Comments on: Carville on “Judas”

By: winsum

winsum — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 22:44:57 +0000

promises promises. Richardsons promise to the clintons not to support any, that is ANY of their opponents led them to expect that even if he had to remain silent, he would not do that.

James, I think your JUDAs application is appropriate. good for you and STRAIGHT TALK. You’re good for that. . . . even if you have to shae it with another. . ., a person who only mouths it.

By: Against Stupidity

Against Stupidity — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 18:01:13 +0000

What Carville is arguing for is blind loyalty, and that is anything but a virtue. I guess this man is an idiot because he doesn’t know how loyalty is to be earned.

It always struck me that the Clinton’s used Carville to say things publicly that would be politically bad for them to say.

By: Nando

Nando — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:45:57 +0000

Carville shouldn’t have made this comment. It really points out the flaws of Washington. We had a saying when I was in the Air Force (the saying came from Airmen who disliked all the stuff we had to do because it was “tradition”), “Tradition [or loyalty] is the best way to be wrong, again!”

Also, why do Christians see Judas as a bad person? If it was God’s plan to be crucified in order to save humanity, then Judas only played his part. If it weren’t for him, Christ wouldn’t have been crucified and we’d have no Christians today.

By: Bad

Bad — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 03:04:15 +0000

Loyalty? Where is the Clintons’ loyalty to the Democratic Party at this point? She has virtually no chance of winning without crippling the party’s ability to run a national campaign and causing a HUGE rift over Florida and Michigan.

By: emerson

emerson — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 16:31:09 +0000

Here’s almost certainly why Richardson endorsed Obama: because he’s (almost) inevitably going to win. Pols like to be on the winning team. Let’s not attribute any against-the-grain boldness to Richardson that he doesn’t deserve.

Still, Carville’s “Judas” statement was idiotic, which is fitting in that it came from an idiot.

By: mgordon

mgordon — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 15:24:58 +0000

Josh, you forgot Bandar Bush.

By: chsw

chsw — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 02:28:40 +0000

Basically, Richardson’s endorsement of Obama is a message that he thinks Obama is of better character than Senator Clinton. I am waiting for some Democratic congresscritter to make that point explicitly.

chsw

By: Henry Bowman

Henry Bowman — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 00:27:20 +0000

Well, I think that Carville is ‘wrong’ on this one, too, but at least it’s his [Carville's] opinion, and he’s not backing down like some slimy politician! And, of course, in many respects he is correct: Bill Richardson is a liar, and has been for many years! Let’s go back to basics: how does one know when a politician is lying? [ans: when his/her lips move].

I say this as one who has resided in Mr. Richardson’s congressional district for all his terms as a U. S. Representative. Now, the only difference is that he has more power.

By: Dave Krueger

Dave Krueger — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 00:11:56 +0000

I think Richardson should get back into the Presidential race. That beard makes all the difference.

By: Wesley

Wesley — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 22:36:22 +0000

What Carville fails to realize (or intentionally ignores), is that what he’s promoting under the guise of moral good (”loyalty”) is exactly why people don’t like Washington: people sticking by other people who have done them favors rather than doing what they think is right.

Everything Carville has said so far about Richardson’s “disloyalty” has only shown that Richardson did absolutely nothing wrong and that Carville represents a significant portion of what’s bad about politics.

By: Josh

Josh — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 21:05:49 +0000

Does this requirement extend to Mary, who would then be forever indebted to support Jeb, Jenna, or Access Hollywood host Billy Bush should they decide to run for the White House?