You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

James Carville [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-19-06 08:38 AM
Original message
James Carville
Advertisements [?]

Premise Special Review: James Carville

By chance a couple of months ago I happened to see The War Room for a second time. If you’re not familiar with the documentary, it covers the 1992 Clinton campaign from the point of view of James Carville and other staff at the campaign HQ, as opposed to traveling with candidate Bill Clinton.

In light of recent events that I address more fully below, two moments in the film stand out. The first is an impassioned speech given by Mr. Carville, in which he tears up as he explains why Democrats need to defeat the Republican candidate and end twelve straight years of GOP control of the White House. It is clear from Mr. Carville’s words and his own reaction to them that he cares a great deal about inequities inherent in the Republican Party’s philosophy of governance, and that he believes in more than victory for victory’s sake.

Snip...

Until recently, I confess that’s how I tended to view their union. And had Mr. Carville not brought his own political loyalties into question in several ways, I think I would still believe in that benign explanation of their relationship. But I’m given to wonder now if Mr. Carville’s embrace of Ms. Matalin wasn’t also a rejection or betrayal of the emotions and beliefs that brought him to tears in 1992. That concern has only been exacerbated by recent events in which Mr. Carville seems determined not to support the resurgence and momentum of the Democratic Party, but to derail it.

Snip...

One of the things that has made Mr. Carville an enduring fixture on television and in political circles is his tendency toward bombast and rhetorical excess. It’s part of what makes him unique and effective as a motivator. But comparing Howard Dean, who won the elections he was supposed to win, to recently-fired Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, whose incompetence has contributed to the deaths of thousands of American soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians, seems less outrageous than it does bitter and mean.

Because Mr. Carville is a smart man, however, and well-connected in Democratic circles, speculation turned to the possibility that Mr. Carville might have some other reason for deposing Mr. Dean and replacing him with a hand-picked successor:

Snip...

It is curious that neither Mr. or Ms. Clinton denied that Mr. Carville was on their payroll or working on their behalf, either in preparation for Ms. Clinton’s expected run for the White House, or in some other capacity. It is demonstrable, however, that Mr. Carville is and has been aggressively making the case for her candidacy.

It’s also debatable that spending all available funds would have increased the number of seats captured by Democrats. And oddly, Mr. Carville doesn’t seem concerned that Ms. Clinton blew $36 million herself on her own re-election when she could have easily given a good chunk of that money to the candidates Mr. Carville deemed most needy.

Snip...

Which brings me to a story I didn’t post about when it first came to light, because it seemed trivial at the time. Among other more important revelations in Bob Woodward’s recent book, State of Denial, was an account in which Mr. Carville is seen to obstruct John Kerry’s ability to contest the vote count in Ohio in 2004:

Snip...

While Mr. Carville’s conduct is certainly not what one would hope for when a Democratic candidate’s fate might be hanging in the balance, that’s not why I’m referencing this conversation. Rather, I want to highlight one specific line:

“Carville told her he had some inside news.”


I don’t know what you think about that, but it makes me uncomfortable to think that James Carville is a conduit of information for the Republican Party. I won’t call him a spy because that’s a bit melodramatic, but I don’t think many Democrats would be happy to learn that he willingly passed on inside information to the Republican Party. It’s also troublesome that this one line paints both Mr. Carville and Ms. Matalin as demonstrable liars when they say they don’t talk politics at home. The only question that remains unanswered seems to be who they are working for when they conspire in this fashion, if they’re working for anyone at all.

more...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC