James Carville's Consultant Con

There are two main reasons why James Carville does not like Howard Dean. The first is that Howard Dean does not trash other Democrats, and Carville prefers Democrats who throw their own party under the bus. The second is that he is a political consultant, and as such many of his friends have gotten rich off of commissions from television advertisements. As far as he is concerned, all donations to all Democratic committees exist so that he and his friends can get richer. Since Howard Dean is spending money on field organizers and grants to state parties, his friends tend to not get rich from the money the DNC raised. This is abhorrent to Carville, since Democratic Party committees exist to make him and his friends rich.

However, there is a serious problem with many of the television advertisements that Democrats run. That is why on MyDD we set up Adwatch in order to monitor if the money we raised for campaigns was being spent effectively. Looking at the final results from the fifteen House races where the DCCC spent its money, one has to wonder if we did spend our money as effectively as we could have:
  • 1. PA-06: Lost
  • 2. NM-01: Losing
  • 3. CT-05: win, but credited the netroots
  • 4. OH-15: Losing
  • 5. IL-06: Lost
  • 6. IN-08: Win
  • 7. CA-50: Lost
  • 8. PA-07: Win, but raised $1M online
  • 9. AZ-05: Win
  • 10. KY-04: Lost
  • 11. WA-08: Lost
  • 12. PA-08: Win, but credited the netroots
  • 13. OH-18: Win, but defeated DCCC candidate in primary
  • 14. FL-22: Win
  • 15. CT-04: Loss
The numbers I used for this ranking come from when there was still one week to go in the election, but they still tell a disturbing tale (see source information here). Why did the DCCC lose, or is in the process of losing, eight of its top fifteen targets? Why have only six of the fifteen candidates the DCCC originally backed in these races win? Over 85% of the DCCC's independent expenditures in these races came in the form of television ads. Will the consultants in charge of thee ads be held accountable for their sub-500 record? Will other consulting firms be tested out in the future in order to see if they can produce better results? Keep in mind that I am not criticizing the DCCC for choosing these districts, because this is not a bad top fifteen-target list at all. Also, in the seats we did win, it was usually by a very narrow margin, and so this amount of money may have been necessary. However, we should have done better in this list than we did, and I do not think it takes much to argue that the main reason for our failure rests with ineffective television advertising.

Yet still, after producing a sub-.500 record int eh top fifteen House targets, Carville has the gall to tell the press that he and his other consultant buddies deserved even more money so that they could have run even more ineffective advertisements. I write this not as someone looking to attack the DCCC, but instead as someone looking to get my money's worth. The Use It Or Lose It campaign helped direct more than $2.3M into DCCC coffers for the final election push. The MyDD / Dailykos / Swing state Project Act Blue page directed more than $1.5M into Democratic coffers since February. I want to make sure that the money I donated, my community donated, and that we all helped transfer to the DCCC was spent wisely. Looking at our performance in the top fifteen targets, I have some serious doubts that it was.

Carville can try and continue his consulting con that more money to the DCCC would have automatically translated into more victories for Democrats in the House, but looking at our performance in the top fifteen targets, I have to say that is hardly a guarantee. What is a guarantee is that it would have made his rich consulting buddies a lot more money. We practically swept every close race in the Senate, so I have no beef with their consultants. However, when it comes to the House, I want answers. Did we use the right consultants? What other options to we have? What commissions are they taking from these ads? How can we work to reduce the size of those commissions if they are being done on a percentage basis? To what extent are other forms of independent expenditures besides advertising on broadcast advertising more or less effective? How much money does James Carville personally stand to gain from the extra money he wanted channeled to close House races?

These are questions that many people, including the media and the DCCC, need to start asking James Carville. We need answers to these questions. Just because we won does not mean we can't do better in the future. Figuring out what happened to DCCC advertising in our most heavily targeted races is a big area where we can start improving.

Tags: Adwatch, dccc, House 2006, Independent expenditures, Money, Use It (all tags)

Comments

45 Comments

Re: James Carville's Consultant Con

Chris, you're wrong  - Carville is not an ad-man, and his firm has never been one. I'm no shill for Carville, don't work in politics, don't even care if you're right or wrong. But I'm just so sick of the attitude on this site.

Look, we had two very winnable congressional races out here in Nevada (NV-02, NV03) both decided by less than 5K votes. A few more dollars in both races would have clearly put us over the top.

We were one of the first states to get DNC "50 state" money to hire rural organizers. We improved not a whit our performance in rural counties.

So you tell me again how Carville is wrong. He said Dean made a mistake to spend so much money in 05 on consultants, staff and field organizers not tied to particular races. AS a result, we didn't have money to do what the Republicans did in 94, to maximize our gains.

Then we've got self-appointed experts telling us whats what. Ya'll cared not one whit for our races in NV, Stoller was downright rude when local Democrats like me posted about the situtation vis-a-vis Carter, and now we read this stuff.

Just put down the attitude. Talk to us like adults.

by desmoulins 2006-11-15 11:37AM | 0 recs
Re: James Carville's Consultant Con

see "My Brand is Crisis." I can't speak to the subject of Chris's specific critique but it's clear the Clintonistas such as Carville are a one trick pony whether it's here, or apparently abroad.

by bruh21 2006-11-15 11:40AM | 0 recs
You mean other than taht carville's a lying fuck?

he said taht he went to Dean asking him to spend moer DNC money on third tier races, and Dean turned him down.

That's a fucking lie.

The DNC actually borrowed several million dollars in mid to late October PRECISELY for this purpose.

I don't know why Carville is trashing Dean. I don't necessarily agree that it's money. I think Carville has been designated the "Attack Dog" by the Clinton camp to take Dean out before the 2008 DEmocratic primaries.

Carville is, I think, working for Bill and Hillary Clinton on this. There is no other plausible explanation. They have to get rid of Howard Dean at the DNC because he's an obstacle to Hillary's nomination.

by Hesiod Theogeny 2006-11-15 11:52AM | 0 recs
I don't get it either

It may just be that Democrats are ornery, and when there are no Republicans to fight with, they fight with each other.

by stevehigh 2006-11-15 02:16PM | 0 recs
Klinton Konspiracy

I don't buy this Klinton Konspiracy thing. Nobody can deny that they are exceedingly smart people and good politicians. They know how stupid this sounds. They know how power works. Having people think they are behind this Dean bashing only hurts them. Having people think they are behind this Dean bashing and failing hurts them more.

by kvenlander 2006-11-15 03:04PM | 0 recs
Re: James Carville's Consultant Con

The DCCC doesn't need to be held accountable because they weren't focused on the races they thought were winnable, but instead they focused energy on expanding the playing field, as part of the 50 state strategy that Al From invented.

Also, Carville was going to tell Democrats to talk about Iraq, but didn't want to take away from Dean's limelight.

by Bob Brigham 2006-11-15 11:38AM | 0 recs
Re: James Carville's Consultant Con

Since Bill Clinton won the Presidency in 1992, Carville has been about one thing and one thing only.  Making as much money as possible by doing as little work as possible.

by pontificator 2006-11-15 11:43AM | 0 recs
This is a power play by the Clintons.

Don't get sidetracked. Carville is doing Hillary and Bill's bidding. They want THEIR ally at the DNC for her 2008 run. And Dean has his own independant power base. They also think he's in the Gore camp.

Carville is the designated attack dog for the Clintons. Neither of them can directly attack Howard Dean because they know it will piss off the netroots and the party activists. So Carville is falling on his sword for them.

Carville is nothing but a mouthpiece.

by Hesiod Theogeny 2006-11-15 11:55AM | 0 recs
Re: James Carville's Consultant Con

We lost KY-4 because we had a candidate that didn't have the heart to run, from what I have been told.  He had to be drafted out of retirement to run.  I respect the guy but wrong candidate at the wrong time.

We had a candidate that helped divert RNC money from KY3.

by kydem 2006-11-15 11:59AM | 0 recs
Carville: 'Dean left $6 mil unspent on election'

Moments ago on CNN Carville argued that the DNC had a $10 million line of credit available and only drew $4 million of it for the election, alleging that the remaining $6 million was available, but not used, possibly costing us seats.  Leaving Carville's likely less than altruistic motivations aside, what is the truth on this?  What's the backstory?

by Steve in Sacto 2006-11-15 12:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Carville: 'Dean left $6 mil unspent on electio
From what I understand, they drew the $10M line of credit based on the total amount they were looking for. They probably raised the other $6M, and so they didn't need to borrow it.
by Chris Bowers 2006-11-15 12:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Carville: 'Dean left $6 mil unspent on electio

That still leaves the question of why in this election enviroment they didn't tap the additional $6 million that was allegedly available.  That's the charge -- Dean/DNC had $6 mil available that they didn't use. (To be clear, I don't know that it's true, but that's the allegation Carville's making.)

by Steve in Sacto 2006-11-15 12:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Carville: 'Dean left $6 mil unspent on electio

They money was late by the time the credit was approved. If Emanuel wouldn't have wasted piles of money on vanity races and instead invested early in scalable models, then the candidates themselves could have used the money on their plan instead of last minute DC ads. It should have come early and been about Iraq, but Emanuel was way behind the curve on both counts.

Don't let Carville change the subject into late money for the DCCC when the most critical idea was early money for candidates to talk about Iraq.

by Bob Brigham 2006-11-15 02:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Carville: 'Dean left $6 mil unspent on electio

why was 3 million spent in duck- if you start playing that game

by bruh21 2006-11-15 05:23PM | 0 recs
Re: James Carville's Consultant Con

When it comes to money the only thing Dean knows how to do is waste it.  If you don't believe go back and watch the CNN special "True Believers" about the Dean campaign.  

What did Carville do that was so bad in Our Brand Is Crisis?  He helped a centrist get elected.  Someone who actually wanted the country to grow and succeed in the global economy, as opposed to the kook they have running the place now.

by ditka 2006-11-15 12:03PM | 0 recs
Re: James Carville's Consultant Con

That was then.  This is now.  If it weren't for Dean, we would not have had an organization of netroots in 50 States.  A first in a long time.

Carville is part of the KStreet Hacks that suck up to corporate money and were pro war, and  hardly represent a relevant part of Party.He is dated,unattractive in his thinking,appearance, and general presentation.  Most of all he is yesterday.  Carville's con is that Zell Miller should run as VP with Gore.
He doesn't even understand that mad dogs like Miller are what all the voters rejected.

He is negative.  His housemate is Mary Matalin, Cheney's confidante and counsel at first days of GOP power, and an idealogue of the extreme right.

He has NO credibility.  Dean's efforts have been validated as positive and express long range strategic thinking, and short range success.  He's wise to hang on to dollars he'll need to strengthen the party in all the 50 states.

Carville should get his bucks from his wife's contacts [who are many].

by morris1030 2006-11-15 02:04PM | 0 recs
Re: James Carville's Consultant Con

Dean learned from bitter experience about campaign consultants and their percentage of ad buys AND how the rest of it gets wasted from his brilliant but erratic campaign manager Trippi.

HE's not the one who wasted the millions raised.

Trippi burned money like there was no tomorrow esp in Iowa, and this seriously aggravates a man who wears a suit from JC Penney's and had to be told to get a new one while campaigning. (Although that was no JC PEnney suit he wore on Fox News after the election. mmmm mmmm yummm yummm)
And he never whined nor took it public just as he was a total class act with regard to Kerry. If Mr. Carville could refrain and withdraw what's left of his man parts from his Matalin-jammin' he could learn how a real man behaves by observing Doctor Governor Chairman Dean.

by rodean 2006-11-15 03:33PM | 0 recs
Re: James Carville's Consultant Con

yeah- because thats what that documentary proved- whatever man

by bruh21 2006-11-15 05:24PM | 0 recs
Re: James Carville's Consultant Con

ps you had me until you bs'ed about the documentary- the other stuff I dont know-b ut the movie showed him to be an idiot who thinks only in terms of one way- the same strategy he used in 1992. we are 16 years beyond that day./

by bruh21 2006-11-15 05:25PM | 0 recs
Carville got a taste of money in DC

http://www.carville.info/

He had international clients listed and a separet list for business. He also list consulting for campaigns which to me would leave him in the game of ads and at least guiding to ad-men, most likely with a referal fee from the contractor.

I do know that TN didn't seem to get any money to help try and beat Marsha Blackburn in TN - 7.

It seems a little tilted for her to get worried by our headway and have $600,000 dumped in for ads and such to Bill Morrisons $40,000 from grassroots.

I am sure there are many races across the country that could have been helped and may have won or at the least put a strong base for the coming races.

by dk2 2006-11-15 12:36PM | 0 recs
Re: James Carville's Consultant Con

The criticism you've outlined is overblown.  we just swept the Congress and all is see on this site is bitching about the election.  WE WON!!!  WE DIDN'T LOSE!!

I worked on Cap Hill for 10 years and this is by far the best effort the DCCC had since I can remember.  I've had my issues with the DCCC in the past, but this year they had money, they were focused, they ran good candidates and they were aggressive.  And they stayed on message.  Almost all those seats you listed are in swing or Rep-leaning seats.  For example, even in a year like this, winning Henry Hyde's seat is tough.  

There's no way you're going to win every seat and sometimes you spend too much money in a seat here and there--it's a calculated guess and in most cases this year, they were right.  But, by and large, the Dems won a lot more seats than they normally would b/c they played to the strengths of candidates in those districts, such as Health Schuler.

I don't know all the details of the fight between Carville and Dean, but it's a valid point to raise about why the DNC wouldn't pony up more money.  I actually agree with Dean's 50 state strategy.  but the DCCC also had their job to do and that was to take congress this year. Period.  and they did it. In my view, the fighting between the two of them is dopey, b/c they can coexist and work both strategies.  

I suspect that Carville is unhappy with Dean b/c Carville is supporting the Clintons and b/c he thinks there are better ways to spend the DNC money.  Big surprise.  i don't think it's much deeper than that.

I could just as easily criticize you and other Lamont supporters for spending so much time and money in a Blue state when we really needed more money and effort in the red and purple areas.  I'm no big fan of Lieberman and wanted Lamont to win, but the handwringing over him has to end.  Ho got elected, let's move on.  Ironically, he now has more power than ever before.

Instead of focusing of everything that allegedly went wrong,  let's build on this huge victory.  Election night couldn't have gone much better and we're in charge of congress. Finally.  let's work together to keep it that way.  that includes working with the DC establishment to find common ground.

by pollardkick 2006-11-15 12:38PM | 0 recs
Bitching about the election?


  Show me where Howard Dean has called for Carville or Emmanuel or Schumer to step down because of supposed shortcomings on their part.

 This tempest is all Carville's doing. All of it.

by Master Jack 2006-11-15 01:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Bitching about the election?

You are right.  The only bitching should   be is to get Carville to shut up.  He wants Zell [mad  dog] Miller as a VP candidate.  Got that?

We won BIG!!!!!  Carville is a pain and a loser.

by morris1030 2006-11-15 02:09PM | 0 recs
"the fifteen races where the DCCC spent its

money"  ??

Surely the DCCC didn't spend in only 15 districts until the last week?  If they did, that's frickin crazy.  You don't win 15 by spending in 15, and we all know they planned to win 15+.

I could go back to the independent expenditure chart that you put together, but since you were just there getting those numbers, maybe you could explain what these 15 races are?  Their biggest expenditures, their only ones, etc.

Thanks.

by texas dem 2006-11-15 12:46PM | 0 recs
Dean was hired by Labour in the UK

and THAT is what really pissed off Carville.  Dean's hiring was reported by the Guardian a few days ago and they want Dean to consult the party on grassroots in Britain.  Heretofore, it was CARVILLE who was getting all the international consulting gigs, from the labour Party in both the UK and Israel, to the PRI in Mexico.  

This is ALL about money and power and prestige.  Like EVERYTHING is for the Clinton's and their stooges like James Carville.

by jgarcia 2006-11-15 01:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Dean was hired by Labour in the UK

here's the link

http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/stor y/0,,1945409,00.html

by jgarcia 2006-11-15 01:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Dean was hired by Labour in the UK

Thank you.  Carville's bitchin' is all about money he can't get as a consultant.

by morris1030 2006-11-15 02:12PM | 0 recs
Re: James Carville's Consultant Con

A K Street hack married to a rabid Republican who was Cheney's most trusted aide and counsel.

His day is over, and he should be routed out without a penny.  Outdated,unattractive,and not
at all effective or accurate.  .
When will Democrats stop giving him $$???

Carville would do well for Republicans, or where ever else he can con a buck. WHY is he on CNN?

We need vital,true,smart,savvy,contemporary and gifted consultants who know how to frame and present their thinking, and who earn their money by knowing where it's at.

by morris1030 2006-11-15 01:52PM | 0 recs
Re: James Carville's Consultant Con
This sounds like a speaking engagement, not a job. Nowhere in the article does it say he's been hired. Read it. "Howard Dean, the former presidential candidate and one of the men credited with masterminding the trouncing of the Republicans, will visit the UK next month to brief party officials about his pioneering campaigning techniques."
by From The Choir 2006-11-15 02:02PM | 0 recs
Re: James Carville's Consultant Con

They never say that Carville is hired either when he goes overseas.  Do you think people consult for free?

The point is Carville is jealous.  It's no more elegant than that.

by jgarcia 2006-11-15 02:06PM | 0 recs
Re: James Carville's Consultant Con

My hunch is that this embarrassing commercial and the money spent on it did more to lose PA-06 than anything the Republicans threw at her. I blame Lois Murphy and her media consultants for losing PA-06, not Rahm, Howard, Carville, Jim Gerlach, robocalls, or anything else.

by bschak 2006-11-15 02:11PM | 0 recs
Media vs. Mobilization

We're discussing this at SoapBlox Chicago re: the efficacy of campaigns that focus on "walkers" or direct contact, vs. paid media in an IL-06 thread. "Vosicky" refers to a local candidate Joe Voskicy who was supported largely by Cegelis staff/volunteers who ran for an IL General Assembly seat that hasn't seen a Democrat come close in decades. He's currently within 100 votes and in the process of a recount. This is astounding for this seat. His campaign focused greatly on F2F voter contacts and building community networks. From my comments there regarding "walkers" vs. paid media:

Walking is just one method of direct contact. The GOP in these areas have a network built up to get their information out. Democrats are still building this network and cutting into the GOP networks. This will take time to accomplish. I still believe that one to one, F2F contact is better than paid media and more effective on many levels, even if it doesn't show immediate results.

For example, the networks tapped by Vosicky are still there and can be built upon. The people contacted are in a data base now, and can be returned to. The activists highlighted in these areas are now available for other runs at these offices'. And Democrats in a reddish-purple area now know there are Democrats like them out there, and winning is possible. And the database is in the hands of local Democratic activists making it harder for outside machine forces to impact the area.

[...]

I'll take walkers and neighbor to neighbor contact over paid media any day where funds are limited. Paid media is needed to be sure, and a necessary part of the equation where money permits. But it's just one part of that equation. Not the be-all end-all that is the reason COH lines on and FEC report are so important to so many people like Rahm over the character of a candidate. Paid media should not trump a candidate's worth.

I really think the Democratic party needs to study the efficacy of such paid media and do a cost/benefit analysis of what is the best and most efficient method of spending money. And such an analysis needs to take into account a long term view, not a shortsighted one-cycle view of elections. Paid media seems so cost ineffective and short sighted, especially in light of how it drains money from building long term foundations that yield results repeatedly over time.

by michael in chicago 2006-11-15 03:34PM | 0 recs
CT-5

I worked on Chris Murphy's campaign a lot and I'd say he's just being generous crediting the netroots. The lesson of CT-5, which is an important one, is how the DCCC, the traditional grassroots and the netroots can work together successfully. Each found their niche.

The DCCC helped with an absolutely bruising TV war. Johnson had gobs of money and Murphy didn't get traction until he could compete on the airwaves. Murphy ran a completely traditional grassroots operation as well. Groups like students, which have always been active, played a big part in this. And the netroots, though they didn't push Murphy like they did Lamont, provided a lot of the energy that pushed us over the top. Instead of fighting over credit, let's replicate CT-5.

by CT student 2006-11-15 04:35PM | 0 recs
Re: James Carville's Consultant Con

I doubt that Carville likes to lose.  It's just that it doesn't bother him as much as it does the rest of us.  He's married to a Republican, so if they're in power, she's happy.  He's rich and white, so he is insulated from the more hateful policies of the Republicans.  In fact, he benefits from some of them, particularly their tax policies.  And, bottom line, win or lose he makes money with every election cycle.  He doesn't get paid for results.  When every election is a win for his pocketbook, it doesn't matter as much whether it's a win for his candidate, party, or country.

by libdevil 2006-11-15 04:43PM | 0 recs
Re: James Carville's Consultant Con

check this link out, Carville wanted ANOTHER million bucks to waste on Duckworth?  WTF?

OMG, he STILL doesn't get it.  Perhaps Massa and Maffei and Burner would beg to differ!

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/16/us/pol itics/16dems.html?ei=5094&en=cf1bf55 57313f0a8&hp=&ex=1163653200& partner=homepage&pagewanted=print

by jgarcia 2006-11-15 05:50PM | 0 recs
Re: James Carville's Consultant Con

I think you're holding the DCCC to way too high a standard. This was a historic election & incumbency is very difficult to overcome, and is overcome by much less than .500.  

by DRR7799 2006-11-15 06:19PM | 0 recs
Re: James Carville's Consultant Con

This thread proves my point; this site has become childish and creepy. Its now like the early days of Dem Underground, full of weird conspiracy theories, baseless accusations, and bad spelling. Worst of all, its full of juvenile political analysis -- eg "Carville married a republican," so he's EEEEVILLL...

by desmoulins 2006-11-15 06:57PM | 0 recs
Re: James Carville's Consultant Con

Did you forget the fact that Carville leaked the Kerry recount musings to the other camp?

Dont act so clueless as to why people hate Carville. A one election fluke of a guy who needed Perot's help to gain some traction on his counterattacks on Bush I.

by Pravin 2006-11-16 02:09AM | 0 recs
Re: James Carville's Consultant Con

Carville is a sleaze.  The much maligned Chicago Tribune puff piece had a few lines where Rahm went ballistic on Carville for suggesting that the final round of ads stop attacking on the Iraq issue and strike a "conciliatory" tone.

It seems that he is trying to sow discord, to set factions against one another.

And don't forget his legendary phone call after the 2004 election, telling his wonderful wife about what the Kerry campaign was planning.

Not to mention he was a late add to the Kerry campaign.  

Maybe I'm reading something into nothing, but there seems to be a bad odor coming from the Cajun's general direction.

I don't trust a word that comes out of Carville's mouth.  He is Zell Miller.

by JJCPA 2006-11-15 07:00PM | 0 recs
Re: James Carville's Consultant Con

Hermanos: Carville is a fast-talking jive artist now, and let's not forget the "camafon" treason he did with his wife to let slip the strategy on the '04 Ohio recount... Bad news, bad stuff, bad boy for us now.  His ads were not effective no how, way behind the times, and wrong strategy.

Can't we just get him his own TV show?  Like it could play to the ol' Hee-Haw crowd?  My advice: Dejarlo en el camino.  Let him start hitch-hiking with his wife!        

by diego277 2006-11-15 09:46PM | 0 recs
Jesus

THIS IS THE CLINTONS!!!!!!

by brutus1 2006-11-15 11:01PM | 0 recs
I dont think it's the Clintons

I am definitely not a fan of the Clintons. But even I think Hillary is not that stupid to go on the Dean attack this early.

I think Carville is giving voice to a bunch of entrenched interests in the party. The Clintons probably are part of it, but not directly. If you notiiced, except for Conyers, I do not see anyone inthe party condemning him. WHere the hell is Pelosi? What a nitwit she is. Spending all her capital on Murtha while not trying to put a creature like Carville in his place.

by Pravin 2006-11-16 02:13AM | 0 recs
Re: James Carville's Consultant Con

I agree that Carville:

a) considers the grassroots to be amateurs;

b) is trying to snowplow Dean to get someone in that will direct everything to the 2008 presidential race, which he believes will aid Hillary (though I have my doubts that she and Bill are pulling his strings, even though I'm not a Hillary fan).

c)loves fighting down and dirty; it's a Louisiana tradition;

d)knows how to get airtime and will continue to attack Dean, and

e) does have monetary or power interests as a motivation.

Carville also knows it's a tough task to take down a chair after such a strong victory, which explains why he's gotta be vicious to achieve it.

I'm not convinced that there's a war between Emmanuel and Dean; it looks like Carville is trying to promote one to force people to take sides. I hope Rahm and Howard will meet the press together, indicate that Dean's chairmanship will continue, and they remain supportive of each other. That'd defuse the concerns pretty quick.

However... I also know that Chris either has insider contacts that help him track the real action or else he's got great instincts that rarely are amiss.

IMO, Dean deserves our support, so if Chris feels Dean needs our support right now, then I'll trust his judgment because Chris has earned big cred here with all I watched him do this election year, and the groundwork that came before.

I know from talking to delegates in Oregon that the DNC support definitely bettered our state organization and boosted the positive outcomes here. No doubt some states were less effective in their use of the funds; all party delegations are not created equal. And I bet future outlays will vary after performance appraisals are completed.

Dean's got a solid record of efficient spending when he's holding the checkbook (I believe he was as surprised as anyone that his campaign staff burned up his campaign cash, and won't grant such discretion again).

Carville is on the road to irrelevance. And the best way to assure that is to keep Dean at the helm.

 

by KevinHayden 2006-11-16 12:58PM | 0 recs
Re: James Carville's Consultant Con

Weren't James Carville and Paul Begala the chief strategists (and Stan Greenberg the primary pollster) for the Clinton White House and its wholly-owned DNC subsidiary in the run-up to the 1994 mid-term elections?

My memory isn't what it used to be, but I don't recall that '94 was such a stellar Democratic year.

Perhaps Mr. Carville should be a bit careful when he accuses someone of "Rumsfeldian incompetence", unless a mirror is involved.

by jws 2006-11-16 01:39PM | 0 recs
Re: James Carville's Consultant Con

The PA-7th was lost because Weldon's family is under a FBI investigation!

by TonyC 2006-11-25 02:27PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads