Maybe I'm two steps behind ye, Mike, but I don't get why Carville's return, if that's what's happening here, would be bad for Hillary. IMHO what Hillary's campaign now needs desperately is a return, with a slight modification, to those hallowed 1992-era phrases that focused on the Harris Wolford voters, the soccer moms and two-parent working families everywhere.

But now it's the VOLATILITY, stupid. Focus like a laser beam on the unmet economic security needs of working families.  Hillary could turn things around pronto if she were to put forth a bold, go-for-broke program, paid for by increasing taxes on childless yuppies and by admin cost savings from shifting to single payor, of targeted intervention for working families:

--cash payments a la francaise for couples who bear a child,

--daycare and maternity and paterntiy credits,

--support for free public education from age 3-16 instead of 5-18,

--means-tested vouchers, positioned in Spitzer-Giuliani form as a civil-rights issue in urban school districts

In short, play the Mom card, big-time.

Hail Mary? Sure, but what else is she going to do?

A question born of ignorance - what kind of track record does Carville have after his work with Bill Clinton?  Might it be that his style simply does not work with a different candidate? Clearly Hillary is a much different candidate than Bill.

Why ask McCauliffe?  What if he's on the chopping block himself?  What do you expect he would say, "no shakeup here, no siree" and those would be his last words.  If Clinton wants to shake things up, she should give both McCauliffe and Penn the heave-ho.  Look for new blood.  Who got Jon Tester and Jim Webb elected?

Carville's an attack dog. Just looking at him strikes fear into the breast of any mortal. And Hillary needs to go on the attack now, big time, or else she's finished.

tep, you must know by now that ANY voucher program is a non-starter with Dems.  Hell, they even want to do away with the very little accountability NCLB provides as it is.

But, hey, Dems attacking each other?  Pass the popcorn.

No doubt Carville is smart and savvy, but Hillary fans have forgotten (suppressed?) the fact that her decline in the polls began when she went negative on Obama in November-December. Going even more negative on charisma may be worth a try, but I dare you to bet on it!

Not so, Butch. Spitzer's for means-tested vouchers. In the big cities, it's a no-brainer. Spitzer (or maybe Rudy?) is right to call it a civil rights issue. But they have to be means-tested.

tep,

"paid for by increasing taxes on childless yuppies"

You must surely be joking.  

I'm with you, tep.  But at the national level it's a non-starter.  Hell, Obama got booed at the NEA convention when he supported merit pay, for God's sake!

adam - let's be honest, taxes need to go up. I don't know where the "yuppie" cutoff should be, haven't run the numbers, but we obviously need to raise the marginal rate some, a rate which would be more than offset by the package of breaks for taxpayers with small or school-age children.

You may not recall this but "Help the puppies, not the yuppies" was the signature phrase of conservative Ben Wattenberg of AEI. It's a rational strategy that's followed by every successful western social democracy, including those fertility-leaders in the EU, Sweden, Norway, France, and IIUC Ireland and Iceland as well.

Bottom line, working families need much more targeted state intervention than other taxpayers; wealthy childless people need much less.

tep,

Ok. When I read your post I thought you were suggesting a campaign strategy that specifically calls for raising taxes on childless couples. As I am married without children, living in an apartment, with a joint income of over $100,000, I was horrified.

I agree taxes need to be raised. And I'm fine with giving deductions for children, which by default means higher taxes on the childless (I can hear John Gibson screaming "make more babies!"), but I wouldn't sell it as a tax hike on childless "yuppies."

I don't think I could vote for that sales pitch.  

Would a $5,000 check + paid paternity leave change your mind? Works for the Swedes and the French, both of whom, contrary to the "Eurabia!!!"-mongering idiotsthis side of the pond, have fertility rates higher than Turkey, Iran, or Algeria.

Anyway, I recommend fatherhood highly. Water's fine, jump in.

tepluh, I don't believe fertility is a problem in the USA.  Except, maybe among the white middle classes, as in Europe. (Though I haven't seen the figures on that lately, I know know a lotta white Boomers and GenXers with three kids.

Meanwhile, rather than hand out $5k in cash, why not give $5k in a Treasury fund that you can't touch for 18 years.  And earmarked first for your child's college education, if he qualifies.

Not that I believe in handing out money, like this.  But, if you must....

I was scrolling down kind of fast and when that head popped up I reflexively screamed.

Thanks tep. I probably will, someday.