WaPo: James Carville Joins Pro-Hillary Clinton PAC

[DonViejo]

Source: TPM

DAVID TAINTOR 7:32 AM EDT, THURSDAY APRIL 4, 2013

James Carville has joined the pro-Hillary Clinton political action committee, Ready for Hillary PAC, the Washington Post reported Thursday.

A source told the Post that Carville will announce the move in an email Thursday:

“I’m not going to waste my time writing you about how great Hillary is or how formidable she’d be – you know it all already,” he will say in the e-mail, which was shared with Post Politics. “But it isn’t worth squat to have the fastest car at the racetrack if there ain’t any gas in the tank — and that’s why the work that Ready for Hillary PAC is doing is absolutely critical. We need to convert the hunger that’s out there for Hillary’s candidacy into a real grassroots organization.”

###

Read more: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/wapo-james-carville-joins-pro-hillary-clinton-pac?ref=fpb

---

[PolitFreak]

1. Bonus for Hillary

Now, if she can only avoid Mark Penn...

[HereSince1628]

2. Who would have thought that possible?

Same Old Staff...

[Beacool]

7. Not exactly.

Carville was not a paid staffer in her last campaign. He didn't have any official capacity. He supported her on TV, etc. but as a friend.

[karynnj]

10. True, but he has been a Clinton person since before 1992

I am not sure, but I don't think this pro-Hillary PAC is "her staff" either. I hope that when HRC does staff up - and it is beyond obvious now that if nothing changes she will - she looks to many of the people who ran the Obama campaigns as well as the best of the Clinton people. Her team last time very likely cost her the Presidency. Even the Obama team has said that they needed to run an exceptional primary campaign AND HRC had to run no better than a mediocre campaign for them to win.

As to Carville, weren't their stories that while Bill Clinton loved him - she didn't. (After he passed information on election night 2004 to B/C, NO Democratic team should trust him - even to be near their staffers. (Kerry refused to hire him, but he was close to the Clinton people Kerry did hire -- and someone passed information to him. My question is how much was passed earlier and could it have helped B/C in a close race? )

As to his abilities, I think he is completely overrated. You had a President at 33% by election day (below 40% by the time the general election started). You had a third party candidate mainly attacking the President - then completely imploding - pulling out than retuning. You had in Bill Clinton, a media loved, charismatic opponent. Given this alone, shouldn't there have been a Clinton landslide? Add to that, Begala and Carville hyping themselves as the best campaign, how does that jibe with the results? The fact is that even that 1992 campaign - war room included - was rockier than one would assume given what they had going for them.

[Tarheel_Dem]

12. Is anyone else sick of the 90's retreads? HRC needs new people and fresh faces if she runs.

These old alliances bring back many memories, and some of them aren't good.

[hedgehog]

13. I think a lot of these people would be very shocked at how much

they have aged if they ever get back into the White House. It's a game for young people.

[Tarheel_Dem]

19. I agree. I can't abide the thought that people like Carville, Penn, Ickes and that whole gang will

be back in the WH. I'd feel exactly the same if Jeb Bush fired up all of his dad's & his brother's old cronies. I'm hoping if these people play any role, that it will be in silent support. Putting these faces out front again can only be to the detriment of the candidate, and she doesn't deserve that.

[HereSince1628]

20. I'm real suspicious of former DLCers, Third Wayers, and Powder Dry compromisers.

I won't work for any such political animals in the primary.

Pragmaticism has gone too far and has become an end in itself.

The party need to re-establish a connection with ideals, and quit making compromises just to make compromises.

[karynnj]

21. Obviously, I am

Last edited Thu Apr 4, 2013, 05:58 PM - Edit history (1)

The question is whether HRC can redefine herself enough not to be included as one of them.

I think a large part of the reason that she is so popular now is that she links people back to 2007/2008 when everything looked like it was working out and that there would be a powerful Democratic victory - which actually did happen in November 2009. Before then, it was easy to look forward to a time when to quote one Democrat, we can work for good things rather than merely working to stop bad things. The contest in the Democratic primary was seen as a contest of two historical candidate - either of which most Democrats said they could support.

Now, Obama as President is defined by the reality of what has happened - there were many victories and he has done great things, but they pale compared to the victories that seemed possible in 2008. Hillary, remains the path not taken then - and some see that through the eyes of 2008.

The question is what will the Democratic issues be for 2016? Then the question is where is HRC on these issues. Her main issue as First Lady was healthcare. Will she run on changes to the ACA - or run as part of the administration that passed this - albeit not as someone charged on that issue. (She did actively support it) Will there be issues of war and peace dominating? If so, in a war weary country (and party) will the more hawkish than most Democrats Clinton play well. Will it be the economy - and if so - will the memory of the economic successes of the 1990s or the blame some place on NAFTA or the deregulation for the problems of the last decades.

If there is anything that seems to be her main vision as SOS, it might be human rights and woman's rights. It is significant that the two events that may, in retrospect, be seen as the start of her 2016 campaign may be the ones now on those issues. The question is whether her media hype (which she's had since 1992), and the support and hopes that people felt for her in 2008 and issues like this will be enough to keep her on top of the list.

[Tarheel_Dem]

22. Unsurprisingly, I agree with your well articulated synopsis. My hope for a HRC run is that she....

will continue in a progressive vein, and being a Democratic heavy hitter, she'll be able to put down ballot races in play, in some red areas. W. Va. is a prime example of a state that could go democratic with HRC at the top of the ticket. Let's face it, Pres. Obama, for all his gifts, cannot make himself 100% caucasian, and sadly, that's still important to some people. A lot of the resistance he has met from Repukes, and Dems representing Repuke leaning constituencies, comes down to race.

My concerns, however, are that the idiots who were the face of Hillary's '08 campaign did much to damage the goodwill she & Bill had accrued in the AA community. If these same folks are going to be the public face of any future campaign, then I can see some of the enthusiasm dampening over the next few years. Many of these a-holes couldn't wait to line up over at Fox News to trash Pres. Obama and his supporters. One of them is posting in this very thread.

The good news for Democrats is that we start with a baseline of 242 EV's (I heard on LO's show last night), and that's without OH, VA & NC; throw in FL, WV, CO....I think HRC could win with the biggest EV and PV count in history. That may be a shade optimistic, but I really believe that we can strengthen our numbers in the Senate, and get a nice a majority in the House.

[karynnj]

24. I doubt that anyone - in either party - could beat the EV count the despicable Nixon got in 1972

PV - possible as that increases over time.

I do think that any polling now is premature. It is however telling us a few things:
1) There is a huge amount of support for HRC
2) There is more support for Democratic ideas than Republican (otherwise generic Republican would do better)

[Tarheel_Dem]

25. Agreed. Like I said, I was probably a shade too optimistic. 520 EV's seems highly unlikely today.

Although, if Rand Paul is the nominee? Hmmmmm. Granted, RP is not George McGovern, but like McGovern, RP's followers are ideological, creepily devoted, and both groups assume they know what's best for everyone. Even though I wasn't quite old enough to vote, my sister was a McGovern devotee, and was quite insufferable at the time.

[karynnj]

27. As someone who canvased for McGovern, I disagree sharply

McGovern, a decent man and WWII hero, who sponsored things like the original food stamps legislation, was smeared by Nixon dirty tricks, who claimed he was for Acid, Amnesty and abortion. Think the swiftboat veterans for truth with a far more naive trusting public.

Nixon got impeached for what he did in covering up the break in to the DNC. Nixon also had an enemies list - so I would say it was the Republicans who thought they knew what everyone should do.

Maybe you should have asked your sister why she liked McGovern or why she disliked Nixon.

[Tarheel_Dem]

29. I was 13, and just knew that she & her friends were extremely devoted & enthusiastic. No harm meant.

[joshcryer]

28. Completely agree. She needs to clean house and get rid of the old guard.

Simply put she will not win if she doesn't clean house. She needs to leverage a younger crowd as Obama did and she can do that relatively easily.

And she needs to be honest and up front about stuff and drop any sort of exaggerations about ability to lead (she's already proved it). She shouldn't even allow the campaign to be about "ability to lead" like last time (that was her biggest misstep in the primaries, that she allowed Obama to leverage that).

[Tarheel_Dem]

30. Another great summary. God, I love this thread. Out with the old, in with the new. I would.....

certainly hate for her to wind up in the same position as '08 because of a grossly mismanaged campaign, staffed with people that folks like me can't stomach. It was like she had a whole staff of Harriet Christians' & Gerry Ferraros', who were mean old white women, with a sorely displaced sense of entitlement. She definitely needs to break away from that crowd.

[DonCoquixote]

34. I will say this much

Hillary has a chance to compeltely avoid the 2008 mistakes,including her right wing turn. If she gets carville out there as the loud, nasty, brtual guy, the guys who wrote a book that said "were right, they're wrong' about the right wing, then she will be on the right foot. If she can tear into John MCCain instead of makign nice with him, etc. Sadly, I do NOT see that, but I am open to surprise.

[movonne]

15. We have our kings and queens that inherit the throne..

I don't know how Obama got in...maybe they need a black man as part of the elite...we really need new blood...next after hillary it will be a bush...

[aaaaaa5a]

3. I really want Obama's team to join her efforts.

Hillary is great. But the team around her in 2008 was so lousy, I think they are even bad enough to spoil her chances in 2016.

[BeyondGeography]

4. Between this and the Rolling Stones new concert tour announcement...

[Historic NY]

5. James just has a unique way of saying things...

[Beacool]

8. Yes, he does.

[Figaro78]

6. Mr. Useless backs Hillary!

James Carville is just about the most useless, most ineffectual attention-grabbing pundit in the liberal atmosphere. His support for anyone is worth zilch. Besides I wouldn't trust anyone who slept within a mile of wife and big time wingnut Mary Matalin.

[kitt6]

9. Couldn't have said it better

myself. If Hillary was to run and win; I hope she won't be the same ol centrist corporation hustlers her husband turned the democratic party in to.

[msanthrope]

11. Your concern is noted. Please feel free to share more of your concerns and enjoy your stay. nt

[movonne]

16. You mean that everyone who is not thrilled with

Hillary are trolls...I have been here a long time and am not thrilled with Hillary...and I believe that there are many more here who feel the same....

[msanthrope]

17. Not everyone. But some. certainly. nt

[bvar22]

14. I'm underwhelmed.

The ONLY 2008 candidate that was MORE Big Business, Free Trade, ProWAR Conservative than Obama has been given the nod to run by the conservative Pro-Corporate Wall Street Conservatives that control the Democratic Party.


I guess Carville couldn't find anymore Right Wing Death Squad Police States in Latin America that needed his Image Consultant help.

[joshcryer]

31. This is actually hilariously untrue.

Hillary, for example, wanted to renegotiate NAFTA, which Obama flipped on several times. The Obama camp lambasted Hillary for sitting in on NAFTA meetings and not coming out against it at the time. It's the small details but they were both pretty much the same except Hillary had a better position on health care.

Obama still hasn't done anything on NAFTA and has, instead, opened up more free trade agreements in Latin America.

[bvar22]

36. They BOTH were more than a little dishonest about "renegotiating NAFTA".

Do you really think Hillary would trash can one of her husband's signature legacies, especially considering that ALL of her advisers and coaches are old NAFTA retreads?

Hillary DID vote against CAFTA, but arranged to vote last, late at night,
after CAFTA was a Done Deal, so it was basically a Campaign Vote of no consequence.
(I was watching on CSPAN that night, and she either voted last, or 2nd to last IIRC).
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3588878&mesg_id=3589718

Hillary could have possibly been more "Liberal" on some Social Issues,
as long as it didn't cost the RICH any money,
but on Working Class Economic Issues,
they are Birds of a Conservative Feather.

At least Obama went to the effort to pretend that he represented the Working Class and Organized LABOR.
Hillary didn't even try to disguise her advocacy for the Top 5%.

I really don't believe the Working Class can survive another Blue Dog, Trickle Down,
Economically Conservative "New Democrat" White House.



[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]

[joshcryer]

37. We'll never know that, now, will we?

You can SAY that Hillary wouldn't have renegotiated it, but I tend to think that she would've played hard ball much better than Uber Bipartisan Obama who recently passed a free trade agreement with Colombia, who said, even before being elected, he wanted to drill in the gulf, who is all about getting the Keystone pipeline built.

Of course I would've never expected Hillary to trash NATFA openly and publicly as she sat in on those meetings back in the day, I just thought it was amusing that Obama supporters trashed her for even daring to be IN those meetings.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

18. She has certainly earned the position.

And if the American people decide to give her this promotion, it is the duty of the Democratic Party and Americans in general to accept the people's will... as with any election that's not decided by the Supreme Court.

[alcibiades_mystery]

23. I'm eagerly awaiting the coming divorce of the Leftist Obama Haters and Hillary-based Obama Haters

It's going to be so delicious!

That said, Go Hillary!

[Tarheel_Dem]

26. !!!

[joshcryer]

32. I hope she runs for that reason.

It's going to be awesome.

[DonCoquixote]

35. you should not

Because the GOP knows that divorce is the onyl thing keep us from attacking them at their weak point. Both sides need to stay topgether, and focus on making sure the GOp is dead, dead, stone cold DEAD!

[madrchsod]

33. old wine in old bottles......

can`t we find someone else?

[CK_John]

38. I think Gillibrand will be the candidate and Hillary will support her.