Last week Blitzer made it sound like Carville did not work for a campaign.

[madfloridian]

Wolf Blitzer talked to James Carville the other day as though he was not representing any campaign. Yet actually we know better.

CNN transcript of Carville and Begala last week.

"BLITZER: And back in '92, when you helped get Bill Clinton elected, you coined that phrase, "It's the economy, stupid." If you were involved in helping any of these candidates now, what would be the similar equivalent phrase be? "

Yet it is said that Carville and Begala will at the very least be helping from the sidelines on Hillary's campaign. Neither has made a secret of it, and they see her frequently. Shouldn't that be a factor when they are on TV? Shouldn't it be made common knowledge if they have an agenda?

The Clinton Battle Plan

"The team that would try to make that happen is mostly from the East Wing of the Clinton White House (Patti Solis Doyle, Caprice Marshall), not the West Wing. "Some of us who were with him will be with her; a lot of others won't be," says one former White House aide unwilling to publicly identify which is which. Pollster Mark Penn, fund-raiser Terry McAuliffe and media adviser Mandy Grunwald are onboard, and James Carville and Paul Begala would help from the sidelines."

Carville is even mentioned at Hotline as an "informal" advisor for Hillary. When he gets an on the air spot with CNN, and they give the impression he is not working for anyone...it is misleading.

Clinton dines with advisors

"Sen. Hillary Clinton has dinner with tonight with several of her husband’s top political advisers – James Carville, Paul Begala, Joel Johnson and Joe Lockhart.

All four have substantial presidential campaign experience, and none will play a formal role in the campaign.

The subject of the dinner could not be determined, but the guest list offers a clue, as does history: Clinton convened a similar dinner shortly before she announced her New York Senate candidacy in 2000.

Between the four of them, they’re friends with just about every important Democratic strategist and office-holder in the nation. They’re personal friends with Bill Clinton. And they have access to – and regularly speak with – charter members of the national political media."

As informal advisers, they’ll be in a position to provide Clinton with information and perspective from outside the campaign structure. But they’ll also be free to talk about the campaign to others.

Being an "informal advisor has its benefits. Apparently one can speak more freely.

This TNR article confirms he is close to the campaign.

Hillaryland

"In Hillaryland, you're either in or you're out.

James Carville? In. (He's personally close to Hillary and speaks to her regularly.) Doug Sosnik,one of Bill Clinton's senior strategists in the late '90s? Out. (He's advising former Virginia Governor Mark Warner.) John Podesta, Clinton's last chief of staff and now the president of the Center for American Progress? Way in. (He has important links to labor and environmental groups and serves as a policy conduit to Hillary.) Leon Panetta, Clinton's second chief of staff? Far out. (He clashed with Hillary and tried to keep Hillaryland at arm's length from the West Wing.) But trying to determine who's in and out is nothing compared with figuring out who's influential and who's not. That search takes you deep into Hillaryland."

Being an "informal advisor" allows one to say things like this very freely. Carville involved both Rahm Emanuel and Hillary Clinton in his attacks on Howard Dean...the ones in which he said Dean should go and Harold Ford should take his place. He could involve them because what he does is "informal".

Carville:It doesn’t take a lot of dot-connecting here.

Flush with victory after the election, Rahm’s allies, led by Carville, try to mount a coup at the DNC by publicly attacking Dean and suggesting he be replaced by Harold Ford, a Tennessee moderate who just lost a Senate race. “You can’t go into 2008 having a party chairman that is completely disconnected from the congressional leadership and the campaign committees,” Carville tells me, further pounding the wedge that divides the Deaniacs and the Clintonites. When I ask if Rahm agrees, Carville says, “It’s not any secret that Rahm has expressed disdain for Dean and not very secret that Rahm and I are close. It doesn’t take a lot of dot-connecting here.”

What about the Clintons, who, given Hillary’s presidential ambitions, have more cause for concern about who runs the DNC in 2008? “Let’s just say nobody has called me telling me this is a bad idea. Sometimes silence is eloquence.” Not only did Carville’s coup fail but it arguably strengthened Dean, who, speaking before his state-party allies, mocked the attempt as a desperate attack from the “old Democratic Party.” Cutting his losses, Rahm quickly leaked word to the press that he and Dean had negotiated a truce.

Wolf suggested in fact implied that Carville was not working for anyone. Yes, Carville is working for someone..."informally". He is working for Hillary Clinton.

I think he and Begala, both connected, should have to make that clear as consultants. If we want bloggers to have full disclosure, then perhaps gravy train advisors should as well.

[lancdem]

1. So people who support Hillary have "an agenda"

and those who support others don't? Give me a break. Heaven forbid she might have someone on TV who actually defends her. She has just as much right to that as any of our Dem candidates.

[madfloridian]

2. So you think bloggers don't have to disclose who they advise?

That's what you appear to be saying.

Yes, working for someone formally or informally gives one an agenda. Sorry but that is how it is.

It would be nice if they did not get free air time to tell party chairman to resign. Don't you think?

[ripple]

5. No, political consultants who work for CNN have an agenda

That creates a bit of a problem when it comes to media impartiality.

[John Q. Citizen]

8. I agree. Hillary can keep her surrogates secret from the press and public

if she wants. She's under no obligation to the press or the voters to disclose anything at all.
In fact, I think she should blow off disclosing who her financial backers are as well.

Why is it anybody else's business who she is, what she does, or who she employees?

Same for CNN. They shouldn't be snooping into the private affairs of who they put on TV. I don't get why that would concern anybody except maybe the owners of the station.

We are talking about Hillary. She is constantly picked on by a bunch of mental midgets who are just trying to pull her down, and it's not fair.

Not fair, not fair, not fair!

[Robbien]

3. I expect it is because right now the DLC is paying the bills

Sooner or later Clinton will have to pay the bills from her funds or run into the same problems that the GOP is having right now seperating out the RNC from their government positions.

[AtomicKitten]

4. If they aren't on-board in an official capacity

... they have never made a secret of their support for the Clintons, so I don't get what your complaint is exactly here. And you are familiar with the First Amendment, right?

This obsession has crossed over into being flat-out unreasonable.

[ripple]

6. The average Joe doesn't know about the Carville/Clinton connection

He tries to pass himself off as impartial, while CNN passes him off as their democratic political consultant (with no candidate allegiance). In other words, he can sit there saying how much other dems are fumbling, all while propping up the candidate he's working for.

I have great appreciation and respect for the First Amendment, but I also believe programs claiming to provide news should do exactly that- without bias. Realizing that such impartiality is unlikely to happen, I believe there should at least be a disclosure when a strategist or consultant works for a particular candidate. Otherwise, the news is nothing more than propaganda in disguise.

[AtomicKitten]

7. Cable news is crap for the most part

... and their "political strategists" are nobodies in the political world. I find better, more straightforward coverage on local news stations.

That said and like I said above, Carville has never made a secret whom he supports, but that is his opinion which he is perfectly entitled to have. One would have to look under a rock to find someone who doesn't have an opinion.

Just because the OP insists he is working for Hillary, that does not make it so. Unless he is officially affiliated with a candidate vis a vis a paid position in some capacity, then he has nothing to disclaim.

The news outlets will be hard-pressed to find commentators without an opinion particularly since expressing their opinion is precisely what they are paid to do.

[ripple]

9. I agree about cable news

I'm a CSPAN junkie myself. I really don't watch CNN much, so I could be wrong about this, but isn't Carville pretty a regular there?

I see your point about political consultants, so I guess I would need to know whether or not he's on there weekly, nightly, or whatever...AND, whether or not they offer strategists that offer an opposing view, other than republican strategists.

Either way, I'd be willing to bet that most people watching CNN, whether it be from home, in their doctor's office, the bar, or wherever have no idea about Carville's connection to the Clintons. Most just think he's CNN's funny-looking democratic guy who talks funny. Sad, but true.

I could be wrong about how Carville is presented on CNN, though. I'll have to check it out.

[madfloridian]

10. When he used CNN to call the DNC chairman a Rumsfeldian incompetent.....

he should be asked to disclose who he is working for formally or informally.

When he does that on CNN where he is getting paid...it is not ok.

There has been a huge fuss over whether bloggers should disclose who they work for. Even if they only do technical work, some thing they should disclose. In 2004, Kos and MyDD were blasted for working for Dean, and they DID disclose it. One even stopped blogging when he did.

Yes, if he is going to say these things on CNN he should disclose.

Here is the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFdEUDsSfbo

[AtomicKitten]

11. "Informal" is a pretty loose term.

It is Carville's job as a political commentator to express his opinion on the cable shows. Clearly you have an axe to grind with the content of Mr. Carville's commentary, but your point as to disclosure is anorexic. He worked for Bill's campaign and unless he comes on board HRC's campaign in some capacity, he has already disclosed that he supports Hillary many times on CNN.

Simply despising all things Clinton and anybody associated with them isn't a good enough reason to advocate stifling an opinion you don't want to hear. That is flat-out unreasonable considering giving his opinion is his livelihood. I would suggest you turn the channel.