Dunno... I would imagine that this all makes perfect sense from the Clintonian perspective. Without being a poli-sci type, it has always seemed to me that the Clinton Way was basically a hybrid of what they considered two very effective political models: Democratic urban [patronage] machines and GOP media management. Both structures demand loyalty for obvious reasons, and Carville's experience would teach him that political operations dependent on loyalty are actually good ones. Of course it seems silly to outsiders without a major stake in the machine itself, but Carville wouldn't see that.

I'm thinking Carville is trying to sabotage Richardson as a VP candidate for Obama.

I think people will see what they want to see; Carville 's always been mouthy, and he doesn't shy away from saying things directly; he has a big problem with Richardson, and he doesn't apologize for it. He seems pretty clear in the essay that he did this on his own, because of how he feels, and because he, more than others, values loyalty most. I agree, a "loyalty model" for governing, a la the Bush White House, is problematic; but I think if you ask the broader question of what's the matter with DC, it's that loyalty to many things - a leader, an idea, a cause... often seems unfashionable, or declasse. And frankly, I'm with Carville - a little loyalty to those who've helped you speaks better of a person than making yourself available to the best offer, the highest bidder, or whatever criteria it was Richardson used (which, if one wants to believe it was nothing but high minded... that's a theory too, I suppose). Call me old fashioned, but I think throwing over your old friends when your new ones become more successful isn't a nice quality to demonstrate.

Ezra is once again the king of false analogies and faulty reasoning. It is not a virture to be loyal to your friends when they display incompetence that will wind up hurting others like Bush has, but that is not at all analagous to what Richardson did. If Richardson had said I am endorsing Barack Obama because he is the only competent candidate in the race, he would have been doing a great thing. An act of true courage. He didn't do that. He basically threw aside people who had been loyal to him for the new hottest young thing on the block. I wouldn't have compared him to Judas, but to the man who divorces his loyal, diligent wife for a young flousy, after specifically promising not to do such a thing. Richardson is slime jumping on the Obama bandwagon for no reason other than he thinks Obama can trick that some of the people who you can fool all of the time into supporting him just the way W did.

Hackdom--cajun style!

[Ok, somebody had to do it...so it might as well be me.]

Exactly when did Richardson promise the Clintons anything, Anonymous?

Also, can you make a short list of political achievements by either Bill or Hillary Clinton that helped the Democratic party? Please, be specific.

I tell you one thing: Carville's continuing shenanigans have made him a one-hell-of-a-lot-less-effective signatory on those zillions of DCCC/DSCC fundraising emails I keep getting!

If endorsing Obama is a terrible betrayal, what did Carville call it when Richardson was actually in the running against Clinton for the presidency?

What's odder yet is that he seems to think shredding his credibility in this way is good for Hillary Clinton

What credibility? It's not exactly a secret that Carville is a hack.

Isn't it "floozie" not "flousy"?
I know, it's off the subject and pedantic, but so is caring about what James Carville thinks about anything.
But, I will give him credit, he has stuck with his own floozie/flousy whose loyalty to the Cheney wing of her party has been as true as his has been to the Clintons.

Isn't it crazy that the candidate supporting patronage politics in this election is the one that's not the Chicago Democrat?

And the Bush analogy was the first thing that popped into my head too. I actually think this has been an under-covered implication of her campaign message. A big part of her "experience" message is that she's not going to bother to try and "change the tone" (change is just a fairy tale pumped out by a motivational speaker, y'know?), but that she knows how to play the current game better than Obama does.

That suggests she would conduct her Administration kind of like a liberal (though hopefully more competent) George W. Bush. So sure, we'll send raw interns to run the rebuilding of the countries we invade, but they'll be DEMOCRATIC interns. And sure, we'll be firing disloyal US Attorneys, but this time it'll be the CONSERVATIVE ones.

That kind of spoils system is not unprecedented in American politics at all. But it can be a real pain when one of your loyal-but-unqualified cronies ends up running something like, uhm, FEMA.

Exactly when did Richardson promise the Clintons anything, Anonymous?
Why don't you click the link and read it, if you are literate that is? It says it in the article.

Also, can you make a short list of political achievements by either Bill or Hillary Clinton that helped the Democratic party? Please, be specific.

Beating an incumbent President who had just carried out a sucessful war effort to end a 12 year Republican domination of the White House when everyone had basically just conceded the election to George W Bush.

Balancing the federal budget and bringing about a government surplus for the first time in recent memory which helped to keep programs like social security solvent until Bush and his cronies got their hands on them.

Disproving the myth of supply side economics by reigning over the largest economic expansion in American history at the same time that they raised taxes on the rich to ensure they paid their fair share.

Helping to establish the Earned Income Tax Credit.

Keeping the Republicans under Newt Gingrinch from gutting the new deal event though they had to shut down the federal government to do it.

Helping to establish the Children's Health Insurance Program and getting the family and medical leave act passed.

Securing health insurance coverage for our brave men and women who fight in the reserves and their families, as well as fighting to ensure adequate funding to help New York recover in the aftermath of 9/11.

Can you make a short list of anything Barack Obama has ever done to help the Democratic party or the country? Or a short list of anything intelligent you have ever written or said.

weboy: "I think people will see what they want to see"

Indeed...

I'm really aghast that anyone could be defending Carville here. The idea that Richardson owes Hillary Clinton his endorsement simply because Bill Clinton appointed him to various positions is really absurd. It's not disloyal to set aside personal considerations and endorse the person who you think is the best candidate, it would be doing a disservice (bordering on corruption) to the party and country to do otherwise.

Furthermore, weboy's baseless assertion that Richardson basically whored himself to the "highest bidder" is outrageous, unless of course he has some secret powers of divination he's hiding from us. What do you think Richardson got?

Carville's judas comment was obviously a racist slur. Everybody knows that in the film, "Jesus Christ Superstar," Judas is played by a black actor. Carville is plainly slamming Obama here.

The problem about being the Establishment is you hardly even realize it. Clinton and her camp are no more able to run as true reformers as McCain. Just wait for the general election, as McCain makes gaffe after gaffe, making himself look like a dinosaur with no clue the damage he's doing to his campaign. Obama's talk about the culture of Washington might come off as glib, but there's some truth to it. 1992 Carville would've read that op-ed and just shook his head.

Some of Carville's defenders are insisting that 'loyalty ain't such a bad thing', and I'm happy to agree. But this argument misses the point: loyalty _to what_? Or _to whom_?

I have nothing against the assertion that Richardson could have shown more loyalty to the Clintons. But what if doing that would have required showing LESS loyalty to other things that Richardson might value? Say, the Democratic part, or (gasp) the American system of Constitutional government?

If he felt that an Obama presidency genuinely carried much better chance of rescuing our government from Bush's anti-constitutional maneuvering (and McCain's likely continuation), then Richardson would be DISLOYAL to endorse anyone but Obama, wouldn't he?

But of course, for Carville, the only kind of loyalty he recognizes is that of a lackey to the personage to whom the lackey owes his status.

Anyone who reads Carville's op-ed can see that he is defining loyalty in a very personal, almost feudal way. Carville is saying that if someone does something for you, you owe that person your allegience...without any regard to anything else. He basically says that Richardson should have only done one of two things - endorse Hillary or stay silent. No matter now much he thought Obama was the better candidate or how badly he thought the Clinton campaign was behaving, the fact that Bill Clinton appointed Richardson to some prominant positions more than a decade ago is the first and most important thing that should matter.

Carville talks about politics needing more loyalty, but it is exactly Carville's degenerate brand of loyalty that lies at the heart of the worst sorts of corruption.

Mike

greg - dudgeon or no ("Baseless"? necessary?) - I said one is welcome to take a high minded view of Richardson's decision; what I like about Carville (and Mary Matalin for that matter... and Donna Brazile, come to think of it) is along with believing in a particular set of ideals, he's also practical, and prepared to fight. I don't know what Richardson may or may not get - that, I suspect is something we won't (or wouldn't) know until after November... but I suppose the opposite question is... what didn't he (or wasn't he going to) get from the Clintons?

Carville justifies his loyalty by saying he was a little known consultant and Clinton made him. That is totally understandable.

But it is also totally inapplicable to Richardson. Richardson was a respected and prominent congressman who was brought into the Clinton Administration precisely because he was seen as an experienced hand.

Weboy: I disagree that not presuming some quid pro quo in Richardson's endorsement is a high minded view. It just seems vastly over-cynical and unrealistic -- do you think all the various governors and senators supporting Obama are getting something for it? If not, why is Richardson?

In any case I agree that practical fighting skills in promoting one's values is a virtue. If only the Clinton folks would direct that fire at someone who actually disagress with them on the issues (McCain) rather than continue to attempt to whittle down Obama in their unlikely quest for the nomination.

I was thinking the other day that if these democrats had directed as much vitriol at Bush in 2000 as the Clinton campaign has against Obama, we might have been spared the last 8 years. Anyone remember Hillary Clinton, James Carville, et al making the argument that George Bush hadn't crossed the commander-in-chief threshold?

um, yeah, actually; as I recall that came up in 2000, as a selling point for Al Gore. And who made fun of it? Why, folks like Maureen "GWB is fun! Let's have a beer" Dowd.

Look, I'm not a cynic, but I'm also not blind: Obama's given thousands of dollars to superdelegate campaigns, he's endorsed newcomers... he's done, really, what every politician who gives and gets support does... he's given, and he's gotten. Backatcha - why should Bill Richardson be different? And still, what did he want from the Clintons, and didn't get?

Agree to disagree: I simply don't think it's appropriate to go into a public forum and cast aspersions on someone's integrity without any real basis.
Cheerio.

I'm really aghast that anyone could be defending Carville here. The idea that Richardson owes Hillary Clinton his endorsement simply because Bill Clinton appointed him to various positions is really absurd.

You apparently didn't read Carville. He says, quite specifically, "silence would have spoken loudly enough."

That is, he'd have no problem if Richardson would just have kept out of it.

Don't let the Bush Mafia ruin the concept of loyalty for you. It's still a good thing.

Richardson as VP?

Well, I suppose there's a good demographic argument for it: namely, that with Obama on the ticket People Who Get Con Law are grossly over-represented and the vast majority of people who can't tell their Whizzers from their Thurgoods are under-represented.

Still ... gag ...

PQuincy: Are you saying that Richardson isn't Judas, he's Brutus? Not that he loved Clinton less, but that he loved America more?

...Actually, I think that might be true. And Brutus is an honorable man. Antony's rhetoric notwithstanding, Brutus really *was* an honorable man - at least, the Shakespeare character was, not sure about the historical one.

It fits: what is Carville's editorial but "This was the most unkindest cut of all", at tedious length? Valuing some principle, or abstraction, above your patron is the worst sin in Anthony's theology - or Carville's.

Who says that Clinton did Richardson a favor by appointing him rather than the other way around? Richardson doing his job well makes Clinton look good. I have never felt like I owed a debt of loyalty for getting a job that I was more than qualified to do.

If Richardson were just bandwaggoning on the winning horse, he would have done it after 11 straight victories and before Texas/Ohio, when it would have seemed to count for more, latinowise. Instead, he did it after Jeremiah Wright, and before Obama's poll numbers started to go back up. He said the speech pushed him off the fence and I believe him. That was some speech.

Will respond on dbt's behalf. at least about the Clinton's record.

Beating an incumbent President who had just carried out a sucessful war effort to end a 12 year Republican domination of the White House when everyone had basically just conceded the election to George W Bush.

1. Not clear that this is attributable to Clinton, or at least not Clinton alone. Perot had a little something to do with it. So did the sitting president screwing up in the eyes of his own party at every step of the way after the war.

2. Clinton's winning is only a good thing for the party if what he did with his power was good for the party. Nixon winning was not, in the end, good for the republican party. Just winning is not an end in itself (though the Clintons sometimes act as though it is), becuase it is not valuable in itself.

Balancing the federal budget and bringing about a government surplus for the first time in recent memory which helped to keep programs like social security solvent until Bush and his cronies got their hands on them.

1. Social Security is still solvent.

2. Maybe if you want to ignore Keynes and neo-Keynesians you can think that a balanced budget is clearly a good thing. It looks to me like an big honking opportunity cost

3. The budget was balanced because of the late 90's bubble (and the lower costs that come with the complete absence of any significant attempt to address any of the major social justice issues of the day). The late 90's bubble was pretty clearly the result of telecom and finance deregulation (see Joe Stiglitz 'The Roaring Nineties). Those policy decisions on the part of the Clinton White house led to a bubble which burst, as all bubbles do, leaving almost everyone worse off.

Disproving the myth of supply side economics by reigning over the largest economic expansion in American history at the same time that they raised taxes on the rich to ensure they paid their fair share.

1. Professional economists pretty much had the supply side myth taken care of. And we already had a president who disproved its claims with policy, Ronald Reagan.

2. Reagan lowered taxes on the top bracket from the high 40's to the high 20's. Clinton took them to the mid 30's. Not clear to me such a modest move amounts to a clear rejection of supply side economics, or to getting the rich to paying their fair share.

3. As for the largest economic expansion in American history. Adjust for inflation and realize that Clinton's economic record does not end the day he left office.

Helping to establish the Earned Income Tax Credit.

1. It was established in the 70's, and Clinton expanded it the same number of times Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II did; once.

Keeping the Republicans under Newt Gingrinch from gutting the new deal event though they had to shut down the federal government to do it.

1. Yeah so most of the New Deal was gone when Clinton came into office. What little was left died with the Welfare Reform Act of 1996

Helping to establish the Children's Health Insurance Program and getting the family and medical leave act passed.

1. Kudos. To Clinton who signed it. To Kennedy and Hatch who sponsored it and fought for it, after it lost the first time because Bill Clinton helped kill it. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C00E2DE153BF931A15756C0A961958260

Securing health insurance coverage for our brave men and women who fight in the reserves and their families, as well as fighting to ensure adequate funding to help New York recover in the aftermath of 9/11.

1. Oh are we talking about Hillary now? Did she do this on her own? No one else in the New York delegation had a hand in it? Was it over feirce opposition that she got funding for NYC after 9/11?

For the sake of avoiding a tu quoqe response, I do not support Barack Obama for president. Or John McCain.

The ironic thing is that Carville is one of the worst fitting people to make the "loyalty" argument. I don't see politics as just feuding between aristocratic clans, but if I did, I probably wouldn't have ended the 1992 election by marrying my counterpart on the opponent's campaign. And when working on Kerry's campaign, he stabbed Kerry in the back on election night be telling his wife on the Bush side that Kerry was going to concede. Not to mention all the mean things he has said about Kerry since working for him.

This generally applies to the Clintons and the Bush family as well: the people who yell the loudest for loyalty to them, are often just the absolutest worst at showing loyalty to any other cause or their partners.

PS: I love the commenter who says what Clinton's done for the Democratic Party was being willing to run in 1992 when everyone was afraid of Bush. You make it sound like no one was running at all and he had to be guilted into it, not that he ran an aggressive campaign against some of the biggest names in Dem politics.

I would like to ask Chester where his loyalty to the democratic party was when he married Cheney's consultant and Bush's confidant, Mary Matalin. Ah, good ole Chester said, there would be no pillow talk, he would not disclose his party's secrets...and.....he had to follow his heart. Well, C.J. Carville, Jr., our gov Richardson is just following his heart. He believes that Obama is the best person for the job of pres at this time in our history. As for Hillary, I hope Obama appoints her to the Supreme Court. All is forgiven and she will be beyond "politics"....As for Carville, he's been sleeping with the Republicans far too long....pillow talk is inevitable Chester.....and "Judas" is in the eye of the beholder.