Shame On You, James Carville!!!

While I expect surrogates and supporters of the Democratic presidential candidates to be passionate, if a little ideological, about their candidate, the name-calling and malicious criticism has reached the turn-the-TV-off proportions. It’s no longer party partisanship that is making me want to hurl handy inanimate objects at the screen – it’s the ridiculous sandlot insults flung back and forth between the Obama and Clinton camps, though it is undeniable the majority are emanating from the Clinton side. They’re experienced in demonizing opponents and their experience is showing true in this election.

James Carville has always been one of these Clinton-loyalists. On the front line, ready to spout truths or untruths – whichever might advance his candidate more successfully. I’ve always found him entertaining and exciting. The War Room is one of my favorite documentaries. Lately, on Larry King and Meet The Press, his opinions have bordered on fictional and he has resorted to repeating the same view over and over when no other lies about the vibrancy of the Clinton campaign are readily available. Click on the links to the shows if you’d like to read the transcripts.

Carville, however, has outdone himself with his recent opinion of the Bill Richardson endorsement of Obama. “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,” he said, according the The New York Times.

How immature. How bitter and sinister and ridiculous. To compare Richardson to Judas, giving Mrs. Clinton the role of Jesus. Only a political filthy degenerate would make such an association.

Such a statement infers that the Clinton appointments are given out with the expectation of returned favors – not because of the credibility of the appointee and belief that they will serve that position well. The statement plays politics at such a schoolyard level – on a tit-for-tat, back-scratching, sex-for-money jaundiced playing field leaving no room for healthy progress and debate.

The political atmosphere James Carville seeks to create is one of corruption and collusion. Candidate loyalty above all else. Above party loyalty. Above political ethics. And above the will of the people.

I think it is not Bill Richardson who is irrelevant, as Mark Penn tried to assert. It is James Carville and his nasty brethren who have forgotten what political leadership is all about and that the rest of us “citizens” wish to hell these people whom we elect would do the right the thing simply because it is right and not because they will benefit from it.

It’s time someone gave James Carville his pink slip and sent him out the back door. Or at least stuffed some boudin in his mouth so he can’t speak.

The only amusing thing I can see in this whole Judas analogy is that it probably makes Al Gore salivate at the idea of endorsing Obama. Obviously, he probably won’t need much prodding, but if I were in the Clinton camp, I’d be preparing my reaction for when that day comes.

UPDATE: Carville stands by his putrid verbiage Monday, saying, “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.”

Well, if you’re going to be an idiot, it’s probably best not to apologize for it. Perhaps he doesn’t care about credibility. Because he just lost a lot of it. Jackass.

UPDATE: I’m watching Anderson Cooper 360 with James Carville speaking. He keeps repeating that his Judas quote was transcribe “in context” – um, who gives a shit? No one is questioning whether he was quoted in context or not and what does that have to do with the veracity of his metaphor? Secondly, he says that he made the metaphor not just because Richardson owes the Clintons for his appointments but for other reasons he will not say – only that Richardson knows what they are. So, he’s got the balls to make the Judas comparison, yet won’t provide the justification for the comment.

Let’s hurl indefensible, unreasoned insults. That really makes sense in this arena. Didn’t someone recently compare Bill Clinton to McCarthy? That comparison should have been saved for James Carville. I won’t say why, though. He knows.


2 Responses to “Shame On You, James Carville!!!”

  1. 1 Duke
    March 25, 2008 at 3:22 am

    Good for you James Carville. Some people just don’t want to acknowledge there’s an elephant in the room when there clearly is one. I think it says a lot about a party that is disloyal. I have been a long time Democrat, but I truly find the disloyalty to the Clinton administration that has gave the party their period in history to shine and many great prosperous years. I find the small mindedness of the party members to be repugnant and to be highly undesireable. Richardson’s endorsement of Obama can be seen as a man who wants a piece of the pie at the end of the day so he sided with someone whom he felt can win the primary – knowing full well he is slapping the hands that fed him. In the end, I think it will hurt his political career. Obama will never trust him as a long term ally if known that he can turn on Obama as well. Sure Richardson gave his reasons that he wants to unite the party and turn around bad mouthing the Clinton – knowing full well, if we don’t have the 8 strong Clinton years of the past to fall back on, we have nothing against the Republican who is super savvy, super party loyal, super well funded, super well situated in every corner of the media market and news, and super strategic.

    If the Democratic party had stayed loyal from the very beginning, Clinton’s nomination will have been very easy. In 2002, Nader handed the presidency to the republican. 2008 will the be year when disloyalist (I dare not all people Judas) hands over the presidency to McCain. So many democrats are so disillusioned with today’s democrats that they might vote for a moderate republican like McCain over Obama. I am still not sold on the Obama popular bandwagon. Sure everyone wants to be with the current favorite and potential winner. Some waited until the last minute to pick a candidate so they can say they picked a winner. I, on the other hand, felt that loyalty is important. It was what have kept the republican in power for so many years, and it’s the only thing that will let the Democrats take back the whitehouse and hold it.

    Let’s put it this way, there’s a huge independent party out there and they are not out there because they can’t make up their mind – they are fed up with their own party. I am fed up with my own party at this moment, so I am becoming an independent. If the general election is between McCain and Clinton, I will vote for Clinton. IF it’s between Obama and McCain, Obama better step up to the plate and explain in greater detail of his program and how he’s going to fix things. I will not vote for a pretty face and a hopeful talk. At the end of the day, words will not save this nation from its current turmoil.

    May the best qualified person win! or it will be another 4 yrs of more problems. Mr. Richardson – your political career is over. I think the people of your state felt cheated by their leader. I want to see RIchardson’s face when Clinton win the Primary. It will be the day he will remember the biggest political miscalculation of his career. He will lose the latino votes…

  2. 2 Meredith
    March 25, 2008 at 11:26 am

    I disagree. I think loyalty it what’s wrong with politics. It prevents critical analysis of each of the candidates and allows free rides for people who call themselves by one label and then act in opposition to that label. Bush is a premier example of loyalty gone wrong. All the loyal Republicans signed up to vote for a president who is very un-Republican in practice.

    Now you want people to be loyal to the Clintons. Well, Hillary is proving over and over in this campaign that her character – and that of her campaign workers – is substandard. She will lie, change the rules, be disloyal to other Democrats by claiming McCain would make a better candidate than Obama. Character has been the backbone of good presidents time and time again. I will not be loyal to someone who does not deserve it. Critical analysis is far more important than loyalty. Bill Richardson applied appropriate analysis of the candidates and chose the right one. Favors should NEVER be a prerequisite for political appointment. That’s politics of the past. That’s why the Clintons are losing.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Scarlet Letter of Atheism


Bloggers' Rights at EFF

Blog Stats

  • 96,191 hits
WordPress Political Blogger

Top Clicks

  • None

%d bloggers like this: