Arkansas Blog

"Yes We Can" "Yes We Can" "Yes We Can"

"I belong to no organzied political party. I am a Democrat."

...Will Rogers

Yeah, the same Paul Krugman who almost crapped his pants when he and Bill O'Rielly appeared on Tim Russert's program( a few years ago). Bill had this character so conspicuously intimidated, so visibly afraid Krugman could barely articulated his 'opinion'. Even when Krugman appears on shows with a liberal bent---Keith Obermann and Bill Maher and Tavis Smiley----he still seems incredible. Krugman has written very few articles I would embrace, and I am not particularly concerned with what he writes about any democrat or republican---what's the difference?

Paul Krugman like Brantley started off on a noble quest to be a front line defender for Hillary against the unjust and unreasonable attacks expected to come from the right wing crazies. Much like the Clintons, they treated the nomination as her entitlement.

Now the rise of Obama has sent them both on Quixotic like quests to find noble causes to fight to convince us, the poor naive public who would like a fresh start for this country, why voting for anyone but her is simply foolish.

A cult of personality? Krugman have you completely lost it? You are losing credibility by the day.

Out of 30 contests: Obama has won 20 states, 21 states if you count his delegate victory in Nevada, 22 contests if you count the Virgin Islands. Please please tell me how overwhelming victory from coast to coast is a cult?

She has now lost 66% of the primary contests. Had Super Tuesday been tomorrow, instead of last week, she would have lost 19 out of 22 (HRC holds NY & Arkansas, and Oklahoma such a crazy shithole I doubt they could ever bring themselves to vote for a non-white person).

Now Hillary can't win by getting the most votes despite huge institutional advantages to start this race. So now she is taking up a completely bogus cause in saying we should reinstate Michigan & Florida's delegates. What a dishonest joke!!! Ohh was no one on the ballot except me in Michigan?? Well who cares if I can find a back door way into stealing this election. Did every known Democrat in the world agree to the terms laid out when Florida and Michigan were stripped of their delegates...Yes & did every major candidate agree not to campaign in any either one of those states?? Well yes but that was before we thought HRC might lose. Now we need to reconsider. (psst she "won"those states, you know gotta take this baby anyway we can).

In addition, the formula for HRC victory without actually winning a primary election requires that we encourage Super Delegates to vote to directly contradict the will of their constituents clear mandate. It's a joke!!!!

I fully expect a majority of the Super Delegates to disregard their personal endorsements and vote with the will of the people they serve...much like the the Congressman in Minnesota. So I really don't think we will have a situation where after its all said and done Obama wins 41 out of the 50 states BUT HRC tries to convince the Super Delegates to vote with her

But according to Krugman that would be just fine because thats allowed in the party by laws.

Get a life

Max, sorry you two are fresh out of Republican Windmills to take on

But stop taking it out on the rest of us Democrats.

HRC had a good showing winning nine states is not bad; but like Herbie Hancock said last night

Can we have something different in America besides Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton?

YES WE CAN!!!

There will be Obama supporters who will refuse to vote for Hillary (I know a few), and there will be Hillary supporters who will refuse to vote for Obama (I know a few of them too), but in the end the Democratic nominee will have no problem rallying support behind them for a fairly easy win in November. This nonsense is yet more pundit hand-ringing, words he will either be forced to eat or "forget making" later.

Also is not ironic that HRC has become the ethno-centric candidate?

She desperately tries to patch together her fragile coalition of Hispanics, old white women, and the Jewish community. (oh yes and Arkansas homers).

While the rest of America is ready for change

'pears to me several of y'all have proved Mr. K's point about "cult of personality". By the bye, oral e., I am not an old white woman, a Jew or a Hispanic.

Wow that article was an even bigger piece of garbage than I imagined from the brief synopsis.

Krugman manages to compare Obama and his movement, otherwise known as a majority of Democratic primary voters, to Richard Nixon & George W, Bush in less than a hundred words.

Nice sleight of hand as you distract us by talking about the Clinton Rules.

Holy crap, that might be the biggest piece of garbage yellow journalism I have seen in recent memory:

"You know people were excited about the Nazis, just like people are excited about Obama"

"Obama's home state is Illinois, just like Dennis Hastert...do we really want another Dennis Hastert in the White House?"

Please tell me how anything Obama stands for or his campaign stands for...even remotely approaches Richard Nixon or George W. Bush dressing up in a flight suit after falsely proclaiming victory in an unjust was that he started??????

WTF are you talking about Krugman?

What a f-ing joke for the NYT to publish this kind of slanderous reasoning in an op-ed column.

God seriously the NYT should fire Krugman if he cannot generate a higher grade of journalism than this!

ARK. BLOG: Told you so.

Poor Orval, at it again for Obama. You may count up the states anyway you wish, but those percentage wins are irrelevant to the final contest which is the Electoral one. Many of those states will not an election make. Then, looking below that distorted level, most of the Obama voters in those states do not an election make. No matter how smitten you, the 20 somethings and the upper middle class are with Senator Obama he cannot win - the demographics are against him and these will not be changed with the simplistic "yes we can". That is a mantra which will confirm another Republican White House.

"...She has now lost 66% of the primary contests. Had Super Tuesday been tomorrow, instead of last week, she would have lost 19 out of 22 (HRC holds NY & Arkansas, and Oklahoma such a crazy shithole I doubt they could ever bring themselves to vote for a non-white person)..."--orval E.

Boy...that's some backwards crystal ball ya got there, orval. But I guess it's as reliable a tool as others are using to predict/determine the election outcome. Arkansas chose Hillary; and we're no more racist than any other electorate (a mixed bag, is my guess). So get over it and tell us why Obama can beat the Republicans easier than Hillary...tell us that you support Obama, but that you also support the effort to take the White House back from the Republicans. If the Republicans get to stack the Supreme Court Hillary/Bill's mythical racism will be replaced by every real ism in the book. God help us.

I've not made up my mind about the so-called Super Delegates ( heck, I didn't even know they existed). But both Hillary/Obama were aware of ALL the Democratic rules/guidelines/whatever, so for either of them to now cry fowl is, well, fowl.

SOME of Obama's support is cult-like and as unreasonable as Huck's gang. EVERYONE else is unacceptable and wrong...period; and all the opposition is either racist or too unenlightened to see Obama's Greatness and too stupid to see through Hillary's obvious inadequacies/racist ways. Well, I'm going to support Obama if he's the elected one...regardless of hateful supporters like billary. But as of today I don't see much difference between Hillary/Obama policy-wise (except I like her health-care plan much better). I do, on the other hand, see differences in their abilities to take on the Republican thugs who stole our last two elections while painting a war hero as a coward. 'This' gang didn't hesitate to trash a war hero and one of their own, McCain, by using racism to end his presidential bid. Obama might withstand the onslaught, or he might fold like Kerry/Gore. On the other hand, I know Hillary won't fold and I know that the Clintons have a proven record of beating the Republicans at their own nasty games. And, after President Shit for Brains I have no more room for maybes.

"So get over it and tell us why Obama can beat the Republicans easier than Hillary..."

Easy.

1) The republican base is not excited about McCain. They will not devote large amounts of their time for a cause whose ideology is in question. However, the one thing that could unite the Republicans quicker than anything else is a Hillary candidacy. They will rally behind her opponent not because they are excited about a McCain/Huckabee White House, but they'll be damned if a Clinton (or a woman) fills that position.

2) The "we already know Clinton's demons so they're not as bad" angle is garbage. Does Obama have demons? Of course...anyone over 18 years of age has them. Does he have fewer than Hillary? I'd bet money on it. We've just seen the half of what the "right-wing conspiracy" can cook up on the Clintons. Not to mention, last time Hillary battled that wing, it set the stage for a republican presidency and a republican takeover of Congress.

3) Look at the states in which Obama has his support. He excites independent voters more than Hillary, and brings in more new support from people who wouldn't otherwise give two flips about politics than Hillary. A good portion of the states which HIllary has won are states a D would win anyway - D's are going to carry California and New York in 08, book it. The same is true of Nevada, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. Obama has a better chance to carry states in the Heartland, South, and Midwest than Hillary, and these states are those that will matter in November.

"Poor Orval, at it again for Obama. You may count up the states anyway you wish, but those percentage wins are irrelevant to the final contest which is the Electoral one. Many of those states will not an election make. Then, looking below that distorted level, most of the Obama voters in those states do not an election make. No matter how smitten you, the 20 somethings and the upper middle class are with Senator Obama he cannot win - the demographics are against him and these will not be changed with the simplistic "yes we can". That is a mantra which will confirm another Republican White House." - Janus

And this, Janus, is why you should refrain from commenting on matters you know not: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/08/20008.matchups.schneider/index.html?iref=newssearch

"In the CNN poll, Obama leads McCain by 8 points, 52 percent to 44 percent. That's outside the margin of error, meaning that Obama has the lead.

And in the Time poll, Obama leads McCain by 7 points, 48 percent to 41 percent -- a lead also outside of the poll's margin of error of 3 percentage points."- CNN

"Forty-four percent of the public say they don't like Clinton, compared with 36 percent who don't like McCain and 31 percent who don't like Obama, according to the CNN poll conducted February 1-3." -CNN

And here's the glaring problem with your statement ("Many of those states will not an election make.") Hillary lost 'em to begin with. Good night.

Oh, and also the fact that--yes--every state matters, even the pipsqueaks in the elections like ours. See Florida in 2000, or Ohio in 2004. Even smaller states than these could have overturned the election.

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

"Arkansas chose Hillary; and we're no more racist than any other electorate (a mixed bag, is my guess)." -Zelda

I'm from AR, and love it...but come on, do you REALLY believe that? Just based on the people I know from AR, I'd have to disagree with this.

"So get over it and tell us why Obama can beat the Republicans easier than Hillary...tell us that you support Obama, but that you also support the effort to take the White House back from the Republicans."-Zelda

See above for concerns about the general election. (Or just use common sense and realize that Obama completely dismantled Clinton in all-white states as well as racially diverse ones.) See my numerous other posts for concerns on Obama's substance. I will not run through a list every blog entry.

"SOME of Obama's support is cult-like and as unreasonable as Huck's gang. EVERYONE else is unacceptable and wrong...period; and all the opposition is either racist or too unenlightened to see Obama's Greatness and too stupid to see through Hillary's obvious inadequacies/racist ways."-Zelda

And oddly, you think it's a one way street? Only Obama supporters are like this? Not Hillary supporters? Hmm...

Anyways, the fact that Obama, a relative newcomer to the national scene, is doing so well should be some sort of indication that he's not only inspiring people, but he's also a shrewd political strategist, systematically dismantling all the pre-advantages Hillary had coming into this race. He's no Kerry, in other words. Ex: He has refused to go on Faux News ever since they aired the hitpiece about him supposedly attending a Muslim extremist school.

Zelda,

For the record I was calling Oklahoma a racist shith*le.

I love Arkansas and New York but I don't think it is difficult to understand why she won there: She was the first lady and wife to a beloved Governor for two decades in this state. She is currently the Senator from New York...so a little bit of a home field advantage...hence why she would hold on to them (along with the shole OK) in my hypothetical Super Tuesday match-up tomorrow.

HRC's 9-22 record makes Houston Nutt look like Bear Bryant

And ask and ye shall receive:
oll Date Sample McCain (R) Obama (D) Und Spread
RCP Average 01/29 - 02/04 - 43.7 47.0 7.6 Obama +3.3
Time 02/01 - 02/04 958 LV 41 48 6 Obama +7.0
CNN 02/01 - 02/03 974 RV 44 52 4 Obama +8.0
Cook/RT Strategies 02/02 43 45 9 Obama +2.0
ABC/Wash Post 2/1/08 46 49 3 Obama +3.0
FOX News 01/30 - 01/31 43 44 13 Obama +1.0
Rasmussen 4 Day Tracking 41 44 15 Obama +3.0

YES WE CAN!

And on a lighter note, there was a parody of the Barack Obama's viral "Yes We Can" video.

It was made of a McCain speech, and it's pretty great. "Staying in Iraq 100 years," etc.

Link in my name.

JD,

I saw that on Taking Points Memo it is absolutely hilarious

Max, you gotta start on a new post just on that video

"I'm from AR, and love it...but come on, do you REALLY believe that? Just based on the people I know from AR, I'd have to disagree with this."--orval

Well, yes, I don't think Arkansas is as racist as some of our other die-hard southern states. Are there quite a few racists here...you bet (and I know many, like you, orval). (But I'm partial 'cause I voted for Hillary and I don't have a hatred/racist bone in my body...and I resent Hillary's supporters being painted with a broad racist brush.) The real racists, on the other hand, aren't moving from their front porches to vote for Hillary or Obama...no matter how many right wingers try to sell this 'I'd vote for Obama' crap. It is true that many of our 'Haters' despise Hillary and would vote for any one, any thing to keep her from the presidency. I just think they're not going to vote for anyone other than a Republican. I also think the Repubs are playing Obama/Hillary games 'cause of their sick hatred for Hillary.

I remember quite a few polls that demonstrated that ANY Democrat would beat a Republican. I also remember the New Hampshire poll fiasco. So factor in all those Hillary-haters who're working hard to keep her out of the running and I'll take my chance pitting Hillary's political skills against Rethuglican Swiftboaters. But and again...I'll happily back Obama if he's the choice. I am, nonetheless, getting disgusted with some of the Obama supporters who insist it's there way or no way...who insist that a first black president is more relevant than a first woman. I think both are equally important and both will eventually happen. I think we're on the same side and it saddens me to see such hatred for Hillary and her supporters when we're not the enemy and we're not the party of race/gender hatred.

Oh yeah...that video was great, jd...thanks!

On the American Prospect article (I'm between classes, so I have a lot of time on my hands):

You mean to tell me that one demographic within the Democratic Party supports Obama more than another within the party? And, the other group supports Clinton more than supports Obama? Fascinating. I wonder if that ever happens in other elections... Yes, I'm being semi-facetious, but I think that diverging demographics should be expected. That says nothing of the general election, when the two opposing groups will probably converge once again and pool their support for the nominee. As stated in the article, Obama IS retooling his message to reach out to the demographics that haven't been supporting him as much as Hillary.

And no problem Zelda. I take it you were referring to me on both counts (ya misattributed a quote)...

"I think we're on the same side and it saddens me to see such hatred for Hillary and her supporters when we're not the enemy and we're not the party of race/gender hatred."
by: zelda

zelda, the 'big tent' has turned into 'boot camp' for the first offenders!
Obamabee or bust...

Krugman is spot-on, as usual. As a friend of mine put it, "It is really sad that Hate is part of politics now and the Clintons will always be the object of that hate more than anyone else. That is the reason I hope she will withdraw."

Frank Rich, whose feverish support of Obama in his NYT columns reached a peak Sunday, painted Obama in 1960 Kennedyesque strokes, while seeing Clinton and her supporters devolve into another 1968 debacle. He may have the 1968 part right, but it's not 1960 that Obama evokes, but 1972, when young Hollywood led young America and starry-eyed idealists into backing McGovern, who as we remember was buried by Nixon.

Sorry, jd...the scrolling thing sometimes gets away from me.

What hate is coming out of the Obama camp?

The guy is a confessed hope-monger.

And no nobody think because you vote for Hillary you are a racist no one said that but thanks for using the same crazy and very disingenuous logic that Krugman employs.

Talking about demographic voting trends does not make you a racist, nor does showing the exception to the rule debunk its truth.

There are plenty of rural & urban whites who will not vote for Obama because of his race (Its just a simple truth) just as there are plenty of men & women who will not vote for Hillary because she is a woman. But no voting for Obama does not make you a sexist nor does voting for Hillary make you a racist...now that were out of fourth grade make we can reason like adults.

And Thermos that McGovern argument is tired, we have already had that argument on this blog, Obama is a centrsit; just because Hollywood supports someone does not mean they are McGovern. Hollywood very much loved Bill Clinton in 1992.

But again where is there "hate" just because Rich correctly compares Obama to the Kennedys?

Anyway the crux of the argument is this: if Obama wins a significant majority of the pledged delegates (ie the majority of people who voted in the Democratic Primary) & Hillary attempts to trump that with Super Delegates...IT WOULD BE WRONG

Very disheartening to the country, the voters, and would be very reminiscent of Chicago in 1968.

Sorry Krugman, Thermos, & Zelda. It ain't hate to want our nominee to be decided by the voters of our country.

I think its called Democracy.

And of course the Obama people would support Hillary if she wins the majority of pledged delegates and becomes our nominee.

There is no hate. it just your imagination.

We love Hillary and would support her if she is our nominee. (yes I speak for Obama and everyone supporting him, I was brought in by Obama to counter Maggie Williams hire)

We just hope Hillary and her folks can handle it if she is not the nominee; which very well could happen.

Orval,
That's what I've been saying since last week, when the division deepened after a stalemate Sooper Phat Tornado Tuesday. We're all on the same team. We've all picked our ponies. But, in the end, we will unite as a party to defeat the Republicans. There are no major ideological differences in the two Dem candidates, and much of the voting is based on personal connections rather than policy positions. It will take a few weeks to garner support from the bulk of the defeated camp, and it will take months to gain it from the depths of the same group, but in the end, 98% of the supporters on either side will back the nominee.

So tell me, OrvalEugene, just how many of the following states that Obama has carried so far will end up being blue states when the final votes are counted in November? Kansas, Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, Utah, Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota, South Carolina? Maybe one or two.

Ok, lets see how that leaves the situation for Obama. That leaves him possibly Missouri, Colorado, Washington, Maine, Delaware, Connecticut, Illinois, and Minnesota that he can count on in the General Election. Look at Hillary's count...California, Arizona, Arkansas, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Tennessee, New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico. Arizona is out for her as a red state, the others quite possibly blue.

In the next few days, Obama may win Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia, of which Maryland and DC can definately be counted on as blue in November.

OK, lets project out ahead. No matter who wins Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, they are left as toss-ups for November.

So who comes out on top?

It can still go either way.

Stop making the assumption the number of states carried by Obama gives him the edge. Remember electoral votes? They are what matters in the end.

It looks to me as if the edge is still tilted toward Hillary.

Thanks Old Blue Eyes for giving Orval and JD the lessons they need. It seems JD was rushing off to class earlier. I didn't know the rigors of pursuing his completion of elementary school were so demanding for him. Perhaps he will eventually get to higher addition and be able to count to 270 electoral votes. Somehow he still thinks that just the number of states means something even if the states are Rhode Island and North Dakota.
The poor child is also so innocent that he believes the polls. When you finally get to a statistics class my friend the professor will likely introduce the study with the following quote: "Figures lie and liers figure." It makes sense that you would be supporting Obama because you are nieve enough to believe the polls. Do you fit the 20 something demographic for Obama? Those folks who have done nothing of substance in society and think they can mask thier deficiencies as the "me generation" by emoting over an effective orator -- regardless of what it takes to change a society. Keep on believing the polls, at least you are consistent in your ability to be led.

"And here's the glaring problem with your statement ("Many of those states will not an election make.") Hillary lost 'em to begin with. Good night. " JD
And your statement reveals another attribute of Obama support -- limited attention span and no sophistication when it comes to electoral politics. If indeed you are in the 20 something Obama demographic, your emotional ethusiasm [attention span] will be long faded by November. You will be fixated on the latest popular culture diversion [what is Brittany doing now for example] or sleep in on election day.
With regard to your lack of sophistication, just because Clinton lost a state in the Democratic primary does not automatically translated into a loss in the general election. Is it possible for you to get your "mind" around that fact?
If you weren't so pathetic JD, you'd be funny. A humble suggestion; concentrate on school, you've got a lot of learning to do.

"Ok, lets see how that leaves the situation for Obama. That leaves him possibly Missouri, Colorado, Washington, Maine, Delaware, Connecticut, Illinois, and Minnesota that he can count on in the General Election. Look at Hillary's count...California, Arizona, Arkansas, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Tennessee, New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico." - Old Blue Eyes

I honestly hope that you're not inferring that that Obama couldn't win states like Cali, New Hampshiire, New York, Mass, and NJ in the general. Making such assertions is flat out insane. The question is, can Hillary win states like Georgia, Louisianna, Tennessee, and Colorado? Either Dem nominee will carry the Big Blues, just like either Repub can easily carry the Fly-overs. It's their appeal in the battlegrounds that truly matter.

"Thanks Old Blue Eyes for giving Orval and JD the lessons they need. It seems JD was rushing off to class earlier. I didn't know the rigors of pursuing his completion of elementary school were so demanding for him. Perhaps he will eventually get to higher addition and be able to count to 270 electoral votes."

Janus, did the nice little lady in the white uniform remember to give you your "jelly beans" today in that itty bitty cup? You might want to remind her. And don't forget, today's Monday-Bingo Day followed by a Matlock Marathon!

Janus, how pathetic for you to not respond to any SUBSTANCE in my post. You intimated that Obama would have a harder time in the general election, and I responded with polls showing otherwise. What was your response? "Oh, you're just a stupid little boy." Essentially.

"Somehow he still thinks that just the number of states means something even if the states are Rhode Island and North Dakota."-Janus

No, I do not think that. But are you so, for lack of a better word, DUMB, to think that they're irrelevant? I know how the electoral college works, dear. And are you so stupid to think that Obama won't win California in the general elections?

Numerically, you may have the age and the degrees over me, but you clearly don't have the IQ. (And for the record, I feel I have to right to be a jerk to you just as you are to me.)

"The poor child is also so innocent that he believes the polls."-Janus
Yes, Sister Janus of Rosemary, I do think the polls count for something most of the time.

"When you finally get to a statistics class my friend the professor will likely introduce the study with the following quote: 'Figures lie and liers figure.'" -Janus

Hun, I was in multivariable calculus (Calculus III) before I hit college. I know numbers and statistics. So, you're suggesting that these mutually corroborating polls by different organizations were fudged. Indeed, you have every reason to: they went against Hillary, ergo, they are wrong. Wise you are, Janus. My naivete suffocates me.

"Those folks who have done nothing of substance in society and think they can mask thier deficiencies as the 'me generation' by emoting over an effective orator -- regardless of what it takes to change a society."

And here you go again. You IGNORE absolutely every post made here of substance on Obama, and say we're just "emoting over an effective orator." It really helps your whole contrived narrative that "the only reason why Obama is doing great is because he's simply the feel-good candidate." You are a disgrace to 80-somethings all over America.

As for my service, I've done a lot more than you think--which is all I will say without touting my record. And so have members of my generation.

"Keep on believing the polls, at least you are consistent in your ability to be led."-Janus

And keep on with your contrived narrative, ignoring any substance in all posts that might alter said narrative.

"And your statement reveals another attribute of Obama support -- limited attention span and no sophistication when it comes to electoral politics. If indeed you are in the 20 something Obama demographic, your emotional ethusiasm [attention span] will be long faded by November. You will be fixated on the latest popular culture diversion [what is Brittany doing now for example] or sleep in on election day." -Janus

This comment requires no response. I just wanted to quote it to memorialize it for all time. Its idiocy is self-explanatory. As an old hag once told me, "Figures lie and liers [sic] figure." She meant "liars," if you were confused.

Janus,
It was people like you that made me leave the Republican Party in the late '90's. It saddens me to see that the Dems have people like you too. Your bitterness and hatred oozes out of every pixel of your comment. You sound like a disgruntled Bush supporter more than anything.

"With regard to your lack of sophistication, just because Clinton lost a state in the Democratic primary does not automatically translated into a loss in the general election. Is it possible for you to get your "mind" around that fact?" - Janus

Didn't BlueEyes make exactly the OPPOSITE argument when trying to show how Clinton could win a general? And didn't you praise him for that comment at the beginning of your post? What we're seeing now is the desperateness of the Clinton campaign and supporters, as she slips away from being a solid front-runner, and evidence mounts that Obama would win in November more easily than she would. I was undecided until right up until the election. The way some of you are acting, you're assuring my I cast the right vote for Obama.

You make my case, DevilsA...wake up out there.

True, either Hillary or Obama will carry the big blue states, no doubt. What I'm saying is that just because Obama has won more states than Hillary, though, does not automatically crown him the king. Most of the states he won will end up being red states in the final analysis...no reason for you to jump up and down, pointing to the total number of states so far in his favor in the primaries as any reason to presume anything.

What is apparent (and apparently you are glossing over) is the fact that Hillary has won a majority of big blues where the rich mother lode of electoral votes are found while Barack has won a lot of the small flyovers that will ultimately go red. If I had to choose a candidate to back, I'd go with someone who is appealing to the latter.

Oops, my bad. I meant to end with my last sentence as a rhetorical question (If I had to choose, I'd go with someone who is appealing to the latter?)

Man...

Well, this is just ugly...where's that nice Independent Lou Doobs?
What's with these goobers saying if the "Superdelegate" pick the party's presidential nominee they will not vote?
THAT'S CRAZY

"What is apparent (and apparently you are glossing over) is the fact that Hillary has won a majority of big blues where the rich mother lode of electoral votes are found while Barack has won a lot of the small flyovers that will ultimately go red. If I had to choose a candidate to back, I'd go with someone who is appealing to the latter." - Old Blue

I agree that many of Obie's states will go red in the general. But, I think he has a message that will resonate in the bulk of the battlegrounds, giving him an easy win. He could easily take states like Colorado, Georgia, etc, that haven't been blue in over a decade. States like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida would be a sure thing for him. I think Hillary would do well in the battlegrounds in November, but I think her win would be more of a nail biter than Obama's would be.

Regardless, I still contend that everyone needs to CHILL THE F#@% OUT! The rhetoric flying through this blog over the past week is getting ridiculious!

Others keep saying it is a change from Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. Were they born in 1988? Are they very young, poorly read, or just backing Obama because they are closet Repugnians who know Obama can't beat McCain?

What we are really fighting is the Bush oil cartel pulling the strings in China, the UN, and the CIA since at least 1969. What we've had just since then is:

Nixon (HW Bush); Ford (HW Bush); Carter (HW Bush/Iran); Reagan-Reagan (HW Bush-HW Bush/Iran); HW Bush; Clinton-Clinton (HW Bush/Repugnians hauling out the big guns for $70 million taxpayer dollars, chump change compared to now); and Shrub-Shrub (HW Bush/Rove takes up the mantle/Iraq).

See my comments at: http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/arkansasblog/2008/02/hillary_v_obama_commercial_app.aspx

And you can bet if anyone had said anything about Obama "pimping out" any family members there would be riots in the streets. The lack of outrage at Chelsea being "pimped out" uncovers the fact that although racism may be decreasing, misogyny (try google) is very much in the daily speech of the media and the public. Unlike racism, they haven't learned to clean up their language in mixed company, because it is so ingrained they don't know the difference.

I don't understand why URLs will not post with my name, as in bluename!

Ah, looks like the Preview Post function breaks it. Might want to check that, webmaster.

"Regardless, I still contend that everyone needs to CHILL THE F#@% OUT! "-devilsadvocate

Haha, I agree completely. I got caught up in the moment and the repartee of it. I certainly didn't mean all of the ad hominem stuff I said to Janet, and I'm hoping she didn't mean all of hers. An "old hag" connotes a witch or ugly person. She quite possibly could be an attractive old hag, I don't know.

"An "old hag" connotes a witch or ugly person. She quite possibly could be an attractive old hag, I don't know." - JD

That was effin' funny, sir! Yes, you and Janus were certainly feeding off of each other, but she's been talking like that to all the Obama supporters since last Wednesday. Don't lower yourself down to that level, and eventually she'll get bored and tone down her rhetoric too.

Interesting article at my name....

Don't worry. Now that the writers strike is over, the vitriol will cease by this spring as most folks will hook back into the boob tube and tune out all of this historic election noise.

Interesting that the article came from FOX! How convincing.

haha, valid point, Blue. But, you see the same argument, supported by polling data, everywhere you turn.

Let's try one more time JD. Ignoring as I will your petty name calling.
In response to my pointing out the Electoral College primacy you proceed to belittle my gender and economic status. You accuse me of not responding to the SUBSTANCE of your remarks and then proceed to continue name calling and do not address my point about the Electoral College. I guess that means you are a person of SUBSTANCE. You have a strange way of demonstrating that by calling me DUMB. My original post about your being in elementary school was a reflection on the lack of sophistication in your analysis. Your name calling proves my point, not yours. Saying that I am stupid enough to think that Obama would not win California is a reflection on your ignorance not my stupidity. It is highly conceivable that the Hispanic vote can go to McCain because of his principled stand on immigration, there has been a signicant struggle between the Hispanic and African American communities in this country during the last 20 plus years which could also be a factor, there is a significant military and retired military presence in California, and a large number of independents, not to mention a firm conservative Republican base throughout the state but primarily in Southern California. So yes, my Democratic friend, it is possible for the Senator from Illinois to lose California. The fact that you cannot see that, is what worries many of us Democrats who think that winning the White House is crucial to the survival of our Democratic Republic. This is serious business.
You quickly return to name calling regarding my age, education and IQ. You do make one statement I can agree with; "I have to [sic] right to be a jerk..." Amen brother!
[Sorry, I had to include your composition error, since you exposed my unedited "liar" mistake. God, I hate to make mistakes! So the above sic is an acknowledged low blow on my part.]
I am not suggesting the pollsters colluded, I am saying people lie to pollsters. They classicaly lie about issues of race and a few other issues which the American public does not want to be percieved as being on the wrong side of. It has nothing to do with how much calculus you have studied, it has to do with how much you understand human nature. Those are the "lies" I am referring to. [Not that the questions by the poll takers can also be callibrated to elicit certain responses - because they can. But from what I have read of the methodoligies that does not seem to be a factor for those I have seen.]
You are emoting. I do not know how I can make you go back and read yourself so that you can see that. You trust polls so much, go back and find those which study the "me Generation". Review the qualities that generation exhibits [not all bad by the way]. But one of its main qualities is that it is in search of meaning. Obama speaks to that meaning - and speaks well to it. But that has to be put in a broader context and that context has to be actions. The media is finally giving him the critical scrutiny he deserves as a potential Democratic standard bearer. Last week the New York Times had an investigative article [front page above the fold] on his totally caving in to Illinois and Washington lobbyists [some of whom are major campaign contributors] on the issue of nuclear power plant accident notification. Illinois is the state with the highest percentage of nuclear generated electrical power. When a leak occured in one of those plants he promised the local community and environmental groups that he would pass legislation requiring that local communities be informed immediately of subsequent accidents. The lobbyists met with him in DC after he submitted the promised legislation and he quickly revised the bill taking, as the enviornmental groups in Illinois described it, "all the teeth from the legislation." In Iowa he told a crowd that he had passed such legislation through the Senate. That is not true according to the Senate records. JD, you evaluate that for yourself.
I will take your word for your public service, however, I will refer you to polls regarding the "me generation" which present quite a different picture for the cohort as a whole. In fact, that is one of the critiques I would make about Obama's attractiveness. He gives you a sense of contributing - not a bad thing - but it is largely devoid of substance.
One last comment about your reference to me as Sister Janus [which seems to reflect you thinking I am Janice]. Janus is the Roman god represented by two faces - one looking forward, the other backward. The name was selected because I believe as the Harvard Philospher George Santaya once wrote, "Those who refuse to understand the lessons of history are condemned to relive them." That my friend is what I see many of the Obama supporters lacking - an understanding that they are about to repeat a series of errors which will continue this country on its downward spiral. Not that you are doing it with bad intentions, it's that you are doing it without understanding. For that, history will never forgive you.

"...Sorry Krugman, Thermos, & Zelda. It ain't hate to want our nominee to be decided by the voters of our country.

I think its called Democracy."--JD (I hope)

I agree...passion for a nominee/cause is what I admire most, and definitely not hate. Most times, JD, and unless otherwise specified I'm talking generally...and mostly in response to the MSM's (including this blog) view of what's going on. I've stated earlier that I don't know of any (and haven't seen any on this blog) Clinton supporters who've stated they won't support Obama if he wins. I have seen several statements like that from Obama supporters. Bottom line: We've got to get the Republicans out of the White House; and we've got to maintain the quality things about our Party (i.e. equality, NOT being greedy warmongering hatersm like the Republicans). I don't want to fight with people who are fighting with me to achieve the same things. Every Clinton/Obama supporter should promise to support the chosen nominee.

"In response to my pointing out the Electoral College primacy you proceed to belittle my gender and economic status." -Janus

Oh God.

Anyways, moving on. Zelda, that wasn't me. It was Orval.

I'm beginning to think that, for lots of folks, arguing about the Clintons is like arguing about religion or or abortion--lots of points to be made on both sides, but no one's mind ever changes.

I have learned one thing from this blog, though; I'm not so sure anymore that Houston and Diana Nutt were the most intensely despised (by some, of course, and loved by others) couple in Arkansas over the past year.

There are still a lot of primary elections left. Let those voters have their say.

Let's avoid being like Rove and the GOP trying to prevent large number of voters from turning out to win for our particular predilection. If you feel compelled to make predictions, put some money on it with the London Bookies or the Iowa Presidential Futures Market.

Let's save our passion for criticism of the continuing blunders of George the Congenital ____t, his die-hard Busheviks and pudit panderers and enjoy the desperation of the Elephant Echo Chamber in its final illusions od relevance.

When the fat lady sings, be she Obamite or Clintonite we will have a much better candidate and president than for the last seven years and that's good regardless whether it's a she or he.

We're playing right into Karl Rove's dirty hands. Click on my name and see what I got in email today from a long time Republican friend. We better be forming circles around both our candidates to protect them from those who would shoot them dead if they get the chance.

We've let 40 years lull us into a false sense of security. Bad mouthing carries none of the damage of a well aimed bullet. Prepare for a very ugly summer and fall. Our enemies have (r) behind their name and don't you forget it. They may not pull the trigger, but chances are they'll sign the check. Not to discount the pure dee nuts who just wanna bag'em a bigg'en. Get off each other's asses and keep a sharp eye out for dirty tricks, car bombs and rifles hanging out of book repository windows.

Lord I've got to pay better attention...I promise to do better, JD! Sorry.

Yoo Hoo, where are you JD, person of SUBSTANCE??????