Commentary Magazine


Posts For: March 29, 2008

Carville on Carville

Today’s Washington Post has a piece by James Carville, who defends his “Judas” comment about Gov. Bill Richardson. When Gov. Richardson, a longtime Clintonite, endorsed Barack Obama last week, Carville said:

Mr. Richardson’s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic[.]

In defending his statement Carville claims it was silly that everyone called his words offensive and ugly (Bill O’Reilly was “appalled”.) I agree with Carville. There’s nothing “appalling” about speaking in extreme metaphors. All things considered, a dig with a learned biblical reference can hardly be said to have lowered the tone of this Democratic primary.

However, what is frightening, and what Carville fails to address, is the sentiment behind the comparison. Carville actually believes that Bill Richardson’s obligation to the Clintons should have trumped any policy considerations or party consequences. Being on board with the Clintons means you go down with the boat. Period.

What’s always been amusing is the juxtaposition between the intensity of those who adopt this code and the revulsion of those who do jump ship. Carville is a throwback – a Clinton true believer. And in a year when so many of the Clintons’ sullied Washington supporters have decided to take an “Obama shower,” in Dennis Miller’s coinage, Carville finds himself in a deep crisis.

There is no language strong enough to convey the outrage that comes when prophecy fails. But in this piece Carville did manage to strike that uniquely Clintonian note of hypocritical victimization:

Politics is a messy business, but campaigning prepares you for governing. It prepares you to get hit, stand strong and, if necessary, hit back. I’ve worked on enough campaigns to know that the most aggrieved candidate rarely emerges victorious. And for all of the hypersensitivity we’re seeing this cycle, this campaign has not been particularly negative or nasty compared with previous elections.

Well, it wasn’t Barack Obama who broke down crying during a spiel about the rigors of campaigning.

And if James Carville says the Clintons have not run a “particularly negative” campaign against Obama, we can only imagine what’s coming in the last futile lap.

Today’s Washington Post has a piece by James Carville, who defends his “Judas” comment about Gov. Bill Richardson. When Gov. Richardson, a longtime Clintonite, endorsed Barack Obama last week, Carville said:

Mr. Richardson’s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic[.]

In defending his statement Carville claims it was silly that everyone called his words offensive and ugly (Bill O’Reilly was “appalled”.) I agree with Carville. There’s nothing “appalling” about speaking in extreme metaphors. All things considered, a dig with a learned biblical reference can hardly be said to have lowered the tone of this Democratic primary.

However, what is frightening, and what Carville fails to address, is the sentiment behind the comparison. Carville actually believes that Bill Richardson’s obligation to the Clintons should have trumped any policy considerations or party consequences. Being on board with the Clintons means you go down with the boat. Period.

What’s always been amusing is the juxtaposition between the intensity of those who adopt this code and the revulsion of those who do jump ship. Carville is a throwback – a Clinton true believer. And in a year when so many of the Clintons’ sullied Washington supporters have decided to take an “Obama shower,” in Dennis Miller’s coinage, Carville finds himself in a deep crisis.

There is no language strong enough to convey the outrage that comes when prophecy fails. But in this piece Carville did manage to strike that uniquely Clintonian note of hypocritical victimization:

Politics is a messy business, but campaigning prepares you for governing. It prepares you to get hit, stand strong and, if necessary, hit back. I’ve worked on enough campaigns to know that the most aggrieved candidate rarely emerges victorious. And for all of the hypersensitivity we’re seeing this cycle, this campaign has not been particularly negative or nasty compared with previous elections.

Well, it wasn’t Barack Obama who broke down crying during a spiel about the rigors of campaigning.

And if James Carville says the Clintons have not run a “particularly negative” campaign against Obama, we can only imagine what’s coming in the last futile lap.

Read Less

The Un-Obama

Mickey Kaus thinks two negative themes are percolating about Barack Obama. The first: he lacks “moral courage” — “he won’t speak up against his own church’s victim mentality until he absolutely has to.” The second: he is arrogant. (Again, he cannot “even admit to the slightest mistake in the Wright affair.”)

There is plenty of evidence for both the courage problem (e.g. he really knows NAFTA didn’t cost America jobs, but couldn’t level with Ohio voters) and the arrogance (e.g. only he is above all the corruption of Washington and only through him can we achieve “change”). And John McCain is already making the case that he is the un-Obama on exactly these points.

On the courage front, McCain has two aces in the hole. The first, of course, is his personal valor and courage in war. The second, which was a liability in the primary but now a virtue in the general election, is his determination to maintain his own principled positions (e.g. on immigration and torture) to his political detriment and to tell voters “no — and I really mean it.” (He’ll tell anyone “no” – Michigan autoworkers, Florida coastal inhabitants and lots of homeowners.)

As Abe pointed out, his very first general election ad features POW footage and includes the rhetorical questions: “Where has he been? Has he walked the walk?” The message here is clear: he is personally and politically brave. That message resonates with particular power when his likely opponent is being asked to account for why he did not condemn or exit the church of his race baiting mentor. ( The ultimate contrast: the man who couldn’t summon the courage to leave the church vs. the man who refused to accept an offer of early release from the Hanoi Hilton.)

As for the arrogance, McCain often refers to himself as an “imperfect servant” of the country he loves. After his victories in the Potomac primaries he explained:

When I was a young man, I thought glory was the highest ambition, and that all glory was self-glory. My parents tried to teach me otherwise, as did the Naval Academy. But I didn’t understand the lesson until later in life, when I confronted challenges I never expected to face.In that confrontation I discovered that I was dependent on others to a greater extent than I had ever realized, but that neither they nor the cause we served made any claims on my identity. On the contrary, I discovered that nothing is more liberating in life than to fight for a cause that encompasses you, but is not defined by your existence alone. And that has made all the difference, my friends, all the difference in the world.I do not seek the presidency on the presumption that I am blessed with such personal greatness that history has anointed me to save my country in its hour of need. I seek the presidency with the humility of a man who cannot forget that my country saved me. I am running to serve America, and to champion the ideas I believe will help us do what every American generation has managed to do: to make in our time, and from our challenges, a stronger country and a better world.

Now this, I think, is more than humility; it is an exercise in differentiation. Could there be any greater contrast between the real hero who rejects egocentrism and an opponent who fancies himsef the savior of our political system, who has created a creepy cult of personality and whose wife tells us only he has evoked pride in our country? McCain, it seems, is on to Obama’s weaknesses and intends to tell Americans exactly how different he is from his opponent.

Mickey Kaus thinks two negative themes are percolating about Barack Obama. The first: he lacks “moral courage” — “he won’t speak up against his own church’s victim mentality until he absolutely has to.” The second: he is arrogant. (Again, he cannot “even admit to the slightest mistake in the Wright affair.”)

There is plenty of evidence for both the courage problem (e.g. he really knows NAFTA didn’t cost America jobs, but couldn’t level with Ohio voters) and the arrogance (e.g. only he is above all the corruption of Washington and only through him can we achieve “change”). And John McCain is already making the case that he is the un-Obama on exactly these points.

On the courage front, McCain has two aces in the hole. The first, of course, is his personal valor and courage in war. The second, which was a liability in the primary but now a virtue in the general election, is his determination to maintain his own principled positions (e.g. on immigration and torture) to his political detriment and to tell voters “no — and I really mean it.” (He’ll tell anyone “no” – Michigan autoworkers, Florida coastal inhabitants and lots of homeowners.)

As Abe pointed out, his very first general election ad features POW footage and includes the rhetorical questions: “Where has he been? Has he walked the walk?” The message here is clear: he is personally and politically brave. That message resonates with particular power when his likely opponent is being asked to account for why he did not condemn or exit the church of his race baiting mentor. ( The ultimate contrast: the man who couldn’t summon the courage to leave the church vs. the man who refused to accept an offer of early release from the Hanoi Hilton.)

As for the arrogance, McCain often refers to himself as an “imperfect servant” of the country he loves. After his victories in the Potomac primaries he explained:

When I was a young man, I thought glory was the highest ambition, and that all glory was self-glory. My parents tried to teach me otherwise, as did the Naval Academy. But I didn’t understand the lesson until later in life, when I confronted challenges I never expected to face.In that confrontation I discovered that I was dependent on others to a greater extent than I had ever realized, but that neither they nor the cause we served made any claims on my identity. On the contrary, I discovered that nothing is more liberating in life than to fight for a cause that encompasses you, but is not defined by your existence alone. And that has made all the difference, my friends, all the difference in the world.I do not seek the presidency on the presumption that I am blessed with such personal greatness that history has anointed me to save my country in its hour of need. I seek the presidency with the humility of a man who cannot forget that my country saved me. I am running to serve America, and to champion the ideas I believe will help us do what every American generation has managed to do: to make in our time, and from our challenges, a stronger country and a better world.

Now this, I think, is more than humility; it is an exercise in differentiation. Could there be any greater contrast between the real hero who rejects egocentrism and an opponent who fancies himsef the savior of our political system, who has created a creepy cult of personality and whose wife tells us only he has evoked pride in our country? McCain, it seems, is on to Obama’s weaknesses and intends to tell Americans exactly how different he is from his opponent.

Read Less




Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor to our site, you are allowed 8 free articles this month.
This is your first of 8 free articles.

If you are already a digital subscriber, log in here »

Print subscriber? For free access to the website and iPad, register here »

To subscribe, click here to see our subscription offers »

Please note this is an advertisement skip this ad
Clearly, you have a passion for ideas.
Subscribe today for unlimited digital access to the publication that shapes the minds of the people who shape our world.
Get for just
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor, you are allowed 8 free articles.
This is your first article.
You have read of 8 free articles this month.
YOU HAVE READ 8 OF 8
FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
for full access to
CommentaryMagazine.com
INCLUDES FULL ACCESS TO:
Digital subscriber?
Print subscriber? Get free access »
Call to subscribe: 1-800-829-6270
You can also subscribe
on your computer at
CommentaryMagazine.com.
LOG IN WITH YOUR
COMMENTARY MAGAZINE ID
Don't have a CommentaryMagazine.com log in?
CREATE A COMMENTARY
LOG IN ID
Enter you email address and password below. A confirmation email will be sent to the email address that you provide.