More fodder for the outrage file: James Carville still thinks Bill Richardson is a Judas.
« The Obama Doctrine | Main | McCarthyism And Some Coin »
Cackles
24 Mar 2008 03:13 pm
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/20189
Comments (27)
Hillary loyalists think the Clintons died for the sins of all progressives.
Unfortunately, it's the other way around.
I'm honestly tired of all the Outrage continuously going on. This really is becoming a sitcom. Carville feels they were betrayed and his comment should be left at that... I also think Bill Clinton is reminding me of McCarthy when he leaves Obama out of a patriotism discussion.
I'd rather we get back to the issues. For one, why is Hillary proposing we invite Greenspan to help fix the credit crisis and subprime problems? That's like asking Satan to attend an exorcism.
I will see your Judas and raise you a cigar and blue dress.
So if Bill Richardson is Judas, what does that make Obama?
The irony here is that people accuse Obama of being messianic.
As this campaign starts to wind down, perhaps the media and clinton loyalists will realize that the Clintons don't walk on water.
Heather! Oh my!
The Clitons to walk on water.
(Only when it is frozen and 2ft or more thick.)
It doesn't strike anyone as likely that Carville wanted to remind everyone that Richardson's a whore who will sell his vote to the highest bidder?
Certainly, his comment and the ongoing discussion has almost completely removed whatever small value there was in Richardson's endorsement.
What we now know:
1) HRC lied about her Bosnia trip. Howard Wolfson is even willing to say she "misspoke."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOsGo_HWP-c
2) Shown by her White House schedule released last week, HRC was in NAFTA strategy meetings. Add that to her public support for NAFTA, and her words now against NAFTA seem hollow... if not lies.
3) HRC's campaign will smear anyone of the Democratic Party elite who exercise freedom of choice by calling them a "Judas." After that, they will never apologize either.
4) HRC's campaign acts from entitlement... and that seems to be from where Ferraro's comments came. But racism does come from entitlement. So, some in the top of HRC's campaign are racist and unable to see it. Sad.
http://news.yahoo.com/comics/uclickcomics/20080314/cx_la_uc/la20080314
Bill Clinton has shown a calculated but vicious use of race this time around too.
These are the reasons that HRC lost my support. Carville's statements just cemented it.
Way to go, Carville! I couldn't agree more. But what really irks me is that this Richardson joke of a man said a super delegate should vote as his constituency does. His state voted for Hillary so now he throws his own vote to Obama.
What a lying sack of sh$t.
It seems impossible for HRC fans to grasp that Richardson could just be endorsing the person that he feels is the better candidate. I guess it's all a part of that "entitlement" thing the Clintons seem to have goin' on.
BTW, sbj, if you take Obama's NM votes plus Richardson's own NM votes, you've got a difference of about 400 votes from Clinton's. So I'd expect roughly half the super delegates from NM to vote for Obama and half for Clinton. That would be a vote that was similar to NM constituency, not "every super delegate in NM votes for Hillary". Looks like you're trying to twist Richardson's views into a "winner takes all super delegates" stance. How very Hillary of you.
Carville:
“I was quoted accurately and in context, and I was glad to give the quote and I was glad I gave it,” Mr. Carville said. “I’m not apologizing, I’m not resigning, I’m not doing anything.”
Looks like the "liberal media" will have to go somewhere else for their mindless crap story.
He's talking to Wolf Blitzer right now.
"He quoted me accurately in context. And by the way, I think the quote had the desired intent...People call me up and say whenever they see [Richardson], I think of your comment."
That is, he wanted people to think Richardson was selling out, and they are.
Like I said.
LFC:
Two lying sacks in one string! (http://firedoglake.com/2008/03/21/the-unanswered-questions-of-bill-richardsons-obama-endorsement/)
Liar: But I think superdelegates should vote according to who they represent. If somebody's appointed as a superdelegate because they're Hispanic or a governor, they should pay attention to what their voters and their constituencies are saying.
BLITZER: Well, the Democratic caucuses in your state, New Mexico, decided that Hillary Clinton got the most votes. Does that mean you have to go with the Democrats of New Mexico, because she won the caucuses there?
Traitor: Well, she won by 1 percent, you know. It was a very contested race.
BLITZER: Well, you know what they say. A win is a win.
Backstabber: No, I know that.
Richardson seems to be talking out of both sides of his mouth on this one. New Mexico went for Clinton, and Hispanics in the New Mexico caucuses went 2-1 for Clinton. If Richardson thinks superdelegates should "vote according to who they represent," who does he think he's representing?
Next moronic reply please ...
No one is perfect. Obama and Clinton both make mistakes. Surrogates on both sides make mistakes. However, it seems that more surrogates on the Clinton side (Carville, Ferraro, etc.) refuse to own up to their mistakes whereas Obama surrogates (Powers, today's Monica blogger) tend to apologize. There are exceptions on both sides, too. On the Obama side, McPeak probably has bee a little over the top more than once. On the Clinton side, Bob Johnson did eventually apologize for his "what he was doing in the neighborhood" insinuations.
According to the Clinton camp's newest fundraiser letter (in which all remarks by campaign staff represent the deeply held beliefs of the candidate--see Politico), that means Clinton believes it too.
sbj: I'm pretty sure Richardson doesn't view himself as representing Hispanics only. That's one problem he seems to have with the Clinton camp's picture of him.
Yeah, early on he used the state metric. Arguably, Obama + Richardson (ie not Clinton) beat Clinton. More fundamentally, though, he was talking in generalities. He did not state that he would vote as his state did. (In contrast, the mayor of Dayton said explicitly that she would vote as her city voted, and endorsed the day after the election.) He made general arguments that come down to "don't override the pledged delegates."
More recently, in early March (still not endorsing anyone) he spoke of the dangers of a negative, divisive race, and the importance of uniting behind the candidate who was winning.
A few weeks on, with Clinton going ever more negative and making it clear she intends to tear at Barack through late August, he endorsed.
I can hear Plouffe now: "Typical trash talk from a desperate campaign..."
Will the madness never end?
http://www.political-buzz.com/
Deborah:
Thanks for the history lesson.
Doesn't change a darned thing, though. I'll let Ric hardson's words speak for themselves. Everyone who can read can see what he said. he's gone back on his word. it's that simple. He is doing exactly what he said should not be done. He is overruling the will of the people - the people of his own state.
I have lost all respect for the man. There's one fair way to judge a man - does he keep his word? He is the worst sort of politician. How can you respect someone that you cannot trust?
"Well, Wolf, it was really, really close - less than 1%."
And unless I made a few mistakes in my calculations, Obama's lead in both pledged delegates and pop vote amounts to not much more than ... 1%. There go all of the arguments contending that whoever leads in delegates should get the nomination. "Well, it's less than 1% so it doesn't really matter!"
Thanks, Gov Richardson - you've shown us all how to behave honestly and with integrity - jerk.
The NYT lists 1622.5 delegates won for BHO and 1472.5 for HRC. That's a lead of 150 among the 3095 total won between them, or 5% of that total.
Using Slate's delegate counter numbers, Obama's ahead by about 5% of pledged delegates.
Using RealClearPolitics popular vote numbers, he's up by almost 3%.
I give math lessons too.
Show us where Richarson formally pledged to vote as his state (popular or delegate) vote went, and I'll grant he changed his mind. Taking some general statements about how superdelegates should consider their vote and trying to make it into a solemn promise is disingenuous. It's clear he hoped to stay out of this; his endorsement is very much one of the process--that is, that Democrats should unite behind the nominee as decided by elections.
I have lost all respect for the man [Richardson. There's one fair way to judge a man - does he keep his word? He is the worst sort of politician. How can you respect someone that you cannot trust?
By that logic, I guess you don't trust HRC either?
Let's make a concession to the Clintons: When Obama wins the Presidency with about 330 Electoral Votes, we can re-name the USA "Judas-Ville."
This is the guy who doesn't change his underwear close to an election, remember?
I think maybe he needs to clean up his act.
This is the guy who doesn't change his underwear close to an election, remember?
And folks still take him seriously?
Something smells funny here.
You folks seem to be missing one point of all this: Carville intended to send a message to remaining superdelegates (or any others who might switch): you cross us, and we call you a traitor, full stop.
The Clintons will do anything to win. Is there any debating that?
The question is, does it stop at being called a traitor?
By now, it should be obvious that this guy is nothing more than a Clinton partisan. A Wolfson by any other name smells just as... well, you get the drift.
So, why does he continue to sit on panel after panel in the MSM talkshows as if he were some sort of outside expert? Like Ickes, Wolfson, and Penn, he's essentially just another Clinton employee. He should be booted from the newsrooms forthwith.
| 
Of course, everyone knows the Clintons represent Jesus in this saga. Obama: Pontius Pilate.
Posted by philly dog | March 24, 2008 3:18 PM