James Carville thinks that Bill Richardson's endorsement of Barack Obama is an act of betrayal of the worst order:
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.
A couple of things stand out. By comparing Richardson to Judas, Carville implies not only that the betrayal was for money, but that Richardson was in a uniquely close and trusted position with Hillary Clinton. I have no idea whether the Obama campaign paid for the endorsement, but I think someone would be making a lot of noise about it if they had. As for Richardson being a close and trusted friend, if that's the case, what was he doing running against her in the primary? That's called being an opponent, right? Unless Carville is suggesting that Richardson was shilling for Hillary and not running a sincere candidate, I see no reason why his endorsement of Obama would be any more a "betrayal" than his act of running as an opponent. Any question of "loyalty" would have already been moot, would it not? Even if Carville is saying that because Richardson had served as Secretary of Energy under Bill Clinton forever binds him not to take a position adverse to Bill Clinton's wife, he already did that. I don't think the endorsement of another candidate even comes close to being an act of disloyalty, much less "Judasism."
But to stay with the comparison, let's assume Richardson is Judas.
The Judas comment says a whole lot more about Carville than it does about Richardson.
The first thing I thought when I heard the comment was that the Hillary people think she's Jesus. With ovaries.
No wonder they're so angry about having the Clinton birthright to a third term stolen from them.