The Ragin' Cajun Not So Ragin' After All

Randy Neal over at Knox Views landed an interview with James Carville, who was speaking at the Knox County Truman Day Dinner. Neal threw a loaded question at Carville, but he didn't bite:

KnoxViews: Speaking of the war, do you find it strange that Sen. Obama's first attack against Sen. Clinton was about her vote on the war...

Mr. Carville: No, I think that's probably...

KnoxViews: ...but his introduction to America was at the 2004 convention introducing Kerry, who also voted for the war, and Obama supported him in that campaign. Isn't there an inconsistency there?

Mr. Carville: I don't want to defend Obama because I'm for Hillary, but no, I mean he's trying to draw a distinction on the war. He had some other statements that indicated he wasn't as opposed to it as maybe his campaign put out, but you know, you had two pro-war candidates, Kerry and Bush, and I think that Kerry would have been the better choice there. I don't know, I don't think it's necessarily a big inconsistency there.

Of course, Carville is right...there is no inconsistency there, because Obama wasn't promoting Kerry in a contested Primary, he was promoting him against the President who was calling for an indefinite war to be waged in a shoddy and incoherent manner.

In a Democratic Primary, its perfectly legitimate to question the decision making process that went into enabling Bush to go to war...I supported Howard Dean [in part] because of it, but when it comes to the general election, you have to make choices based on what you have in front of you.