Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on They're Unbelievable


Carville is a Monster! (Oh great, now I'm fired.)

Posted by Andy Christ | March 24, 2008 10:50 PM

Recent biblical scholarship has dramatically changed our view of Judas, due especially to the discovery of the gnostic Gospel of Judas. Turns out Judas wasn't such a bad guy, so Richardson can rest easy.

Posted by Gabriel | March 24, 2008 10:52 PM

Poor Hillary. Tell her I said I know how it is to be bad sometimes even when you want to be good.

Posted by elenchos | March 24, 2008 10:58 PM

In before Will in Seattle:
1) something blatantly false and/or misleading
2) acts Rovian
2) improperly uses ellipses

Posted by Donolectic | March 24, 2008 11:24 PM

sure, all of my religious training comes from foggy memories of the Last Temptation of Christ, but wasn't Judas's betrayal central to Jesus actually saving humanity?

Posted by josh | March 24, 2008 11:29 PM

It's a pretty outlandish statement, myopic would be an understatement (jesus--saviour of a whole slew of people for a two milennia, hillary--possible presidential nominee and political figure-head for a few billion people over a couple of decades). But i am kind of relieved to hear Herr Carville be forthcoming about what a stomach punch that must have been to the Clinton campaign. Someone with personal and political ties to one hopeful (and apparently some of her minions) bails in favor of another dude. And people go, hmm, that is strange (or at least, unexpected). Isn't this the point of endorsements? Carville, though, great in The Assassination of Jesse James...

Posted by el | March 24, 2008 11:36 PM

Isn't typical though? Loyalty before principle, loyalty before competence (not that she won't be competent, but obviously Richardson thinks Obama will be more so), loyalty before party. The only weird thing about this is that anyone would be surprised about any of it. Loyalty means everything for the Clintons (and the Bushes) and this is just evidence of that. Richardson shouldn't have endorsed who he thought would be the best candidate for president, he instead should have either been quiet or been a good soldier and endorsed Hillary. This is typical of everything about the campaign and every reason that we can't have another Clinton administration.

Posted by Ed | March 24, 2008 11:38 PM

Wow... is Clinton's mission to completely disenchant and disgust the voters? She's doing a great job, in that case.

Posted by bma | March 24, 2008 11:39 PM

What I want to know is does ECB proudly stand behind Carville's statement as well?

That's a rhetorical question. We already know the answer.

Posted by montex | March 24, 2008 11:39 PM

Carville is an ass. Has been for quite a while. He likes to hear himself talk. A lot.

He can hate on Richardson all he wants, and call him all sorts of shitty names... in private. Behind the scenes. But shit like this in public just damages the democratic party as a whole, does nothing to help his candidate, and does nothing to further the democratic process or debate. And he should know better. Unfortunately his arrogance and lust for power frequently overrules common sense.

Hillary aught to dump his ass before he does more harm than good (if it isn't already too late for that).

Posted by Reverse Polarity | March 24, 2008 11:42 PM

Same guy that married a prominent Republican campaign adviser, ya know.

Posted by Greg | March 24, 2008 11:44 PM

Man, hitting the post button before I proofread, what the hell... I'm not even high. But I think the point gets across.

Oh yeah, and boo Carville. He's a douche. A loyal douche, but still a douche.

Posted by Donolectic | March 24, 2008 11:48 PM
Posted by skye | March 25, 2008 12:09 AM

Obama's pastor says "Fuck America for being racist," (hard to argue with that) and it practically sinks Obama's candidacy, but now 2 advisers to Clinton have unashamedly refused to apologize for overt racism and ad hominem attacks on Obama's campaign and most of the media just looks the other way? Fucking ridiculous. Never mind that the media has been downplaying Hillary's Kosovo baldfaced lie, or that they've ignored the fact that Clinton CAN NOT WIN. And who supposedly gets a free pass from the media?

All hail president McCain. Maybe he'll make Hillary his veep.

Posted by Mr Me | March 25, 2008 12:10 AM

The shrill, strident tone of your post, Christopher, is music to my ears. The more panicked and hysterical you Obama supporters sound, shocked that Clinton won't roll over play dead at your 7% lead in delegates, the more I think the Supes will realize you guys don't have the stones to go up against McCain.

The only people who care what a Clinton supporter said about an Obama supporter is oversensitive Obama supporters.

Posted by Big Sven | March 25, 2008 12:31 AM

While the Democrats fight and back stab, the Republicans consolidate and prepare.

Four more years here we come.

Posted by PA Native | March 25, 2008 12:45 AM

One has to admit, it is refreshing to witness the past generation's successive Bush/Clinton dynasties seriously and unexpectedly threatened. By a mixed-cultural unifier able to speak truth to power in ways that resonate with the left and the right alike, with rhetorical flourish, and a refreshing bit of charisma and social awareness thrown in. Who knew Sinbad had it in him?

Posted by levide | March 25, 2008 1:09 AM

TRUE-Now Gov Richardson received lots of perks from the Clinton power brokers

TRUE-Now the shrewd Gov Richardson gets lots of perks from the Obama machine power brokers _


ONLY-If he is betting right .....


You Obama fags all are living on pixie dust .... and too much jism.

And Carville's best trait is his candor. Love it from him most of all.

Posted by Adam Kelper | March 25, 2008 1:18 AM

A few observations - any size disagreement is an immediate call to offer many insults ... like douchebag, liar, etc. (small aside, if straight men douched a lot a douchebag person would be a hero, the insult is baseline sexist)

Those of us who will vote for either candidate with no qualms are the perfect new generation that Obama is talking about - unifiers.

ThosE who will not WORK for THE HEINOUS OTHER candidate are not only the true douche bags - theY are directly related by the BLOOD OF JESUS to Judas.

Remember the name Judas Democrat will follow you the rest of your life if you work for Mc Cain and the next batch of wars he will start ... with the help of all the old Bush era people ... who are all working like crazy on his campaign.

Judas Democrats will replace the rather polite Reagan Democrats.... among the slogans and language of remembering this contested year. Mark my words.

God damned Judas Democrats ... has a ring, AS THE NUKES FALL.

Posted by Zak | March 25, 2008 1:39 AM

Is this High School or what?????????

Posted by KeeKee | March 25, 2008 3:12 AM

The metaphor use is rather ironic considering the Clinton campaign has continually tried to equate the enthusiasm of Obama supporters with a cult and accused Obama of setting himself up as messianic. Shouldn't one of his allies be the Judas?

Posted by Beguine | March 25, 2008 4:15 AM

#20 - no caps on high school, and yes the grammar police are here and all the old cliques.


Nice, of course, but then when does the cross scene present?

Posted by Larkin | March 25, 2008 5:12 AM

Is this post a parody? That's really the most sense I could make out of it.

Using the term Judas for someone who has committed what one considers an act of betrayal is a pretty common rhetorical act and certainly not as beyond the pale as this Slog post seems to portray it. If anything, it's a bit funny, as it posits Hillary as Jesus.

Just when I think it might be time for Hillary to step down, Obama hysteria always reminds me of why it's so much better that she's around.

Posted by johnnie | March 25, 2008 5:15 AM

Richardson can only be a "Judas" if there is a Jesus Christ to betray. As Bill Clinton gave Richardson his various appointments, Bill, presumably, gets the role of Jesus Christ. Which leaves Hillary to play the role of Mary Magdeline, correct? So my question is, why aren't the Clintons upset at Carville essentially calling Hillary a whore? Although maybe Carville views the Clintons together as a new updated version of the second coming, kind of a Jesus and holy ghost synthesis. But if that is the case the Clinton's should just stick with Obama being the anti-Christ shouldn't they? With Richardson only geting the role of some type of devil-demon or devil-drone bit player. I'm just so confused about this all.

Posted by Mike in Iowa | March 25, 2008 5:22 AM

Allow me to predict Teh Future.

Clinton Supporters when Obama loses the general: "We told you Obama couldn't win. This is all on him." Obama Supporters when Obama loses the general: "This is all Clinton's fault! Yeearrrghhh!" McCain Supporters when Obama loses the general: "Ha-ha!"

Posted by Teh Fyuchar | March 25, 2008 7:10 AM

I think Carville's comment is insulting to governor Richardson. Getting VP of secretary of state is worth far, far, more than 30 pieces of silver.

He's really like Saul on the road to Damasucs. He traveled with Obama for a year, he travelled with the Clintons for what, 20 years? He just couldn't make up his mind between them after he dropped out until ....THE BIG SPEECH.

He suddenly saw the light!!!

It was all shining out -- from those polls and delegate counts written on those walls over there !!

Praise be. Let's welcome another convert.

Posted by unPC | March 25, 2008 7:40 AM

i know it's insane! clinton supporters are OUT OF CONTROL!

they willing to (nearly) kill us one-by-one... make up ground. just leave us winners alone, ok?

Posted by cochise. | March 25, 2008 7:41 AM

Can someone please explain why I should care about this? The Judas thing is kinda funny, and Carville's defense of it is even funnier, but what's the big deal? Carville is a professional freak show and he's just playing his part.

Posted by CG | March 25, 2008 7:42 AM


I believe there is a story about some cats in Kilkenny or somewhere that is a good prophecy in this case.

Posted by unPC | March 25, 2008 7:43 AM

I'm starting to resign myself to having president McCain. Sigh.

Posted by SDizzle | March 25, 2008 7:49 AM

No, Obama is taking everyone down.

There are people who see through him, and people who don't.

When you wake up, you'll find yourself in a bathtub of ice with your kidneys missing.

Posted by RonK, Seattle | March 25, 2008 7:52 AM

James Carville is beyond irrelevant.

He had a good run at the top of the political consulting field during the 90's, but he's gone waaaay downhill since then.

Posted by Hernandez | March 25, 2008 8:09 AM

actually as someone for HRC or if not her then of course Obama I have been trying to suggest how Obama can improve his chances. Eg, seat FL revote MI, remove those nasty festering sores; and offer VP to HRC.

Like JFK or Reagan, and unlike stupid Ford (he turned Reagan down for VP in 76 and lost to Carter). See the article in Newsday today on realclearpolitics.

Ford: divided party, loser.

Reagan and JFK: divided party, winners.

Obama's choice.

Posted by unPC | March 25, 2008 8:14 AM

Carville not part of campaign.

Obama co-chair in Iowa:

"Bill Clinton cannot possibly seriously believe Obama is not a patriot, and cannot possibly be said to be helping -- instead he is hurting -- his own party. B. [Bill] Clinton should never be forgiven. Period. This is a stain on his legacy, much worse, much deeper, than the one on Monica's blue dress."


Posted by McG | March 25, 2008 8:18 AM

chris, your guy is GOING TO WIN. you really need to stop playing the victim.

Posted by arduous | March 25, 2008 8:19 AM

if richardson is judas hillary clinton personally repelled a 100 man frontal assault on the tarmac in tuzla.

Posted by some dude | March 25, 2008 8:27 AM

#24 - silly boy - Mary was hardly a whore, she was the wife of Jesus - I thought that was clear now to the whole world.

Some of us got to than on our own long ago.

The metaphor is not literal, just means big time betrayer. Richardson fits that exactly, and for silver, just what is the deal he made with "new politics" Obama??.

Richardson has a failed run for the nomination. I wonder if he is in a bit of a snit, or brooding as well. Sorry Bill, kick ass world out there.

Posted by John | March 25, 2008 8:28 AM

@28 - I think what's at issue, is this long dry spell where the supporters of both campaigns have run out of relevant things to pick at, and so, they make mountains of these molehills. I think they, the respective camps, are behaving like bored children, pulling on each others' hair just to see what happens.

I can't imagine the candidates really care at all about these 'insults'.

Why should Hillary care if someone called her monster? Heck, in some lights, that could be a compliment. And, why should Obama care if Geraldine said something stupid about his advantages as a black man? It was simple enough to just call it out as 'ridiculous' - no need for apologies, resignations, and all that crap.

To stop this squabbling, which is serving no one but McCain, the Dem campaigns need to give the people something substantial for the masses to discuss - thus Obama gives an 'important speech' on race in America, and Clinton has now given an 'important speech' on the economy. Maybe that will help?

Posted by SeanD | March 25, 2008 8:29 AM


then why don't ya'll zip it so we can enjoy our victory? ¿you can join us if you'll be civil, comprende?

Posted by cochise. | March 25, 2008 8:45 AM

When I start seeing evil leprechauns shouting JUDAS! JUDAS! I know it's time to put down the glue and step outside for fresh air.

Posted by NapoleonXIV | March 25, 2008 8:51 AM

I still like Hillary.

What a bunch of shit is flying. so trivia and so infantile. If Hillary had been shot in Kosovo, the H. Haters would have blamed her for going in harm's way.

Once you become a fanatic, reason wings away and in comes the brooding vultures of doom and gloom.

Judas Democrat is a perfect name for those who will not unify behind whomever is nominated.

I like Hillary and all her flaws, Obama is a little too slick for me and churchy.

Bit I detest the Republican agenda and its puppet, John Mc Cain.

Posted by Kenny | March 25, 2008 8:57 AM

I don't believe you. You're a liar!

Posted by Jude Quinn | March 25, 2008 8:59 AM

@33-Assuming that was offered, how can Clinton afford to accept after implying that McCain is a better candidate than Obama? I think Clinton would generally have a hard time accepting second billing, but in recent months she's positioned herself badly to do that.

Posted by Beguine | March 25, 2008 9:09 AM

Yawn. Christopher, this is a pathetic post. Your scare tactics are just further proof of imminent Clinton victory.

Jeez, has there ever been anybody touchier than an Obama supporter? People in the media call others "Judas" all the time. Where is the Stranger police then?

Yes, it's stupid and callous those times too, but mainly it's just boring. Repeat after me: THIS IS NOT NEWS.

Posted by fluteprof | March 25, 2008 9:09 AM


Sven, flip-side here. The more the Supes realize that her campaign sucks at winning even using negative campaigns the more they will see obama as the person they should vote for.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | March 25, 2008 9:10 AM

Gore needs to endorse. Now.

Posted by NapoleonXIV | March 25, 2008 9:13 AM

it is a figure of speech. it certainly wasn't classy -- you don't air your petty disagreements in public like that.

but to complain that he used a commonly understood term for traitor is silly; the problem is that he felt the need to publicly call him a traitor at all.

but here's why it had to be said:
it was done in an attempt to shame other other potential judases (hello washington state!), and to reinforce the idea that obama is stealing the election. once again, a savvy political move.

Posted by infrequent | March 25, 2008 9:13 AM

every time i hear sven or posts like 44, all i can hear is dick cheney or rummy talking about dead enders. keep dreaming, pal.

Posted by some dude | March 25, 2008 9:24 AM

shouldn't you be more riled up by hillary getting caught red-handed telling an incredibly stupid, pointless lie about her trip to bosnia? or that someone who sees no problem with saying something so lame, yet so easily disprovable is STILL the preferred candidate for a significant percentage of the democratic electorate?

james carville is an asshat. he always has been. who gives a fuck what he has to say when the woman he's defending has no fucking scruples whatsoever?

Posted by brandon | March 25, 2008 9:24 AM

I lean toward Obama, by I'm hardly an Obama fanboi. I admire Hillary as well, and I'll support her if she ends up with the nomination (which seems unlikely at this point).

Carville is nevertheless an obnoxious talking head, and has been for nearly 20 years. I've disliked him long before he ever made his Judas remark.

My particular problem with the Judas remark is that it is just bitter name calling. Vented anger from a high profile political advisor. A comment like that does nothing whatsoever to help his candidate. It is a lot like some of the name calling that goes on here on Slog. If you call me a blindfolded dumb ass for liking Obama, how does that in any way help sway my opinion toward Hillary? It only embitters me, and makes me more defensive about my Obama support.

Likewise, how does calling Richardson a Judas help sway anyone to relinquish their support of Obama and back Hillary? It only serves to make people disgusted and cynical of the whole political process. If Hillary ends somehow ends up with the nomination, I will vote for her, but I'll have to hold my nose doing it. I will have no enthusiasm. And jerks like Carville are why.

Posted by Reverse Polarity | March 25, 2008 9:29 AM

@7: This has nothing to do with who Richardson thinks is the best person for the job. He has now proven himself to be nothing more than a political opportunist. The tide has turned to Obama, and Richardson knows he better get on the bandwagon now or there won't be any plum jobs waiting for him in an Obama administration.

Posted by tomcat98109 | March 25, 2008 9:45 AM

@ 5: Conventional theology says Judas's role in saving humanity was unintentional and he's an evil, evil guy. All four gospels call him a betrayer, liar, devil, transgressor, etc., and in Mark, Matthew, and Luke, Jesus says "woe to that man" and that it would be better if Judas had never been born.

Judas does present a sexy theological paradox—why should he be punished for allowing salvation to happen? what if he was on a spiritual suicide mission, saving humanity at the cost of his own soul—but, conventionally, he remains a bad dude. The worst.

Posted by Brendan Kiley | March 25, 2008 10:09 AM

maybe he should have called him a benedict arnold.

Posted by infrequent | March 25, 2008 10:19 AM


I don't know, but she demanded the resignation of the person who said it. Apparently she does care.

Posted by keshmeshi | March 25, 2008 10:39 AM

Carville's comment may be acceptable or unacceptable, but it is certainly not made so, as Christopher implies, by Richardson being hispanic, and Obama being black, and the history of race relations in the U.S. Screw this minefield of identity-politics-driven political correctness!

Posted by David Wright | March 25, 2008 11:12 AM

"...I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic."

Um, can something be both appropriate and ironic?

Posted by Ben | March 25, 2008 2:10 PM


The more the Supes realize that her campaign sucks at winning even using negative campaigns the more they will see obama as the person they should vote for.

Is that before or after she wins by landslides in Pennsylvania, West Virgina, and Puerto Rico?

Posted by Big Sven | March 25, 2008 3:34 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).