Did James Carville reveal secret behind Hillary Clinton's e-mails?

It’s possible that Hillary Clinton may ask this particular surrogate to stop helping, at least for the moment. It’s not just that he’s made one stumble. It’s also that he’s living history, a walking, raging embodiment of all the old Clinton uproars.

Alison Noon/AP
James Carville, a political commentator known for leading former President Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign, speaks to attendees of the 37th Annual Mansfield Metcalf Celebration in Helena, Montana March 7.

Is James Carville hurting Hillary Rodham Clinton more than he’s helping her? That’s the question rattling around the punditocracy this morning following Mr. Carville’s inelegant defense of Mrs. Clinton’s use of personal e-mail on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday.

Carville’s long been a staunch Clintonite and one of the former first couple’s primary surrogate spokesmen on television. He’s been all over the cable shout shows ever since news broke that as Secretary of State Clinton relied on a home-brew private e-mail server. His primary line: it’s nothing, just business-as-usual; something Colin Powell and other Secretaries of State did too.

“It’s made up. You take pi, you subtract 3.1415 and you don’t end up with very much,” Carville told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos on Sunday.

 But Carville also said this, in a rare unguarded comment: “I suspect she didn’t want Louis Gohmert rifling through her e-mails, which seems to me to be a kind of reasonable position for someone to take.”

Republicans pounced on this as an inadvertent admission that Clinton was just trying to avoid legitimate congressional oversight. You see, Representative Gohmert is a GOP member of the House from Texas, a member of the Judiciary Committee who’s an outspoken conservative. To put it mildly. 

Clinton might want to avoid Gohmert’s scrutiny, but as an administration official she’s not really supposed to do that, at least as far as members of Congress are concerned.

At the least, this is a sensitive subject that the Clinton camp would want Carville to avoid. Instead, he should have gone on a trademark rant, where he becomes red in the face and fires out an emotional defense of his subject in the Louisiana accent that earned him the nickname “Raging Cajun.”

As performance art these rants are really quite impressive. But his offhand comment will give Republicans a talking point they’ll be waving around for days.

“Team Clinton is going to have to ask their surrogates to stop helping, and soon. At this rate, Clinton’s backers are going to help her right out of the race,” writes Noah Rothman at right-leaning Hot Air.

We agree with that first sentence, partly. It’s possible that Clinton may ask this particular surrogate to stop helping, at least for the moment. It’s not just that he’s made one stumble. It’s also that he’s living history, a walking, raging embodiment of all the old Clinton uproars, up to and including impeachment.

That’s not the image Clinton wants to dwell on when she runs for president. She’ll want to portray herself as modern, forward-looking candidate. Remember, her likely campaign manager Robby Mook is 35. Clinton is reaching for younger, tech-savvy leadership for her 2016 effort. 

As to whether the e-mail uproar will upend her ambitions, and drive Clinton from the race, we remain unconvinced things are anywhere near that point. This is a classic partisan uproar, in which D.C. elites pay lots of attention, but the public doesn’t, with the bottom line being that committed partisans are made more committed in their beliefs, on both sides.

On March 9, a Pew poll found Clinton’s e-mails to be only the fifth-most followed news event of the week, a tick below the Supreme Court argument on the Affordable Care Act. Even this rating was based mostly on great interest among Republicans, who aren’t going to vote for Clinton anyway.

Thirty-four percent of Republicans said they were following the story closely, according to Pew. The corresponding number for Democrats was 16 percent. That was the widest partisan divide on any news story rated in that particular Pew survey.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.