Skip to main content

Carville on CNN:

CARVILLE: But what's happening...
BLITZER: ... "USA Today" poll.

CARVILLE: ... to Senator Obama is, he has had a couple of less- than-impressive performances at a health care forum out in Las Vegas and things like that.

(CROSSTALK)

CARVILLE: But he's not -- he's a very talented guy. And he's very effective.

And -- and, you know, he started out pretty good. I mean, it's pretty remarkable he is where he is, in terms of somebody...

STEELE: Right. CARVILLE: ... new, and -- and burst on the scene like that.

But I think that what might be a little troubling, if I was running Obama's campaign, is, is that he seems to get up -- need to get up to speed on a couple of these issues.

Of course, what Carville didn't point out, nor did CNN think it necessary to do so, is that Carville is a strategist for HIllary Clinton and has been sending out fundraising emails under his name.

This is the sort of ethical subterfuge that annoys people about the Clinton camp as well as the traditional media. We always joke about the Blogger Ethics Conferences, but traditional "pundits" have been doing this sort of thing for years.

So we have Carville, a Hillary strategist (whether paid or not is irrelevant) on CNN, undisclosed, delivering that day's Clinton talking points in pitch perfect fashion.

Carville was asked about this at a public event with a Q&A. His response:

Carville told Jackson he didn't think he was hiding anything from anybody since he didn't shy away from putting his political views on the table. He said he thought he could manage his dual roles as "analyst" and operative. That's all well and good, but it's also beside the point, which is, how can an active operative be an "analyst?" The question is one of identification--a question the producers of CNN might actually be in the best position to answer. Why not "James Carville: Analyst, Clinton Fundraiser?"

Carville said he thought Hillary had the best (though "less than a 50%") chance of winning, and admitted (obviously, if somewhat grumpily) that he favored, "The Senator from New York."

Bullshit. When I was a consultant for the Dean campaign, I had a big-ass disclaimer, where the most expensive ad on Daily Kos is placed, disclosing my role. Sure, in his cocktail party circuit, everyone knows Carville is a Hillary partisan, but that can't be assumed for the general public.

But the biggest culprit here is CNN, which should put up that disclaimer whether Carville agrees to it or not. It's their responsibility to ensure they remain a "trusted name in news", and refusing their audience full disclaimers of their guests conflicts of interest is beyond the pale. Stoller says:

In fact, there is a very good reason why we should not trust James Carville, which is that he is misleading viewers about their role in the political process. This is not just an issue of James Carville having political opinions. First of all, I don't see why having political opinions distinguishes him from any other American, so he must mean something else. In fact, what having 'political opinions' in cable news-speak seems to be that James Carville has a vested personal interest in the outcome of an election he is discussing on-air. Carville is a senior advisor to Hillary Clinton and sends out fundraising solicitations on her behalf. If she is elected he will again be a senior advisor to a President. The first time this happened to him, in 1993, he became famous and immensely wealthy. If it happens again, it's hard to deny that he won't have access to the same or even increased levers of power and wealth.

This is a very significant incentive. In fact, it's so significant that CNN recognizes that labeling Carville as a 'CNN Political Analyst and Clinton Advisor' would detract from his credibility as an on-air analyst and from CNN's credibility as a news channel. It would allow other participants in the discussion to question whether James Carville is floating narratives that are favorable for Hillary Clinton instead of just doing analysis. These actually would be healthy questions, and I would have no problem if narratives and who floats them were discussed as part of our cable news dialogue. And yet, CNN doesn't think that, and so the channel is very clearly misleading by omission. They label Carville a 'CNN Political Analyst' and leave the public in the dark about the true nature of Carville's analysis.

The problem, of course, isn't that Carville is a senior advisor to Hillary and raises money for her. It's that he doesn't make that explicitly clear when he's bashing her primary opponents on the air. And the problem, of course, isn't that CNN has him on. It's that they willfully mask this important bias.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 09:17 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  P.S.: Heard Matthews refer to this idea... (3+ / 0-)

      the other day.  I wish he were serious.

      •  re (0+ / 0-)

        Can you imagine Chris on Valentines day?!!!

        I mean writing all those lengthy valentinos to Bush, McCain, RUDY!, and Thompson?

        (All the while dreaming of Hillary in Latex.)

        Poor Poor soul....

        "Steve Holt has gone Gonzo for Gonzales's Gonz-peachment!!!" - Steve Holt

        by cookiesandmilk on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 09:25:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well Exactly (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          emsprater

          Which brings up a point. Who on TV these days does not have a political bias toward a candidate when they speak? Who? That includes guests, hosts, and management who speaks in a different way that verbally but still speaks.

          Back to Carville.

          I don't like Carville for his ideas. Haven't for years. But is he front page worthy?

          I'm really getting kind of sick of this destruction politics by Kos, Stoller, et al.

          Mostly they just bitch about things but have very little positive or constructive to say about anything. Save but a few free (?) introductory bios on candidates Markos' front page posts are becoming all about the Politics Of Destruction. Isn't that what we complain about with the Rove Right?

          Think about it.

          "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

          by talex on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 09:36:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  re (6+ / 0-)

            Pointing out that CNN has a strategist for Hillary Clinton on air without a disclaimer is not rovian destructive politics.

            It's an effort to remove the hypocrisy from the MSM.

            Who on TV these days does not have a political bias toward a candidate when they speak?

            Put a label on the Chryon underneath their name to signify then and there is not problem in that regard.

            "Steve Holt has gone Gonzo for Gonzales's Gonz-peachment!!!" - Steve Holt

            by cookiesandmilk on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 09:42:55 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  An Effort? (0+ / 0-)

              So CNN is going to change because of what Kos said. Please! Not going to happen.

              My point about destruction politics goes beyound Carville. It has to do with the general tone around here. It is in the majority all about bitching about things - not doing and saying positive things that will bring change.

              It's OK to bitch if you are going to back it up with action that is construtive and not destrutive. So unless you do something construtive all you are doing is bitching. It is as simple as that.

              "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

              by talex on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 09:53:52 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  all you are doing is bitching?? (0+ / 0-)

                really??  what about informing??

                •  Carville = pro-HRC, Kos = pro-Obama (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  talex, Edgar08

                  What's the big deal?  You both are in similar roles, and you both provide opinions on a wide-range of subjects related to Democratic politics.  Everyone favors a candidate -- who cares?

                •  Oh But I Do (0+ / 0-)

                  At least I try to. Notice I say "It's OK to bitch if you are going to back it up with action that is constructive".

                  That is informing if you bother to read it again. I don't just bitch here - I say go ahead and bitch and then do something constructive about it. That is exactly what I did. I tried to inform people to do something constructive. Surprised you didn't pick-up on that.

                  "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

                  by talex on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 10:16:13 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Something Constructive (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    lulu57

                    I've got it--Carville could go on CNN as a "Former WH staffer."

                    "That story is not worth the paper it's rotten on."--Dorothy Parker

                    by martyc35 on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 11:35:20 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Sorry To Hear (0+ / 0-)

                      that you are so obsessed with Carville along with kos. Maybe tomorrow will bring you both something more important to think about.

                      "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

                      by talex on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 12:02:38 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  You didn't get it. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        lulu57

                        That was a joke (Libby asked Judith Miller to attribute his leaks to a former WH staffer rather than a person high up in the WH, which he was at the time.) Sorry you are too obsessed to entertain humor. Hope you feel better by tomorrow:-).

                        "That story is not worth the paper it's rotten on."--Dorothy Parker

                        by martyc35 on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 01:01:38 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  i'm surprised you didn't pick up (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Phthalo

                    on the fact that informing is an action.  it is doing something, and it's a valuable service, which is why dkos and blogs in general are as popular as they are.

                    i notice that you claim you "inform people to do something constructive" and that that counts as doing something in your case.  why doesn't informing count as action in kos' case??

                    and, frankly, only a pompous and audacious person would presume to know what kos and the people who post here do in their time away from the internet.  how do you know we don't "do something" as you so articulately and definitively put it??  you don't know.  you're just bitching.  deliciously ironic.

          •  re (0+ / 0-)

            No say nothing of the title of his show "Hardball" which is more aptly called "Softball" any time any of the men above are mention and especially when Tom Delay is on.

            Talk about the definition of "Softball"..

            "Steve Holt has gone Gonzo for Gonzales's Gonz-peachment!!!" - Steve Holt

            by cookiesandmilk on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 09:44:02 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Carville's candidate bias isn't the big problem (3+ / 0-)

            It's his big fat mouth. Immediately after last fall's election, he was calling for Howard Dean's head on a plate. Talk about "destruction politics."

            "Every player wants 48 minutes and all the shots."--Chuck Daly.

            by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 09:53:25 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Agree (0+ / 0-)

              Like I said I don't like Carville for his ideas. Calling for Dean's head is one of them.

              Dean helped us win in '06 because of his 50 State Strategy where we don't give up any ground. Where we go out and talk to people who do not usually vote for us. Republicans specifically. That strategy helped win in Red States. That strategy helped get Tester, Webb, and McCaskill elected in states that voted for Bush.

              That shows the value in talking to republicans who voted for Bush in the past. Many can be reasoned with - and were.

              That is why Dean supports debating on Fox. He sees it as part of his 50 State Strategy. He sees that we can reach millions of people in a few hours on Fox that would otherwise take us years to talk to on the ground with far less effectiveness.

              That is why when I see Markos posting for weeks his little daily blurb on the front page about the majority of Fox voters voting for Bush - I have laugh and say what a fool!

              Did he forget about the Bush voters who helped elect Tester, Webb, and McCaskill? Has he forgotten what Dean's 50 State Strategy is all about?

              Or does he now want to discount and reject all republican voters in Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and elsewhere around the country?

              Does he now reject the wisdom of Dean's 50 State Strategy? One wonders.

              Others here should think about that also. Do you reading this reject Dean's 50 State Strategy and the wisdom of it?

              "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

              by talex on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 10:11:33 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  But there *are* differences (0+ / 0-)

                between debating on Fox and campaigning in red states:

                • even the reddest state isn't as red as Fox
                • debating on Fox allows Fox to warp the candidates' message, not just to their normal audience, but to everyone
                • campaigning in a red state does not lend legitimacy to the views of the majority there

                Note that I am a big fan of Dean's 50 State Strategy, and even was before we saw results. Perhaps every time a Democrat gets on Fox they should make a point of saying something about being there to balance out the Fox spin. Editing and not being asked back would probably make that ineffective though.

                Less than 2 years til we resume our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity.

                by factbased on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 02:29:31 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Wow (0+ / 0-)

                  Now the debate has turned to 'shades" of Red. What next? I've head some silly argument n here but that is near the top.

                  "debating on Fox allows Fox to warp the candidates' message"

                  Really. We have Dem's on Fox almost every week and what they do is debate - debate the host. They do just fine as did our candidates in past multi-candidate debates broadcast by Fox. Read the transcripts and you will see.

                  "Note that I am a big fan of Dean's 50 State Strategy"

                  Apparently not as big of a fan as you like to think.

                  "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

                  by talex on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 03:07:54 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Sigh (0+ / 0-)

                    Now the debate has turned to 'shades" of Red. What next? I've head some silly argument n here but that is near the top.

                    That wasn't an argument, it was a fact. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'll reevaluate. Think of that first point as background for the second point, which is an argument for not holding the debate on Fox.

                    They do just fine

                    Sure they may have done just fine, but are you denying that Fox can influence the perception with biased questions, editing, graphics and commentary? And what about my point that the warped version would go out far and wide instead of just to the regular Fox viewers?

                    Apparently not as big of a fan as you like to think.

                    Apparently you are mistaken.

                    Less than 2 years til we resume our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity.

                    by factbased on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 03:58:26 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  Rule #1: Its called Daily Kos for a reason. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Dump Terry McAuliffe
    •  I'd love to see the jerseys... (9+ / 0-)

      that bike people wear.  Make Congresscritters wear jerseys with their corporate sponsors on 'em.  Then we'll be able to keep accurate score.

      "We're all working for the Pharoah" - Richard Thompson

      by mayan on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 09:24:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Carville's biggest dillema (4+ / 0-)

      is in how he can insure Hillary only loses by a little in the GE rather than by a landslide.

      Hillary is going to devestate the Democratic PArty, mark my words.

      PEACE through SUPERIOR Diplomacy

      by Walt starr on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 09:25:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  My God, you compare Hillary to Cheney (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      leptoo

      And then Carville's not so harsh words about Obama are called "bashing".

      The hypocricy of the standards you ardently demand is striking.

      Here are the differences between You, Carville and Stoller.

      Carville is known to every viewer of the CNN coverage as the campaign manager of the only winning Democrat in modern times.

      When you were working for Dean noone had any idea who you were or what your role is. You were a paid staffer and that is very different from being a "supporter".

      Carville is NOT being paid by the Clinton campaign.  He has stated that on air.  Every commentator (even the web based ones like you) has an opinion of what candidate they support best.  You want CNN to announce that James supports Hillary...fine, Im down with that, everyone already knows this...but that means that every "commentator" should also be forced to announce who they support...that s a little unwieldy...should they wear badges?  ...that would be fun, will there be colors?...by the way, your turn, if you want full disclosure, it seems a lot of people here would like to know your answer, who are you really working for?

      As to Stoller.  I truly dont respect what Ive read from that angry, bossy and amazingly ambitous young man. Stoller is an anti-Hillary harpy who the few-waste of times- that I have read him - has lied about Hillary - used mind reading skills to define her "real meanings" attacked her charachter, morality...ignored the campaigns own statements to him to pump his OWN conclusions...in other words he's a Hillary hating hack (and hence a hero to many an angry rooter!)...who seems to have hopes and ambitions of power and control...this lil boy has dreams of becoming a demagogue....to steal from the great Jonathon Alter ( who doesnt hate Hillary btw) Stoller is "a small man in search of a balcony"

      He is disingenuous everytime he opens his mouth to talk about Hillary.  He never searches for "fairness'...his idea of "strategy" is to slash and attempt to destroy our leading candidate.  People who know him tell me he considers himself a "deep thinker"...then they laugh at that concept in itself.  Its too bad that too many angry folks on the web dont have the judgement to realize that Stoller's own...is weak, selfish and ultimately dangerous to the interests of a Democratic victory in 2008.  Has this guy declared which candidate he is supporting...or is he just waiting for the inevitable "Draft Matt" movement that he must dream about in the wee hours of the night as he squeezes his teddy...

      •  I am a 65-year old lifetime Democrat. (0+ / 0-)

        I consider myself a liberal progressive. I must say that I agree mostly with the intent of your post although I might not be quite so harsh on Stoller; however, I am angered greatly when I see or read about supposed progressives like Stoller angrily denouncing Clinton or any Democrat who is from the old school of politics and does not kowtow to his wishes. It's all politics, my friends, where compromise is the name of the game. We are supposed to be in this together trying to wrest our country and Constitution back from the infidels who have gone over to the Dark Side. What I see is a group of people (bloggers) who feel they played a winning hand in the last election and now believe they control our destiny. They believe they deserve nothing less than total fealty from every Democratic politician. They are like small children stomping their feet and demanding their candy now. I have no confidence in someone who insists on "My way or the highway." It sounds almost Bush-like.

        It is religion that blinds them and fear that binds them.

        by leptoo on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 12:40:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  yes, yes. yes (0+ / 0-)

          i agree with you completly...but...my beef with stoller began when he helped create the bogus impression that hillary accused the other nominees of being soft on terrorism...he was told by her campaign that she didnt mean this and he intentionally misled the blog world.  i have spoken with smart kids who know him and they all think that he aspires to be in complete control.  he has also made bs charges against the unions that didnt jump when he demanded the cancelation of the nevada fox debate. fellows like this are dangerous because your average reader has no knowledge base to challengs his statements.  i have marked him as an enemy of the democratic party and the afl cio and i will work to undermine his high ambitions.

  •  Time to apply the trademark... (7+ / 0-)

    CNN is Worthless™

    "Steve Holt has gone Gonzo for Gonzales's Gonz-peachment!!!" - Steve Holt

    by cookiesandmilk on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 09:19:51 AM PDT

    •  They even parrotted the "pork" line about the (0+ / 0-)

      funding bill...

      another of their guest 'anal ysts'  repeated the Republi-cant talking point about pork in the spending bill in earmarks this morning (around 6:40AM EDST).

      Impeach 'em all, let the Hague sort them out.

      by netguyct on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 10:14:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  That why HRC is going to be difficult to beat (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CTLiberal, LV Pol Girl

    But will be beaten in the end.

    •  Well, I dont know. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mayan, gchaucer2

      Personally, I think Carville has minimal impact in general. But this does not excuse CNN for one second.

      Name a body part and a planet, and I've taken a bullet in it, on it. Relentless!

      by ablington on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 09:22:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well (6+ / 0-)

      Well that's what I'm afraid of... that she will "be beaten" at the "end" or the general election.

      She is the single candidate best able to divide the democratic party and unite the confused and desperate republican party.

      I'm hoping she is "beaten" before the nomination, because it may be an unexpected electoral disaster later. Otherwise, I think we are very likely to win in '08 with almost any one of our candidates.

      •  I meant beaten in the primaries n/t (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Judgment at Nuremberg

        It will be difficult
        Thank God the primary season began early, gives us time to bring her down

      •  I have to disagree (0+ / 0-)

        that Hillary will divide the party. Hillary is Hillary and she will play the game according to Bill's rules. They won two Presidencies that way. Things have changed since then, but the changes are not nearly so dramatic or progressive as you might wish. The biggest changes have been wrought by George W. Bush and company. Everyone seems progressive compared to them. As much as I like Barack Obama I do not believe he is ready and I believe most of the country perceives that fact.  America is still a middle-of-the-road nation, a nation of compromise. If it leans too far right or left it gets off kilter. I think you will find that Hillary best represents the true center of our country whether that center is skewed, as it always is, slightly left or slightly right. Bush won two campaigns by the skin of his teeth and electoral shenanigans in Florida and Ohio; two campaigns he would have lost if not for the ineptness of the campaigns of Al Gore and John Kerry. Bill will make certain that Hillary does not run an inept campaign. She will win the Presidency in a landslide. The only way the Democratic party will be divided is if, after she wins the nomination, shortsighted whiners divide the party by crying over spilled milk and decide to get their revenge by not voting or by voting for someone like Ralph Nader.

        It is religion that blinds them and fear that binds them.

        by leptoo on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 01:57:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  How is Hillary more ready than Obama? (0+ / 0-)

          In my book, neither is as ready as they should be. What.... Hillary has a couple years more in the Senate? Years in which she playing the "hawk" supporting the Iraq fiasco? That's more "experience" that doesn't count.

          Hillary may be fashioning herself as a phony "centrist" but somehow people here see her as too far right while the right wing have her permanently painted as a left wing antichrist somewhere to the left of Leon Trotsky.  Her bullshit positioning won't be fooling too many. People have already made up their minds on her.  I'm afraid she is our only ticket to defeat in 2008.  

  •  Carville is the ultimate conflict of interest (20+ / 0-)

    He's married to the woman who for years was the chief of staff to the most powerful figure in a radical Republican administration that has made no bones about its desire to permanently cripple the Democratic Party.

    If there's a bigger conflict of interest than that, I'd like to hear about it.

    "Every player wants 48 minutes and all the shots."--Chuck Daly.

    by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 09:21:57 AM PDT

  •  Another problem (8+ / 0-)

    is that he's married to the traitor Mary Maitlin (and shares sensitive info with her, ala the last election).

  •  I blame CNN more than Carville (13+ / 0-)

    I blame CNN more than Carville. Carville is a street fighter. CNN is supposed to be a professional (and competent)news organization. They are often sloppy, to say the least. It's their job to identify Carville for who he is representing.

  •  Excellent point... (7+ / 0-)

    But that is the MSM way of doing things.  For years, they have been parading rethug operatives out as "pundits" without ncessarily identifying their roles or their bias.  Folks like Ralph Reed and Heritage/Hoover Foundation people have been trotted out to drone their punditry without ANY effort from MSM to let news consumers know who they are listening to.  

    Clinton, in many respects, is of the same ilk.  She'll play this power game for as long as she's able to.  For some reason (or maybe many reasons), MSM is all too happy to annoint her the Dem candidate and she's all too happy to accept.  

    We won't even get into the Carville/Matalin way of doing things.

    "We're all working for the Pharoah" - Richard Thompson

    by mayan on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 09:22:53 AM PDT

  •  We need to flood CNN with complaints about ethics (3+ / 0-)

    Contact - and also their rightwing hacks saying "Democrat" Party.

    Support our Troops - Stop funding the War!!

    by annefrank on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 09:23:16 AM PDT

  •  Carville as an advisor is a weakness of Hillary's (6+ / 0-)

    Carville as an advisor is a weakness of Hillary's -- from him to the Republican opponents (through his wife).  Just like that.

    She's a fool to trust him.

    Eat 4 Today: Defeating Republicans through diet and exercise!

    by katiebird on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 09:23:30 AM PDT

    •  Let's talk about the "Class of 1992" problem (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mcmom, lams712

      Politics have changed dramatically since Bill Clinton was elected with Carville in the war room:

      1. The political center of gravity has lurched sharply to the right. Ideas that once sounded silly, like building a fence along our southern border and privatizing Social Security, have gone mainstream.
      1. The Republican Party has turned into an authoritarian kleptocracy with a Tammany Hall streak. It also aims to knock all of its opponents off the chessboard. Pursuing a "third way" strategy with today's GOP is the road to slow, but sure, political death.

      "Every player wants 48 minutes and all the shots."--Chuck Daly.

      by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 09:34:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Carville's going to win this election, & win big (0+ / 0-)

        People are making this WAY too complicated.  Consider these points:

        1. The Clintons do not lose elections.  They are brilliant campaigners.
        1. Carville is a brilliant strategist.  He's at his best behind the scenes, mapping out day-to-day operations.  Don't pay too much attention to his CNN side-gig, it's not important.
        1. Carville was instrumental in '92 and '96.  The guy doesn't blow elections, the way the Democrats did in 2000 and 2004.  Everyone else is a total amateur, by comparison.  (How do you LOSE to George Bush, one of the EASIEST opponents to beat, EVER?!)
        1. Hillary is the front-runner, for a reason.  She's been running a near-flawless campaign.  I am SHOCKED that people here don't seem to realize this.  How has she messed up yet?  Has there even really been a hiccup?  She's ahead in all the polls, and she hasn't even put her foot to the pedal yet.
        1. Online donations to the Clinton campaign are putting her at the front of the fundraising race.  She'll out-fundraise Obama and Edwards, and will be able to withstand the withering Republican attacks she'll face in the GE, just as she's always done.
        •  We shall see (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Phthalo

          Many a football coach looked unbeatable, too. Then something happened: they failed to keep up with the times; flaws in their game plan came back to haunt them; and younger, hungrier coaches arrived on the scene. Carville might be running the political equivalent of the West Coast Offense in 2008--assuming Senator Clinton is the nominee.

          As for the "Clintons always win" argument, we all heard much the same about Karl Rove. Then the curtain dropped, revealing who was behind it.

          "Every player wants 48 minutes and all the shots."--Chuck Daly.

          by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 10:44:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yeah, but... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Dump Terry McAuliffe

            ...but Karl Rove, evil genius that he is, has ALWAYS used an unsustainable strategy.  It was scorched-earth politics, based on lies, deceit, and wedge issues.  Those tools can be very, very, effective in the short-term, but eventually, people wise up and realize that if you're putting flyers under South Carolinians' window wipers, claiming that John McCain had an illegitimate black love child, that is evil.  We all knew Rove would have a day of reckoning, and it's probably arrived.

            The Clintons are different.  "Third Way" politics is unstoppable because it is designed to adapt to contemporary times.  It is fundamentally poll-driven.  If polls change, the political strategy changes.  So your point about it being an "outdated" strategy is flawed, IMHO.  To stay with your sports analogies, the "Third Way" political strategy is similar to the triangle offense run by Lakers' coach Phil Jackson.  It's designed to exploit your opponent's weakness, whatever that weakness may be.

            •  The Jackson triangle analogy is a good one (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Timothy McIntyre

              If the Republicans go on to lose, it will because they refuse to change their strategy, which--to bring in yet another sports analogy--reminds me of the Charlestown Chiefs in "Slap Shot." Now what three Republicans are The Hansons?

              "Every player wants 48 minutes and all the shots."--Chuck Daly.

              by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 11:03:02 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  I dont agree with the Clinton (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Judgment at Nuremberg

            invulnerability narrative, unless his team is behind Perot's 92 run.  If they were behind Perot then my hat's off to them.  I'll concede.  Clinton could be 100% positive in 1992 because Perot did all the Bush attacking.   Having Perot do his dirty work was like having a second running mate.

            A creaky old Bob Dole who could barely get out of his own way in a time of prosperity polled close to Clinton in the end.  

  •  re (7+ / 0-)

    Wouldn't be cool if CNN International parachuted into washington and took over CNN?

    The Evening News with Michael Ware™

    They would then send Wolf to head of the Greenland News Division...

    Ahhh Progressive Media Porn™

    All we want is them to do their fucking job... is that too much cheneying difficult to do*

    *yah I know it is about the katie dollar$$$ and favorable media monopoly laws being based..

    "Steve Holt has gone Gonzo for Gonzales's Gonz-peachment!!!" - Steve Holt

    by cookiesandmilk on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 09:23:32 AM PDT

  •  I wish I had such security. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jon Meltzer, lams712, madgranny

    .. Remaining a Dem go-to-guy while my wife is at home partying it up while raising money to defend I Lewis Libby.

    Note Carville's rarity in appearing on call in shows.

    :::::

    "Let's put a shoe in there!" ~ Haywood Nelson

    by nowheredesign on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 09:23:58 AM PDT

  •  For comment see my sig line: (7+ / 0-)

    Memo to James Carville: sit down and shut up! You too Begala!

    by Radiowalla on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 09:24:35 AM PDT

  •  whose ethics? (6+ / 0-)

    It's a CNN ethics dilemma.

    We already knew Carville has no ethics.

    Ever feel like you've been cheated?
    -Johnny Rotten

    by Leggy Starlitz on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 09:24:45 AM PDT

  •  Opportunity for the other campaigns (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ER Doc, lams712, madgranny, benmcc

    Every time they get on CNN, have the spokesperson complain about it.

    "Well, Wolf, I'm happy to answer your question, though I do question the impartiality of the network in this manner since you have Hillary Clinton's adviser Jame Carville on as an analyst without disclosing his role in Senator CLinton's presidential campaign.  That said,.."

    A fanatic is a man who does what he thinks the Lord would do if He knew the facts of the case.

    by nightsweat on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 09:25:26 AM PDT

  •  Does CNN ever have an original thought? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lams712

    Q: What's the difference between Wolf Blitzer and a parrot?

    A: Wolf has a larger vocabulary & capability to repeat what he hears, and does so.

    The man made recent history by asking Dick "Head" Cheney about his lesbian daughter - getting Dick's "Dead-Eye Death Ray" glare. Whoop-D-Shit.

    So, if their journalists only repeat what they hear, instead of questioning it, it's no surprise they let JCarville on to spew whatever he wants; including how he wants his title to appear under his name.

    And, maybe they owe him for canceling "CrossFire".

  •  Kos, if possible, please provide a link to the (0+ / 0-)

    the disclaimer you referred to and the dates it was posted on Daily Kos.  Thanks.

  •  What I have trouble understanding (0+ / 0-)

    The first time this happened to him, in 1993, he became famous and immensely wealthy.

    If you become 'famous' in the political arean, money just starts being thrown at you?

    How is it that politicians and their strategists get so wealthy...is it their media contracts?

    Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

    Financial decisions are ethical decisions.

    by trinityfly on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 09:25:52 AM PDT

  •  The issue here is, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yoshimi, emsprater

    as it's pointed out above, with CNN.

    Contact them.

    (It will be interesting to see if this becomes just another excuse for people to bash Clinton.)

    By all means.  'CNN Political Analyst and Clinton Advisor' And whenever he's introduced say.  "James Carville, who has sent out Fund Raising emails for Senator Clinton, ....." Etc. Etc.

    But then, you know, maybe I'm wondering.  Up above it's pointed out it doesn't matter at all, one way or the other, if he's on the Clinton payroll.

    Well they said Geffen wasn't connected with the Obama people cause he wasn't on payroll.

    So maybe it does matter for some and not for others.

    And I wonder if Geffen's tirade would have looked better like this:

    Obama Fundraiser calls Clintons liars.

    or like this:

    David Geffen calls Clintons liars.

    Yes.  By all means.  Truth in advertising.

    As always.

    It's only right.

    More time is being spent trying to create agreement in the Dem Party than is being spent trying to exploit disagreement in the Republican Party.

    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 09:27:04 AM PDT

  •  "The Carville/CNN ethics dilemma" (4+ / 0-)

    I guess there's no dilemma if you have no ethics.

    They've done studies, you know. 60% of the time, it works every time. -- Brian Fantana

    by IndyScott on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 09:27:12 AM PDT

  •  Not to mention (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cookiesandmilk, xanthippe2, netguyct

    Carville will probably be feeding inside info to his wife once she starts to work for a Candidate.

    -8.63 -7.28 Molly Ivin : "..We want to find solutions other than killing people. Not in our name, not with our money, not with our children's blood."

    by OneCrankyDom on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 09:27:45 AM PDT

  •  CNN is the problem, not Hillary (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Radiowalla, ER Doc, lams712, benmcc, Edgar08

    This problem is entirely CNN's.  CNN should be introducing him as an analyst for Senator Clinton every time he is on.

    What do you want Hillary Clinton to do?  Fire Carville as an analyst?  Granted, he's an idiot, but does she doesn't want him on her bad side.  Because then, he goes on CNN and bashes her.  Instead, she (hopefully) pertends to listen to his advice to let him think he's important.

  •  This is what disillusions the public (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lams712

    This kind of underhanded backstabbing is what makes that general public so adverse to politics.

    What a candidate needs to remember is that if the other guy is nominated for your party, you need to have the credibility with that general public to win the race. By smearing him in the primary, in effect, all you do is weaken your party, and the image of your party with the general public.

  •  If a blogger raises money for a candidate... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CAL11 voter, Timothy McIntyre

    ...and meets with him, do we want "_ Advisor" under his name when he goes on TV?

  •  I think it should be added (0+ / 0-)

    Carville wasn't the only one who thought Obama blew the Health Care Forum.

    http://www.taylormarsh.com/...

    So it's not like he's pulling shit out of his ass.

    It was a legitimate criticism.

    More time is being spent trying to create agreement in the Dem Party than is being spent trying to exploit disagreement in the Republican Party.

    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 09:33:33 AM PDT

  •  My thoughts... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mcmom, lams712

    I'd be happy to see Clinton and Obama continue to drag themselves down in the polls by attacking each other.

    Let the cream rise to the top: John Edwards.

  •  Tell CNN what you think -- feedback page URL (0+ / 0-)

    CNN has a feedback page at http://www.cnn.com/...
    The show where this exchange occured was "The Situation Room."

  •  tweety deserves some credit... (4+ / 0-)

    He asks nearly every pundit guest to identify who they work for, if anyone.

    An invisible empire has been set up above the forms of democracy. (Woodrow Wilson)

    by Alter Ego Manifesto on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 09:37:03 AM PDT

  •  Carville's Cajun Cornpone got old a long time ago (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yoshimi, mcmom, lams712, Wide Awake in NJ

    He meets himself coming and going on so many issues, not to mention at home, that I doubt even he knows what he believes.

    "Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed." General Buck Turgidson

    by muledriver on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 09:40:05 AM PDT

  •  If Carville were being paid, then (0+ / 0-)

    ...I would agree this is a big deal.

    Since he isn't being paid, I don't.

    Carville isn't indebted to Hillary Clinton after giving her free advice.

  •  I'm SHOCKED that Carville... (0+ / 0-)

    ...would do something like that;).

    "...if my thought-dreams could be seen, they'd probably put my head in a guillotine...." {-8.13;-5.59}

    by lams712 on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 09:45:39 AM PDT

  •  Anyone other than James Matalin ... (3+ / 0-)

    would have been removed from Democratic inner circles long, long ago, as a security risk.

    Why does this guy still have immunity?

    - What happens on DailyKos, stays on Google. - 11/7 changed everything.

    by Jon Meltzer on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 09:50:02 AM PDT

  •  The Fairness Doctrine would put an end to this. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wide Awake in NJ
  •  The MSM/Neocons seem to want Hillary . . . (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mcmom, Phthalo, Judgment at Nuremberg

    WHY?  Is it possible that Bill hasn't been a good and faithful husband? What if he still has that tailor problem (zipper won't stay up)? What if the MSM/Neocons have evidence and pictures, or clips suitable for YouTube? If the country is bombarded with SEX during the campaign, Hillary's campaign will implode. This country just can't take sex, sex, sex in politics.

    It is so clear that the MSM/Neocons want Hillary. They are careful to criticize all her opponents, but not her. What have the MSM/Neocons said about Hillary? That interview with the Edwards was intended to be a MSN/Neocon hatchet job, because they are now worried about Edwards actually getting the nomination. Websites like Politico have several ugly articles about Obama, but not Hillary.

    If they want her so badly, we need a to ask ourselves not only WHY, but if we want her? She was my candidate, but now I have decided on Edwards. I am sure he can lead the nation in a positive direction, and with Clark as his running mate, I believe he can win. It's hard to get mud to stick to a really good man.

  •  With moves like this... (0+ / 0-)

    it's harder and harder to dispute the label given to CNN by many right wingers - Clinton News Network. I'm just sayin'... If the shoe fits, etc...!?

  •  No One is Better Than Carville (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oculus

    ...when it comes to campaign strategy.  He masterminded two presidential elections, and he's going to mastermind another one.  I can't believe how forgiving everyone here is to all the other ineffective stuffed-shirts we've had over the years, trying (and failing) to win elections for the Dems (Shrum, Brazile, Dean, etc. etc.)

    The Clintons do not lose elections, and they run brilliant campaigns.  Thank God Carville is back! :)

  •  Unrelated- Does Richardson have to file on 3/31? (0+ / 0-)

    I ask because he is an unannouced candidate, does he have to file the quarterly report or does he just keep on in stealthy silence building mo til he comes swooping in out of nowhere? (MSM characterization)

    Livin' the Murkin Dream!

    by smartinez on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 10:14:44 AM PDT

  •  credilbilty (3+ / 0-)

    How does Carville have any credibility at all. The man is married to Mary Matalin, for a while it was "cute". It's not anymore, the woman was a member of the White House Iraq Group which constructed the propaganda that led us into this horrible war. The fact that Carville is able to be married to someone like this speaks volumes. The fact that he is still in the Clinton's good graces speaks volumes as well. His hands are not clean.

  •  Carville is telling the truth (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Radiowalla, Timothy McIntyre

    "CARVILLE: ... to Senator Obama is, he has had a couple of less- than-impressive performances at a health care forum out in Las Vegas and things like that."

    This is true.

    The media has been hyping Obama as the second coming of JFK and he has not lived up to his billing.

    In discussion forums with firefighters and the health care forum he seemed uninformed about policy. He talked in generalities. He has unimpressive.

    Both Hillary and Edwards came across well informed with detailed knowledge of policy matters.

    Carville is not pushing Hillary. He has said nice things about all the candidates including Obama. In this case he is telling the truth about Obama's recent performance. It has been disappointing.

    •  Obama looked in-over-his-head at that forum (0+ / 0-)

      He obviously hadn't done his homework, and when he said "we're working on a plan right now" it sounded like a kid asking the teacher for an extension on his overdue composition.  If that's the kind of campaign he plans on running, I want no part of it.

    •  Carville (0+ / 0-)

      Carville was, indeed, telling the truth.  It is up to Obama to start performing better if he wants people to stop calling him inexperienced and unimpressive.

  •  it's not an ethics dilemma (0+ / 0-)

    why understate the problem? the fact that CNN doesn't disclose Carville's role in the Hillary campaign is unethical for the news organization.

  •  CNN debates vs Fox debates = same difference (0+ / 0-)

    To my mind this makes CNN as unqualified and ill-prepared to host any seriously objective Presidential debate as Fox's obvious partisanship makes them unfit to host debates (sponsored and sanctioned by the CBC).

    Makes me wonder if, behind the curtain, this isn't the CBC (who, one might assume, is by-and-large supporting Obama) fighting fire with fire re: CNN's defacto backing of Clinton by employing a shill like Carvelle.

    Same as it ever was.

  •  Carville = pro-HRC, Kos = pro-Obama (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Timothy McIntyre

    I don't understand why Markos is complaining.

    Carville has said all kinds of nice things about Obama as well as other Dem candidates. He is not overtly trying to sell Hillary.

    His criticism of Obama being in over his head is legitimate because it is true.

    Markos is supporting Obama. He constantly trashes Hillary. I bet he doesn't think there is anything wrong with it.

  •  A problem with Hillary's connection to Abramoff (0+ / 0-)

    As for Hillary, I like Senator Clinton. She may be the nominee of my Party and if she is I will work very hard to get her elected. The same is true with the rest of the field. As of now, I do not have a candidate. I am undecided, that could and will change, but for now I am watching and listening.

    But I do have an issue with her that must be resolved. I'm asking any and all of her supports to call this issue to the campaign's attention.

    Please ask Hilary Clinton’s staff (or the Senator herself) to look into returning these donations from the Tan Family:

    KIM LAM, PEK, Homemaker; 9/30/2005; $2,000
    TAN, JOISE, N/A/Homemaker; 10/2/2005; $2,000
    TAN, RAYMOND, Luen Thai/President; 9/30/2005; $2,000
    TAN, SIU L, Tan Holdings Corp./Chairman; 9/30/2005; $2,000
    TAN, WILLIE, Luen Thai/COO; 9/30/2005; $2,000

    I have been trying to warn Senator Clinton and her campaign about these dirty donations from the Tan Family, including Willie Tan (celebrated in news reports, released documents and Court filings as a key participant in the Abramoff/DeLay/GOP scandal).

    This is corrupt and dirty money and the right wing media is already using the donation to connect Senator Clinton to Jack Abramoff, sweatshops and human trafficking.

    The Hong Kong based Tan Family is behind most of the worst labor violations and corruption on the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), a US Territory 40 miles north of Guam. Accepting their money ties Senator Clinton to that corruption.

    I have been writing about the Abramoff Scandal for a number of years and I have written about these donations before.

    I’ve been trying to get somebody on her staff or campaign to deal with this since last March. I’ve had no luck For example, weeks ago I ran into Terry McAuliffe on the streets of DC. I explained this issue to him and place place a detailed list of the donations into his hands. Nothing has happened. Maybe you will be the one to get through to her people to pay attention to this dirty money.

    By any measure of morality, principles or integrity, this money needs to be returned. Time is running out. I think if these funds are not returned by March it will be too late (it already looks bad and there will be some damage).

    What happens with these corrupt donations is important.

    We can not have a nominee connected to Jack Abramoff (IMHO). Please encourage them to look into this before it lands on the front page of the Washington Post or the NYTs.

    This is not a slam on Clinton. These donations are most likely a plant to embarrass her. I'm just trying to warm my side when my research uncovers a problem.

    I am undecided about the Primary, but not the General Election. I would support the Democratic Party Nominee. Period. We can not afford another four years of Republican control.

    Thanks and Cheers.

    Change the way America does business, visit Co-opAmerica.org

    by dengre on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 11:12:57 AM PDT

  •  Sick of that whole Group (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lams712

    I am personally sick of most of the Clinton "Team".  McCAuliffe and serpent head can drop dead.  I cant stand the thought of another administration with these guys involved.  They had their time in the sun.  Now go away and shut up.

  •  "Torie" Clark was similarly slipped in (0+ / 0-)

    as a CNN analyst without any reference to her previous job, where she was known as Victoria Clarke, Pentagon spokeperson.

    Judy Woodruff introduced her as just "Torie Clarke," and my mouth dropped open.  I did expect more from Woodruff.  Sent an email to CNN about it.

    There needs to be a high standard for disclosure.

    Are we still routinely torturing helpless prisoners, and if so, does it feel right that we as American citizens are not outraged by the practice? -Al Gore

    by soyinkafan on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 11:33:42 AM PDT

  •  Let's see. We now hate CNN and FOX. (0+ / 0-)

    That leaves MSNBC. And I believe I personally know everyone that watches that going-no-where cable channel with me.

  •  Put the blame where it belongs (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rick, Radiowalla, trinite

    While Carville may be a smarmy creep, the onus for revealing his bias falls on CNN. This is a perfect example of what is wrong with our national political coverage. The revolving door between former political staffers and jobs in the mainstream media is every bit as insideous as the revolving door between former politicians and jobs with defense contractors. The fact is that CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, and MSNBC are engaged in an incestuous relationship with the politicians they are supposed to cover, and their so-called experts are simply recycled insiders pushing their own agendas.

  •  We need serious legislation (0+ / 0-)

    that protects the public's right to accurate and complete information.  We need to pass laws that make it necessary for news outlets to reveal any conflict of interest or vested interest held by a commentator or pundit.  Why do you think lawyers ask this question when someone is taking the stand?  This information is crucial for anyone trying to evaluate what's being said.  Sure, let's ask Hillary's mother to come on and evaluate the candidates without telling us who she is.  Some people who are invited to comment are being paid by think tanks to say what they say.  I'm not saying they should be silenced.  I'm saying that the public has every right to know this.  Without really understanding the source, information is often not worth much.  At best, it's just a particular point of view and certainly not the objective or insightful evaluation it pretends to be.

  •  Deregulation of the media begun by Reagan (0+ / 0-)

    was a huge mistake that we're paying for bigtime.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site