A conversation with James Carville

with James Carville
in Current Affairs
on Monday, May 4, 2009 * * * * *

play

E-mail this video:

Distribute this video:

Share on:

Close
Description

A conversation with James Carville about the book "40 More Years"

Video Share Options
Share
Buy Amazon DVD
Keywords:
consulting
New Orleans
politics
Democrat
Clinton
pundit
Obama
Cajun
Katrina
Strategist

In order to download Charlie Rose podcasts to iTunes for transfer to an iPod, you must have iTunes installed. If you do, please click the following link to download the podcast for this interview:

itpc://www.charlierose.com/view/itunes/10277

Otherwise, close this window to continue viewing.

Close
  • Comments 4
    Post new comment
    1. tartufe  05/06/2009 05:42 PM Report

      As an Obama/Clinton supporter he wins my disdain, but to be fair support for McCain would have been worse - at the time.

      The O/C shit sandwich hit the news to day with this bit of puerile hubristic M-I oligarchic reasoning: WSJ "Afghan officials in Kabul said the death toll was at least 90 and could ultimately exceed 100. If those estimates prove accurate, the airstrike would be one of the bloodiest incidents since the start of the war in 2001."

      "Last year, Afghan officials said 90 civilians died in a U.S. strike on the village of Azizabad. The U.S. command initially denied that any civilians died, and then later acknowledged that 33 Afghans had been killed. The United Nations confirmed the higher death toll, and Afghan officials accused the U.S. of a whitewash."

      NPR says Pak's nukes (60) are disbursed throughout the country. Save for the one or two doubtless being subverted in a suitcase headed for a symbolically laden target (Wall St or Peoria?)

      My grandkids and theirs are being put at risk - not because of the Taliban - but because of the mindless hubristic CS use of air power and drone fired missiles into mud huts indiscriminately killing AND RECRUITING Taliban and al Qaeda.

      Ahh, but you say Hillary apologized. About the same weight as an apology from bin Laden would have with us.

      You don't have to be short-sighted and arrogant to be in this administration with ALL heads up their respective arses, but then again the evidence is overwhelming, it's a prerequisite.

    2. doodahdaze  05/05/2009 02:16 PM Report

      Mr. Mant, The answer is, "no". It looks to me, like he is just entertaining the possibility of it happening like that, and making a buck in the process (of entertaining the possibility, that is.)... Maybe on another network he'll put on his holy roller, evangelistic, win one for the Demogods hat and trick us into believing he's an idiot going after the idiot vote; again... Like his counterparts, on the other side of the fense (that he always seems to mention), he's good at that.

    3. doodahdaze  05/05/2009 01:48 PM Report

      I didn't know he was from Nawlins.<smile>... This is the most likeable I have ever seen him (conversing with Charlie, he "only" looks like a weasal). He seems to have a good sense of reality. As a "professional" politician he has used his talent for exaggeration to the max and as such has earned his money... At least he managed get paid to act like a fool... And still can.. Did you hear that? President Obama Lama. Got any legs you want bitten?.

    4. REMant  05/05/2009 01:32 PM Report

      Does he really believe democracy will predominate for the next 40 yrs? Obama has already obliterated what remained of it in the Democratic Party and the GOP took most of it down to defeat. Tho they would likely have won if Bernanke could have resurrected bubblenomics. Lobbyists are making more than they ever have in large part, because of inflation. Altho I'd like to be wrong, I think the stimulus pkg will come back to haunt the Dems and that the Republicans have a real opening here to outflank them. I've played around with the notion of generational change in American politics myself, but I really do think that it is a little like predicting the stock mkt through trend analysis, and not to be entirely trusted.

  • Transcript