'Judas' Richardson and the Gospel of Bill Clinton

Let me tell you about polls. Whom do you think takes most of these polls. The ones that are on the internet the most. That would be young adults, white professionals and college kids.

Your average working person whom is middle-aged(especially the working woman or the older woman ) doesn't even use the computer that much.

Your blue collar workers: truck drivers, industrial workers, laborers, etc. ....they are probably never taking these polls, let alone being on the computer to even find these polls.

The polls are so inaccuarte it isn't even funny.

The polls reflect only a few of the voters, and to be honest, probably not even Hillary's base.

People asked a few blogs ago why Richardson was not protrayed as a traitor when he himself ran for president. He was just an IDIOT then for thinking he could actually win. Now you can just call him Judas.

Rev. Wright's James Cone says: "The time has come for white America to be silent and listen to black people."
"All white men are responsible for white oppression. "
"Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man 'the devil.'"
OBAMA 08

Bible interpretation is full of misreadings.

Judas was the only apostle who understood the divine destination of Christ: his death at the cross. His kiss is the kiss of the truest follower.

Judas is the hand of God in the biography of Jesus Christ.

So - Carville still had it wrong.

Interesting that Richardson would complain because Carville is simply using the Obama/Dean/MoveOn playbook.

Regarding such,I hope the blog owner will allow me to correct a bit of misinformation regarding "the playbook".

I have stated on here that I would not post anything that was not factual, when "the fact is' I apparently did make a sub-conscious substitution. I have posted the book title: "Burning at the Grass Roots: Inside the Dean Machine" ridiculously posting my friend's name as the author, as he "sullenly" informed me yesterday ( the names are the same except 1 letter).....Going to cost me a bottle of "single-malt". The correct name of the author is Dana Dunnan, not Duncan as I had posted at some earlier time. The site can be found at "Burning at the Grass Roots .com". Can't put a link on here.

Dunnan was part of the Dean/MoveOn movement (working the press, "spying", posing in Kerry crowds, asking questions to "trip Kerry up", such as one regarding Malcolm X (ironically). The author says Kerry would later, when asked by a child to name his heroes, first cite his supporter Max Cleland, then Christopher Reeves, and Mother Teresa, all for their inspiration to others in rising above their adversity. Then he states that as Kerry did so, he (Dunnan)was struck by how Kerry was describing Dunnan's own vision of Malcolm X’s life. And intrigued that Kerry's heroes were all white folk (authors term). He implies that he saw that as a "weak spot" for Kerry, and one to be expolited if he could do it in front of cameras and the right crowd. He goes on to aver that people asked him about civil rights and he waffled for minutes without answering. Dunnan says that politicians should always have a pat answer on civil rights in their head.. That Dean did!

Dunnan says his effort was aimed at getting Kerry to commit a gaffe of the magnitude of Dean’s Confederate flag controversy . Dunnan then laments that if he(Dunnan) had been black, surrounded by a black audience in South Carolina (certainly has a familiar ring, does it not), he would have fared differently in his effort to trip Kerry up. He says what Kerry did (re the Malcolm X question) was try to be another white guy talking about race- he just couldn’t figure out how to do it.

He talks in another chapter about how Wesley Clark ("a general threat") had to be minimized.and states that given a chance to bird-dog Clark and work the media, the author (Dunnan) jumped all over it, and cultivated his own "press scrum", to Clark’s consternation and detriment.

Among the many reflections, he points out how over-reliance on youth, as well as ignoring the wisdom of veterans doomed the Dean campaign, stating overconfidence of campaign workers often just out of college proved a factor in the campaign's downfall. How the Dean campaign hit a wall after loss in NH., the kids from the Portsmouth office were told that they wouldn’t get paid anymore, and the emotional reverberations of the New Hampshire loss wreaked havoc on the campaign.

I find it very interesting that author points out that Dean claimed that he was the only white candidate talking about race, and that they planned to definitely capture the African-American, senior citizen, and the youth vote. The "Dean/MoveON/Obama machine has the majority of two of the three this time, but has for the most part driven away the third.

Dunnan apparently is still a part of the "machine". He started the book by talking about finding a "Lincoln"(apparently Dean), then later talks about Kerry being compared to Lincoln stature wise, and has since added a "footnote" saying they have finally found their "Lincoln", and "this time it is not a tall white man". He held a book signing for Obama's 2004 Senate campaign.

As I have stated before, I would never have imagined that a "far-left", Rovian, type playbook existed until I found this book. If you just read the "chapter summaries" and the Kerry sample chapter, while mentally substituting Obama for Dean and Clinton for Kerry, you will be amazed at the mirror of the present primary. You will definitely wonder why Kerry and Theresa are "hooked up" with Obama considering their treatment by this "machine", and hopefully ask yourself how Dean could so smoothly pass the MoveOn/Youth alliance to Obama, while at the same time heading the DNC. But you will have no trouble seeing "why". The why is a desire to "root out the old party", replacing it with "theirs", establish a self-perpetuating "movement" that will equal the "far-right" in its desire to hold power indefininately, and a deep disdain for anything Clinton (which explained the viciouoness).

Read the summaries, the sample chapter, and explore the site. Buy the book if you can get it cheap enough that you don't put too much money in their coffers. I bought my copy for 92cents new.

seriously..... who does Richardson owe is "loyalty" over and beyond his country?

the Clintons? are you crazy?

Bill Richardson should just own his decision to support Obama and leave it at that.

James Carville and his "ilk" are the reason Bill Clinton got elected and how Richardson got prestigious cabinet positions.

Namby pamby and too politically correct comes to mind whenever I hear Richardson's name mentioned. Opportunistic also is right up there.

The revisionist history from Richardson is also interesting. Before he was bragging that he didn't return calls to the Clintons for weeks, and now he claims that he was on vacation and didn't know anyone was trying to reach him. Which story is it Bill?

Rusmussen Clinton47 Obama 42

Quinnipac Clinton 50 Obama41

Bill Richardson did what he thought was the right thing in making his endorsement. It's exactly what he should have done: considered what he honestly thought was best for the country, regardless of the personalities. The reaction of James Carville and Bill Clinton speaks for itself. You can tell what kind of standards another Clinton administration would bring: either do what's good for the Clintons personally or hit the road!

There were two Judases with Jesus. Why do we only remember the bad one?

Hmmm?? Take another look. Dated today:

The Public Policy Polling group offers a stunning result: Barack Obama leading in Pennsylvania by 2. And it isn't a poll of adults, or small sample size, either: "PPP surveyed 1224 likely Democratic primary voters on March 31st and April 1st. The survey’s margin of error is +/- 2.8%. Other factors, such as refusal to be interviewed nd weighting, may introduce additional error that is more difficult to quantify."

With friends like the Clintons, Hmmm! In my humble and unbiased opinion, I think Bill Richardson did the right thing - National interest should always trump loyalty to ones friends.

It's funny how people keep making the argument that Bill Richardson owes the Clintons for giving him an opportunity to serve his nation. The real truth is that, to be an effective and a successful president as Bill Clinton was, he needed intelligent and dedicated people in his administration -people like Bill Richardson. He could not govern the country successfully with mediocre administration. Need any proof, look at George W. Bush. Therefore, on the contrary, I think Bill Clinton actually owes his success to good people in his administration, including Bill Richardson.

The truth is that if Bill Richardson wasn't loyal to the Clintons, he would have opted to throw his support to Obama's campaign prior to the primary elections in Texas, Nevada and other stats with large Latino population to garner Obama more Latino votes. But instead he waited until afterwards, and for that, I personllay respect him and believe what he's an honarable man.

I'd suspected Richardson would formally endorse Obama ever since the first contest when his Iowa caucus precinct captains guided Richardson's voters over to Obama. What was amusing to me in Richardson's recent oped was the way Gov. Richardson defended his loyalty to country. Carville called Richardson a "Judas", which is a whole lot different than calling him a Benedict Arnold!

This is well planned out, James Carvel degrades Bill Richardson with a negative biblical commit, (to get to any one that is of a Christian religion)--- Ed Rendell tell everyone that “Fox News” is really the only fair and balanced news covering Hillary ( if you listen to they are really in a Obama bashing mode).
They do anything to win!!! For they believe that that all fair in politics. What kills me is that loyalist they actually believe them.

"It ended with him asking delegates to imagine what the reaction would be if Obama was trailing by just 1 percent"

Where are the Clinton people getting this 1 percent number from? I also recall seeing a Clinton surrogate mention it on CNN. CNN lists Obama at 1,626 delegates and Clinton at 1,486--that breaks down to 52% vs. 48%. Even if you take the margin of delegates and divide that by the total delegates (including unpledged supers and elected delegates), that's still 140/4049 = 3%.

I know the Clintons have a complex relationship with the truth, so that might have something to do with it... Anyone else have any ideas on this?

It's unfortunate for Richardson because the reality is anyone who hires him now, wether it be Obama or whomever will always question his loyalty.

Jayhawk: If putting your loyalty to your country over loyalty to your former boss's wife is an example of "backstabbing" or of "lacking moral fiber," then Richardson clearly is guilty. I've never been much of a Richardson fan, but his stock shot way up after he broke ranks and did what was RIGHT.

Bill Clinton is the gift that keeps on giving -- to Obama.

Liz: I think your logic is backwards. Now everyone knows that Richardson can be trusted.

no name:

And you wonder why Clinton supporters would not support Obama in the general election?? With this kind of speech, it will never happen.

Think, you cannot win alone.