Arkansas Blog

Many on the left would simply rather have Obama than more Clinton scandals, more Clinton mess, and another president who governs right of center while offering left of center platitudes.

I don't think you've linked to the wonderful Atlantic Monthly article about Obama. So I've linked it at my name. I'm sure you reject the notion that he's worth considering, but I'd be happy with President Obama, even if I disagree with his politics. It wouldn't represent a trip back to the Clintons, and would go a long way towards dispelling the notion that American politics amounts to a revolving monarchy.

ARK. BLOG: 1) As I've said before, I like Obama. Though he's lately not been too sure-footed and that's important. And I had to laugh listening to him put on his black accent in Chicago the other day. No problem with me; nor for all those who accuse Hillary of doing the same. 2) Monarchies are fine if they're Bush monarchies, right? Would you support Jeb this election if he was on the ballot? Honestly.

Of course. Frank Rich is a tool of the Republican Party advancing Republican talking points. That makes alot of sense. It could not possibly be that the criticisms of Hillary Clinton coming from the left and right are true.

ARK. BLOG: Read the Daily Howler on Rich and Al Gore. It's illuminating. History is repeating itself. As I noted, the question of Hillary's vote on Iran is a fair point for criticism, but the more important topic in the column is the vacillation theme. I don't think you can find a candidate, except Ron Paul, who isn't triangulating on some issues. But you'd think all but Hillary were straight talkers. It's her problem, however. Figuring a way to overcome the entrenched opposition will decide whether she wins or not. That's politics.

Maureen Dowd has got W and now Hillary sized up. I wonder if the sleazy Dick Morris, might still be consulting for the clintons. A return of the clintons to the White House is about as detestable as another bush taking up residence.
A vote for Chris Dodd or John Edwards would return the Democratic party to the ideals of Roosevelt and Kennedy.

I voted for Bush in 2000, and Kerry in 2004. I don't think you can accuse me of being a blind partisan.

As for Jeb: no. Not another Bush, ever. My man in '08 is Rudy, but I'm big on Huckabee, too. After those two: I'd honestly consider Obama, especially if the party nominates Romney. I like Obama.

Now, in a Hillary/Romney matchup, I'm voting third-party.

While I'm not thrilled at the prospect of "revolving monarchies" either, my support goes to Hillary first, then virtually any other Democratic presidential candidate second. Obama worries me at this point because of his lack of seasoning, just as a near front-running Huckabee (choke! -- thankfully he's not) would worry me because of his lack of grounding in international issues.
Sadly, I fear that even the most competent candidate of any stripe will be hard pressed to deliver us from the miasma our esteemed shrub has led us into.

Prouster, do you do bidness with the mafia?

I'm with you, Doigotta. In fact, this country has had some experience with presidential dynasties--Adams-Adams, Roosevelt-Roosevelt (sort of), and now Bush-Bush. Then there was the tragically aborted possibility of a Kennedy-Kennedy. In each case, our experience has been different, but nothing in history implies that it isn't worth another try. In the present case, the relationship is only by marriage, not by blood, which is a plus.

The miasma, though, is another matter. The next president--hell, the next few presidents--will have a hard time keeping this country's head above water--no pun intended--let alone seeing us back to dry land and a decent place to stand in the world. I don't expect to live to see it, but that's okay. I'm pretty sure I've already seen this country's best days.

Good grief prouster.. Giuliani would have every child in a modified nazi-school uniform and every kid would have to say a pledge to his photo.. Bernie Kerick would be his policeman/enforcement style.. Every American would have to have a tracking chip implanted beneath their skin with penalty of death for trying to remove it.

Mass migrations and detention of undesirables would take place.. Meanwhile, his wife du-jour would be on every morning show showing off her latest fifty thousand dollar handbag..

Every Sunday afternoon football halftime shows would be interrupted while president Gewls tested a new nuke..during playoffs and the super bowl those tests would be on innocent people but you would have to pay extra on pay per view to see the bodies vaporize in HD. Giuliani is no christian end of days type...he is a Hitler who would just enjoy the hell out of providing the fireworks...and once he got started he wouldn't care if mayhem were conducted on poor americans anymore than if it were some other so called terrorists on foreign soil.

You think these scenarios are over dramatic? Perhaps..but if so..they are not by very much.President Giulini would be like Bush Jr. on steroids and crack.

Giuliani lost to Hillary in NY so bad he dropped out of the race early..supposedly for health reasons but it's obvious now it was just a whimpy face saving maneuver.. The last thing we need is another insincere fascist bully running a criminal cabal in the White House.. Tony Soprano would be a much better president than Giuliani.

Second in line of what we don't need is Clinton or Obama who like Senator Pryor answer to the Lieberman machine first.. AIPAC, PNAC , Scaife, Sembler, Murdoch etc..and the trillion dollar hedge funders among the other billionaires who don't give a damn about the constitution or the common good.

Edwards is not my first choice but he is my choice now. he's the man who can beat any potential Republican candidate by the widest margin..hopefully by more than a point or two which is small enough for the republican criminals to steal another election..if they allow elections at all..

Dems need to wake up and smell the new triangle.. HC is playing poker with the cards far to close to her chest..Nobody really knows what she wants to do because she wont say it unequivocally. Everything points to continued coddling of insurance companies and big pharma over what is best for half the country who has no insurance or is denied coverage once they make a claim. Obama will fail because he is far to interested in compromise/bipartisanship with the same criminals in charge now and the same criminals both he and HC answer to in the Lieber Pryor Emanuel Hoyer wing of the D party. Congress is failing us all right now because 99 percent of the Republican party is corrupt and a solid twenty percent of the D party is too. The money will transfer to where the power is and if we don't acknowledge that..nothing will change but a couple of faces and names who lead us to the end of the American empire in our lifetime with no solid fall back position in place for we the people.

If the American people want to end the worst of what's happened since Reagan took office.. we have to rally behind Edwards, imo.

I'm not sure if I believe in voting for the lesser of two evils (Clinton).

I would feel icky after getting out of the voting booth.

Naomi Wolf who wrote The End Of America -A Letter Of Warning Of Warning To A Young Patriot ( not to be confused with Naomi Klein who wrote the Shock Doctrine) wrote a post (at my name) which lays out so many current examples of fascism happening right now and why I think the wheels already in motion would accelerate into sheer madness a president like Giuliani.

The one-party press has always been an obstacle for the Democrats. Adlai Stevenson commented once, "They separate the wheat from the chaffe and print the chaffe."

I am seriously considering immigrating to Canada. It's a higher quality of life, plain and simple. I spent some time on their website and I can get in as a skilled worker, or perhaps an entrepreneur.

It's a very similar situation to what I've said before about Hispanics: If I were born in Mexico, I'd be living in the U.S., legally or illegally. We're all born free, and we have right -- if not the obligation -- to move our families to where we can best prosper.

A little tidbit I rec'd this morn......
Click on my name,,,,,I HOPE, I HOPE

didn't work......now what the heck....study some more for me

Shocking Inside DC Scandal Rumor: A Media Ethics Dilemma
So I was down in DC this past weekend and happened to run into a well-connected media person, who told me flatly, unequivocally that "everyone knows" The LA Times was sitting on a story, all wrapped up and ready to go about what is a potentially devastating sexual scandal involving a leading Presidential candidate. "Everyone knows" meaning everyone in the DC mainstream media political reporting world. "Sitting on it" because the paper couldn't decide the complex ethics of whether and when to run it. The way I heard it they'd had it for a while but don't know what to do. The person who told me )not an LAT person) knows I write and didn't say "don't write about this".

If it's true, I don't envy the LAT. I respect their hesitation, their dilemma, deciding to run or not to run it raises a lot of difficult journalism ethics questions and they're likely to be attacked, when it comes out-the story or their suppression of the story-whatever they do.

I've been sensing hints that something's going on, something's going unspoken in certain insider coverage of the campaign (and by the way this rumor the LA Times is supposedly sitting on is one I never heard in this specific form before. By the way, t's not the Edwards rumor, it's something else.

And when my source said "everyone in Washington", knows about it he means everyone in the elite Mainstream media, not just the LA Times, but everyone regularly writing about the Presdidential campaign knows about it and doesn't know what to do with it. And I must admit it really is was juicy if true. But I don't know if it's true and I can't decide if I think it's relevant. But the fact that "everyone" in the elite media knew about it and was keeping silent about it, is, itself, news. But you can't report the "news" without reporting the thing itself. Troubling!

It raises all sorts of ethical questions. What about private sexual behavior is relevant? What about a marriage belongs in the coverage of a presidential campaign? Does it go to the judgment of the candidate in question? Didn't we all have a national nervous breakdown over these questions nearly a decade ago?

Now, as I say it's a rumor; I haven't seen the supporting evidence. But the person who told me said it offhandedly as if everyone in his world knew about it. And if you look close enough you can find hints of something impending, something potentially derailing to this candidate in the reporting of the campaign. Which could mean that something unspoken, unwritten about is influencing what is written, what we read.

Why are well wired media elite keeping silent about it? Because they think we can't handle the truth? Because they think it's substantively irrelevant? What standards of judgment are they using? Are they afraid that to print it will bring on opprobrium. Are they afraid not printing it will bring on opprobrium? Or both?

But alas if it leaks out from less "responsible" sources. then all their contextual protectiveness of us will have been wasted.

And what about timing? They, meaning the DC elite media, must know if it comes out before the parties select their primary winners and eventual nominees, voters would have the ability to decide how important they felt it to the narrative of the candidate in question. Aren't they, in delaying and not letting the pieces fall where they potentially may, not refusing to act but acting in a different way-taking it upon themselves to decide the Presidential election by their silence?

If they waited until the nominees were chosen wouldn't that be unfair because, arguably, it could sink the candidacy of one of the potential nominees after the nomination was finalized? And doesn't the fact that they "all" know something's there but can't say affect their campaign coverage in a subterranean, subconscious way that their readers are excluded from?

I just don't know the answer. I'm glad in a situation like this, if there is in fact truth to it, that I wouldn't have to be the "decider". I wouldn't want to be in a position of having to make that choice. But it's a choice that may well decide a crucial turning point in history. Or maybe not: Maybe voters will decide they don't think it's important, however juicy. But should it be their choice or the choice of the media elites? It illustrates the fact that there are still two cultures at war within our political culture, insiders and outsiders. As a relative outsider I have to admit I was shocked not just by this but by several other things "everyone" down there knows.

There seem to be two conflicting imperatives here. The new media, Web 2.0 anti-elitist preference for transparency and immediacy and the traditional elitist preference for reflection, judgment and standards-their reflection, their small-group judgment and standards. Their civic duty to "protect" us from knowing too much.

I feel a little uneasy reporting this. No matter how well "nailed" they think they have it, it may turn out to be untrue. What I'm really reporting on is the unreported persistence of a schism between the DC media elites and their inside knowlede and the public that is kept in the dark. For their own good? Maybe they'd dismiss it as irrelevant, but shouldn't they know?

I don't know.

Don't let anything or anyone get you off point. The point is a Democrat must be the next President of this country. You'd have to be crazy to even think of voting Republican this time around. We're standing in ruins. You name it and it's worse than it was in 1999.

Now, the main thrust of all Republicans...our economy is heading down the tubes because rampant greed was unleashed under Bush. What rules weren't dismissed to allow all out profit taking were run over as greed became the law of the land. The sub-prime problem is the result of greedy people making loans to anyone with a heartbeat, knowing they could sell that debt to a 3rd party, rake up their cash and get out of Dodge. Now it is tanking the economy and I'm afraid the worst is yet to come.

The reputation of the United States is at an all time low. We suck...I don't like us. Rudy is just what we need to put the last nail in our national coffin....another crook in the White house we don't need! And keep in mind since this coming election campaign started in November, 2004.....it's still soooo early. We haven't seen a debate between Hillary vs Rudy or Hillary vs Mormon Mitt.....she'll clean their clocks! I have never liked her personality...maybe it's a leftover Yankee thing, but I've always thought she was smarter than Bill and I think that will come out next year in the heat of battle with the unlucky Republican nominee.

Where anyone gets the idea that America only likes a middle of the road candidate is beyond me.....but that is the idea governing this era. It's what got Mark Pryor elected, it's what got Beebe elected. I think the whole idea is nuts...but it's what we're operating under now. So it is my firm belief that Hillary is hiding the true Hillary and once she's won the '08 election and is sitting behind the big desk in the Oval Office....she'll show her cards and change the world. 8 years of Hillary and it might look like the USA again. I like all the rest of the Democratic field, but Hillary is the one!

You can doubt the freshness of your milk....but don't doubt that life under President Hillary Clinton will be 500% better than today. Don't let the knit-pickers cloud your mind. Don't lick the hand that has been beating you for almost 7 years. Ain't nothing wrong with any of the Democrats running...pick one, but don't make a Republican smile by bashing the others. Helen Keller, raised from the dead could see that none of the Republican candidates are worth a bucket of warm spit. Banish the bastards and lets move on. We have a country to restore and decades of work ahead.

we visited canada 16yrs ago, i dream of moving everyday. I do read their news and visit their job sites.
No telln how long if or when we will ever climb outta this hell they dug for US.

You folks can say what you wish about this country, and get no static from me. But as one who frequently travels abroad, I must say that there's nothing like a U.S. Customs officer inspecting my passport, verifying my citizenship, then looking me in the eye and saying, "Welcome home, Mr. durangokid."

Ummmm, Jazzy, if the story is that Hillary is a flaming lesbian, my sister-in-law had the goods on that 15 years ago. Got that tidbit from her preacher at the local Baptist church where they do not approve of uppity wimmen. More recently Miz Hillary was supposed to be responsible for the Sarkozy break-up and is now planning to run off to Mexico with a 13 year old.
If I haven't covered it, give.

I think Hillary was and is a very intelligent, ambitious person, who can bite the heads off nails like all very intelligent, ambitious people. I'm guessing she's been more careful in her sex life than I have cause she was hoping this day would come. Hell....give me the better sex and keep your damn ambition...a look at my bank account proves I'm not lying.

Since we're still emerging from the 50s, very intelligent, ambitious women continue to have an uphill battle on their hands. Bitch....lesbian...ball breaker...uppity woman..and a host of other names follow about every woman on the fast track. 8 years in the White House being constantly attacked by the right wing conspiracy would have done in most people. But Hillary took those bullets like Superman and came back for more. I willingly admit, I don't have balls that size.

To be truthful, I'm rooting for Hillary so hard out of total desperation because of the shape we're in and the disastrous direction our country is STILL heading. Cheney-Bush are going for broke and they're perfectly willing to run it all right into the ground. Though they haven't blinked, at some point when we totally corner these 2 rats, they're really going to grow some fangs and there is no telling what they'll do to keep the enormous power they've brazenly gathered up since the word GO.

General Musharraf is pissing off Cheney-Bush by pulling exactly what I think they have planned for the US just before November, 2008. Musharraf is showing his Cheney cards, letting the cat out of the bag a year early. We never think it can happen here and until January, 2001, I didn't think they'd ever come a day when I though our government would turn on us.

But stay up all night and count all the things that have come to pass under Cheney-Bush in the last 7 years and tell me how confident you are they don't have a bunch more tricks in their bag of evil. We're in more trouble than we've been in since WWII....maybe since the Civil War and I don't like it. We've got to think our way out of this before it gets to the point that we have to try shooting our way out. Hillary and Bill look like our best shot.

Thats funny, Hillary's name never crossed my mind when I read above article, in fact, I
never thot of a Dem at all.

Jazzy, I think that e-mail is as believable as the ones that start out you have won the lottery in Canada or Nigeria and if you send me a coupla hundred bucks, I'll send you your money.

The tip-off is that it starts out saying "media ethics," which is a well-known oxymoron.