Is Carville officially joining Hillary's campaign?

[madfloridian]

James Carville Joining Hillary's Team?

All signs point to veteran Democratic pit bull James Carville joining up with Hillary Clinton's campaign in Iowa during her final primary push, a source close with Carville tells Radar.
Calls to Clinton campaign and Carville's office were not returned as of post time, and it is not known whether or not the move is official, but with Carville ghosting around Iowa, it's not far-fetched to speculate that the Clinton campaign could be panic mode.

"Carville is so savvy that it's good news for Hillary that he's on-board for Iowa," said Bill Beaman of Politics magazine. "It's an indication that she's more vulnerable in Iowa right now than she'd hoped to be, but I think it's more about bringing out all your best guns than it is about panic. Especially in the wake of Benazir Bhutto's assassination, when Clinton's 'experience' theme is suddenly trumping Obama's 'change' theme, Carville's help could turn out to be part of solidifying a lead rather than a sign of panic over losing it."

Other than Ed Rollins joining Mike Huckabee's campaign, the creature known as the celebrity consultant has been largely absent from the 2008 campaigns. Clinton's chief strategist, Mark Penn, who prepped Blackwater employees for last month's congressional hearings, has not exactly reached superstar status. Some even blame Penn and his stubborn reliance on polls for Clinton's slow slide. Should Carville officially join the campaign, Clinton's staff would certainly endure a major shift in staff and tone.

"'I don't really think there's going to be any kind of shake-up or anything like that," Carville told the Washington Post earlier this month. "But will there be some moving around? Sure."

Still not happy about his stunts right after the election when we were all feeling great. I won't forget either.

[frankenforpres]

1. would be interesting

i really liked carville when politics seemed like a game


i dont know how he'll do (in my eyes) now that it is deadly serious

[LittleClarkie]

2. Every campaign needs their own martian, don'cha know.

She can have him.

I won't forget how he spilled the beans to the Bush campaign about the Kerry campaign's plans in 2004 either.

[madfloridian]

3. I agree. An element of trust is missing there.

.

[Diane R]

4. Yes...and Kerry's loss was an advantage for Hillary.

[annie1]

11. omg, please give us a clinton body count next.

[wyldwolf]

43. ...as it was for Edwards... and Obama... and...

[hedgehog]

89. Soooooo, Obama deliberately delivered a great speech at the

convention in order to make Kerry look lack luster in comparison so Kerry would lose and Obama could run in 2008! Not to mention that Edwards dogged itthough the campaign for the same reason!























:sarcasm:

[MonkeyFunk]

6. I ask everyone who brings this up to explain it.

The story, reported by Bob Woodward, was that Carville told his wife that Kerry was going to contest Ohio, and she told Cheney.

Now...

1) Was the information that Kerry was going to contest confidential?
2) If it was confidential, why did Carville know? He wasn't part of the Kerry campaign.
3) Once Dick Cheney knew Kerry intended to contest.... then what? What happened between 1:00am and 5:00am (or whatever the exact times are) that changed things so drastically?
4) Would Bush/Cheney NEED to know that Kerry was going to contest Ohio? Had they not planned to steal it until they got the word that Kerry was contesting?
5) If Carville were told, isn't it quite likely that he was told precisely because he could get the word to Matalin? Maybe Kerry wanted them to know his plans (presuming that the answer to question 1 is Yes)

See, people seem to have filled in some big story around Woodward's very brief description of what happened, and nobody has ever provided anything to corroborate their stories. In fact, nobody has ever even corroborated Woodward's narrative.

[saracat]

7. Why would anyone feel a need to defend this cretin? Ugh.

But I guess the same people who defend Mark Penn and Rupert.......

[MonkeyFunk]

8. Because he's a good Democrat

and why would you feel the need to attack him with nothing but innuendo built on a Woodward story?

[saracat]

9. Really, well he admits what he did. Some great Democrat.

and he is in business with Mary Matlin. Who could trust them?

[MonkeyFunk]

12. Care to try to answer

the questions I posed?

[saracat]

14. I did.I personally asked Carville and he said he did tell Mary and saw nothing wrong in what he did.

But why would you believe that? I also stated why I don't trust him.He isn't a "good Dem"so much as a political consultant out for himself.He and his wife split both sides against the middle.They share a joint consulting service.Several years ago I had an opportunity to talk to Begala about the realtionship of Matalin and Carville and he doesn't "get it" either.But I am glad you both understand and approve of him.Life is easier withour questions.

[MonkeyFunk]

21. even if Carville told Matalin

that doesn't answer any of my questions.

[saracat]

25. Nothing ever does.Why do you imagine he is a good Dem? His consulting service with Maryy alone

disproves that fact. He exchanges info with her just as part of doing business. Prove he is a good Dem.

[MonkeyFunk]

28. I imagine he's a good dem because I know he worked

hard and well to get Bill Clinton elected, and I like Bill Clinton.

I don't buy into the idea that he's bad based on that Woodward story, because NOBODY EVER TRIES TO ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTIONS!!!!

[saracat]

32. Yeah Yeah.Back to the 90's.And your questions don't matter.Party info is not to be "shared"

with the enemy confidential or not.The Clinton era was over long ago .We need to move forward but i guess some like to go backward.

[MonkeyFunk]

37. No, the questions DO matter

because your side has constructed a big story around one thin thread of Woodward's tale, but it's based on absolutely nothing.

You just assume Carville betrayed Kerry, and in doing so, allowed the Ohio election to be stolen. But that's 100% supposition. If you can't answer my questions, then there's no reason to believe that's what happened.

[karynnj]

77. That proves he a loyal Clintonista, it doesn't prove that he is a loyal Democrat

[wyldwolf]

50. was he sitting in your car with you?

[avrdream]

16. Funny, Monk, it looks like you are talking to yourself because I have someone ignored.

I agree with you again.

Why wasn't Woodward's stuff substantiated? Because it is too easy to use against HRC.

[MonkeyFunk]

22. It's not even that it's not substantiated

it's that there's no "there" there. Even if he told Matalin, exactly as Woodward described, so what?

I have a list of questions above that still aren't answered.

[mod mom]

49. SO WHAT? It only cost us an ELECTION and 4 more years of death & destruction under *

So What? Tell that to the children and families of those killed in the name of spreading democracy (although you probably agree that's just what they are doing) in Iraq?

So What? Tell that to the victims of Katrina.

your "so what" is VERY TELLING!

[MonkeyFunk]

81. You can't say it cost us the election

until these questions are answered:

1) Was the information that Kerry was going to contest confidential?
2) If it was confidential, why did Carville know? He wasn't part of the Kerry campaign.
3) Once Dick Cheney knew Kerry intended to contest.... then what? What happened between 1:00am and 5:00am (or whatever the exact times are) that changed things so drastically?
4) Would Bush/Cheney NEED to know that Kerry was going to contest Ohio? Had they not planned to steal it until they got the word that Kerry was contesting?
5) If Carville were told, isn't it quite likely that he was told precisely because he could get the word to Matalin? Maybe Kerry wanted them to know his plans (presuming that the answer to question 1 is Yes)

[JackORoses]

95. answers

1) Was the information that Kerry was going to contest confidential?

So as far as the Repukes are concerned, it was confidential.

2) If it was confidential, why did Carville know? He wasn't part of the Kerry campaign.

It was known within the Kerry campaign and high-up dems with connections inside the campaign i.e. Carville

3) Once Dick Cheney knew Kerry intended to contest.... then what? What happened between 1:00am and 5:00am (or whatever the exact times are) that changed things so drastically?

He was able to alert Ken Blackwell and give him time to prepare for a recount. Rather than being caught offguard, Blackwell was ready for it and had the time to tie up any loose ends.

4) Would Bush/Cheney NEED to know that Kerry was going to contest Ohio? Had they not planned to steal it until they got the word that Kerry was contesting?

They had already stole it. But there were all kinds of places where they could have been caught if Kerry had the element of surprise on his side. In those wee hours, many loose ends were trimmed.

5) If Carville were told, isn't it quite likely that he was told precisely because he could get the word to Matalin? Maybe Kerry wanted them to know his plans

This is pretty far stretch even for you, Monkey. Is this what you believe?

[MonkeyFunk]

96. Nothing you've said

is backed up with any evidence. Just supposition.

Why hasn't anybody in the Kerry campaign ever come forward and said Carville did something bad?

[JackORoses]

102. you're the one with no evidence

We have the fact of what Carville did.
It is obvious that this aided Bush.

Why don't you provide some evidence that this had no effect? Or are you just supposing?

[cali]

13. he is not a good democrat

but I feel no need to bring that up. I'll stick with his trying to sabotage Dean. That's not mere innuendo. It's not built on a story. It's fact and built on his own words. And Dean is worth a thousand of that creep.

[MonkeyFunk]

23. I've read his books

and I find him to be a good Democrat. He's also a partisan fighter, and during primaries, it gets turned against other Dems. Dean's a big boy - he can take it.

[cali]

26. Each to their own. I have a special loathing for

the repugnant little fuck. And I'm not referring to attacks during the primaries. He tried to get Dean ousted as DNC chair, belittled his work on the 2006 election. Carvilled hates the grassroots of the party. He's no liberal.

[MonkeyFunk]

30. And I don't buy the argument

that only fans of Howard Dean can be "good democrats".

[cali]

41. Did I say that? NO. And he wanted to replace Dean with Harold Ford

Carville detests the grassroots and has nothing but contempt for us He's a top down DLC democrat.

[saracat]

31. We agree on this Cali.He hates the grassroots because they can make consultants obsolete!

And he represents an era that is long gone.He wants to go back to the future and stick us in the lobbyist driven 90's for his own enrichment. Ugh! All he cares about is money and he isn't, (obviously) particular who he gets it from.He and Mary are evil and selfish.Only someone who finds both parties equal and the GOP alright to deal with could admire Carville.

[MonkeyFunk]

33. Some of us don't see the world in black and white

as you seem to do.

Almost everything you've written there are just your impressions - they're not facts.

[saracat]

34. The fact is he gave advance info to Mary who told the Bush Campaign.

Jesus.That is an established and admitted FACT.He shared advance info with the enemy.What does it matter wether it was confidential or not or wether the Kerry people were planning anything? that is NOT the point.

[MonkeyFunk]

38. You have to answer my questions for that to mean anything.

It does matter if the info was confidential or not. In fact, your whole tale depends on it.

Why was Carville told, if it was confidential? He wasn't in any way connected to the Kerry campaign, and it certainly wasn't a secret who he was married to. Was he told not to tell Matalin? Or was he told TO tell Matalin? You don't know any more than I do.

Then, once he told her, then what? How did that change what happened in Ohio?

You, and others, present Woodward's factoid as if it's a complete narrative, but it isn't. It's one little fact - Carville told Matalin.

To make it the nefarious act you think it is, you have to answer a whole lot of other questions.

[saracat]

27. I 've read his books too and he doesn't follow his own advice. You do NOT share info with the enemy

As to your questions, what do they matter? It probably was confidential but it doesn't matter.He gave the enemy a "heads up" by telling Mary. Saring any information with the enemy was wrong. It was advcance info confidential or not. You don't have a problem with that? Add to the fact that he trashed Kerry on every news program. That was not supporting the nominee.He did NOT want Kerry to win.

[MonkeyFunk]

29. it matters

because those of you hate him have built up some big secret narrative about what happened.

But you won't share it with anybody.

[saracat]

35. It isn't "secret" that he shared advance info with mary who shared it with the Bush people.

I have no other narrative.That is disgusting enough for me!That and his trashy comments about Kerry!

[MonkeyFunk]

39. But you don't know if the Kerry

camp wanted him to tell Matalin, didn't want him to tell Matalin, or didn't give a shit either way!

And why did the Kerry camp tell Carville?

And once he told Matalin, then what happened to affect the outcome?

YOu can't just throw out "he told his wife something" and then expect me to fill in the blanks that lead to the same conclusion you have.

[Cameron27]

45. Very good questions

that should be answered before anyone buys into this anti-Kerry conspiracy story.

[karynnj]

99. No one else has suggested this

His hypothesis is just that a hypothesis, I don't see him making up strange charges for HRC to answer. There is no logic to him accusation and I would bet had Kerry personally told him Carville would have said that.

The fact is Kerry refused to hire him.

[karynnj]

46. The Kerry campaign included some experienced Clinton people

like McCurry. They were faulted in August for not giving MORE control to the Clinton people, who then bad mouthed the campaign (ie Carville).

The problem was that it was a no win situation. Excluding Clinton people who were aligned with most of the Democratic media people would have killed them - but it is clear they leaked stuff to Carville, who Kerry wouldn't hire. Kerry should have been able to count on the support of professional Democrats in the general election. It was in fact Kerry who defended Clinton on the draft charges in 1992, even though he was politically far from him.

What I see as the problem there is that if he passed private information then, he likely did it at other times too.

[MonkeyFunk]

82. Carville was not part of the campaign

Why would the campaign tell him confidential information?

[karynnj]

88. The campaign had many people in it

Many of them were former Clinton people - as would have been true no matter who was the candidate in 2004 or 2008 for that matter. Clearly, someone inside the campaign, trusted by those running it leaked confidential information to Carville, possibly innocently considering him a friend and trustworthy. How hard is this to understand?

That is far simpler than creating a complex conspiracy where the Kerry campaign intentionally leaked stuff to Carville to let the Republicans know. That defies logic. The numbers were not finalized and no decision had been made. If the numbers would have gone differently, Kerry would want to control the message that in a time of war, we had a contested election. There is no way they would want Bush to have a heads up - to get out first on this. Also, consider the other side - that the numbers aren't there - risks the Republicans attacking Kerry preemptively accusing him of trying to steal the election - with their media lapdogs to echo it.

You have not created any logical reason Kerry would want the information leaked - can you explain under what circumstances it could be helpful to Kerry?

[MonkeyFunk]

92. It's easy to understand

if I believe the narrative you folks have made and then use the facts to fill in the story to reach the conclusion you have.

But I haven't reached that conclusion - I"m trying to build the narrative from the ground up, not retrofit the data.

So what evidence do you have that Carville broke a trust by repeating the information? Who told Carville? Why? Once Carville told Matalin, what happened to change the results in Ohio?

Why hasn't anybody from the Kerry campaign ever chastised Carville if he cost Kerry the election?

[karynnj]

98. I am not the one making things up, nor do I think it affected the election

As I said, my concern is when else did he pass things to Matalin? (No I can not prove he did.)

Known Facts:

1) There were Clinton people in the campaign - some of their names are well known
2) The Clinton people in the media complained constantly about the campaign.
3) Carville heard it from someone and told Matalin
4) At the point this became known - when the book came out - there was no Kerry/Edwards campaign

My conjecture - one (or more) of the Clinton people who knew Carville told him
Your conjecture - someone in authority told Carville at the request of Kerry

I gave my reasons why I thought the idea that Kerry leaked it was wrong. I think my conjecture was more likely. Remember that Kerry chose not to hire Carville period. It is clear that they are very dissimilar people - Carville is pretty sleazy.

[Kucinich4America]

15. Carville is a "good democrat" like Hitler was a "good Jew"

He literally sleeps with the enemy and has betrayed this party repeatedly for years.

[MonkeyFunk]

24. gee

that's not hyperbolic or anything is it? :eyes:

That's the stupidest thing I've read on DU today, and believe me, that's saying a lot.

[Kucinich4America]

36. Not anywhere near as stupid as calling Judas Carville a "good Democrat"

Don't know who is more useless, him or Begala. Throw in McAuliffe and you have the Three DLC Stooges.

[Moochy]

48. Did the Three Stooges have a pet monkey?

[MonkeyFunk]

83. Yes it is

comparing, in any way, Carville to Hitler is just ridiculous.

[mod mom]

47. Because Woodward had nothing to gain from it and cArville never disputed it!

Did Carville Tip Bush Off to Kerry Strategy (Woodward)


By M.J. Rosenberg | bio




On page 344, Woodward describes the doings at the White House in the early morning hours of Wednesday, the day after the '04 election.

Apparently, Kerry had decided not to concede. There were 250,000 outstanding ballots in Ohio.

So Kerry decides to fight. In fact, he considers going to Ohio to camp out with his voters until there is a recount. This is the last thing the White House needs, especially after Florida 2000.

-snip

"Carville told her he had some inside news. The Kerry campaign was going to challenge the provisional ballots in Ohio -- perhaps up to 250,000 of them. 'I don't agree with it, Carville said. I'm just telling you that's what they're talking about.'

-snip

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward



WHY WOULD A CLINTON INSIDER WANT TO SABOTAGE KERRY/EDWARD CHANCES? PERHAPS BECAUSE IF THEY WON IT WOULD NOT ALLOW CLINTON TO RUN THIS YEAR OR FOR PERHAPS SEVERAL TERMS.

THE DLC DO NOT EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE THAT GORE WON:

FIRST..GORE BROKE WITH THE DLC TO BECOME A POPULIST:

Published on Sunday, August 20. 2000 in the Boston Globe
Thank You, Al Gore
by Robert Kuttner
A funny thing happened to Al Gore on the way to his surprisingly effective acceptance speech. He became a liberal.

The speech was as liberal as anything FDR or LBJ or Jesse Jackson or one of the Kennedys might have delivered. It was built around a commitment to fight for ordinary people, against large and powerful interests. This, of course, is precisely what made it effective.

The emotional heart of the speech, Gore's honoring of four ordinary American lives, did not just salute the struggles of workaday families, the way Ronald Reagan often did. It identified who was dishonoring their struggles - corporations. He singled out heartless HMOs who pressure a family to sacrifice a child; drug companies that force a pensioner to choose between food and medicine; corporate polluters; corporations that pay workers inadequate wages.

And he identified the solution: strong, reliable public Social Security; better Medicare; welfare reform that rewards work rather than punishing the needy; higher minimum wages; and more investment in public - not voucher - schools, so that working families don't have to send kids to crumbling classrooms.

What is the evil? Corporate power. What is the remedy? Effective government.

-snip
http://www.commondreams.org/views/082000-105.htm

SECOND, AFTER GORE'S WIN THEY BLAME HIS 'LOSS' ON BREAKING WITH THE DLC:

Strange Theory on Why Gore Lost



The so-called Democratic Leadership Council has decided that Al Gore should have acted more like a Republican in order to win the 2000 presidential electoral college vote in addition to his nationwide popular vote victory. This strange finding has drawn some attention, including coverage by the Associated Press and the Environmental News Service -- we have a few excerpts from their reports for you here.
Al Gore, the self-styled environmental candidate in the 2000 Presidential election, lost his bid for the White House because he campaigned on an outdated "populist" platform that was too liberal for most Americans, according to a new report drafted by the Democratic Leadership Council.

The 40-page report, titled "Why Gore Lost, And How Democrats Can Come Back," concludes that the Democratic Party must move towards the political right -- towards the Republicans -- if it wants to regain control of Congress in 2002 and the White House in 2004.

Al From, the DLC's founder and CEO, opened a freewheeling discussion forum by arguing that Democrat Al Gore made a huge tactical mistake by continually emphasizing that he would "fight for the people and not the powerful" as the nation's first president of the 21st Century.

-snip

http://www.progress.org/goredlc2.htm


DID YOU GET THAT? AL FROM, FOUNDER OF THE DLC BLAMES GORE'S "LOSS" BY SAYING HE MADE A MISTAKE BY EMPHASIZING HE WOULD 'FIGHT FOR THE PEOPLE AND NOT THE POWERFUL".

[MonkeyFunk]

84. Let's just stipulate that Carville told Matalin.

Now...

1) Was the information that Kerry was going to contest confidential?
2) If it was confidential, why did Carville know? He wasn't part of the Kerry campaign.
3) Once Dick Cheney knew Kerry intended to contest.... then what? What happened between 1:00am and 5:00am (or whatever the exact times are) that changed things so drastically?
4) Would Bush/Cheney NEED to know that Kerry was going to contest Ohio? Had they not planned to steal it until they got the word that Kerry was contesting?
5) If Carville were told, isn't it quite likely that he was told precisely because he could get the word to Matalin? Maybe Kerry wanted them to know his plans (presuming that the answer to question 1 is Yes)

[karynnj]

76. He was not a good Democrat

As one of the two or three best known Democrats on cable TV, he did NOTHING to promote Kerry. He trashed Bush in a very snarky manner - which might have thrilled the left, but likely made it harder for Kerry to win over some people in the middle. I know good people who were disgusted by the attacks on Bush, a sitting President in a time of war. They conflated Kerry's very sound attacks on the policies that took us into war and the policies for fighting it with the nastier Michael Moore type sniping.

Not to mention he was a key proponent of the ABB meme. This is commonly used in the primaries - like this year, there may be people looking for a candidate for all the AB(HRC) people. In the general election, a large percent of people are people who will very very likely vote in every election for the same party. Kerry won the nomination as easily as any candidate in an open race with no incumbent or VP in my lifetime. In 1992, I didn't sit around whining that I was ABB, though Clinton was not my favorite - I was disturbed by the way he fudged his answers of Flowers and the draft. More importantly, I was disturbed that he had been pro-Contras and pretty conservative. Unlike Carville, I was not a professional politician - but I took the time to read Clinton's book and find some issues where I did like him - and used them to push co-workers, friends etc to vote Clinton rather than Bush. I didn't realize that I should have just declared myself ABB.

I watched Carville pretty often in 2004. I never heard him speak of ANYTHING that Kerry had done in his long career. I heard whines that he was not Bill Clinton like and wasn't listening to his advice, that he was ABB, and he enjoyed speaking of Kerry as a war hero - all the better to attack Bush as not being one. It's odd that he now thinks that HRC's involvement in SCHIP (lobbying WJC) was important, but had he looked at Kerry's web site or listened to Kennedy he would have known that much of that bill was written by Kerry for the precursor bill. He also could have amplified Lake's and Richard Clarke's comments that Kerry was one of the few politicians in the 1990s who "got" terrorism and had written the international anti-money laundering legislation in the 1990s that was not implemented until after 911 - and had led to some of the few successes in the War on Terror. Knowing that reconciling people was going to be a key need in 2005, he could have spoken of Kerry's work on the MIA/POW committee or that he had brokered a compromise plan on how to hold the war crimes tribunal in Cambodia. If he thought the environment was important, he could have pointed out that Kerry as Lt Governor of MA was the key person in getting the NE governors and Canada to implement the first multinational cap and trade system to reduce sulfur emissions that cause acid rain. If he was concerned with underprivileged youth, he could have asked Bill Clinton about Kerry's decades long work with Youthbuild that Clinton said was good, though their were no votes in it. Kerry also authored the Clean Elections legislation that was the model for Maine's and Arizona's bills. I don't mention either BCCI or Iran/Contra, as Carville like his former boss may not have supported Kerry's heroic efforts - though it could have been fun doing so.

My point is that in all the key issues of 2004 (or 2008 for that matter), Kerry had real substantive accomplishments - yet the Republicans were pushing the lie that he had done nothing. Kerry should have been as easier candidate to defend than Clinton was in 1992. His record was stronger and he was a very clean politician. Carville had a megaphone and he failed to use it.

That was 2004 - now look at 2006. You can't call someone a good Democrat when a few weeks before November 2006, he attacks the DNC head - right as the numbers started to show that it was very good that we had well funded candidates in districts that had previously been written off by McAuliffe and the local parties were far more functional than they had been just 2 years before. After the election, Carville tried very hard to get Dean removed and tried to insure that Emmanuel and Schumer got all the credit. Carville is for Carville and the Clintons Period.

[JackORoses]

91. let me make it really simple, I'll use Monkey Logic

Carville is a Democrat.
He knew what Democratic President-Man was doing.
He told Republican.
She told Republican President-Man.
This hurt Democratic President-Man's chances at being Top Banana.

Carville is traitorous.

Got it?

[Swamp Rat]

93. LOL!

[babylonsister]

5. What a shock. They let Kerry down so Clinton could rule. UGH! nt

[regnaD kciN]

10. At the rate...

...Hillary Rove-ham Clinton is going, it won't be long before Mary Matalin joins up, too.

[Skip Intro]

17. Oh brother - some baseless innuendo on a blog and it's attack Hillary time

with nothing but stupid gossip


who's in "panic" again?

[BluegrassDem]

18. So is CNN still gonna prop him up to being a "Democratic analyst"?

I guess Wolf will still trot him out on the Situation Room and pretend that Carville is an unbiased analyst as they've been doing all along. Carville is washed up anyway though, so I doubt he'll be much help for Hillary.

[flordehinojos]

19. i hope not . i consider him a republican plant. i believe that he knew and said nothing of the

bushcoes plan to steal the elections... when he was host of the cnn crossfire programs, i often wrote and ask what did his wife mary know the night of the elections when shortly after al gore having been named the victor, she kept saying, this is wrong, this is wrong, keep watching ,you'll see how it turns. he never answered one of my e-mails. how could he? his silence smacks of complicity in the theft... in my head, at least, it does.

[annie1]

20. i hope he doesn't. *sigh*

[noamnety]

40. "Our Brand Is Crisis"

People need to see this film about carville fucking over bolivia.

"This is the most important election of our lifetime." :eyes:

[Perry Logan]

42. Carville fucked over Bolivia. Yea!

[mod mom]

52. Here's some background on how Carville fucked over the people of Bolivia:

Globalism extends to the American way of campaigning, it seems, and the hubris of the gringo strategists — earnest ex-Clintonistas employed by James Carville’s Greenberg Carville Shrum group — would be hilarious if human lives and a country’s political will weren’t at stake.

It’s a galling and provocative experience to viewers of any political persuasion, and a reminder to the left of how easily idealism can run amok.

The Carville boys were hired by Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada, a.k.a. ‘‘Goni,’’ a patrician Bolivian businessman who served a rough term as Bolivia’s president in the mid-’90s. Goni’s legacy was an unsuccessful program of ‘‘capitalization’’ (i.e., he welcomed foreign investment and watched foreigners get all the jobs).

By 2002, the time of filming, unemployment is through the roof and rural campesinos are agitating for political representation. Goni is old news and his poll numbers are dismal. Enter Jeremy Rosner, Greenberg Carville Shrum’s point man in Bolivia, an articulate manipulator of mass moods (and a fellow who bears an uncanny resemblance to Seth Meyers of ‘‘Saturday Night Live’’ — reality parodies itself here better than any comic could).
-snip
http://www.boston.com/ae/movies/articles/2006/06/30/a_campaign_in_bolivia_thats_made_in_america/

ANOTHER CRETIN DESTROYING LIVES AND THE NAME OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FOR SHORT TERM GAIN.

DESPICABLE!

[noamnety]

71. The globalization and manipulation were at the heart of it.

It was hard to avoid seeing the similarities between how they manipulated the elections there, and how they do it here - right down to using the same exact slogans. That's why I quoted that "most important election of our lifetimes" line - where did we hear that before?

It's hard enough looking at the OP without feeling a huge mass of cynicism about branding: "Clinton's 'experience' theme is suddenly trumping Obama's 'change' theme," as if those brands, Experience and Change have any basis in anything other than what a focus group said would work. It's like watching the Iraqi incubator story as it develops.

The globalization is at the heart of what's wrong with Clinton and a number of other dems as well. Americans being what they are - even "liberal" Americans - we are happy to brush all that under the rug, the fact that we are using (and did under Clinton as well as Bush) imperialism, militarism, and debt in a very systematic way to rob other countries of their natural resources and labor, without a care in the world as to how many of their lives are ruined in the process. We can overlook those who are poisoned by our toxic waste, we can overlook those working in sweatshops, we can overlook a few hundred Nigerians dying in an explosion as they try to access their own oil as it is pumped for export to the US, so long as Clinton will have a possibility of electing a judge who will improve the rights of Americans.

[ClarkUSA]

44. Will wife Mary Matalin be coming with him? More politics as usual from "the change agent"

:eyes:

[mtnsnake]

51. Like has been said upthread, Carville is a great Democrat. No wonder repukes hate his guts

There have been few other mouthpieces for our Party who have been as effective as James Carville over the years in calling out the atrocities of the Right Wing. Thank goodness we have people like Carville in our corner. If all our spokespeople had his daring and his guts, we'd never lose another battle to the Right Wing neocons again.

[Tellurian]

53. Yep, I couldn't agree more..

Amazing how anyone who is a "fighter" is denigrated by the so called progressives* in the Democratic Party. They expect to be catered to by nominating a weak candidate (that fits their purist ideals) that doesn't have the wherewithall to fend off RW attacks and fight off the prospect of another Republican election theft.

My money is on Carville keeping this election in line with producing a democratic nominee that will take the oath of office in Jan 09'.

[saracat]

74. Is he still supporting Scooter Libby? And Lieberman ? Perhaps his true friend Zell Miller?

Real fine Democrat.

[Tellurian]

87. Is Carville running for President? -- anyway, here's something of substance for you to chew on..

5 Reasons why John Edwards should NOT win Iowa

If Iowa’s democrats are looking for ELECTABILITY, Edwards is a poor choice.

Here are 5 reasons why:

(1)Public Financing:

Edwards is the only one of the top 3 democrats on public financing. Outside of Iowa, he doesn’t have the financial resources to even fight a tough battle against his fellow democrats for the nomination, let alone fight the GOP. He was the VP candidate on the 2004 general election ticket – if he was such a strong candidate, he SHOULD NOT have had to resort to public financing for 2008.

(2)Ability to Attract Republicans/Independents & WIN Red States:

Despite the fact that he is a southerner, John Edwards was not able to help the 2004 Kerry/Edwards ticket win even ONE southern state. Not ONE. He didn’t even win South Carolina (where he was born). The Kerry/Edwards ticket didn’t even win North Carolina – Edwards’ home state! With such a poor showing, there is NO REASON to believe that Edwards can get red states into play.

(3)Polling – General Election Match-ups:

The most recent Rasmussen poll of general election GOP/DEM match-ups show Edwards losing to 2 of the 5 top potential GOP nominees.

(4)Democratic Primary Polling:

Outside of Iowa, John Edwards consistently polls at between 12% to 15% in most state polls against his opponents.

Considering the fact that this was our VP nominee in 2004 and his main democratic opponents are (a) a virtual unknown, and (b) probably the most controversial woman in America, this is a TERRIBLE showing for John Edwards. TERRIBLE.

Obviously he is just not exciting democratic voters outside of Iowa. Also, he’s in 3rd place in Iowa. He’s been campaigning there for 4 YEARS and he’s only in 3rd place?

(5)He is a PHONY:

John Edwards (“Mr. Healthcare”) says his plan is the best and HE’S the one who really cares about the average Joe?

You wouldn’t know that from his performance while in the senate. He has apologized for every significant vote he cast during his six years in the senate.

He apologized for voting for the bankruptcy bill, no child left behind, supporting NAFTA, the Iraq war, etc. John Edwards spent six years wasting the "taxpayers dime" only to now ask us to reward him with the presidency.

In both 2000 AND 2001 he voted FOR some of the worst bankruptcy legislation the senate has EVER produced – it was totally crafted to benefit the credit card companies and other creditors and to make it really hard for consumers to successfully file for bankruptcy. Given that Edwards knows that HALF of all bankruptcies in this country are due to astronomical HEALTHCARE costs, his votes tell you all you need to know about him.

This whole “fighter for the common man” message is just a strategy to win the nomination.

He talks a good game, but his actions don’t match his words. He says he’s fought for the disadvantaged all his life. Right...:sarcasm:

He was an ambulance-chasing trial lawyer and he’s worth $30 million to $50 million. It’s not like he did a lot of pro-bono work or anything like that. He provided his services and was paid for his time. When he had a chance to pass legislation in the senate that could actually help that everyday Joe that he loves talking about so much, HE DID NOT.

He voted for legislation to help corporations, not consumers. Now he’s talking about being against 527s, yet one of his campaign managers leaves his campaign just this past spring to start of 527 which starts pumping out advertising dollars on his behalf? Come on! Iowans are smarter than that. Also, when I heard about the back and forth between Obama and Edwards on the 527 issue, I did some digging online and it seems that this is not the first time that Edwards has pulled this 527 trick, where he has one of his top lieutenants leave his campaign right before the Iowa caucus to form a 527 that will spend money on his behalf in Iowa – he did it in 2004 as well. I pulled the following from www.theatlantic.com :

“In 2004, Edwards aide Jonathan Prince resigned before the Iowa caucuses and established an independent 527 in Edwards’s benefit. He has said that he did not coordinate with the presidential campaign.” It seems that Edwards really does like to “talk the talk” but doesn’t truly “walk the walk”.

Here is the link:

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/12/wh os_behind_a_third_proedwards.php

John Edwards is the WEAKEST candidate in the field. Why should I be surprised, you support a loser? He's soooo you!

[saracat]

103. So you can't defend Carville so attack Edwards? Sheesh.Typical triangulation

Change the subject. Funny how the Clinton Campaign is filled will anti Dems such as the union busting Penn, Chris Schoen and now Carville.This article is nothing more than "projection". And you are reflective of your candidates choice in personnel in your choice of verbiage.

[madfloridian]

54. I call that Carville Love.

And I totally disagree. He is not funny or cute or clever to an ever widening sector of our party and the country. He is filled with self-importance.

He and Mary get lots of attention by being cutesy and putting each other down so cleverly.

But in the end, he is someone people love to laugh at. I once felt that way, but no more. He is a dangerous spokesman for the party, and he should not be married to Cheney's aide and working for our probably nominee.

It is a conflict of interests.

[mtnsnake]

56. I challenge you to name more than a few Dems who have attacked the RW as viciously as Carville has

over the decades while standing in front of a TV microphone.

[Mass]

61. Carville does that as an entertainer, not as somebody with conviction.

It is what he is paid to do in front of the media. It is how he makes his fame and his reputation.

However, each time he could have been useful to the Democrats and push a progressive agenda, he has been brilliantly absent.

Stewart totally tore his act apart on his appearance on his show, and unfortunately, Stewart was right. Carville is a buffoon that does not bring anything to the progressive wing.

[mtnsnake]

63. Who cares why he attacks them? I'm just grateful he does. nt

[Mass]

66. NOt if it is not efficient, and it is NOT.

[mtnsnake]

68. But he is efficient when he attacks them.

For you to claim that he's not is just your opinion because you don't like the guy.

Republicans do not like going up against James Carville. He is by all means efficient in busting on their asses.

[madfloridian]

73. I know one who did attack the RW viciously....and Carville said fire him

and put mild-mannered Harold Ford in his place.

Dean was out of the country when Carville said to fire him.

"On election night, Emanuel and Schumer were triumphant on the victory podium along with Pelosi and Reid, while Dean was conspicuous by his absence. It is perfectly clear that Dean had been banished from the victory podium by the DLC and their minions. Things took a sharp turn for the worse this week, while Dean was out of the country searching for more votes amongst the vast and groaning diaspora of overseas Democrats, a trip he had postponed until after the crucial election. Americans living abroad are a distinct species of political fauna. No longer mesmerized by the American media, they are able to observe the impact of Washington’s foreign policy from a new and starkly refreshing perspective. Few if any Americans abroad support the outrageous neoconservative policies of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

In a surprise assault worthy of the Ides of March, James Carville leapt into the breach for the DLC. In a savage stabbing lunge worthy of Casca, Carville planted the first dagger into the back of Governor Dean while he was away from Washington attending the conference of the Americas Division of Democrats Abroad meeting in the Dominican Republic to organize voter registration among the millions of US citizens now living overseas."

[Kucinich4America]

94. Carville has attacked Democrats as much as he has Republicans

His assaults on Howard Dean are unforgivable. As well as the previously mentioned 2004 election night betrayal of Kerry.

His loyalty is not to the Democratic Party, but to the DLC. And they are NOT one and the same.

[karynnj]

100. Vicious attacks lose as many people as they gain

because they render moderate, reasonable accusations useless because they get lumped to them.

[cali]

55. Sorry, Carville's been battling the progressive wing of the dem

party as hard as he once battled the right wing repukes. His priorities are completely misplaced,

[Moochy]

57. Is this real?

Or feigned ignorance? willful or blissful?

[mtnsnake]

58. Does the sun rise in the east?

[Moochy]

60. I'll check 'Willful Ignorance' for you n/t

[mtnsnake]

62. lol

That's not so bad :)

[Moochy]

67. Yeah its better than Blissful

At least the willfully ignorant are vaguely aware of the topics to avoid, in order to maintain the integrity of their positions. ;-)

[Mass]

59. A good Democrat supporting Zell Miller even at the eve of the Republican Convention in 04.

Thanks, but no thanks.

He still could not find negative things to say about Zell that same day where he totally lost his mind.

[mtnsnake]

64. Nobody's perfect

Obama supports Joe Lieberman

[Mass]

65. He did BEFORE Lamont was the Democratic nominee.

As did your candidate.

[mtnsnake]

69. He still does

He's still supportive of his mentor, Joe Lieberman. During the CT race, he really had no other choice but to back whoever became the Democratic candidate, same as Hillary.

Obama was supportive of Lieberman before and after the CT race.

[saracat]

75. Awful lot of excuses for carville.Its okay to support Zell Miller, write letters supporting Libby ,

trash Kerry while he is the nominee, call for the removal of the Party Chair. What does it take for him to be a "bad" Dem?

[karynnj]

101. no he doesn't

both HRC and Obama supported him in the primary

[Forkboy]

86. Oy vey.

[antigop]

70. You mean THIS Carville.......?

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0605071libby12.html

[Moochy]

72. His Family is Praying (Preying) alright

Praying that Clinton opens up her coinpurse and frees him to bloviate in his patented folksy faux-creole.

I guess though he's powerful because Bush listened to his and Mary's advice and granted Scooter his pardon! I see why Clinton camp might want someone with that much power! :sarcasm:

[SOS]

78. "the many children who love Scooter"

Thanks for the laugh!

[TeamJordan23]

79. Is this really surprising?

I guess not to me. Is Begala hopping on officially also?

[BenMarbleMD]

80. Carville may be really smart

but the guy physically resembles a RAT

[Sultana]

85. He'll fit right in

two-faced sourpussx(

[BringBigDogBack]

90. Who cares?

F Carville. He has become nothing but a mouthpiece, looking for some form of spotlight.

Good riddance.

[Cha]

97. Oh yeah. carville is

the "savvy" agin' cajun who knows how to bark out smears at Progressives but what does he know how to do except be a mediawhore? I guess that's enough when you want the corporatemediawhores to write positive things about your bloody fucked up campaign.