to hide - yet.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 22, 2008 5:51 PM

People are missing an equal, OUTRAGEOUS problem.

THE CLINTONS CONTINUE TO LEGITIMIZE MCCAIN!!! Put aside the vile inuendo against Obama, Bill and Hillary have done more to boost Mccain's campaing than Joe Liberman.

They have long stopped acting in the interest of Dems securing the White house and more Senate and House seats… which is also key for getting the Judiciary and the Supreme Courts somewhere closer to moderation.

The Superdelegates need to put a stop to this for the sake of the Party.

It is clear that the Clintons will sacrifice the ENTIRE PARY for their remote chance to return to the White House. Why continue to enable that??? MAKE THEM STOP. The Republican's sure would not have put up with this Party destructive behaior. Why should the Dems?

Posted by denny | March 22, 2008 5:55 PM

I'm sure Bill is working on the speech for his next appearance:

"I've known a lot of saviors over the years. I've been friends with Jesus for a long time, we watch the NBA finals together. But, to me, no one has been crucified as thoroughly as Hillary. I mean it. If I had to peg my eternal salvation on anyone, and I mean anyone in the world, it would be her. Her blood has spent 35 years cleansing my sins and she's ready to bleed on day one."

Posted by Tom in Raleigh | March 22, 2008 6:02 PM

Is it just me or has this campaign suddenly gotten really autocratic?

Look at the quotes from Clinton supporters that Josh Marshall posted over at TPM -- the basic argument seems to be that superdelegates have to step in and save the American electorate from itself. Kind of a chilling attitude in, you know, a democracy. Now we see this archaic "spoils system" attitude applied to Richardson, where any Democrat who received any advantage from the the Clinton Administration will be considered a traitor if they ever support anyone not personally approved by the Clintons. This is not behavior you would expect from a major American candidate. If not explicitly autocratic, it at least recalls the kind of compromised democracy you see in India's Congress Party or South Africa's ANC. Not a happy way for American democracy to be moving.

Posted by NS | March 22, 2008 6:11 PM

So now Bill Richardson doesn't count because Latinos have already voted? That's a smooth move, telling him "you can't help us with Chicanos in Texas, so who cares what you think?" Way to diss your own supporters.

Posted by Reality Man | March 22, 2008 6:59 PM

Hillary lost swing state slike Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin.
There is no way she can win, if she loses MN or WI in the fall.

Posted by Kelly Pierce | March 22, 2008 7:03 PM

Jim-

Ya know what MoDo says about the Bushes dividing the world into "peers" and "the help"? I think Bill has been spending too much time with Poppy and Bar.

Remember the "travel office"? The "FBI files"?
Billary was merely teaching the Bushes exactly how much the Democrats would take up the ass...

Posted by I am AlGore's hairy manboobs | March 22, 2008 7:16 PM

Matthew, great points.

Carville IS a washed-up hack-for-hire.

It's only his slightly-brighter-than-the-average-hick shtick that lets him onto the talking heads shows.

He reminds me of the Simpsons' character Cletus the Slack-Jawed Yokel.

Posted by Chuckamok | March 22, 2008 7:44 PM

Matthew, great points.

Carville IS a washed-up hack-for-hire.

It's only his slightly-brighter-than-the-average-hick shtick that lets him onto the talking heads shows.

He reminds me of the Simpsons' character Cletus the Slack-Jawed Yokel.

Posted by Chuckamok | March 22, 2008 7:45 PM

And just as Judas was fired as an Apostle, so James, "the Ragin' Cajun", needs to be fired as a panel commentator, as he has now shown for sure that he can no longer be objective, as we have all suspected.

So, hopefully, bye, bye, Meet the Press and other of James' gigs.

In case he forgets, Democrats are trying to beat Republicans this time.

(Mrs. Carville could stay on some shows though. At least we all know that she is a Republican.)

BTW, James, the biblical analogy to Judas is poorly placed and ill-timed. Even if they may think so, neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton is Jesus Christ.

Posted by Robert Campbell | March 22, 2008 7:49 PM

Carville's lovely wife, Mary Matalin, is part of Dick Cheney's inner circle. Why would anyone ever trust the guy? Whoever washes his filthy mouth out should also swab it for second-hand Cheney semen.

http://www.seeingtheforest.com/archives/2008/03/someone_should.htm

Posted by John J Emerson | March 22, 2008 7:59 PM

Carville's lovely wife, Mary Matalin, is part of Dick Cheney's inner circle. Why would anyone ever trust the guy? Whoever washes his filthy mouth out should also swab it for second-hand Cheney semen.

http://www.seeingtheforest.com/archives/2008/03/someone_should.htm

Posted by John J Emerson | March 22, 2008 8:01 PM

So, let's see now- if Richardson is Judas, is Carville married to Mary Magdalene?

And, while I'm asking questions- if Hillary was that plugged in at the WH, did she know what Bill was doing with Monica? Did she watch?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Posted by serial catowner | March 22, 2008 8:12 PM

I've been organizing on a volunteer basis for the Obama campaign in 3 states now, and I have to say, the notion that the Dem establishment is against Hillary is absolutely laughable. There was a Hillary event here in PA recently and local Democratic party officials were there handing out Hillary gear. When one of our young volunteers approached them asking if what they were doing was appropriate, he was told to, and I quote, "get lost, kid."

They try to screw us all the time. The reason?

We're doing student voter reg here in PA, and while I was sitting at a table in a college, I struck up a conversation with the old man sitting next to me, selling religious books. At one point he asked me how successful our drive had been, and I gushed about it. He nodded his head and then said, negatively, "you know, what you're doing is going to really mess up local politics." I was stunned.

me: "Do you mean that you think it's a bad thing that we're registering new voters?"

him: "Well, they don't know anything about local politics."

me: "Well, local politics effects them the vast majority of their daily lives for 4 straight years, they ought to have a say in it, no?"

him: "they won't know what they're voting on"

me: "well, then it's on the local politicians and activists to get their message out on this campus, isn't it? if this a voting bloc that's suddenly important, then shouldn't local pols be courting it?"

him (scoffing): "you're just changing everything up"

For all that he gets blasted about "vague calls for change", we see major changes in the Democratic party right here on the ground, every day, and there's nothing vague about it, and it scares the shit out of a lot of establishment pols.

I say hats off to every politician that's come out for Obama, who has the balls to say "lets shake this party up, it hasn't been working right, and get into the 21st century"

Posted by Michael | March 22, 2008 8:33 PM

Does this mean we get to crucify her?

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | March 22, 2008 9:26 PM

"Does this mean we get to crucify her?

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | March 22, 2008 9:26 PM"

She's already on the cross with her dumb complaints about always being asked the first question and such.

Posted by Reality Man | March 22, 2008 9:33 PM

Obama Supporters

Stop your spinning about Obama. After Iowa, the media was crowning him as the presumptive nominee with only one win. When Hillary won NH, her win was dismissed because of racism by the white women voters. After SC, Obama was on a roll. Everytime that you have pronounced her candidacy dead, Hillary has won in the big swing states.

Hillary's Team knew after Super Tuesday, February was going to be a tough month because Obama was favored to win. With PA coming up the pressure is on to have her quit. The polls are very close in NC.

Hillary and her team are in it for the long haul. Stop with your nonsense about her advantages. Obama has the media, his millions, and the old boy network of Democratic bosses backing him. With all that, she is still winning.

Posted by EWard | March 22, 2008 9:58 PM

By what objective measure is she still winning? Lies told, or number of times backing the GOP nominee?

Posted by Tony Hussein | March 22, 2008 10:19 PM

THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!

Posted by idiotic | March 22, 2008 10:44 PM

If Richardson is a traitor now, wasn't he even more of a traitor when he ran for President himself against Hillary? Wouldn't that have been a much greater betrayal?

Posted by James Kabala | March 22, 2008 10:52 PM

If Richardson is a traitor now, wasn't he even more of a traitor when he ran for President himself against Hillary? Wouldn't that have been a much greater betrayal?

Posted by James Kabala | March 22, 2008 10:54 PM

Obama has the media, his millions, and the old boy network of Democratic bosses backing him. With all that, [Hillary] is still winning.

Oh yes, poor Hillary, frontrunner for a year, married to the leader of the Party, rich, Party establishment solidly behind her...she's all alone out there; yet somehow, she's winning - if by 'winning' you mean 'losing'. Hillary, the Victim - role model to women everywhere.

BTW, this is one of the things you get from years of mindless political polarization: an arena in which it's accepted practice for people (like EWard) to believe what they want to believe, to think that 'agreeing on basic facts' (as an early commenter put it) is somehow optional.

Posted by jonnybutter | March 22, 2008 10:55 PM

I hear Richardson is 'all hands' and harrasses a lot of women. Pretty ugly stuff.

Posted by Andruw | March 22, 2008 11:03 PM

The theme does seem to be that the Clintons are dismissive of the very idea of an Obama presidency. He's not patriotic. His win couldn't be legitimate and let's make up reasons why that should be after the fact. Why can't superdelegates play it like Richardson? They start out thinking Hillary's the likely nominee, they like and respect her, and then the more they see of the campaign, the gap between Obama and Clinton keeps widening in Obama's favor. But that's the very possibility that the Clintons cannot see.

Posted by David B. | March 22, 2008 11:29 PM

DEMAND the Clinton campaign denounce and reject Carville and his vile statement.

I hope Latino/as are paying attention to this insult.

Posted by Mark | March 23, 2008 12:41 AM

With all that, she is still winning.

right. except that she's not, you fucking idiot.

Posted by cleek | March 23, 2008 1:25 AM

Yes, and Tony McPeak compared Bill Clinton to Joe McCarthy, which is equally ridiculous. There's more than enough snark to go around-on both sides.

Posted by mollycoddle | March 23, 2008 7:34 AM

Richardson is a typical treacherous, watch-your-own-ass, no-integrity politician. He is also a Judas.

Posted by newslamp | March 23, 2008 9:02 AM

"Hillary and her team are in it for the long haul. Stop with your nonsense about her advantages. Obama has the media, his millions, and the old boy network of Democratic bosses backing him. With all that, she is still winning.

Posted by EWard | March 22, 2008 9:58 PM"

Then why are the DNC hacks backing her and not him? Whose campaign is Terry MacAuliffe working for? She had universal name recognition, yet he still raises more money than her because he's a more skilled politician. He has more votes, more delegates and more states. I'm wondering if you are pretending to be a Hillary supporter just to make them look silly.

Posted by Reality Man | March 23, 2008 9:43 AM

"I hear Richardson is 'all hands' and harrasses a lot of women. Pretty ugly stuff."

Then he must have learned it from Bill.

The depths to which Billary have sunk is truly deplorable. The one good thing about it is that the public will be innoculated about any negative on Obama, and he will be able to rise above it.

Clinton supporters continually justify the unethical campaigning by saying: "that is what it takes to beat the Republicans."

Beat them? Or is it really JOIN them?

Posted by Rhonda | March 23, 2008 1:13 PM

"I hear Richardson is 'all hands' and harrasses a lot of women. Pretty ugly stuff."

Then he must have learned it from Bill.

The depths to which Billary have sunk is truly deplorable. The one good thing about it is that the public will be innoculated about any negative on Obama, and he will be able to rise above it.

Clinton supporters continually justify the unethical campaigning by saying: "that is what it takes to beat the Republicans."

Beat them? Or is it really JOIN them?

Posted by Rhonda | March 23, 2008 1:15 PM

I haven't minded the competition between Hillary and Obama until the past couple of weeks. This ugliness is going to spill over into the general election and hurt the party's chance of winning the election. Is that Hillary's strategy? Give up on this cycle, ruin the party's chances and try again in four years? Didn't they do enough damage to Al Gore? Now they're after Obama.

It is time for the party's true leaders to follow Richardson's example and endorse Obama. This could be solved by Gore, Pelosi, Biden......

Posted by free bird | March 23, 2008 1:19 PM

Reality Man

Many Democratic leaders are backing Obama because:
1. He has been a fantastic fundraiser for the Democrats.
2. Some Democratic Party leaders hate the Clintons.
3) Obama is a new face, they are willing to roll the dice with his leadership.

Universal name recognition can only go so far. Since Obama's victory in Iowa, the media has been on his side. You cannot dispute that. Chris Matthews practically had a nervous breakdown on the air when Hillary won NH.

Right after the victories in RI, OH, and TX, the NYT wrote that Hillary is basically running against the Democratic establishment. However, she is still winning in the big swing states.

Until the April 22 primary in PA, Hillary supporters expect this drumbeat for her to drop out. She will not because many Americans need her leadership.

One more thing, we do not trust Obama. His political record does not match his great speeches. If anything, he has a history of hiding from controversy. Read the NYT article about Obama's "minor role" in the Senate.

Posted by EWard | March 23, 2008 1:51 PM

Bill Clinton cried McCarthyism in the 1992 debate, "your father was right to stand up to Joe McCarthy, and you are wrong to question my patriotism." Good for the goose is good for the gander.

Given the fact that Obama's had more legislation in the Senate than Clinton, and the "leadership" she showed in giving Bush a green light to war, Americans "need" her leadership like, as they say, a fish needs a bicycle. Considering how she started, she can't play the victim in my opinion. The argument is not that Clinton stays in because people need her leadership -- even if she has an advantage over Obama, it's at the margin -- but pure ego. This is what Richardson recognized. He also saw that Obama would make a better President despite initial early leanings towards Clinton. It's one thing to prefer one over another, but the way Hillary and a lot of her supporters talk, Obama gets no credit and no respect, and anyone who sees otherwise is an elitist, naive, or a traitor. Enough of Presidents with a "you're with us or against us" mentality!

Posted by David B. | March 23, 2008 3:40 PM

Governor Richardson endorsed Senator Obama because it was the right thing for America. Richardson emphasized that the negative campaign tactics need to stop. Clinton's derogatory remarks exemplify the kind of politics America wants to end.

The media has no conscience and will take anything negative and run it ad nauseum. Don't buy into it America. Like Richardson, do the right thing for America. End negative and misinformation by not tuning in.

Obama does not take money from PACs and Washington lobbyists, as President he will not owe favors that compromise our safety, our environment or our economic security. He runs a successful, and clean, grassroots funded campaign with integrity, intelligence and leadership. He has 12 years of experience in elected office and the endorsement of the brightest and the best in foreign policy and military advisors. There is a reason that Chris Dodd, Governor Richardson, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, the most experienced leaders in our country have supported Obama! It is the right thing to do.

Posted by Sarah McDonald | March 23, 2008 4:53 PM

off the top of my head, Bill Richardson is the only clinton cabinet member who holds statewide office, and the only other clinton official who holds statewide office is Deval Patrick, who was the head of the civil rights division of the DOJ if memory serves.

erskine bowles and janet reno both lost campaigns, i cant think of any others who ran.

Posted by mike | March 23, 2008 10:50 PM

Silly people, Carville was not comparing Hillary to Jesus, just Richardson to Judas. Loyalty seems to be a sad issue in this election. Richardson gets promised a VP position by Obama to try and secure the Hispanic Vote because Obama sticks foot in mouth on Phil. Penn radio station saying racism is breed into "typical white Americans". Majority of African Americans abandon Hillary after 35 years of public service to minorities, disadvantaged and women for a junior senator who not done anything except help himself to money from middle eastern businessmen to buy his house "2 million loan he has yet to pay back" and illegally obtained campaign money from the Illinois teachers fund. Oh, and Rezko, was suppose to have only given him $10,000 last year and this year its up to $250,000. Who knows what the number will be up to in Nov. and what charities was he suppose to give part of that money to? Wright's church perhaps?

I hope he gets arrested for all of his dirty dealings in Illinois. He has yet to do a thing for those in Illinois, like get the 2.8 billion dollar clean energy coal project, FutureGen, that was suppose to provide 1000 jobs to southern Illinois (one of his pet projects), this project was promised to Southern Illinois in Dec 07 and taken away in Jan 08. He has done nothing about it, been too busy running for president, just like he has been to busy to do anything for his state. He did get Michelle a 300% pay increase due to his and Rezko’s control over the Il. Hospital Facilities Board that gave money to Michelle’s hospital, must be nice to go from $125K job to a $375K job overnight.

I hope the Obama supporters and CNN gets their head’s out of their butts soon. Read, read, read. Read the London Online newspaper called (Times online) read the Chicago Tribune). Read his race speech; don’t listen to it, read the transcript. Although I will give him credit on the speech, never had I heard so much racism and denial sandwiched between the beginning of the speech which was stolen from a speech from Lincoln, bits and pieces throughout for JFK and the ender, I especially like, with only one word difference from Bill Clintons’ Farwell speech in 2000, all while saps in journalism lick it up and don’t check it for plagiarism, which we all know Obama is soooo good at.

What could have been 16 years in the white house for Hillary Clinton/Obama and better economy and health insurance for the American people is fastly coming all but a dream. Obama will never get anything done in office, the majority of senior Senator’s do not respect him, if he were to get elected, he would be a lame duck president and not last more than 1 term. But a thought: 4 years and with 2012 on the horizon, maybe that is all he really needs for his agenda.

Posted by Crystal | March 24, 2008 12:07 AM

I was also fooled by Obama, but after hearing his minister, I now know that Obama is just another "blame whitey" guy. We don't need someone like him in charge. I won't vote for him now.

Posted by Rob | March 24, 2008 7:01 AM

It's really getting crazy in the desperate Clinton camp. If Gov. Richardson's endorsement means nothing, then why did the Clintons seek it in the first place. Oh..now I get it...it only means nothing if it goes to Sen. Obama. Hillary's credibility is eroding and deviding the party by the hour. Keep it up Hillary. I like the idea of an Obama-McCain ticket anyway. Out with the old, in with the new. America is ready for change and the voters are speaking. When Obama wins the nomination...I guess Hil and her cronies will say that America has been gripped by mass hysteria.

Posted by LaDemLady | March 24, 2008 12:56 PM

Not that I ever actually had any relative like this but…..Carville is like your crazy old uncle. He was a hero in WW2, maybe was a fighter pilot or something, and got himself a Bronze Star. But now he really is unpleasant to be around, he’s kind of racist, or a pervert or something equally repugnant. You loved him back when you were a kid because he was always nice to you; maybe he gave you a quarter and told you to “buy yourself a Cadillac”. But now you are really glad that you only see him once or twice a year, at the Holidays.

Posted by Raindog | March 24, 2008 2:54 PM

carville was on ac360 tonight & he looked positively crazed (more so than usual, that it). he didn't offer up his usual glib, manic shtick... he looked dazed, confused, paralyzed with shock, like he is finally realizing that his little masterplan to install hillary has been foiled by mere mortals like obama & richardson. i'm pretty sure that it was carville (in consultation w/bill... two good ol' boys) who came up with the strategy to cast barack as "the black candidate". clintons and their surrogates are pure evil. i never realized it until south carolina, and now, that's all i can see. i can't even stand to look at them or hear them speak. everything that comes out of their mouths is bears no relationship to the truth and is designed to manipulate people. she cast barack as the affirmative action candidate in the cleveland debate (why do i always get the first question? aren't you going to ask barack if he's comfortable or if he needs another pillow?). apparently, as blatant as that was, it was too subtle for their target constituencies (in-bred white high school drop-outs making less than $20,000 and white women over 65), so we had the anything but subtle encore performance by good ol' "gerry". the superdelegates had better not hand the nomination to her. it would destroy the party. i would never, ever vote for her, even if it means that mccain wins.

Posted by Jill Madison, WI | March 25, 2008 12:33 AM