Carville calls Richardson's endorsement an "act of betrayal."

[madfloridian]

That upsets me to hear that. It was not an act of betrayal, it was the act of a man who struggled about what was right. Doesn't sound like it went over to well with any in the Clinton campaign.

First a Tense Talk With Clinton, Then Richardson Backs Obama

“I talked to Senator Clinton last night,” Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico said on Friday, describing the tense telephone call in which he informed Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton that, despite two months of personal entreaties by her and her husband, he would be endorsing Senator Barack Obama for president.

“Let me tell you: we’ve had better conversations,” Mr. Richardson sai.

He made it clear he was worried about the tone of the campaign. He said so also on Countdown.

“I’m not going to advise any other candidate when to get in and out of the race,” Mr. Richardson said after appearing in Portland with Mr. Obama. “Senator Clinton has a right to stay in the race, but eventually we don’t want to go into the Democratic convention bloodied. This was another reason for my getting in and endorsing, the need to perhaps send a message that we need unity.”

In many ways, the decision by Mr. Richardson, a longtime political ally of the Clintons, was as much a tale about his relationship with them as it was about the course of Mr. Obama’s campaign.

James Carville got his two cents in, and talked about 30 pieces of silver. Tasteless rhetoric.

The reaction of some of Mr. Clinton’s allies suggests that might have been a wise decision. “An act of betrayal,” said James Carville, an adviser to Mrs. Clinton and a friend of Mr. Clinton.

“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,” Mr. Carville said, referring to Holy Week.

I guess I should not be surprised when he says such things. He did his share of damage to the party right after our big win in November 06.

Carville implies the Clinton as complicit in his attacks on Howard Dean

Flush with victory after the election, Rahm’s allies, led by Carville, try to mount a coup at the DNC by publicly attacking Dean and suggesting he be replaced by Harold Ford, a Tennessee moderate who just lost a Senate race. “You can’t go into 2008 having a party chairman that is completely disconnected from the congressional leadership and the campaign committees,” Carville tells me, further pounding the wedge that divides the Deaniacs and the Clintonites. When I ask if Rahm agrees, Carville says, “It’s not any secret that Rahm has expressed disdain for Dean and not very secret that Rahm and I are close. It doesn’t take a lot of dot-connecting here.”

What about the Clintons, who, given Hillary’s presidential ambitions, have more cause for concern about who runs the DNC in 2008? “Let’s just say nobody has called me telling me this is a bad idea. Sometimes silence is eloquence.” Not only did Carville’s coup fail but it arguably strengthened Dean, who, speaking before his state-party allies, mocked the attempt as a desperate attack from the “old Democratic Party.” Cutting his losses, Rahm quickly leaked word to the press that he and Dean had negotiated a truce.

Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, Bill Richardson did not. This kind of talk needs to stop.