James Carville & Paul Begala

Question; Who do these guys support for president in 08? I know that Begala wants Clinton to run and get the nod from the DNC, but what about Carville, has he got a horse in the 08 election?

I would imagine these two guys or the top two Democratic operatives in the DNC, so anyone have a idea about who or if they plan on running anyones campaign in 08 or 06 for that matter?

I can't help but remember how they got Bill elected, and if i were running for office i would want these two guys working for me. Just wondering and wanted to talk a little politics, i watched West Wing last night and it got me thinking about these two guys.

I'm currently reading the book the wrote together. They should make it mandatory reading for all Democratic politicians planning to run for any kind of office. They go into detail about how we should be dealing with all of the issues, one by one, from guns to abortion to gay marriage to the war, etc. And, as you can well imagine knowing Carville, there's a lot of humor thrown into the mix. They should have had it proofread once more before going to print, though. I've found a lot of typos.

And, on page 83, they call Olbermann MSNBC's brilliant and darkly hilarious anchor during a discussion about Santorum and KO naming him Worst Person in the World. That alone made it worth reading.

Clinton getting elected. I think he got elected because he was Clinton, and these doofuses have been getting rich appearing on CNN and NBC ever since. I remember how they trashed Howard Dean, and their advice to John Kerry to show strength by agreeing with everything bush proposed. They are beltway Democrats to the nth degree and I don't think they know jack shit about what actual Democrats are thinking or what they believe. Find a clip of Beluga kissing Ted Nugent's ass on Crossfire or any of the Carville?Matalin freak show on Meet the Whore and you'll see how clueless these clowns are.

They are not who they were back then. Carville was a badass during the 92 campaign.

especially when added to just looking at the results. Now, for some counter conventional wisdom analysis

Imagine the Ohio Democratic party had been rejuvenated by an effort led by McAulliffe (or Clinton or Gore) in 2002, they would have called Blackwell in advance of election day to change the machine allocation - which was given to the bi-partisan county election committees. You would also have more volunteers working for the Democratic party, who could not just register people to vote but lobby them to vote for Kerry (ACT couldn't). You could have had Spanish speaking aides in some inner city locations - where votes were lost because people did the cards wrong. In other inner city areas, you would have had enough volunteers to assure everyone used the machines designated for their precinct. By all accounts, the local party was in far better shape in 1992.

Between getting some votes, not cast because waits were too long, and getting votes lost to preventable errors and votes won by a better local party, Kerry would be President.

Then looking at the teams, you would have the following comparison:
- Clinton (a natural politician if there ever was one) winning against a Bush at 29% approval, with a media that loved his sunny candidacy

OR

- Kerry (a person I find charismatic, but a more introspective, shyer person) winning against a Bush at near 50%, with a media that worshipped Bush.

But, for 60,000 votes in Ohio, Cahill would get the recognition that Begala and Carville do. Cahill also took Kerry's primary campaign from near dead to one of the earliest most convincing primary campaign wins ever. Just based on the 3 facts above for each race, Cahill's narrow loss may be more impressive than their win.

I'm not putting down Cahill, but Kerry came out of no where. Period.

Either that, or the media was complicit in pushing him.

When Kerry won the primary in my state, I shook my head and asked "Why?" Not that *I* disliked Kerry - I didn't. In fact, he was my second choice - but I knew he could never, ever, ever have a shot in hell of winning my state in the general election. Clark or even Edwards (whom I don't have much use for) would have done better in my state and other purplish-red states than Kerry in the general election.

We need to explore why Kerry was winning in states that he could never win during the general election. Do Democrats REALLY not understand the "liberal New England elitist" tag that the Reich-wing media has burdened them with? Or do they simply choose to ignore that and keep on choosing people who fit this tag in hopes that someday it will change (regardless of the fact that the media keeps getting worse and worse)? Or, if Deibold can choose who wins the general, can it also choose who wins the primaries?

Again, I'm not putting down Kerry or Cahill, but I'm not so sure that I either believe Kerry won the primaries outright or that, if he did, it wasn't because of a complicit media that knew he was one of the worst of the best to go against Bush, making it easier to steal another election?

Just some random thoughts. :shrug:

You can go back and look at what the media did - it is archived. On the Democratic side - in 2003, there were many great Dean articles. He was on the front page of most major news magazines. He went into the first debates clearly as the leader. Kerry was mentioned only as a candidate whose campaign didn't take off and asking when he would drop out.

Kerry gradually improved in Iowa - and likely got a lot of mileage out of the coverage of his reunion his Rassman - this was real and was almost a made for TV movie type feel. Kerry was a hero - who almost shyly said anyone would have done it - how "American mythology" can you get! That Dean was shown that weekend yelling at an old man (who was an annoying heckler) - set up a contrast.
I live in NJ and that was the political coverage for at least a weekend. (Remember there were lots of candidates - and Kerry got 38%.) The Gephardt/Dean mud fight also hurt both of them.

Kerry likely won NH, because of the Iowa. Iowa showed him a winner and he was already well thought of there. After NH, what were the choices - Dean rapidly had lost support, partially because he imploded. Clark, had great initial press, but then made enough mistakes that he was seen as not ready for prime time. That left only Edwards - Edwards is intensely charming, but really seemed inexperienced and too light weight next to Kerry.

By the time TN voted, Kerry had momentum and that would give him some votes. He got 41% of the vote. Clark got 23% and Edwards 27%. I assume that the Edwards votes would have gone to Clark - if Edwards wasn't there. (I'm not as sure the other way around) -caveat: I've never set foot in Tennesse. You can say that Kerry benefited from being the candidate who at that stage was very likely to win, being the best in the debates and having the "southern" vote split.

Kerry's wins were in most cases not even close. So, no it wasn't diebold - there would be no need to win by the %s that he did.

Here's a nice table:
http://rhodescook.com/primary.analysis.html

I'll research it later, but I wanted to thank you for the info and the link and the professional way you answered.

I still don't 'get it,' you know, the fact that I and many other Tennesseans KNEW Kerry wouldn't win our state, but they still voted for him anyway.

However, I will look at your research, as soon as I'm finished with laundry. (LOL. Life goes on, doesn't it? :hi: )

And I like that you looked at my profile and figured out I was from Tennessee. Thank you.

targeted Kerry's campaign to trash throughout 2003, calling it dead for months? The same corporate media that you accuse of helping Kerry?

Your post is pure revisionism.

Corporate media UNDERreported Kerry's strength of support on the ground for months and OVERreported Dean' - yet, somehow you blame Kerry? Did you trust the corporate media while they were saying Kerry's campaign was dead?

Looking forward to your explanation to the whole class how anyone rigs the electronic vote at a caucus.

"war room" made him out to be. It's tempting to see a winner as doing everything brilliantly - my point was that the campaign (which obviously did somethings well) was possibly not that incredible. I did say it was counter conventional wisdom.

It was based on three assumtions:
if

As politicians, Clinton is significantly better than Kerry

AND

Bush 1 was significantly weaker than Bush 2

AND

The media was if anything biased to Clinton in 1992 vs very much against Kerry in 2004

then, given equally good campaign managers, the results should have been far bigger than the difference between a narrow loss and a close, but comfortable win. The point was this was not duplicate bridge with each getting the same cards to play.

anything he said on Crossfire ever.

He used to be pissed off at Republicans. In the War Room, it's clear that his mission is to make George Herbert Walker Bush his bitch, every day, throughout the news cycle, and he did it.

Now he's all soft.

I do agree. Part of my problem was the feeling in 2004, that they just seemed to want to be perceived as witty or clever. They also seemed to take no time to know Kerry's positions and simply made Bush jokes and bashed him - which was funny but not very helpful. This would have been less important but they were 2 of the very few Democratic partisans on TV.

when he smashed an egg on his face (literally) and wore a garbage can on his head during subsequent elections however....

They are mere shadows of their former selves. I don't think they were ever as effective as they were given credit for.

Follow them in 2008 at your own peril down the path of irrelevancy.

(1) Clinton

(2) Warner

(3) Vilsak

(4) Any other DLC-er who runs

(5) Anyone but the RNC candidate (unless it's McCain)

in that order. A**holes!

TC

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

awesome post.

Carville and Begala haven't done SQUAT for the TRUE Democratic Party in years; and, there's something to be said that they still wouldn't have if the candidate hadn't been the hyper-charismatic Big Dog.

The DLC, in my opinion, isn't a middle-of-the-road branch of the Democratic Party: it's an off-shoot of the corporate shills who have already permeated to the nth-degree the Republican Party. Who's looking out for the average person?

If you really think about it, there are several moderate Dems who aren't DLC, but are painted as far-leftists or ineffective or loonies by the DLC because they aren't beholden to corporate monies - NOT because they're not moderate. Dean and Feingold immediately spring to mind (one can aruge that Feingold is very liberal, but I don't see it, not coming from Wisconsin as he does).

So, you can fuss at TC for failing to acknowledge anything Begala and Carville may or may not have done in 1992, but the truth is that they've been supporting the corporate-model Democrat for far too long and it's disgusting and disheartening to those of us who still think the middle-class are the heart of the United States of America and who want to see an FDR Dem over a Wall Street Dem.

but let me address the "kick-ass job they did for Clinton with the War Room in 1992". Okay that was 1992. Do the math -- it was 14 years ago.

Now, let me address my inability to "muster the integrity" to acknowledge that. I have been accused of a lot of things on this board, but a lack of integrity has never been one of them. I was under the impression that personal attacks were not allowed, but since you did attack me in this manner, I will answer you. First of all, their "alliegience" to the Clintons has everything to do with the DLC -- as well as -- their cynical and self-aggrandizing opinions of their own importance. They most certainly are shills. They are K Street slime. They are mealy-mouthed, middle-of-the-road corporatists who would rather play nicey-nicey with the Republicans than rock the boat and take them down on behalf of the little guy. They MOST CERTAINLY DO NOT "deserve" my respect. I can assure if I thought they were, they would have it. They don't.

It is so disheartening for you to hear my "nonstop attacks... on Democrats that don't fit into the narrow confines" I "hold dear". Poor you. Cry me a river! It is my integrity that makes me the bulldog that I am. I have no sacred cows. I worship no Democratic Party entity. If anyone in this Party screws up, if they do something I disapprove of, it is not only my right, but my duty to say so. I will not stop just because your dainty sensibilities can't take it. Put me on ignore and forget about me. But, don't blame it on my lack of integrity, or my disheartening attacks, blame it on the fact that YOU DISAGREE WITH ME AND WHAT I HAVE TO SAY.

So, like I said, please make use of the IGNORE feature on this board. Relief is but a click away. Just don't you ever question my integrity again, or we are going to have a problem.

TC

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

But, before you do, consider these points:

You don't think it's a bit disingenuous to attack another Democrat for attcking Democrats?

You don't think it's a bit disingenuous to single out my comment in this thread when there are at least a dozen more that say almost the same thing?

You don't think it's a bit disingenuous to cite a lack of integrity on my part when you aren't even willing to acknowledge that this is but a difference of opinion about a number of issues, not just this one?

I don't feel I OR MY OPINIONS are caustic, just honest. They reflect the frustration, diappointment, and disgust with the path the Democratic Party seems to have taken. I want my Party back. I want my country back. And, I'm too old to mince words about it.

Sorry you are unwilling to try to see a different point of view or just ignore it.

TC

I don't know enough about Begala to have an opinion. I personally have had it with inside the beltway Democratic Party strategists, whose advice seems to always boil down to 'be more Republican' and 'don't take any strong stands on important issues'. Every last one of them seems to be more interested in protecting 'the system' than in putting a progressive Democratic Party back in power.

assessment....and they are, in my opinion, shills for the DLC..

we used to know and love.

His wife is far too close to the crimes in the Bush administration an his apparent concern for keeping her out of jail has changed him.

. . . how much per appearance, are residuals part of the contractual agreement, and what kinds of speaking fees their agents can negotiate for them on the rubber chicken circuit.

They are lampreys, sucking the guts of the system they pretend to oppose, who occasionally pull their toothed orifices from the side of their host to gurgle out some garbled message on how the "system" they parasitize "must change".

I really do, but his wife comes off as evil personified. I don't know if I can trust him.

which they loudly despensed when Kerry didn't let them run his campaign was not all that good. (They argued that he needed to speak on the economy and not national security and Iraq - though Kerry's numbers improved when he spoke of the security issues.)

In Clinton they had a very charismatic candidate. They had a President who was in the low 30s in the spring of 1992 and at 29 in August. There was a time when Perot and Bush polled above Clinton. Only after Perot self-destructed and pulled out did Clinton become the highest. When Perot came back in he never had numbers as high as he did before he left. 1992 was a year when any Democrat might have won - though when decisions had to be made on running in mid to late 1991, Bush had looked unbeatable. This would be closer to beating Bush, now after he's dropped 10 to 15 points since Nov 2004 - and Kerry lost by 60,000 votes in Ohio. Notice Bush 2 is still higher than his dad.)

The Clinton team, even with a Clinton political clone (who had never been President), might have done worse than Cahill did.

They jumped the shark years ago. They are media whores now.

James takes some time off to write a book and Mary comes out of hiding...Begala joins with his friend to write a book and they both come out of hiding...I don't trust them. Sorry.

.

However, Carville and Begala have both mentioned Warner as strong candidate for the nomination.

I don't care who they like frankly. I would hire them to work with the chosen candidate as they are good at helping once that choice is made.

vote Republican.