Carville: Ilhan Omar Should Leave Democratic Party, Do Her Own Thing

Veteran Democratic strategist James Carville is once again drawing attention inside his own party after renewing criticism of Representative Ilhan Omar and suggesting the progressive lawmaker should consider leaving the Democratic Party altogether.

Carville made the remarks during a recent appearance on the Straight Shooter podcast hosted by sports commentator Stephen A. Smith. During the interview, Smith asked Carville about comments he made earlier in May 2025 on his own podcast, Politics War Room, where he sharply criticized Omar, one of the progressive members of Congress commonly associated with the group known as “the Squad.”

Carville, who rose to prominence as a political strategist for former President Bill Clinton, indicated that his views on Omar have not changed since those earlier comments.

His latest remarks highlight ongoing tensions within the Democratic Party as establishment figures and progressive lawmakers continue to clash over the party’s ideological direction.

“Lady, why don’t you just get out of the Democratic Party,” Carville said about Omar. “Honestly, start your own movement.”

Carville’s criticism stems in part from a controversial comment Omar made in a 2018 interview with the Middle East outlet Al Jazeera. During that interview, Omar — who is married to a white man — claimed that “our country should be more fearful of white men because they’re causing most of the deaths within this country.”

That statement drew significant backlash at the time and has continued to resurface in political debates. Critics argued that the remark unfairly generalized millions of Americans.

Carville also pushed back against rhetoric he believes alienates large portions of the electorate.

While describing Omar as a “very, attractive, soft-spoken lady,” Carville said he strongly disagreed with attacks directed at white men and urged her to “stop.”

“About 33% of the people that are gonna vote are gonna be white males,” Carville said. “Well, it’s stupid to attack 33% of the voters!”

Carville suggested Omar might be better aligned with an explicitly socialist political movement rather than the broader Democratic Party coalition.

“And so what I would say to Congresswoman Omar, ‘Why don’t you be a Democratic Socialist of America?’ Do what AOC did, and then if they win, the truth of that is, I share a lot of ideological issues in common with Congressman Omar, but maybe you should do like a parliamentary government. We’ll let you in the governing coalition, but not the electoral coalition,” Carville said.

He also argued that Democrats cannot realistically win national elections by writing off major demographic groups.

“But we cannot- we have to get this mentality out that we can win national elections [without] White people, because you can’t,” Carville continued. “That we can somehow or another win an election without white males. It’s just insanity. It’s literally mathematical insanity, cultural insanity.”

Carville went on to emphasize the importance of avoiding sweeping generalizations about any group.

“All white people are not the same. All black people are not the same. All Hispanic people are not the same, all right?” Carville added. “And I don’t like generalizing about someone’s gender or their race or their sexual preference or anything else. All gay people are not the same. They’re very different personalities. They’re very different values, very different everything.”

Omar has also faced criticism in recent weeks for comments she made about U.S. military actions in the Middle East.

In a post on X, the Minnesota congresswoman suggested that the United States intentionally targets Muslim-majority countries during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.

“Iraq was attacked by the US during Ramadan and it is sickening to know that the US is again going to attack Iran during Ramadan,” Omar wrote.

“The US apparently loves to strike Muslim countries during Ramadan and I am convinced it isn’t what these countries have done to violate international law but about who they worship,” she added.

Critics quickly challenged the claim, arguing the statement was factually incorrect and risked inflaming tensions during a volatile geopolitical standoff.

Some analysts also warned that rhetoric accusing the United States of religiously motivated warfare could be exploited by hostile regimes and extremist groups for propaganda purposes.

Under the U.S. Constitution, treason is narrowly defined as levying war against the United States or giving “aid and comfort” to its enemies. Legal scholars have long noted that the standard requires intentional and material support for adversaries, rather than controversial political speech.

Still, the exchange underscores the continuing debate inside the Democratic Party about messaging, political strategy, and the role of its most progressive voices.