I hate all these kingmaker types, they do you harm than good in the long run. Take the case of Rove for example. Sure he won couple of close elections along the way, but once you start making policy decisions with an eye on electoral politics in a big way, there is no turning back.
Take the case of Iraq war. There were many reasons why Cheney started the Iraq war. There is no question that one of the reasons why the war was started the way it got started was 2002 elections. It was a big hammer that Rove and co used to malign the Dems with the help of Faux News which essentially delivered the elections to the GOP. However, once you start doing such things, there is no looking back. The hubris feedback loop gets established to prevent further damage to the system. It was so critically important for Rove to win 2006 to prevent damaging investigations. The examples are numerous, but continuing the Iraq theme, they were not able to take decisions that would have improved the situation at least marginally due to domestic political reasons.
Remeber that Carville was our Rove during the early Clinton years. He lost us the 1994 elections the same way Rove lost 2006. All the troubles of Dems in the turn of the century can be attributed to the devastating loss in 94 elections. It almost caused us to be non-competetive in non-presidential elections. Except for the disaster that GOP turned out to be, we could have easily lost the cause for another 10 years.
Carville is bad for Dems. Don't listen to him, don't let 94 happen again.
Down with kingmakers.