Alright, it was interesting when Chuck Todd said yesterday that the Clinton campaign is helping Obama by testing him, but coming from James Carville, trying to excuse his repeated “Judas” comments directed at Bill Richardson, it is just obnoxious:
Most of the stuff I’ve ever said is pretty insignificant and by in large has been said off the cuff and without much thought to the potential consequences. That was not the case in this instance. Bill Richardson’s response was that the Clinton people felt they were entitled to the presidency. In my mind, that is a debatable hypothesis. But, even more than that, I know that a former president of the United States who appointed someone to two Senate-confirmed positions is entitled to have his phone calls returned.
If Richardson was going to turn on the Clintons the way he did, I see no problem in saying what I said. Because if loyalty is one virtue, another is straight talk. And if Democrats can’t handle that, they’re going to have a hard time handling a Republican nominee who is seeking the presidency with that as his slogan.
Piss off. I am not sure why Carville thinks Richardson has to support Hillary because her husband appointed him to some positions, but I think people are entitled to choose to support the person they think is best for the party and best for the country. Clearly, Hillary falls short in Richardson’s eyes. Maybe it is her nasty and divisive campaign, in which folks like Carville have played a role.
In fairness to Carville, I understand where he is coming from regarding loyalty. I saw him speak with his wife when their he said/she said-left/right shtick was popular, and he explained that the reason he stuck with Clinton even after he lied to everyone about Monica was because of loyalty. They took him from nowhere and stuck by him, so damnit, he felt he would stick by them. I respect that to some degree. It is why I respected Obama not throwing Wright under the bus.
But at some point, loyalty stops. When you feel your friend is hurting the party, and by extension, hurting the country, you shouldn’t get knocked for disloyalty because you tell them “No more.”
And another thing- does Carville feel no loyalty to the damned party?
*** Update ***
As noted in Commentary magazine, when Obama breaks down at an event and cries about the rigors of campaigning, Clinton supporters can chime in on “toughening” up. Until then, stuff it, please.
lutton
Generally, you’d like to think that people are appointed/nominated to posts based on their abilities, rather than what they can do for the appointer in the future.
Dug Jay
Here’s an excerpt from an Associated Press story that moved over the wires this morning that underscores some of the bitterness that’s noted in your post on Carville/Richardson:
Tony
With apologies to Atrios…
“And another thing- does Carville feel no loyalty to the damned party?”
No.
This has been another edition of Simple Answers to Simple Questions.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
People like Carville have a serious problem. They have completely forgotten that their first and highest loyalty is to the Constitution of the United States and the people whose sovereignty it embodies, and everything else should be a far distant 2nd place at best. When they are chosen to serve in our government, they are the servants of the people of the United States. That is where their loyalties need to be directed towards, not to the person who picked them out of the crowd.
Richardson appears to still have some grasp of this concept. James Carville on the other hand has no business being anywhere near the corridors of power, and any leader who surrounds themselves with lickspittle like Carville is showing signs of very bad judgment.
Take a look at Lincoln’s cabinet for an example of how a team of rivals with little or no loyalty to the person who picked them can still get the job done.
Brachiator
Carville is full of it.
I understand the loyalty thing, but it is a primitive reflex. It has been used most recently by bonehead conservatives to rationalize the politicizing of the US attorneys office (“of course the attorney general would appoint people who are loyal to the president”).
But even though Richardson, like the US attorneys, are appointed by the president, and serve at his pleasure, once they are in office, their allegiance is to the Constitution and to the American people.
It is an odd convergence that Bush and the Clintons behave not like public servants, but more like aristocrats to whom eternal fealty must be paid.
All the more reason for putting them all out to pasture.
OniHanzo
But you don’t understand, John, Clinton IS the party. There is no other option in the face of rule by nepotism.
Richardson can kiss her ring or suffer the same consequences that Pelosi will for going off the reservation.
Davebo
Yes he does. It’s just that in Carville’s universe Bill and Hillary are the damned party!
Dennis - SGMM
Carville has apparently lost (If he ever had it) the ability to distinguish between loyalty and blind loyalty.
Loyalty ensues when a leader does the right things.
Blind loyalty means that you follow them off a cliff.
Pb
Married to Mary Matalin, signed her love letter to the Scooter Libby judge, called for Howard Dean to leave the DNC after their victories in 2006… I’d say no.
4tehlulz
I don’t give a shit about his loyalty; dropping Judas Iscariot during Holy Week is just – fucking – unacceptable.
Pb
Bonus: SNL.
Conservatively Liberal
Compared to the career lift that Clinton gave Carville, what has the Democratic party done for Carville? Nothing. His ‘loyalty’ is to the hand that made him, it is that simple. OniHanzo is right in saying that the party IS Clinton. Hell, if Hillary was anyone else, she would have been forced out after Super Tuesday.
Nobody in the party has the guts to stand up and tell her and Bill that it is over. Nobody wants to be the one to do that, so they are allowed to keep on keeping on. This will end when Hillary and Bill decide to end it, and not one minute sooner.
stickler
I’d bet that Carville is surprised about the lack of Democratic loyalty to him — and the Clintons — than he feels anything in the other direction. He sees himself through the lens of 1992 and 1996, a political genius.
Oh, and Lutton — that’s a charming notion you have about political appointees. But I’d invite you to look at a list of the last dozen or so Ambassadors to France. How many of them, would you guess, were career diplomats? And how many of them bumbling ya-hoos who just happened to be big fundraisers?
Jake
See I guess I had a very different take on this.
I don’t think Carville gives a damn about Richardson being loyal, I think he cares first and foremost about the way the endorsement is perceived.
He worked to change the focus in the press from “this is a big pickup for Obama” to “Richardson’s a traitor”. You see the different that makes? Forget about the merits of the argument – I’ve never been convinced Carville cares about those. He cares about the way things are being discussed as it relates to the Clintons, full stop.
And the best way to shut this guy down (Russert did it once, and I almost fell out of my chair in disbelief) is to quote from his book where he notes that everyone in Congress knew exactly what they were voting for with the AUMF. The guy turns into a puddle of gobbledygook real quick after that, because he knows it’s right and there’s no spinning it for Hillary.
tjproudamerican
Carville could not have hurt Clinton more with this column than if he announced that Hillary had Vince Foster murdered.
The Mayberry RFD Mafia lives!!!!
The column by Carville announces that once The Clinton’s make it back to the White House, everything will go on sale again:
Sleepovers in The Lincoln Bedroom
Deals with Dictators
Pardons
The only admission fee is millions of dollars and blind loyalty. Keep your mouth shut kapeesh? What happens with The Clintons stays with The Clintons. Omerta.
The Clintons = The Sopranos
Hey Richardson! You know what happened to Adrian (and Christopher for that matter)! Carville knows where your daughter goes to school. Other democrats: you have been warned. Hillary is benevolent, but even benevolence has limits…
Rarely Posts
How is Hillary hurting the country?
myiq2xu
ZOMG – Hillary should fire him immediately!
Oh, wait, he doesn’t work for her. He works for CNN.
Imagine that, an American citizen and member of the press exercising his 1st Amendment right to shoot his mouth off!
He married a GOP operative! Doesn’t he know that politics is war?
We need more lapdog/lickspittle types in the media who will only tell us what our leaders want us to hear.
/end snark
My favorite part was when they tried to get him to back off the statement:
That’s why he’s called the “Ragin’ Cajun.”
Delia
More like The Hatfields and McCoys
CrazyDrumGuy
Unless Carville hasn’t been getting the Clinton camp memos on superdelegates, he’s a big hypocrite.
Rex
The problem is all of these damn minorities leaving the reservation all of a sudden. 40 acres, a mule and maybe the occasional cabinet post. Nothing more.
John Cole
If your believe, as I do, that a protracted primary hurts the Democratic chances of beating McCain, you are hurting the country.
I don’t want Hillary and her aides, who have proven themselves to be wholly unscrupulous, anywhere near the corridors of power, especially Mark Penn, Wolfson, and Ickes. Even more so with the enhanced powers thanks to Bush.
The only reason left to vote for Hillary, as far as I am concerned, is she is better than McCain. Not by much, after what I have seen the past few months.
Mark
It may well be that Richardson was being loyal to President Clinton; anything he could do to keep HRC out of the WH could be seen as a huge favor from one Bill to another. WJC is one of the smartest, if not the smartest, politicians in American history; the damage he’s done to his wife’s candidacy is unlikely to have been unintentional.
John Cole
Did I say she should fire him, jackass?
Your war on straw continues unabated.
Jay McDonough
from “The Clinton Bet” at swimming freestyle: If Obama were to lose to McCain in November, some large number of Democrats will hold Clinton at least partially accountable for the reasons noted above: the damage to Obama caused by the long, nasty nomination campaign and the lack of time to effectively campaign against McCain. Democrats will be big time pissed at Hillary Clinton and she’ll lack any reasonable amount of support from Democratic voters in the 2012 primaries.
She really is, at this point, betting the farm. If not successful, which seems increasingly likely, she may ruin whatever opportunities she has going forward.”
http://swimmingfreestyle.typepad.com
“
myiq2xu
Did I block quote you in my comment jackass?
Stephen
Carville’s loyalty to the Clintons is all very pretty – but it did not translate into loyalty to the Democratic Party when he fed his wife (who was working for the Bushies) inside information from the Kerry campaign’s deliberations about how to deal with vote count problems in Ohio in 2004.
Carville would be the biggest overall traitor serving in the Clinton campaign if it weren’t for the presence of Mark Penn, whose company is also helping McCain’s campaign. Remind me again – why do we want to keep “Democrats” like these around?
John Cole
Links.
myiq2xu
What if I don’t believe that a full-length primary will hurt Democratic chances?
What if I think that forcing Hillary to quit will cause tremendous damage to our party come November?
Brachiator
Shorter Clinton: “Le Partie, c’est moi!”
Sure, certain cushy posts, such as the ambassador to France, head of FEMA, etc., may go to a top contributor or political crony. The current ambassador of France is Craig Roberts Stapleton, who co-owned the Texas Rangers baseball team with President George W. Bush.
But even here the political appointee will get out of the way of a second-in-command who knows what he or she is doing when serious stuff happens. Or it used to be that way until Bush decided to go for an “all crony all the time” style of governing.
johninpt
Carville is just a gun for hire with no moral compass whatsoever. Just look at the list of candidates he’s worked for — everywhere on the ideological spectrum. The only thing they all have in common is that they paid him.
myiq2xu
Carville was not working for Kerry so how did he get “insider” information?
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
Hey myiq,
Surely someone who has an above average iq can understand the use of qualified language and the difference between general and particular statements.
You’ll note that I specifically did not call out HRC in my statement, but instead phrased it as applying to “any leader”. That wasn’t a reference to HRC because I knew that Carville is currently free-lancing. If HRC takes him on as a formal advisor to her campaign in a significant capacity, then my more general statement would apply to her in particular.
Why does this need to be explained to you, if you’re so smart?
Sojourner
I hope you’re not suggesting that it’s unconstitutional to support Clinton.
The Other Steve
Links
scrutinizer
Patronage isn’t a Bush invention. That goes as far back as politics itself.
Just Some Fuckhead
WJC is one of the smartest, if not the smartest, politicians in American history
You’re confusing lying with politicking.
myiq2xu
Assuming that Woodward is correct, what was insider about the information you linked to? How did it help or hurt Kerry? If Carville knew it then CNN was going to be on the air with it within minutes anyway, and a request for a recount didn’t require a “SOS” to Blackwell.
scrutinizer
Wow, Soj—you twist statements around in ways that must make myiq turn green with envy.
myiq2xu
IOW – Your comment had no meaning or purpose.
Dennis - SGMM
Carville got it right just once in his whole life. He’s been living off of the proceeds ever since.
The Other Steve
It appears you answered your own question.
Anyway, if Carville doesn’t work for Clinton why are you trying to defend him?
smiley
I look forward to seeing Bush’s list of pardons.
Sojourner
Rather than attack me, why don’t you explain to me what he meant.
El Cid
I think if Hillary leaves the campaign in any way in which it is not really, really, really thoroughly thought through (enough th-ou words?), and somehow seems prompted not just by a general sense of her running behind, but prompted by some objective, observable event, then it risks demoralizing a lot of her supporters.
I don’t mean the raving nut squad which says ‘unless I get my candidate [Hillary / Obama] I’ll vote for Nader / vote for McCain / not vote / run away’, but those people who seriously and enthusiastically back Hillary.
If it looks like she withdraws with some bitterness against party insiders, it will do damage.
How that works, I don’t know.
Those passionately against HRC should momentarily imagine that the two’s positions were reversed, and think about how you would ask Obama to step aside without there being some real watershed point at which either an insurmountable barrier event occurs or after some massively unifying gesture or negotiation — and not deeply alienate Obama’s popular support.
Brachiator
Never claimed that Bush invented cronyism. He is, however, taking cronyism to heights rarely seen previously.
El Cid
Oops. My fancy big sentence was disastrously unclear. I’m trying to suggest that some event is needed around which to tie an HRC transition (whether it be electoral or some public negotiation or whatever), and not just a ‘hey the math is against you, stop!’ thing which seems to insider-y.
Fortunately, the ever-helpful-to-Democrats Ralph Nader encourages her to continue, who really knows how to help his party, which is, um, I think the Greens, or maybe not, but who surely benefited massively from his 2000 run which he said he did in their names…
Just Some Fuckhead
The only reason left to vote for Hillary, as far as I am concerned, is she is better than McCain.
How, exactly? I keep hearing this over and over but no one will tell me exactly how HRC is better than JSM. Their abysmal foreign policy records are identical. Both have crossed the same imaginary CiC threshhold.
Maybe HRC can be trusted to appoint a justice that upholds Roe v. Wade? (as far as any Clinton can be trusted – don’t forget that Ginsberg was chosen by Orrin Hatch) But I can see JSM appointing a Souter-type justice just to stick it to the evangelicals that made him wait eight years.
I’m no fan of McCain but he was in a pretty similar situation as HRC in 2000. He could have continued on to a bitter convention fight that divided the party but he actually showed real character by conceding and supporting Bush.
I think most of the “HRC is better than JSM” nonsense is us imagining what HRC might do because she is a (D) and thinking the worst of JSM because he is an (R). Being cognizant of all the right-wing advances the Clintons allowed – no fostered – in the 90s, I’m not so sure of the former.
Considering HRC’s carefully chosen words affording JSM the same qualifications to the Presidency as she and the wonderful friendship with JSM that WJC goes on and on about, does HRC see any meaningful difference between them?
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
Sojourner,
I think you’ve made the same mistake in interpreting my comment as myiq did – I’m stating a general principle (note the phrase “People like Carville”, i.e. not just him but anyone else with misplaced loyalties) and you’re misunderstanding it as being directed exclusively at Hillary. Not so.
The same applies to any president, whether their last name is Nixon, Clinton, Bush or Obama.
Remember the Bush droid who misremembered her oath of office and got schooled by Pat Leahy?
That’s the point I’m making, and a point I will continue to make with Obama’s people once they are in office, which is “the office does not belong to you”.
I didn’t suggest that no other loyalties are possible or desirable in our public servants, just that one loyalty comes before all of the others, and the gap between 1st place and all the rest should not be small enough for there to be any doubt.
I’m guessing this is directed at me, so to reply to stickler, I’m talking about ideals here, not realities. Recognize the latter but keep pushing for something closer to the former. That’s how we progress.
myiq2xu
It seems more like you’re suggesting treason.
scrutinizer
Gosh, Sojourner, I didn’t attack you—I was just admiring your ability to re-phrase someone’s statement to fit your own agenda.
Sojourner
You seem to be implying that Carville has forgotten his constitutional responsibilities and loyalties to the American people.
What did he do that makes you feel that he needs to be reminded of that?
John Cole
To my knowledge, Hillary’s foreign policy staff was not gleaned from Weekly Standard castaways like mcCain’s. Her appointments throughout the executive branch will be better and not from the heritage foundation. She will not appoint Clarence Thomas.
And so on.
Sojourner
No, you did attack me with no idea what my “agenda” is and no basis for attacking me.
myiq2xu
Because I admire him and agree with him on this. I’ve read three of his books and listened to him talk.
Actually, I’m not defending him, he doesn’t need a defense.
scrutinizer
Ain’t it the truth—although I think the Royal Navy back around 1790-1815 came pretty damn close. They had an office for patronage, doncha know.
scrutinizer
Mikey, keep track. I didn’t suggest anything. I just expressed my admiration for Sojourner’s ability to take a comment and turn it into something other than it was.
TLTIABQ basically said that Richardson has a duty to this country to endorse whomever he thinks will be the best candidate for President, and should not beholden to personal loyalties to the Clintons. Carville calling him a Judas for not endorsing Clinton and not showing personal loyalty to Clinton means that Carville is a big git.
Of course, Sojourner will now spend the afternoon playing concern troll and demanding “explanations” from all and sundry.
Rarely Posts
I don’t believe that and I really can’t understand why anyone does. If the situation was reversed and Obama was lagging behind yet still had a slim chance of winning I don’t think he’d be hurting the country by staying, either. I’d probably want him to give up, though, just because as long as he stayed in the race the more likely it’d be that something might change to Hillary’s advantage.
But hurting the country? No.
Sojourner
Funny that you still haven’t explained how I twisted the words. Perhaps you might try that first before you start throwing out the troll label.
TenguPhule
Clinton has a daughter that she doesn’t want the Wombpolice probing for auto-abortions every Friday.
And abuses of power commited will at least take place on Republicans for a change.
Rarely Posts
I meant to Obama’s advantage.
Sojourner
Sorry, I missed this.
Okay, I see what he was saying.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
myiq,
OK, maybe you didn’t get a lot of sleep last night, so I’ll keep it simple for you:
the meaning: Loyalty itself is not a problem, but how it is organized can be, thus how the loyalties of our public servants are prioritized is important and worth paying attention to.
the purpose: Carville is a particular example illustrating this problem. His criticism of Richardson is proof of this.
Or to put it in more colorful terms:
Carville is scum, because his loyalties are inverted.
Anybody else who also has inverted loyalties the way that Carville does, is also scum.
Leaders who employ and empower scum with inverted loyalties are a meance and should not be voted into office.
Was that clear enough for you, or do I need to get out a box of crayons and write with smaller words and bigger letters?
Sheeshhh!
Sojourner
And you’ll spend your afternoon calling people trolls who ask questions you don’t like.
Whatever gets you through the day.
Pb
If the situation were reversed, Obama would already have been written off. But if he hadn’t been, he still wouldn’t have sunk as low as the Clinton campaign has, he still wouldn’t be driving down the numbers of both Democrats against John McCain. Ergo, he wouldn’t be, yes, “hurting the country by staying”, unlike how the Clinton campaign is hurting it, hurting their chances and his, right now.
myiq2xu
My apologies, you are correct. TLTIABQ was suggesting treason.
Rarely Posts
How is Hillary driving down Obama’s numbers?
John Cole
If the situation was reversed he would have been drummed out of the race already by prominent Democrats, the media, and the Clinton campaign. Period. I can not believe you Hillary supporters can even say this shit with a straight face. He would have been given the Huckabee treatment, all the super-delegates who already were leaning her way (before her campaign blew it) but who are now having second thoughts or in leaning Obama would have come out for her already.
This race would be officially over and not just de facto (as it is now), were the roles reversed. It is only out of deference/fear to the Clintons, the media desire for this story to continue, and the continued fanaticism of the Hillaryis44 crowd that this charade even continues. No other Democrat in Hillary’s position would be able to continue this self-defeating nonsense. That you all can not recognize this, and that you all insist that it is good for the party letting Hillary hang around carping at Obama’s heels hoping you can ignite a controversy to sink his campaign while running around praising McCain is just further proof how delusional you all are.
MobiusKlein
Brachiator has it – they want fealty, not loyalty.
Fealty is what you are compelled to do, loyalty is what you choose.
Black voters tend to vote D because the D’s did not pursue the “Southern Strategy”. Their loyalty to the D’s is earned, and if the R’s want their vote, the R’s should stop targeting other minority populations (Latinos, Gays, non-religious folks) for electoral gain by demonizing.
Just Some Fuckhead
Clinton has a daughter
Indeed she does, which she counted on her resume.
Just Some Fuckhead
If the situation was reversed he would have been drummed out of the race already by prominent Democrats, the media, and the Clinton campaign. Period. I can not believe you Hillary supporters can even say this shit with a straight face. He would have been given the Huckabee treatment, all the super-delegates who already were leaning her way (before her campaign blew it) but who are now having second thoughts or in leaning Obama would have come out for her already.
This race would be officially over and not just de facto (as it is now), were the roles reversed. It is only out of deference/fear to the Clintons, the media desire for this story to continue, and the continued fanaticism of the Hillaryis44 crowd that this charade even continues. No other Democrat in Hillary’s position would be able to continue this self-defeating nonsense. That you all can not recognize this, and that you all insist that letting Hillary hang around carping at Obama’s heels hoping you can ignite a controversy to sink his campaign while running around praising McCain is good for the party is just further proof how delusional you all are.
Yeah, baby! “Delusional” describes her, her campaign and her supporters about as well as any word outside of the bad ones.
myiq2xu
I’ve listened to Carville explain his position, which is probably more than most people here have bothered to do.
Carville understands politics and that people can be on opposite sides and still be friends.
He didn’t think Richardson was disloyal by running against Hillary, even though Richardson owes the Clinton’s for boosting his career.
What he objected to was that Richardson was playing nice with the Clintons (Bill watched the Superbowl at Richardson’s place) and then suddenly Richardson wouldn’t return phone calls and didn’t even have the decency to give them a heads-up that he was endorsing Obama.
They found out when it was announced on the news. That’s not how friends act.
ACK
Eyes on the ball. McCain makes another gaffe. This guy is really becoming Bush redux.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/16/mccain-stumbles-on-hiv-prevention/
Tom Coburn! He of non-consensual sterilization and “I favor the death penalty for abortionists and other people who take life” fame.
Just Some Fuckhead
I’m actually a big fan of Carville; got all his books. I thought his “Judas” remark was spot-on, especially considering the way Richardson played both sides for so long. It was a pretty disgusting spectacle watching Richardson milk his potential endorsement for all the television and/or face time he could get with the candidates.
And HRC’s people were dead-on in pointing out that whatever little value the endorsement had was gone by the time he actually moved on it.
Contrast that with the Casey endorsement. He came through when it mattered.
Obama could use a few surrogates like Carville and few less spinless superdels like Richardson.
Tom in Texas
From the NYT article:
Yes, later it does say Richardson didn’t return Mr. Clinton’s calls. I’m pretty sure Bill and Hillary were in touch, so he definitely knew before Friday, when Richardson called his friggin’ wife.
John Cole
Then he is a complete idiot, because he called Richardson disloyal, not rude.
Failure to return someone’s phone calls is rude. It ain’t disloyal.
That was last year, btw.
Just Some Fuckhead
Yes, later it does say Richardson didn’t return Mr. Clinton’s calls. I’m pretty sure Bill and Hillary were in touch, so he definitely knew before Friday, when Richardson called his friggin’ wife.
Remind me again which one is running for President?
LiberalTarian
So I posted this on Tim F’s open thread, and would like to talk about it there rather than try to detract from this thread, but we are in academic lethal curiosity mode over the question. Could anyone help us out (of course, if you totally lead us astray we will never know).
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
Yes – that is what I am saying, or to put it more precisely I think that James Carville’s idea of what Bill Richardson’s responsibilities and loyalties were reveals a seriously defective sense of constitutional law (in the broadest possible sense of the term law) on Carville’s part, which should disqualify James Carville from having access to power in the US Govt.
Carville thinks that Bill Richardson owes personal loyalty to Bill Clinton because Bill Clinton made it possible for him to serve as UN Ambassador and DOE Secretary. There is an assumption packaged up inside this notion that I strongly object to.
Richardson would owe personal loyalty to Bill Clinton if Bill Clinton had given him something that was Bill Clinton’s personal property, like a car or a house. That sort of transaction is not what happened, except in the mind of James Carville and other people who think like him. Cabinet offices are not the personal property of the POTUS – hiring people to staff them is not like handing out presents.
What Bill Clinton did was to select Bill Richardson, presumably because he was the best person for the job, on our behalf , as a consequence of which Richardson enjoyed the privilege of serving us, the people of the United States. While Bill Richardson should certainly owe some gratitude to Bill Clinton, his ultimate loyalty is owed to the public, because he was our servant, not Bill Clinton’s servant.
Public service in a democratic government under the rule of law is not a fiefdom or title, the granting of which constitutes an actual debt with the implication of reciprocal obligations flowing upward. Everyone who serves in the govt. owes their loyalty to something higher than the President, and when they forget this and start thinking otherwise, then we have a problem.
How anybody who isn’t a kool-aid drinking GOPer could be unclear on this concept after the last 7 years is beyond me. That was the whole point of the US Attorneys firing scandal. Pat Leahy drove this very point home very clearly.
Loviatar sock puppeting for "F"
DAMOZEL at TMV responds to The Carville Flap.
.
Money Quote:
ACK
ACK (hence my moniker) you’re right! Sorry about that. I screwed that one up…
Oh well.
myiq2xu
I can’t recall any campaign in my lifetime where a still-viable candidate was forced to quit.
I’m not saying that people weren’t suggesting that a candidate resign, but I can’t recall a case where a candidate was forced to quit, or where the rules were changed (early unpledged delegate mini-convention) to force an early end to the primaries.
Hart and Brown stayed in until the conventions, although Clinton had enough pledged delegates to beat Brown after he won California. Mondale needed the unpledged delegates to beat Hart, however, even though Mondale was ahead.
Nobody blamed Hart for Mondale’s landslide loss, and he was the frontrunner for 1988 until he got caught with his hand in the nookie jar.
Loviatar sock puppeting for
Sorry the link didn’t go through The Carville Flap
Sojourner
Thanks. I now understand what you are arguing.
myiq2xu
I stand corrected, but as I recall, the news came out Thursday night, the actual endorsement was the next day.
I’ll go back and check
myiq2xu
Good point. Carville didn’t call Richardson “Benedict Arnold,” which would have implied that Richardson betrayed his country.
myiq2xu
I disagree. What you’re suggesting is that Carville expected Monica Goodling-type “Loyal Bushie” behavior in choosing between personal loyalties and official duties.
The Richardson case is between two candidates.
Tom in Texas
It broke at around 3:00 AM. I know because I was still up, having worked that night. I posted as I saw it.
I am not a huge fan of Richardson. He is a follower, not a leader, and his timing couldn’t have been worse.
That being said, if someone was called Judas for endorsing Clinton over Obama, the Messiah jokes would never stop.
The Grand Panjandrum
John you are onto something here. Mike Lux over at OpenLeft put up this fascinating post yestereday:
It really isn’t about the party, and what is good for the party, its about what’s good for the Clintons and what they will do until every once of blood has been let.
I had no problem with Clinton staying in the race until they circulated pieces from American Spectator and World Net Daily about McPeak being an anti-Semite, and then Hillary sitting down with that rat-bastard Richard Mellon Scaife. The line has been crossed. Period. They deserve no respect. None. Fuck them.
The Grand Panjandrum
But Carville is right about apologizing. No apologies. Ever.
mrmobi
Ok, aptly named, this is just silly.
To the first point, McCain got slimed, rolled over, and has proceeded to abandon what few principles he has left to suck up to the worst administration in our history. You call this real character? He is a war hero, I grant you, but his political career of late is every bit as deplorable as his probable running mate, the lovely and talented Mitt-meister. He’s a war hero who was tortured for years and has even abandoned his opposition to that vile practice, all in order to secure the nomination of a party which is working hard to end democracy as we know it. Lovely.
Plain and simple, there is no way to tell what McCain might do as POTUS, but it’s fair to say it would involve at least one new and ill-advised war and his continued support of voodoo economics.
Hillary, on the other hand, like her (which I don’t) or not, has a long an distinguished career as a progressive. She has been an excellent Senator and, to my view, exhibits much less equivocating gas-baggery than her over-rated husband.
As to your second point, you might not remember that Bill Clinton was elected to his first term simply because Ross Perot stayed in the race so long that the Republican ticket got split. He had no mandate, and was surrounded by people determined to end his presidency from the very beginning. They did their best to destroy him, but in the end, they over-reached. I’m of the opinion that that error is why we are where we are now, which is on the verge of making the Republican Party a minority in both houses of congress and out of the executive branch for years to come.
I’m no fan of Bill Clinton, but he’s no Republican. He simply hasn’t sunk to that level, ever.
scrutinizer
myiq, I can’t either. I really don’t believe that Clinton could be forced to quit at any time if she wants to take this to the convention. I’m guessing here, but I think that the reason superdelegates are not ganging up on her at this point is because Clinton is still, in some sense, a viable candidate. I don’t think she can win; I don’t think she’ll come close to pulling out a victory, but I think there is value to the party for the race continuing, at least through IN and NC. Obama continues to build organzations in the states in which he’s campaigning, and that will pay off big in the general.
Clinton does need to pull back from her present campaign strategy, in which she spends so much time vilifying Obama and implicitly or explicitly endorsing McCain. Clinton does better when she goes soft, and she should take advantage of that. I’m not saying she shouldn’t be trying to fight for the nomination; clearly she should. But enabling the Republicans isn’t cool. I believe that’s one reason why we have seen public superdelegate endorsements lately: I think that party leadership is sending her a message: “Cut this shit out.” I think that if she doesn’t cut the shit, her future as an elected office will be short and painful.
Rarely Posts
No, you are wrong. It would be political suicide to force a black man to step down from a close Democratic primary. And it would be political suicide to force a white woman to step down from a close Democratic primary.
This is all just silly nonsense as far as I’m concerned. I support Hillary because I think she can beat McCain and that is the only reason I support her over Obama. I think Obama might make a better president but I do not think he can beat McCain.
Just Some Fuckhead
Tbone-
You started a movement. From Real Time last night:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNu0XRUUoic
dbrown
Hey,
lots of other interesting things are going on … new a new open thread!!!
dbrown
Hey,
lots of other interesting things are going on … need (oops) a new open thread!!!
Calouste
It’s called feudalism, it’s a government system that was all the rage in the 13th century.
Indeed. When I grew the term “Judas” was reserved for people with absolutely zero, and I mean absolutely zero, integrity. Nazi collaborators and such.
I assume that Carville wanted to paint Richardson bad in the eyes of the Latino Catholic voters, but that he was too stupid/evil to realize that the comparison went way too far.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
Rarely Posts,
I agree with you that if the roles were reversed as the contest stands right now at the end of March, then the party would not dare to force Obama out for fear of alienating his core groups of supporters.
This argument is more realistic when you apply it to the state of the contest in the immediate aftermath of the Wisconsin primary. It is harder to imagine Obama not been asked to withdraw from the contest if he had lost 11 straight primaries and caucuses, and if those defeats had been capped off by several losses in a row by very large margins as a consequence of HRC picking up blocks of voters from his core demographic groups, in states expected to be more favorable to Obama.
This is exactly what happened (in reverse) in the actual Maine, Virginia and Wisconsin primaries/caucuses, all of which were predicted beforehand to be places where Hillary was expected to win or lose by a narrow margin, but instead Obama won decisively with exit polling showing that he increased his share amongst white voters, women, and voters with incomes below 50k.
If their roles had been reversed, it is more difficult to imagine Obama staying in the race long enough to make it to his “firewall” states and then deploying a kitchen sink strategy, and the outcry if he had done the latter would be deafening by now.
John Cole
If the roles were reversed Obama would no longer be running. Anyone who says otherwise is fooling themselves.
As it is, the unending nonsense from Hillary and company has me turning the channel when I hear her voice. I have not felt that way since back in the kool-aid days. When Bill said the ‘football players should expect to get clipped” comment the other day, I wanted to punch him. As a commenter somewhere noted, sure football players expect to get hit. But they don’t expect to get flagrantly fouled by their own god damned team.
But go ahead. Keep encouraging her to run, hoping she can provoke an Obama disaster and the super-delegates will overturn the popular vote and give the nomination to Hillary. Because, after all, it is “good for the party.”
And really, who am I to argue? You all are the super-geniuses who took the awesome popularity of Clinton and managed to turn it into a rout of some semi-literate imposter from Texas in 2000 and then again in 2004 you managed to absolutely maul a really unpopular President in the midst of a disastrous war. You all know all about winning.
Oh. Wait. Nevermind.
Pb
Rarely Posts,
Watch her campaign, watch the numbers, and watch the increased polarization. Pay attention to the proportion of supporters who would vote for McCain over the other Democrat, or wouldn’t vote over time. In short… where have you been? No, really–where?
Napoleon
Since my screen name comes from that book (Animal Farm) I am pretty sure its not from there.
Rarely Posts
“You all are the super-geniuses who took the awesome popularity of Clinton and managed to turn it into a rout of some semi-literate imposter from Texas in 2000 and then again in 2004 you managed to absolutely maul a really unpopular President in the midst of a disastrous war. You all know all about winning.”
LOL, you’re making me chuckle. I’m not one of those super geniuses. I never thought Kerry could win, either. I was right about that. He was my least favorite Dem candidate from the beginning of the primary. I’d like to be wrong about Obama’s chances.
The good of the party is which candidate can beat McCain. We just disagree on which one that is.
Notorious P.A.T.
To my knowledge, Hillary’s foreign policy staff was not gleaned from Weekly Standard castaways like mcCain’s. Her appointments throughout the executive branch will be better and not from the heritage foundation. She will not appoint Clarence Thomas.
If she loses Congress, like Bill did, she might not have a choice.
Rarely Posts
“Watch her campaign, watch the numbers, and watch the increased polarization. Pay attention to the proportion of supporters who would vote for McCain over the other Democrat, or wouldn’t vote over time. In short… where have you been? No, really—where?”
It’s called politics. Do you hear me crying about Barak’s campaign calling Ohio voters obsessed? Or his minister saying Bill Clinton screwed black people? Or Ed Shultz saying Bill Clinton was extorting superdelegates in an effort to throw the election?
Obama isn’t a weakling, but reading some of the comments on the internets by his supports make it sound that way.
Just Some Fuckhead
LOL, you’re making me chuckle. I’m not one of those super geniuses. I never thought Kerry could win, either. I was right about that. He was my least favorite Dem candidate from the beginning of the primary.
We agree on that! But with Kerry we found out for sure the 50%+1 strategy won’t work even thought it looked like it might based on 2000. The winner of the 50%+1 strategy is the party with the best dirty tricks operation. We can’t compete there with the Republicans.
So the progressives in the party dreamed up the 50 State Strategy and, thanks in large party to the self-destruction of the Republican party, it started showing results in 2006.
Fast forward to 2008: one candidate wants to try the 50%+1 strategy again and hasn’t even bothered to compete IN THE PRIMARY in a bunch of states. The other candidate is using the 50 State Strategy and campaigning everywhere for every vote. I know he’s black and has a funny name and isn’t entitled to the Presidency by dint of a vagina, but other than this, I think he’s better positioned to compete and win in a general.
IOW, we KNOW the 50%+1 strategy won’t work. We don’t know if the 50 State Strategy will succeed for fail.
Notorious P.A.T.
Can you recall a Democratic candidate going around saying the Republican is more qualified than his/her Democratic opponent? Because I sure as hell can’t.
Pb
Rarely Posts,
No, politics is when the Democrats campaign against the Republicans, not when ‘Democrats’ campaign for the Republicans. FYI.
Yes, you just did. Now who the fuck is ‘Barak’, and where the hell did that come from, did the campaign put out a memo? Oh, I see. From a staffer who left after her non-“off-the-record” remarks got published. Classy of you.
Yeah, you’ve got nothing. You can go back to rarely posting now.
Rarely Posts
Sad. Really.
Keep making your candidate look like a victim. You guys are making him into John Kerry II.
Just Some Fuckhead
Keep making your candidate look like a victim.
Nice job ignoring the clear message of my comment. But you clearly want to get some mileage out of this “your candidate is a victim” thing, so feel free to reply with some variation therein.
TenguPhule
Rarely Posts probably doesn’t study the inside of their ass from a first person perspective, but reading some of their comments makes it look that way.
Rarely Posts
The message of your comment had something to do with race and gender, correct? Or did you just throw that in for comic effect? Because that’s what really stood out.
Rarely Posts
OH! OH! OH!
Fuckhead – I see it now. You weren’t just raving about race and gender, you brought up the fifty state strategy.
I agree. It worked very well in 2006. And it would work well in 2008. Except for Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, etc., etc., etc., correct?
TenguPhule
I find this very ironic coming from a shill for people who say every state Obama won in doesn’t count.
Rarely Posts
I’ve never met one of those people. All the states count.
myiq2xu
I knowed I seen it sumwhere:
From Slate:
Just Some Fuckhead
I knowed I seen it sumwhere:
Dumbass,
You’ve already been set straight that Richardson called HRC the night before he announced. As you said:
.. after you said..
He did give HRC a heads up. He is under no obligation to take a phone call from WJC after that so WJC can browbeat him.
BH Buck
Of course people should have a strong sense of loyalty!
Loyalty to their Government.
Loyalty to the Constitution.
Etc.
Having that, every thing else will fall into place.
tBone
That was excellent. The fireplace-poking game starring McCain was hilarious.
Just Some Fuckhead
I agree. It worked very well in 2006. And it would work well in 2008. Except for Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, etc., etc., etc., correct?
Are you trying to advance a case with your purposeful rhetorical obtuseness? Even if, as you wrongly suggest, it is actually a 46 State Strategy instead of a 50 State Strategy, that is still better than a 50%+1 Strategy.
But of course you are wrong. Obama has done nothing in this primary except follow the rules set in place beforehand by the DNC. I can’t really keep up with the HRC position because it keeps changing as her odds diminish. I do recall at one point you folks were having an apoplectic fit that Obama was campaigning in Florida because a national cable ad buy ran in Florida. Are you now saying he wasn’t campaigning in Florida?
As for Pennsylvania, he’ll make more appearances and spend more money there by the time of the April primary. Win or lose, HRC will make up precious little ground in the pledged delegate count, the currency by which the nomination is purchased.
As for Florida and Michigan, HRC nixed party-paid-for caucuses that everyone else agreed on because she can’t win caucuses, reinforcing the point that she only cares about the voters of the states in which she can win. If you want to suggest that Obama is now stopping new voting from taking place then you’ll be forced to allocate half the blame to HRC.
Of course, Obama can easily win a Michigan primary and he polls better than her there but such a primary cannot exclude voters who already voted in the other primary because they were told the Democratic primary would not count. Again, HRC is quite willing to write off voters if they aren’t going to go her way.
And finally, Obama is going to win North Carolina by a wide margin after which you deluded Clinton supporters will lay a new faux firewall and start this ridiculous game of Black Knight all over again. And for what? Either to steal the nomination and split the party or to gratuitously blow over a hundred million dollars on NOTHING and unnecessarily imperil our chances in November.
As for “etc.. etc.. etc..” I have no idea what this means. As far as Clinton trolls go, you are mailing it in. You should have a document full of Clinton campaign talking points that you can quickly paste in and out. When the Clinton loss is officially recorded, you should bear some personal responsibility for being such a talentless and unconvincing hack.
Just Some Fuckhead
The fireplace-poking game starring McCain was hilarious.
Yes, I thought that was funnier than the HRC “game”.
slightly_peeved
While Bill Richardson should certainly owe some gratitude to Bill Clinton
While I agree with your general point, I’m not sure about this…
I thought that if someone gives you a job, your duty to them is to perform the job well – nothing more, nothing less. If they’ve given you some awesome opportunity that you might not have got otherwise, or tried to give you a really good work environment, then you may feel some gratitude. On the other hand, if you have a lousy boss, or you have to work harder than you would otherwise for the same pay, or if you perform above and beyond what is required to help out your employer – then they should feel gratitude to you.
Does Brett Favre owe the Packers for them giving him a job, or do the Packers owe Brett Favre for him doing such a good job?
From what I’ve heard of Bill Richardson (admittedly, not much) he’s meant to be very competent and an excellent ambassador and diplomat. If he did a good job for Clinton, he doesn’t owe Clinton a damn thing after he cleans up his desk and finishes all the paperwork.
Sojourner
And you’re one of the super-geniuses that voted for Shrub.
Funny how you neglected to mention that little detail.
LMAO.
Just Some Fuckhead
I don’t blame John entirely for that. If Democrats could nominate a candidate with some crossover appeal, it might be possible to attract some crossover voters. Hint?
John Cole
He, um, uh, won.
Your point? I may have backed some disastrous choices, but I have backed winners.
Pb
Uh oh. We’re screwed.
Just Some Fuckhead
Nah, they weren’t all disasters. Of course, they weren’t all winners either so we could still be screwed.
Conservatively Liberal
Lessee… Clinton pumps Richardson for the endorsement, but Richardson does not give it. Now Bill says that he had the ‘impression’ that he would. Richardson makes his decision, calls Hillary and tells her, Bill calls Richardson to verbally work him over and Richardson does not take the call.
Who is Bill Clinton supporting that is running for President? Who was Richardson ‘supposed’ to give his support to? Last I heard, Hillary was the candidate, not Bill. What did Hillary do? Run in and tell Bill ‘Richardson is endorsing Obama, do something about it‘?
I guess Bill Clinton picked Richardson for the wrong reason. Clinton was going for loyalty, and Richardson came in, did his job(s) and left. If he did the jobs good, that is all he owed Clinton. If anything, Clinton owes him for having done admirable work in his positions. At least he did not get busted getting a BJ in his office. ;)
Just because Bill Clinton says that Richardson ‘switched’ his endorsement does not make it fact. Remember, Bill has his own unique interpretation of words and events. What we defined as getting a BJ in office Bill considered the utilization of an accessory function his humidor was equipped with.
It is all in how you define it, as Bill well knows.
Longhairedweirdo
Look. The Judas comment was perfectly acceptable. I don’t see why you’re making a fuss over it.
After all, Judas refused to support Jesus in a popular election, whereas Richardson turned Hillary over to be brutally killed. I think it’s perfectly acceptable to take such a minor, piddling betrayal and use it to…
Oh. Heh. I’m sorry, I have them backwards. Yeah, that’s pretty fucking pathetic.
Just Some Fuckhead
Rarely Posts.. can you reconcile your earlier statement..
.. with the ongoing HRC strategy of changing the rules to count two unfair contests in a convention fight and then persuading superdelegates to overturn the winner of the most pledged delegates, the most states and the popular vote?
How is the former less suicidal than the latter? The former assumes the black man is losing with no possibility to overtake the other candidate’s lead. The latter assumes the black man has come in first place and the other candidate has to change the rules AND overturn the will of the voters to win. Why would you shun the former and actively work for the latter?
Help me understand your cognitive dissonance. Or were you just showcasing the meaningless and rhetorical jujitsu for which the online Clinton trolls have become famous?
Just Some Fuckhead
FYI, as Josh posted on TalkingPoints a couple hours ago, HRC gave a lengthy Washington Post interview in which she indicated her intention to take this thing to a messy convention fight and try to have the invalid Michigan and Florida delegations seated (which some have seemed to suggest would be political suicide.)
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/186346.php
AlanDownunder
I call them The Remora Couple. Carville is as loyal to Clinton as Matalin is to Cheney. Sucker pads for brains, the pair of them.
Rarely Posts
You’re funny, you really are. Everything in your world is black and white, isn’t it?
The fifty state strategy doesn’t work out too well if you force Hillary to step down now, does it fuckhead?
Rarely Posts
I agree. Forcing the DNC to seat the FL & MI delegates might be political suicide for Hillary. Not seating them will be political suicide for the DNC.
As for the superdelegates, their job is to pick the person that can win the general, not endorse the popular vote. No rule changing involved.
myiq2xu
He, um, uh, LOST!
His daddy’s buddies on SCOTUS stopped the counting in Florida (where his brother was governor and his state campaign manager was in charge of the election) and declared him the winner.
Gore got more popular votes nationwide, and got more votes in Florida.
myiq2xu
BTW – That’s what happens when you stop the election before all the votes are counted – the wrong person “wins”
myiq2xu
Well gee golly:
That should put a stop to all the demands that Hillary quit, shouldn’t it?
Just Some Fuckhead
The fifty state strategy doesn’t work out too well if you force Hillary to step down now, does it fuckhead?
Actually, when HRC concedes that’s when the 50 State Strategy *starts* against McCain. And the longer she drags this out with no mathematical chance to win, the less time we have to visit all 50 States.
Just Some Fuckhead
Not seating them will be political suicide for the DNC.
WTF??? What does this even mean? Are you suggesting that the DNC will be no longer exist after August because it made all fifty states follow the rules? So after August, maybe the DLC will step in and take over for the now defunct DNC?
Or are you suggesting that Democrats in Michigan and Florida are going to vote Republican en masse because their states broke the nominating contest rules and were appropriately penalized? Even if you held this deluded opinion, how can it make any sense at all if the Republicans also penalized Florida and Michigan for moving up the Republican primaries??? Are Republicans going to cross over and vote en masse for Democrats because the RNC penalized them? Will it be “political suicide” because we’ll have the smaller Republican contigent and the Republicans will have the larger Democratic bloc??
Are you totally clueless about this shit or are you being stupidly disingenuous?
Even if all of the above could somehow be magically wished away as “oh no, seat the delegations or oh no”, the Obama camp has said they are willing to split the Michigan and Florida delegations down the middle and seat them. Again, HRC has rejected this enfranchisement of Michigan and Florida because it doesn’t allow her an advantage in the two contests that she herself has said will not count per DNC rules.
JC, we need better Clinton trolls STAT or ya know, it will be blog suicide for some reason for another.
Just Some Fuckhead
As for the superdelegates, their job is to pick the person that can win the general, not endorse the popular vote. No rule changing involved.
Again, how is it political suicide to “force” a black man to concede who has no chance of catching the pledged delegate leader versus awarding the nomination to the person the black man beat in pledged delegates, most states (and contests) won and popular vote.
Put yer thinking cap on.
TenguPhule
So should they desert Hillary en-masse, you will of course be silent.