Sorry to do another Carville diary, but Mr. Carville should do himself a favor and take a look at the concept of loyalty.
Actually he should take a trip from the Virginia suburbs down to the National Archives document display room (and take the kids!) to reaquaint himself with his country's origins.
We are a country of laws, not of men. And not of Clintons.
Carville's op-ed in today's Washington Post is found here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
On his calling Gov. Richardson Judas for endorsing Sen. Obama, he says:
I was saying what I felt as an individual who -- with no encouragement from the Clintons but as someone who is proud to consider himself a friend of theirs -- thought that Richardson had done something deeply disloyal.
Should Richardson's loyalty to the Clintons supercede doing what he thought was right for America?
Haven't we had a president for the last 7 years for whom loyalty was more important than competence? (See Rumsfeld).
I can understand where this comes from. Sen. Clinton has been in the public spotlight for half her life. She has been sliced and diced by the media and her political opponents for decades. She is naturally inclined to value personal loyalty as a shield. As the son of a president, George W. Bush developed a similar reaction to fishbowl living, making loyalty more valuable than the greater good.
American presidential politics is not a high school club that demands loyalty from its members (although lately it resembles a cafeteria food fight).
The Clintons are not the Lancasters or the Yorks where vassals are required to take sides and remain loyal.
Carville, Penn, McAuliffe, Wolfson, et al., are not helping Sen. Clinton with these tactics. Loyalty from underlings has not served her well in this campaign.
Following Richardson's endorsement of Obama, the Clinton campaign should have released a statement saying: "Gov. Richardson is a great American and is free to endorse any candidate he chooses. He served admirably in Bill Clinton's cabinet and we respect his decision."
Now, how hard would that have been? Would it have cost her any votes? I doubt it. Would it have reflected better on her candidacy? I think so.