James Carville's shameful hypocrisy on the oil spill, and his ties to South America

by: rossl

Mon May 31, 2010 at 16:58

But for some reason I'm not convinced he's being completely sincere.  In fact, Colombia held a presidential election yesterday and (this may seem somewhat bizarre if you don't know much about him) Carville actually helped the establishment candidate who wants to encourage "foreign investment," at a time when BP is considering offshore drilling in Colombia's waters.

A political guru, frequent CNN pundit and a personality who was featured in the well known documentary The War Room, Carville moves in powerful circles in the U.S.  What's less commonly known, however, is that Carville is also a virtual kingmaker in Latin America --- indeed, his professional contacts have ranged from Mexico's Ernesto Zedillo to Brazil's Fernando Enrique Cardoso to many others.

Crossposted at DKos and other blogs

I Love the 90s

by: Matt Stoller

Thu May 29, 2008 at 15:46

Man, this is Carville (courtesy of The Jed Report) blaming the Obama campaign, and how they played the assassination story, for Hillary potentially pushing this race past June 3rd. Incredible. I was in college for most of the 90s doing the sort of illicit, dumb things that people in college do. But I read a newspaper now and again. Were these guys always this dastardly? I know others have claimed that they were, but does it says something about progressives that we backed people like this?

Loyalty, Betrayal, and Prioritizing Voters

by: Mike Lux

Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:12

It's not that James convinced me he was right to make that kind of nasty attack, I still didn't like it. But I do really respect the argument he is making.

What James is saying is that in his values system, loyalty is the thing he values most. Richardson owes the Clintons a lot, they've always been good to him, and he owed them more loyalty than to endorse Hillary's opponent.

I understand the argument, and I too prioritize loyalty above a great many things. Without loyalty to your own- your family, your friends, your team, your faith, the people who have done well by you, the people you've worked for, and those who've worked for you- community and mutuality are destroyed. You sure as hell can't build political power, or a long-term movement, without it. I have felt the pull of loyalty to the Clintons as well, and I would have handled myself this political year in a very different way if I hadn't felt that way. I wrote many good things about Hillary over the last year because I believed them and out of loyalty. I have given her the benefit of the doubt many times when I felt uncomfortable with what she was doing. I have defended her against many attacks. I gave lots of advice to Clinton campaign people in Iowa, and nationally, and hooked them up with smart people I thought they should know. I took calls at 11:00 PM on a Friday night and agreed to try to help them out of a political jam in Iowa. And I stayed neutral for a long time after my heart started to move to Obama.

But as loyal a person as I am, and highly as I prioritize loyalty in my value system, I ultimately endorsed Obama at the point where I thought Hillary's campaign was going down a destructive path, a path that I fear will destroy our chances of beating John McCain this fall. Loyalty is one of my most important values, but in the end it was trumped by other things. It was trumped by the sense that for the good of the party, the country, and the world, John McCain has to be defeated, and Hillary's campaign is leading us away from that goal.

I have always thought that, for a good person raised with solid values, the most difficult moral choices have nothing to do with the obvious good/evil kinds of things. I have never been tempted to steal money or sell out to corporations I hated or commit violence to my enemies. Those calls are easy. The tough moral choices are when you are faced with competing things that are good are like this: is it more important to get important work done, or spend time with friends and family? Is it more important to swallow my pride when a rich person I'm trying to raise money from for a good cause says something I disagree with, or better to be honest and direct even when I know I'll lose the money? If I have to make a choice between spending time on one important issue vs. another, which do I prioritize? Is loyalty to people who have been good to me more important than following what I think is the right path politically? These are the things I really find myself wrestling with.

I made a choice that was painful to me, but one that I'm comfortable with. I have no idea what Richardson's inner values system is, but I suspect he did the same thing. James has chosen loyalty above all else, a path I understand and respect, but one I ultimately couldn't walk down.

Republican Media Pundits Love Hillary

by: paulhogarth

Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 10:52

No matter how much Americans say they want us out of Iraq and no matter how divorced from reality the political discourse gets in Washington, you can always count on Beltway pundits to warn Democrats not to get "too liberal."  These elites want nothing more than to have Hillary Clinton be the party's presidential nominee to squelch those "rabid bloggers," because she's the kind of Democrat that makes them feel comfortable.  In yesterday's New York Times, right-wing columnist David Brooks gloated about Hillary's current lead in the polls - because it vindicates his thinking that the netroots don't represent America.  As Clinton courts Democratic primary voters with progressive rhetoric, keep in mind who in the media is cheering her on - because they're not the type of people that liberals should be taking their cues from.