Arkansas Blog

Keep trying to breathe life into what's left of Hillary's campaign. It's time for you to except defeat, Max.

Viriginia was Obama riding a wave of black racism based on skin collar, supported by left wing liberals and the media. Going forward the waive should diminish.

It all begins in March now.. LMAO! How many goal-posts is Penn going to move in a day? The whole message now sounds like a series of acts of desperation. Act like Rove and try to define failure as winning and assurances of change.. all quite rich, coming from the most establishment candidate America could possibly have.

Odds are, it's all down to swindling super delegates for team Clinton and they know it.

Sorry folks.. I don't think the Clintons will win the country (though they may pull off the super delegates).. Obama has cast a much larger triangle.

As we witnessed the continued shredding of the Constitution by the Senate with PAA/FISA this week.. We had another perfect opportunity to see almost half of the Democrats vote in lock-step with the Republican police state fascists. Hillary is in the wrong half. The heart and soul of the country is at stake..and much of that depends on whether or not America can shake off the war criminals in its own party first and foremost.

Mark Penn is another in a long list of reasons why Clintons should fail miserably. He spends enormous amounts of time and party dollars trying to rewrite rules and tell people what they think instead of bringing people together and sorting out how best to serve out the needed changes with a wide message. He enables Clintons long standing evasive maneuvers with the public while in truth the Clintons continue governing like rich Republican war mongering elites, always.

Tell Bill to sling some more uranium deals.. the library needs cash to hire more wing-nuts!

She was never the candidate the media and her supporters promoted her to be. You don't start out with negatives near 50 per cent get very far. If not Obama it would have been Edwards or one to the others.

Eureka Springs, AR
Hillary was not on the wrong side of the FISA bill voted on this week. She did not vote for the bill nor did she vote against it. She did not vote. I guess she had other important things to do.

The fact that Obama has been able to overcome Hillary's political skill, and the Clinton brand recognition pretty much says it all. I'm afraid even Bill would have had his hands full with Berack back in '92. Hey, not saying Bill would have lost...just that it would have been quite the battle, as both would have been no-names at the time, and obviously Berack would have been far too young.

Nothing is more important than uphold ones oath as a sitting senator to protect the Constitution form all enemies, foreign and domestic.. Nothing. Not voting, much more, not even speaking up in the Senate about the assault on all our liberties is an egregious failure to uphold that oath.

Stop defending the very person who still has a knife in your back.. oh look, shes twisting the blade now.

Just to scare the bejeezus out of y'all...

and you know Larry is fair and balanced...

get ready big 'O' fan it's gonna be a bumpy ride!

"There are many who think this charismatic black man speaks the truth. They think he cares about the plight of the working class. In truth, whenever the co-opted Obama has an opportunity to make a real difference, he marches in stride with the Bush regime.

Obama has repeatedly waffled on the Iraq war. He refuses to denounce torture policies. Obama voted against the Coburn Amendment, which would have provided funds for rebuilding in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. He supports a preemptive nuclear strike against Iran. He does not support universal healthcare.

Although recognizing that Bush has broken U.S. law, the "Progressive" politician refused to cosponsor a resolution by Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) to censure the President. Obama even voted to confirm right-wing Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Now he is campaigning for Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut (Bush's closest Democratic ally).

Like the scumbag Lieberman, Obama is working hard, albeit quietly, to block the Progressive movement. If you haven't guessed yet, Obama is a conservative wearing a liberal's suit. On top of it all, this wolf in sheep's clothing is a liar and a fraud-a political abomination conning America."

[LINK] blue bejeeus

god must be having a mormon day today, for Mitt just gave McCain all his delegates, which i believe puts JM over the top. (Mike's gotten a sunburn before he even gets to the beach : )

thus the DEMS (and HRC's + BHO's) dilemma

6 weeks ago there were what 15 POTUS candidates or so? now just 3, with 25 weeks left to go before the conventions.

i suggest that it is the DEMS/HC&BO's interest to have their contest go on unresolved for as long as possible.

a 25 week vacuum invites a 'buyer's remorse' type of backlash which, along with the media beast needing feeding, would be filled by constant speculation and attention to Nader, Bloomberg, and others.

bejeeus - Exactly. Which is why I used the term "larger triangle" above. I sincerely believe Clintons extensive record of failure and triangulating complicity to be worse than Obama simply because of their amount time served, and a few key votes over the last few years mark better signs for Obama overall. In the long run Obama methods may very well have the same results.. There is only a slight chance of Obama conducting some change...Clinton, no chance at all.

Twenty nine Dem senators did the right thing on Monday.. We the people desperately need to get their dwindling backs before it's to late.

If FISA/PAA or war in Middle East etc.. were to be an issue before president Clinton or Obama.. Only Obama has shown (in both scenarios) the fortitude to reject war mongering police state fascism...by a slim but very important margin.

I think this week represents the crest of the wave for Obama. Hillary is starting to put critical ads about his positions in all the battleground states and I think voters will have 3 weeks to awake from the euphoria of Barackmania. But, I do believe they will go into the convention basically deadlocked in delegates. The prospect of a rip-roaring convention harking back to 1968 awaits. But, what is that bright light on the horizon?!?! Why, its Al Gore, Mr. Nobel Peace Prize riding to save the party from disaster. He will announce he will be the candidate for Pres and the Repubs will fall dead in shock.

saywhat, you are technically correct.

Hillary did not show up to vote against FISA.

However, just to keep the record straight. Obama voted on an amendment or two, but was absent when the final vote was taken to pass FISA through the Senate.

P.S. Hillary stated before the vote that she would be there, ". . . if the vote was close . . . ", which it wasn't. I guess she and the campaign expected the Democratic Party opponents not to stoop to Rovian "half-truths," but forgot the Rovian conditioning that when it's Bill or Hillary it doesn't matter, they been smeared before, right?

Let's let everyone have the facts . . . all the facts and watch how the rest of the primaries and/or convention decide the candidate and running mate then join together to elect them and run Pryor out of office (probably forlorn hope , I know).

I support whichever one of them wins the nomination. But I haven't given up on the Iron Petticoat because I don't like her personality or her and her husband's triangulation approach, but I can recognize the results of WJC's triangulated presidency.

They are both DLC'ers(Democrats in name only ) and both have ruined the Democratic party, IMHO neither are a good choice for american's or America .DLC'er are whats wrong with the democratic party not being A liberal , if i wanted to vote for GOP'er policies i'd vote republican ,I can't stand john mccain either no real choice for me this election i guess .

That's about where I find myself, RLR. I just can stand by idly watching fellow Dems fool themselves about their love of Clinton or much of Obama.

On a lighter note.. I have an idea for a campaign jingle against McCain I posted last night..) (at my name) he he he

To see exactly why Harold Ford and the Clinton DLC machine is a malicious assault on all of us democrats... Read the link at my name to see the utterly inexcusable race bashing tactics Harold and the DLC are using against a very good progressive Democrat incumbent.. now holding Fords old seat in Tennessee.. DLC any better than Rove? you decide...

Enough with these cretins!

docholiday,
You are right neither Clinton or Obama showed up to vote against FISA. Talk about leadership. Not too long ago didn't Clinton jump on Obama about not taking a stand in Illinois when he voted "Present"? Maybe both of them wanted the bill approved. Since they didn't vote then they have no right to talk against FISA.

Doug Thompson:

WHY THE SUPER DELEGATES SHOULD DECIDE THE DEMO PRIMARY

bluename
.

Here ya go, James:

"If Hillary wins the states she has won and Obama wins the states he has won,
do the math and tell me who is the more viable candidate.

Hillary - 205 Electoral votes (FL, NH, AR, NV, MI, NY, NJ, TN MA, OK, CA, AZ)

Obama - 110 Electoral votes (IA, MO, GA, SC, ID, NM, AL, IL, AK, KS, UT, DE, ND, MN)"

-- Borrowed

Well I may be fooling myself (won't be the first nor the last), but I'm not fooling myself 'cause of some blind Clinton love...far from it. I'm betting the Clintons stand a better chance of withstanding the impending Republican swift boating...as others are betting that Obama stands a better chance. I'm also betting that all those so-call Obamicans are more myth and/or Republican tricks than reality. Obviously, if Obama wins the nomination, I'll hope I was wrong.

President Shit for Brains changed EVERYTHING; and taught me to never again opt for a long shot or expect fairness when dealing with the Republicans. Not only will they NOT reach across 'the aisle' to meet Obama part way, they'll interpret it as a sign of weakness and stab him in the back.

For me it's ALL about kicking the Republicans out of the White House.

Good borrow, cato. According to the MSM Hillary might as well lay down and die.

I don't think you can count Florida and Michigan.

docholiday,
You are right neither Clinton or Obama showed up to vote against FISA. Talk about leadership. Not too long ago didn't Clinton jump on Obama about not taking a stand in Illinois when he voted "Present"? Maybe both of them wanted the bill approved. Since they didn't vote then they have no right to talk against FISA.

Posted by: saywhat
<<<<<

Saywhat - Are you enjoying lying or just stupidity? Obama did show up and vote correctly for the constitution.. against big money interests and against fascist police state. When the amendments failed.. he left before the last vote on the final bill. Hillary never showed up at all. It's a dimes worth of difference but another clear positive action for Obama.. Clinton left her AR favorite son, Marx "the rat" Pryor to vote for fascism.

Meanwhile, Hillary's favorite Tennessee son DLC Harold Ford.. is slamming anti jew and anti Jesus lies all across Memphis against a very promising progresive Democratic Congressman. With friends like Clinton.. who needs Rove or a constitution?

Good borrow, cato. According to the MSM Hillary might as well lay down and die.<<
Posted by: zelda

Late Tues night CNN had a nifty graphic election calculator. It was very useful as
CNN set the calculator to show the outcome of Barack winning at the ratio of
55:45 in ALL remaining states. Even if he does win in ALL remaining states
Obama will not have enough delegates to win the nomination. Keep in mind
the ratio-- Hillary gets 45% in each remaining state.

Super Delegates will decide the final outcome.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our Founders did not have in mind a democracy but "a government in which the scheme of representation takes place." Fed.Papers #10

A few month ago, all I saw from this blog was the inevitability of Hillarys coronation.
Now, even though they are pretty much tied, Hillary is thought to be finished.
I suspect the conventional wisdom is wrong, as usual.

Obama has escaped all media scrutiny. But his less than illustrious professional and political career,
will be exposed by the republicians. Mr. smooth has obviously spent alot of time in front of the mirror practicing his facial expressions and hand gestures. I definitely see a Dancing With The Stars appearance in his future.

Boy there are some crazy liberals on this board.

So beejus & Eureka, Obama is exactly like George W. Bush? Wow I gotta say that is a new one.

I guess you are not happy with any politician anywhere ever, I also guess you will not be happy until we lose every election possible to Republicans. You know Repubs the ones who really screw up the country yet somehow avoid culpability with you because of all these gd moderate Democarts... reminds me of when I was in DC at the War protest in January of 2001 and there is Ralph Nader standing right in the middle talking to a TV camera man. And I am thinking how can this mothaf*cker actually be showing his face when he is the whole gd reason we are in this situation in the first place. I suspect Eureka & beejus are in that same boat.

Kind of like what will happen with mandates, it is so politically impractical to try and sell the average American on forced mandates (how do you enforce them, garnishing wages?, maybe a police healthcare task force, etc.) that we will not even get to fight the war on healthcare. Much like Hillary ushering the 94 revolution the first time she overreached on healthcare.

I digress

The Mark Penn rhetoric that yesterday Janus adopted quite nicely: that people in Obama states don't matter & now even caucus won delegates are suspect; just might be the most retarded bullshit I have ever heard. I mean talk about sour grapes.

Cato you left off 10 states that Obama won but I wouldn't suspect anything but fuzzy math from the Hillaryphiles in order to justify why getting less votes in a primary is actually a sign of strength.

And the DLC is bad? Again Bill Clinton winning was bad? You guys are all fing crazy. Your crazy liberal asses would drive the Democratic Party into oblivion, allow right wingers to kick our ass forever, and then blame the Democrats for not stopping it. and RLR i think you confused a DINO (Democrat in name Only) with the Al From's DLC.

Anyway check out the Josh Marshall take and his spot on assessment that Mark Penn is a clown

See my post above Orval regarding the nifty CNN primary calculator. Even if Mr Magic will ALL
remaining primaries by 55:45 he wil not have enough delegates to win the nomination.
There's a good historical reason why we have super delegates. See my post by Doug Thompson.

oops
"will" = wins

Note to self the war protest was in January of 2003. Man how the time does not fly when you have such a shitty President. And Eureka my bad on thinking you were against Obama, although i think you can like Obama and still think Clinton was a great President...because I do and so do a lot of Democrats.

Yes Elwood everyone saw John King's little one act play on his over sized i-pod on CNN Tuesday night. That is some cutting edge stuff you are dialed into, wow you watch CNN on primary night? talk about exclusive info!!!

First. if Obama wins every state remaining then a huge majority of the super delegates would break his way and the nomination would be over.

Second, nothing is going to hold at 55-45. Either Hillary will make a resurgence or Obama will overtake her in Ohio and Texas and then I suspect the final margins in the remaining states will start breaking 70-30 or even more, or if Clinton were to lose both Ohio and Texas I really think she would drop out.

We will see, but I can tell you if Obama keeps winning, enough super delegates will break his way for him to secure the nomination.

Orval Eugene, I don't get it...

"crazy liberals",
"the War protest in January of 2001", (WHAT WAR?)
"gd moderate Democarts",
"the whole gd reason we are in this situation in the first place",

How is that helping us clean house in November? Then maybe that's the point 'Eh.

yeah bejeeus I think I confused myself

I didn't realize you were quoting Larry Flynt"

mea culpa

I guess my rant should be directed at all crazy liberals who think the DLC is bad and moderate Democrats are the problem.

When the real problem is losing elections to Republicans.

First. if Obama wins every state remaining then a huge majority of the super delegates would break his way...<<Oval

Yes, and when pigs have wings...

Elwood you are a moron

But yes I do blame Nader for going around the country and lying to the American people saying "there is no difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush" convincing crazy ass liberals that Gore was bad and that his egomaniacal would be a good protest vote to keep Gore honest. I know Nader thought Gore would win easily and he could make a bunch of idiot noise along the way.

Instead his margins cost Gore the election and by 2003 we were heading to war. So yeah I freaking blame Nader.

Eureka Springs, AR
I did not lie. You said the same thing I said and that was Obama did not show up for the final vote. The only stupidity around here is yourself. You said there was only a dimes worth of difference between the actions of Clinton and Obama, did you not? To me if your actions are not worth more than a dime then maybe you are not worth a plug nickel. Hell, I wouldn't give a quarter for any of the Presidential candidates( REP. or DEM.).

(...When the real problem is losing elections to Republicans..."--orvaleugene (please be true)

Boy do we agree on that reality!

I don't agree with the blame Nader memed.. After all Gore ran to the right himself and chose Lieberman as his running mate. Far more Dems voted for Bush due to Gores DLC-ing.. than Dems who chose to support Nader.

Instead of honoring middle class Dems.. Gore honored the GOPer fear and the wealthy folks who like war and NAFTA etc..

And Gore thought his wealthy backers would be able to buy out Nader.. probably like GOPers are doing with Huck in the Caymans.

Nader didn't accept the bribe from the DLC Dems.. and the Dems couldn't turn around and honor the true nature of the people in their party quickly enough. Therefore, they scattered.. and Clintons nomination is the best bet of that happening again.

And I was one of those 'fooled' liberals who voted for Nader...NEVER AGAIN. King George's madness taught me there are light years between the Dems and Repubs in many significant ways. How can any sane person say there's any comparison between Dubya's reign and Clinton's presidency...except that Clinton was held accountable for EVERYTHING and Dubya hasn't been held accountable for ANYTHING.

Elwood you are a moron<<

There is only one Washington, D.C.
.

Did anyone ever retain the source where donations to Nader in 2K were traced to Republican sources?

I met Nader in the early 70s and thought "what a jerk" He would carry you kicking and screaming into an age of the strictest of governments.

Re: superdelegates - from the front page of new york times on the web right now:

Black Leader Pulls Support From Clinton
By JEFF ZELENY and PATRICK HEALY
Published: February 15, 2008

MILWAUKEE - Representative John Lewis, an elder statesman from the civil rights era and one of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's most prominent black supporters, said Thursday night that he planned to cast his vote as a superdelegate for Senator Barack Obama in hopes of preventing a fight at the Democratic convention.

----

His comments came as fresh signs emerged that Mrs. Clinton's support was beginning to erode from some other African-American lawmakers who also serve as superdelegates. Representative David Scott of Georgia, who was among the first to defect, said he would not go against the will of voters in his district, who overwhelmingly supported Mr. Obama last week.

Cato, why did you post the EXACT same thing here that I already disproved in the previous thread. You're basically lying at this point for Hillary. Here's what I wrote:

Cato:

1) FL and MI don't count as they got disqualified by the DNC, and basically candidates (other than Hillary) agreed not to campaign there. I know for certain Obama wasn't even on the MI ballot, along with Richardson, Edwards, etc. Don't try to slip that those into her tally.

2) You are assuming Barack won't win any of Clinton's states in the general election, which is pretty foolish.

3) Barack has won EIGHT more states plus DC and the Virgin Islands (which doesn't have electoral votes) since then:
VA + MD + DC + ME + LA + WA + NE = + 55

In your tally, you also forgot CO and CT = +16

110 + 71 = 181

181 comes awfully close to your 205 number for Hillary, even though it erroneously includes FL and MI.

Taking out FL and MI you get Clinton's 158 to Obama's 181.

Further, Obama would probably win states like CA and NY in a general election anyways.

Wow, I can't believe i spent that much time...

Orval, I liked your statement, "I guess my rant should be directed at all crazy liberals who think the DLC is bad and moderate Democrats are the problem. When the real problem is losing elections to Republicans."

I also agree with Zelda's statement, "How can any sane person say there's any comparison between Dubya's reign and Clinton's presidency...except that Clinton was held accountable for EVERYTHING and Dubya hasn't been held accountable for ANYTHING."

The reason Gore lost was because he refused to use Bill Clinton in his campaign. That was a dumb thing to do. If the Democrats don't stick together, we are going to get another dumb Republican who wants to stay in Iraq for a 100 or even 1,000 years and one who also ranked at the bottom of his class. Then, the world will know the Americans really are crazy.

Click on Cato for the link, JD, and take your argument to the author and not with me. By the way,he has other numbers you can take issue with. Thank you.

1) zelda,
Your goals are not expansive enough. We not only want to run Hocus-Potus out of the Whitehouse with his puppet master and traitorous legislators that failed to uphold their oaths ". . . to defend and protect the constitution against all enemies. . ." , but straight to the Hague for the Justice our slim congressional majorities are too to chicken or stealth rethuglican infested to attempt.

2) Everyone keep the passion, but remember when the primaries and convention are over what we all have had to endure for 2,582 days and 11 hours. We all need to reject the rethuglican creed an allow representative democracy work, remember, the one with the most votes wins and we join together behind she/he/them to put the Liar-in-Chief's slimy cohorts back in the shadows and under the rocks they crept from.

So keep your passion, but also remember our similarities along with our differences don't give in to the devisive anger Rove, the Rethuglican Echo Chamber, and the habitual liars in the executive offices have tried to instill as their latest desperate "caging" effort. We are better than that.

Please don't call polls taken just after the first of the year "the latest polls". Anyone who's been awake the last two months knows Obama's momentum has increased dramatically in only the past few weeks. No one would've quoted polls from as far back as you have to report on any of the primaries since Super Tuesday, yet somehow you're quoting them to predict elections weeks from now yet?

It is hardest to understand, though, why such a trusted liberal voice in Arkansas as Max Brantley would choose to support-- beyond the limits of rationality, or even waking thought-- Hillary Clinton, whose family has sold out the liberal cause more than anyone in politics in the last fifty years. I was a Clinton supporter throughout the Nineties, and started this race with Hillary bumper stickers. But ultimately I grew weary of defending the Clintons as people instead of defending my IDEAS. The problem with Clinton politics, as exciting and thrillingly partisan as it is, is that in the end all we end up fighting for is The Clintons. Our discussion of issues is lost to a personality debate. And as people, the Clintons ultimately end up fighting for themselves, too. It didn't take them too long to sell out the gays and welfare mothers who voted for them in 1992. What makes you think it'd be any different this time around?

Also, your mention of "sexism" as a reason for Hillary's recent beating is laughable, considering her opponent is a black man. How offensive to suggest that sexism is propelling a black male to the forefront of a party primary. Open your eyes, Max. The times, they are a'changin'. Your stubbornness in the face of bright progress is starting to remind me of John Robert Starr. I can't wait for the day you realize that we don't have to fight for the Clintons to advance a liberal agenda.

"Click on Cato for the link, JD, and take your argument to the author and not with me. By the way, he has other numbers you can take issue with. Thank you." Cato

Cato, we all have problems with JD's [juvenile delinquent's] lying - particularly about statistics because he was a Calculus scholar after all, and his ability never to comprehend complicated issues which reach beyond "yes we can". He has the courage of his emotions, his ability to be easily led, and his total lack of historical perspective. He fits perfectly the warning penned by Justice Louis Brandeis, "God protect our Democracy from men of zeal!"
Cato, you won't get an honest answer from him; he doesn't know how --- No he Can't!

Elwood,

I said "If" Obama were to win the rest of the states, or a huge majority that superdelegates would break his way

Its already happenig as you see John Lewis is switching to Obama. No its not a huge event but just a small indication that most superdelegates will go with the will of the voters.

Click on my name for the New York Times story. And you will note that Hillary that freaking yankee traitor is holding up Kelly Pavlik's boxing gloves.

Oh my GOD how could any Arkansan vote for her?? Bill would never have been so politically stupid

Janus, is caving to political pressure and voting to support a war that you would later criticize and seek to end without conclusion being easily led? I think it is. Looks like Obama is the only candidate in the race who didn't fall for Bush's lies.

"Janus, is caving to political pressure and voting to support a war that you would later criticize and seek to end without conclusion being easily led? I think it is. Looks like Obama is the only candidate in the race who didn't fall for Bush's lies."

Posted by: USsphinx

You fit your namesake; like the sphinx, you have no brain. You have no idea how I stand on the Iraq war, e.g. you can offer no comment because you know not what you speak. It is a far cry for an obscure state senator in Illinois pronouncing a position on a war [as did thousands of citizens in the run up and subsequent to the US Senate vote] and the US Senators with the solumm responsibility to maintain the security of the nation. HIs position came with no responsibility, hers did. With only slightly more than a year's time having elapsed since 9/11 and with the cooked data to rely on [remember, the country had not come to realize the evil bastards in the White House were just that] that decision was neither surprising or unique.
What Obama is doing now to you, however, is quite clear. He is touting his meaningless stand against the war to garner votes from the young and left wing. But he most assuredly knows that with the responbility of the Presidency should he win it, he cannot pull our troops out in 6 months or a year. As much as I would like to see the carnage end, as Colin Powell said in the lead up to the war - if we break it, it's ours. Damn we broke it and it will be ours for a long long time.