Arkansas Blog

"Did not."

"Did too."

"Did not."

"Did too."

"I'm going to tell momma."

"Go ahead. Did too."

"Did not."

At least Obama's attacks have some basis in substance--it's been long established that Hillary Clinton has extremely high negative ratings in just about every poll. Here's the newest one from Time:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1582130,00.html

Here are historical graphs from several different polls substantiating that Hillary Clinton's negative ratings are consistently in the 40-50% range.

http://www.pollingreport.com/C2.htm#Hillary

Obama's unfavorables are consistently lower:

http://www.pollingreport.com/l-o.htm#Obama

Given those numbers, it's certainly arguable that Hillary Clinton's support has a much lower ceiling than does Obama's.

"Just win, baby!"

I've voted for Bill Clinton every time he's run for something and would again. I'm going to vote for whoever has the "D" by their name come November. I got to say, Obama is probably right in that he's more electable on the grounds that independent voters and some Republican voters have demonstrated they will vote for him given the chance. I don't see Hillary getting all those independent votes Obama is getting in the primaries and she gets none of the Republican ones, I don't imagine.

On the other hand, are there Hillary votes out there who won't vote for Obama over a Republican? Maybe some but I wonder if there aren't more Obama votes who might sit out the election if Hillary is the Dem choice? Surely not. "Just win baby" indeed.

Can't we all just get along?

This electability argument is a sham. It reminds me of the crazies who cite polls saying that Bush's ratings aren't so bad, because even fewer people approve of Congress. What people fail to realize is that people are referring to Congress in general. Ratings for their particular congresspeople are usually much higher than GWB's. "My Congressman is a good guy, the ones from the other states are crooks."

If the dems would just learn how to lambaste the republican policies, it won't matter who the parties have as their final candidates - the republicans will lose. What is happening is that the dems, again, are doing the republicans' job for them. The dems are injuring their own and giving the repugs ammo to use in the general election.

Of course we can't forget the commentators who just want to kick the anthill, just so they can get more ad revenue.

Obama or Hillary or Edwards or Generic Democrat will get the 'get us outta this f***ing mess' vote. The hardcore haters of Hillary or an African American or whatever are a relatively small number of people; and are not going to make 'the' difference. But the Republicans have become experts on selling the 'Hillary can't' crap and are now becoming proficient on selling Obama as a 'real' winner. I really don't care what the Repubs say about either 'cause they're going to try and eat whoever is the Democratic nominee. In fact, the Hillary/Obama fights are a blessing...kind of a warm-up for the real nastiness. I want our nominee to fight back hard when the Repubs bring out 'their' Swiftboat...and not spend time worrying about offending those mythical voters who get all aflutter at squabbling.

Obama got a bad rap for lowering himself by 'going' after a spouse (Bill). My gosh, no other 'spouse' has been a two term president who's use to slinging/fighting.

"Whatever else you think about the Obama-Clinton squabbling -- and it turns me off, too -- don't try to tell me it's a one-way street."

It's only a one way street on this blog, that's all I'm saying.

This is off the subject, but needs to be heard: Just received a notice that Shawn Womack, Candidate for Circuit Judge is holding a fundraiser in Mountain Home with special guest Martha Shoffner. It's sad that Shawn thinks he can be Judge--as the old saying goes: if you want to hide something from him, put it in a lawbook. It's worse that we elected Martha Treasurer...I hope the dems remember this in 2010.

Good points Jim. I think it was FAUX NEWS which began "Hillary's negatives" message some while ago.

Jim, do you think the awful Commission on Presidential Debates is allowing small minded commercial media to shape the debates into more and more meaningless drivel?

"The dems are injuring their own and giving the repugs ammo to use in the general election."

That's a sobering point to consider, Jim Lendall. It's worth remembering that just four years ago Kerry and Edwards were ripping each other apart in Democratic debates. Edwards accused Kerry of being a Washington insider who endorsed lousy trade agreements that cost American jobs, and that he was also promising to cut the deficit in half while at the same time creating new spending programs, promises impossible to keep.

Kerry blasted back that if he was an insider, so was Edwards, since Edwards, too, was a member of the Senate. Kerry claimed there no difference in his and Edwards trade positions and yelled that Edwards was exaggerating their differences to score political points. The '04 Democratic debates eventually turned out to be much like last night's "Did not, Did too, Did not" carrying-on as described by Cato. Bush and Cheney, of course, used all of that (and more) in their successful campaign to defeat the eventual Kerry-Edwards ticket.

While last night's debate was a good one and much that was said needed to be said, I hope the candidates can get their heads screwed back on straight and work together to restore civility. The November election can be handily won by the Democrats if they don't self-destruct in the interim.

eLwood,
Yep. If you just base it on the inane baiting that vomits from the im-moderators' mouths, it's obvious that they are just trying to sell commercial time, especially for the pre- and post-debate faux analyses. The narrow-minded broadcasters already have the scripts prepared, no matter what the candidates say.

Contrary to corporate opinion, the airwaves belong to the people. The Commission on Presidential Debates just perpetuates the sham (shame).

I do have a personal grudge about how the debates are conducted. With fewer than 1% of the voters expressing their wishes, the debate czars decide which candidates are worthy to be heard, eliminating some of them from the debates and, therefore, from any further relevance in the remaining 48 states. Unfortunately, even some of the bloggers here praise the smaller numbers in each debate, saying that it gives the REAL candidates more time to answer ... absurd questions.

People become frustrated with the political process when they just hear from the same old group of insiders. That's when they start embracing hare-brained nonsense such as flat tax and god's constitution.

eLwood,
Yep. If you just base it on the inane baiting that vomits from the im-moderators' mouths, it's obvious that they are just trying to sell commercial time, especially for the pre- and post-debate faux analyses. The narrow-minded broadcasters already have the scripts prepared, no matter what the candidates say.

Contrary to corporate opinion, the airwaves belong to the people. The Commission on Presidential Debates just perpetuates the sham (shame).

I do have a personal grudge about how the debates are conducted. With fewer than 1% of the voters expressing their wishes, the debate czars decide which candidates are worthy to be heard, eliminating some of them from the debates and, therefore, from any further relevance in the remaining 48 states. Unfortunately, even some of the bloggers here praise the smaller numbers in each debate, saying that it gives the REAL candidates more time to answer ... absurd questions.

People become frustrated with the political process when they just hear from the same old group of insiders. That's when they start embracing hare-brained nonsense such as flat tax and god's constitution.

The crap goes on every 4 years and means next to nothing. Obama may think he's more electable, having a penis and all, but psssssttt he's black...he's a black man. That little fact makes no difference to me and mine, but think about it....how much of the rest of the nation is all fine and dandy with electing a black man to the highest office in the land? That is the biggest hurdle that Barack Obama faces and while it's been pretty polite so far.....the shoe is fixing to drop.

And it won't come from the Clintons. It will come from the cracks and crevasses where the haters hide. We've got a long hot summer ahead of us. Just be prepared, cause you ain't seen nothing yet. Hillary has almost as high a hurdle to jump as Obama. History shows we give the women stuff before we give it to the blacks. But Hillary isn't out of the woods by a long shot. The Woman Haters Club is alive and well and ready to pounce.

So don't be distracted by the noise of the Talking Heads. Herbert Hoover Bush is at the wheel and he's driving the Hupmobile right into the ditch. We got problems, big time! But it's not Barack and Hillary and Bill trading licks. Wouldn't it be great of Barack and Hillary and Bill turned their venom on Cheney-Bush where it truly belongs!

Solid Democrat here--HUGE Bill Clinton supporter for years--have been on the Obama bandwagon since his inspiring call for unity in this country in his '04 keynote speech--WOULD HAVE voted for Hillary without a second thought until the events of the last two weeks--Billary is putting the CLINTONS first and the DEMOCRATIC PARTY second and it's sickening--I WILL NOT VOTE FOR HER IF SHE'S OUR NOMINEE--you don't get to completely slime a guy that's the future of our party (regardless of he's elected president this time or not) with Roveian sleaze politics and just expect that everyone will get in line--if you couldn't beat him on the issues alone, then you simply were not the brilliant politician people gave you credit for being--Bloomberg/Hagel?

Give my love to John McCain, bigwood......