data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/304d4/304d463e8020c8648422689773ad3c6f28eefe95" alt=""
James Carville, Clintonista
married to a Republican strategist, is running around accusing Howard Dean of doing a terrible job as DNC Chairman. Carville charges that the DNC had $6,000,000 in the bank that they should have spent in Democratic races, and that the party should have taken an additional 15 seats as a result. (He called Dean's performance
"Rumsfeldian"; them's fightin' words, Boudreaux.)
I'll put aside the fact that you can't do a straight money-to-victory analysis here. Rahm Emmanual
put $3,000,000 into Tammy Duckworth's race, and she lost;
he put $0, zero, into Carol Shea-Porter (NH-01), and she won, so there you go.
But why doesn't Carville look at his own Clintonista house? Hillary Clinton spent
$29.5 million to win her Senate race in New York, a race that was essentially over before it started; can you even name her opponent? (HINT: he had the same name as a member of the cast of West Wing; I'll leave his name in Comments.) She won
67% to 31%. Wouldn't it have been more useful for her to donate half of her vast stores of money to candidates around the country who were actually in competitive races? Looking at it from that perspective, her actions were Cheneyesque. (Is that stretching it? Like giving no-bid contracts to Halliburton? Well, it works as well as James Carville calling Howard Dean who helped WIN BACK CONGRESS Rumsfeldian. I mean, what has Rumsfeld ever won? The
handshake of Saddam Hussein? The trust of Commander Codpiece? I mean, really.)