James Carville Emphatically Denies That He's Going To Work For Hillary

Comments (28)

Cheshire Cat wrote on January 8, 2008 12:49 PM:

Doesn't need to "go back" to work for 'em. He never stopped working for 'em.

goethean wrote on January 8, 2008 12:49 PM:

I can affirm that that sounds like Carville.

Jeff wrote on January 8, 2008 1:06 PM:

So much for ClintonNN being a fair news source.

willyjsimmons wrote on January 8, 2008 1:12 PM:

'Fox was, is and will continue to be an asinine and ignorant network.'

When Carville is good, he's good.

LOL.

Other times, not so much.

markg8 wrote on January 8, 2008 1:14 PM:

Shorter Carville, "Whaddya think I'm nuts?"

RWN wrote on January 8, 2008 1:16 PM:

As an executive recruiter I will say that it could be far more simplier than what people presuppose...kind of like....its the votes stupid.

Carville is not Nostrodomus who can turn lead into gold....Clinton and her campaign is a product of Clinton...as Bill stated, he can't [remake] her to be younger, a male, or an outsider...meaning----They can't remake the product. Hillary is and has been the enabler, the counsel the behind the scenes wok....she is not the number one nor did they understand the temperature of America which is fed up with all the politics of the last 40 years.

Carville knows this and knows that in a tidal wave the answer is to get out of the way and move to higher ground.

Ann in AZ wrote on January 8, 2008 1:19 PM:

James will be lucky if he ever works again because of his choice of a spouse. He's proven untrustworthy by divulging information to his wife which she then acted on for the other side. Conflict of interests! He better stick to writing books or political analysis, although nobody really believes him in that arena anymore either. Maybe he could see if the Rethugs want him; he's fried here.

Aimey Mays wrote on January 8, 2008 1:23 PM:

That's news to me. As far as I can tell, Mr. Carville did work in Harris Walfford's failed compaign to retain his Senate seat against Santorium. Wasn't it in 1994?

Anonymous wrote on January 8, 2008 1:36 PM:

He won't have sex with THAT woman either

J.Irons wrote on January 8, 2008 1:39 PM:

Carville and Matalin both must be exceptional in the sack.

KFB wrote on January 8, 2008 1:44 PM:

Sadly, that whole crowd around the Clintons, Carville, McAuliffe, Rahm, et al, is stuck in the 90s. They used to generate excitement and they had credibility but all that is gone. They managed to keep fresh faces from surfacing for a while (Dean) but that appears to be coming to an end also. Democrats are taking their party back!

John McCutchen wrote on January 8, 2008 1:46 PM:

Amy...

Harris Wofford was 1990 if memory serves. His election heralded the opening of a policy window for universal health care that Hillary managed to slam shut 3 years later

Mark wrote on January 8, 2008 1:52 PM:

"...Nostrodomus that can turn lead into gold"?! RWN ... what the hell does that mean? Nostradamus predicted the future. Alchemists tried to turn lead into gold.

Aimey Mays wrote on January 8, 2008 2:01 PM:

John McCutchen wrote on January 8, 2008 1:46 PM:
Amy...

Harris Wofford was 1990 if memory serves. His election heralded the opening of a policy window for universal health care that Hillary managed to slam shut 3 years later

--- Harris was elected in 1991 to fill out Heiz's seat, beating Dick Thornberg. He was defeated for full term in 1994 by Santorium. Carville famously characterize PA as a state with two cities sanwiching Alabama. I recalled Carville said he failed his client.

In terms of healthcare, Hillary had her fault for screcy but Republicans were instructed by Frank Luntz not to yield a single step. There was no faith from the Republicans. She has learned from her experience. I am pretty sure you understand the term "learning experience".

Anonymous wrote on January 8, 2008 2:09 PM:

She's got nothing then. Zero. Done. Toast. Stick a fork in Her.

FJ wrote on January 8, 2008 2:16 PM:

Jeez, one 2nd place finish and Rodham Clinton's campaign has imploded! Marshall said he was surprised by how creaky this campaign was and I must say I agree. Obama winning a state, even an early one, may not have been a foregone conclusion but it certainly was possible. The idea that Clinton's campaign had NO contingency plans and in fact was not even structured to withstand that says a lot to me. In fact, it reminds me a lot of the way the current administration operates.

Aimey Mays wrote on January 8, 2008 2:27 PM:

Momentum is a strange thing. It is like driving a car. The faster you drive, the more badly you can get hurt in an accident. Things going fast upward can crash as fast downward. We shall see.

markg8 wrote on January 8, 2008 2:32 PM:

When your campaign is top heavy with too many chiefs and not enough indians and believes Mark Penn's own pushpolling well... you get what Hillary is getting. Smoked.

Liam wrote on January 8, 2008 2:40 PM:

Enough with all the idle blather about how people should not vote for Obama because of what the "Republican Attack Machine" might do to him. They will try that against whom ever we nominate.

We already know that Hillary can not even hold a lead against Obama, and that is in her own party, so she would have no chance against the Republicans. If she is not strong enough to win in her own party, after squandering a huge lead in Iowa, New Hampshire, and the Nation, then claiming that she would be the best one to put up against a Republican is utterly absurd, and illogical.

As for John Edwards; we saw how poorly he did in the 2004 debate against Dick Cheney.
He came across as weak and intimidated. Cheney made Edwards his jail cell bride. Edwards has already shown that he is not up to the job.

If Obama is capable of coming from behind and knocking off the Inevitable Hillary, and the guy who was on the ticket in 2004, that alone proves that he has better fighting credentials and skills than the others.

Now go find yourself a candidate to support that the Republicans will not attack. Better still, put down the bong, and get a grip on the facts and reality.

zooguitar wrote on January 8, 2008 3:00 PM:

I think the bigger story is showing how our beloved 60s idealists have turned into the self-serving and corrupt bunch that they replaced. Their nose-diving in the polls is equally matched by the desperation of their last gasps. You have someone like Gloria Steinem citing "no masculinity to prove" as a legitimate reason to back HRC over Obama? Terry McAuliffe is shopping for a Swift Boat group of his own? What's next, is HRC going to start calling Obama "Ozone Man"?

Anonymous wrote on January 8, 2008 3:02 PM:

Aimey @2:01

Wofford was beaten by a massive NRA involved campaign. Harris was pro-gun restriction and they buried him. Carvilles' characterization of Pa may be true, but the Alabama part has a high density population of people who love their guns and they killed him. Carville was negligent in seeing this coming.

LSU national champs!! wrote on January 8, 2008 3:13 PM:

That loooossss-eee-anna boy smells a stinka' doesn't he?

Aimey Mays wrote on January 8, 2008 3:14 PM:

Anonymous wrote on January 8, 2008 3:02 PM:

-- So you don't give him any credit for help Wofford defeating Dick Thornberg?

Desider wrote on January 8, 2008 3:24 PM:

The Fox thing gives you an idea how easy it is to throw crap out and make it stick. Hard to believe "progressives" would listen so closely to the no-spin zone.

Jim H wrote on January 8, 2008 4:31 PM:

Hey, b-but Tom Edsall says it's true in the ObamaPost, so it must be true, right? He's a reliable finder of "hidden sources" that predict the next day's lines in the Obama march to power.

Got to have some admiration for the way Obama laid low all year, screwing up in the debates and not daring to criticize his fellow dems, until Russert and Matthews declared for him and the sprint to the end began. Rather than poor Hillary and Edwards, actually working at telling people what they wanted to do, instead of keeping it all a mystery, and relying on Hillary ridicule and generational rivalry to do the dirty work for him. Hope your guy is still squeaky-clean in November. Then again, when I hear on the radio from some kid who had to decide whether to vote for Obama or McCain (!), then I don't necessarily have a high opinion of Gen X. How many Clinton people would be in an Obama cabinet? Answer: lots of them. And Carter people, if they're still alive. How many neocons will Obama want to "bring together" with us? Will David Brooks be his press secretary? Or Bill Kristol his speechwriter?

Tad wrote on January 8, 2008 4:41 PM:

Fox has updated their story to include denials.

http://bourbonroom.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/01/08/begala-writes-the-bourbon-room/

Personally I think that Carville's and Begalla's denials are not particularly reliable considering that confirmation of a big change like this would most likely be damaging to Hillary on an election day. Given that, of course they would deny it.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on January 8, 2008 4:58 PM:

Carville has been shilling the Hill pill every time he popped up on the tube for eight months now . . . Changing the signature on his paychecks this late in the game makes zero sense.

Gnopple wrote on January 8, 2008 7:41 PM:

And then there's this:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/carville-memo-to-clinton-come-out-fighting/#more-3769

Mr. Carville is expected to contribute ideas, but he said in an interview that was not planning to play a formal role in the campaign. “If the president said to me, ‘look old pal, we really need you to come on board, he and I and the senator would have that conversation,’” Mr. Carville said. “But I haven’t had a single conversation with anyone in the campaign about coming in and working in a formal way on the campaign.”

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)