Arkansas Blog

Maybe your problem, Max, is that the truth hurts.

Brummett pretty much hits the nail right on the head concerning the Clinton cultists who have made lying an art form.

Are we sure that the right link (at the bottom) was posted?

John, John, John you are too nice a fellow to be stuck in a rut of yesteryear thinking. You need to quit toying with us. Just when we think you are on solid ground it's mystic how your mind keeps sloshing around in the quick sand.

You need to rethink/retool for we need pre-pared leadership in the Oval Office for it's not a school of learning! It's even been a de-educating school for it's current occupant.

Sure enough there are those few self-appointed morality police who are still upset with the Clinton's morals but that should never overshadow the greatest president since JFK. (Just remember how well off America was December 31, 2000 compared to now.)

After all John Boy it's not personal but patriotism and it's our moral obligation and responsibility to elect the person who has the best credentials to be the best qualified leader for the best potential nation which is currently in peril.

I don't know how but we have/will survive the worse 7 years this country has ever experience and we need someone who can walk in that Oval Office January 08 and jump start our recovery.

It's duty and country John no time for male ego barriers.

The Brum tried and failed to make it as a 'Villager' when the Clenis first went to DC, Brum blames his failure on the Clintons.

Brum & Greenbert are members of the same 'cult' - Clinton Haters, the cultist is the arrogant buffoon Brummett.

Ouch...some people 'been stomping on Brummett's last nerve. (It's like he wrote one sentence ranting about 'Clinton cultists this, Clinton cultist that' over and over...LOL.)

Yeah...I'm a cultist (though just a lowly peon cultist) and I've never excused the Clintons for any of their 'wickedness.' Don't need to. And I believe there are a few NEW Hillary supporters out there who don't come close to the characters in Brummett's rant. I can't speak for the woman he referenced (who mentioned Obama/the church); but I don't think she was necessarily trying to justify the Clintons' pandering ways. Perhaps she was trying to point out that some of 'us' think Hillary gets an entirely different level of scrutiny, regardless of who she's running against. Combine that with the reality that Obama tends to get handled with kid gloves 'cause the Race issue is such a sensitive/powerful force and Hillary gets damned regardless of the specifics of a particular situation. Maybe the Clintons' words are motivated by deep down hatred...or maybe they're just playing normal, political hardball. I can't tell what's in the hearts of any of the candidates, so I try to work with the obvious stuff. And it's obvious that rampant sexism/racism are still weaving their wicked strands...now as to who's doing the worst weaving...well, Brummett doesn't know either.

Well, I'm FED UP with the Obama LOVE, JOHN...
I like Obama, it's his fan club that really gets on my last nerve.
Besides, when was the last time the media talking heads got anything right? They loved 'W', they loved the preemptive strike 'shock and awe', they loved the voodoo economics corporate welfare & trickle down. I'm now a proud Clinton Cultist!

Thanks John

Surely we ourselves--those of us who claim to stand for change--are at least 99.99% of the problem.

During one of the worst political eras our nation has ever endured, we who claim we want change have remained more or less silent. That is, we haven't talked about the real issues. Among ourselves.

We let the right wing determine the conversation, and we meekly, humbly bowed our heads and went along. In a period when we ought to have been talking, talking incessantly about race, gender, the often malicious influence of religion in the public sphere, poverty, war, lack of health care for all citizens, we have focused only on attacking. We have done far too little to build, constructively and dialogically, towards a different future.

Now, in the midst of a nasty campaign, we're airing these issues, and tearing ourselves apart, to the glee of those who have used these issues repeatedly to divide us. And we deserve the glee. We have had eight dark years in which to talk among ourselves, come up with constructive alternatives, and, above all, lay the groundwork for a challenge, and for an alternative vision of a more humane society.

What people are fed up with from the Clinton contingent, especially in its Arkansas incarnation, is the same old same old, the politics as usual, the refusal to talk. People are fed up with the predetermined allocation of power and privilege, with politics as sport, with game playing and one-upsmanship.

People are hungry for real conversation about a better world for all of us--and especially the youth of our nation. People are hungry for real change, not just change that mouths the word and then replicates the status quo.

People want principled, intelligent, conscientious representatives in government, who listen, talk, are transparent, accountable, and inclusive. The political "discourse" of talk-radio slogan-shouting, in which the biggest booming male voice always wins, has just about done our nation in. When those who claim to want change replicate that discourse, shouting each other down and sloganizing rather than thinking and talking, it's even more destructive.

People want not just a real alternative to all of this, but a real challenge to the posturing, pretense, and absurdity of the way politics has been done for too long now in our nation. Time and again, the advocates of change have caved in all too quickly to the belligerent shouting of the right. Prior to the current regime, we saw an inspiring man from Hope run for high office, promising as part of his campaign platform to end discrimination against gays in the miltary.

One of the first acts of that candidate, once he was elected, was not merely to renege on that promise, but to create a ludicrous don't ask, don't tell system that is not merely unworkable, but which siphons off outstanding soldiers at a time when we claim we need the best military possible.

And for eight years, as the posturing of the religious right has worn more and more thin on the American people, we've failed to have an honest, no-holds-barred, incisive and intelligent conversation about the role of religion in American public life.

We who claim to stand for change are about 99.99% of the problem. We have gotten what we have deserved, because we will not talk (and work) together.

"familiarity breeds contempt" and Brummett is certainly familiar with the Clintons

though i find it hard to believe that JB could be so enamored of such an empty suit
so perhaps he is establishing his 'bona fides' as an "objective" opiner for the
inevitable Hillary administration?

Yes, the Clintons are at the center of a personality cult. They are practically worshiped by some in this state.

Meredith Oakley wrote about it in her column on Oct. 4, 1991. Years later, it remains the best article ever written about Clinton cult.

It looks to me that Brummet is pretty much where he ought to be, which is with those fine populists at Stephens Media and not with us who inhabit the Arkansas Times.

Even at Stephens, there is no excuse for perpetrating the Neocon myth that Bill "lied under oath." Lying under oath surely refers to the deposition in the Jones case, and would be a pretty good definition of perjury. If you believe that Bill committed perjury (as so many still do, proving again the wisdom of Barnum and Mencken), you also have to believe that purse-mouthed Kenneth Starr had the opportunity to prosecute Bill under 18 USC 1621, with a potential prison term of 5 years, but decided out of the goodness of his black little heart not to do so.

And if you believe that, you probably also believe Brummett.

Someone criticizes Hillary and here come the Obama-haters.

That's precisely why I no longer support her.

I'm tired of attacking, partisan politics. I'm looking for someone who can unite this country, and I doubt too many people will disagree when I say Hillary is not a uniter. Way too many people hate her.

Not to mention the fact that a Hillary nomination is the Republican Party's best shot to retain the White House.

It's about CHANGE, people.

Brummett is right on this time! This coming from someone who seldom agrees with him. Up until the past few weeks I had been willing to hold my nose and vote for Hillary..no more. This 70 year old women is solidly in the Obama column now!

Jake I think if you submitted to a polygraph test it would show you never ever ever supported Bill or Hillary. I'd also like to see your answer to the question: Is your name Asa Hutchinson?

Clinton's lie is what got me out of the Republican Party. It continues to be none of your damn business where my penis is or was. But you have to give Bill Clinton credit for answering a subpoena, since so many in the Bush administration have said FK YOU to Congress and slammed the door. Why didn't Clinton think of that?

The Stephens papers are owned by the Republican Stephens family. Therefore John Brummett is forced to write Republican. It's removed the shine from a once great journalist, but by god those Stephen's paychecks cash every time. Leave us hope it's possible to retire from Stephens Media at 55 otherwise with a shrinking readership John Brummett may find himself out the door and without a job a little early.

I don't think it's very unusual for folks in the home state to like Hillary more than an outsider, even if it's St. Barrack Obama. No one has contacted me with free tickets to the Malco courtesy of Bill & Hillary. If I'm a member of the Clinton Cult, I gots no membership card. If the Republican whisper campaign that Brummett is helping manages to bump Hillary off, I'll plaster the back of my car with Obama bumper stickers. I'm rooting for the person I think can reverse the Bush damages the quickest and I think that is Hillary Clinton. Since I voted for Reagan I'm hoping that trickle down stuff actually works and someday I may get a hurried blowjob from an attractive woman half my age...and you get a bj and you get a bj and you get a bj!

I like people who point their genitals at others over people who point missiles at the Middle East. You'll not get me off Hillary by digging in Bill's sex life and since he left office with an approval rating twice that of Bush, I think the America people tend to agree with me more than Mr. Brummett. Only immature people are still snickering over oral sex. Let adults worry about this election and someone buy Jake and professor and Brummett some Crayola's.

It's a cold day in Helena when I agree with John Brummett.

But I should note that you're parroting the Clinton talking points about Obama. Distorting his actual words with regards to Republicans. You're smarter than that, so I can only assume you're just doing their dirty work for them.

"Someone criticizes Hillary and here come the Obama-haters.

That's precisely why I no longer support her..."--jacob

Huh? What 'hate' are you talking about? And, are you saying that you hate Hillary because she's got some 'haters' in her fan club...'cause I imagine every candidate has some of those 'haters.'

------------------------------------

"I'm tired of attacking, partisan politics. I'm looking for someone who can unite this country, and I doubt too many people will disagree when I say Hillary is not a uniter. Way too many people hate her.

Not to mention the fact that a Hillary nomination is the Republican Party's best shot to retain the White House.

It's about CHANGE, people."--jacob

Hmm...how is attacking Obama haters not 'attacking, partisan politics'? Seems to me that Dems agree that we've got to get the White House this time around; and seems to me that we're supporting either Hillary or Obama depending based on which one we think can win...and that's all about opinion (in other words, there is no yes/no answer). But I reject the notion that we should allow the rabid right-wing hatred for all things Clinton to determine who we want in the White House. The Democratic Party should choose Obama over Hillary only because that's who we want. We shouldn't allow Republican hatred/myths to determine who our candidate will be.

A Hillary White House, however, would be a change. Obama does not have the 'Change' market cornered.

Welll...just toss out the extra word: 'based'...guess that's what 'preview' is for ha.

Taking it to a different level, here's a somewhat factual comparison of the candidates' views which effect all of us. Link at name