Is Carville being disingenuious?

[jimmyp]

I hesitate to post this, especially since I'm a newbie here, but here goes. I was watching Meet the Press, and James Carville was on. They were discussing the election, and he basically said that he was wrong in his predictions (he cracked an egg on his face), and that the other side pulled off the greatest achievement in his lifetime. NO mention of election fraud, NO mention that a small fraction of votes the other way and Kerry would have won, etc. It was all about the Democrats having to change long-term strategy. I was really surprised, as I see Carville as a true-blue warrior for Democrats. You always hear that the Clintonites secretly wanted Kerry to lose so that Hillary can run in 2008. Is that what this is all about?

I ask this respectfully, and would like to see what others' opinions are. I read the other posts here on election fraud, which give me some hope after a very depressing few weeks (I still am nowhere near recovery). Then I hear Carville (and others), and wonder what is really going on.

[Syrinx]

1. Carville was inspirationial in 1992

See "The War Room." But I fear he's sold out. How he can live with that witch is beyond my comprehension.

[RoyGBiv]

2. I Dunno ...

:shrug:

Carville is a political hack, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but in some cases it means the cause is less important than the game. So who really knows what he's on about. I'm glad he was on our side with Clinton, but I've never put much faith in him as a true believer in Democratic principles.

Hillary may well run in '08, but it would be asburd for any real political strategist to think that Kerry losing, particularly the way he lost, would be beneficial to her campaign. The Democrats as a whole have been hurt by this election cycle, and the political hacks that make their living off them now have a harder task than they did to "sell" their product.

[merh]

36. The dems have not been hurt by the election cycle as much

as they have been hurt by their leaders and the political hacks like Carville who keep repeating the mantra "reform, reform, where did we go wrong".

Damn it we won at least the 55 million votes that they have awarded to Kerry. That is not an "ass kickin" that is something to be proud of.

That we won the election and they stole it and the famous member so the democratic party are not standing up and saying this, but are repeat the talking points of the right wing pisses me off.

[Trumanway]

3. Maybe this is disinformation for Repub consumption.

To direct their attention away from the real strategy. A feint.

[LiberalVoice]

4. anyone who thinks Hillary has a chance in hell at winning in '08...

is a moron. I wouldn't worry too much about it.

[laheina]

5. That whole Clinton 2008 thing

was/is just a talking point put out by the Right Wing Media outlets, ie drudge, rush, faux news, etc.

Their old standby to keep their flunkies riled is "when all else fails, bash a Clinton."

Hillary says she doesn't want to run in 2008, and frankly, I don't know that she's ready for that yet, anyway.

[imenja]

6. She's ready

Where did you see Hillary say she didn't want to run? I heard her give the standard "I love being a Senator from NY." Remember, it's politician-speak.

She's ready to be president, and she'd do a superb job. Whether or not she could get elected is another story.

[malatesta1137]

9. ready or not

She won't be elected. By 2008 , 100% of voting machines will electronic. A Democrat will never be elected again for President, or for more than 35% of the Senate and 30% of the House.

[aquart]

12. Welcome to DU. Define "ready."

And maybe, with such a low post count, you wouldn't want to be caught dead espousing known rightwing talking points. Just a helpful hint.

[imenja]

15. ?

Ready as in qualified, capable.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood, but was that directed at me? Are you actually calling me right-wing?

[laheina]

19. or maybe me, so let me clarify.

I love Hillary Clinton. Don't get me wrong. She's smart, and she undeniably had a lot to do with Bill Clinton's success in office. Yes repugs, I said success!

But she has two things going against her at this point, besides the relentless right wing campaign against all things Clinton:

1. She's a woman, and NO, I'm not saying that is a bad thing. After all, I'm a chick too. However, look at our country's track record electing women, people. It's sad! There is some sort of issue at work here, and she's going to have to overcome it.

2. She has very little experience under her belt. When it comes down to it, a vast majority of her work in government has been wrapped up in her husband. She has had, what, a term in the Senate?

That being said, if anyone *can* do it, it's Hillary. It just isn't cut and dry.

[jimmyp]

20. Hillary

I agree with you - if anyone can do it, Hillary can. I also think she has been slowly and methodically developing her Senate record to appeal to a majority of the country. She seems to have broad appeal in NY, even upstate, not an easy feat. It will be interesting whether Ickes becomes chairman, as I believe this will be a strong signal of whether she is intending to run.

[bluetrain]

21. I wouldn't vote for her unless I absolutely had to. I don't trust her.

And, unless we get a paper trail on every voting machine in America, I'm done voting. If I have no say whatsoever in the political process then I'm no longer really a citizen. That's when it's time to pack up.

I, also, really feel that it was the Republicans who brought up the idea of Hillary running in the first place and have forced it into conversation ever since.

[liberalpragmatist]

7. I disagree

Carville is a smart man and a damn good strategist. Had he and Begala been doing strategy for Kerry's campaign from the start (with John Sasso as manager) Kerry would have won. They're EXCELLENT for message and for consistency. They would have helped Kerry settle on a few key themes and relentlessly hammered them.

Shrum, Devine, and Cahill were awful strategists. Cahill was a decent manager, but didn't know how to respond. Shrum and Devine were good but not great ad men (Kerry's original ad man, Jim Margolis, was better), and HORRIBLE strategists. I know that some of the loss was Kerry's fault too (and I'm a huge Kerry fan), but the fact that his strategists were so wrong on so many issues (Iraq, SBVT, going negative, etc.) really proved disastrous. They were the architects of the convention, which, while nice, got us no bounce and was a huge missed opportunity.

I have a lot of respect for Carville. It's true that it was always destined to be a very close race and that only a few thousands votes would have swung our way for victory to be ours. But Carville's right when he says that even it was close, we should have won. And we can't keep blaming fraud. There ARE irregularities, but there's ZERO hard evidence that there was any fraud. The election results aren't going to change, unfortunately.

[bluetrain]

8. Bev Harris seems pretty convinced that she does have evidence.

We'll see soon.

[jimmyp]

28. So why aren't people like Carville

saying more about this - that was really my original question. I would have never heard of Bev Harris if it weren't for this board. I still think that Carville is one of the best advocates for Democrats - I can only conclude that he doesn't think there is anything here.

[m berst]

11. you aren't qualified to say that

"And we can't keep blaming fraud. There ARE irregularities, but there's ZERO hard evidence that there was any fraud. The election results aren't going to change, unfortunately."

Election tampering is not about who won. You can't support your statement that there is no "hard evidence of fraud" and in fact you are wrong about that.

Many - for whatever reason - desire to "move on" and leave the integrity of future elections, and the survival of democracy up in the air. There are some saying that there was fraud, but so what let's move on. Others are saying that there was no fraud, so get over it. Pick one of the two excuses for moving on and getting over it, because they contradict each other - that we can't change the outcome, which may be true, so why bother, or that there is no evidence of tampering, which is flat out false. And don't confuse your personal need to move on with a statement of what the reality should be for all of us.

Dozens and dozens of intentional acts in Ohio deprived people of their vote. There is a good possibility that there are a sufficient number to overturn Ohio.

[liberalpragmatist]

17. By all means, investigate

I'm all for getting all the votes counted, and of course I'm deep down hoping for a miraculous Kerry win.

But despite that, even though I'm for a recount, am for investigating all irregularities, both intentional and unintentional, I seriously do not believe that it will change the outcome of the race. Do it for its own sake, but I don't expect that the result will change.

[m berst]

25. bigger issues here, though, yes?

It is starting to look like some local races will be changing, and even if Bush gets certified as the winner, fraud being revealed at any time will still help to stop him from implementing his agenda.

If it weren't for the totalitarian agenda that is planned for us, I would not be so vehement about investigating the election. I don't have all of my hopes pinned on it, and am not motivated anymore by a desire to see Kerry win. I see this as the first in a series of battles, and I believe that we are fighting for the survival of the country. Since this battle is inevitable and since losing it means losing our freedom, the sooner we start fighting and the harder we fight the better.

[angrydemocrat]

16. I'm a huge Kerry person myself but I really feel Carville....

...just didn't do what he could have when it come to this campaign. I liked Carville but I'm telling you no matter how much you like him he was not in this to help Kerry. When he came to the campaign I was glad but it sure didn't take me long to figure out he was not doing crap to help my man out. If anything his mouth and dumba** remarks hurt him. When everyone was saying that he wanted Kerry to lose so Hillary could run in 2008 I didn't beleive it either but let me tell you it sure didn't take me long to figure it out. And I'm not the only one who figured that one. I have been a Kerry supporter all the way back to the primaries worked on the campaign and all. So trust me I'm one of the biggest supporters he got and will continue to be because I think Kerry is great and has done a great job and I don't think he has given up on anything! I feel that he is working on this fraud behind the scenes to keep the repugs and media from spinning it to death and trying to make it out to be nothing. But seriously Carville was good for Clinton but when it comes to Kerry he didn't do crap. I think that wife of his is getting to him or something cause he isn't what he use to be.

[FULL_METAL_HAT]

10. I thought he looked like he "knew something was up" on nov2 ~10pm .. n/t

[bluetrain]

13. I wish they would say something, one way or the other soon.

[CHICKEN CAPITOL USA]

14. I saw Meet the Press and thought the SAME THING !!!!

I said to myself, Carville is a little tooooo kiss ass to them today.
I sort of think they are all in on this together
Is one side is all there is?

and the votes--He should have said something, anything,
There are more than a few reasons to mistrust Deibold machines.
Think about it-
-if they failed or were tampered with how would we know?
We'd only have "suspicion" and no hard proof.
This is exactly why many are calling for an"investigation" for the very reason that there is and never would be any hard obvious evidence if the "secret machines" failed us.

I don't buy the Clinton stuff. That would be a bad move.
The Clinton blame was constantly the standardized Republican Radio theme.
Can't give that back to them...they'll run with it.

Personally I think this is all over anyway.
WE are ONE terrorist event away
(one small nuke, or one small disease outbreak)
from Martial Law and totalitarianism under the pretense of it being a"temporary" .

Permantent tax cuts? the least of our worries--
We'd have Permanent Bush Dictator.
And I'm not crazy--just think about how close we are to that.--one event-and it goes down

[mary195149]

18. It seems like everything is hush, hush,

right now. Nobody is really talking. But at least the votes are going to be counted. I don't think Carville or anyone else for that matter, is ready to say anything until they start getting some results.

[Carolab]

22. I don't trust Carville because of Mary Matalin

How can you sleep with the enemy and still be on the other side?

This whole tribe is so inbred. I feel like they come to these forums and read our posts and laugh their asses off at us.

You know how I feel? I am not only angry and depressed. I am INSULTED.

I only trust the "outsiders" at this point, like Dean. I'm encouraged by Nader, Cobb and Badnarik taking up the fight.

[jimmyp]

27. Dean

I agree with you - one thing you can be sure about Dean is that he can't be bought. I really liked him the best of all the candidates.

[rodeodance]

29. Carville was on another talk show saying basically the same thing.

sorry, it was last week and I forget the show.
He was talking of creating a "narritive"---the things Dems stand for.
It seems he wants to look forward (like most Dems the last few weeks). We see very few Dems looking back--to voter suppression or irregularies) but going forward is the talk.

[jimmyp]

30. Looking forward

I've noticed the same thing - everyone's looking forward. Which tells me they don't put much credence in the vote fraud issue, otherwise I can't see why they would not be raising awareness of this. AND THAT'S WHAT IT WILL TAKE, because as more time goes by, the current results become a done deal more and more EVEN IF fraud is found to be true.

I feel like I'm stating the obvious, but I just don't see this addressed anywhere here.

[Carolab]

32. I completely concur

UNLESS we get our right to have our votes counted and counted accurately--we got nuttin, honey.

[anamandujano]

35. let's put it this way

He doesn't want to see her in prison. She is Cheney's right hand man, nuff said?

Carville and Begala fell off my most respected list during the 2000 and 2002 campaigns (when I still watched TV). They were mediocre defenders of the dem cause, to say the least. When any sort of heated issue was going in the dems favor, they were there as a last bastion of hope and threw in the towel for us.

F*ckers!!!

[Hobbes199]

23. Hillary wouldn't win in 2008

I loved Clinton as president, but Hillary couldn't carry the southern states -- both coming from IL and now NY, and with the "moral issues" some would see with her husband.

If we lose here, we're going to need a southerner for 2008 for the short term, and for the long term make plans to up the democratic demographic in Texas and Florida.

[Carolab]

24. Name one southerner YOU'D vote for

and don't say Edwards.

[jsamuel]

26. Bob Graham

[Carolab]

31. No, he supported

GOSS

[life_long_dem]

33. I saw Bob Graham on C-SPAN last night

He was pretty clear about not liking bush, but did say he liked Goss and selecting him was the only thing that bush has done right.

He said he is out of mainstream politics but will work behind the scenes for the Democrats.

[Bread and Circus]

34. I think very little of Carville, if the Dems want to do themselves

a favor, they should get rid of that asshole.