Elephant-Donkey

weareallequal won the Face Off.

DonkeyDude vs weareallequal

Face Offs: 30
Wins: 22
Losses: 6
Ties: 2
Los Angeles, CA
All Face Offs

Votes

Face Offs: 12
Wins: 2
Losses: 9
Ties: 1
No City, XX
All Face Offs

Votes

James Carville's comments that Bill Richardson is a "Judas" are unfounded, uncalled for and patently undemocratic.

DonkeyDude said 04/24, 08:19 PM
Carville has blasted Richardson over and over in the press for endorsing Obama last month. Watch the two discuss Carville's comments here:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2008/04/24/lkl.carville.vs.richardson.long.cnn

As far as I can tell, Carville's gripe stems from two beliefs:

1) That Richardson privately indicated to someone, at some point in the past, that he would endorse Clinton. First, Richardson denies this. Second, even if this claim is true, so what? Unless Hillary was continuing her run out of reliance on Richardson's endorsement (not the case), why can't he change his mind? He says he was close to endorsing her until a couple months ago, when the negativity of her kitchen-sink approach turned him off. Maybe she should give that some real thought.

2) That Richardson "owes" the Clintons his endorsement because Bill Clinton appointed Richardson and kick-started his political career. This mentality - what Richardson calls their "clinging to the throne" - is exactly why I hate the Clintons. Richardson doesn't owe them his endorsement, and it is downright un-American to suggest that he does. If she wanted his endorsement, she should have expected to earn it.

weareallequal said 04/24, 09:54 PM
If it weren't for the clintons, Richardson would be NO WHERE. It is true he is just like Judas you even prove it yourself. Who did judas betray? Jesus, the man who took him in. Who did Richardson betray? The clintons, who took him in. It is exactly similar. Richardson was also very close to the clintons, he hardly knows Nobama. It truly was a betrayal on his part.

DonkeyDude said 04/24, 10:54 PM
You appear only to take issue with the 2nd of my suggestions above, that Richardson does not owe the Clintons his support.

Thanks for your explanation of the Judas thing, but I understood the analogy just fine. Let's examine the implications of what you are saying:

BR betrayed the Clintons by not endorsing Hillary. He owed it to them because he would be nowhere without Bill Clinton. Therefore, you are suggesting that BR should have endorsed Hillary solely because her husband did him a favor - DESPITE his obvious feeling that Obama would make a better president.

That is to say, you apparently believe that Richardson should have given his endorsement strictly on the basis of returning political favors.

I must point out that that is one of the most un-democratic things I've ever heard suggested on this board. Surprising coming from someone with your moniker and icon. Richardson should be allowed to endorse whomever he thinks would be the best candidate. And I do not say this just because he endorsed Obama. As much as I hate Hillary, I make the same arguments about the super delegates, even though my point benefits her.

The Clintons' sense of dynastic entitlement sickens me.

weareallequal said 04/25, 08:35 PM
How would you feel, if you had a friend, and you helped him become great and helped him become famous and help him get a big powerful position, and set him off for a great life, but then when your wife, who is clearly the best candidate, starts to lose, and he votes against your wife. you'd feel stabbed. also the fact of the matter is, we always help out our friends. All these people who are now advisors and campaign managers for a presidential candidate, they will all get high positions in the government when the candidate wins. its the way it works.
your first issue is an issue which may be factual, but he was just a jerk for indicating that he'd endorse her but then not doing it.
the topic of the debate here is richardson being called judas was wrong, right?
well i told you who judas is, and now you know how that it wasn't wrong, it actually fit the description perfectly.
can i have an amen?

DonkeyDude said 04/25, 09:13 PM
How I would feel under those circumstances is irrelevant.

And, FYI, it is not an objective fact that Hillary "is clearly the best candidate." Richardson said he was actually considering endorsing her, but her own actions changed his mind. All her negative campaigning turned him off, and he now thinks Obama is a better candidate. His opinion is relevant here, not yours and not the Clintons'.

Because he felt that Obama was the best candidate, he endorsed Obama. Pretty simple. And he is one of MANY people whom Bill Clinton appointed or worked with or is friendly with who have now endorsed Obama. But that is neither here nor there.

You seem to rest your case on the fact that a "Judas" comparison means betrayal, and since you think Richardson betrayed the Clintons, the comparison is apt. There are two problems with this:

1) Calling it 'betrayal' presupposes an allegiance (something to betray). Assuming an allegiance means you disagree with the 3rd and 4th paragraphs of my last argument. Please intelligently explain why.

2) My point included the statement that Carville's perspective is un-democratic and un-American. If you hope to win this debate, please discuss this.

weareallequal said 04/26, 01:29 PM
Well let us end this

1. If you think the relationship between the clintons and richardson was all just due to political favors, you are mistaken, they were close and they were friends.

2. I believe that he owed it to the clintons to endorse hillary clinton, because of what they did, you act like Bill Clinton is some next door neighbor to hillary clinton, they are wife and husband, richardson owed it to bill to endorse his wife.

3. You say it is undemocratic? Well, he simply made a comparison between richardson and judas. judas went against his friend Jesus, and made an allegiance with those against Jesus. Richardson went against the clintons who he owes so much to and are friends with, and made allegiance with the inexperienced immature, Obama, who is against them.

4. It was not un-american, since i don't think the definition of an American is someone who does not make valid and legitimate comparisons.

5. Therefore it is perfectly okay to say such a thing

suck my balls dd, you just got owned

Comments

Add Your Comment

I respect Richardson for being objective. Judas didn't have that luxury. It was God's will that he betray Jesus, else how should the Romans have captured Him? Actually, maybe it was God's will Richardson "betray" Clinton.

ELEPHANT-DONKEY.com

DonkeyDude vs weareallequal

James Carville's comments that Bill Richardson is a "Judas" are unfounded, uncalled for and patently undemocratic.

weareallequal beat DonkeyDude 12 to 11

Comments

Post A Comment

CNN TOP POLITICAL STORIES

TOP STORIES on TIME.COM

TIME PHOTO ESSAYS

TIME cover JFK

The Brazen Pirates of Somalia