OT: What a loser!

[ProSense]

I still want to know why the Clintons had no comment about Carville's assault on Dean! Except for an aide's statement distancing her from Carville, did Hillary Clinton issue a statement supportive of Dean?

"I'm 62 years old and my parents are gone. I don't ask permission"? :puke:

Clinton Dines With The "White Boys"

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

[whometense]

1. hmmmmm...

Carville was the senior consultant on Clinton’s 1992 campaign; he was a close adviser through the Clinton presidency. He leveraged his celebrity into a Hollywood career, a CNN gig, numerous teaching engagements, popular books, overseas consulting for international presidential candidates, and even a restaurant. Democrats sought his advice and feared the sting of his rebukes.

In the late summer of 2004, he pressured John Kerry to shake up his campaign. Within weeks, Johnson and Lockhart, by then wildly successful lobbyists and consultants, were asked to retool Kerry’s public image. Democrats debate today whether their intervention worked.

Let me join you: :puke: :puke: :puke:

[wisteria]

2. More like they sabotaged the Kerry campaign.

They have bleed the party enough, they all need to fade away. let me add,:puke: :grr:

[mloutre]

3. quoting a very near and dear friend of mine...

"friggin bastids"

[Blaukraut]

4. Hillary may end up regretting this

Carville and Begala are only loyal to Carville and Begala. I don't think they'd hesitate to stab Hillary in the back if the need arose, and if it served their agenda.

[mloutre]

5. amen to that.

Carville, Begala and their ilk are loyal to nobody to themselves and to nothing but their bankbooks. The nature of political consultancy today is that the real money to be made comes from keeping races close, majorities tiny, and horse races down to the final wire. Screw the public welfare or the inconvenient meanings of citizenship, it's all about the bottom line for them. They're not looking to advance any given candidates' agendas. Every step they take is for themselves, aimed at solidifying their own positions as the go-to guys in whatever next election cycle is due to come down the pike. They're not activists, not strategists, not professional campaigners -- they're just shamelessly self-promoting self-serving political mercenaries, nothing more than whores without honor, and I say to hell with the whole untrustworthy lot of 'em.

[karynnj]

6. I responded - I dare them to print it

Judging from 2004, this group seem totally overrated.
-Paul Begala and James Carville in their media roles pushed the theme of anybody but X, commonly used in the primaries during the general elections. This was done at the point where typically people naturally move to support the nominee. This hurt Kerry with the undecided - as 2 of the very few prominent TV Democrats were signaling that Kerry was not their choice. In 1992, Clinton was not close to my favorite in the primaries, but I didn't even think of whining that I was ABB.

- You say, "In the late summer of 2004, he pressured John Kerry to shake up his campaign. Within weeks, Johnson and Lockhart, by then wildly successful lobbyists and consultants, were asked to retool Kerry’s public image. Democrats debate today whether their intervention worked. "
Now, Kerry VERY easily won the primaries. It seems that without the Clinton help, they did far better than with it.

The advise that Clinton and his people gave was supposedly to speak of the economy. However, Kerry's numbers went up after the foreign policy debate and his speeches on Iraq and terrorism. His other advise was that Kerry abandon a 20 plus year record of support of gay rights and to endorse all the gay bashing amendments. Kerry had too much integrity to do this.

When you add in the claim in "State of Denial" that Carville passed inside information to the Bush administration via his wife at least on election eve, I wonder if the Clinton people jumping onto the bandwagon for the general election may have included dragging their feet like young kids do.