Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
"Branding" as Punishment: James Carville on Bill Richardson's "Act of Betrayal"
I saw this clip replayed on CNN or MSNBC this morning. It turns out to have originated on ABC's Good Morning America in an interview with Diane Sawyer, about two minutes into the clip:
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4518706
In politics, it's all about how one uses language to suggest an image without saying it directly, leaving that wiggle room that maintains deniability if someone tries to call you on it. You can read the transcript below, but the essential line here is Carville saying that because of Richardson's "act of betrayal":
"A cattle rancher...would agree that proper branding is important"..."I wanted to be sure that Richardson's act was branded properly".
To put this in very simple terms, the act of branding as a form of punishment, does not draw it's origins from cattle ranching (obviously the cattle aren't guilty of anything), but rather can be traced directly to slave ownership in the pre-Civil War South, whose history and imagery Carville knows all too well.
The mastery of Carville's "Judas" statement, and his further unapologetic boasting today, is that he is able to suggest to anyone who understands the symbolism of this language that Richardson has been singled out for his act of betrayal, and has been branded with this mark of disloyalty, just like a runaway slave would be punished.
To me it is as amazing as it is apalling. I'm surprised that no one has picked up on this yet, although I'm sure it has resonated with the wavering allies of the Clinton camp. As Carville says:
"I think when people look at him they'll remember the quote, and that's what it was intended to do. ... I wanted his act to be remembered for what it was."
Here are two images of slaves being branded:
http://hitchcock.itc.virginia.edu/SlaveTrade/collection/large/Blake1.JPG
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/slavery/experience/legal/history.html
I was able to find a transcript at The Raw Story:
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Carville_Bill_Richardson_properly_branded_as_0325.html
On Monday, Carville refused to apologize for his words, telling CNN, "I wanted to use a very strong metaphor to make my point. ... I doubt if Governor Richardson and I will be particularly close in the future."
Questions about his statements continued to follow Carville when he appeared the next day with ABC's Diane Sawyer, who wanted to know, "Is this morning the time to take that back?"
"A cattle rancher in eastern New Mexico or an advertising executive on the East Side of Manhattan would agree that proper branding is important," Carville replied harshly.
"Branding?" asks Sawyer.
"I wanted to be sure that Richardson's act was branded properly."
"But Judas?" asked Sawyer. "What are you saying? ... Are you saying that he made a deal of some kind when you talk about 30 shekels?"
"I thought this one was special and it needed to be properly branded," Carville repeated, pointing out that he hasn't condemned other friends of his who now support Obama.
"I don't regret it," Carville stated. "I was quoted accurately. ... I think when people look at him they'll remember the quote, and that's what it was intended to do. ... I wanted his act to be remembered for what it was."
Comments (12)
Corruption: That inevitable state when loyalty is defined by loyalty to people, rather than loyalty to ideals.
Carville is a traitor.
March 26, 2008 1:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, just wow. This sounds more like the Corleones than the Clintons. They really feel the turf is "theirs" and they're entitled to the votes of all those they have dispensed "political favors" with. Richardson owes his country his vote, not his overlords. F8CK that!
March 26, 2008 4:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow! Very insightful and provocative article especially when viewed from a biblical perspective. All apostles, including Judas, were supposed to serve Christ with singleness of heart and complete devotion. In fact, the Bible teaches that the relationship between Christ and His followers is analogous to that of slave and Master.
Judas' betrayal was uniquely odious not only because of Who he betrayed, but because his treachery was the result of greed. Judas sold his soul to the devil in order to gain personal wealth and in the process betrayed a Friend. On the one hand, Carville's comparison of Richardson to Judas is an attempt to "brand" or label him as someone who lacks character, is unfaithful and untrustworthy.
Carville is attempting to cast aspersions on Richardson's endorsement of Obama by suggesting that it is a sellout of Clinton in order to advance Richardson's political career.
I think that Carville's logic is flawed. It is twisted and irrational. First of all, Hillary is not Jesus. Secondly, Richardson's commitment was to Bill Clinton who appointed him. He fulfilled that obligation. He does not owe a debt to Hillary because of a political appointment by her husband.
March 26, 2008 4:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Aw, hell. Is anyone really surprised by this? Carville's nuts--everybody in the Democratic Party knows that.
Now, he's a good example of that "crazy uncle" reference we've heard about recently.
March 26, 2008 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
What will be branded in my memory from all of this is the absurdity and inappropriate nature of Carville's assertion. Richardson worked for Bill Clinton. Carville thinks that he thus owes fealty in perpetuity to the Clintons. Do I owe the same to all of the people for whom I worked in my life? If one discovers that one's boss is inferior to another person, does one owe permanent loyalty to the inferior person simply as a function of an earlier subservient relationship? Is one supposed to suspend judgment because of a previous job? Carville is plain silly with this idea. And to express this silliness at Easter with such an analogy verges on being blasphemous. This is what will be branded in my memory.
March 26, 2008 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought it was interesting just how much Carville stressed that he took responsibility for the "call." In each interview that day, he said it a number of times that this was just his call, undertaken on his own intitiative, no one asked him to do it. He's the perfect hitman, really. He's not an official campaign member, so he's free to do as much work for the Clinton's as he wants, and they can claim plausible deniability. But I think he boasted a little too much on the "Good Morning America" interview. All in all, I think that the news cycle has already left the story behind, but I'm primarily interested in the over-arching symbolism, and the "warning" it sends to anyone else consider a switch in loyalty to the Clinton camp.
Here are the links to the two CNN interviews the day before the Diane Sawyer interview:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/03/25/carville.richardson.cnn?iref=videosearch
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/03/24/carville.on.the.issues.cnn?iref=videosearch
March 26, 2008 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
"A cattle rancher...would agree that proper branding is important"..."I wanted to be sure that Richardson's act was branded properly".
I too flinched when I heard that because I too connected the term "branding" to the possession of humans. Carville is from LA. He knew exactly what he was saying. Carville gets too many passes from the tone deaf MSM.
March 26, 2008 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Superdelegates calling him on it. More or less.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/26/820834.aspx
March 27, 2008 12:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is an excerpt from a discussion of two of Richard Wright's works, the 1940 novel 'Native Son' and the 1938 short story "Fire and Cloud."
"the mob tries to subjugate the "uppity" black man to his "place" by "branding" him by whipping. The impending lynching makes Reverend Taylor "conscious of every square inch of black skin" on his back."
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:LzUYSoI38NQJ:www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-54421535.html+%22branding%22+%2B+lynching&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us
March 27, 2008 12:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
With the Bushes and Clintons out of power, the Carvilles and Matalins will be out as well. Richardson, on the other hand, will have a place in an Obama administration. So, it's in part the petty, vitriolic resentment people have come to expect from Carville, but also that he wants to have something to taunt Richardson with later.
There have been some biting comments about Carville on TPM, never more appropriate than now.
For many others, just Google tpm carville matalin
March 27, 2008 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
And then there's this:
"Reaching its peak of over two million members, the Klan of the 1920's thrived on nativism, anti-Catholicism, opposition to the cultural modernism of the Jazz Era, and violations of alcohol, smoking, and gambling laws.
Directing their hate tactics toward Catholics, Jews, and foreign-born, the Klan used tarring and feathering, branding, mutilating, and lynching (hanging) to install fear."
http://asms.k12.ar.us/classes/humanities/amstud/97-98/kkk/kkk.htm
March 27, 2008 1:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
So I think one can see how charged a word like "branding" is when used in the context of punishing someone. To anyone familiar with the history of slavery or Native American issues, the words "branding" and "lynching" are almost synonymous, the former serving as the "warning" and a means to instill fear of the ultimate punishment.
Carville is a very smart man. I think he knew what he was saying, disguising it in the name Judas, but revealing his hand when he later termed it a "branding."
March 27, 2008 1:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment