Please tell me Bob Shrum was not the Obama supporter on MTP today

[TomClash]

I only saw about five minutes of MTP this morning, but Shrum was on with the Republicans Mike Murphy and Mary Matalin, as well as the Clintonite James Carville.

Please tell me Shrum was not on there to represent Barack in any way, shape or form. He's the kiss of death and with his curse Barack will surely lose.

Maybe that's the Clinton's nuclear option - get Shrum to join the Obama campaign. :nuke:

[OHdem10]

1. Bob Shrum was an absolute Obama supporter.

As a Hilary Supporter, I said to myself--Shrum always gets it
wrong so HRC must have a chance.

[TomClash]

4. Well . . . .

. . . even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[VolcanoJen]

2. And Mary Matalin was Clinton's Chief-Shill-of-Staff

So there ya go. :-)

[TomClash]

3. They should have you on instead

"In the now." :)

[VolcanoJen]

5. Maybe if I was a Republican operative, they would've invited me.

:-)

[TomClash]

6. LOL!

How true.

[karynnj]

7. I don't think he was there as a representative of Obama's campaign - that he is not on

He was however the best of those there in that discussion - he was right on target. I suspect that if HRC implodes, Carville's reputation will sink to where it belongs. Shrum may have made errors in 2004, but they also did many things right and never sunk to gutter politics.

If you think 2004 was ever going to a simple year for any Democrat to win - think about the purple heart bandaids. The Republicans mocked the wounds of the military and it was treated as if they were wearing funny hats, the typical novelty of conventions of the past. Think of two things - 1) The Republicans KNEW they would not get push back or called on it. It should have been a stop and take stock moment when someone respected in the press would say - "what are we doing?" and 2)Not one Republican, including McCain who knew better, demanded they be removed. That represents an anger against Kerry for challenging Bush on the war at that time.

Shrum and Cahill did win a decisive run for the nomination - with no major errors at all. Remember Kerry was written off by the beltway and the media in December 2003.

[MissWaverly]

8. Negativity is out, respect those who are not in the gutter

Rove keeps an endless repeat of how Bush inherited a recession that he started. Brit Hume mocks Obama's dancing, if that is all
they can come up with then they should just turn off the lights and concede now. I thought that Shrum did an assessment which
many of the others did not do, I am sick of Carville saying "I love 'em to death", what insight does that provide?

[TomClash]

9. Shrum has lost every Presidential campaign he has ever run

We had a real shot to win. He got swiftboated - and failed to fight back quickly or effectively. He failed to organize Dems in swing states like FLA. These were serious errors against a President whose popularity was on the wane and who was waging an increasingly unpopular war. Money was wasted on stays at the Beverly Wiltshire and other posh places. Plus he was paid almost Penn-like money for his efforts. And that's just for starters - I could write a dissertation on his failures in 2004.

And Mary Beth Cahill unfairly got most of the blame. How fair was that?

[karynnj]

10. Carville, Begala, McAuliffe and others been prominent in creating CW on 2004

What happened is that with a win, all the errors are air brushed away. With a loss, every judgment becomes suspect - especially when it was close. The President was at 60% approval in December 2003, a generic Democrat was double digits behind Bush, Dean 20% behind - that alone meant that they likely pushed Kerry's attacks on Bush as far as they could.

Public opinion on the war was mixed then. Even the decision to invade was near 50% - unless you mentioned removing Saddam Hussein in the question - then it was still greater than 50% supporting it. Kerry himself was saying he would not have invaded ("wrong war" "misled to war" and in the NYU speech on Iraq). Looking further into the numbers, a strong majority thought we would "win the war" and that we had an obligation to stay. Opinion shifted further against the war after Fallujah was invaded in November 2005.

Bush's approval rating if you looked across ALL the polls - instead of the ones we liked because they were lower - he was very close to 50%. The Presidents who lost were in the 40% and below range - there were NONE in the 40% to 50% range at the start of the general election. Consider some of the disapproval came from Buchanan Republicans - who would never vote for the Democrat.

In any earlier election, the response to the SBVT would have been considered perfect. They proved the link to Bush - via the funders and that that they shared a lawyer. They also gave the media 30 plus pages of documented lies and internal contradictions in teh SBVT claims. In addition the media had - The official Navy records, an Historian's book where many of the SBVT praised Kerry 2 years earlier, the comments backing Kerry of all the guys in his boat when he got medals and the Nixon tapes showing that they investigated him then in 1971 - and found he was a clean cut war hero. Ask yourself - with all this from the Kerry side, what proof did they have from the SBVT side. The answer is they were not even asked for any and had none - not one little telegram sent up that Kerry was a problem - nothing. Not to mention, when he left Vietnam it was to a very plum job working for a rear admiral that required a higher security clearance - I wonder who signed off on that. (There was a document in the service files that were on Kerry's web site for over a year saying it was granted.)

Compare all of that to the vaunted Clinton war room. Take any charge and show me where they had more definitive proof out there even at the conclusion of any charge. What happened in 2004 was a media sanctioned character assassination that Kerry actually survived - swiftboating now has a meaning that it was lies, despicable, unfair and political.

Kerry in Texas with Obama spoke of how what was learned was that getting the truth to the media was not enough. He spoke of how the Obama people, some of whom were Kerry people in 2004) will put as much money behind the truth that anyone puts behind lies. Kerry actually could not have done this in 2004 because he accepted federal funds.

[TomClash]

15. I disagree but respectfully

I worked hard for John Kerry and I like the guy. I put a lot of time, money (my own and many others) and effort into trying to get him elected.

John Kerry had more money than any Dem Presidential candidate has ever had - by a long shot. That excuse doesn't wash - you don't bring your entourage to five star hotels if you have money problems.

The SBVT charges were bullshit and everyone knew it. That's precisely why you have media people in a campaign - to stop that - by any means necessary short of violence. Bob Shrum talked a good game but he was late to the play and couldn't make the tackle.

[blm]

14. Shrum was actually part of TWO winning campaigns. Had DNC secured election process for 2000

and 2004, then either candidate would have won in a landslide.

And, just to make sure, Carville did his best to sabotage Ohio Dem voters on election night, didn't he?

[TomClash]

16. I don't know

I worked 100 hours that week and collapsed on election night.

But I do know that winning a Presidential campagin means getting your guy into the White House. Excuses are for losers - especilly in 2000 when Gore should have won easily.

[blm]

19. I think you need to know the crap that was afoot - most nominees aren't being undermined

from within their own party while they are also battling the GOP machine.

Gore's team has similar stories of being undermined...

Here's 2004.

Historian Doug Brinkley's observations from April 2004:
http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354

Bill's 3 week book tour defending Bush repeatedly for his decisions against the 'criticisms of the left" :
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/

Carville sabotaging Ohio Dem voters on election night:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward

[yourguide]

11. Are you kidding?

Shrum was great this morning!

[TomClash]

13. Yeah? I didn't see it

Hence, the post.

[Cha]

17. Good to

know!

[Renew Deal]

12. Shrum is not with Obama's campaign.

I noticed that Obama was unrepresented this morning.

[Cha]

18. But, the media's hard on

hilary with people like hilary rosen getting their spews in constantly.

[rodeodance]

20. You just can't help your self can you--Had to BLAME it on the clintons! SHAME ON YOU

[TSIAS]

21. He's unaffiliated

Carville is the one who's given the maximum donation to Clinton. Matalin was a Thompson supporter, and Murphy was part of McCain's campaign in 2000.