Carville gave Feingold his tacit approval on imutt...

[slor]

he just said, "Feingold could cause a lot of damage out there, he is the most reform minded and anti war person we got". My steno skills are not great, but that is roughly what he said.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

1. ok, what about a Feingold - Clark ticket?nt

[HereSince1628]

5. This will probably make some people angry but

I don't think that Clark is going to offset the perception that Feingold (who I think represents my political views better than anyone who has contemplated running for the D nomination in a generation)is a far left northerner.

Northerners and liberals have a hard time winning the votes of southern conservative democrats. Even JFK didn't hold the south together. And since 1960 demographic shifts have moved electoral votes away from the old industrial north.

The perception that Feingold is both a liberal and northerner is going make holding the loyalty of southern conservative democrats a tough job for every Feingold-"anyone" ticket I can imagine. The VP slot is not percieved as very important and IMHO is seen somewhat contemptuously as as bait more than balance.

[slor]

7. You may be right...

but I also believe many people here are underestimating the backlash that is coming. Candidates that speak in populist terms, and want to reform politics to work for the people, are going to win the day, as long as there is no election theft.

[HereSince1628]

12. I hope there is a backlash against conservatism

[FreedomAngel82]

43. For all we know this could be the only time

we could have a true progressive like Feingold. My choice right now for 2008 is either Warner or Feingold. :) I'm so torn between the two of them now.

[blm]

11. What's Feingold's lifetime rating?

.

[HereSince1628]

14. Rating of what, by whom?

"Ideological rankings
Americans For Democratic Action, a liberal advocacy group which rates members of Congress on a scale of 0 to 100, with zero being totally conservative and 100 being completely progressive, gave Senator Feingold a lifetime average rating of 96. With the death of Minnesota's Senator Paul Wellstone in 2002, this leaves Feingold tied with California's Senator Barbara Boxer for the title of the "most progressive person" in the Senate, according to ADA. At the same time, the Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan advocacy group that pushes for fiscal responsibility, has placed him on its "Senate Honor Roll" every year since 1997, and he has ranked in the top two every year since 1998, making their suggestion that Senator Feingold is also one of the top budget hawks in Congress. The Democratic Freedom Caucus, a group of libertarian-leaning Democrats, has endorsed him during his last two senate campaigns.

In 2004, the National Rifle Association gave him a grade of D (with F being the lowest grade and A the highest). <12> On environmental issues, he was given scores of 100% from the League of Conservation Voters <13>, and 73% from CUSP <14>. The American Civil Liberties Union gave him a score of 89%. <15>"


He has also voted on committee to advance the nominations of conservative judges.

[blm]

17. His liberal rating - I didn't think it was far left or that it would hurt

him in the general.

But, then, it doesn't matter who the Democrat is, the RNC spin will be that they are too far left for mainstream America and the media will be right there to parrot the talking points. Even if it was a well=known centrist like Biden.

[HereSince1628]

19. see above. He's generally viewed as being one of the most Wellstone-like

democrats.

[blm]

21. Generally viewed isn't always accurate, though.

And I am one who believes in accuracy over perception.

[HereSince1628]

25. Well, everyone is free to pick holes, personally I think ratings suck

they are generally biased even when based on voting record because of the initial judgment of which votes should be included.

Many of the advocacy groups doing ratings treat some questions as more valuable than others.

And worse many of them give "extra credit percentages," to their pet politicians which is impossible to call anything but biased.

All the ratings are more or less subjective, and honestly, what you are going to gain by reading them is a perception rather than a measurement.

I'm more than tired of having these raters make my choices for me. I'll chose the issues and votes that are important to me, and gain my perceptions on things that are important to me.

[blm]

27. Of course, they're based on votes important to the advocacy group doing

the rating. But, all those scores cumulatively can give a more accurate picture than the media does.

No one familiar with Dean's actual record of governance and the feedback from liberal advocacy groups over the years would ever describe him the way the media did during his campaign for the Dem nomination. The feedback from liberal advocacy groups would have been the proper place for news media to start if they were going to put together a storyline.

They CREATED a storyline of a far left whacko, instead, and labeled him in a way that he still hasn't completely shaken off.

That's what the media does to Democrats - all Democrats.

[HereSince1628]

38. Ratings are biased, adding them up doesn't increase accuracy

Rather an estimate of central tendency gives that. And that yields only a measurement of the middle score of what the advocacy groups think is important. It's often a hodge-podge measure of apples and oranges. And even so the varieties of fruits considered are carefully preselected. We never get to make the personal choices of seeds or seedless? pulp or juice? tart or sweet? mealy or crisp?

And most people don't formally arrive at that estimating means, medians or modes but rather they get an intuitive subjective perception of it. At best, that yields up only a feeling of where the middle of many biased ratings is.

I would not deny that many people prefer being told what to believe, but the ratings may also completely miss or obscure the issues, perhaps the one and only issue, a voter considers to be personally critically important. And that one thing could be which candidate is more photogenic, of the right race or of an acceptable religion.

[blm]

39. Point was that MEDIA made up their own storyline and the storyline

they chose to use against Dean would have been an impossible one to promote had they even BOTHERED to check into Dean's actual record of governance and the feedback of the liberal advocacy groups.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

18. You may be right. Actually, my concern about Feingold is his

demeanor or presence. He just doesn't seem to have a likeable, charismatic persona to him. Just being realistic, demeanor matters...look at how so many people like AssClown, even though he's an idiot.

I think that the single, most important factor in the next election, will be that we present someone who has rock-solid beliefs. An unwavering value system that comes from within. Like Kennedy (although he won't run) - you can tell he believes in what he says from his gut.

[HereSince1628]

20. Feingold not likeable? I don't know what you're talking about.

I've found him plenty charming in person. I guess he's not everyone's babe magnet, but he's not Al Gore, either.

[blm]

22. Hey....I once had a sex dream about Al Gore that turned out very well

for my husband.

Gore definitely had way more sizzle for which he was rarely credited.

[NYCGirl]

32. Completely off topic but — blm, I realize we're sure to disagree on a lot

of subjects, and we've probably tangled in the past, but I agree on this point. Al Gore has sizzle. Great shoulders.

[stray cat]

23. I've met him and he was great

He seemed ok on TV too - but I think honest and competence adds to charisma

[Perky]

26. Senators do not win. Senators do not win. Senators do not win.

Only Governors, sitting VPs and Generals win the White House.

Warner, Richardson and Vilsak all have a clear advantage in the general election season.

One Senator has been elected President since 1865. ONE!!! They do not win becasue the opposition always spins the voting record. Governors get to run on being outsiders with new ideas rather then away from their voting records.

OH and btw, It seems to me that Wes Clark has disappeared except for the Pages of DU.

[HereSince1628]

30. We shall see, we shall see, we shall see.

It depends on how deep you look into their backgrounds. Yes,Kennedy was a senator, but other presidents who had been senators and who come immediately to mind include Truman, Johnson and Nixon.

[karynnj]

33. For the Democrats, there were only 2 Governors and 1 Senator

who won as non-incumbents since 1960. Even if you include Republicans, the numbers are too small. For the Democrats alone, if there were no cheating and the media was not owned by the Republicans - Gore and Kerry would have won. (I realize Kerry would not have run if Gore won in 2000).

The world was relatively calm in 1976 and 1992, when the Governors won. I think a governor (especially a Governor whose entire experience is 4 years as Governor) without Foreign policy experience will have problems against a Republican Senator who had some. (Even Allen can say he is on the SFRC, even though he seems clueless in its hearings.)

[blm]

35. Governors and their records can be spun easily. ANY Democrat gets spun

easily now because the GOP and their cronies bought control of most the broadcast media in the 80s and 90s.

You think Gov. Dean, a successful Governor with an 11yr record of centrist governance wasn't SPUN into a crazed, far left insurgent candidate?

You think there wouldn't be 100 million dollars worth of ads from 200 Generals and Commanders for Truth telling the country that Clark couldn't be trusted?

We need to expose the GOP control of the media and the voting machines before the next election - all this BS about who can win is Nowheresville.

ANY Democrat can win with secure voting machines and even a halfway fair media.

You think the media that Gore and Kerry faced in 2000 and 2004 was the same as the one Clinton faced in 1992?

HAH!

[Laura PourMeADrink]

36. forget richardson. inside info says he has "too many females

on the side" problems....

[Perky]

41. Got a link?

FIrst THat I have heard of this.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

67. No, no link. It was just a comment that someone from NM made

in a thread many months ago. It was from one of our many discussions about who we should run in 08. For some reason, I remember it. It struck me odd. He was on TV a lot during that time and I just couldn't see that he would be a womanizer - didn't see the sex appeal, personnally. Maybe I shouldn't repeat it, but I just can't see someone making it up out of the blue, can you? Wonder how we could find out...

[stray cat]

37. John F Kennedy, John F Kennedy, John F. Kennedy

[Perky]

42. Duh Duh Duh

He is the only one. The only one.

[blm]

44. How have you come to the conclusion that governors and generals CAN'T be

defined in today's media?

And what makes you think today's media bears any resemblance at all to the media Clinton faced in 1992?

[Perky]

52. I never said that

All I said was that Senaors voting records are always scrutinized by the opposition ti create t the illusion of flip-floppin or being on the wrong side of the isse.


Governors get a pass on that because all they can do is veoto or sign things into law. THey do not have a voting record. They get hit with policy effectiveness and administrative excellence issure to be sure. but alot of that stuff get a pass in the other other 49 states.


All I was suggesting was that it is far easier for a Governor to win then a Senatore and that is the main reason why.

[blm]

60. Dean was spun by the press as much as Kerry was. His entire record as Gov.

was distorted.

[Clark2008]

53. Hmm... you must not read any other blogs or get out much.

He's constantly touted on many liberal blogs.

Yes, the corporate media is scared shitless of him and ignores him, but Dem voters (who vote in primaries) see him regularly at party functions, dinners and when he goes to help campaign for Kaine, Massa and others who are trying to take back Congress.

[Perky]

59. Well the point was

I get mail from Kerry and Biden and Feingold I even got a piece from Vilsak but nada from Wes Clark.


I don't see him of talk shows I don't hear pundoits chatting about hi,....

Is he actually talking about running? Does He have people on the Ground in NH or Iowa?

is he collecting political chits? Has he written a book? Has he hired a PR firm to get his name out there?

Does he have a Website? A blog?

Has he signaled he is going to run or at least thinking about it?


I am not knocking th guy I am just saying I don't see him int he public eye. If you are a supporter does this trouble you?

[Tom Rinaldo]

71. Clark has a great web site and is staying active

Actually Clark's web site tells you about his past and future activities. Here is the home page: http://securingamerica.com/

If you look in the right hand column there is a feature called Past Events. Hit "More" and then keep scrolling back with the left arrow and you will find prior months. Also "On the Road with Wes Clark" is a new feature you will also find there just being constructed, and materials are being added to it that document many of Clark's appearances over the last year. A sample of reports are now up from Four States, many more will be added.

While you are there check out the community tab which will take you to a very vibrant blogging community also.

Clark has been to both New Hampshire and Iowa this year by the way.

[IA_Seth]

70. I am a Clark supporter, but...

I gotta agree with him to a certain extent. Where is the Clark literature?

I am out here in Iowa, praising Clark to whomever will listen, but where the heck is he and/or his people?

Clark can't make the same mistake he did last time and bypass Iowa, he just can't. He will get ZERO support here if he does not put forth an effort. I tried to caucus for him last time...it didn't happen.

Where is the organization? He should be here now, supporting one of our candidates for Congress, doing fundraisers, giving speeches. Something.

My only hope is that it picks up soon.

[htuttle]

40. Here in WI, Feingold got far more votes than 'moderate' Kerry did

Feingold consistently did well even in areas that voted for Bush in the Presidential election. The reason is that beyond any 'liberal' reputation he has, he has a stronger reputation for being an honest, straight-shooter who stands up for what he believes in. In addition, his votes for 'liberty' (against the Patriot Act, etc...) and even against the war were very well received, and helped to give him a lot of support even in the 'red' counties in Wisconsin.

So I wouldn't write him off as a 'Northern Far-Left Liberal'. If you watch how he campaigns, he doesn't come across like that at all (and he's dealt with mud-slinging wingers before -- like Kasten, for example. They end up looking very silly by the time he's done with them...).

[karynnj]

64. I'm not from Wisconsin, but in the Senate roundup articles,

Feingold was described as being a safe seat because of his popularity and because he had a pathetic opponent. Kerry meanwhile was running against a wartime President and there were millions of ads attacking his character - comparing the results and inferring much from them may be deceptive.

[iconoclastNYC]

48. This far-left northern bullshit is so tired and stupid.

What states did we not win in 2004 that we need to win in 2008:

1. Ohio
2. Flordia

I don't think either of these states are anti-Northern....especially not the Democratic leaning voters in these states.

It is a myth that we need to appeal to southerns to win and it should not be a litmus test for our nominee.

[Clark2008]

57. What's a "southerns?"

And, if you want to have a hope of uniting this country, yes, you need to appeal to Southerners and Mid-Westerners.

We have to overcome Diebold.

A populist candidate could do that (Clark and/or Feingold).

[iconoclastNYC]

66. I agree appeal to

But there is this conventional wisdom in the punditospher and to a lesser extent on DU that the nominee has to be from the south. To th extent that Kerry didn't appeal to the south, it was more about him not being able to speak like a normal person, instead of his typical political/ambassadoral manner of speech. It just reinforced all the smears the GOP was throwing out about him.

I don't think it was becasue he was from the North.

We don't need to win the South, and we probably won't ever win the South. We could pick a DLC approved good old boy from Alabama and they are still going to paint him as a elite liberal heathen babykiller homo-lover who hates thier christian southern values.

So my point is.....reject this false notion that we'll never win running someone from the North

[Tom Rinaldo]

68. But Clark/Feingold would set Feingold up later to be President

Clark has broader potential appeal in much of the nation than Feingold does, since Clark can't be spun as a Northern, Jewish, Bachelor, twice Divorced Liberal. While Clark's views are Liberal, he goes against the grain of the anti Liberal bogey man Republicans have created, because of Clark's military career. Feingold a Senator, faces a dangerous route to directly take to the Presidency, since thousands of Feingold's votes are public record to be twisted out of context and used against him. After serving as VP however, all of Feingold's "liabilities" listed above will be moot.

[cascadiance]

72. It's really more of an issue on how Feingold is sold...

Feingold in my mind has the best record in the Senate when voting on AND exercising leadership on the most important issues when it comes to things like campaign finance reform (Feingold-McCain bill), the Patriot Act, the Telecomm bill in the 90's, the Iraq War, the questions he's now asking Alito, etc. I think Boxer has been better in a few areas such as election integrity, etc., but overall, I think that getting money out of government, and our individual civil rights are the most important issues today that need the right fight being fought. Feingold is the kind of leader that would try to help the Democratic Party throw off the corporate reigns of the DLC, which I believe is essential to the Dems long term future. I'm not sure many other candidates would take on that job. Certainly not Hillary!

Whoever gets nominated is going to get grilled in unfair manner by the other side. Clark was being attacked to at certain points (when he had an article in a gay magazine, and also supposedly his subordinates in the military saying that he was disliked, etc.). Clark doesn't have the government experiences does that Feingold has, but I think he would make an EXCELLENT running mate to complement Feingold! Him being on Feingold's ticket would offset the concern that Feingold might be painted as too anti-military, etc., and would also add an "outsider" to the ticket as well so it doesn't look like a "beltway" ticket that Kerry/Edwards or Gore/Lieberman were. I think Clark might make an excellent president later with VP experience under his belt, whereas jumping right in as president might be a little overwhelming to start with.

I don't think we should trap ourselves into feeling that a Senator has no shot at winning the presidency. I do think though that when we do all agree on a nomination, we shouldn't pull any punches in defending him. Swift boating should NOT be allowed without the most severe retribution. Those folks should have been sued by Kerry after the election. Him not doing so either gives them more credibility that he's hiding something, or makes the Democratic Party look like wimps. If Swiftboat style campaigning has to pay a big price, it won't matter if the person running is a Senator or not. If he has a good record and an attitude of "take no prisoner" to defend it, I think someone Senator or Governor, or someone else can win.

I do want to see a track record though that shows me that the person we vote for will take on the important issues of reforming our campaign financing, our civil liberties, etc. which Feingold has been so great at throughout his career.

Feingold/Clark would be great!

[Tom Rinaldo]

73. I like Feingold too so this is a friendly disagreement

I would be happy with Feingold at the top of the ticket but I would rather have Clark. For one thing I strongly suspect that Clark will not be interested in going for VP in 2008, so if having him on the ticket is an asset, better think the top. Clark is both a take charge guy and a team player, so he will help whoever gets the nomination if it isn't him, but he would help from the outside, like he did for Kerry. That would be useful to a point for Feingold, but I doubt Clark wants to be VP. If anything it is more likely he would want to be Secretary of State if he doesn't become President. Clark already has one full and rich career under his belt, he has strong ideas on how to provide leadership for America and either he gets the chance to implement them himself in 2008 or he will become a senior statesmen in the Party.

I would support Feingold for President if Clark falls short, so obviously I think it is possible for Feingold to overcome the specific hurdles he faces if he runs, but I think it would be difficult for him to do so, though not impossible. I think Clark at the top of our ticket would most likely bring us victory because he is someone who most Americans will trust as Commander in Chief, which steals the trump card that the Republicans usually use right out from under them. Clark would be more believable in that role than any Republican other than McCain, and Clark is the only Democrat who could hold his own against McCain in that regard. Yes Republicans will come at him as you note, but he isn't as easy for them to get a hold on as a Liberal Senator. I think Clark, a practicing but tolerant Christian who is strong on National Security while strongly believing that Force is always the last resort, who grew up in the South but spent his adult life identified with an all 50 states American institution, can change the electoral map for Democrats in a profound way, more so than just squeezing out a narrow win in 2008 the way some other Democrats might.

But again, I love Feingold also.

P.S. Forgot to add that Clark has made some difficult decisions in life that for my book show where his true values lie, so I don't worry about the lack of a trail of votes to judge him by.

[cascadiance]

74. You might be right about Clark not being a VP candidate...

I wouldn't mind him being also in Feingold's cabinet too (actually he might be better there from a implementing reform point of view). I guess I like the guy of Clark's background being more of a strong figurehead, who can at times affect the presidents' will and judgement, but I see Feingold as more valuable as the person who's actually leading and building the policy on what to do in leadership. I am so enthused by his accomplishments as a senator, and that is what I'd like to see continue with him at the white house, and I think that the next presidential term is going to be crucial to exercise leadership to a lot of wholesale reform in terms of corporate law, campaign finance reform, and basically fixing what this schmuck we have now has destroyed over the last few years. I wouldn't want Feingold there as just "liberal window dressing". I'd rather have him stay in the Senate in some ways where he could continue helping the Senate reform there. In short I want Feingold being an empowered leader and doer wherever he is. VP isn't exactly my first choice for that.

Having Clark on the ticket at this point is mostly as a way of augmenting what Feingold doesn't have to help them get elected. For example, I also like Barbara Boxer quite a bit too, though I think it would be harder for her to win at the top of the ticket, and her together with Feingold would appeal too much to the same audience, so I do like a Feingold/Clark ticket (or perhaps even a Clark/Feingold ticket) better than a Feingold/Boxer ticket as a pragmatic and more electable choice. I also wouldn't want to hobble the Senate by taking BOTH Boxer and Feingold out. Now perhaps a Clark/Boxer ticket might also be a good one too, if we do go for Clark as the nominee, as that would be a good complementary ticket too. I think if Clark were to serve as VP for a term or two, that that would almost make him a shoe-in for a presidential run following that.

Then again, if Pelosi gets put in as president in 2007 after the impeachment, then that might complicate a bit who runs in 2008 too. Do you run Pelosi as an incumbent, put her in as a VP candidate, or what for 2008? I think Pelosi with Clark as the main candidate also might work too, but a lot will depend on the circumstances then I guess.

[Tom Rinaldo]

75. Pelosi was my Congresswoman when I lived in SF

She is another of my favorites so we are liking the same people. I would love to have the problem of who to run in 2008 if Pelosi becomes President in 2007, lol. If we are fortunate enough to elect either Clark or Feingold President, with Pelosi serving as Speaker of the House, the nightmare will be over.

[karynnj]

2. Sounds like what I heard

Do you think he meant it positively? - they had earlier spoke about need to be strong, both on standing up for positions and on defending America. Most reformed minded clearly makes Feingold strong but he's not "strong on defense". So, I couldn't figure out if the "damage" would be to the Republicans or to his favorite Democrats - who appear to be Hillary, with Warner as a back up.

I'm a little concerned that they view swiftboating as uniquely Kerry's problem - by saying Hillary wouldn't allow it. The problem is that the right wing echo chamber was FAR stronger in 2004 than in 1992. My concern is that after 2000, Democrats did no make a serious effort on election integrity. The number of ways the Republicans tried (and did) to cheat in 2004, made 2000 look innocent. If Democrats don't try to find a solution to break the effectiveness of the right wing echo chamber, any candidate will be hurt. (Kerry, in fact, was pretty much scandal free - Nixon found that his record was squeaky clean a few years after he came back from VN, when it would have been easier to find any dirt. He was followed by the FBI after he spoke to Congress.)

[stray cat]

16. It sounded very positive but he admitted Hillary was his candidate

[KoKo]

3. But, he also said he's for Hillary.

My impression was that Carville was acknowledgeing that Feingold would appeal to the anti-Iraq Invasion Left, not endoring him. :shrug:

[flpoljunkie]

4. Imutt? Typo? Could you translate?

[slor]

6. No typo...it is what some of us call Don Imus n/t

[flpoljunkie]

29. It just dawned on me. A fitting name for Newsweek's "American Patriot"

[sandnsea]

8. Push Feingold to cancel Kerry

That's what that was. And I like Feingold alot. But don't kid yourself, they're Hillary all the way.

[karynnj]

34. I scanned the first chapter of their book and think you're right

They were awful to Kerry during the general campaign and they were clearly angry he didn't put them in charge of his campaign. (Their advice, that they chose to share with the public during the campaign, seemed wrong. They were advising talking more on the economy - but Kerry's numbers improved after his speeches on Iraq and terror.)

In the book - which I saw only a few pages of - they mention that Americans don't dump war Presidents on one page, but a few pages away they say that Kerry's campaign did much wrong and Bush's did much right. Why then was the election close? In fact, rather than blasting Kerry who was out there every day, they should look at their own behavior and question whether any changes could have made a difference.

Begala and Carvelle were among the few liberals or Democrats on cable. The conservatives supported Bush through every little thing he did or said - whether sensible or not. These 2 guys blasted Bush, but spent more time making snarky comments about Kerry than defending him or repeating his message. Bush did not get his own message out alone - he had an echo chamber.

[oasis]

9. Carville and Begala didn't seem to be to keen on Joe Biden. They

praised Feingold for being outspoken on the war. Begala then lauded Howard Dean for his "smackdown" of Wolf Blitzer. His use of that word leads me to believe that Begala's a DU lurker.

[Mass]

55. Biden would hurt Hillary.

[stray cat]

10. Feingold is a solid progressive midwesterner

The upper midwest is far from a liberal hotbed - definitely pretty purple and Feingold sells very well in that part of the country. Even a large percentage of Bush voters also voted for Feingold in 2005. I think nearly 10-15% of Bush voters also voted for Feingold.

[KharmaTrain]

13. Feingold...The Safe Island

Repugnicans will try to glom onto McCain for similar reasons...the sleeze from Hurricane Abramoff has now brought lobbying and campaign finance roaring back to the headlines. The spying scandal has brought the old Watergate demons out of the closet. The situation is starting to develop that a vast majority of Washington...Democrats and Repugnicans are covered with some kind of dirty laundry or political straight jacket. They're almost in suspended animation these days...and for various reasons.

Carville is one of those caught in the middle. Thanks to his goofy marriage, James has to be privvy to more about what's going on here than he's letting on. On the other hand, there's his long DLC and Clinton connections that are running counter to the Dean and other Progressive/Liberal movements within the party that have put him in a less than positive light with many of us for a while. He sees changes happening and looking for some place to jump to until the dust settles.

Senator Feingold is rapidly becoming the standard of honesty and candor in a world where such elements are rare. He gives a credibility to Democratic arguments about the invasion, political corruption and general governmental affairs that has long been ignored and now deserves to be recognized and supported. While I think Carville needs to come clean about his own conflicts, his endorsement of Senator Feingold's activities at least show he's thinking in the right direction.

[stray cat]

15. Nice statement - its time for competence and ethics

Feingold has always been an independent courageous leader and I have never heard his ethics questioned. He speaks for the people or as we say in WI - Russ stands up for US.

[blm]

24. Carville and Mandy also knew that WH outed a CIA agent and WOULDN'T tell

the Democratic party or the American people before an election.

WHY? Why would two Clinton team members NOT TELL the voters and allow the WH to lie about their involvement throughout a presidential campaign?

Mandy Grunwald is married to Matt Cooper - she knew. Carville knows EVERYTHING and keeps his mouth shut to protect his wife who is part of the leak team.

[KharmaTrain]

28. Hindsight is 20/20

How I wish all this crap had started flowing out last year. Many of us on DU knew there were a lot of illegal things going on and now many of those crows are coming home to roost and many of the dots we were connecting are starting to appear to be solid. But that's now, that wasn't then. The climate was so different that it needs to be kept in perspective as these scandals continue to unfold.

Yep, Mandy could have know, or Carville or any Democrat, but without a corraborating, credible independent source, any charges would be ground up in the right wing hate machine and corporate media as being totally partisan and then used to bash and hurt Democrats. Say that Matalin had slipped out that Chenney ordered Libby to slime Plame and he came out and said that without an independent source to verify it? Especially in the heat of a political campaign. It's easier to say "coulda/shoulda" now after the lid's been blown off. It took a Fitzgerald and now a Risen and his sources to give credibility to scandals that were deflected by rhetoric last year.

Now, the accountability and credibility game begins. While I would have wanted to have a Carville/Begalla book on my nightstand a couple years ago, I'm not that interested now. Carville has some 'splainin' still to do about what he knew about the Plame situation, as not only did he have a public podium/forum to say something (Crossfire) but he also had one of it's protagnoists (Novakula) sitting across from him every week.

In time these scandals will not just take out politicians but many in the punditry class as well...the chattering class. These are just a couple of many who are so conflicted their influence will fade as they get caught up in one or some of these scandals.

Cheers...

[blm]

31. Yeah, but everyone knew he knew and likely wouldn't contest him on it

because that would blow the story up bigger than it was at the time.

Instead, the RNC campaign just coasted along secure that their denials kept the story off the radar for the broadcast media. After all, the DC press and the Dem pundits were willing to keep their mouths shut about it.

[Junkdrawer]

69. As Gore swears he won't run, Feingold is now my first choice...

He strikes me as solid, principled and Presidential...

[jsamuel]

45. FUCK "Electablitiy" - That has done shit for us!

How about "Electability" in that he fights for Democratic Principles! HE FIGHTS, unlike others who have been accused of "waffling", "flip-flopping", and sending out "mixed messages." See, electablility means nothing because it hurts just as much as non-electability does, except someone who is fighting for causes instead of elections has the right goals in mind and is much more likely to get elected because of it.

Carville has been steering this party into the ground since 1992.

[jackpan1260]

49. Kerry wasn't the most electable in my opinion. eom

[jsamuel]

50. True, but other possible candidates were ruled out like Dean and Dennis

because they weren't "electable". Kerry was "electable" according to Carville because of his millitary background.

[Mass]

54. Carville did not want Kerry, he wanted Edwards because he thought

it would be 1992 all over again.

Kerry was too liberal for him. (I agree he preferred Kerry to DK or Dean, but he certainly did not want Kerry. He spent the GE bashing him).

[jsamuel]

56. oh yeah, forgot about that...

I really think that Edwards would have had no chance. I don't think he would have even been above 42%.

[blm]

61. The last thing Carville would want is an anti-corruption Dem in the WH.

Considering his wife was a key player in alot of the corruption.

And Kerry opening the books on BCCI would also take down those Dems who helped cover it up, wittingly or unwittingly.

[Mass]

51. True for the steering in the ground, but here, it is just foul play

against Feingold. Carville has been all around saying you should not be anti-war. Saying that Feingold is anti-war is a way to push him aside and then promote darling Hillary or may be Warner.

[Mass]

46. Carville is pushing Hillary. The rest is political game.

I dont trust Carville at all, the man is a mediawhore, but he has been looking for a moderate, pro-war candidate for months. That he says that about Feingold is nothing else than a way to disqualify him.

[jackpan1260]

47. a Feingold and Warner ticket would be music to my ears. eom

[Clark2008]

58. They're complete opposites!

I don't know how that would work.

[jackpan1260]

63. No, the complete opposites from them are republicans. eom

[jsamuel]

62. why do you like Warner?

I have seen very little about him. I have only seen one thing and I didn't like it (but that is no reason to think that he isn't good).

[jackpan1260]

65. I like

the fact that he seems very sincere about his beliefs, just like Feingold. I like candidates who are comfortable with where they stand, and aren't just saying or doing things to get elected. It is one of the reasons that Hillary Clinton is one of my least favorite candidates right now. Anyway, Warner amended an executive order that for the first time explicitly bans Virginia state agencies from discriminating against gays in hiring and promotions. What he has done in Virgina, as far as job growth, fiscal reponsibility and education is impressive, especially since he has been able to accomplish much by working with both republicans and democrats. Virginia hasn't gone for a democrat since LBJ, so it's not like he has it easy. He is consistently a top rated governor for a reason.

All of these things sound like the exact opposite as what is going in this current administration. That sounds very good to me.