Carville Stands By ‘Judas’ Remark

The sense of entitlement which surrounds the Clinton candidacy has been further highlighted by the reaction of some Clinton supporters to the decision of Gov. Bill Richardson to endorse Barack Obama. None more notably than Clinton political adviser, James Carville, who astonishingly gave this quote:

“Mr. Richardson’s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic,” Mr. Carville said, referring to Holy Week.

Nor is he claiming that he was misquoted. Indeed, you'll see from the video (which is slightly shaky) that he is insistent that he was not misquoted and that he stands by what he said:

“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.”

Now, one would expect other Clinton supporters to admit that he has perhaps gone too far and to attempt to pull him back from the precipice, but no. Taylor Marsh says the following:

Let's just say I've had issues with Carville before, but his latest rhetorical bomb was well aimed, as far as I'm concerned.

So let's just say Carville hitting him (Richardson) hard on this one doesn't bother me.

And why doesn't it bother her?

Superdelegates should vote their conscience.

Because she believes that the superdelegates should ignore the wishes of the voters and elect Hillary even if the majority of voters didn't choose her for the democratic nomination.

I have for many weeks now watched in astonishment as the Hillary campaign battles with what her supporters like to call the "maths problem", and the rest of the planet refers to as "losing the contest to be the democratic nominee".

The truth is that Hillary's campaign is over and she has lost and she knows it. There is no real plan for going forward from this point other than the vague hope that Barack Obama might implode or that the super delegates might decide to overturn the democratic process and simply hand the candidacy to Hillary because she's the one who really, really, really wants it. Neither option, at this point, looks remotely viable.

Indeed, with comments like this one from Carville - and the fact that people like Taylor Marsh are endorsing it - one gets the distinct feeling that it is Hillary's camp that are imploding under their own sense of entitlement and a childish feeling that "it's really not fair!" that Hillary is being denied what she has always wanted.

Richardson summed up what many of us have come to feel regarding the Hillary campaign when he stated:

"I'm not going to get into the gutter like that. And you know, that's typical of many of the people around Senator Clinton."

Don't get me wrong, neither candidate is running to be the local librarian, they are running for the most powerful office in the land, so we all expect the fight to be vigorous. However, when you find yourself stating that the Republican candidate is more fit for high office than your democratic rival then you have crossed too many lines for people to keep count of.

And when members of your staff start referring to people who vote for your rival as "Judas" then perhaps your campaign has lost it's way and you have simply lost the argument.

Indeed, despite people like Taylor Marsh applauding such a crass remark, even members of Clinton's own team are hinting that Carville really ought to withdraw what he said:

Given the media play and replay, a reporter this afternoon repeatedly asked Howard Wolfson, Mrs. Clinton’s communications director, if Mr. Carville should apologize and if the Clinton campaign tolerated that sort of rhetoric.

At first Mr. Wolfson answered generally, saying that sort of language was not welcome, but in the end gave a fairly pointed answer.

“You’ll have to ask James if he wants to apologize,” he said. “If I had said it, I would apologize.”

The problem for Hillary is that her camp had no plans for anything other than winding up the campaign by Super Tuesday. When that failed to happen she was forced into the ludicrous position of declaring that all of Obama's victories somehow did not matter or were the wrong kind of victories. Indeed, only states which Hillary won were considered to have any importance.

I was not only astonished that Hillary would try to make such a weak argument - after all the Clinton's are supposed to be good at formulating sound political arguments - but I was even more flabbergasted at the amount of intelligent people who grabbed hold of that flawed logic and tried to run with it.

We've already witnessed the contradiction of Hillary insisting that the voters of Florida and Michigan not be "disenfranchised" whilst she simultaneously insists that super delegates must ignore the wishes of voters across the land (disenfranchise them) and vote according to their own conscience.

And now, having set her sights on the super delegates, we witness what will happen to super delegates whose conscience does not lead them to support Hillary. They will be branded as a "Judas". Because we all know that Hillary is Jesus and it's a form of blasphemy not to give her what she wants.

How in God's name (pun intended) did her campaign ever reduce itself to this?

Click title for full article.

Tags: Carville, Clinton, Obama, Richardson, Judas, US election 2008, Democratic presidential nominee