It hasn’t been a good Monday for La Clinton. First, there was the Washington Post piece which talked about how both she and Barack Obama have embellished their legislative “accomplishments” while in the Senate, and how Hillary’s claims of what she did as First Lady are, ahem, questionable to say the least.
On the same front, the Washington Post’s factchecking team did some digging on Senator Clinton’s claim that while in Bosnia in March 1996, she and her traveling companions came under sniper fire, and found that it was a big whopper. This video demolishes her claim:
BLUE BELL, Pa. â€“ James Carville, a political adviser to the Clintons, said this afternoon that he stood by his comment last Friday â€“ Good Friday, to Christians â€“ comparing Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico to Judas, even though a Clinton campaign aide said today that, if he were Mr. Carville, he would apologize for the remark.
“I was quoted accurately and in context, and I was glad to give the quote and I was glad I gave it” Mr. Carville said. “I’m not apologizing, I’m not resigning, I’m not doing anything.”
Over the past Easter weekend, television news programs and other media outlets have heavily covered a remark that Mr. Carville made to The Times about Mr. Richardson’s endorsement of Senator Barack Obama. Given that Mr. Richardson held positions in the Clinton administration, and is a friend to Mrs. Clinton, the endorsement constituted an “act of betrayal” Mr. Carville said.
Then he added this coup de grace:
“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.
Mr. Richardson shot back, saying that comment was the sort that some people around the Clintons tended to make.
As I’ve said before, if you really believe something to be true, you shouldn’t apologize for it. Secondly, as I’ve also stated before, I’ve had it with all the calls for apologies, repudiations, and resignations from both camps so it’s no surprise that this latest go around leaves me unfazed. Richardson has the right to be upset with Carville for the comment, and Carville has the right to stand behind it. Fine. Let the chips fall where they may.
It’s worth noting, though, that Richardson has done a bit of a flip flop here. Back in February, here’s what he was saying about the superdelegate question:
Richardson himself had told The New York Times on Feb. 17 that superdelegates had an obligation to vote with their constituencies.
“It should reflect the vote of my state” he had told the Times. “It should represent the vote of my constituency … If superdelegates decide this nomination, it’s going to look like big-shot politicians and fat cats decided who should be president.”
â€˜We cannot afford to continue fighting’
Lauer pointed out that New Mexico voters had chosen Clinton by a margin of half a percent. He asked if Richardson was going back on his statement to the Times.
“Not at all” he replied. “I’m also a western governor. Sen. Obama has done very well in the West. It was half a percent. It was so close, it was razor thin … Obama’s won 30 states. He’s 121 delegate votes ahead. He is very strong. He can bring the country together.”
What’s happened between Feb. 17 and last week? Quid pro quo, anyone?