Despite the flack over his equating Bill Richardson's endorsement of Obama as an act of a "Judas," James Carville is thoroughly unrepentant. In fact, he doubles down on the comment, as he writes in the Washington Post:

So, when asked on Good Friday about Richardson's rejection of the Clintons, the metaphor was too good to pass by. I compared Richardson to Judas Iscariot. (And Matthew Dowd is right: Had it been the Fourth of July, I probably would have called him Benedict Arnold.)

I believed that Richardson's appointments in Bill Clinton's administration and his longtime personal relationship with both Clintons, combined with his numerous assurances to the Clintons and their supporters that he would never endorse any of Sen. Hillary Clinton's opponents, merited a strong response.

I was fully aware of what kind of response calling someone a Judas would evoke.

* * * * *

Most of the stuff I've ever said is pretty insignificant and by in large has been said off the cuff and without much thought to the potential consequences. That was not the case in this instance. Bill Richardson's response was that the Clinton people felt they were entitled to the presidency. In my mind, that is a debatable hypothesis. But, even more than that, I know that a former president of the United States who appointed someone to two Senate-confirmed positions is entitled to have his phone calls returned.

If Richardson was going to turn on the Clintons the way he did, I see no problem in saying what I said. Because if loyalty is one virtue, another is straight talk. And if Democrats can't handle that, they're going to have a hard time handling a Republican nominee who is seeking the presidency with that as his slogan.

Read the full column at the link above. This is the first time I've seen the allegation that Richardson wouldn't return Bill Clinton's phone calls.

As I've said before, I agree with Carville. Richardson was a man of little influence despite his seven terms in the House when Bill Clinton plucked him from the back benches to be UN Ambassador and then Secretary of Energy, the two biggest and most important jobs Richardson ever held. On the other hand, it is a bit unseemly for the Clintons to cry about loyalty, given the number of former friends and associates they have thrown under the bus the moment it suited their purposes.

Maybe someone should ask those people about it? Most of them are out of prison by now . . .