Arkansas Blog

Regardless of whether it be Hillary or Obama the Republicans are geared up to destroy. So, really does it make a difference? Not too long ago the Republicans was geared up for Hillary. Since Barack has been compared to Bobby Kennedy, maybe the Republicans are hoping he meet the same fate. This is politics you know! It brings to mind one of Sam Cook's verse to one of his songs. "It's been a long time coming, but I know a change is going to come, oh yes it will"

Over the weekend I figured out the formula the MSN uses to keep getting those paychecks year after year when covering politics. My theory is too complicated for a blog posting, but here are the highlights.

Their first trick is to put blinders on that forces them to only see about a week behind and 3 days ahead. It's too much work to take in all of history, all the news of the present moment, and every possible guess of what might happen in the future. So TV news and especially those in print have to pretend all that matters in life is a less than 2 week slice of it. It's also how we suddenly get catch phrases like "embedded with the troops", "if it walks like a duck", "flip-flopper", "stay the course", and now "agent of change".

That's how we got a small period of news saying John McCain will be unbeatable 2 years from now in the 2008 election. Then it was Hillary, a fast moving train no one will stop in '08. Then Romney, then Rudy-9-11, then Ron Paul, then Huckabee, now Obama. If the MSN picked the truly most obvious winner last year, they'd have had nothing to write about and we would have quit watching or buying their print stuff a long time ago.

If they consider all factors and facts and deliver a "War and Peace" size study of each candidate, they've fired all their bullets and again, have nothing to talk about for months or years. But by just focusing on a 10 day period they can pretend everything keeps changing and that the small fries have a chance because By God this is America where everyone has the chance to be President.

It's a neat trick, but it creates a dishonest atmosphere and stabs intelligent information in the back. It does however keep the cash rolling in, allow the writers to pretend every day is a new day and let's the small fries have a year or two to raise money that can then be spent on more advertising. You and I, trying to be informed flag-waving Americans are kept in a constant state of excitement and fear and let's not forget outrage which fills the coffers of every candidate, every right to life group and every TV preacher on top of keeping the stars of the MSN in roof-top penthouse apartments.

This also explains why "the paper of record", the New York Times would hire Bill Kristol, the son of one of the founders of neo-con theory, a man wrong on everything he's ever predicted, a man so not believing his own bullshit that he busts out laughing when caught on it, a man so unable to be right he no doubt shits his pants daily due to an inability to know when it's time to go to the bathroom.

Like I used to listen to Rush for a laugh, at first I thought I'd read Kristol just for fun. But I've decided against it. By not clicking on his name someday the NY Times might see how pissed off its readership is at this hiring and plus....why waste a moment of time reading someone who has been 100% wrong at all times? And let's not forget evil, more evil than Osama who at least believes the trash he says and has a solid record of hitting the buildings he intends to destroy.

"Death to America" will come true if we don't get smarter. "Death to America" will come true if we don't become a better neighbor to the world.

Hillary has always been unelectable as long at there was a viable candidate to replace her. All of the inevitable, national front runner nonsense was just political spin to cover her negatives. Once Obama was on the scene with the JFK rhetoric it was over. She has been a great story for the press but the electorate is not buying. If Obama stumbles look for Edwards to take his place. She is toast.

Sorry Max. I know the democratic machine wanted her. Too Bad.

VIVA OBAMA!
VIVA EDWARDS!

"I don't think he can without selling out core Democratic Party issues."

And you think Hillary won't sell out? Right.

i believe there is a meeting in Oklahoma today (courtesy of David Boren) that will have a most consequential effect on the 2008 elections.

in echoing dbi, it seems that CW (conventional wisdom) is meant to always wrong, in which Kristol (Dan Quayle's former Chief of Staff) is the apex. which brings great comfort when considering that his first column for the NYTimes was a puffing of Huckabee.

CW for 2006/2007 was that with the compressed primary schedule, the nominees of both parties would be known by Valentine's Day 2008 or St. Patrick's Day at the latest. look how that is turning out?

i still expect HRC and McCain to become the respective party nominees, and as the primary fight turns into a slugfest marathon, the pressure and opportunity for Bloomberg to run will be the next "big story". (ironically assisting Huckabee, who may well be on the ticket as VP)

gonna be a fun damn year.

-- will personality alone, and not issues and competence, decide the Democratic nomination?<<

Do you mean like the charming, articulate, handsome JFK did in 1960? Or silver, glib-tongued Reagan did in 1980? There was loveable, warm, stupid and fuzzy-all-over-Shitforbrains in 04.

Yea, I think Americans will vote image-personality, now more than ever before. There's too many uneducated voters now, too much TV that for decades determines how we will process a candidate's image which is what 75% of people will ever see. The only thing that should be seriously considered as a possible change in this blog, and thousands like it, found only on the Web. This is a change.

In 1993 I watched a C-Span post election broadcast from a class of government students (150) at Harvard, mostly sophmores, a few junior level. The two class conveners had been campaign managers for Clnton and Bush. One asked the class how many got their political news from newspapers, about 1/3 raised their hands. Then the convener asked how many got political news from TV and easily half raised their hand. Next he asked how many students got their political news from the Web and almost all raised their hands. Those students are now in their early thirties.

Max, I know you're pulling for the Hildabeast, and she may be the best person for the job. I fear that just too many people really really hate her and she could easily be beaten by the Repug D' Jour. My distaste for her goes way back to 1990 when she stormed onto a press conference by Tom McCray. Here was a good liberal Democrat who had the audacity to oppose her husband for the Democratic nomination for Governor. He was giving his little talk at the Capitol when low and behold Hillary happend to conviently show up. With cameras rolling she barged in to shout down this kind gentleman. She knew that he wouldn't engage in an actual fight. What can a decent guy do when he's up against a woman who has no qualms about fighting dirty? It's a lose/lose proposition. If you fight back, you must be a mean sumbitch for picking on the sweet little ole lady. If you rise above it all, she gets to make her arguement uncontested. He did the latter, and the rest is history.

This small episode from the past might not mean much these days. It does, however, show her true character. The stereotype of her is a cold, manipulative, calculating _____. The problem with stereotypes is they are often correct.

If she gets the nomination I'll vote for her, barring any viable third party entries. I will never support her though.

ARK. BLOG: I think it's over. I think the Republicans' wildest dream is going to come true -- Obama will be the nominee. For what it's worth, I thought the Hillary-McRae thing was a tiny piece of political theater and, as some sort of example of Hillary's character, not of tremendous import. She called McRae down in public. He didn't have much of a response.

setting up 2012 ?

if history holds true again, the respective party nominees will be someone other than the winners of the Iowa and New Hampshire votes, which will make it easier for both parties to finally force a change in the next round of Presidential campaign schedules.

For some balance re: the Hilary-Obama choice, check out David Morris's article on the Clinton legacy in Alternet today: http://www.alternet.org/stories/72336/

In my view, it's all coming down to known-commodity vs. unknown-commodity. Hilary is a known commodity, and the electorate is apparently not buying.

For many of us, the legacy of quasi-Republican government under the Clintons (what I characterize as the liberal balancing act that plays fast and free with core values, when it suits the leadership to do that in order to remain in power) is a legacy younger Americans are repudiating.

They/we want change. We're hungry for change, for more representative democracy, for less allocation of power by the same old power mongers to the same old constituencies.

Maybe Obama will mirror the Clintons in this regard. But at least he's an unknown commodity whose expiration date doesn't seem quite so close to the one on the Clinton package.

As for me, I remain for Edwards--which is to say for Mrs. Edwards, who is the most promising figure in the political arena right now, in my view.

"change" does not come in election years ending in "8".

08- (1908), 1928, 1948, 1968, 1988, 2008?

"change" from the theme forged earlier in each decade, comes in election years ending in either Zero or Two.

A Most Remarkable and Curious Pattern
Following the conceptional tumult of the 19th Century, U.S. Presidential elections settled into a remarkably curious pattern.

Each Administration beginning in 1900, elected in a year ending in 0 and thus taking office in a year ending in 1, instituted policies that defined the decade to follow. The subsequent elections of the years ending in 8 produced only once a change in ruling party (1968), but no significant change in policies. Substantial policy changes came with each subsequent election year ending in 2, which then defined that "short" decade.

1900 McKinley/Roosevelt T.R. (Republican)
1908 Taft (Republican)
1912 Wilson (Democrat)

1920 Harding/Coolidge (Republican)
1928 Hoover (Republican)
1932 Roosevelt F.D. (Democrat)

1940 Roosevelt F.D./Truman'44 (Democrat)
1948 Truman (Democrat)
1952 Eisenhower (Republican)

1960 Kennedy/Johnson (Democrat)
1968 Nixon (Republican)
1972 Nixon (Republican) *resigned August 1974

1980 Reagan/Bush (Republican)
1988 Bush (Republican)
1992 Clinton (Democrat)

2000 Bush (Republican)
2008 ?
2012 ?

The 1912, 1948, 1968, and 1992 elections were exceptionally noteworthy feats of "engineering", requiring a third or fourth ('48) major candidate to achieve the desired results.

The 1968 and 1972 elections of Richard Nixon are both anomalies and "exceptions that prove the rule" when it is noted that few fundamental changes in policy resulted from the '68 election (China excepted). Indeed Nixon's policies were almost identical to Johnson's only more so.

It is the 1972 election that should have, but did not produce the "counter-wave" in election results, but did arguably produce the policy shifts of the other elections ending in 2. For within the subsequent 1000 days of Nixon's 1973 inauguration he was forced to resign and the U.S. withdrew from South VietNam. Arguably the 1974 and 1976 elections were late reactions that compressed the 'normal' cycle that ended again in 1980-81.

It is worth noting in reference to the "Nixon Anomaly" that both of his elections were preceded by the elimination of his most powerful political competition by gunshot. (RFKennedy June1968, George Wallace May1972) Facts that played no small role in the subsequent reactions to the 1972 "Anomaly".

It is also worth noting that F.D. Roosevelt was both the vehicle of a "reaction" in 1932-33 and the decade-setting "action" of 1940, by virtue of his four elections. F.D.R. died in office, as did each President elected in a year ending in Zero, with the exception of Ronald Reagan, 1980. (though it wasn't from a lack of trying)

The "Pattern" would strongly suggest that the election of 2008 will result in a continuation of the policies set during the previous eight years, regardless of which party nominee prevails, and also that the countervailing "reaction" will not materialize until 2012.

Which might explain why Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has been so reluctant to advocate any fundamental or substantial policy contrary to those of the current Bush Administration. Most notably of it's interventionist Foreign Policy centerpiece, the 'War on Terror' in Iraq. Perhaps she is an astute student of U.S. political history and realizes that the "time for change" will be early in the next decade?

But in my opinion, Hillary is but another "Nixon" who will feign "continuity" in order to win election in '08 and then solidify and utilize unprecedented Presidential powers, built up over two centuries, to effect "real change" following the 2012 election.

And with that in mind, here's hoping that the "Pattern" of the 20th Century does not extend into the 21st.

stephenhsmith
8Aug2006

"will personality alone, and not issues and competence, decide the Democratic nomination?"

The power of television has changed the electoral voting process. Can't be helped. A poll was taken after the first 1960 JFK/Nixon debate. Those who watched it on tv said JFK won. Those who listened to it on radio said Nixon won. That's why candidates hire Fifth Avenue ad people to forge their campaigns. They have to be packaged, advertised, sold like a product to the American people. They all wear their hair the same, try to shed their regional dialects and create a certain image. Dale Bumpers was a master with the image thing. That's modern electioneering.

"For what it's worth, I thought the Hillary-McRae thing was a tiny piece of political theater . . . "

I've posted about this before and I will again. I was there. Just happened to be walking by. Saw the whole, planned thing. It was rudeness and crudeness in its rawest form. She lost me forever right there, right then. I've tried to rationalize this "tiny piece of political theater" and get over it. Have yet to succeed in doing so.

ARK. BLOG: Have you asked yourself if you'd have felt the same way if someone other than Hillary had called McRae down?

People are wanting change. Who do people think is more genuine in making a change...Obama or Clinton? Iowa has decided and New Hampshire will decide tomorrow.

That's interesting that you would say the Republicans want Obama to win. Alot of people think the Republicans want Clinton to win the Dems nomination.

I see where over the weekend Obama has picked up the endorsement of former Senator Bill Bradley.
That can't hurt & Bradley would make an excellent choice for VP on the Dem ticket. Certainly more credible than our former Governor's sidekick Chuck Norris on the Repub side.

Max, Max, Max. Clinton-homering, I see?

It's interesting you note that Republicans want Obama to win so that the Rethugs have easy pickings. I actually know Republicans supporting Obama for completely different reasons: because they like the guy--none for Clinton, though. The man is far more competent than you would care to know.

And you talk about experience? Why did Mrs. Clinton authorize the war in Iraq? Then after her "experience" and regret, she made essentially the same vote for Iran.

Obama's looking to win the nomination, just like Huckabee. You'll be wrong on two counts.

Obama just won a state that's rural and over 95% white. Sure, it was in the primaries, but that's still very impressive considering what Clinton was throwing at him. That's a major credit to the footsoldiers of Obama, who have actively permeated through my campus as well. (Not Hillary, though.) The Iowa win should be a hint of what's possible...

It's a shame that age has seem to have made some perennially cynical about the electoral process. (Or, you're using scare tactics to garner some support for Clinton on the blog.)

"-- will personality alone, and not issues and competence, decide the Democratic nomination?"

It did for the Revangelicans in 2000, that's how we got the current dipshit isn't it? The "plain spoken" (illiterate) conservative vs. the East Coast (Patrician) liberal ...

HA!! guess that could apply to Gore OR Kerry, eh? Gore is from TN like I am from IL; he's DC all the way...

Max you homer!

No sane person alive can really make an argument that Hillary is more electable than Obama in a general election.

Note independents in Iowa and New Hampshire

I love Bill but its time for Obama

Edwards is a total fraud

ARK. BLOG: Depends on the opponent. I'm fine with Obama as the nominee. But he's been awfully long on rhetoric and short on substance. All this talk of change and hope sounds mighty good, but what does it mean, really? The change I want is a Democrat in the White House.

But issues still matter to me. And I fear what the Republicans have in store for Obama. His peevishness in the face of Hillary's fairly mild criticism the other night on comparative voting records doesn't bode well for when the Repubs drag out the heavy mustard gas. Perhaps this will be the year that voters reject such stuff. Perhaps I underestimate the willingness of independents to look past the obvious hot buttons on Obama. Perhaps the liberal label won't be so damaging this go-round. If Obama is the nominee, I certainly hope not.

It's interesting that JD 'knows' Republicans who are supporting Obama. I would suggest it's because his views on the really important issues (Social Security, MediCare, etc) more closely resemble theirs than any other Dems, and they know they're fielding a bunch of losers.

My candidate is neither Hillary nor Obama, but Edwards.

please pardon the snark (i can't help myself) but on paper "Oprahma" is easily THE EMPTIEST SUIT i've ever seen.

the curious circumstances under which he gained a US Senate seat is made even more strange by the assistance of David Wilhelm and David Axelrod (longtime aide to the son of the man who compelled Hillary to become a "Goldwater Girl" in 1964... Mayor Richard Daley)

which makes one wonder what Rahm is up to these days?

and the tortoise/hare analogy must again be invoked, for when has a "hare" become POTUS since 1860? (and we all know how THAT turned out)

Based on these responses, I would say no firewall for Hillary in Arkansas. If the people who read this blog are already off the wagon can she really have any hope?

She can fight here and there to keep up appearances and then hope to pull a comeback in 2012. Now that would make her look like a real run of the mill candidate and maybe give her some time to work on those negatives.

Having your first two races for Senate and President is a pretty steep learning curve. I agree with the guy who said she reminds me of Nixon.

"muskie moment" ???

the opposite more likely, as the main components of HRC's political ascendancy have been 'sympathy' and as Gail Collins aptly noted "we can get through this" (i.e. 'overcoming adversity')

which makes me wonder when Bill will have a "heart episode"? (just before super-duper Tuesday i suspect)

Interesting. I've just had an email from an e-friend in a Western state whom I've never met outside the internet. She and I have never talked about this election--rarely talk politics, for that matter, except insofar as they affect religion in the U.S.

She says out of the blue, "I'm not terribly thrilled with anyone on the Republican side, and for whatever reason, I can't get into Obama. Or Hilary for that matter. I'm hoping that John Edwards starts to gain some momentum, but it doesn't look like it's going to happen in New Hampshire. At least Edwards shows a little passion. Besides he's willing to take on my big time issue, which is the unbelievable amount of control international corporate conglomerates have in all facets of our lives."

That "passion" motif is what I mean by hewing true to the core values we espouse. It's just not there in Hilary--at least in my perception of her (and many folks'). I'm still looking for it in Obama, though willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I see it more clearly in Edwards--and above all, his magnificent spouse.

It's time for the Democrats to stop talking values that their actions belie. It's also time for them to discredit the inauthentic, slimy discourse about values on the Republican side, once and for all. If anyone still needs any evidence of the lip service the right wing pays to values, they have only to look at the last four years. They've been laughing all the way to the bank while we look for them to cash in their values rhetoric. That is, when they have time to go to the bank between visits to mistresses, public restrooms, White House pages, and so on.

The video made me like her even more.

First, Max, I think Muskie Moment deserves its own thread.

Now, more likely this is calculated to be her "I feel your pain" moment. HRC (sounds like a British warship) has been hampered most by being unapproachable - an ice queen. It doesn't come off strong, like Margaret Thatcher, but simply detached or aloof. I won't vote for Hillary even if Huckabee is the alternative, but even I had to feel some connection watching the video. Muskie came of as weak and whining; HRC is trying to come of as human. Time will tell how it's received.

is tomorrow INDEPENDENT'S DAY ?

latest poll shows HRC leading Obama among only DEMOCRATS (36-30)

and Romney leading McCain (30-26) among only REPUBLICANS.

does this mean that NHampshire's results tomorrow will demonstrate that Huckabee has no real support beyond the GOP/Evangelical base? thus, not a serious candidate for a nominee, who must demonstrate an ability to win INDY votes?

turnout ? i suspect a replication of Iowa (record numbers on both sides, DEMS twice as many as GOP)

and i still expect Ron Paul to get more votes than doth Huckabee.

Who ever gets the Demo nomination here's what's in store for them, click on bluename.

For the entire story of FEAR, FEAR, FEAR, see Salon.com at
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/01/07/terror/

The 800 pound whatever in the room, that hasn't been mentioned but needs to be, is that an Obama nomination would play into the Republicans' all-time favorite playbook--courting the white backlash vote. Anyone who thinks Obama's race won't be a factor in the general election is seriously kidding themselves. In 2008 America, race should have no bearing on a candidate's qualifications for office, but the reality is very different.

More importantly, Obama gives a good, inspiring speech, but he is perhaps the least vetted potential nominee in recent history. John Kerry's promise was "electability" but that fell apart pretty quickly when he let himself get swift boated. Obama has never been tested in a general election above the state legislative level; a cakewalk over Alan Keyes in 2004 is no preparation for getting gutted by the Republicans nationally. The Obama bandwagon is eerily reminiscent of George McGovern's 1972 campaign--shaft the establishment and nominate someone who is above politics. The bandwagon ended up going off the cliff and the Democratic Party was mortally wounded for two decades. Carter's election in '76 was owed more to Republican weakness over Watergate than any Democratic resurgence.

This election is too important to let starry-eyed optimism over who crafts the best rhetoric on "change" and a desire for "new blood" to determine the Democratic nominee. If Obama is the choice based on substance, experience and concrete ideas about how to clean up the Bush mess, fine. But at this point, he doesn't have much to offer in any of those areas.

A previous poster likened Obama to Bobby Kennedy. People forget that Bobby Kennedy was much more than an inspiring speaker; he was a tough, tested political operator who never hesitated to engage in bare-knuckled politics to get his brother elected to the U.S. Senate in the 1950s and as President in 1960. If Bobby Kennedy had been the Democratic nominee in 1968 against Nixon, you could be assured Kennedy would have been well prepared to respond to any and all Republican attacks. Kennedy knew when to quote George Bernard Shaw and when to put on his helmet for political combat.

If all Obama has to offer is Bobby Kennedy's rhetoric, without any indication he can survive a bruising election campaign, Democrats should seriously consider whether he is ready to be President.

Please, someone tell me what is this "experience" thing that Ms. Hillary keeps talking about. One might surmise that it must be one of these urban myths that the Clintonites keep spreading, much like the little lies now seeping on the Web about The Obama's Muslim ties and impending assassination.
Sans a sorry tenure in the U.S. Senate, Junior Sen. Ms. Hillary has about the same experience as Ms. Laura of the Bushites. At least The Obama can claim some experience from his tenure in diry Chicago politics and the Illinois legislature, while Ms. HIllary has spent most of her time as a lawmaker supporting the worst president ever.
Hopefully, this election season will expose the racist leanings of the Democratic Party, and ignite a real "change movement" that will also end this era of media-appointed black leaders, FOBAHs (Friends of Bills and Hillarys) and conservative Demopublicans and Republicrats like Mssrs Pryor and Lincoln who have supported the criminal Bush-Cheney-Halliburton-Blackwater enterprise, while selling out the ordinary Americas to Wall Street.
To most Americans, Republicans, Democrats and Independents alike, Ms. Hillary's "I Don't Feels No Ways Tired-I-got-mo-experience" rant is getting a little tired.

Well I'm confused...do the Repubs want to face Hillary or Obama? But then what difference does it really make...other than make fools of Dems who're allowing Republicans to choose their candidate. Either way, the country will, at last, have a clear, distinct choice. The first woman or black man as president or one of the Republican cave dwellers: Huck who thinks women should be subservient, more troops are needed in Iraq and that the earth is 5-6 thousand years old; Mitt, a Mormon (we are talking about pleasing the Republican base) and someone who also wants lots more of Iraq; McCain who'll have us fighting everywhere and helping Dubya rewrite history; Rudy who is a feminist at heart (equality of service for all his women)...but a crooked, warmongering version and who will also have us fighting/paying his goons forever. I hope we've come far enough as a country that it's not even a close race between a new, positive future or a return to the cave.

Max,

Well, I understand the concern

But I seem to remember the old line 16 years ago that George H. W. used to utter about our native son

"The only foreign policy experience he has is eating at the International House of Pancakes"

I guess we should have gone with Tsongas in that election?

I agree that Obama is green but I think no one can disagree that he has "it"; the victory speech he gave in Iowa was literally one of the best political stump speeches in history

Hillary is an incredible human being and an amazing political force but no one can deny the miles of baggage she brings to a general election nor her lack of a core personality. Not to mention she is a candidate without a home (ala Gore), she undoubtedly will lose her birthplace state to Obama, NY is up for grabs, and while she will do well in Arkansas I don't think anyone considers this state her home. And it is undeniable that she is no longer an agent of change but an establishment candidate, granted an establishment that led the country far more effectively than our current President

I think Obama's intelligence, his effortless comfort with who he is as a candidate, and his magical broad appeal offers a fresh choice for moderate Republicans, independents, African Americans, women, and yellow dog Democrats. Not to mention in the general I think he will always have the gravitas of Bill and others who will rally to his side once he is our candidate.

I think the race is far from over but I see Obama winning New Hampshire by 10 points or more

And I think he offers the Democrats the best chance to offer the country a Fresh Start and I think he is going to win

if nothing else, it will be nice to have a Democratic candidate who knows the NFL playoffs are a far greater attraction than the 493rd You Tube/ABC/ CNN/MSNBC debate and actually knows that Redskins lost when challenged by Charlie Gibson

And Michelle Obama is world class

Change vs. More of the same

New Leadership vs. "experienced" failures like Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.

ARK. BLOG: All those words and not a single specific. Universal health care vs. not universal. Let's start there. But I'm a wonk. And how would Hillary be more of the same against the Bush White House? NFL? Sorry, I just don't care.

eLwood...after watching McCain kiss Monkeyboy's butt for seven years (and this after the S.Carolina dirty tricks) NOTHING he does surprises me. At one time, I thought his ethics were, well, better. Guess the Presidential Quest eats the best of souls. I expect those 'terror' ads to run nonstop once The Chosen Fear-monger is anointed.

excellent points soothsayer, thank you for the reminder

"NFL? Sorry, I just don't care."
-Max

There's the rub. A couple/few million voters do.

ARK. BLOG: Sure, but are we really electing a president on NFL savvy? I hope not. What about NASCAR? Bowling? Golf? Dogs v. cats?

"Hillary is an incredible human being and an amazing political force but no one can deny the miles of baggage she brings to a general election nor her lack of a core personality."

Maybe Hillary's baggage you're talking about is a blowjob given to her husband. You have to ask yourself, go ahead and ask your mother, how badly did that blowjob hurt your life personally? And since Hillary didn't get the blowjob, why is it her baggage.

I think your saying Hillary's baggage is Bill Clinton, the most popular American on earth at the moment, followed closely by that man without a home Oscar winning, Nobel Prize winning Al Gore. But back to Bill for a moment. His heavy baggage is 8 wonderful years filled with peace for the most part, a running economy, a balanced budget and about 19 zillion more people liking the US than they do today. That's some baggage! I'll take me a whole help more of that kind of baggage! Please!

I'll be delighted to trade a blowjob for Halliburton. I'll trade a blowjob for a repaired Justice system. I'll give a blowjob for peace! You get a blowjob! And you get a blowjob! And you get a blowjob!

I'll also be pretty damn happy with Obama or Edwards in the White House too. But lordy....some neo-con says Al Gore said he invented the Internet and it makes it true, someone says Hillary is old and covered in baggage and it makes it true. We gotta quit sucking on every media tit that drops in our faces and use our brains a little bit more. Remember...last week Huckabee was our next Prez, now it's Obama, after tomorrow it will be McCain. Relax a little bit and everything will work out fine......assuming we have elections in November of course.

perhaps a better question than

"what candidate would you most like to have a beer with?"

should be replaced by

"what candidate would you most like to have advising you when filing your taxes?"

Specifics:

How did Hillary Care go? Wow thanks Hillary for delivering the Gingrich Revolution

No one is going to be able to force through a broad universal healthcare plan; I will settle for winning the election instead and a President who will not veto expansions of Children's healthcare because he already has so much spending locked up in Iraq

Oh wait Iraq...another specific thanks for that authorization vote Hillary

Thanks for the support of the ridiculous Lieberman-Kyl resolution, nothing like fanning the flames against diplomacy for absolutely no reason....I mean when are all options not on the table?

And DBI nobody is talking about George W. over Hillary

But if you think Hillary does not bring baggage you are just being "naive"

And I hate to say it but likability has always been the number one factor in who wins an election...it would be nice to have that factor on the Democratic side of the ticket again (its been missing since Bill)

ARK. BLOG: She politically mishandled the health stuff with the private meetings. But James Fallows wrote a pretty good article for Atlantic about this that would give you a different perspective on the issue, I think. She tried. OK, she failed. Better than proposing less than a full loaf for starters. The war? Easy call now. Now so easy then. Credit Obama for the right vote. It was a very, very small number and Hillary seems to be given more culpability than all the others who voted the same way. And I do believe that, once the decision was made, the situation became very different. Obama won't instantly bring the troops home either.

Of course Hillary has baggage, tons. But we know nearly all of it.

You're right about likeability, of course. The problem comes when it's decisive over all else. I also don't happen to find Hillary unlikable.

"ARK. BLOG: Have you asked yourself if you'd have felt the same way if someone other than Hillary had called McRae down?"

Indeed I have, many times. I was a Hillary fan until that disgraceful, disrespectful moment. Her actions just told me things about her I'd as soon not known. As with Hill, I would have lost respect for you, Judge Ellen, my wife, or daughter if any of you had acted in the manner she did. Question: would McRae have "called down" (an interesting way to put it) Hillary? Answer: Not a chance.

ARK. BLOG: Fair enough then. But I can think of plenty of snappy comebacks McRae could have made and been well within the bounds of political discourse. And it was, after all, just that. Political discourse. Just like when the Obama supporter went to a Hillary event to throw her some challenging questions this morning.

"Sure, but are we really electing a president on NFL savvy? I hope not. What about NASCAR? Bowling? Golf? Dogs v. cats?"
-Max

To an extent, yes. Is that good? Maybe. Maybe not. But I know the guys/voters I watch football with appreciate being related-to. So do I. Recitation of policy alone ain't gonna win the White House in the real world.

You know this, Max.

ARK. BLOG: Sure, but there are plenty of ways to do it, not a single-sport litmus test. Take hunting. You'd think from Ark. politicians that it is the be-all. And, it's certainly a hot button issue with those who hunt. But the vast majority of people in Arkansas DON'T hunt. Or fish. Fact.

Hate to say it but Hillary is done. Obama momentum will carry through. Then you have lilihood of Edwards bailing out before South Carolina perhaps if he doesn't go strong in New Hampshire. Why not ruin in his own state? Think he'll lose and he won't want to lose his home state. will look better if he just graciously exits beforehand and then Obama is polling strong there right now. Yes, even in So. Carolina. If Edwards endorses Obama when (if) he steps down-Wow. Does that set-up an Obama-Edwards ticket? Could be possible perhaps. It will get interesting post New Hampshire.

I like Hillary. Think she is the one we need now but sadly I think she is out of it. Even she knows it at this point. They are running the numbers to be sure. I don't know if a Black candidate can win in the US yet which scares me about Obama getting the nomination. Will people vote another "Stupid White Male" (again) over a qualified African-American. I think we just might. Sad but true. So that then that just throws it back to the stupid white males yet again. (I'm a white male.)

Huckabee won't carry the day. He is flavor of themonet but his Gomer Huckabee personna will wear thin soon.

Anyone saying that Hillary is done will soon regret their words. Obama has been in contention in Iowa, NH, and SC the whole time. However, those are the only state's he's even close in. Can those effect the outcome of later primaries? Of course. But can Obama catch up to Hillary in enough states to win?

It's sad when we let Republicans shred Hillary Clinton for no other reason than she's Hillary Clinton. Or keep us from nominating a black man just because he can't overcome our prejudices. Time after time I've asked all my Hillary hating friends why...what did she do or not do? Not once have I gotten any answer other than some version of 'just because.' And, according to media accounts she's has stood for hours in Iowa and New Hampshire answering specific questions from unfiltered crowds. But Obama speaks well and people feel good about him...and he's not Hillary. And Huck connects with people...they like his humor, to hell with his sexist, warmongering, idiotic beliefs. I guess the American Public that allowed Monkeyboy to steal two presidencies is alive/well...and behind Huck.

After checking out the ABC video, one could say her voice cracked a little bt and her demeanor cracked somewhat but there is no sense that she's cracking up. Either her disappointment is showing or she may be staging a "poor baby" moment for the sympathy and understnding vote. Her words come out very measured but warm. It would be a mistake for her opponents to attack this moment because she will strike back swift and hard if they take the bait.

zelda as usual you are on the spot. we need to meet one of these days. the answer of well because she is a clinton is about all they can get. or well that cattle deal. or the rose law firm, which nobody found anything wrong with. they are the most investigated people in the world and nothing could be found wrong with them. the stuff that was wrong was not connected to them. like you say she answers unfiltered questions from unfiltered crowds and still comes out clean. do you think that asshole would ever do that? how about dick cheney? hell he would probably have a battalion of soldiiers around him.

devils advocate

I understand not wanting to give up on Hillary but the polling is telling a different story in much wider circle of states at this point. And if Obama beats her in New Hampshire handily, it will be a big deal. I think you'll see Edwards bail,(he deosn't have the deep pockets he will need to go on from there if he loses big) then me may endorse Obama. that will be big. I don't necessarily like that scenario but can see it happening

What sucks about the whole process is these first few states exert such a $%^&ed up amount of influence in the whole process. That sucks. the system is broken. Why don't we hear more about tha?

After reading all of the political punditry of the last six months, one thing strikes me -- this woman can not do anything right according to the talking heads in the MSM. First they say she needs to cut through her cold, controlled image and let the warm, fuzzy Hillary shine on through. When she finally shows some emotion, she's labeled as emotional and desperate because her campaign is in trouble. We need someone with her steady hand and wisdom in the Oval Office. The next four years are going to be a defining time in this country both internationally and domestically. Do you want a wise-cracking preacher or Bush yes-man in the seat of power? No and again I say, no! Is it possible that Hillary is not only in this for the glory of a second Clinton administration, but because she honestly does want to right the wrong path this country has been headed on since 2000? I vote yes, and I will vote Hillary.

Zonker...despite being very unhappy with Hillary's Iraq vote/etc., I find the visceral hatred for her sickening...and telling. 'Those' friends I referenced couldn't even complain about her war vote (most are on the warmongering side of things); 'they' just don't like Hillary Clinton. I was a Hillary fan long before I was anti-Republican (and before she crossed to the Dark Side of the War.) She championed and worked hard for many of the causes that are near/dear to my heart: i.e. Women's Rights/children's issues. It was even refreshing to have a so-called First Lady who had more on her mind than choosing Christmas decorations or memorizing the latest Cause the RNC chose for her. (Though spending millions to teach people to 'Just say No' is quite revolutionary.) I find it galling that Hillary puts out specifics, but Obama/Huck just make people feel good...their specifics, if they are wrong, seem irrelevant. (Though Obama promising to get us out of Iraq is a start toward specifics that I can be comfortable with.) I don't want the Republicans to use fear of Hillary/Obama to drive a wedge between Dems and their nominee of choice. Just by nominating one of them, we'll know we're on the right track. If we can just keep Bushco from stealing the elections, we'll be alright.

Yes, I think I could have some good conversations with several of my blog buddies.

DBI...bet my car is older/bigger than yours.

I'd like Hillary to win. In fact, I will be depressed about the whole damn system (again) if she doesn't. But I just think, for a few reasons, it isn't going to happen. One of the factors believe it or not, is people are Bill Clintoned out. I truly don't think people want to see Bill's face for eight more years. That is not main reason but is a factor. He

IABL,
I'm not sure what numbers or which states you're looking at, but the polls I've seen (and I watch the polls daily) still have Hillary WAY UP (around 20% or so) in Michigan, Nevada, Florida, California, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. That's running the gauntlet of the coming weeks and the big states on Super Tuesday. Like I said, Obama should have no trouble with NH and SC, but he'll have a hard fight to change those kinds of numbers in that many states in such little time. Momentum can create an atmosphere where that can happen, but I think Hillary will have a good lead in delegates when we wake up the morning after Super Tuesday, and that will definately tilt the playing field back to her advantage. I say this, bear in mind, not as a Hillary supporter (or basher) or as an Obama supporter (or basher). I am currently undecided, and I haven't ruled out the possibility of a strategic vote, either.

Well Max, I guess you do find Hillary likable................you know her on a personel level , most voters don't have the luxury of knowing a presidential candidate as a "friend".
I have very ambivalent feelings about her on the one hand I think she is very smart and has an excellent grasp on the issues of the day on the other hand she could take some lessons from her husband on empathy, relating to everyday Americans and knowing who made it to the next level in the NFL Playoffs. The sad thing is I think on many levels she is warm and "normal" but it just doesn't come across and sadly as others have posted the electorate judges everyone on what they see right this moment, attention spans are short and getting shorter.
I would not write off her campain just yet, the Clinton political machine is still run by the master, she may yet pull it out.

If I were totally neutral--and I realize nobody is on the Clintons--this tape would make me more likely to vote for Hillary. It certainly humanizes her, if that's a problem for somebody. I don't see it as a Muskie meltdown moment. She's just human, and very tired, and believes in what she's doing. More power to her.

I like how you think, durangokid.

It can be argued that politics is politics--nasty business. People compromise. They have to compromise.

But when those compromises betray the most fundamental values they claim to stand for, then I lose stomach for them and I lose respect for them as leaders.

When a leader reveals himself/herself in one of those ah-ha ways, such that we see the person beneath the image, and when that person is simply not worthy of respect, then there's no going back. Our eyes start turning elsewhere.

Methinks that a lot of political commentators in Arkansas have something very strong vested in seeing Hilary as the front-runner. We won't have those trips the White House awaiting us if any of her competitors win, will we? Or the cozy phone calls asking us for advice?

I'd vote for any of the Democratic candidates against any of the Republican ones--in a heartbeat. But I think anyone who seriously contends that Hilary is more viable than Obama at this point is just deluding himself or herself, perhaps out of fatuous self-interest.

People are ready for change. They're ready to risk something on the unknown candidate that at least appears to promise substantive change, than the known commodity who talks about change but represents more of the same.

ARK. BLOG: Muddling, you're agreat commentator. On the off chance that you'd be referencing me here, let me say for the record that I've never received a phone call from Hillary Clinton except a condolence call on the occasion of the Arkansas Gazette's closure in 1991. But never mind that. Over and over, I hear people are ready for change. What sort of change does Obama promise? What exactly about politics as usual does Hillary represent. Hillary's war vote excepted, I think her voting record has been the match of Obama's in the Senate. Do you honestly think a Clinton presidency wouldn't represent a marked change from the Bush White House? I accept that somebody has managed to sell the notion that Obama is change and Clinton is not, but apart from the poetry, I'm not exactly sure why that is. I'm seeking specifics here, not platitudes. But I repeat: I, too, want change -- a Democrat in the White House. Whichever one it is. When it comes to likeability, I happen to be partial to Richardson.

zelda, mines a full size 1976 model American made beauty with 42,000 original miles. I'd tell you more but the Boozman spies are dragging the river right now searching for DBI.

First of all everyone is way too early with their prediction of death for the front runners. Of course Kucinich and Paul and Richardson....and some might say Huckabee haven't a chance. If you'll notice Huckabee got zero bump in his numbers after his big win in Iowa....that's almost impossible, but true.

I used to see the Clintons now and then, never socially of course. I saw Nixon from about a mile away. I saw Agnew and Win Rockefeller up close one time. And like I like to say, Lady Bird kissed me twice on the forehead in 1964. (pssst Lady Bird, call me! oh)

I don't give a damn if my next President is black or white or a woman. America is so broken thanks to Cheney-Bush I'll take a damn Martian if they'll do right instead of waging war and making their rich millionaire friends, billionaires. The last thing I care about is if my next President is fun to drink a beer with. MESSAGE TO BLOGGERS: No matter who it is your chances of having a beer with them are about the same as your chances of birthing the next Jesus.

I hope whoever it is...is mean as a snake, as pure as Ivory soap, and has a brain so big it leaks out their ears. I want someone to save America and I don't care what they look like or do in private. I'll take a child molster, a Communist, a man or woman with no arms or legs, a person deep into bestiality, a booger eater......as long as they won't FK us like we've been FK'ed for the last 7 years and won't take off across the globe stealing oil, kidnapping, torturing and killing, bent on world domination.

Ask someone from the Donner Party if they want a cheeseburger. Ask Amelia Earhart if she needs some directions. Ask Bobby Kennedy if he'd like to go out the front way. America is on life supports and we're talking about cracking voices, Dean screams, and if someone would be fun to bunk with on a sleepover. Where have all the thinking adults gone?

"...Either her disappointment is showing or she may be staging a "poor baby" moment for the sympathy and understanding vote..."

Zelda - I understand that this must be hard on you being a starch feminist and all. You've argued for the equality of women, but yet you defend one who cries foul when the boys beat her. "Poor baby" moment? Are you saying that she should play on the weaker image of being a women to get votes?
That's so not you Zelda. Earlier today you were preaching equality and how women in today's world don't have it and now you want one to use it to her advantage.
This playing both sides of the argument is precisely why some women are viewed the way they are.

I prob'ly have more male friends than female and I've been saying for a year, or whenever
Hillary jumped in the race, she could not win. I listen to guys talk and too many of them love
women in the kitchen or the bedroom but heaven strike down a strong, educated, equal,
upstart woman.
Not many yrs ago I stood up to my Daddy, in a dispute, and he said, "You are just one of those
N.O.W. females.....you were all ok as long as you stayed in your place."
Unfortunately there are still too many men like him left in this world.
What is their fear? that we will de-nut them, shear their long curly locks, take a bath on a
rooftop and tempt their weiner to come to attention???????????
Dunno,,,,,we all have husbands, sons, grandsons,,,,,that we love more than our very own life.
Afraid we still have a long way to go.

Many good points made all around on this thread...

With my man Dodd out I yam a searchin' for another candidate...

I love hearing Obama speak...he is a natural...and I think mrs rosso is firmly in his camp...

But he hasn't shown much in the policy department...not nearly as much as Clinton or Richardson, who between them have more experience than pretty much all the other candidates combined (exception McCain)...

There is no doubt you could make a great cabinet out of all the Dems together...so I am comfortable with pretty much any of 'em...

Alas, mrs rosso is insisting I take my Dodd sticker off my car but I am holding fast...

DBI,
While it's true you didn't see a HuckaBush surge after Iowa (or a Romney surge after Wyoming), don't forget that he's still VERY viable in Michigan (1% behind Romney for a solid 2nd place), Nevada (2nd, behind Romney), and Florida (2% behind Rudy for 2nd)....and he's got a comfortable lead in South Carolina, which he will likely win since he's focusing more on that primary than on New Hampshire.

By the way, if anyone's interested, here's a breakdown of delegates won so far:
Obama: 16
Hillary: 15
Edwards: 14

Romney: 17
Huckabee: 13
Thompson: 8
McCain: 5
Ron Paul: 4
Rudy: 1
Duncan Hunter: 1

James,

It's probably best not to attack Zelda for something that I wrote. It sort of destroys your whole argument and leaves you looking foolish. Besides not being a political analyst, now you're not entertaining. Seems you're confused instead.

If you're gonna strike out, at least don't do it with your eyes closed.

"...Either her disappointment is showing or she may be staging a "poor baby" moment for the sympathy and understanding vote..."

Zelda - I understand that this must be hard on you being a starch feminist and all. You've argued for the equality of women, but yet you defend one who cries foul when the boys beat her. "Poor baby" moment? Are you saying that she should play on the weaker image of being a women to get votes?
That's so not you Zelda. Earlier today you were preaching equality and how women in today's world don't have it and now you want one to use it to her advantage.
This playing both sides of the argument is precisely why some women are viewed the way they are.--James

Uh, James, I didn't say that. But glad you're paying attention.

You beat me by two years, DBI; mine's a 79 Olds/Deeluxe. In-laws gave it to us about 4-5 years ago. They had only put about 30 thousand miles on; and it is in mint condition. Hubby loves it; I like it for road trips (NOTHING rides as well)...but not so much for zipping around town. Those curbs get in the way.

My serious reservations with both Obama and Clinton are their similarities. The are both Lieberman loving people just like Mark Pryor. Their consultants and advisors are filled with neo cons and they both seem to think bipartisanship is a worthy goal in a time when bipartisanship equals negotiating with neo fascists and or fundies who think mankind is slightly older than the pyramids.

On war and defense issues Obama and Clinton are Bush Cheney lite.

Obamas first large financial backers were the hedge fund crowd. Which is why he declares no to taxes as loud as any GOPer. If we don't reign in and tax the super wealthy elite.. we cannot turn this economic sinking ship around. It's a perfect example of bipartisanship failed..for decades.

Hillary listens to Mark Penn's interpretation of the people instead of listening to the people themselves. Hillary is the leader of the DLC.

I have to chuckle because Obama is out triangulating the original triagulators, the Clintons.. But I fear the electorate will respond to Obamas great speeches as I often do..and vote for unfounded hope over much more honest fighters with more specific worthy plans like Edwards.

The list is long and I don't have much more optimism re Edwards on war defense issues.. But he is better and he is speaking about Iraq much more honestly and correctly, such as leaving all 21 mega bases etc.. And Edwards knows we cannot negotiate with failure or greedy robber barons, we cannot negotiate with insurance companies if health care has any hope of changing in America. Edwards brings more specifics with a willingness to fight more than any other remaining candidate. Clearly in terms of all Democratic domestic concerns.. Edwards has baggage but he is the one and only remaining candidate worthy of consideration.

Big Media is doing their best to squash Edwards who beat Hillary in Iowa and may very well beat Hillary in NH.. Diary's at kos have documented the amount of time big media spends discussing the top three Dems.. Edwards is getting about 11 to 15 percent of the media attention and spending far less money, yet he remains a strong contender, as he should. Only Edwards will fight to turn the NAFTA/trade crisis around.. Obama and Hillary will get lost in bipartisanship and capitulate with the corporate elite as Dems have done for the last 20 years on trade issues.

What big media has and continues to do with candidates this year is intentional manipulation.. it should be considered criminal for large corporations to be allowed to do this.

Regardless of who we do or do not support.. WHat big media has done to Paul, Hunter, Kucinich and Edwards (probably a few others) should outrage every single American.. We need to yell loud and we need to demand restoration of the fairness doctrine, among other things.

"Hillary is the leader of the DLC."

Actually, that distinction goes to Harold Ford, Jr. Hillary is chairperson of the DLC's American Dream Initiative. Forgive me, I'm not parsing words, I was simply fact-checking. Didn't Blanche Lincoln used to have Harold's job?

Forgive me. I interpreted Chairperson as leader. Considering the DLC was founded by Clintons early gang. all for "bipartisanship" and considering Harold Ford is a loser who ran as a DLC candidate for Senate in Tenn last year with so much money.. my gawd the Dems could have won so many more seats if that money had been spread around to truly center candidates instead of the Rubublican lite Ford.. Why do you suppose Hillary is encouraging the classic fail forward maneuver by promoting this horrific Pryor like loser to lead the Clintons precious DLC? Don't know about Blanche but I do know the only person I might be willing to give some slack about their past affiliation with triangulating to the right, way right, of the true nature of the Dem party from within the DLC is Al Gore.

DLC???

Democrats Lacking Courage?

Eureka Springs,

When you say, "Harold Ford is a loser who ran as a DLC candidate for Senate in Tenn last year with so much money.. my gawd the Dems could have won so many more seats if that money had been spread around to truly center candidates instead of the Rebublican lite Ford," I call b*llsh*t. Can you name even one other state in which the Democrats had even a ghost of a chance of winning "so many more seats if that money had been spread around", other than those they won?

I'm not big on Ford one way or another--seems like some rather nasty racial-sexual innuendo--and where's Elizabeth Jacoway when you need her?--on the part of the Republicans had a bit to do with his loss--but I would like to stay grounded in reality.

Oh...by the way. You all are aware that if we were in New Hampshire tomorrow morning, we could register and vote in the primary tomorrow afternoon. There is no waiting period to register and you me him her Oprah and anyone else that's a citizen of the good old honest United States could be a card carrying New Hampshire voter tomorrow.

How many buses left Utah yesterday? Where is the HuckaBus tonight? I'm thinking dipping our fingers in ink and having Castro come monitor our elections might be the best thing to do.

John - I will be polite enough to tell you.. you lost any desire from me to respond when you toss out a racial attack where there is absolutely no such thing in my head, soul or typed words, here or anywhere else. You need to reread and apologize for that remark.

Ford was a huge drain on D party funds..while running so far right one had to look left to see Corker at times.. A senate seat may or may not have swung in our favor but many many House seats certainly did.. And had harold won.. we would be no better off than we are with Pryor or Corker in the Senate today.

Defend Hillary and Harold Ford a-la the DLC with facts..as I do with my attacks.. I suggest you be much more careful in slinging the race or misogyny cards here or anywhere else.. The GOPer bigots will do more than enough in the coming months and we need to be damn right when we call them on it and very united on that front.. without allowing anyone to drag us to the right again.

Max, thank you for your response. No, I was not referring specifically to you in my comments.

Of course, I think that Hilary would make a difference in the White House, as compared to George W. I'm with Deathbyinches on that point. Gov. Beebe has disappointed me more than once, but the fact that he's a Democrat--of any stripe--has certainly made a difference in how business is being done in our state.

For instance, after you posted the link to the proposed changes in the state ethics code for judges, I read those carefully. If these are enacted, we'll be light years away from where we were (under Huckabee's goverorship) when I filed a complaint, about which I've blogged here, with the AR Judicial Disciplinary Commission. The new code, if enacted, recognizes the quasi-legal status of domestic partnerships and forbids discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. In fact, it cautions judges not to give the appearance of any kind of discrimination.

That has much to do with 1) Judge Griffen's courage in fighting, fighting, 2) the change in the party holding the governor's office, and 3) the subsequent change in the Director's position.

It does make a difference which party is in power.

That being said, I agree with something I've just read by John Brummett in this morning's Springdale paper. He notes that some inside the Hilary campaign are beginning to ask if they correctly foresaw the "prevailing momentum for dramatic change." He also notes that Obama is beginning to appear as the "embodiment of generational, political and cultural change."

I realize that change is a slogan, and that the whole momentum of presidential campaigns is unfairly set by Iowa and NH. Even so, what seems apparent to me is that people are truly hungry for substantive changes that go beyond the liberal balancing act that, for many, Hilary represents.

It's certainly not about gender for me. If Edwards' wife ran, I'd vote for her in a heartbeat, her lack of experience notwithstanding. I'm ready to take a chance on dramatic change. As I just told my brother, who invited me over for dinner and sees things very much as I do (though we hadn't even talked about this before), I actually prefer Obama's attempt to fumble through some of the issues to Hilary's certainties--which don't point in the direction of truly significant change, in my view.

And I'm not deluded about Obama's penchant to be a balancing-act liberal, either. I just hold a tiny bit more hope for him as a leader than I do for Hilary.

Eureka Springs,

I'm a little taken aback by your response. Maybe the odd way I put a long thought together was confusing. Let me try it again:

I'm not big on Ford one way or another*, but I would like to stay grounded in reality.

--seems like some rather nasty racial-sexual innuendo--and where's Elizabeth Jacoway when you need her?--on the part of the Republicans had a bit to do with his loss--

Oh yes. Thanks. Going to be a long year, hey?

Sigh. Let me keep trying:

I'm not big on Ford one way or another*, but I would like to stay grounded in reality.

*Seems like some rather nasty racial-sexual innuendo** on the part of the Republicans had a bit to do with his loss.

**And where's Elizabeth Jacoway when you need her?

Is this any clearer?

So, Max....If you can only have 1 of these 2 things, which would you choose: Hillalry as the Dem nominee or LSU winning the Nat. Champ.

bubba, why not both ?

whewhooo GEAUX TIGERS !!!!

sure makes up for a crappy friday afternoon in Baton Rouge

I'm waiting for Dixville Notch....
Go Tigers...altho I was always a Tulane fan.

zelda i have to love hillary cause my niece spent the fall working in her washington office as a part of her something or other as a gratuate student at the clinton school. her experiences made me a believer too. besides being married to a true feminist for 35 years kind of turns me into one anyway and that would make me very eager to pull that lever for a woman for president finally. it is time we had a woman president. i really think that a woman would solve some problems better than a man.

OK, no need to get up in the morning. Obama has won, the 2008 election is officially over. Hillary will be put to sleep tomorrow by lethal injection. The Talking Heads have spoken and Hillary is too old, went negative too early, almost cried today and in the shadow of Barack Obama is smooth between the legs like Barbi.

4 years of non-stop campagning comes to a close because the 2 whitest Yankee states in America cast their tiny vote for the Agent of Change Obama. Anyone born before 1961 lay down next to Hillary and go the FK away with her. The chance of repeating the 2 Roosevelts by electing the 2 Clintons and having a 4 some of the best Presidents in the history of the US will not come true because the MSN has said so. Gee....over so quickly...reminds me of my wedding night.

What on earth will we talk about on the blog with the campaign over? I have a great chicken breast recipe I'll share with you all. How do you feel about these crazy spinner hubcaps things? How's the sewers doing in LR these days? Oh....think there's a chance that President Obama will jail Cheney-Bush before the weeks over? What will President Obama think of Mark Pryor....he's sorta of a chicken hubcap sewer kinda guy...come to think of it. God....whose going to tell Mike & Janet it's over? Huck will drop over......will they bury him vertically?

At least President Obama's first act was to get Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert back on the air tonight. Good job Mr. O.

Since we got nothing to do on Tuesday night, here's what's on NBC.

7:00 PM
The Biggest Loser 5 502 All New

9:00 PM
LAW & ORDER: SVU SIGNATURE All New HDTV

10:34 PM
The Tonight Show With Jay Leno 3471 - All New HDTV

11:37 PM
Late Night with Conan O'Brien 2507 All New HDTV

First Dixieville Knotch, New Hampsher, votes are now in:

In Dixville Notch, they gave Sen. John McCain an early lead in the GOP race and Sen. Barack Obama a lead in the Democratic contest.

McCain garnered four votes, followed by former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney with two and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani with one.

Obama, fresh off a victory in the Iowa caucuses, took seven votes. Former Sen. John Edwards won two votes, and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson got one.

Sen. Hillary Clinton drew no votes among the 10 Democrats casting ballots in Dixville Notch, a hamlet of about 75 people near the Canadian border.

<<<<<<<

Full CNN text at my name

The next time we have an election in Arkansas and those early counts come in from Carlisle and Scott, I'll know that they'll indicate who has won the state due to their priority in the voting results.
Iowa and NH make me feel about the same. MSM is making this into a circus. And the clowns seem to be the favorite attractions.

I have always questioned Hillary's "coronation" to be the Democratic Nominee. Kucinich of course on paper is the best choice but he's not a player (or ever was). Obama is the best hope the Dems have of becoming a true progressive party instead of Republican Lite.

Its not the sexual folibies of her husband, or the sexism of Hillary's Republican opponents. Her husband's policies were successful but at a cost. Because of the influence of the Republican Congress, the health-care reformed never happened, Big Media got bigger as in Clear Channel's radio empire growing to 1,200 stations and the trend for local broadcasters to have one owner (KARK's owner Nexstar Broadcasting) operate (via an LMA) more than one Television station in a market (such as Fort Smith/Fayetteville, Springfield Mo, and Monroe LA to name a few).

Media concentration is one reason for the utter domination of Reich Rwing talk radio and endless playlists of Skynard.

Don't forget about DOMA, Don't Ask Don't Tell either.

Don't forget about her Senatorial votes for the Iraq war and also supporting action in Iran.

Was Bill Clinton's Presidency better overall than what we've went though the last 7 years, hell yes. But the skids didn't have to be greased to make W's deconstruction of America easier with the DLC's help.

ARK. BLOG: So you think Obama's promise to forge coalitions with Republicans is just rhetoric?

Max,

Bipartisanship is one thing, collusion and selling out core values is another.

ARK. BLOG: Maybe, maybe not. Bush's brand of bipartisanship is that he'll work with you if you vote for what he wants. If that's Obama's brand, fine. Until now, Republicans haven't negotiated with Democrats. I don't have much to negotiate with them about either. If Obama merely means he won't call them ugly names, fine. But, until now, all I've heard are buzz words and catch phrases. Talk is cheap. Purely realistically, I don't think there's any negotiating to be done with Repubs, except the small band of northeastern moderates.

"ARK. BLOG: . . . I don't think there's any negotiating to be done with Repubs . . . "

That's what Edwards is saying!

How many comments will one thread hold??
Never seen this many since I've been on here.
Thats nice, folks reading, paying attention, getting involved....does my old, black heart
good.