Why would Carville single out Richardson as Judas and not make similar comments about Norm Mineta or Robert Reich, both former Clinton cabinet members supportive of Obama? Or Greg Craig or David Wilhelm? I wonder if he slipped and started to reveal his rationale in this CNN interview:
BLITZER: So you’re not backing away at all from calling him a Judas?
CARVILLE: No, of course not. Well, I mean, it’s a seasonal
metaphor I was using. But when people see it, that was — that was –
it had — it was — it was what I said and it was quoted accurately, and
it had its desired intent.
BLITZER: What were the 30 pieces of silver he got in exchange?
CARVILLE: Well, again, that was a biblical thing. History will –
we’ll see.
Why did Carville say "History will..." only to cut himself off and say instead, "We'll see?"
It could just be typical Ragin' Cajun verbal gymnastics...or was he about to say "History will judge," a statement that inherently pre-supposes an off-message that Obama and Richardson will make history together, only to catch himself, shift course in mid-sentence, and say, "We'll See?"
Of course, I may be splitting hairs and reading too much into this line.
But let's go back to the question of why call Richardson Judas, and not Mineta, Reich, Craig, Wilhelm, etc? What makes him different?
It's really hard to divine any Clinton political gain from this insult in the primary. It makes Carville look like a sore loser, it gives Bill Richardson’s endorsement more publicity, there is no substantial Latino vote bleeding to stem in remaining primaries, and it's hard to imagine any voter in upcoming primaries voting for Hillary because Carville said this.
James Carville says that he didn’t consult with Hillary and that he is just expressing his personal feelings, but this passage calls Carville's honesty and motives into question:
BLITZER: Judas, his betrayal led to the downfall obviously of Jesus. Is Bill
Richardson that important?
CARVILLE: I don’t think — no, I don’t think he’s that important.
Um, yeah. Bill Richardson is not important. Is that why the Clintonistas were calling him constantly for his endorsement, Madeline Albright told him he owed the Clintons, Bill Clinton invited himself to the Superbowl with Richardson, and James Carville felt the need to go on a Judas media tour?
It's obvious they think Bill Richardson is important. The CW is that this is about superdelegates...but honestly, how many superdelegates are going to make their minds up based on what Richardson says? Maybe it will influence things, but the way the Clintons are reacting, you would think that Al Gore or Nancy Pelosi had endorsed.
So, if Richardson has marginal influence with remaining voters and remaining superdelegates why go after him so viciously?
Here's a theory:
Fast-forward to the days before Denver Say Obama chooses Richardson as his running mate, a very plausible possibility. Richardson beings national security cred, a swing demographic with which Obama use some help, and a likable folksy personality that doesn't look mean on the attack (like when he says the Clintons have a sense of entitlement or says "Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton - what about the rest of us?" as he has frequently done over the last few days.) The power of a coalition of black, brown, progressive whites, independents, etc would be historic and that day before Denver the media would be expected to go nuts with tons of positive coverage casting the ticket in historic terms.
But thanks to James Carville, the pundits that day will probably go into feeding frenzy replaying Carville's comments, asking if Richardson was a Judas after all, was there a secret deal for the vice-presidency, is Bill Richardson a conniving SOB, did he backstab his friends for political gain. You know the media will make that the meme if Richardson is selected...and somewhere in Virginia, James Carville will pump his fist and declare, "Mission Accomplished!"
So again, I can't read James Carville's mind. But from my analysis, there is no benefit in the primary to Carville attacking Richardson, but his comments might rain a bit on a future parade if and when Obama picks Richardson as his running mate.
So, I wonder....does this and other actions suggest that James Carville and the rest of Clintonistas are currently resigned to Hillary's defeat and that they are only staying in the race to hurt Obama (and his possible future running mate) as much as possible before she has to drop out and the Clintonistas have to pretend to support Obama?
I realize that if you are a Clinton supporter, you may be rolling your eyes and thinking, "Gee, another Obama supporter thinks the Clintons are eeeeeevil. Big Surprise."
But you don't have to be a committed Obama supporter to be suspicious about the disturbing pattern of Clintonistas engaging in behavior that seems to undermine Obama's General Election chances but do little to help Hillary's primary chances:
- Bill Clinton saying McCain and Hillary love their country and leaving out Obama.
- Hillary saying she and McCain have passed the Commander in Chief test, not Obama, in a soundbite spoken as if trying to get into a Republican Attack Ad.
- Continuing to blame Obama for MI and Florida even though revotes are dead because of little to no fault of Obama . Maybe the Clintons are trying to hurt Obama's fall chances in these states?
- Encouraging the media to push the Wright stories, the Rezko stories, and any dirt they can find on Obama to drive up his negatives before the general.
- Partnering with Rush Limbaugh, John McCain, and other wingnuts in talking points and tactical voting strategies
Also, the history of the Clintons and other democrats should be examined:
In 2004, John Kerry felt like the Clintons did not work hard enough for him and that Bill Clinton sucked up valuable media oxygen around the time of the convention by going on a self-indulgent book tour. One of the reasons John Kerry endorsed Barack Obama early.
In 2000, Al Gore, already having to deal with the Monica fallout, had Bill Clinton constantly trying to steal the spotlight, The Clintons sucking up fundraising dollars for her Senate run, and Bill Clinton giving a spotlight-stealing speech at the 2000 Dem convention. It got so bad that Al Gore had to declare, "I am my own man."
In the 90's, the Democrats lost both houses of Congress and many Governorships and Statehouses on the Clintons' watch.
So, clearly, there is a history of the Clintons screwing other Democrats, but the question is why are they so determined now to undermine Obama in the general election that they are not even being subtle about their efforts anymore?
Some say it is about holding an opportunity for 2012. I think this is possible in the unlikely event Obama loses, but the Clintons have to know that an "I told you so" campaign will be limited by the early staters who won't forget the MI, FL flip-flops, black voters who won't forget SC, and all types of progressive Obama supporters who won't forget all the bad things the Clintons did in this campaign.
Some say it is sour grapes and spite. This is possible too, but I think the Clintons can control their personal feelings to do what they think is best in their political interests.
I wonder if this has more to do with the Clinton legacy. I have heard some pundits say this. They've already blown their legacy in so many ways with this campaign that I wonder if they think the only way for them to get any vindication in history is for Obama to lose. An Obama election would be a repudiation of Clintonism in many ways and Bill Clinton, who is very defensive about his legacy, may not want a President Obama to overshadow him in the history books. The Clintons have to know that if Obama wins, they will be remembered as having been on the wrong side of history.
If I am correct (and I hope that I am not) that the Clintons will do whatever is politically possible to undermine Obama, this poses a difficult dilemma for Obama.
Does he ignore what the Clintons are doing in an effort to promote a facade of party unity to bring her supporters back into the fold? Or will he need to actively drive a wedge between the hard core Clintonistas and their supporters by calling the Clintons out for the disloyal democrats that they appear to be? I don't know the right answer, but I'd be interested to hear your thoughts....