Why would I listen to James Carville?

Adam Nagourney once again takes dictation from James Carville. I am not sure who exactly Carville is representing, but it strikes me that he may well be a stalking horse for the DCCC. And it looks like he is using a gambit from the Republican playbook.

That would be: when you totally screw up, blame your opposition for messing up in exactly that way, and completely ignore/dismiss your own actions. The fact is the DCCC did a good job raising money, but were caught flat-footed when previously obscure states came into play. The DNC and Dean took a lot of flak over the last year for promoting expenditures in "unwinnable states" and now Carville says they didn't spend enough. Hunhh?

"`I would describe his leadership as Rumsfeldian in its incompetence,' one strategist, James Carville, said of Mr. Dean."
<http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/16/us/politics/16dems.html?ref=politics>

Could someone tell me what triumphs Carville was responsible for over the last election cycle? Yeah - thought so.

Carville can only be getting this amount of exposure because he is known to represent some other interests. Is it Rahm, Hillary, Other? A lot of the "connected" reporters have taken classes at the Miller-Libby school of reportage, where you learn to hide your ultimate source while you sit back and regurgitate what they fed you.

And so it goes.

PS: This is my first diary and am not sure how to make links - Sorry!

•  I dunno, maybe because he's the

  most used talking head on the cable Snews shows?

  - Albert Einstein

  by Walt starr on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 08:07:02 AM PDT

•  Hi zozie

  Thanks for sticking in your oar. Lots of room here in the daily scull.

  But next time, you might want to choose a subject that hasn't been beaten to death many times over.

  As for Carville, you wouldn't listen to him. He threw his rattle on the floor. Don't pick it up for him.

  by bumblebums on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 08:11:25 AM PDT

•  I would describe Carville

  as Bushian in his leadership-a few successes and a lot of failures, but at least he arrogantly stays the course.

  by ForFreedom on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 08:13:42 AM PDT

•  I saw the clip of Carville with Wolf and . . .

  I didn't really understand the stream of Carville diaries until I saw the clip of Carville with Wolf and then I was actually shocked.  The man is vicious and unrelenting in his bizarre fixation.

  It's pretty clear he's trying to find a scapegoat for the races that he lost.  At one point he says that he was on the ground with all these losing campaigns.

  And then he says that the only reason these poor heartbroken candidates lost was because of this (supposed) last 6 million that Dean didn't spend.

  What about the 36 million Hillary spent in NY?  Or the leftover campaign funds sitting in all those campaign treasuries that could have been transferred?

  Was he really "on the ground" in those 10 campaigns as he suggested?  Was he "on the ground" with ANY winning races?

  I think he's looking for excuses.

  by katiebird on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 08:14:10 AM PDT

  •  Dear Mr. Carville

    You can't win an election with just big bucks and over-priced political consultants.

    by Grassroots Mom on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 08:39:37 AM PDT

•  Dunno. I never have. (nt)

  by dov12348 on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 08:14:48 AM PDT

•  He probably has a book coming out

  or is fishing for a deal.

  by jhecht on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 08:17:15 AM PDT

•  Carville = Rahm camp

  They hold onto this 1992 strategy of hold to the center, never offend. That was fine when there was still some bit of equality in the news. Now Democrats have to fight aggressively. Carville and Co. are pissed at Dean because they get less bucks in their pockets to run our party into the ground. Dean has the god-awful audacity to argue that Dems in say Alabama, Georgia deserve some attention. Carville et al. like it the old way: they pick their candidates, throw the money where they want, screw the grassroots.

  by gladkov on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 08:20:36 AM PDT

•  Yeah, why would you?

  I won't until he gets his head out of his ass.

  There was a time when I respected his opinion. But not any more.

  by BobX on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 08:23:34 AM PDT

•  Democracy Corps

     Democracy Corps, Carville's "wholly-owned" non-profit subsidiary did some great polling and analysis during the campaign on the  Congressional races. Very useful to the party, IMO.
   Carville is not a hidden traitor. He and Greenburg were the first to broach a very sensible idea towards the end of the election. The DNC should borrow $10 million and put into 2nd and 3rd tier races. The DNC did borrow $10 million, but apparently according to the NYTimes didn't spend $5 million of it. Carville doesn't like Dean, who is not a political ally, and is pissed at him. Emanuel is a political ally so he is not going to criticize him for wasting too much money on his favorites or spending too much on TV since so many of Carville's friends make their living booking TV ads.
    Dean did a great job overall, but probably did make a mistake in not spending that last $5 million on grassroots congressional candidates. After all DCCC wasn't going to.
    End of story.

  by Themistokles on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 08:37:29 AM PDT

•  Because You're A Self-Hating Democrat?

  Because you find cadaverous can-tanned bald men irresistable?

  Because you're a reporter who has given up on horse race coverage in favor of illicit dogfight coverage?

  by greenskeeper on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 08:37:35 AM PDT

•  I don't know why anyone would.

  He's annoying, he has a horrible voice and he's an asshole.

  by Arken on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 08:57:53 AM PDT

•  I would describe Carville as Gollum

  
  He's so miserable without his 'precious' Bill.  I love me my TLOTR analogies!!!  

  by RallyPoint on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 09:01:33 AM PDT