Offering frequent news and analysis from the majestic Evergreen State and beyond, The Cascadia Advocate is the Northwest Progressive Institute's unconventional perspective on world, national, and local politics.

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Judas, Mr. Carville? Really?

I was going to let it go, as much has been said already in the blogosphere about James Carville's statements after New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson endorsed Barack Obama. But somehow it just sticks uncomfortably in my craw and won't let go, so I suppose I'll add my two cents to the pile. For the record, here's what Carville said in an attempt to minimize the relevance of Richardson's quote "act of betrayal":
"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."
We'll omit discussing Carville's attempt to captialize on the occasion of Easter to rile up religious voters. While that's crass enough, what really ticks me off is the utter hypocracy of the statement itself.

Follow this, if you will: Bill Richardson has, as I mentioned on Monday, been a long time supporter of the Clintons. And why wouldn't he be? Bill Clinton gave him what was arguably his big break in politics. As a superdelegate, Bill Richardson would therefore be expected to endorse Hillary Clinton in her presidential bid. Or at least, we would expect him to want to do so.

Try to put yourself in Richardson's shoes for a moment. On the one hand, he'd prefer to endorse Hillary. On the other hand, Obama is a) winning, b) more electable, c) has a much greater ability to build a strong base of new Democratic voters that will see us through the next three or four decades of election cycles. And, presumably, Bill Richardson would rather see the Democrats win in November.

The math, the logic, the personalities, and the demographics all put Richardson in a tough spot for someone with such deep and long-time connections to the Clintons. But, much to his credit, he has done the right thing--stand up for the clear front-runner and best hope our party has seen since Kennedy--no matter how personally difficult it may be for him.

In his role as the nation's leading hispanic politician, he has to know that his endorsement would carry weight with hispanic voters, something Obama could especially have used back in February. Yet, Richardson held off endorsing him until after the states with the largest hispanic voting populations have voted. Obama might not have won any additional states, had Richardson made his endorsement earlier, but it would certainly have caused him to pick up a dozen or two additional pledged delegates in those states.

Surely Richardson waited so long in the hope that Hillary would turn it around, to give her every chance to re-rail this train wreck of a campaign she's been driving ever since Super Tuesday. But she hasn't, so Richardson has finally done what must be done.

His decision to wait must, I believe, be interpreted as a gift to Hillary Clinton, as an act of gratitude towards her for the past good she and her husband have done for him. For surely it would have hurt her campaign--and benefitted Obama's--considerably more had he announced his endorsement earlier.

So for James Carville to turn around and compare Bill Richardson to Judas Iscariot, well, that's wrong on so many levels I won't even try to enumerate them. Who's really guilty of betrayal here, Mr. Carville? The man who is looking out for the best future of our nation and of the Democratic party, regardless of personal cost? Or the candidate who has gone negative, cribbed from the Karl Rove playbook, trianguated, spun, and outright lied her once unstoppable campaign into the hopeless mess it has now become, the very candiate who has clearly sold out the principles that man has chosen to stand up for?

I'll stand by my answer to that question, Mr. Carville. Do you truly stand by yours?

Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home