Arkansas Blog

fyi, a little bit of context, just for fun...

Next Tuesday, 4 March 2008, voters in Texas and Ohio will go to the polls, perhaps to decide the Democratic POTUS nominee for 2008. The same day will mark exactly 8 months before the general election.

And how long is 8 months? Well, 8 months before March 4th was July 4th, 2007.

Irving "Scooter" Libby had just been pardoned... oops pardon me, "commuted".

England's new Prime Minister had been on the job for two weeks.
France's new President for six weeks.

Pundits wondered if Fred Thompson was really going to run. Polls showed him behind Rudy Giuliani but ahead of the moribund John McCain (RG 33, FT 21, JM 16) while on the DEM side Hillary Clinton polled almost as much as Barack Obama and John Edwards combined (HC 40, BO 28, JE 13)

The DOW was pushing to clear 14,000 for the first time (up 29% from 10,800 in a year) and the FED reassured everyone that the difficulties within the "subprime" market had been "contained" and the "slump" in housing sales had "bottomed" already.

The "Surge" had not yet been fully implemented, but American KIA's in Iraq came down from over 100 per month to less than 80.

And despite calls from within his own party, US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales would not resign for another 10 weeks.

... and that was just 8 months ago.

'tis a long time ain't it ?

and on the thread subject...

i expect that if Obama prevails in TX & OH next week, there will be tremendous pressure on the super-delegates to move en-masse in order to "stop the fight" before more "blood" gets on the floor.

but then, the past week has been one of 'obit-writing' and lowered expectations, which could create a tremendous shock if HRC were to win both.

perhaps it is exactly as Bill said in Texas last week "If she wins TX & OH, she gets the nomination. If she doesn't, she don't" ?

The typical DOG op-ed piece is similar in its treatment of facts.

"...He won his delegates fair and square, but those delegates represent the wishes not only of grassroots Democrats, but also Republicans and independents....

"... Perhaps because I have endorsed Mrs. Clinton, I have noticed that most of the people complaining about the influence of the superdelegates are supporters of Mr. Obama.

"... But the superdelegates were created to lead, not to follow. They were, and are, expected to determine what is best for our party and best for the country.

I haven't seen anything quite so breathtakingly arrogant in a while, but it's so typical of the Clinton Cult. They know what's best for us.

I'm glad this was posted here. It exposes the thinking behind those who support Hillary... they don't want change -- they want Bush Lite. The same crowd that can't get enough of Hillary is the same crowd that elected Pryor.

A vote for Hillary is a vote for "Son of Cain."

Perhaps most disingenuous is her reference to the Florida and Michigan elections as if they were done fair and square. Yeah, tell me you're not going to count a state, get all the candidates to pledge they will follow the will of the DNC in not counting those states, and then turn the rules on their head because things aren't going your way. Sounds like something the Repubs would do to America, not what Democrats would do to their own.

If that happens, I would suspect there will be hell to pay.

Perhaps one major difference between Republicans and Democrats is how they react to dirty tricks played by their own party. Republicans will hold their nose and go along with anything, no matter how immoral or amoral, to win an election.

Now the Clinton camp is proposing that the Democratic party adopt the same way of thinking. Personally, I don't want to be part of a party that things like that. If Hillary is nominated through some trick like seating the Florida and Michigan delegates, liberals with morals will have to consider voting Republican. She's not a liberal anyway; she'd be perfectly at home -- especially given the tone of the op-ed piece -- within the Republican party.

Therefore, the choice would come down to which Republican we vote for -- the one running on the (D) ticket, or the one running on the (R) ticket. And I suggest the one who hasn't betrayed us is the right choice.

For those who support the idea that super delegates know better than the average Joe voter then you must support the continuation of the Electoral College.

Yep, those facts confused the hell out of me. I couldn't really follow how the Superdelegates save the party from in-fighting. But the Democratic Party has the right to make it's own rules and use whatever guidlines they want for picking a nominee. I just think it would be a mistake politically for the Superdelegates to choose a candidate other than the delegate winner. As far as I'm concerned, the winner of the delegates is the choice of the people no matter how many voted in the primary. You don't vote, you don't matter.

>>If Hillary is nominated through some trick like seating the Florida and Michigan delegates, liberals with morals will have to consider voting Republican.<<

HaHAhahahahahahahaahahaha HAHahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhhh
Ha!

<<<<<<<<<<<<
Besides, the delegate totals from primaries and caucuses do not necessarily reflect the will of rank-and-file Democrats. Most Democrats have not been heard from at the polls. We have all been impressed by the turnout for this year's primaries - clearly both candidates have excited and engaged the party's membership - but, even so, turnout for primaries and caucuses is notoriously low. It would be shocking if 30 percent of registered Democrats have participated.
<<<<<<<<<<
Rank and file means Clinton..nothing else matters but protecting the 'establishment candidate". (Think what would Pryor say or do?)

<<<<<<<<<<<
I may be a cynic, but I'm a fairly knowledgeable political cynic. If Mr. Obama wins the nomination, those members are undoubtedly concerned that they would be inviting a primary challenge in their next re-election campaign by failing to support his candidacy.
<<<<<<<<<<<<

Ah yes, self serving incumbency protection racket.. Smells like shady RICO to me.. What better way for big money donors to game the system...since the people are far less able to effect change via individual/smaller campaign contributions. All the more reason for serious campaign finance reform and elimination of corporate money equaling free speech. ..and elimination of Congressional super delegates who have a self serving interest trumping the interest of the party or the people.

<<<<<<<<<<<
But if they are actually upset over the diminished clout of rank-and-file Democrats in the presidential nominating process, then I would love to see them agitating to force the party to seat the delegates elected by the voters in Florida and Michigan. In those two states, the votes of thousands of rank-and-file party members will not be counted because their states voted on dates earlier than those authorized by the national party.
<<<<<<<<<<<

Team Obama is honoring the party rules and the party punishment of those in FLA and MI who violated the rules... Clinton wants to game the system...and did so already by campaigning in FLA. It is only speculation as to what the voters in those states would have considered after a normal primary process.

Conduct a fair and open primary vote in either or both states or stick with the plan and deny these states delegates, period. With each passing day of inaction... clearly the choice should be to deny delegates at all.

Somehow, after reading this article i tend to see our super delegates as about as helpful and considerate of the electorate as the Supreme Court was in Bush vs Gore decision making.

I think Democrats should definitely heed the advice of Geraldine Ferraro when it comes to presidential elections. When she was on the ticket, the party was really, really successful:

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?f=0&year=1984

Well, successful in Minnesota. And the District of Columbia. Thirteen electoral votes. Very, very impressive. Geraldine Ferraro knows all about how to win presidential elections.

Yes, eLwood, hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahhaahhahahahahahahaha..........................

I'm glad to see Geraldine Ferraro is doing something besides crying into her Mama Celeste Pizza-for-One after another night being irrelevant.

The Obama folks like Eureka Springs don't want to recognize the reality of the support for their man. Although growing in certain demographics once largely committed to Clinton, its strength remains age, gender and race based. Couple that with the limited number of voters in the caucus states [1% or less of the electorate], the opportunity for Republicans and Independents to do damage to the party by voting for the least electable Democrat, winning in those states which will never vote Democratic in a national election, and his inability to win in large states - we have the makings of the 72 or 76 elections all over again. The knee-jerk liberals and naive 20 somethings will again have put forward another presidential loser. Obama cannot win a national election at this point in his career. But even if that does happen he will be a Jimmy Carter sort of president and set up the GOP for another Reagan type win in 2012. Let go of your instant gratification folks, give him time to mature [beyond the eloquent speeches], and let the country be put back in order by a Democrat who knows what has to be done to undo the damage of 8 Bush years. You need to consider your country, not yourselves.

Janus, well said!!!

Wow, Janus...

Talk about a "knee-jerk" post...

Obama supporters need to consider their country?!

You are the epitome of the Clintonite...

Good luck with that election...

Rosso, you prove your own knee-jerk moniker. There was nothing knee-jerk about my post - it was a brief discussion about history and the traps some people, like yourself, have fallen into [for whatever reasons] - which I note, knee-jerk, you don't offer a refutation of but rather rely on the saintly "yes we can".
Yes, Obama supporters need to consider the good of the country - because either way [he loses or he wins] the country will remain in turmoil. His interlude will simply be another four years of "I looked into his soul and found a man I could deal with." Jezz, you folks are all so silly [that's the kindest word I can think of at the moment] you can't see the stupidity you are about to repeat and the results it will have on our country and our world. We live in the real world not the "The Sound of Music"!
By the way, I am not a "Clintonite"- whatever that may mean. In fact I have given Obama, to date, sums amounting to four figures because I once thought he was viable. The more I see and hear, [and I have had one-on-one conversations with him] the less I think he is the man for this season. I admire his intellect and his great oratory - it is indeed uplifting. But once "up in the air" the country as I stated in my first post, will not survive well a rapid decent. Look at our histroy, expectations denied have led to chaos and regression. The country is too fragile now to risk that experience. So you continue to be cavalier about this election - as you put it "good luck with that election." It's not about me or you "winning or losing"- its about the healthy reform of the country and who is pragmatic enough to accomplish it.

Well said Janus, and succinctly as well.

I do not believe that Clinton is simply "status quo" but is the one who should lead because of her "hands-on" experience.

Besides, that status quo quip originated from the Rovian mind...and I refuse to be spun by the GOP into voting for the wrong person.

Wow...I thought we were under the same tent, Janus. Maybe Obama supporters aren't welcome?

Anyone supporting Obama has been chastised on this blog far more than necessary. But you and I don't differ that much (I would assume) on the seriousness of what the next president will inherit from Dick Cheney. In that light, I am thinking of my country first. I am not real sure how thinking of myself factors in...unless my children's future is at stake...which I take very, very seriously...

Obama-Nots rant and rave about demographics, caucuses not counting, etc. Fact is, folks are rolling out to vote for Obama and Clinton in solid numbers. It seems that cynicism has gotten the best of Clinton diehards...

The people are speaking...they want change. Sure, Clinton has more experience. Hell, McCain has even more. But how have they served us so far? Not very well in this knee-jerk's opinion...

But what do I know? I'm just a regular citizen tryin' to speak up...and I meant what I said when I wished luck...

Old enough to vote, drink beer, be president...but young enough to still believe...

I just hope that whoever wins the nomination will have the support of the larger tent...knee-jerks like me included...

Part of my intemperance re: knee-jerks is that that was me in 72 -- it's a bit of self-flaggalation - I should be a Shiite perhaps! I was raised in a Socialist household [ever heard of a red-diaper baby?] You are right; many of us are making an informed decision based on our experiences and assessments. That is democracy and I would not have it any other way.

Indeed, Janus...

We are all making informed decisions based on experiences and assessments...and mine have had a shorter shelf life than yours...so I defer to a degree...

Funny you mention 1972...that's when I was born...

I was a red diaper baby for other reasons...zero dollars and zero cents...

Be well...