...because I'm having a little difficulty with this: Is James Carville an idiot or anasshole? Or maybe both?
I mean, what kind of idiot talks about canning your master strategist immediately after he's helped to win you a major victory that no one really thought it was possible to win? And what sort of asshole leaks strategic information about your party's candidate to the other side?
I never could understand how Carville and Matalin could be married to each other and still be trusted by their clients -- now it looks like we know that we were the only ones who should have been worried.
But, more fundamentally, you don't can the general after he wins the battle, not if you're really interested in winning the war. And it doesn't really matter if he was the sole reason for the win, or merely a contributory reason, or didn't have anything to do with it at all -- when the line-up wins, don't screw around with the line-up! Life is too complex, and causality too difficult to establish conclusively that you don't make changes to a winning team unless there's a damn good reason to do so. I'm not thrilled about Rahm Emmanuel, but I'm not running around trying to dethrone him either -- and neither are people who matter (unlike me).
What is there about very basic facts of life like these that Carville doesn't understand?
Whoever is behind this totally stupid notion of dumping Dean, whoever is using Carville as their stalking horse, all I can say is s.t.f.u. and go about doing your damn jobs. (Are these people braindead, or is there something in the water in DC that sucks all the sense out of people's minds?)
[Edited for language.]
Update: Roger Keeling sent this around before he had read my post above:
I used to have enormous respect and regard for James Carville. But he married into the enemy camp, and gradually drifted away into insignificance -- it seemed an awful loss, actually. But now it's even worse. Here's why:
The Democrats, as you know, just won an enormous victory, fueled in no small part by the incredible performance of Dr. Howard Dean. Dean raised $51 million last year,about 20% more than the last non-presidential election cycle. He re-established the Party in states -- Deep Red states -- where for all practical purposes the Democratic Party no longer existed. For example, in some places Democratic headquarters offices were literally kept locked up for most of each year. There were NO organizers or field operatives in Indiana, for example. NONE. In some states, the state-level Democratic Party was actually bankrupt.
He bailed them out, and put field directors and communications experts into everystate. He rebuilt the entire National Democratic Party computerized membership and donor lists (an $8 million project by itself), something the GOP had done years ago. He listened to the netroots, and often put money where they -- taken together -- recommended that it go. He did all of this and much more, and his 50-state strategy paid off big-time.
So how do the old hands of the Democratic Party -- including James Carville -- repay all of this? Why, by talking about dumping Dean and replacing him with (are you ready?) the just-defeated Harold Ford of Tennessee. Not taking away anything from Ford, but the idea of him replacing Howard Dean is ludicrous.
Yet that was Carville's suggestion. Carville has signed on with the old-line guys, the DC-insiders, the ranks and rows of consultants who LOST year after year and yet, somehow, never lost their jobs.
I'm disgusted. Carville used to be a tough campaigner, and a plain-speaking breath of fresh air. Now he's just another member of the permanent Washington political class, blowing smoke out his ass. A pity, a profound pity!
