Posted on 03/29/2008 5:11:05 AM PDT by RDTF
Last Friday the New York Times asked me to comment on New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson's endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama for president. For 15 years, Richardson served with no small measure of distinction as the representative of New Mexico's 3rd Congressional District. But he gained national stature -- and his career took off -- when President Bill Clinton appointed him U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and later made him energy secretary.
So, when asked on Good Friday about Richardson's rejection of the Clintons, the metaphor was too good to pass by. I compared Richardson to Judas Iscariot. (And Matthew Dowd is right: Had it been the Fourth of July, I probably would have called him Benedict Arnold.)
I believed that Richardson's appointments in Bill Clinton's administration and his longtime personal relationship with both Clintons, combined with his numerous assurances to the Clintons and their supporters that he would never endorse any of Sen. Hillary Clinton's opponents, merited a strong response.
I was fully aware of what kind of response calling someone a Judas would evoke.
Certainly, it didn't take long for the resign-renounce-denounce complex to kick into high gear.
In a bit of bloviation that brought joy to my heart, Bill O'Reilly pronounced himself "appalled."
Keith Olbermann, about two degrees shy of the temperature necessary for self-combustion, quipped, "So if he's Judas in this analogy, who's Jesus?"
Even Diane Sawyer took the analogy to the extreme, questioning, "Are you saying that he made a deal of some kind when you talk about 30 shekels?"
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Isn’t he Golum?
The Klinton’s must have pictures of The Alien doing a goat.
Carville’s response comes as not surprise to me at all. Loyalty is high among liberals, it's all they have since they don't have the ability to reason what's right or wrong and act accordingly.
James(Mars Attacks)Carville
Uh . . . earlier this year, he WAS one of Clinton’s opponents. By definition, that means he thinks somebody would be a better president than she. Why wasn’t he Judas when he ran against he benefactors?
I have mixed feelings about this; I completely agree with Carville (shock of all shocks) that RIchardson is a traitor to the Clinton’s. He would be NOTHING without them. Furthermore, Richardson is on the record of saying that supers should vote with their state. IIRC NM went for Hillary, so why did Richardson endorse Obama? Seems to me he is a bit of a hypocrite (no surprises there of course)...so on this one, I give Carville the win. Richardson deserves to be shunned.
Congressman Billybob
> Disloyalty That Merits An Insult (Carville barf!)
Where I come from, “loyalty” isn’t the bought kind.
What we are talking about here is not “loyalty” but “funded self-interest” — a fancy word for “corruption”.
Politicians specialize in stabbing one another in the back; it’s how they get to the national stage.
Look at McCain, he’s sold out conservatives for years.
They all deserve to be shunned... Scumbags all !!
Richardson is s sleazebag lib.
He wants desperately to be Obama’s VP.
Desperate people do desperate stuff.
While I have only disgust for the Clintons this kind of support is expect by leaders of both parties. Failure to provide blind support means they will leave you out to dry. Blind support ensures they’ll throw you a bone. Thats politics.
It wasn’t bad writing, Mary must have done it for him.
So how is it Carillve gets a pass for his career of trashing people (the politics of personal destruction epicenter himself) and is even given paid jobs on TV networks etc. so he can do it with more impact and venues than he would have otherwise.? What Clintanoid paved the way for this newpaper ditty?
BTW is Bill Richardson in the group of the Sluts or the Nuts as trashed by the Clintons.
I do hope that someday this LA viper get his well earned desserts for repeatedly forcing Clinton Criminal ,Inc on us all.
Much as I want to like Mary, it’s pretty difficult.
Excellent point. I can only presume the answer was the Clintons thought Richardson ran only to provide cover for Hillary and to attack her main opponents (at least far more forcefully than he ever any attacked her in debates and on the trail). May well prove his running was part of Hillary’s campaign (at least in the Clinatan’s minds).
Let me guess what would happen if, as an Ivy League professor, I sent an editorial to the Wash Post suggesting we needed reduced inflammatory retoric and insult hurling and some common sense among press outlets that did not pave the way and put up even more soapboxes for paid career insult merchants (like Carville). Even if couched it as for the overall good and well-being of the deocRAT Party , I am guessing they would not exactly rush to publish such a perspective.
Let me guess what would happen if, as an Ivy League professor, I sent an editorial to the Wash Post suggesting we needed reduced inflammatory retoric and insult hurling and some common sense among press outlets that did not pave the way and put up even more soapboxes for paid career insult merchants (like Carville). Even if couched it as for the overall good and well-being of the deocRAT Party , I am guessing they would not exactly rush to publish such a perspective.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.