Who's the Boss?
There's something telling about the way Carville & Begala keep antagonizing their would-be friends by appearing on CNN to defend Dom Imus. Normally when you hear liberal grousing about Carville's CNN spots lately it's about things like his habit of occassionally going on the network to disparage Barack Obama or John Edwards without him being presented properly as the Hillary Clinton partisan -- not a former member of her staff, but an inner circle of "kitchen cabinet" advisors -- that he is.
Clinton herself, however, has led admirably on this issue, doing the right thing substantively for the country. It's also been the right move politically for herself -- appealing with the base in general, but perhaps more important providing a reminder that putting women in positions of power really would make a difference. But Carville doesn't have her back. Doesn't even have her back to the extent that he was willing to, say, argue Imus' case privately but not speak publicly on the issue. No. Clinton's made taking a lead role on this issue a priority last week, and there's Carville with the knives.
Which tells us relatively little about Carville or Clinton or Imus as such. Rather, it reminds us of the fundamental truth that's all-too-infrequently spoken -- that for all the talk of "interest groups" influencing the Democratic Party absolutely nobody is more influential than the essentially permanent members of the consulting aristocracy. In an important sense, they don't really work for their clients, mere politicians who come and go. Their clients don't quite work for them, but they are subservient to them.
Comments
I presume this post officially opposes you to Confessore's "The Myth of the Democratic Establishment."
putting women in positions of power really would make a difference.
Agree with the sentiment, but, you know...Speaker of the House, etc.
It's also possible that Carville just isn't as influential with Clinton as one might think-- you're assuming that she's surrounding herself with people she agrees with. Which is possible --and not unheard of-- but not actually necessary for the formulation of policy.
I've seen this said many times. But what I don't understand is: Why?
How do the consultants retain any real influence or power? What do they have that Democratic politicians need? What would prevent a Democratic politician from simply dumping one or all of these consultants?
Can someone who knows more about behind-the-scenes politics clue me in?
What do they have that Democratic politicians need?
The trust of other member of the permanent Washington/political class.
Their clients don't quite work for them, but they are subservient to them.
Hillary is subservient to James Carville?
Maybe they talked about it and decided that Carville's public position on Imus is completely immaterial to Hillary's electoral chances.
The last time MY posted on this topic, he said something like, "political consultants are supposed to be partisan hacks," so they should always be loyal. I don't think that's true. I'd want a consultant who tells me what he really thinks, and maybe even says it in public. I don't think it would help to have a consultant who's a spineless weasel.
The trust of other member of the permanent Washington/political class.
So they're just connection-peddlers? Seems like that wouldn't give them nearly enough power to backstab someone like Hillary Clinton on national television.
The trouble is that it's not like Carville is out there, boldly advocating for core Democratic values. He's out there defending a sexist jackass, closing ranks against anyone who isn't part of the Washington Establishment.
This is the point: the Consultariat aren't partisan hacks - they're status quo hacks, and for them to have big power over what should be the Party of Change is a big problem.
As for subservience, I'm not sure MY was meaning HRC specifically - the issue is that elected Dems in general don't have the power to either shut consultants down in private or tell them off in public. But, frankly, if Carville had HRC's best interests in mind (which, as a consultant, you'd think he might), he wouldn't need to be told to shut up (I'm really not interested in double-cross theories of how Carville defending Imus helps HRC's attacks on Imus, etc.).
Or perhaps Carville and Matalin, who have known Don and Deirdre Imus for a very long time--I think Mary said on Imus last week she knew Deirdre before she married Imus--really believe (like me) Imus is worth defending (even though they she is anti-Hillary).
The short-term demise of Imus may seem a short-term victory for the left, but strategically it is first-degree dumb for the Dems (if not for Clinton). Carville and Begala know that.
There was an interesting conversation a couple of weeks ago when the Donald (Trump that is) pleaded with Imus to invite Hillary to the program. Imus said No.
Seems like that wouldn't give them nearly enough power to backstab someone like Hillary Clinton on national television.
I don't know what that means. There isn't a magical filter between the camera and the person being filmed that judges the power of the person before deciding to transmit the sound and images.
i barely know imus, cant stand carville, think begala's not bad. what surprises me about this mess is that of all the "shock jocks" only the one who occasionally hosts Democrats and actively (at least lately) attacks Cheney is the one who's forced off the air. great news for Limbaugh and Beck and every other right-wing freak that has the run of CNBC. great work, folks.
Look scorpio and pauld,
Imus was *at best* a weak reed to hang a democratic publicity strategy on--weaker even that appearing on jon stewart or the colbert report. Imus was not, and never would have been, a dependable democratic ally like limbaugh or beck are dependable right wing shills. In fact I'd argue that depending on Imus and ignoring the ways in which his shtick undercut democratic values and democratic groups and politiicans was a form of slow suicide. Sure, Imus took on Katrina and that was big but no doubt eventually he would have come around to blaming the dems for it. Imus was not and never will be a progressive, he was simply a jerk with a big microphone who allowed his personal likes and dislikes to dictate his political views and used bigotry and outright racism and sexism to sell his show to a desirable young white audience. The idea that he was ever going to truly i nform them, rather than inflame them, is absurd. I recommend everyone head over to No more mr nice blog for a li nk to a wonderful essay by a guy named nugent on this very topic. It says more than anyone else has managed to about the historic use of racism and bigotry by the right wing since reagan and up to and including Imus.
But at any rate I never look to begala and carville to tell me what is good for the dems--they are political strategists and not the best ones, by the way, and their goal is to get particular politiicans into power. As far as they are concerned th elarger goals of a democratic re-alignment, of progressive politics, of the democratic party as a whole are not more important than the temporary interests of their own candidates. I'd say at this point that *not even* the interests of their own candidates matter much if carville continues to argue that Imus was a good guy when Imus has always referred to Hillary as "Satan" and refused to interview her. Exactly how is throwing someone off the air for gross indecency a bad thing if you can' *even* get what your candidates need from him (ie a platform?). I understand, but don't condone the argument from utility that scorpio and paulD are advancing but its not even rationally connected to what Imus was actually doing.
But here' something else--people keep saying there's a market for a show with a smart interviewer who would interview and promote democratic and progressive leaders. So, what's the big deal? Aren't there other people who could fill taht slot? Or are we so out of ideas that we had to rely on a has been drug addicted multiple offender to amuse the populace with his hateful speech *so that* we could hope they stayed on past the commercials to hear something useful politically? Imus filled a slot in people's lives, the "not very busy early morning with my cup of coffee time." Frankly, most people would watch a trained monkey at that tiime if it was on.
aimai
So what do we do about it, Matt?
But Carville doesn't have her back. Doesn't even have her back to the extent that he was willing to, say, argue Imus' case privately but not speak publicly on the issue. No. Clinton's made taking a lead role on this issue a priority last week, and there's Carville with the knives.
Um, how does Carville taking a different position reflect on Hillary at all?
It is a stab in the back ("knives") for Carville to take a different position than Hillary on whether Imus should be fired??? How? Imus has nothing to do with her candidacy at all. If Hillary says she wants the Yankees to win the World Series and Carville says he wants the Braves to win the World Series, are we going to get an anguished Matthew post on how Carville is stabbing Hillary in the back by promoting the Braves instead of the Yankees?
Whatever consultants are, I don't think they're an 'aristocracy'. If one would want to use such a word to describe them, I think someone fron the time of Louis XIII when the Three Musketeers is set would call such people, along with many pundit/media types too, collectively as 'court fops', people who know all about 'court' and little else. The only way to get rid of such people is the anarchists way I'd think, so I doubt one would really want to, and they always have existed, even in the US too.
Would such people were the 'aristocrats' of the Dem party. They'd be better than the govt employee union bosses that at present really are the dukes and earls!
Well, in answer to "al" it seems to me that if one buys a consultant the least one can ask of him is to stay temporarily bought. Up until he was forced to acknowledge publicly that he was working for Hillary Carville's shtick was to say that his sincere and unpurchased opinion was that hillary was the best cndidate etc...etc...etc... Now that he is publicly part of her team she ought to be able to expect that he will at least not undercut her position on anything important openly. Why is that? Because Hilary's problem, from a media coverage standpoint, is the continued accusation that she does everything in a calculated way for effect. Carville is kind of saying "yeah, she went against the advice of her consultants not for good reasons, which I carville would agree with but for bad reasons, which I carville disagree with." Carville, I'm sure, doesn't represent himself as anything other than a beacon of sweet reason and honesty so where does that leave his candidate's position?
I wouldn't hire a consultant to tell me what I want to know, but I wouldn't hire a consultant who is going to go on national tv and publicly disavow my stated positions, either. You are either hiring a public attack dog or you are hiring private consultation but carville is mixing the two and screwing hilary in the meantime.
aimai
Hey aimai, does your name mean "ambiguous"?
Up until he was forced to acknowledge publicly that he was working for Hillary Carville's shtick was to say that his sincere and unpurchased opinion was that hillary was the best cndidate etc...etc...etc...
Agree that this is slimy. But irrelevant to the issue about which Matthew is posting.
Now that he is publicly part of her team she ought to be able to expect that he will at least not undercut her position on anything important openly.
I still fail to see how Carville is "undercut[ting]" Hillary's position. He's not saying Hillary's position on Iraq in immoral or that her health care plan won't work. What Carville says about Imus doesn't undercut Hillary at all. No more than rooting for the Braves would "undercut" Hillary's position in favor of the Yankees.
Not to mention that Imus is not "anything important".
Aimai:
Some valuable comments.
When Carville weighed in on all of this publicly on Wednesday of last week, the die was basically already cast. It couldn't be stopped. There was no reason for Carville to not defend Imus. In fact, to jump on the anti-Imus bandwagon would not be helpful for Hillary actually.
I don't believe that liberals should hitch themselves to Imus. He is too independent. On the other hand, look who is now the reliable liberal on cable TV--Keith Olbermann. Actually, despite the fact that I agree with him on 90% of issues, I find him only slightly less obnoxious than Glenn Beck-- and one who preaches only to the converted-- never talking to anyone who doesn't already agree with him. Actually I would much rather listen to O'Reilly or Hannity.
There are a lot of reasons why people watch Imus other than what you cite. There are a lot of retired folks like myself. There are many recovering alcoholics for whom the show is something like an AA meeting. A study of those who have listened to him or watch him would likely find a very strange mix.
The notion that Imus' speech is fundamentally hateful or that he is just a shock jock or is basically racist and/or sexist is a bunch of nonsense. In a crazy sort of way, I think Imus actually de-coarsens the culture by letting many of us let of steam in a sublimated fashion. I have never in my 59 years uttered what are often considered racist or sexist slurs-- but I find it not at all difficult to tune out what others find objectionable.
If i hear any more about Imus, im going to go postal.
I gotta agree with PaulD. The galactic convergence of the Imus affair and the Duke charges being dropped is a gigantic win for the republicans. Keep that white racial resentment simmering on a nice steady boil to alienate potential Democratic voters outside the northeast and west coast. The rightwing narrative writes itself -- liberals and media elites line up behind Al Sharpton to take down Imus for a bad race- based joke, but for a year they publicly supported a race-based prosecution of 3 white college kids and threw the book at them in the court of public opinion on flimsy evidence. Liberals and the liberal press are hypocrites, they don't care about racism, they're just interested in their own power and sucking up to race baiting shakedown artists, etc., etc., blah blah blah.
Maybe Carville and Begala are just sticking with their establishment pal or maybe they see that over reaction to Imus is not a good play politically.
It's a little funny. Cons think you can defeat islamic radicals with sheer power. Liberals recognize that unrestrained U.S. power creates more radicals than it eliminates and that we need to minimize the attraction of radicalism by undermining radical memes. Doesn't the same argument apply domestically? There's a a lot of potential democratic voters that are not unreconstructed racists but are successfully poached by republicans through the politics of racial (and gender) resentment. We should be undermining hte memes, not playing into them.
I meant agree with PaulD's post at 10:26am. I don't really buy into the let off steam argument in his latter post. I do tend to think the sooner we get to the point where race is not such volatile subject so that racial slurs lose their power both as slurs and as a subject of transgressive comedy, the better off everyone will be. Except for the right wing, for whom racial resentment will no longer be a potent weapon. Imagine.
"There's a a lot of potential democratic voters that are not unreconstructed racists but are successfully poached by republicans through the politics of racial (and gender) resentment. We should be undermining hte memes, not playing into them.
Posted by: Led on April 16, 2007 12:29 PM"
How, exactly? It wasn't Obama and Clinton who went after the Duke lacrosse players. It was the media, which by this time is not really "the liberal media" if it even ever was. Are we supposed to ignore bigotry when it happens? Play into it? When the Republicans' leader in the Senate praises an old segregationist for his presidential run based on segregation, should we just ignore it? Should we ignore police brutality in LA? Ignore the Diallo case? Should we re-prosecute OJ? It was, after all, a Murdoch-FoxNews shill who was going to publish the OJ book. The Dems lost a lot of Southern support when they passed civil rights legislation, but it was worth it just to get that legislation passed. So what exactly are you suggesting?
The Dems lost a lot of Southern support when they passed civil rights legislation, but it was worth it just to get that legislation passed.
I agree, but it's 40 years later and racial equality is firmly entrenched in the law at the federal and state level and in all mainstream sources of public opinion. Are some people still racist? Yes. Has the tide of history crested and racism defeated as a major political force in the nation? I think so, except to the extent people on both right and left keep race alive as a politically divisive issue. Race neutrality should the goal. A society where skin color has all the social impact of eye color and hair color. It's not the reality now, but libs can dream the things that should be and ask why not. Making America a "post-race" nation would the the single greatest benefit to progressive politics that I can think of.
How to respond to police brutality, poverty, injustices of the legal system like Diallo and the Duke lacrosse players (which, although injustices of obviously different magnitude, are both injustices), without feeding the meme? Treat them as issues of injustice first and issues of racism second (or third or fourth). Don't overreact to things like the Imus affair. It wasn't just the media. It was the media reacting to pressure brought to bear by Al Sharpton and others. You say Clinton and Obama didn't go after Imus, but that's only true of Obama. Clinton made a public issue of it on her website and is speaking at Rutgers today, presumably to make more of a public issue of it. Obama is underplaying it, in my opinion wisely. He used it as a platform to talk about coarsening of the culture generally, including hip hop lyrics.
Dems should also be self-critical at times (Obama talked about the music "we're listening to" and that's on "our ipods") and self-policing when someone on the left overplays a racial or gender grievance. Look for opportunities, like the Duke case, to create a counter example that disrupts the right wing narrative. But it's mostly about tone. Respond to issues in a way that emphasizes common values rather than historical divisions. Americans want to be encouraged in their virtue, not hen pecked for their vices.
How to respond to Trent Lott's Strom Thurmond nonsense? With more sorrow than anger: After all the progress we've made in race relations since Thurmond's presidential run, for Lott to be so insensitive to the pain the memory of segregationist politics causes many Americans is trully disappointing. We hope Senator Lott can recognize his presumably unintentional mistake and apologize. Then use it as a platform to celebrate how everyone believes in racial equality now, even Trent Lott and Strom Thurmond.
I just don't get this. It'd be different if the consultants got results, i.e. were successful in electing Democrats. But they aren't; isn't Bob Shrum's BA about .100? In the majors, that gets you cut. (Yes, Matt, I'm one of those baseball fans you despise, and I don't like the NBA. So there.) I'm baffled by the continuing power of these people; they're worse than useless to the party.
Bruce Springsteen is.
Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
forum
forum
mirc
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
Good comment.Thanks admin.
Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırcturk
turkmırc
mırc turk
turk mırc
turkiyemirc
türkiyemirc
turkiye mirc
türkiye mirc
mircturkiye
mirctürkiye
mirc turkiye
mircturk
turkmırc
muhabbet
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk
karar
thanksss
perde
jaluzi perde
stor perde
dikey perde
iso belgesi
iphone kılıfı
süper site
kozmetik
kolonyalı mendil
kolonyalı mendil
dolum
güvenlik kamerası
kamera
süper
sohbetim
joyturk tekstilkent joytürk mIRC Chat Video poşet imalat ambalaj paketleme iso güvenlik ıslak mendil
thanks you
mirc indir
karcher
halı yıkama
koltukyıkama
msn indir
msn download
msn yükle
msn
oyun indir
oyun
arkadas
arkadaş
I like very much the writings and pictures and explanations in your adress so I look forward to see your next writings. I congratulate you.
I like very much the writings and pictures and explanations in your adress so I look forward to see your next writings. I congratulate you.
oryantal kostüm
sex toys
http://www.penisbuyutuculeri.com
Fibercement
Dış cephe
Hekimboard
Turksiding
İzokon
Dış Cephe Kaplama
Mantolama
Söve
Kaplama
Dışcephe
Dış cephe
Dışcephe
Güvenlik
http://www.izokon.com/hakkimizda.html
http://www.izokon.com/hizmetlerimiz.html
http://www.izokon.com/urunler.html
http://www.izokon.com/hekimboard.html
http://www.izokon.com/turksiding.html
http://www.izokon.com/fblam.html
http://www.izokon.com/kalite.html
http://www.izokon.com/sove.html
http://www.izokon.com/referanslar.html
http://www.izokon.com/iletisim.html
http://www.izokon.com/urunler2.html
http://www.izokon.com/sss.html
http://www.izokon.com/fiberust.doc
http://hekimboard.blogcu.com
http://www.izokon.com/style.css
http://www.izokon.com/sitemap.html
http://www.izokon.com/urunlergiris.html
http://www.izokon.com/hbteknik.doc
http://izokon.blogspot.com/2008/06/hekimboard-fibercement.html
http://izokon.blogspot.com
thanks.
thanks richard .
Thanks Best Regards
mirc
mırc
mırç
mircturk
mirctürk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mırc indir
mirç indir
mirc yükle
mırc yükle
mirc yukle
mırc yukle
mirch
mırch
turk mirc
mircada
muhabbet
mirc sohbet
mırc sohbet
mirc chat
mırc chat
mırc ındır
mirc ındır
türkçe mirc
turkce mirc
turkçe mırc
turkce mırc
oper mirc
irc forum
Mirc forum
irc forum
thank you very good
mirc
mirc indir
mırc indir
mirc inndir
mirc yükle
mırc
türkçe mirc
mirc download
kameralı mirc
kaçak
kaçak script
kelebek
kelebek indir
kelebek script indir
indir
Lida Dai Dai Hua Jiao Nang Seo Yarışması
sohbet
chat
chat sohbet
sohbet sitesi
chat sitesi
film indir
divx film indir
divx indir
film izle
dizi izle
mp4 film indir
ilahi
ilahi sohbet
ilahi chat
islami sohbet
islami chat
ilahi sohbet
ilahi
Post A Comment