Richardson as Judas

I think James Carville's Washington Post column declaring Bill Richardson a "Judas" because apparently when Rep. Richardson accepted a post in Bill Clinton's administration he was making an ironclad commitment to support his wife's future presidential campaign misses the point pretty badly. Among other things, he seems to completely miss the lack of perspective involved in implicitly analogizing Hillary to Jesus.

But more to the point, it really is a strange conception of the underlying dynamics. I imagine that many of the people Bill Clinton appointed to executive offices believed, as Richardson no doubt believed, that they were getting something more than patronage job offers. They believed they'd been selected for reasons that had at least something to do with their merits and that accepting didn't imply a commitment beyond service to their country and the administration for the duration of their appointment. Are we supposed to take it for granted that anyone who's not prepared to back a Michelle Obama 2024 presidential campaign ought to decline a position in Barack Obama's cabinet?

Comments

Yglesias wrote: "Among other things, he seems to completely miss the lack of perspective involved in implicitly analogizing Hillary to Jesus."

I keep seeing people say this sort of thing.

Do people really think that calling someone a Judas implies that you're comparing the person they've allegedly betrayed to Jesus? I've never attached that connotation to the phrase before. But I've seen several people say this. Am I the one misunderstanding the metaphor, or are they over stretching it?

Posted by Patrick | March 31, 2008 12:16 PM

I suspect one of the dawning realizations of this campaign is that the vaunted Clinton campaign ain't what it used to be. So much of Hillary's appeal as a presidential candidate was the belief the only decent Democratic organization was coming out for one more big win. But as happens with athletes, musicians, and pundits, those amazing skills have dulled with age and prosperity. A big reason Bill did so well in '92 was that he had all the young turks, with the fresh ideas and the limitless stamina. Pit Carville/Begalla '92 against the two this year and the young versions would be giving their elder selves wet-willies and wedgies.

Posted by NHCt | March 31, 2008 12:17 PM

Well, you know the story by now--loyalty to one's particular tribal group, Realpolitik, primate thinking, Florida, Michigan, one hand washes the other, "legal realism," Darwin, Hobbes, et al., etc. etc.

Posted by James Gary | March 31, 2008 12:17 PM

Both Matt and Carville get the politics pretty wrong here. The notion of "I'll scratch your back and you scratch mine" inherent in politics is a repeated game, meaning that if the Clinton machine can no longer punish Richardson for defecting, he will defect. It's a testament to Hillary's weakness that she lost Richardson's endorsement (witness that it didn't happen until last week), not because Richardson lacks honor (as Carville would have us believe) or because he's a public servant rather than a hack (as Matt says).

Posted by Marshall | March 31, 2008 12:18 PM

I think Carville's comments (and continuing defense of them) are offensive, but saying he's comparing Clinton to Jesus is going into faux-outrage territory nearly as bad as the inane claim that Obama was sexist for using the word "periodically".

Judas is a common symbol of betrayal just as Benedict Arnold is, and using him that way doesn't imply that the one betrayed is Jesus any more than using Arnold implies that the one betrayed is the United States.

Posted by KCinDC | March 31, 2008 12:20 PM

If Hillary is Jesus, give us Barabbas!

Posted by zapf | March 31, 2008 12:25 PM

Do people really think that calling someone a Judas implies that you're comparing the person they've allegedly betrayed to Jesus?

Every time I hear the phase, I can't help but think of the guy who shouted "Judas!" when Dylan went electric back in '66. I'll bet a hundred bucks said shouter's a steadfast HRC supporter.

Posted by James Gary | March 31, 2008 12:25 PM

I sounds to me more feudal than tribal: loyalty to the aristocracy, and all that. Which is rather different from my view of what democracy is all about. Perhaps Clinton should renounce and reject Carville....

Posted by wj | March 31, 2008 12:26 PM

Isn't it likely that Carville's just trying to change the narrative from "Obama picks up big endorsement" to "Richardson's a traitor"? I'm not sure he cares so much about whether or not Richardson was actually loyal to the Clintons. Carville's seemed way too smug in his interviews on this after the fact. He's proud of the fact that his comment has gotten more press than the original endorsement.

I can't stand him, but he's no dummy. This was a calculation, designed to change the narrative and show future supers what's in store for them if they cross Team Clinton.

Posted by Jake | March 31, 2008 12:26 PM

Although, that analogy would mean that Bill Clinton is Mary Magdalene, which I think is pretty damn funny.

Posted by Trigger | March 31, 2008 12:27 PM

There's that James Carville, giving lie to all those statements Hillary's made on the trail and in debates in response to questions about Bill (can you control him? What sort of a first laddie will he be?), about, you know, judging a person by their own merits, and how I'm running on my record of leadership.

It's not Bill, it's Hill. Cut this Billary crap, I'm Hillary, and I'm my own person.

Except that Carville has made it all about Bill. Again.

So if we check the box for Hillary Clinton, who exactly are we electing?

Posted by Susan Kitchens | March 31, 2008 12:27 PM

Luis Valdez had some choice words regarding Carville's singling out Richardson for this comment at the Latino Caucus at the California Democratic Party Convention last weekend.

More to the point, both Clinton and Obama supporters in the room cheered loudly in approval of Valdez.

Carville calling Richardson a Judas was an idiotic, damaging move that does affect the dynamic of the race and may well hurt Clinton's standing among Super Delegates.

Punditry isn't practiced in a vacuum.

Posted by kid oakland | March 31, 2008 12:29 PM

Richardson argues that he repaid the favor by performing very well in the job. Carville argues that Richardson owes allegiance to all of Bill Clinton's relatives forever onward--the favor shall never be repaid; it probably passes to Richardson's children. The latter is just a lousy argument for how to run a government--and Richardson is far from the first Clinton staffer to endorse The Other.

As for Carville's claim that Richardson had promised not to come out against her: assume it's true. I think, however many former Bill allies made these claims, it was not with an implicit "whatever happens, no matter what you do, no matter how it may appear in my judgment that you hurt the party or the nation, I will always be true." Changing facts on the ground are reason for changing endorsements. Consider that way back when NYTimes endorsed Clinton they asked her to change the tone of her campaign, and that tone has changed for the worse.

I think the reason for the Carville editorial was that he was so tickled to finally matter in a news cycle he wanted to do it again.

Posted by Deborah | March 31, 2008 12:31 PM

I doubt Carville's comments were not approved in advance by the Clintons. They have to do everything in their power to stop the tide of superdelegates going to Obama. I think they wanted to use Richardson as an example of what happens to former Clintonistas if they endorse Obama. If they can't count on those votes, what votes are they going to get?

Posted by MW | March 31, 2008 12:31 PM

I can't stand him, but he's no dummy. This was a calculation, designed to change the narrative and show future supers what's in store for them if they cross Team Clinton.

He has them right where he wants them -- genius!.

BTW, Obama picked up two prominent supers in the last few days, ended up with more delegates from Texas, and now Obama's ahead by ten points (52-42) in the Gallup daily tracking poll.

Posted by Mike | March 31, 2008 12:38 PM

Carville's metaphor fails because of the implicit presence of a transcendently worthy figure in the role of the betrayed. Analogies don't demand one-to-one correspondence since they wouldn't be analogies, they be equivalences. But Carville had simple "betrayal" at his command, but that wouldn't be rhetorically hot enough. So, he reached for "Judas". As a result, Carville deserves all the mockery aimed at him. And, as Yglesias hints at, the comparison comically diminishes Hillary since the first or second thing anyone thinking of the analogy would notice is that she's not up to it.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | March 31, 2008 12:41 PM

When Carville accuses Richardson of disloyalty, you have to understand that Carville's concept of loyalty is the same as a dog's. A dog is loyal to his master, not for any particular reason or even because the master necessarily treats the dog well, but just because it's his master. That's the primitive, degenerate mindset Carville brings to politics. The Clintons are his "masters" and nothing else matters to him.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | March 31, 2008 12:45 PM

I listened to an interview with Richardson shortly after the Obama endorsement. He stated that he had watched the Super Bowl with Bill Clinton and had been prepared to endorse Hillary shortly afterward - so we don't know what sort of agreement had been reached at that point that would make him appear to be a traitor in the eyes of the Clinton campaign - but I suspect that Carville's statement has more to do with the breach of some sort of almost-agreement to endorse, rather than some supposed eternal fealty to the Clinton's that people like MY are turgidly suggesting.

Posted by Ethel-To-Tilly | March 31, 2008 12:47 PM

James & Mary had a nice dodge going for years. It was so cute to see them together on TV with their civilized disagreements. . . Of course Mary spun for the lies of Bush, Cheney, Gonzo,et.al, But, it sure paid well.

James is now out of the Clinton loop so he needs to keep his name out there some way. Surely this will keep him in demand on the speech circuit thru the Fall election.

It's all a game folks and we pay to watch.

Posted by Wisconsin Reader | March 31, 2008 12:56 PM

I suspect that Carville's statement has more to do with the breach of some sort of almost-agreement to endorse, rather than some supposed eternal fealty to the Clinton's that people like MY are turgidly suggesting.

Carville wrote a fricking Washington Post column about it so if he wanted to let us in on any details to defend his actions he could have.

Posted by Lemmy Caution | March 31, 2008 12:57 PM

This is terribly overwrought, Matt. Where I come from, calling someone a "Judas" was always just the same as calling them a "Benedict Arnold". These names just refer to two famous betrayers of lore, and are thus handy terms for imputing disloyalty. Calling someone a Judas was never taken to imply that the betrayed party was particularly Jesus-like, any more than calling them a Benedict Arnold was taken to imply that the betrayed party was particularly Continental Congress-like.

Carville's statement doesn't really bug me. These are the natural emotions of people who are losing their hold on power, and seeing their old networks of friends and allies collapse. They naturally feel abandoned and betrayed. What else is new? The irritation is exacerbated when there is a generational element involved, and an older power structure becomes aware that it is being displaced by the new Young Turks.

Carville is an old soldier of the fading Clinton machine, and I'm willing to allow that he is entitled to some cranky rage. It's poignant actually. But it doesn't change the fact that the Clintons are losing, and Carville knows it.

Posted by Dan Kervick | March 31, 2008 12:57 PM

Carville noted that the most important quality for him is loyalty. Richardson had reasons to be loyal to the Clintons, including his appointments in the Clinton years. For Carville, this means Richardson had reason to be loyal -- but he wasn't. Thus, the Judas metaphor. It's pretty logical and fully justifiable.

Posted by Calvin | March 31, 2008 1:04 PM

Richardson's taken a lot of flak for his endorsement but I've never seen him display so much integrity. As he said on Face the Nation yesterday, loyalty to the country trumps loyalty to the Clintons.

Something tells me that, if HRC had chosen not to attack Obama so hard, Richardons would have held back. I think the guy really meant it in the debates that he wanted the campaign to maintain a high ground. As Clinton sunk fast into gutter politics, Richardson reconsidered staying silent.

I also think Obama's debate cue meant a great deal to Richardson. Law of karma...

Posted by Judy | March 31, 2008 1:04 PM

I think what we are actually meant to take from what Carville has said - is that anyone who's not prepared to back a Chelsea Clinton 2028 presidential campaign ought to decline a position in Hillary Clinton's cabinet.

It's old school politics all the way, deals and alliances trump the public good.

Posted by J S | March 31, 2008 1:06 PM

Carville completely failed to address the reasons WHY Richardson endorsed Obama. Instead, the Rovian response. If you don't like the message, attack the messenger. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Posted by David B. | March 31, 2008 1:07 PM

Did someone tell Hillary she isn't Jesus? Seems like healing the sick and turning water into wine would be the kind of thing she's claimed she did in the 1990s.

Posted by Rid | March 31, 2008 1:09 PM

I think of the scene from a Simpson's episode in which Mr. Burns stands up and screams "Judas!" at Smithers just as lightning crashes. The scene just would not have been as funny if Benedict Arnold and Judas were interchangeable.

Yes, calling someone a Judas means the person being betrayed is somehow Christ-like. Do not call someone a Judas unless you want to look crazy.

It's okay for Carville to say it because he's crazy.

Posted by Consumatopia | March 31, 2008 1:11 PM

In another interview, Carville claims that Richardson assured more than one Clintonista that a Hillary endorsement was forthcoming. If true, I imagine this is at the root of the bitterness.

Otherwise, let's recall that Bill Richardson ran for president *against* Hillary Clinton, which, by any standard, should be a much more egregious breach of loyalty. Why wasn't he a Judas then?

Posted by Ryan W. | March 31, 2008 1:14 PM

I imagine that many of the people Bill Clinton appointed to executive offices believed, as Richardson no doubt believed, that they were getting something more than patronage job offers.

I've noted before that what is mystifying about the criticism is the idea that appointing Richardson was entirely a favour to Richardson rather than Richardson's acceptance and good performance was a favour to Clinton.

Not to mention, how is Richardson's endorsement of Obama a bigger betrayal of Clinton than - oh, I don't know...competing *against* Clinton for the Democratic nomination?

Posted by McKingford | March 31, 2008 1:22 PM

Judas? (shakes head) Carville is just a bullethead. He always looks one step away from mass murder. I'm really glad Crossfire got cancelled. He's the reason.

Posted by artmann11 | March 31, 2008 1:23 PM

Every time I hear the phase, I can't help but think of the guy who shouted "Judas!" when Dylan went electric back in '66. I'll bet a hundred bucks said shouter's a steadfast HRC supporter.

I'll take that bet. The "Judas" incident took place at the Royal Albert Hall in Manchester, England. There's a high probability that the guy yelling "Judas" was not American. I don't know how many Brits consider themselves "steadfast" HRC supporters.

Posted by vanya | March 31, 2008 1:23 PM

Are we supposed to take it for granted that anyone who's not prepared to back a Michelle Obama 2024 presidential campaign ought to decline a position in Barack Obama's cabinet?

Yes.

And vice versa. Barack Obama should not put anyone in his cabinets, like for instance any evil Republican, that would sacrifice Obama & his policy goals to personal ambitions or competing political loyalties.

James K Polk could tell ya. Bill Cohen screwed Clinton and the Democrats, or tried to by replacing Clark.

No, Matt, you do not want a Republican Cabinet member who will try to sabotage Obama & the Party, no matter how "qualified & competent." We'll get a few anyway.

Posted by bob mcmanus | March 31, 2008 1:25 PM

In another interview, Carville claims that Richardson assured more than one Clintonista that a Hillary endorsement was forthcoming. If true, I imagine this is at the root of the bitterness.

John Lewis actually did endorse Clinton, though, before switching his endorsement. And Maria Cantwell endorsed Clinton but is now saying that she thinks the pledged delegate winner will get her vote. You don't see Carville fulminating against them. No, it didn't have anything to do with Richardson changing his mind -- it was all about what he "owed" the Clintons.

For what it's worth, the "you owe them" tack was also taken by Albright when she put the heavy pressure on Richardson to endorse Hillary, and it was said that that really got his goat at the time.

Posted by jbryan | March 31, 2008 1:26 PM

Great reasoning by Calvin. Carville values loyalty, so when he perceives someone as disloyal, it is reasonable for him to be upset. Can't argue with that. However, most people see governement as something more important than a publicly-funded patronage system.

My favorite part from the article:

Bill Richardson's response was that the Clinton people felt they were entitled to the presidency. In my mind, that is a debatable hypothesis.

So he seems to be saying there is a case to be made that the Clinton people actually do feel entitled to the presidency (i.e. it is "debatable"). I suppose he may be using understatment for ironic effect, but Carville isn't exactly known as a master of subtle irony.

Posted by ibid | March 31, 2008 1:30 PM

For our sake she was crucified under Rush Limbaugh she suffered, died, and was buried.
On April 22nd she rose again in fulfillment of the polls; She ascended into the Whitehouse and is seated at the right hand of Bill Clinton. She will come again in glory to judge the donors and the non donors, and her presidency will have no end.

Posted by AJ | March 31, 2008 1:35 PM

"Carville noted that the most important quality for him is loyalty. Richardson had reasons to be loyal to the Clintons, including his appointments in the Clinton years. For Carville, this means Richardson had reason to be loyal -- but he wasn't. Thus, the Judas metaphor. It's pretty logical and fully justifiable."

What's questionable is Carville's apparent contention that because the Clintons appointed Richardson to some positions that they are entitled to something beyond polite and respectful treatment. Carville is reducing politics to a form or gangsterism where Richardson "owes" Don Clintoneone, because The Dongfather once did him a service. Loyalty to the party, loyalty to the country, even loyalty to one's own best judgment have no room in Carville's world.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | March 31, 2008 1:35 PM

I love how b/c Richardson has decided that BHO is the horse to back all of a sudden he is a statesman motivated solely by concern for the national interest! Do any of you really think that if HRC had won the Wisconsin primary and done better on March 4th Richardson would have gone with Obama?

Richardson promising that he wouldn't endorse anyone else is arguably worse than John Lewis, who changed his mind, and who was under huge pressure.

Marshall: Loyalty is not staying with people who can punish defection. The idea of loyalty in game theoretic terms would be that by keeping your commitments you generate a reputation for trustworthiness and loyalty which is credible to others precisely because it costs you something to have it. You generate this reputation by not always doing what is in your short-term interest. This credibility makes other people more willing to deal with you in the future even in the absence of an enforcement mechanism beyond your reputation. It's a strategy that makes sense rationally without any normative aspect, but of course whole value systems and cultures are built on it, although Matt is pretending not to know this.

On some level this is still operating even for many politicians. Notice how few of the Black pols who endorsed HRC early on when she looked stronger have defected in the manner of John Lewis. It can't be helping them with their constituencies to be supporting her at this point and they can't expect (as they might have for a while after Obama gained ground in the Black community) that she is likely to win anymore either. But they still aren't all running over to the Obama camp. Why is that if not that it matters to them to be seen to keep their commitments?
For Richardson evidently it doesn't. So even for a politician he is a low-life, and that's saying something.

Posted by Vito Marzullo | March 31, 2008 1:40 PM

Are we supposed to take it for granted that anyone who's not prepared to back a Michelle Obama 2024 presidential campaign ought to decline a position in Barack Obama's cabinet?

Yes.

And vice versa. Barack Obama should not put anyone in his cabinets, like for instance any evil Republican, that would sacrifice Obama & his policy goals to personal ambitions or competing political loyalties.

James K Polk could tell ya. Bill Cohen screwed Clinton and the Democrats, or tried to by replacing Clark.

No, Matt, you do not want a Republican Cabinet member who will try to sabotage Obama & the Party, no matter how "qualified & competent." We'll get a few anyway.

Posted by bob mcmanus | March 31, 2008 1:42 PM

It makes no difference whether Hillary is Jesus in this analogy or not. That's not the point. The point is that the more Carville keeps flapping his gums, the more preposterous Hillary's campaign seems and the less presidential she looks. Let him keep talking. He's doing Obama's work for him.

Posted by Howard B. | March 31, 2008 1:44 PM

that analogy would mean that Bill Clinton is Mary Magdalene

And that Richardson was seen kissing Hillary . . .

Posted by rea | March 31, 2008 1:44 PM

We believe in the liberal media, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from Bill and Hillary. With Bill and Hillary it is watched and glorified. It has spoken through the Pundits. We believe in one holy Democratic majority Congress. We acknowledge one liberal arts degree or union membership for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of FDR, and the life of the world to come. - Amen

Posted by AJ | March 31, 2008 1:45 PM

For those opining that Matt is overwrought to read Hillary = Jesus into Carville's comments, it is important to recall that the comment was made on Easter weekend not, for example, the middle of September. In the middle of September "Judas" may be a mere "traitor", but on Easter weekend he is the one who sold out Jesus for 30 pieces of silver.

Context matters.

Posted by Strega Nona | March 31, 2008 1:51 PM

For those opining that Matt is overwrought to read Hillary = Jesus into Carville's comments, it is important to recall that the comment was made on Easter weekend not, for example, the middle of September. In the middle of September "Judas" may be a mere "traitor", but on Easter weekend he is the one who sold out Jesus for 30 pieces of silver.

Heck, one doesn't even need to read something into the timing -- Carville made it explicit in his actual quote by alluding to the date and the price. His full quote wasn't just that Richardson was Judas, but that it was ironic that the endorsement came on the anniversary of selling out Jesus for 30 silvers.

Posted by jbryan | March 31, 2008 1:59 PM

Howard B. has it right here. If Carville wants to say that Bill Richardson is a rat abandoning a sinking ship, then the message he is putting out is that the Clinton campaign is a sinking ship. If he wants to say that Richardson is like Judas, selling out his master to her doom, then he is putting out the message that Clinton is doomed. If he wants to say that Richardson is welshing on a long-term debt that he owes the Clintons, then the message he is putting out is that the once mighty Clinton machine no longer has the power to call in its old favors and collect on the debts it is owed. Nothing could be better for Obama than for the Clinton people to get into these sad and desperate recriminations, and to move right now into the post-campaign payback stage. They might as well be shouting "game over!"

Posted by Dan Kervick | March 31, 2008 2:05 PM

"Why is that if not that it matters to them to be seen to keep their commitments?
For Richardson evidently it doesn't. So even for a politician he is a low-life, and that's saying something."

Except, RICHARDSON NEVER MADE ANY COMMITMENT TO THE CLINTONS! That's what makes Carville and folks like you the "low-lifes" in this scenario.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | March 31, 2008 2:08 PM

"So even for a politician he is a low-life, and that's saying something."

Yeah, saying something it certainly is.

"The idea of loyalty in game theoretic terms would be that by keeping your commitments you generate a reputation for trustworthiness and loyalty which is credible to others precisely because it costs you something to have it."

Theoretics, diuretics, paramagnetics, peripatetic pharmakinetic tartar emetics...Blech! Now I have to learn game theory to understand why James Carville is such an ass? Sheesh, when did everyone start behaving so rationally?

Posted by Rihilism | March 31, 2008 2:14 PM

If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog.

Posted by Harry S. Truman | March 31, 2008 2:24 PM

Why do we have to wait until 2024 for Michelle's candidacy?

Posted by Geoff G | March 31, 2008 2:44 PM

The failure of the analogy to me is not that it would suggest HRC as JC, but that Richardson's endorsement is hardly the death blow that Judas' betrayal was. Does anyone think that any significant number of votes are going to swing from HRC to Obama because of Bill Richardson? C'mon.

Interestingly, though, it's hard for me immediately to think of a famous ineffectual betrayal to use as an analogy.

Posted by Glenn | March 31, 2008 3:08 PM

Why is anyone listening to Carville anymore anyway?

Good grief...he and the whole yesteryear campaign tactics are what most folks are rebelling against.

It's too bad my generation can't gracefully understand they are no longer what the country wants and again gracefully hand over the reins so we can retire to the rocker on the porch.

We're always there for advice if our young uns need it, but good grief, give it up boomers.

In the meantime, Carville, just shut up.

Posted by G Davis | March 31, 2008 3:09 PM

Because they are losing the pledged delegates and popular votes by a significant amount (Yo Petey! - basically Clinton can't get ahead with these) the Clintonoids have been screaming that people shouldn't bully the superdelegates and let them make up their own minds...

The Clintonoids are not only bullying Richardson by calling him a traitor and insulting him, they are warning other superdelegates who might jump ship.

Posted by Peter K. | March 31, 2008 3:38 PM

Dan is right. The more the Clinton campaign makes these sorts of stupid remarks, the less "Presidential" they seem and the less likely their candidate has to actually be the nominee (not that she has much chance at this point anyway.)

All they're undoubtedly doing is antagonizing many superdelegates and making them MORE likely to swing to Obama.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 31, 2008 5:40 PM

I still don't understand why, if Richardson is a Judas for endorsing Obama, he wasn't an even greater Judas when he was actually running against Hillary Clinton himself. Wouldn't that have been the ultimate betrayal?

Posted by James Kabala | March 31, 2008 10:06 PM

I bet the guy who yelled "Whipping Post!" right before the Allmans started into Whipping Post at the Fillmore East is an HRC supporter now, too.

Posted by doshaburi | March 31, 2008 11:09 PM

Every time I hear the phase, I can't help but think of the guy who shouted "Judas!" when Dylan went electric back in '66. I'll bet a hundred bucks said shouter's a steadfast HRC supporter.

Richardson's stock would have shot up dramatically in my book if, when he was first asked about Carville, he responded "I don't believe him...he's a liar!"

Posted by C.L. | March 31, 2008 11:16 PM

A bit of anecdotal evidence to support the idea that stunts like Carville's are not doing Hillary any good: I'm an Obama supporter and my wife is a Hillary supporter. She told me the other day that the one thing which has really started to sour her on Hillary's campaign is the idea, propagated by Carville and others of his ilk, that somehow the Clintons are entitled to the nomination. Now she's begun to concede that it's time for Hillary to just pack it in. And this is not a woman who is easily swayed once she makes up her mind. I can only hope for Obama's sake that the Clinton campaign continues to trot out buffoons like Carville to alienate their remaining supporters!

Posted by t.x. | April 1, 2008 2:26 AM

3 a.m.

Ring, ..... ring, .... ring, .... ring, ....

H.C.: Hello

B.R.: Uh, hi Hillary, it's Bill, uh Bill Richardson, how ..

H.C.: What the f..., Bill! What the hell are you calling me about? It's 3 o'clock in the morning for Christ sakes!

B.R.: Uh, well, I'm sorry I called so late, I've been up all night thinking about this and ...

H.C.: OK, whatever Bill, whatever it is can't it wait till later? I'm tired and need my sleep.

B.R.: Well, Hillary, I'm sorry, but I just thought I should tell you first as soon as I made up my mind. It's very ....

H.C.: Made up your mind about what, Bill?

B.R.: Well, Hillary, you know how much I respect you and your husband, and, and, um, ....

H.C. And WHAT goddamn it, what the f... do you want to say? .... Oh!, ... um, you know Bill, if you are talking about your endorsement, you just could have called me any time, Bill. You know I appreciate it and you really didn't need to have such an urgency about it. We can work out the details any time. I'll call you tomorrow, OK? I really do appreciate it and I think it's wonderful of you, Bill, I just love you for it, but, you know, I really do need my sleep. The campaign, you know, so let's talk tomorrow, OK?

B.R.: Well, uh, Hillary, it's just that I, uh, you know I appreciate all that you and Bill have done for me in the past, and, uh ...

H.C.: Mm-Hm ... OK.

B.R.: Well, it's just that I have decided to endorse Barack, I just .....

H.C.: WHAT, are you f...... kidding me! Are you out of your mind?

B.R: Mmmm, well I ....

H.C.: Is this some kind of f....... joke, Bill? Well it's not funny. Are you drunk?

B.R.: No, no, Hillary, I've given alot of serious thought to this and I decided I have to endorse Barack. I'm sorry. I ...

H.C.: You can't be serious!

B.R.: I'm afraid I am, Hill.

H.C.: You goddamned son-of-a-bitch Richardson, do you know what this means?

B.R.: Uh, well I uh ...

H.C.: You are finished Bill, finished! You won't be elected dog catcher after I'm through with you!

B.R.: But Hillary, I had to follow my conscience.

H.C.: Your CONSCIENCE, your CONSCIENCE. F... Bill what the f... does your conscience have to do with anything?

B.R.: It'sjust that ...

H.C.: Bill, you a......, don't you know that that twirp Barack, his highness, Hussein Obama cannot be elected?

B.R.: I think he can, Hill ... and I ....

H.C.: What kind of moron are you, Bill? Do you seriously think the American people would elect a n..... for president of the United States.

B.R.: Jeez, Hillary, you don't mean that.

H.C.: You are goddaamned right I mean that. You know it and I know it and Barack Hussein knows it, so what the hell is wrong with you? I think you've had enough to drink tonight, Bill. Why don't we both get some sleep. I'll call you tomorrow and we can forget all about this call. OK, Bill?

B.R.: I'm sorry, Hillary. I haven't been drinking. I'm serious, really.

(Unidentified voice in background): Who the hell is that!

H.C. It's Bill Richardson, he's drunk and out of his mind. He says he's endorsing Obama.

(Unidentified voice in background): Give me that goddamned phone!

J.C.: Hey Bill, what the f... you think you're doing calling at this hour saying these stupid things? Are you drunk?

B.R.: Ah, who's this?

J.C.: this is Jim Carville you son-of-a-bitch,and you'd better goddamn explain yourself!

B.R.: Jim? Uh, what are you doing at Hillary's house at this hour?

J.C.: Never mind what I'm doing, a......, what the f... are you doing?

B.R.: Well, Jim, I just called Hillary to do her the favor of informing her before I publicly announced that I am endorsing Obama.

J.C.: The FAVOR? Damnit Bill we don't need no favors from a s.... like you! Have you no loyalty to the Clintons? They made you who you are. Without the Clinton's you'd be some low rent wetback alderman from Santa Fe.

B.R.: Jeez, Jim, I didn't want to ... um, ... ah, Jim is Bill around there?

J.C.: Bill? Bill who?

B.R.: President Clinton, I mean, is he around? Could I please talk to him?

J.C.: HA! You are drunk, Richardson, or maybe you been smoking that loco weed that all your relatives have been smuggling across the border, huh?

B.R.: Jim, I ...

J.C.: Huh? HUH?

B.R.: Jim, I just, well ah ... can you put Hillary back on, I ...

J.C.: Richardson, you know what you are? Huh? You are a f..... Judas. JUDAS, that's what you are! You sold yourself for 30 pieces of silver, man. That's what you did. You are a goddamned f..... Judas, and your a.. is grass, you hear me? Your a.. is grass!

B.R.: OK, thanks Jim, I'll keep that in mind. Please say goodbye to Hillary for me, Ok? I gotta go.

J.C.: You M............ Goddamned son-of-a-f......-bitch, I'll ...

Click

Posted by Danny C | April 4, 2008 10:26 PM