Even if you are not a Hillary supporter

Which I'm not in particular, would you consider emailing her campaign and BEGGING them not to let Carville have anything to do with it? This cosigning of his harpy wife's plea for leniency for Libby(per Olbermann) is the last straw. You absolutely cannot trust anything he comes across to remain out of Matalins claws and I would bet a mont's maintenence she doesn't blab the same confidential things to him.

there.

...how involved he is in Hillary's campaign. Really, how could they ever have trusted him married to Mary??

During the first Clinton presidential campaign.

Oh wait, they were together but not married at the time.

they married in 1993.

I think the uproar over this is silly.

or who he benefits?

Bill Clinton pardoned Marc Rich - an IranContra, BCCI figure - Scooter Libby's client. Clintons know a LOT more about Scooter AND Carville than most people here at DU put together.



This talk by historian Douglas Brinkley occurred in April 2004:

http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354

Whom does the biographer think his subject will pick as a running mate? Not Hillary Rodham Clinton. "There's really two different Democratic parties right now: there's the Clintons and Terry McAuliffe and the DNC and then there's the Kerry upstarts. John Kerry had one of the great advantages in life by being considered to get the nomination in December. He watched every Democrat in the country flee from him, and the Clintons really stick the knife in his back a bunch of times, so he's able to really see who was loyal to him and who wasn't. That's a very useful thing in life."



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


Did Carville Tip Bush Off to Kerry Strategy (Woodward)

By M.J. Rosenberg |

I just came across a troubling incident that Bob Woodward reports in his new book. Very troubling.
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.

So what happened?

James Carville gets on the phone with his wife, Mary Matalin, who is at the White House with Bush.

"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.'

"Matalin went to Cheney to report...You better tell the President Cheney told her."

Matalin does, advising Bush that "somebody in authority needed to get in touch with J. Kenneth Blackwell, the Republican Secretary of State in Ohio who would be in charge of any challenge to the provisional votes." An SOS goes out to Blackwell.
>>>>>>

the old "Matalin tipped off Cheney" story.

But nobody ever tells me what happened next. How on Earth did it make a differene if Cheney knew in the middle of the night, vs. 6 hours later? How did it change the outcome?

Are you trying to suggest that the DLC was NOT opposed to fighting the Kerry's election results?

THe DLC tends to agree with Bush on the major issues of our time (going to war, opposing impeachment for starting said war, opposing the Alito filibuster, etc,etc,etc)

The stolen elections are no different. DLCers like Carville argee with team Bush that it should not have been an issue.

I see... the evil DLC was involved.

Personally, I blame Skull & Bones and the illuminati.

The notion that Carville wanted Bush re-elected, and helped him steal the election, is just nonsensical.

If you are trying to say Carville is not DLC, then you are either fibbing on purpose or you are seriously misinformed.

I know that the DLC has often agreed with Bush on the major issues of our day-and that they are often opposed to fighting Bush-I think the stolen elections are no exception.

I never said that Carville's DLC does things that make sense strategy-wise, I just suggested that they do things that end up helping Bush (Supporting the war, supporting Joe Lieberman (I), opposing the Alito filibuster, etc,etc,etc,etc)

I ask the question again- forget the difference in hours- why would Carville run his fucking mouth in the 1st place?

affiliated with DLC members? I never said any such thing.

My point is that blaming the DLC for things is like blaming Skull & Bones. it's silly paranoia - they're not some all-powerful secret cabal: they're a think tank.

I have no idea what S&B, the Masons, the X-Files, etc. has to do with this discussion.

So why was Carville (DLC) running his fucking mouth to Republicans again?

This is the 3rd time I've asked you.

maybe becuase he's married to her? Just a guess.

The BIG question, though, is SO FUCKING WHAT?!

I just can't believe that it made any difference. Of course the Republicans suspected Kerry was going to challenge Ohio. They didn't need to hear it from Matalin.

And then... SO WHAT?! What changed? The notion that 100,000 ballots were stolen is just nuts. There's absolutely NO evidence that there were 250k ballots uncounted. That was an early high-end estimate. Ohio even said that night it was probably closer to 175k.

And then... SO WHAT?! People keep trotting out that story, but nobody ever explains what it means.

I think it's quite likely there was some very sketchy stuff going on in Ohio, but I don't think it all occurred that night. If Ohio was stolen, it wasn't by disposing of x number of provisional ballots.

I'd love to hear Carville or a DLC spokesman tell us why he ran his mouth.

I dont see why the fact that he is married to a Cheney aide is a defense for him either.

As it is, he has yet to deny or adress whether he was giving info to the enemy camp, married to them or not.

that I won't go near Hillary with a 10 foot pole.

That's what.

about Carville?

How odd.

of what happened, since we all missed it.

that had been long shut as he is an open government lawmaker with a lengthy record against government corruption - especially Poppy Bush's corruption.

Wilson was on Kerry's team - Carville was on Matalin's team.

BushInc gets away with PLENTY when Dems let them.

How much do you understand about the REAL abetting of terrorism that led to 9-11 and this Iraq war?



http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

Kerry was a hard charging open government guy but upon finding out that 100K provisional ballots had disappeared and 150K provisonal ballots remained, he gave up?

Your story smells.

And any prosecutor knows you can't make the charge without evidence in hand.

If you doubt the story then take it up with Woodward - Carville never disputed it.

"Woodward's analysis of President Bush's leadership style is especially fascinating. A self-described "gut player" who relies heavily on instinct, Bush comes across as a man of action continually pressing his cabinet for concrete results."

http://www.amazon.com/Bush-at-War-Bob-Woodward/dp/0743204735

.

Isn't Carville the one who said you can never let a false charge go unanswered?

Carville doesn't seem to give a shit what is said about him personally.

Again, your whole convoluted story depends on the word of one man who has shown he plays fast and loose with the facts.

Surely you can't believe that Carville would let this pass if it never happened since he was acting PROFESSIONALLY when he was advising the Dem party that night?

AFTER Blackwell was called.

Now - why would Doug Brinkley be lying in April 2004 about the Clinton team undermining Kerry?

stole 100,000 provisional ballots, and you know it, then presumably a lot of other people knew about such a huge crime. Kerry never said a word about it?

And if somebody could steal 100,000 ballots, why wouldn't they be able to do it the next day?


Edit: Also, do you have any confirmation that there were, in fact, 250k ballots? That number seems to come from very early reports saying there COULD be as many as 250k.

Plus, the Bush team knew it was very close in Ohio. You think that they only decided to steal it after hearing that Kerry might challenge? And then why would Kerry NOT challenge if he had any evidence at ALL that a hundred thousand ballots were stolen?

that early number was wrong and that there were only 150,000. That new number came AFTER the Matalin-Blackwell phonecall.

Now - care to explain about OTHER coincidences? Like why would Doug Brinkley be saying the Clintons were stabbing Kerry in the back as early as April 2004?

Why would William Greider be reporting in 2003 that Hillary was building her team for 2008?

he had no idea of the actual number of provisional ballots - I doubt ANYBODY did.

Again, you think they stole it ONLY after learning that Kerry wasn't conceding?

Or were they against it?

I think an honest answer to that question would lend credibility to one argument or the other.

I'm pretty sure that the DLC (as usual) sided with Bush, not Kerry on that one.

I doubt they took a position in the few hours that passed before Kerry conceded.

The pattern of behavoir is pretty easy to establish.

If it involves a tough fight that the base wants, you can usually be sure the DLC as an organization opposes it (See opposing the war, impeachment, filibustering Alito, supporting Lamont (D) instead of Lieberman ( I), 2000, 2002, 2004 election results, etc,etc,etc)

And yes, I am aware that Hillary opposes the DLC (or pretends to) every Blue moon.

a DLC press release that came out that morning?

Be it 2000, 2002 or 2004?

Face it- the DLC has established a pattern of behavior that involves either AGREEING with Bush on major issues or refusing to fight him- I've already listed several unchallenged examples above.

The stolen elections are no different.

Anyway, do you think that despite Carville, Hillary should come out and say that she thinks Libby belongs in jail?

I do. We probably agree that all the canidates should make a statement.

not mine.

You said the DLC opposed kerry challenging in Ohio. I'm asking you to provide evidence of that.

You didn't notice McAuliffe working for 4 years to COUNTER the GOPs tactics and SECURE the election process in 2002 and 2004 did you?

And there would have been plenty of time to implement it if the Reps had let it come to the floor for a vote.

.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Bob Graham called Wednesday for a paper trail to back up electronic voting throughout the country.

The Democratic senators told reporters a bill they have drafted calls for every jurisdiction to have machines that produce paper records that would enable recounts.


<http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/10/voting/>

The one put up in 2005 still hasn't gone anywhere.

It takes YEARS To implement a voting bill - HAVA passed in 2001 and was supposed to be implemented BY Nov 2006.

So - when do you think Hillary expected a paper trail to be implemented?

And she wanted Bush to win so she'd have a clear shot in 08? That's creepy politics, but not unbelievable imo.

strong sources - and Woodward's recounting of what happened on election night was never challenged by Carville.

Even setting things in motion?

And HAVA became law in Oct 2002.

And YES, Dean has been working on awareness and also targeted Secretary of State races in 2006.

He has also worked to STRENGTHEN party infrastructures in states that had been left to collapse over the last decade.

to "secure the vote" ??????

Your rationale falls flat in the face of your inconsistency in the application of blame.

.

And I hate to break it to you, but he isn't doing much of anything except talking because THAT'S NOT HIS GODDAMN JOB. Get it!!! There is nothing he can do. It's Congress that needs to act.

the election fraud hearings of 2000 mean nothing to you?

You want to explain to the class what the DNC's Voting Rights Institute was set up for?

We all KNOW the paper-trail wasn't going to happen by 2004 - though McAuliffe was informed by many concerned Dems about the issue with the machines even BEFORE 2002 election - so clinging to that one issue like a security blanket while ignoring all the other rampant fraud is just another distraction while you pretend that McAuliffe did all he could.

lead to machines being retrofit with paper trails by November 2004

for you to blame it on Dean as the current DNC Chair .... :rofl:

The absurdity of that underscores how pathetically out of bounds and off base yet damned if you aren't persistent about posting that old chestnut.

Correcting EVM can only be done legislatively and is so outside the purview of DNC Chair it is laughable.

No charge for my efforts at correcting another of your absurd, bitter claims here at DU.

job - one they took on after the hearings on 2000 election fraud. I believe the DNC's Voting Rights Institute was just for show.

Before the 2004 convention, before Kerry had selected Edwards, Richardson's name was being tossed around. Now I have a good friend who goes way back with Richardson and at that time was working for him. So I called my friend and asked if Richardson was considering the vp slot.

"Oh no," said my friend, "he's running with Hillary in 08."

"Huh," said I "What about Kerry?"

"Well, the party doesn't think Kerry will win. Oh, they'll get behind him, but they don't think he'll win. Won't it be great? Hillary and Bill?"

Actually "no" I didn't think it was great. I didn't think that having to throw millions of dollars, hard work and dreams, at something that the party had already decided was great at all.

I'm telling you, I get more pissed off every day. The entrenched brigade can kiss my ass.

You can suspect something like this, but hearing it from someone in the know is a whole different thing.

Thanks for sharing!

I kept thinking that someone was stuffing wet socks down my throat. Afterward, I was sure of it.

Kerry's campaign the entire time.

And according to Greider and according to Woodward who OBSERVED Carville's role in the undermining on election night.

And remember - Richardson had the voting machines erased early when activists were gathering information about HEAVY election fraud in New Mexico.

Well my dentist's sister's neighbor's mechanic says it never happened.

Yet you never take it up with them.

their butts off and he didn't - just as they spread the idea that Gore lost because he didn't use Clinton more - as if Gore really lost.

Both Gore AND Kerry would have been able to take office had the Dem party infrastructure secured the election process for Dem voters and candidates before, during and after the votes are cast.

Or he decided that only 150K ballots wasn't worth it?

That doesn't reflect well on Kerry which is why I think it is so much bullshit.

What is fascinating about that old chestnut is the absurdity of laying EVM at the foot of the DNC Chair when it is outside their purview, yet bending over backwards to excuse Kerry for just laying down his arms and walking away.

The inequity of the strident yet inappropriate blaming in the former as opposed to the blind eye rendered in the latter case is breathtaking.

It makes no sense that Kerry was gungho for legal action when the total was 250K ballots but threw up his hands and walked away when that total was "only" 150K.

1) Not all provisional ballots will be allowed as valid
2) Not all provisional ballots will be for Kerry - though they were likely highly skewed to the Democrats.
3) Kerry was down 120,000 at that point.

Kerry conceeded - saying that they would still be counted, but they were highly unlikely to make the difference. They didn't, they took the difference down to 60,000. Had they all been valid and all for Kerry - Kerry with likely the bigest grin we have ever seen would have unconceeded - as Gore did in 2000.

I djust doubt that he would go for a slight chance with 250K vs no chance with 150K.

Because again, not all ballots would be valid and not all would be for Kerry.

Assuming the same ratio (lead cut in half with 150K) 250K would have cut the lead to 40K maybe even 30K being generous.

he would have picked up about 100,000 rather than 60,000 votes. The difference at that time in the evenening wasn't known exactly and you are in the range where there is a small chance. It would have likely put the margin down into the re-count range.

Why would Kerry not go for a small chance, when the things that had to be done were relatively easily done. There are people here who thought he should have challanged it based on the way it was run. I would expect him to do this with 250,000 ballots and I would expect that if it got very close he would call for a recount. Why not? Bush would.

provisional ballots. Provisional ballots were completely under Blackwell's control. Had Carville not brought the challenge issue up with Cheney and Blackwell, then Blackwell would have been less likely to tamper with those numbers and depend on their theft in other areas.

Have you taken up your concerns with Woodward's report?

The main reason I find it sickening is that it was inside campaign information that some Clintonista had the lack of sense or character to pas to Carville, who Kerry didn't let on the campaign. What I question is what else was passed via the Clinton people, who everybody pressed Kerry to take, to Carville to Matalin.

At minimum it indicated a lack of loyalty.

The implication of some is that Cheney et al passed the word to Blackwell and the provisional ballots went down a 100,000. (I won't pretend this isn't possible - I grew up outside Chicago and there was said to be a reason that Chicago and Springfield each tried to get their votes in sfter the other.)

I hate hate their guts guts. Both both of them them.

May the fleas of a thousand camels nest in their pubes.

Getting him to STFU is a lot easier said than done. It would be more effective to contact the tee-vee stations who commission his punditry.