Arkansas Blog

Ability to remain focused is the leadership this country desperately needs!

Hiliary has withstood arelentless Anti-Hiliary hate barrage orchestrated by the national media, the national hate Hiliary cartoonist, FOX news and Hate America right wing radio ous, relentless attacks against her husband and her for standing by her man (like all the religious people preach) etc. Yet she has remained focused throughout -- Isn't this what we need occupying the Oval Office.

Just think if old thin skinned Bush had remained focused on the economy, foreign diplomacy, and leadership instead of spending countless money time and energy destroying every one like the Dixie Chick who had guts to speak anti-Bush truth this country wouldn't be in the disastrous state we find ourselves in.

Focus by the way is both McCain's and Obama's weakest link and their supporters weakest link is not realizing that fact.

There are happenings that someone should be held accountable for but probably never will like....

President Clinton gets a BJ and gets impeached but Bush lies and gets 4000 soldiers killed, and destabilizes the entire far east and destroys America's morality and the Media doesn't even criticize! Perhaps if we can get him a BJ we can get him impeached.

"...Just think if old thin skinned Bush had remained focused on the economy, foreign diplomacy, and leadership instead of spending countless money time and energy destroying every one like the Dixie Chick who had guts to speak anti-Bush truth this country wouldn't be in the disastrous state we find ourselves in..."--BWC

I don't know, BWC, Monkeyboy and his cohorts have proven themselves to be such disastrous incompetents that perhaps we were lucky his attention was elsewhere. Just imagine if he'd concentrated on the economy like he did Iraq. I knew from the beginning I wasn't going to like nor respect this presidency; but I never imagined its depth of incompetency...everything they've touched, they've screwed up. (Heck, they've even got North Korea working with Canada to mess with our election.)

What country western nuts did and are still doing to the Dixie Chicks will forever taint my view of country music.

Even if I wanted to be president, I'd hate to have to clean up after this gang.

Clinton stayed focused throughout? LOL delusional...
So 'focused' she can't really pull out a caucus win.
So 'focused' to lose 12 out of 15 contests since super Tuesday and call herself 'in the race'.
So 'focused' to inject racism and sexism into the race when no other candidate has.
So 'focused' to let her super delegates jump ship to Obama in droves.
So 'focused' it moved her to crocodile tears in NH at the prospect of losing.
So 'focused' the can change the 'focus' of her campaign over and over and no one notices.
So 'focused' on the "goal post" that the MSM gladly allows her to keep moving them.
So 'focused' on distracting the people from the fact she actually lost texas in the scheem of the race, by claiming that somehow this yea it was the 'popular vote' in Texas that determines the winner... something contrary to just about every election in this country. Yet people buy it....

She is focused all right...
Focused on manipulation and deception.

That's what we have now.. I'm sick of deception... I'm sick of Bush.. I don't want someone in the whitehouse that was part of enabling the largest foreign policy blunder of my lifetime by agreeing with bush to go to war with Iraq. Hillary won't stand up for what's right. She will stand up for what suits her best at a certain time. ENOUGH!

America Blog today has a fascinating commentary on a Hilary staffer's comment yesterday that Obama is winning only in latte-sipping, boutique states that care about "feelings."

As John Aravosis points out on this blog posting (www.americablog.com), there's more than a little hint here of gay-bashing. Manly men go for Hilary.

Anybody recall precisely this argument being made after Bush got elected--in precisely the same terms--in the DOG, by that esteemed political scientist from Lyon University, Bradley R. Gitz? You know, the one who occupies the William Jefferson Clinton Chair of Political Science there....

Amazing, isn't it, that we've come this far down the road chronologically, only to find we've gotten nowhere in terms of those slimy subtextual gay-bashing arguments--and even more amazing that it's now some Democrats using those slimy subtextual arguments against other Democrats?

This argument that Hillary is winning the states that Dems win in presidential elections and Obama wins "insignificant" states is just ludicrous. Everybody knows that Obabma will win the states that the Dems normally win in the general election. The Clinton campaign keeps suggesting that Obama would lose states like NY or MA or CA in the fall just because he didn't win their primaries. Complete Bull doo-doo. Everybody knows that's silly.

In fact, what is impressive about Obama is that he CAN do better in the red states. Not that he can necessarily win them, but be closer. The popular vote doesn't matter in the general election, electoral votes are what matters. But, the popular vote does matter when the press arbitrarily decides whether or not a president has any political mandate. And, staying close in red states and getting all those extra votes combined with the traditionally big Democratic wins in blue states could give Obama an impressive popular vote margin that Hillary would never get.

And lets not forget that Democrats run for office in those red states too. Picking off a couple of house seats or picking up a governor seat or closing the gap in some state legislatures would certainly help the Democratic cause even more. Again this is something Hillary cannot do. Dems running in red states will be on their own should Hillary be the nominee.

Also, more to Brummett's point point about Texas, just as the general election is about electoral votes and not the popular vote, the Democratic primary is about delegates and not the popular vote. It's odd that somebody who has never been part of a presidential campaign could understand that so much better than "Ms. I have all this experience and I'm ready on day one."

I blogged the other day that I'm highly suspicious of all these new things popping up that I've never heard of before. Signing statements? 60 vote hurdles? Now we see 2 elections for the same candidates on the same day in Texas? What the hell?

I've never had my cervix scraped and I've never attended a caucus. Since Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. seems to win every caucus and Hillary Rodham Clinton seems to lose every caucus, I'm mighty suspicious of caucuses. And I'd be the same if Hillary won every one of them too.

So would someone kindly explain why the state of Texas had a primary AND a caucus? And wouldst you tell me which one counts the most? And wouldst you tell me if a caucus is so wonderful, why did it take a week to figure out who won the damn thing? I've always got my butt chewed when I suggested to my wife that I really needed 2 wives to make life click. So tell me...why do we need a primary AND a caucus? I spend every waking moment these days feeling wool being pulled over my eyes....and I'm sick of it!

I will say this about the caucus process.. it's not a private vote. Which seems to me like folks can't look each other in the eye and support Clinton with a clean conscious. They can't produce sound arguments with solid facts to back up their reasoning in trying to sway a room full of fellow Dems back into the DLC Clinton quagmire.. at least not in winning numbers. And that along with my hot cup of coffee this morning gives me a little hope for a better president and a better set of Dems in congress.

On another related note: The Pollster poll results are in on all 50 states http://www.pollster.com/blogs/surveyusas_50_states_with_samp.php

Every person who has the electable issue running around in their head needs to consider its findings.. Looks to me like Hillary might or might not squeeze through by a couple of points in a time when any decent Dem should be leading and prepared for a landslide Nov. victory like Barack..

Most of the South will follow its racist fearful historical (New word: chasvanistic) leanings but the rest of the country and some traditional red states will go Obama... The potential swing red states will not do the same for Clinton... nor should they.

The Democratic Good Old Boys club has too much invested in Hillary to ever think about the future of America with unbiased eyes. They're unable to not support a Clinton for president (pardon the double negative).

Their attempt to preemptively crown HRC queen failed because they did not realize that the number of people who dislike their candidate is significantly larger than the number of people of people in their D.C. establishment club. I'm not saying that's good or bad - it's simply a fact.

(And Hillary's latest scorched-earth strategy only adds fuel to the fire.)

Conversely, the number of people who like Obama is even greater than the number of people who don't like Hillary. That's his ticket to winning the election.

That's why you see people like Rush Limbaugh actively encouraging Republicans to cross over and vote for Hillary in the primaries - and why you see independent-minded Republicans who are ready for a change voting for Obama.

As Eureka Springs points out, a Hillary / McCain race will be close and could go either way. An Obama / McCain race will be a landslide victory for change.

"it's simply a fact." by: The Levee

ROTFLMAO

Jesus Happy Christ, you can find an article to support any outrageous claims. FACTS who needs stinking FACTS!

Nice one, Eureka--the new word, that is. I wanted you to know that at least this reader (and, I'm sure, many others) caught it and found it brilliant.

Maybe in some fantasy world everyone loves Hillary, but here in reality land the only politician with higher negatives is G.W. Bush.

An addiction to Hillary, like an addiction to anything, blinds one to the downsides of what they're doing. While being drunk and driving might kill a few people, being addicted to Hillary driving the country is a hell of a lot more dangerous.

ARK. BLOG: Listen, I know plenty of people don't like HIllary. But open your eyes. She got 70 percent of the vote in Arkansas. She won Texas by four points, a very comfortable margin in politics and horse shoes. Whoever is the nominee, those folks will be needed to win in November. What's gained by insulting all those voters? There's some evidence of addictive behavior in all camps.

"...Their attempt to preemptively crown HRC queen failed because they did not realize that the number of people who dislike their candidate is significantly larger than the number of people of people in their D.C. establishment club. I'm not saying that's good or bad - it's simply a fact.

(And Hillary's latest scorched-earth strategy only adds fuel to the fire.)

Conversely, the number of people who like Obama is even greater than the number of people who don't like Hillary. That's his ticket to winning the election..."--levee

Sheesh...I guess we've finally reached the point where every opinion is a fact. Well...it's a fact that regardless of who the candidate is the race will be close because the country is pretty much evenly divided, and NO REPUBLICAN is crossing over to vote for Hillary or Obama. (They're playing games with the Dems.) And, it's a fact that Limbaugh is full of partisan shit. Hell, he couldn't even stop Eternal War McCain...so using him to discredit Hillary is, well, ironic.

As far as Hillary having a 'scorched earth policy'...good for her...'cause it's going to take lots of flame throwing to defeat the Republican Machine this fall. Obama needs to toughen up and get in the fight...'cause the Republicans won't be nearly as nice as Hillary's been.

Hillary saying she is qualified to be president because of her "experience" is the same as saying Dennis Thatcher is qualified to be prime minister because of his "experience."

"NO REPUBLICAN is crossing over to vote for Hillary or Obama"

Not even one? I think we could find a couple. I know two or three myself. Oh well, regardless of that, there are plenty of Dems who will cross over to vote against Hillary. If you don't believe it, hide and watch.

How can you say you're a Democrat and applaud "The terrorists are going to kill our children while they sleep!" swiftboating? Regardless of your party affiliation, the ONLY reason to endorse Republican talking points is to get a Republican elected. The attitude seems to be that if Hillary can't have it, then neither can Obama.

"Correct. Also not quite so meaningful as the Obamaists want you to believe." -Max

"The Obama Texas alibi carries a certain degree of irony for the new-style politician. Ignore the will of the people, his supporters say." -Max

You are so full of shit. You're like a senile old grandpa. "Oh, beware of those cheeky Obamaists, sir, they're up to no good, I say! They hate us for our freedom."

"Obama has won primary votes in states with a total of 193 electoral votes; Clinton has won 229."-Max

OH MY GOD YOU'RE ON TO SOMETHING, MAX! THE ELECTION SHOULD BE DECIDED ON WHO WON THE MOST PRIMARIES!

P.S. I had no idea that Obama won the delegate count in TX, and I've been glued to the internet and TV. The only thing I'd noticed is that Clinton won TX. (So, I'm actually glad that you're informing Clintonistas on this fact too, who probably wouldn't have known otherwise. Go Obama!)

P.P.S. If the tables were turned, and Clinton and Obama switched places, would you be making these arguments? It's extremely valid, because otherwise it just shows you're a hack. Maybe that's all you are.

P.P.S. Obama's won, even if you disregard the DNC rules and reinstate FL and MI elections. MI will overwhelmingly go to Obama just as it did to Jesse Jackson in '88.

ARK. BLOG: It continues to amuse me that the candidate who professes the politics of consensus and a new day when partisan bickering will be a thing of the past is supported by so many pleasant folks like you.

As fate would have it, I came across this on the New York Times. Can you imagine McCain saying that Hillary would be better qualified than Giuliani? No? Then why is Hillary not only allowed to get away with it, but even applauded and urged to do more of it? Good God, the party would be better off if her supporters moved to the (R) side -- but wait, they're already there!

"More serious was Senator Clinton's assertion that she was qualified to be commander in chief, and that John McCain had also "certainly" crossed that "threshold," but that the jury was still out on Mr. Obama.

In other words, if a choice on national security had to be made today between Senators Obama and McCain, voters - according to Mrs. Clinton's logic - should choose Senator McCain.

That is a low thing for a Democratic presidential candidate to do to a rival in a party primary. Can you imagine John McCain saying that Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney or even the guitar-strumming Mike Huckabee might be less qualified than Hillary Clinton to be commander in chief? It couldn't happen. "

JD.......I truly hope that in your college courses someday a professor will teach you something about being able to disagree without being disagreeable. Your personal attacks on Max are really, really out of line and boring, Remember....opinions are like assholes....everyone has one, and they all smell bad. Chill out dude, you're becoming very annoying. That said, your enthusiasm in the political process is to be admired, and I applaud your devotion to Obama it is encourging to me to see your involvement (even tho' I still support Hillary) but, please tone it down a little, calling people you disagree with names is very juvenile, and does your cause no good.

Use facts, not opinions, to back up your arguments, and not name calling, and yes the same could be said for some others on this blog.

Well...another argument for writing specificity...of course, levee, there may be a handful of Dems who'll vote for McCain 'cause of their distaste for either Hillary or Obama. But...there will be no mass migration of Republicans to the Democratic side. And counting on such a phenomena is, well, Republican-arranged, pie-in-the-sky thinking. Besides, I'd rather place my bets with my fellow Democrats rather than with a Party that birthed Monkeyboy and used every dirty trick in the book to steal the last two presidential elections.

As I said earlier, levee, Hillary was wrong to make such statements about McCain. It's Hillary or Obama...period. Eternal War McCain is not an option. I 'think' (otherwise known as my opinion) Hillary was saying that 'this' kind of experience is what the Republicans will use against Obama...should he be the nominee. But, regardless...she stuck her foot in it and needs to dig it out.

americans have demonstrated time and again, a preference for POTUS candidates that present themselves as "tough" rather than "thoughtful"

(the "thinkers" almost always get weeded out in the primaries... bruce babbitt, jack kemp, bradley, biden, etc.)

why do you think HRC has spent so much of her time (and votes) in office building up her credentials on "Defense" issues?

"You are so full of shit. You're like a senile old grandpa."

by: JD

Uh-Oh...somebody's last nerve got crossed! Crank-it-up JD!
HEY, you kiss your mama with that mouth JD?

"Hillary saying she is qualified to be president because of her "experience" is the same as saying Dennis Thatcher is qualified to be prime minister because of his "experience."

by: Polecat

UH, never mind being politically active all your life...just who is qualified to be president...someone with a proven record and a White House resume...you gotta have more qualifiers under your belt than Obama's speeches 'eh? ;-)
Hey, that's it, let's change the rules...one term for 6 yrs. with Bill 'as Co-Prez'...to make it a smooth transition for the new leader and avoid the pitfalls of being a newbie! Kinda like Darth Cheney in picking the best V.P. for the GOP!!!!

Obama can't win the presidency..."it's simply a fact."

"Ignore the will of the people, his supporters say. (And Clinton's edge in voting was clear and comfortable.) Instead, gaming the system is to be exalted."

This statement of criticism is fair and seems to be consistent with Max's general philosophy. However, it seems to be inconsistent with his recent defense of the superdelegates' ability to overrule the will of the national voters.

This inconsistency is what I have found to be so disappointing about Max's coverage, wich I usually enjoy immensely. He seems to start with the position of what would be best for his favored candidate and then work backwards from there to find justifications for it.

ARK. BLOG: I"m as inconsistent as anyone, but not here. I don't dispute the rules that gives Obama the delegate edge. I just dispute the importance in evaluating the strength of the candidate. The super delegates, should they choose to ignore the leader in pledged delegates will not be overruling anything. They will be exercising the power granted them in the rules -- a power granted by party rulemakers with the notion of leaving in the hands of experienced politicians the decision when there's a close call on who might be the party's best candidate. I'm not arguing for the wisdom of that rule -- merely stating that it IS the rule.

I really love it when all of the Obamaists have "chills run up their legs" as Chris Matthews of MSNBC recently said after hearing Obama speak. Now, they are trying to spin the Texas 2-Step caucus deal in their favor. Give me a break!

And another thing...when did we quit adhering to the "one man, one vote" principal? It seems as if some of the delegates in Texas were awarded based on a system giving certain senate districts a weighted count based on past election results. Of course, those districts all leaned heavily toward Obama.

I also agree with Charles Eddie, JD is beginning to wear quite thin on most of us. Anyone who has to result to name=calling has already lost the battle.

CHASVANISTIC. Eureka Springs has coined the best term of the new millenium. (Bet old Chasv hasn't caught on yet...don't worry, though. He'll arouse out of his deluded nightmares to raise hell at some point in the future...probably to tell us all how McCain is the "messiah in the flesh" and that all of us who don't see eye-to-eye with him on that are headed to eternal damnation along with the 'queers and baby-killers' that are running rampant all over Arkansas.

The snow yesterday was beautiful, but the sun is shining brightly today...just as it will continue to do as we anxiously await to see the new day dawning with a coming Democratic administration in DC....

Is that old (ok, not real old) band Mule Head still in LR? They could do up a little theme song about Chavanism.. When AR bloggers get together we could all wear anti chasvanistic t-shirts..)

JD, Sir, you need to apologize to Max.

Ok, I agree my comment was outta line. I won't do it again. I wouldn't ever argue this way in person, just as Max wouldn't use his equally divisive terms and specious claims. The Internet emboldens the worst in us.

But let's take a step back if we can and get over the indignation at my language (which again, I regret saying): Max's coverage of the Obama-Clinton race has been awfully one sided.

Yes--it's an opinion journal, as Max noted. But that doesn't validate opinions that imbibe absolutely no objective analysis of the campaign. To me, there are different level of opinions with varying levels of validity depending on how supported those opinions are by fact. There's a substantive difference between New York Times opinion and Bob's Online Xanga Web Blog opinion. One's usually well supported; the other is sheer hackery, some guy saying what he thinks based solely on his gut.

When only screwups by the Obama campaign are shown (e.g. the Samantha Powers fumble) despite far more numerous instances of the same type of screwup in the Clinton campaign, it's tantamount sheer hackery. It says, "that's wrong!"--but only when Obama does it. It's akin to the Bush campaign tearing apart Kerry's Vietnam War record despite the fact that their candidate was AWOL from the national guard.

(That's not to say Clinton supporters don't have good reasons for supporting her. I'm sure all the Clinton supporters here have substantive, experience-based reasons for supporting her.)

Further, I would argue that if we look back into the Arkansas Blog history, we can see how this divisive tone was set by the Arkansas Blog (I'm thinking of a specific entry) and specific Clinton supporters. I took the bait, took part in it, and helped it fester (at times--but I'd say I used a lot of facts as well).

That said, I crossed the line with my last post. My bad.

Blue Eyes, Squeaky Chris Matthews must know whereof he speaks, when he talks about those chills running up the legs.

He's exhibited those leg chills time and again in talking about Mr. Bush. When Bush landed on that big boat a few years ago to tell us we had won his war, Mr. Matthews gushes, "And that's the president looking very much like a jet, you know, a high-flying jet star. A guy who is a jet pilot."

Mr. Matthews also regaled us with the following description of Mr. Bush emerging from the plane in his crotch-enhanced uniform, "He looks great in a military uniform. He looks great in that cowboy costume he wears when he goes West."

And it's apparently not just W who gives Mr. Matthews the chills. He even had the following to say about Fred Thompson--yep, that Fred!--during that poor old soul's attempt to run for president:

"Can you smell the English leather on this guy, the Aqua Velva, the sort of mature man's shaving cream, or whatever, you know, after he shaved? Do you smell that sort of -- a little bit of cigar smoke? You know, whatever."

Yeah, I think Mr. Matthews is quite the authority on leg chills, and has been since he crowed, following Mr. Bush's last election, that we the people had elected us a real man for president, rather than (the implication was) one of those latte-sipping girlie men like John Kerry. Reckon Mr. Matthews and Mr. Gitz had them a cigar together to celebrate Bush's victory? I like to imagine so, as I splash on a bit of English Leather.

"...The Internet emboldens the worst in us...--JD

Speak for yourself, JD, I, like max/others, don't have an online personality versus a in-person one. I won't say anything online (or behind someone's back) that I wouldn't say to their face...it's simple and livable. I do, however, sometimes speak too quickly without gathering ALL the pertinent facts...but I'm working on that one...constantly.

Journalists can't objectively cover people they're close to or that they socialize with. It's human nature...how many of us could write something negative/critical about our friends/loved ones? So when a President chums up with Mathews et al at the White House Christmas bash or on Air Force One, he's got reasons other than wanting be their buddy. As for the reporters...some probably think they can maintain some kind of 'objectivity'...and some are just happy with their fat paychecks and closeness to fame. On the other hand, if a reporter gets too critical the White House just withholds all those interviews and access that their job depends on.

Mathews is sickening...but he ain't going anywhere.

Sickening is definitely the word for Chris Matthews, zelda.

And given his glowing endorsements of McCain, one has to wonder what's going on when he talks about those chills in his legs with Obama. I sniff more than a whiff here of the gay-baiting insinuations about those supporting Obama in places where manly men rule the roost.

It's time to make this despicable, shoddy kind of insinuation past tense in American political discourse--or what passes for discourse nowadays in our political sphere.

As someone called blueness wrote in to Daily Kos back on Feb. 13 to say re: Matthew's chills remark,

"As an Obama supporter, I do not want Matthews messing with my man. Hunter S. Thompson once famously observed that he shared nothing in common with Richard Nixon but a love for football. And, learning that Nixon too enjoyed football, caused Thompson to engage in an 'agonizing reappraisal' of his own abiding affection for the sport.

So, please, Tweety, can't you manage to confine your manly leg quiverings to John McCain, whom you previously described as 'kind of like Martin Luther,' 'a solo pilot out there'? You've already professed your affection for the 'cut of [his] jib,' declared absolutely that McCain 'deserves the presidency.'''

As sickening as Tweety Matthews is that subtle but oh so clear gay-baiting subtext of Hilary supporters in Arkansas right now. When I look at who this tactic puts Hilary's friends in bed with, I'm really ashamed for my party and my state.

Zelda, I strongly disagree. I think it's clear the tone of the discussion would have a very different tone if in person, for everyone.

As for Doug Thompson's article:

"Their [black Democrats] resolve grows every time Clinton claims greater experience. Too many blacks have been passed over for a job or promotion because of somebody's 'experience,' or know someone who has." -DT

That's just a weak argument based on too many loose assumptions. I checked to see if Thompson is black when I read this line, but it appears he's a white dude. So, does Mr. Thompson truly believe that black people have more resolve when Clinton talks about her experience? What evidence does he have to support this opinion? It's absurd.

"The party kicked out those two big pro-Clinton states for violating rules."- DT

I could certainly see Florida as a pro-Clinton state, but what evidence does DT have for Michigan? An election where only Clinton was on the ballot? What does he make of the fact that Jesse Jackson won 55% of the vote there in 1988, largely because of the black Democrats?

"The assumption's been among Democrats that the same voters will support either candidate in November. Run that theory past Ohio's real-world primary results." -DT

This claim doesn't make any sense at all. Of course the voters had to choose between Hillary and Obama--the choices are disjoint. How does this disprove those voters would vote for Obama in the general election.? In fact, if Thompson wanted to, he could have easily cited the statistics in say, Virginia or Wisconsin, that show Obama winning those exact same demographics as in Ohio. In that case, it would support the assumption that yes, those demographics will tend to support either Hillary or Obama in the general election.

And here's a further issue with DT's essay: he completely ignored the SurveyUSA poll. (Maybe Thompson was low on space; maybe it just makes for an easier article to assume the survey never existed.) Now, I'm guessing he's seen it if he decided to write an article on the issue, or if he reads the Arkansas Blog. In those surveys, Obama wins the same stalwart Democrat states (like CA and NY), plus a few more. He ends up with more electoral delegates than Clinton.

I'd say his only legitimate point is the caucuses vs. primaries.

But still, I found this a bit strange:

"Every 1,407 people who showed up for the Idaho caucus earned their candidate a pledged delegate. The same result in New Jersey required more than 10,000 votes.

Unpledged delegates should fall in line with pledged delegates: By that principle, a few backpackers in Idaho matter more than most of the voting Democrats of New Jersey."-DT

So, by the same token, the superdelegates should therefore overthrow (and "matter more") the delegate count, simply because different states allocated votes to delegates in different proportions depending on how many people actually voted in those states vs. it's amount of delegates. Also, Thompson was very selective because the same sort of "comparative analysis " could have pitted the Nevada caucus against the Illinois primary. Nevertheless, Obama's winning not only the delegate count, but the popular vote too; so, in either approach, Obama wins--whether purely by delegates or popular vote.

"The last thing Obama should do is talk about the "inevitability" of a pledged delegate lead.

Look what inevitability did for Hillary Clinton."-DT

It's certainly not inevitable, but if Clinton needs to win by +23% of every remaining state to overcome Obama's lead...I'd say it's damn well near inevitable.

"As sickening as Tweety Matthews is that subtle but oh so clear gay-baiting subtext of Hilary supporters in Arkansas right now. When I look at who this tactic puts Hilary's friends in bed with, I'm really ashamed for my party and my state."

by: MuddlingThrough

Not being flip, maybe naive, but can you clarify the gay-baiting Hillary supporters statement. I swear I have no idea.

Thanks for the response, Max. I agree that, by the current rules, the superdelegates are free to support whichever candidate they see fit. I've just been surprised that you haven't criticized that system. I would have expected a scathing indictment of a process that would allow party insiders or "fat cats" (I told you I enjoy your writing) to select a candidate who received fewer votes than another candidate. I can't help but wonder if the vote totals were reversed if you would be more critical of the system.

ARK. BLOG: What's the point in complaining? And I wouldn't count chickens on vote totals -- if you mean popular vote -- just yet. In any case, I thought Ferraro made a pretty good explanation of why the party held back some delegates in the event of strange outcomes in the primaries. Remember, too, that this is a party event, not a government event. I don't like the caucuses much either, speaking of the rules. They tend to favor the economically better situated over working class stiffs, but they, too, are the product of the wisdom of party leaders in various states. I just think these are all things to be taken into account. I guess we'll never know what I'd say if the vote totals were reversed. I'd probably do as Obama is doing. Emphasizing my positives and my opponent's negatives. That's the political process, isn't it?

Bejeesus, you ask, "Not being flip, maybe naive, but can you clarify the gay-baiting Hillary supporters statement. I swear I have no idea."

Here's one sample from the recent Feb. 28 "Today I Am An Obamaist" thread here on AR Times blog, which focused on Obama's statement about equality for gay Americans being a moral imperative:

"I have always thought that Obama was shallow on issues. Now, I think he is stupid, politically that is. I am a life-long democrat that will now be voting for McCain, unless Hillary wins the nomination."

I should add, bejeesus, that the comment I just posted is one of the overt statements by a Hilary supporter in Arkansas rejecting Obama precisely because of his stand on gay rights. There have been many other covert statements on various threads here, suggesting that Democrats preferring Obama over Hilary are weak in the knees because they've gone gay for Obama.

Thanks, for that, MuddlingThrough,

I guess I need to pay more attention.

I was under the impression that most on this blog (that post regularly) were supportive of gays and just want the Republicans out and a Democrat in the White House...and save our country.

I've been accused of being to cryptic in what I write...but I understand perfectly what I say! ;-)

I don't like caucuses because the bullies can push others into voting the way they want them to, the people that don't work 9 to 5 jobs are often cut out of the mix because of job or family obligations, and it isn't a private vote. All those things lead to the young males dominating caucuses. That is why Obama does so much better in caucuses, he has the young well off males pushing everyone around for him.

Doesn't seem like democracy to me at all! In fact, it seems like more of the domination by males, ESPECIALLY white males who more often HAVE those 9 to 5 jobs.