Hillary Clinton and President Obama must have hit quite the nerve with their Super Bowl smackdowns of Fox News bias on Sunday. That is, if the network’s ongoing hissy fit over them is any indication. Tonight, James Carville was handed his own opportunity to smack down Fox on a proverbial silver platter and – he mostly gave them a pass.

In case you missed it, Clinton yanked Fox's chain when she tweeted during the Super Bowl game, “It’s so much more fun to watch FOX when it’s someone else being blitzed & sacked. #SuperBowl.” This was after President Obama called out Fox News bias in both his Super Bowl interviews with Bill O'Reilly.

Apparently, Fox has given up its ridiculous argument that Clinton was referring to Obama getting “blitzed & sacked” (i.e. by Bill O’Reilly, during their pre-game interview). Tonight, on The Kelly File, Megyn Kelly took the even more ridiculous tack that Clinton was now turning her back on her ol’ Fox News pals after her campaign had praised their coverage of her in 2008.

“Was she being a little overly sensitive there? Why would she take issue with Fox after all that?” Kelly wondered aloud.

Which is pretty hilarious considering that Clinton’s “pals” at Fox have been doing their best to smear her for quite some time since then.

Sadly, Carville was either blind to Fox's disingenuousness or he wanted to suck up. He said, “Oh, boy, I don’t want to offend anybody at Fox but I think every Democrat I know thinks Fox tilts right.”

Really, Mr. Carville? Is that the best you can do? I mean, do you really think that “tilts right” describes Fox? As in, it’s a legitimate news organization with a slight conservative bent?

Even worse, Carville added, “Maybe you don’t. …Maybe you call it right down the middle. I actually do, too. I mean, I appear on this network.”

However, Carville did more or less tell Fox they should get over it already. “It’s just a tweet. My God… man up! It’s just a little tweet! Why is everybody so sensitive about a Hillary Clinton tweet?” he said.

Kelly didn’t have a good answer. She fumbled around a bit before saying, “I don’t think we’re feeling sensitive about it. I think we’re wondering why she’s so sensitive. Was she playing the victim, like ‘poor Fox (sic), they go after me?’”

Astoundingly, Carville ignored that blatant bit of agenda-showing and reiterated his pussy-footing. “Everybody, I think, thinks Fox treats Democrats much rougher than they treat Republicans. ...We might be wrong but that’s what we think.”

Might be wrong? Dude, it was going on right under your nose!

Carville did call out Fox’s over-reaction. But he continued to act as though he believed that Fox was really offended by Clinton’s tweet - when they were clearly using the opportunity as yet another excuse to smear her. Carville said:

I think Fox is being sensitive. I think she sent a tweet, I think it was kind of funny… You know it wasn’t much of a very big deal. …People gotta, you know, not take this stuff (as) so much (more). She was just trying to be funny.

Kelly then offered up what could have been another perfect opening to be called out on an anti-Democratic political agenda. She tried to suggest there was some Democratic cabal given that President Obama took “shots at Fox News” during his interview with O’Reilly. Kelly said, “There’s a question about whether this was somehow coordinated and whether the president was thin-skinned.” She later compared him unfavorably to President Bush who, according to Kelly “took his licks like a man!”

Carville could have called Kelly out on this baseless conspiracy theorizing. He could have pointed out that Fox was using their attacks on Clinton and Obama as a way of deflecting attention from their own outrageous behavior that, maybe, Democrats have had enough of. But instead, he let the opening pass.

In doing so, he gave credence to the fiction that Kelly had hosted a legitimate news discussion.

It's hard to know which is worse for a supposed "Democratic strategist": overlooking or missing altogether the giant elephant in the room.