Arkansas Blog

And they will all be seated at the convention despite the "rules."

It's amazing how many people are still clueless about this. Oil prices should be about $70 a barrel right now. Click on my name to read about an "investigation of oil trading by the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission."

Speculation is Driving Oil Prices
OPEC, OIL, ENERGY, COMMODITIES
By Reuters| 21 May 2008 | 05:24 AM ET
Record-high crude prices have nothing to do with supply and demand but rather are caused by speculation and a weak dollar, OPEC Secretary General Abdullah al-Badri said on Tuesday.

World leaders have hounded OPEC to pump more as prices hurtle towards $130 per barrel, but Badri said the organization would not act on production levels until it was warranted by market fundamentals.

"There is a lot of oil in the market, stocks are very high, about 53 days forward," he said in an interview with Reuters during a visit to OPEC founding member Venezuela. "We are worried because these prices have nothing to do with supply and demand."

U.S. crude rose to a new record above $129 a barrel earlier on Wednesday.

The International Energy Agency on May 13 reported that oil stockpiles in OECD countries equaled 53.3 days of demand in March, at the same time revising down its forecast for world oil demand growth in 2008 because of record prices and slower economic growth.

Badri warned prices could keep rising due to non-market factors such as a continued decline in the dollar, but said the organization sees no reason to hold an extraordinary meeting before the next one scheduled for September.

Oil prices topping $129 per barrel have sparked anger from consumer nations that have accused OPEC of gouging, but Badri said the boom in oil prices has lifted commodities prices across the board, which has made it more expensive to pump oil.

"I'm not an advocate of high oil prices," he said, adding that the situation "is not a bonanza for us" because higher prices for commodities ranging from food to steel have created new expenses for producer nations.

"If you want to produce more oil now, you have to pay more," he said.

Asked if OPEC was considering moving away from the plummeting dollar as a way of stabilizing energy markets, Badri said: "It's not something that happens overnight to move from currency to currency, every country has its own policy."

Angry Consumers

The United States House of Representatives passed legislation on Tuesday allowing the U.S. to sue OPEC members for working to set crude prices - though the White House has threatened to veto the measure.

"It's their policy and I'm not going to challenge it, but I think this is not the way to handle any problem, problems should be solved with dialogue" he said. "You cannot go and just blame OPEC or try to abolish OPEC."

An OPEC decision to raise output could help ease the price rally, which energy analysts say has been fuelled largely by resilient world energy demand even as the United States economy slows.

Badri's visit to Venezuela comes amid continued disputes over the South American nation's oil production figures.

Official statistics show output close to 3.1 million barrels per day (bpd), but agencies such as the U.S. Department of Energy say production is only around 2.5 million bpd.

Badri said he met with Venezuelan Energy Minister Rafael Ramirez to discuss the issue.

"For us the principal information we get is from Venezuela," he said, referring to official production figures. "But when we look at secondary sources they say something different. We are working together to see how we can solve this problem."

In the last five years, investment in index funds tied to commodities has grown from $13 billion to $260 billion, and the price of the 25 commodities that compose those indices have jumped 183 percent, according to congressional testimony from Michael Masters, managing member of the Virgin Islands-based hedge fund Masters Capital Management.

Masters dubs the pension and other investors as "index speculators." He estimates that in the first 52 trading days of this year, they flooded the market with $55 billion - in a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts since the more money they put in, the more prices rise.

Research from Lehman Brothers supports that view. Performance of commodity indices can strongly predict inflows to those indices, which suggests there is a "significant amount of momentum chasing" going on, Lehman's chief energy economist Edward Morse said. Inflows are also higher when traditional asset classes like equities underperform or the dollar is weak.

Masters cites data showing annual Chinese demand for petroleum, based on government figures, has increased over the last five years by 920 million barrels; over the same time frame, the increase in demand for petroleum futures almost equals that at 848 million barrels.

"Individually, these participants are not acting with malicious intent," Masters said in his May 20 testimony. "Collectively, however, their impact reaches into the wallets of every American consumer."

Somehow I missed that it was concluded that no delegates from Michigan or Florida would be seated. Somehow my tv has been reporting for weeks that delegates would no doubt be seated but with reduced voting stength, probably at half a vote. And dog gone, my tv is still reporting that even today. Even as the Rules Committee chair is saying the 100% vote from those delegations is not on the table as a possible solution. Must be a bad connection, huh?

ARK. BLOG: In the last few weeks, the press suddenly woke up to the fact that there was a process for seating the delegates. But for months, the count for "victory" had always excluded those states and, trust me, commentator after commentator intoned tirelessly and tiresomely that "rules are rules" "these states broke the rules" "their votes cannot be counted." Etc. Correction: a 100 percent vote WAS on the table. It was defeated. Fairly close in the case of Florida.

Sounds like a fun time was had at the pro-Hillary protest up there. "Liberal Dem" (allegedly) would have found some soulmates. Click on name for an on the scene report.

Liberal Dem: Your aritcle is exactly correct about the speculation in the oil market. Back in the mid '70's, the same thing happened in the soybean markets. And under a Repub. Pres, the SEC came in and said no one but hedgers would be allowed to trade soybeans. The prices immed dropped $3 a bush. and the crisis was over. Do you think Bush has the guts to do such a thing? I don't either.

So what are we loooking for, some kind of missouri compromise? 3/5 of who?

WOW. BEEN WATCHING THE FIASCO MEETING FOR THE DNC RULES COMMITTEE. NOW , YOU DONT HAVE TO BE STUPID TO SEE WHAT A MESS THIS COUNTRY WILL BE IN, IF THESE BOZOS ARE VOTED IN. THEY WONT EVEN GIVE THEIR OWN PARTY MEMBERS THE VOTE THEY VOTED. GIVE ME A BREAK.
THIS IS A DISGRACE. REMINDS ME OF WHY I CHANGED PARTIES LONG AGO., OOOOOHHH THE NIGHTMARES. AND THEY CALL PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH STUPID. HE IS LIGHT YEARS SMARTER THAN THIS SCREWY BUNCH.
LORD HELP US.
THIS IS TOTALLY INSANE. RAISE MILLIONS IN CONTRIBUTIONS, GET THEM TO VOTE, AND DONT COUNT IT. WAY TO GO DUMBOCRATS. YOU HAVE VAILIDATED EVERYTHING I KNEW WAS WRONG WITH THIS MINDSET. WE WANT YOU TO GIVE AND GIVE AND STUMP FOR, AND VOTE, UNTIL YOU HAVE NO MORE TO GIVE. THATS WHEN WE CUT YOU LOOSE, WOW,, SHOWIN YOUR ASSES BIG BOYS. AD NAUSEAM . DONT USE AN ID,,. LET YOUR DEMOS VOTE EARLY, AND OFTEN. AS THEY ALWAYS HAVE. CK OUT YOUR OLD OLD LOCAL CEMETERIES FOR YOUR CURRENT VOTER LIST. WHAT A WASTE OF GOOD PRIME TIME.
SALT AND PEPPER THAT , DBI AND YOUR FRUITCAKE MURTISHAW, WHAT ARE YOU ALL SMOKIN,. USE IT IN YOUR CARS AND SAVE THE GAS MONEY.

Have we just learned DBI's nom de guerre?

ARK. BLOG: Fairly close in the case of Florida. Max Brantley

Max, it required a 2/3 vote according to what I heard on TV, and the vote was 12 in favor and 15 opposed. So only 2/3 of the 18 votes (18 of 27) required to pass the motion were in hand, and it didn't even garner a simple majority of votes. I guess I don't call that 'fairly close' by my definition.

"Final thought: Think how much of the campaign was shaped and commentary influenced by the repeated assertions from Obama and his supporters that Florida and Michigan would not participate in the selection process."

Like I've said a million times, those delegates shouldn't be seated: a new election should have been held where both candidates get to campaign and be on the ballot.

Setting up the straw man.

There will be one hell of a fight in Denver now. The DNC is as stupid as ever.

"Like I've said a million times, those delegates shouldn't be seated: a new election should have been held where both candidates get to campaign and be on the ballot."

Yeah, and your man blocked those efforts in both states. Well, his supporter did the dirty work so he could claim he had no blood on his hands as usual.

There will be a huge price paid in November for it.

What I'd like to know is why the media for months told us that the RULES forbid the seating of ANY of the delegates from those two states. Why are we just now finding out that half could be seated according to the RULES. I even recall Mr. Dean going along with the whole bullshit none could be seated because of the RULES argument. Any particular reason why he either LIED or was IGNORANT of the DNC rules all these months?

Hillary was not helped today by the behavior of her supporters who showed up. Passing around fliers outside the meeting calling Obama a murderer and chanting "McCain!" inside the meeting is disgraceful. The fact that only this small band of extremists appeared today instead of the thousands of average Hillary supporters that was predicted tells me that most of Hillary's supporters have accepted their loss and are ready to defeat McCain in November.

nom de what? It must be bath day at the Zoo and Largeass bolted for the computer room. I who collect favorite names like Fleetwood Davenport, a real person, now very dead, do not know anyone named Murtishaw or Murti Shaw. What do this mean? Robertshaw was a maker of gas oven thermostats at one time I believe, Artie Shaw gave good music and saw Ava Gardner naked, so I loved him. The Murta family owned a furniture store in FS back when our brave boys were fighting the Hun in France in WWI. I give!

I am encouraged by Obama quitting his church. Now, if the rest of you Christers will quit going to church, maybe that scourge on mankind will fade away and peace will descend on the world. Now...will Hillary denounce her church and all religion? There may be hope for us yet!

As far as Florida and Michigan goes, I don't care......let it be settled...let us move on. I win no matter who our nominee is, him or her, I don't care. But I'll tell ya what's worrying me. Obama needs 64 to go over the top, Hillary needs 241 or something like that....there are 291 votes out there keeping their mouths shut....not a peep....not-a-peep!

What if....at the last moment 83% of those uncommitted delegates and super delegates come out for Hillary Clinton. She wins, Obama is snarfed and I'll be royally piss! This super delegate stuff is un-American! I will not be at all happy. But of course I'll go in November and vote for Hillary Clinton because nothing is more un-American that putting another Fk'ing Republican in the White House.

It's possible by the end of Tuesday night the whole process will be over....the 291 will let their votes be known and Obama will have won, fair and fairly square (I still don't like them caucuses!) and we can get on with naming Hillary as his running mate and I'll have my Dream Team and John McCain's ass will be grass. I want no last minute surprises! I want to hit the convention and unite the Party and start kicking some LargeAss like Republican butt and snatch my country back from the hands of the most foul. But boy........I do worry, I've about worn out my tired old murtishaw this year boys......whew!

An old yeller dog today told me that for the first time in his life he wouldn't be voting for president in November. Why? He said there was no way he would vote for Obama and he'd never vote for a Republican. The old yeller dog is on the Democratic State Committee and a county officer. He's been appointed to various boards by various governors. Obama supporters really don't get how they have screwed up 2008. All because Obama was too arrogant to wait 8 more years.

Emptywheel. who was there today.. summed it all up this way:

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
By: emptywheel Saturday May 31, 2008 4:12 pm [digg]
As a Michigan voter, the most important thing that happened today was the recognition--on the part of Mark Brewer and Carl Levin--that our January primary was not a real vote. That meant more to me as anything else that happened today--it was more important to me than the numbers that came out of the process.

The outcome makes me profoundly sad. But it was the least worst outcome.

The votes--in the end--were actually strong majorities. Democracy can be ugly. But as they say, it's the least worst process.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Maybe LR could take this to heart and smokers could have half a cigarette at a time when enjoying public parks..

Somehow this whole messy affair from the "unorganized" Roy Rodgers party.. is working out awfully close to the way it should.... most of all it's going the way of the will of the D voters.

I second dbi's sentiments in re the church departure.. Sounds like Obama might just be the most sincere president we have had in a long time when it comes to country and that oath of office first!

I'm glad to have Florida and Michigan settled, but I don't really understand the rationale for splitting it the way they did. The fact that everyone knew that the Florida vote wouldn't count (or thought they did) seems to me to cast serious doubt as to whether that vote reflected the true will of the people. While I have little doubt that Clinton would have won that vote, I don't see how one could statistically conclude she would have won by that margin. I have yet to hear any remotely reasonable explanation for using the results in Michigan as a basis for anything.

While I suppose it's good to try to make everyone feel included, it seems to me that the DNC has really lost a lot of its authority. If it ever again attempts to block an early election, the candidates will have to assume that someone will eventually decide not to abide by the rules and they will all have to campaign in those states anyway. Now, in an attempt to get the clout of Iowa, each state has every incentive to attempt to move its primary earlier than all of the others. What's to stop our next primary season from beginning in 2010?

Oil bubble could prove threat to pension funds
Fri May 30, 2008 2:33pm EDT

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Pension funds and other investors who rushed into oil through commodity indexes this year chasing big returns as other asset classes tanked could face steep losses if prices fall from record highs.

An avalanche of cash has rolled into commodities through simple long-only indexes this year, feeding the record-setting oil rally some experts say could be a bubble that is becoming more vulnerable to shifts in supply and demand fundamentals.

A sell-off in oil could spell big losses for the pension funds, municipal funds, college funds, unions and other groups that jumped out of equities-market plays and into the indexes, but have little experience or flexibility to deal with fundamental changes in commodities.

"A lot of the accounts that that have moved into commodities over the last 8-12 months clearly don't belong in this forum," said Peter Beutel, president of Cameron Hanover.

"It means that when this market turns, these people are going to get hurt, and they are going to get hurt badly, and there will be tons of lawsuits because they have no understanding how quickly commodities markets can turn and leave them in the dust," he explained.

While many in the energy sector, such as U.S. Energy Secretary Sam Bodman, argue that fundamentals are driving oil's rally, others say investment in commodity indexes has pushed prices beyond what supply and demand may justify, contributing to the 30 percent price rise over $130 per barrel this year.

"We are seeing the classic ingredients of an asset class bubble," said Edward Morse, chief energy economist for Lehman Brothers. "Financial investors tend to 'herd' and chase past performance, comforted by the growing analytical conclusion that markets are tightening, and new flows, in turn, drive prices higher."

Indexes such as the giant S&P GSCI and DJ-AIG offer investors a passive way to own a basket of commodities futures including oil, gasoline, metals and grains. Continued...

If, if, ol obama was to be elected they'd have to change the name from the white to black house.
I think he's gonna get less votes that ol Mondale did if he's the dem's pick.

If you missed W.'s strange behavior at the Air Force Academy graduation, click on Cato.

Former German official: "Us, Israel to launch military attacks agains Iran in 2008."

Click of Cato

Well if everyone can just hold off till January, Obama will go over and talk to them and everything will be fine.

Nobody cares what you think, chasv.

"...Like I've said a million times, those delegates shouldn't be seated: a new election should have been held where both candidates get to campaign and be on the ballot..."--JD

Yup...seems too simple/straightforward, though.

"If you missed W.'s strange behavior at the Air Force Academy graduation, click on Cato."--Cato

Every time I see that goober acting like a frat boy...I'm reminded that he is a frat boy...a petty, immature, daddy's boy who's stuck in a time long gone. And, since he never ponders the 'truths' he learned eons ago, there's not much chance he'll ever be anything else. But his wife seems friendly...and his girls are pretty. I like his dogs, too.

The Dot Com bubble will become the Oil Bubble shortly into the fall, if not late summer. Signs are already showing. Pump diesel was 4.73 for my H1 on Wednesday. Pump Diesel was 4.47 for my H1 on Thursday. Today, it was 4.33. Gimmie more. Of course, I am paying over a buck fifty more than this time last year for the same stuff. I guess it is all relative.

DBI, are you SURE you aren't Lard Ass? Opposites attract and all that.

As we begin to look ahead towards 4 years of McCain (his health won't allow 8 years), we need to focus more on who his VP nominee is. That is the person to fill out the last four to 5.5 years of the McCain era.

Oh yeah, OPEN UP ANWR, off the shore of Santa Barbara, and anywhere else where we have valid reservoirs. What the heck good is that stuff if it is not used? We have the capability of extracting it safely. Get the oil sands moving, get nuclear moving (not Bush's nucular, but real nuclear) and pull off the 5 million layers of regulation to the point we can do it in an economically feasible manner.

Get EPA to back off REGULATIONS and make fuel blends similar throughout the year. Screw California. If they want cleaner air, make THEIR gas cost what the pollution costs, don't penalize the rest of us for their sins. Add tax to the price of California gasoline and diesel, not to the price of production which costs us all. Califorinos don't mind paying $4+ anyway, so screw em, quoting Anthony Hopkins in Legends of the Fall.

When this bubble bursts, as it will, and things realign, all will be well once again. Well, a Repub will once again be in the White House, but that is no one's fault but....

Reminder:

Liberal Dem Looking Forward to 2012 = Republican Troll Trying To Screw 2008 Up

Or, quite possibly, I should have said "Califorinios" instead of "Californos." Who really cares anyway. DBI, did I even misspell Californios?

"...Like I've said a million times, those delegates shouldn't be seated: a new election should have been held where both candidates get to campaign and be on the ballot..."--JD

Both of them were on the ballot in FL so their votes should have been counted. Obama was the only candidate to run TV commercials in FL. The voters in FL are not stupid and they didn't need 30 second commercials to make up their minds. People shouldn't base their votes on 30 second commercials anyway.

In Michagan, even though Obama wasn't on the ballot, uncommitted was and those uncommitted delegates would have voted for him at the convention. It's wrong to disenfranchise an entire state (or half of it) over something that won't change the outcome anyway.

Levee you and people like you have done more to screw up 2008 than I could ever do. If you thought the non-stop Clinton hating for the past year wouldn't screw up 2008, you miscalculated. If Obama loses, he will have nobody to blame but himself and his supporters.

Al I have a feeling the VP's on both sides will be extremely important. There is a good chance that the next VP will become President before 2012.

chasv i didn't think there were that many dumb rednecks left to make comments like that in print anymore. no wonder the children still learn racism with people like you still around.

While I agree Zonker, they also learn racism from some churches and Democratic politics as well. Sad but true.

i have been a hillary supporter all the way, regardless screwing florida for a primary date set by a republican legislature and governor is very unfair. this is what they wanted and they are laughing their asses off tonite. why have the party leaders not been putting this in that term more? the michigan vote should have been redone. nobody told obama to take his name off the ballot. he knew he would lose big and wanted to look better by not being on the ballot at all. it worked for him. he will come out better in both states. whoever advised him did a very good job. the party is the one who is going to lose because there will be a lot of pissed off voters in both states who might vote for mccain. those states might mean the election again. the democrats have found so many ways to blow elections it is almost silly. i will stick with them because there is no viable alternative. a third party has no chance of winning. you can vote for their candidate to make a statement but it does nothing but have the effect of taking a vote away from a democrat and keeping the republican vote where it is. it won't hurt them, it will help them by depressing the democratic totals, sorry green party i agree with your principals but i hate the republicans too much to vote for you.

I for one think lib Dem is actually a Dem (although I don't know how liberal he is, supporting the hawkish Senator Clinton.) This is typical of Clinton supporters. Did you watch the proceedings today? Clinton's people started a chant of "McCain, McCain, McCain!" when the committee announced they weren't seating full delegations.

Actually I think lib Dem is probably Drew Pritt, given his posting behavior, but whatever. The point is, everyone calling him a Republican troll is probably uncomfortable with the donkey in the room. The one holding a McCain sign.

Just look at Max's continuous sour grapes. I know he'll vote Obama but I can tell he'll be holding his nose and probably secretly hoping for a McCain victory as well.

Proudster I'd rather be called a Republican than that.

It doesn't matter what I'm called though or what I or anyone says on here. Obama will not win. If he does, then I'll wish him the best and we'll find out how well he handles the serious problems we face.

Where in the rules does it allow for the Party to give delegates from Michigan to Obama? According to this, he was even given 4 of Clinton's. Boy...talking about stupid.

Harold Ickes and Tina Flournoy made the following statement:

Today's results are a victory for the people of Florida who will have a voice in selecting our Party's nominee and will see its delegates seated at our party's convention. The decision by the Rules and Bylaws Committee honors the votes that were cast by the people of Florida and allocates the delegates accordingly.

We strongly object to the Committee's decision to undercut its own rules in seating Michigan's delegates without reflecting the votes of the people of Michigan.

The Committee awarded to Senator Obama not only the delegates won by Uncommitted, but four of the delegates won by Senator Clinton. This decision violates the bedrock principles of our democracy and our Party.

We reserve the right to challenge this decision before the Credentials Committee and appeal for a fair allocation of Michigan's delegates that actually reflect the votes as they were cast.

Looks like it is over.

I'd hate to see McCain win, but I don't think Obama can win. Why must we always pick candidates that are the hardest to elect? If Obama had checked his ego, we could have had 8 years of the first female president followed by 8 years of the first black president. I'm afraid he have managed to ensure the election of yet another white male.

For those decrying caucuses (and I don't completely like them myself), I had to refresh my memory to confirm that Michigan was originally going to hold a caucus, not a primary, on February 9, 4 days after Super Tuesday.

Had Michigan stuck to their original schedule they might well have had a significant impact on voting later in February when Obama ran off a string of 11 consecutive primary and caucus wins.

They got too cute by half and paid exactly that price in the end.

So can the DNC actually award delegates from Michigan to someone not on the ballot and reallocate others? I don't know the rules, but that does seem over stepping. I thought the options were to seat half as elected or none at all. Why screw with the delegates like that if it won't make a difference to the outcome?

I hope after the 2008 nominating process is over that every Democrat can agree that caucuses must be banned. A party of inclusion can't allow people to be excluded from participating. Primaries allow all working people, disabled and seniors to opportunity to vote either in person or by absentee. Caucuses do not.

Poor Chasv hasn't been paying attention. It would more accurately be a black and white house. Stripes? Polka dots? A medium shade of gray? Or even more accurately, brown?
Funny thing. Growing up in the 50s and 60s in the segregated south, I went to school with white kids who were probably as dark as Barack Obama when we got back to school each fall. Those of us who only burned were so envious. Like I said, funny. In more ways than one.
In any case, I'm afraid Chasv may be right about far too many voters deciding another Republican idiot will be better than Obama. A sad state of affairs, but it certainly seems that way around here.
Well, unless he sprouts horns and a tail, I'm going to vote for him, albeit with some trepidation. That he is black doesn't bother me. His dearth of experience does, along with the use of the "change" mantra to the seeming exclusion of clear policy statements. (Of course, this latter may simply be a result of the usually lacking in substance news coverage I have seen.) I must also cast a gimlet eye toward his presumed obliviousness to the -- dare I say it? -- racist attitude of his now former pastor and his fellow churchgoers, an attitude I fear his wife may share.
I hope my concerns are groundless, both in terms of Obama, and in terms of the fall election.
It's going to be an interesting few months.

I'm really surpised at the racism that still exists on both sides. I'm really surprised at the subconcious sexism in this country. Then there is the strong homophobia even among Democrats. Both Obama and Clinton oppose equal rights for gay Americans so there is a lot of work to be done in all those areas.

I think most people will vote their pocketbooks as usual. Don't underestimate voters' ability to fall for the "I'll cut your taxes" promise though. If the oil bubble pops before November, McCain could win this. McCain has an advantage in the electoral college to begin with and I don't see how Obama could win Florida now.

No liberal Democrat would ever vote for McSame.

Ever.

Period.

I am voting for the Democratic nominee, period. And praying that God will strike down anybody who votes for a Republican for the next fifty years. I figure that's how long it will take the USA to recover from Bush-Cheney.

It is being reported that Obama had the votes for an even delegate split in Michigan, with the majority favoring the argument that the vote that was held was so flawed as to invalidate it as a basis for assigning delegates. However his campaign decided to accept the 69-59 delegate split in favor of Clinton that was supported by the Michigan Democratic Party instead, a solution which would prevail in the RBC committee by a larger margin though, I believe, resting on shakier ground going by the rule book than either the 64-64 or 73-55 proposals.

Practically it really doesn't matter. I fail to see the logic in Hillary fighting the credentials committee in Denver over 4 delegates that won't change anything.

"No liberal Democrat would ever vote for McSame."

I agree, but many Democrats will not support Obama nor vote for him.

Why not count all the delegates as awarded in those two states since it won't make any difference anyway? Is Obama still scared Hillary is somehow going to win? How stupid...or paranoid.

Lib Dem said "Obama supporters really don't get how they have screwed up 2008. All because Obama was too arrogant to wait 8 more years." and " If Obama loses, he will have nobody to blame but himself and his supporters."

Obama tested the waters like all the other candidates and found support and got votes when the primaries started. How is that arrogant? Hillary was more arrogant in believing that she had the nomination locked up. Why shoud Obama have waited when he had the support now?

Obama supporters are not the ones currently screwing up 2008 by refusing to work together to unite the party. We all lose if Obama loses and the best way to make certain that we don't is all vote together to oust the Republicans out of office from the White House down. Hopefully Hillary will keep her word and workto unite the Democrats when she bows out.

Given the way people treated the Clintons, I can certainly understand why many would not be able to get excited about Obama as the nominee. I think there needs to be a whole lot of making up very soon. It will be up to Obama and his core supporters if he wins or not. The nominee will have my vote. We can't have a repeat of 2000 although it is shaping up that way.

Obama is going to win the nomination. That's why I don't understand the continued negative attitude towards the Clintons. Given that fact I also don't understand why it would have hurt to give MI and FL all of their delegates. It wouldn't change the outcome of the primary but it could change the outcome in November. We have to worry about non-Democrats and swing voters. We need FL badly. Obama did make a mistake in not supporting a full acceptance of all their delegates.

Kinda reminds me of the 3/5ths vote given to slave states.

Meet John Doe - Not disagreeing.. but one has to play to win, and there are arguments above which correctly demonstrate team Obama could very well have claimed more delegates. I would like to know the Obama strategist answer to your question someday.. but giving it all away was probably not a good idea, not without the majority firmly declared and he has just a few to go..

I think the point of the day ( or at least one very significant point) is that both the FL and MI delegations got what they wanted/proposed.

As someone who voted for Hillary in the primary, but basically switched to support Obama soon after for various reasons, I will say that I am in total agreement that it's time to end the caucuses. I understand the reasoning for them, but I think that reasoning is outweighed by the fact that they just shut too many people out of the system.

I also agree that it's time to do away with Iowa and NH leading things off. I know Iowa is a battleground state and all that. And I understand that it's a relatively cheap state to campaign in and it gives upstarts a fair chance, but it also isn't very representative of the party or the country. Starting out with a more diverse state would be better. How bout Missouri? Large state. Split almost dead down the center in terms of dems and repubs. And it's fairly diverse in the larger cities and has both agriculture and union representation.

As far as the ruling by the committee today, I honestly have no idea whether it was fair or not. Although I think the ruling on Florida was. It's difficult to get any information as how they came about their decision on Michigan. I don't know if they had the authority to do that or not. I do understand Harold Ikies argument. The delegate split should have been 73-55 instead of 69-59 before it was cut in half. I don't know how they came up with the numbers they used.

As for NH, I believe they have a waiver from the DNC to move anytime someone tries to get in front of them so they get to keep their spot as the nation's first primary.

Eureka-

Nobody should given delegates that they did not win. H

How do you come up with both states got what they wanted? Florida wanted all of their votes to count. There was no reason not to given the fact that Obama will have the votes regardless. You say this is a game to win. Well, Novemeber is more important to win. Today's actions will hurt our chances in November. The DNC always seems to find a way to lose votes.

The Republicans also imposed a 50% penalty on Michigan and Florida. The DNC just equalized the treatment of its delegations from those states to the GOP's treatment of its delegations, from the more severe 100% penalty.

The 69-59 split is something the Michigan Democratic Party came up with after some negotiations. It splits the difference between 64-64 and 73-55. That simple. The DNC committee went along.

You are right Mr. Happy. Not only do caucuses need to be banned but more representative states need to go first. We should rate all the states based on similarities to the nation as a whole. Then pick the top 5 or so states that are most representative of the nation as a whole with the smallest going first. We should either do that or set a date for primaries to start and let every state decide when they have theirs. The current system is terrible in my opinion.

I don't think our standard should be Republicans raffe.

I bet you those two states will get 100% of their delegates at the Republican convention too.

Based on what information? If either party wants to have control over its nominating process, and you can be sure they do, they cannot lift penalty from states that disregard their rules. That would leave all states free to disregard the rules in future primaries knowing there would ultimately be no penalty for doing so. Simply not going to happen.

Republicans are not stupid. Both parties will seat all the delegates since it won't even matter once the conventions start. All this "penalty" does is piss off the voters of those states. If each party developed a fair primary process, there would be nothing to worry about. Who can blame states for wanting to actually have a say in picking their nominee for a change? Why should 3-4 small states get to pick our nominee every single year...year after year?

Meet john doe - I think the MI FL delegates got what they wanted in re delegate compromise proposed for this point in time.. not what they wanted before it came time for the compromise.

Anyway I'm just learning about this part of the process like most of us here.. and guessing as to why they didn't give the two states entirely away

Also agree with most of your and Max's sentiments about needed changes.. just not the time to do it in mid primary season.

It's a mess for sure.. and most of this is the fault of the state pols, not the rules committee, imo. They had to do something.

No, I think the fault lies entirely with the DNC. Voters can't keep their legislatures from moving the dates up. Especially when they live in a Republican controlled state like FL. If the DNC wants a state to hold their party primary on a date other than the state paid one, then the DNC needs to pay for it. Voters should never be disenfranchised by Democrats. Not even 50%.

The DNC has a broken primary system and refuses to change it. The DNC has no right to arbitrarily pick certain states to always go first. It's time for change in our primary system. Let's leave clinging to outdated traditions that no longer work to the Republicans.

Again, not disagreeing with you, especially your sentiments in re voters.. but how does a party keep the republicans who control a state legi from wreaking havoc upon them if they do as you suggest?

Definitely time for some changes.. maybe this year, when far more folks are paying attention, will lead to a few long overdue changes.

Max, why does your site go down for an hour at a time? and could you have someone change it so we don't have to sign in every few hours? This is the only site that has these problems.

been trying to tell you people for months that investors were driving up commodity prices. It's about time somebody takes action. Our politicians and press have been AWOL. They just keep repeating that China, India and ethanol is causing the huge price increases.

Changes to commodities regulations expected
Sat May 31, 2008 11:54am EDT

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The U.S. commodity markets' chief regulator will unveil policy changes next week meant to address public and political concerns that market malfunctions may be contributing to rising food and energy prices, The New York Times reported on Saturday.

Citing people who have been briefed about the agency's plans, the Times said that the new measures would be announced by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which oversees exchanges central to the establishment of prices for commodities ranging from corn to crude oil worldwide.

Facing mounting political pressure and farm industry demands, the CFTC is expected to outline measures to address the role played by new financial investors in the futures markets, the Times said, in particular those who invest through commodity index funds, which have grown from a $13 billion stake in 2003 to some $250 billion this year, it said.

Index funds differ from traditional commodity investors in that they do not sell commodity futures, but only buy them, the Times said. Critics say this has helped drive up commodity prices artificially.

But the newspaper said the new steps may fall short of sweeping measures sought by the index funds' critics. The people who spoke of the new measures discussed them on condition of anonymity because the plans are not yet finalized.

I say in the future, both political parties have a system of revolving starting primary states that lets all states have the chance to go first over the next decade. Let us cut the primary season in half so it doesn't seem to run for 4 years at a time. Ban caucuses, and junk the un-American idea of Super Delegates. The rat bastid politicians like to make us think the election process is rocket science by making it as complicated as possible. It's snot!

We have uniform systems for everything down to making the lowly McDonalds french fries, why not for electing our leaders? Bill Gates and Steve Jobs would no doubt be happy to team up and whip out a computer model that would stop all this un-happy horse hocky once and for all. Let them!

>>.....regardless screwing florida for a primary date set by a republican legislature and governor is very unfair. this is what they wanted and they are laughing their asses off tonite. why have the party leaders not been putting this in that term more? >>

Zonker, I think it is pretty obvious why the committee voted as they did. Some are probably Obama supporters from the getgo and didn't want to upset the applecart for personal reasons and others, just want the campaign to end and accepted the fact this was the best way to eliminate a possible upset. Anyway, the resolution was more about the status quo than anything else and it remains to be seen how this will impact the vote in Nov.

>>I hope after the 2008 nominating process is over that every Democrat can agree that caucuses must be banned. <<

I completely agree. I am already writing and calling about that very thing.

>>I must also cast a gimlet eye toward his presumed obliviousness to the -- dare I say it? -- racist attitude of his now former pastor and his fellow churchgoers, an attitude I fear his wife may share.
I hope my concerns are groundless, both in terms of Obama, and in terms of the fall election. <<

I can't imagine being black, Asian, female, etc., in the US and not having some racial/gender sensitivities. Men probably don't agree, but this is still a country that provides a wide path to success to the white male while most others have 'things to prove'. Because I recognize this, Michelle's statement about "for the first time" was not at all offensive to me. I feel the same - for the first time I am proud that a black man and a white woman are serious contenders for the nomination of the Democratic Party for POTUS.

But, I'm not blind nor deaf to the fact that understandable as they are, and reasonable as they are, Obama's church, his wife's statement, and their race will impact the vote in Nov and bad as the Republican Party is, Democrats could lose.

If either Obama or Clinton were to win in Nov, this would be the happy shout heard round the world indicating that Americans have emerged from the fog of lunacy. If the Democrat loses to McCain, has anyone thought about the long term consequences? The Democratic Party would be the laughing stock of the world if we lose this 'freebie'. Instead of sending the Republicans to the hinterlands for generations, it would be us.....

>>Obama did make a mistake in not supporting a full acceptance of all their delegates.<<

I think his decision was unwise also. Either way, he couldn't lose barring some huge implosion within his own campaign. Clinton couldn't touch him or stop him. It was very important for him to be seen as inclusive and caring more about the voter than his personal situation. I doubt that anyone in Mi doesn't realize that his name wasn't on the ballot due to his own decision to remove it - long before he knew their would be controversy - for political reasons. It was widely accepted it would be a beauty contest and he didn't expect to do well, so better not even be on the ballot. Oops!

I think the uncommitted delegates should have been polled - some were probably supporters of Edwards, Biden, etc. - and they should have decided whom to support. They know their constituents better than the DNC.

It's all moot now and healing should begin.

So Michigan and Florida defy the rules and go ME FIRST ME FIRST, knowing the consequences, to fluff their personal importance or get the publicity and early attention of the candidates (or some other selfish reason) and now they whine that their opinion isn't being considered?

And the Democratic leadership caves in to them?

Sounds like a party leadership with no backbone.

Watching the angry white woman (Harriet Christian) tell us on video today that McCain will be the next president, that she has news for us if we think Hilary's supporters won't turn and vote for McCain, that the Democrats are throwing away the election for an unqualified black man....

The clip I saw is at AmericaBlog today (www.americablog.com).

Wow, what deja vu. All I could see when I looked at her ranting, raving, threatening, implying that a small group of individuals should be allowed to impose their will the rest of us: all I could think of was the Little Rock Nine.

And Hazel Massery. Will Harriet Christian watch that clip and shudder as Hazel Massery did when she saw her face in the newspaper contorted with hate?

There's something to be said, though, when hate unmasks itself. I have grown tired of hearing the "old yeller dogs" talk all around their racial aversion to Obama. It's refreshing to hear them, at last, finally admit that it is, really and in the final analysis, all about race for them. At least we don't have to waste time now arguing about what they won't put on the table and discuss honestly.

This election is hardly the first time I'm ashamed to call myself an Arkansas Democrat.

It also may be an election when the old yeller dogs finally realize that they/we need to make way for a few newcomers. We've had our day in the sun. Time to laze under the porch for a while and let the young ones, to whom the world belongs, have a chance at trying not to mess things up as much as we have done.

If we only had believed in (and practiced) the values we profess, we might not be watching Hazel Massery resurrecta in 2008, as Hazel Christian.

>>So Michigan and Florida defy the rules<<

It sounds as though the voters of Florida didn't have a choice - the Governor threatened to veto the bill if the move up date wasn't left in. Republicans wanted the early date and Democrats have no clout in Fl.

I think it was inevitable that the penalty would be scaled back - they could never afford to piss off two entire states in that fashion - maybe the error the DNC made in the beginning was to think they can control the state apparatus. I know the me first thing has to stop, but not by disenfranchising millions of voters.

In my mind, penalizing Mi by giving them only half votes was probably okay, but they shouldn't have taken it upon themselves to reapportion the votes. They should have gotten the votes that were cast for them - at least half of them. I know Obama wasn't on the ticket, but that was his choice, so.....oh well.

>>Wow, what deja vu. All I could see when I looked at her ranting, raving, threatening, implying that a small group of individuals should be allowed to impose their will the rest of us: all I could think of was the Little Rock Nine.<<

Yep, it's very ugly and I fear it is only beginning. Some are angry because they are racists, some have become convinced Obama is too strange, but some have concerns about the process. So it's hard to lump everyone together and assign motives. I listened to c-span this morning and heard all sorts of comments - all the way from believing there was gender bias, to worry about "liberation theology", and also some saying anyone who won't vote for Obama is a rascist.

Too bad the candidate that intended to bring America together seems to be a very devisive figure.

"and could you have someone change it so we don't have to sign in every few hours? This is the only site that has these problems."...John Doe

Ditto

Ci Ci, in my view, the dividing has been done very adroitly by the right wing in American politics for some time now.

Those of us who are liberals and have let this be done to us are also to blame.

We have allowed the right to play one group against another (e.g., women against people of color) while professing liberal values that should have promoted the solidarity of the groups being pitted against each other.

Obama has hardly divided us. We have done it to ourselves, both those actively engendering a politics of hate and those of us who profess to be liberals but refuse to stand in solidarity with each other, or to stand up for what we believe when we pay a price for doing so.

>>Those of us who are liberals and have let this be done to us are also to blame.<<

I certainly agree with this sentiment. From my first day on this blog, my concern was all the unnecessary bashing of Democratic candidates by Democrats. I think it is perfectly possible to state your reason for preferring one over the other without making the other out to be evil.

Republicans are full of glee.....

Ci Ci, I agree: the right wing is gleeful that it can play us against each other like this.

But it has been gleeful for some time. The race-baiting strategy with Southern voters goes back to the Clinton era.

We bear part of the blame--we who have let us be played like this.

There are some obvious points to notice here, too, that indicate the ugly dynamics aren't all one set of Dems bashing another set.

This thread contains statements about Dems who will not vote for Obama, period. That's no surprise. We've known it all along. Polls indicate that if Obama gets the nomination, more Hilary supporters won't vote for him than vice versa. If Hilary gets it, fewer Obama supporters will refuse to vote for her.

Since we all know race is the elephant in the living room, I'm at least glad it's out in the open. Nothing is more frustrating than the kind of "conversations" we Arkansas "liberals" have in which we never actually talk about the issues we all know are at stake all the time: race, gender (including sexual orientation), etc. We don't have any real venues for such a discussion, because the "liberal" venues in this mostly conservative state collude in keeping frank discussion at bay.

That's not to say these venues won't play the race card or the gender card when it's convenient. It's to say their support for critical analysis and real news about these issues in Arkansas is very thin. I can't help getting the impression, over and over, that black folks and gay folks have long been used in Arkansas politics not only by the right wing, but by the "liberals" as well.

Liberalism can be about liberal individualism, where we're all thrown into a big boxing ring and slug it out to see who will win. That kind of liberalism ALWAYS ends up siding with those who have the most power already, and not with critical analysis of the status quo geared to progressive change of the status quo.

That kind of liberalism seems to me very weak on principles other than the right to free speech and free expression.

Then there's the liberalism of social solidarity, which tries to analyze the various forms of marginalization at work in a society, to build bridges between various marginalized groups, and to work together for progressive social change.

We just don't have a lot of that in Arkansas, because we don't have a lot of discussion to frame the conversation in that direction. It's not permitted in the "official" venues of the state, either right or left.

For the record, when the primary process started, I was backing a candidate who is not now among the two Democratic choices. After he got ruled out, I have said again and again that I would vote for either of the two who are left, though I have my preference.

But as the campaign has rolled on, I have become deeply disappointed in one of the two candidates, and in the tactics of that candidate's supporters. I am at a point where I would still vote for this candidate, but I'd sure have to hold my nose to do so. This is a candidate whose sense of values doesn't seem any longer to correspond with mine.

I see in this candidate and the candidate's supporters a very high commitment to liberal individualism. I don't see in the candidate and the candidate's supporters a high commitment to liberal social solidarity. To me, the choice now translates into selfishness or a hope for progressive social change, and to me, it's a no-brainer.

I'm frankly ashamed of Arkansas, and not for the first time. I'm ashamed that we will admit that we will not vote for a candidate on the basis of race. I'm appalled at those who have been posting here who try to convince us that this typical Arkansas attitude is characteristic of the attitude of Americans nationwide, and that the party is choosing an unelectable candidate.

I would like to think the nation as a whole has some better angels. I know my own state to well to count on its better angels in this fight. Much, much, much has to do with sheer lack of education, and as much as we lament our lack of education, we are a big part of the problem: we just don't do a lot to educate our own selves.

Thankfully, my native state is not the nation. It wasn't in 1957. It's not going to be in 2008, either--or so I hope.

"Thankfully, my native state is not the nation. It wasn't in 1957. It's not going to be in 2008, either--or so I hope."

MuddlingThrough, you left out 1861.

Welcome, MuddlingThrough...I've been ashamed of our sexist/racist world for some time. Though I do see progress.

Hubby watched that damn dog/pony show most of the day. It was clear that 'most' of the power-grabbing went on behind closed doors and it was clear that the Clintons have been out-maneuvered politically...not an easy feat.

It's outrageous and un-American to take some of Hillary's Michigan votes and give them to anyone...and I would say that if Hillary and Obama were reversed. Good god...the Democratic Leadership is a f***ing joke. I know we'll never really know, but I wonder who the genius was (or geniuses) who decided it was okay to punish Florida's Democrats because of actions by Florida's Republican Legislature?? Just brilliant. (They should be forbidden from every holding office or a government job.) It's bad enough that all of us have to suffer the carnage of war and a decimated economy because the Supreme Court selected our current idiot president. But now the Parties can take away someone's vote because of political gamesmanship. We are so screwed.

>>The race-baiting strategy with Southern voters goes back to the Clinton era. <<

This is where we disagree completely, but a rehash of the events won't change your mind or mine. I will always believe that acknowledging that there were enough voters who were disinclined to vote for Obama to possibly cost us the election was vital and necessary, and apparently you will always think that was playing the race card.

>>Then there's the liberalism of social solidarity, which tries to analyze the various forms of marginalization at work in a society, to build bridges between various marginalized groups, and to work together for progressive social change.<<

Interesting........I've been in a conversation on another site about this very thing. I am one who is super-sensitive to statements that veil their real intent. My family and almost all of my friends are conservative. They go back and forth between parties, but they are consistently conservative on most issues. All things being equal, they will vote their pocketbook. Their values are not my values though I love them as relatives and I don't intend to disavow them. I do argue with them almost all the time about how they can be so loving and kind and yet believe that being gay is a mortal sin and that Barak Obama is a Muslim set to destroy the US. If I didn't know they were intelligent people, I would think they were just completely stupid. And then, there is the constant dribble of stuff from Obama's church, statements from Michelle, speakers on tv talking about "liberation theology" and it's ties to socialism, etc., so my constant defense of Barak Obama falls on deaf ears. These people I know so intimately are not alone and there is a whole herd of folks just like them out there and they often vote Democrat.

Now, if I were Michelle or Barak Obama, I might say, "To hell with these jokers" - I've thought the same myself. How nice it would be to vote FOR someone who didn't support the war in Iraq ever, and how nice it would be to vote FOR a black man in this country where just a few years ago, some like him were killed for daring to try to get to vote. How nice it would be to vote FOR a man who is obviously not a Muslim plant nor a subversive and say to hell with the bigots.

But, those bigots make up a fair number of Democratic Party voters, and they aren't all just wasps - I have Latino and Jewish friends who also believe Obama is a threat. I decided, NOT because I agree with the bigots I know, but because I believe they WILL see McCain as safer and WILL vote for him, that it would be better to have Hillary as our nominee.

I wasn't angry with Obama and I don't blame him - I just believed that losing is too great a price to pay THIS election cycle for a principle. Has anyone thought about the consequences if we lose this election? What happens to the Democrats if that happens. 2012 thinks we will come back stronger in 2012 - but I don't. I think it will be like Gore losing - it will set us back for generations, not to mention the damage a senile old fool like McCain can do.

Pointing out the potential for loss, because of voters who are racist and believe lies - does not make us anti-Obama, does not make us racist, but I do think it makes some of us naive.

If I were Barak Obama, I might say - I don't want the votes of people who would be stupid enough to think I'm trying to get in office so I can destroy the US.

But, it's moot. Obama will be the nominee and I will support him, continue to try to get the people I know to vote for him, and if we make it, I will have been the chicken little in the crowd and I will be most happy.

DBI - I know you are a history buff so i thought of you when one of my favorite people on the net made a comment about the history of Ickes family and other historical notes in re the party insiders..

Anyway, thought you and other folks would enjoy it.. at my name comments #58 and #70,

Thanks Eureka for the history lesson. I watched some of the proceedings yesterday and heard them mention the Roosevelt & Ickes connection but enjoyed learning more about their long history. Also the mention of the power shift which I heard mentioned briefly yesterday with one of the commentators saying it is no longer the Clintons who control the DNC. The power had shifted to Obama. Even with all the historical connections of the committee members, it's nice to see they are looking toward the future.

Hillary now teeters on the brink. If she continues the scorched earth policies Ickes hints at, she is going to destroy any chance she has of being president, and irreparably stain her beloved's admirable legacy. She is not going to be the nominee, folks. Right now the challenge for her is simply to continue building a strong Democratic party for the next 16 years-- 8 for Obama, 8 for Hillary, I hope. If she is the answer to Barack's problems with "hardworking white people" and women, let's see her bring them into the tent. Whether she is VP or just another Democrat, she can help put the GOP out on the curb. That is the whole point . . . . isn't it?

For the folks in both camps who have screamed since April that they'd vote for McCain over a progressive Democrat out of spite: STFU. Obviously you don't understand the stakes. This will not be a race issue in the end. It will be a Supreme Court issue, an environmental issue. A reproductive choice issue. A foreign policy issue. A human rights issue.

To the loser of the nomination struggle: if you stand up and work for the election of a progressive Democrat, you understand the broader implications of what is at stake. If you take your toys and your votes and go sulk, then this never was about the issues. It was about you all along, and you will be marked accordingly.

This blog, like so many, has become a great forum for "concern trolls". I'm surprised at how much of it comes from our beloved moderator, but this is his sandbox. Before Obama was taken seriously , people were "concerned" that Hillary was a poisonously divisive figure (which I think we have disproved to some extent). I don't give a shit whether you're concerned or not. Just vote for the Democrat.

I'm voting for the Democrat. Looks like it's gonna be a black guy. If the white chick wins, I'll vote for her without hesitation.

But I'll be damned if I'll be voting for the white guy in this election.

Ci Ci,

Thank you for pointing out a very important mistake in my posting.

I meant to say that the race-baiting strategy goes back to Nixon, of course--certainly not the Clintons.

I do not believe the Clintons have been or are racist, just as I do not believe Obama is misogynist.

I have not been happy with how the Clintons and some of their supporters have used race in this campaign. But I also do not believe that the use of race reflects where the Clintons really stand on racial issues. It is this politics of backing off from our commitment to principles of solidarity to win--in a world of atomistic individualism--that really perturbs me.

Thanks, too, for your subsequent posting, Ci Ci.

I agree with all that you say here.

I think we may be hearing and experiencing a different slice of Arkansas voters, and so we may have different priorities and fears about how the Democratic candidate will be received in the coming elections.

I don't know anyone in my maternal family who has ever voted Republican--or would. They are died-in-the-wool yellow dogs, and don't vote Democratic because of their pocketbook as much as because of their principles.

They're also Arkansans of many generations.

The one church-going sister in my mother's family sat out the last election of her life, because she couldn't bring herself to vote Dukakis, and wouldn't vote Republican. Because she went to church and the others didn't, she heard more challenges to the principles the whole family stood for.

I well remember walking in on a conversation among my mother and her sisters back in the 1980s, in which I overheard the church-goer say, "Well, I don't care what anyone says, it's bible wrong." My mother and another sister responded, "And I don't care what anyone says, people have a right to live their lives and not be attacked." Another sister glared daggers at the bible-believing sister. Another, an irenic soul, hummed a hymn softly under her breath.

Now my father's family, that's a different story. Several generations of Baptist ministers, and I can guess at their politics, because they have sent emails to my brother asking him to endorse Focus on the Family statements against gay marriage. That is, they did that until he had enough of it and told them he and his family support gay marriage, and please don't send any more such emails.

To me, they just don't talk, except to smile at funerals and make nice. I'm gay and thus beyond the pale.

The one member of my mother's family left remains a yellow dog Dem, and a wonderful person, though acerbic. She does have problems with Obama because of race, and admits it. But she would cut her hand off before marking the Republican box on the ballot, and will come around. She has, after all, had deep lasting relationships with black people from the time she was a baby being raised by a black woman who raised my mother and all her siblings.

More than that, she has a strong sense of right and wrong and firm principles, and knows that her racial attitudes aren't defensible even when she finds it hard, at the age of 80, to think and act differently.

OH DBI. DIDNT EVEN HAVE TO DIG FOR WORMS, NOR BACK THE BOAT OUT OF THE GARAGE. YOU
ARE ON THE WALL. IT IS THE SUPREME MURTISHAW SYNDROME.

LETS SEE, OK, ALL YOU COLLEGE DEGREES WILL VOTE THIS WAY. ALL YOU WHITE FEMALE TENNIS /SOCCER MOMS WILL VOT THIS WAY. OK.. WE ARE ALL PLACED IN OUR COMPARTMENTS. COME ON DBI, LETS PLAY DEMOCRAT. WE GOT THE GAME AND THE "RULES" ARE IN PLACE 1/2 FOR CERtTAIN STATES WE DONT LIKE. AND OH YES, LETS BLAME (CANT BLAME BUSH FOR THIS ONE OR YOU WOULDA) THE REPUBLICAN LEGISLATURE IN FLORIDA. WOW, WHO YA THINK PUT THOSE PEOPLE IN OFFICE.. RIGHT. THE DEMOCRATIC VOTERS OF FLORIDA. THIS IS A PREVIEW OF HOW THINGS WILL FLOW EASILY AND SCREWILY ALONG IN A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENCY WITH THOSE UNDER UNDER LOWER LOONS IN THE CONGRESS CALLED DUMBOCRATS. THANK GOD PELOSI AND REID ARE NOT REPUBLICANS, HOW EMBARRASSING.

DBI, NOT A RIPPLE IN THE WATER, AND YOU ARE ON THE WALL. THE GREAT DBI, HIS MURTISHAW(LOVE HOW YOU ACT LIKE YOU DONT KNOW WHO MURTISHAW IS, OSCAR PENDING) , AND HIS DUMBO COHORTS. KEEP IT UP. WE WILL BE BACK.

P.S ARE KIZZY AND JAZZY CLONES OF THE SAME STRAIN OF BACTERIA?

"If we only had believed in (and practiced) the values we profess, we might not be watching Hazel Massery resurrecta in 2008, as Hazel Christian."

I've never understood racism among other white Americans. However, racism will never end until both whites and blacks stop being racist. I'm afraid that Wright and others have done more to set us back than anyone recently. I was hopeful that Obama could be the guy to lead both sides to stop their racism, but I think Wright has made that all but impossible. Obama's suggestion that Hillary's comments on MLK and LBJ, or President Clinton's on Jessie Jackson were some how racist also hurt. Nothing gets white racism stirred up more than suggesting racism where it doesn't' exist. That was a huge mistake and I hope he apologizes for it eventually.

I've always stood up against racism and racist remarks among people I encounter. I've lost some friends and relatives, but that is there problem. Now I get Wright's comments thrown up in my face. While his racism doesn't excuse white racism, I now see that it is part of the never ending back and forth.

If we are to ever have a truly color-blind society, BOTH whites and blacks are going to have to move beyond the past. I was very disappointed that Obama stood by Wright for as long as he did. I think the opportunity he had to unite the country vanished because of that. I hope I am wrong though.

Maybe someday BOTH sides will realize their part in continuing racism.

I REALLY, truly think that in Nov. most (not all) of those Democrats (tons of independants and even some Republicans) who say they will vote for McCain if their candidate does not get the nomination will look at McCain and think of more war, more troops coming home dead (maybe even their own children) or with horrible wounds, crappy heath care, crappy economy and just the all around "ick" of 4 more years of a Republican President.
I think that those voters will look past either the gender or race of the Democratic candidate and reject John McCain when it comes down to crunch time. I think McCain has so many issues that he will just implode in the end.

Of course this is what I feel, what I hope for so that we can regain some of our national sanity and respect worldwide.

>>I have not been happy with how the Clintons and some of their supporters have used race in this campaign. <<

I don't think the Clintons used race at all, but I do think some Clinton supporters support her because they themselves won't vote for a black person. I don't think anyone who truly supports Clinton and has from the beginning is racist.

But, we have to accept the fact that there is still a remnant of racism left over from before LBJ and if they are not evangelical, they vote back and forth across party lines. If we could find enough voters to offset them this year, I would be happy to piss them off so much they never vote Democrat at all, but throw in Jews who won't support Obama and some Latinos who won't and you have a problem.

I guess my whole family is like your father's family. They say they are for equal rights and they point with pride to friendly black co-workers or a token gay person they know, but when push comes to shove, they won't support anyone who makes them uncomfortable and right now, that's Obama. Maybe it's Hot Springs and the areas in Texas where I grew up, but I don't find anyone except Jazzy and Alijb, that I know personally who would even think of voting for him. No one I know at the hospital or anywhere is supporting him. I really, really fear in their rush to do something grand, Democrats have assured a McCain victory.

Large, you like riddles I see.........

Ci Ci, you say,

"Maybe it's Hot Springs and the areas in Texas where I grew up, but I don't find anyone except Jazzy and Alijb, that I know personally who would even think of voting for him. No one I know at the hospital or anywhere is supporting him. I really, really fear in their rush to do something grand, Democrats have assured a McCain victory."

This is what I mean when I say we seem to be reflecting different portions of the AR populace.

I don't know anyone (or interact with anyone) these days who would NOT vote for Obama. I have friends and family members who are pro-Hilary, but definitely intend to vote for Obama. I have friends and family members who are pro-Obama, but would also vote for Hilary.

Don't know any who would give McCain even a second thought.

We have had some lively dinner-table exchanges over the relative merits of Hilary and Obama, and these have gotten heated. When we talk politics, tempers flare.

At the same time, there are some core principles that we just won't violate in voting for McCain, and none of us imagines that voting for either Hilary or Obama would violate those principles.

In saying all this, I don't mean to deny that there probably are a large number of folks I don't interact with often in the state of AR who would never vote for Obama, period, but who would consider Hilary.

I don't get this, and won't really ever get it. I don't think anyone is colorblind or free of racism in our color-fixated society. I have not always had pleasant experiences with African Americans, but I cannot remain the kind of human being I would like to be and allow those experiences to color my thoughts about or attitude to an entire race.

Just as I can't allow the unpleasant experiences I have had with women, other gay folks, macho white males--you name it, any demographic group--to allow me to judge an entire group of people on the basis of those isolated experiences....

Thankfully, Arkansas is not the whole world. Much as I love it, it's a tiny little world, insular, uneducated, seemingly intent on shooting itself in the foot time and again via its ignorance and venality. All small worlds are that way, really. It's when they choose to remain small (in mind and heart) that they become really pathetic.

Sadly, we do keep making that choice again and again throughout our history, with some notable and conspicuous exceptions. Education is one of the main keys, and education we do not value--not even those of us who are "educated," in many cases, since our "educations" are often more about professional licensing to do a particular job than about broadening our minds and hearts and opening ourselves to a whole world of information beyond what we take for granted.

And our media do a p--s poor job of assisting us in that regard, both from the left and the right.

CiCi I've yet to meet anyone back home that is voting for Obama. Hopefully it's just a southern thing, but the Wright deal seems to be the problem (or excuse). I'm not the least bit racist, but his racist comments really bother me. If I felt Obama agreed with those comments (I don't..or hope not), I wouldn't support him either so I understand.

Muddling the people I hang out on a daily basis will support Obama as well with a few exceptions. I don't know where you grew up, but outside of the heights, I'm afraid Obama is going to get very little support in Arkansas and the rural south. I think his campaign knows that Arkansas is a lost cause. I think it would be even if Hillary were his VP.

>>We have had some lively dinner-table exchanges over the relative merits of Hilary and Obama, and these have gotten heated. When we talk politics, tempers flare.>I don't get this, and won't really ever get it. I don't think anyone is colorblind or free of racism in our color-fixated society. I have not always had pleasant experiences with African Americans, but I cannot remain the kind of human being I would like to be and allow those experiences to color my thoughts about or attitude to an entire race.> I'm not the least bit racist, but his racist comments really bother me. If I felt Obama agreed with those comments (I don't..or hope not), I wouldn't support him either so I understand.<<

John Doe, I heard the Republicans today on Fox with their talking points. They are saying it is impossible that Obama attended that church for 20 yrs without feeling much as Rev Wright and Fr Pfleger do. They mentioned Michelle's comments about only now feeling proud, and the bitter gate comments as proving he is more black activist than hands across the aisle.

I don't know how successful they will be - none I hope - but they point out that a generic Democrat and/or Hillary defeat McCain now in the polls, but Obama doesn't.

I guess we will see.

Wow, Muddling - I tried to respond to several different sentences but my post ended up garbled.

What got lost was my response to you about not understanding the racism.

With the people I know, they don't call it racism. They get emails that say he is a Muslim plant, or they get emails that say he is a black radical activist socialist (how's that for contradictions). They would never admit to me or anyone, probably, that they just wouldn't vote for a black person, but I suspect when it's time to vote, it's the black skin that sways them more than the hints of Muslim or black activism.

I definitely didn't grow up in the Heights, John Doe. I grew up, as a matter of fact, in Little Rock in the Hillcrest neighborhood, and then my family moved to south Arkansas--which is not by any means a liberal enclave. The maternal side of my family about which I've been talking--the side of my family with deep Arkansas roots--has lived in Hillcrest since the 1940s.

I really don't get the racism charge vs. Obama and his supporters. What I don't get is how anyone can argue that the African-American response to centuries of racial oppression is racism, rather than a defensive response.

That's not to say that African Americans can't be racist. It's to say that I understand the defensive response in light of centuries of oppression.

I'm thinking through these issues afresh after meeting this weekend some distant cousins of mine whose ancestors left Arkansas before the Civil War. They were sent north by a white father and a mother who was a free woman of color, who could not marry due to the racial barrier.

They were sent to Ohio with considerable funding, to strike out on their own, though the three children were teens at the time.

Since that time, the descendants of these folks have lived as white--and they ARE white, insofar as anyone can tell (which points to the absurdity of classifying human beings by racial terms). But they have lived in fear--in such fear that they often do not have children when they marry, for fear of passing on discernible African physical treats; in fear of anyone knowing a secret they have closely guarded; in fear that relatives will reject them; in fear of being asked to sit in the back of the church (as they were sometimes asked if they appeared "mixed"); in fear of having a birthday party and being given a black doll by other children attending, as a cruel joke.

Hearing these wonderful kinfolks' stories hurts my heart, very deeply.

Racism is the original sin of American society, and black preachers denouncing it are held to a double standard, while white preachers spew all kinds of bilious nonsense every Sunday from pulpits and no one raises an eyebrow. I have yet to hear more than faint apologies for the very overt racism I heard preached from many white pulpits little more than 50 years ago in Arkansas, and I strongly suspect that the faint apologies are insincere, and that most of us who are white Christians spend very little time on a daily basis thinking about, informing ourselves about, or trying to eradicate racism in our society.

I will vote for him with glee and pride, even better if he picked Barney Frank for VP.........
ain't gonna happen but I can dream of a day when all americans are equal.

Ci Ci, you're exactly right. Most of those who will go into the voting booths and refuse to pull the lever for a person because of the color of his skin won't admit that it's racism that determines their choices.

This is why I find it at least refreshing to hear some people say flatly in Arkansas that they are making their decision this election cycle on the basis of race. They're verbalizing what a lot more won't ever say or admit.

Having said that, I also hope (and believe) that Arkansas isn't the entire world. Race as a political game card for the Republicans has been waning outside the South (except among Southern white males) for some time now, and even the gay card no longer plays well.

I predicted before this election cycle that this being the case, the next card they'd try to play is the illegal immigrant card. And they're definitely trying to do that--especially in our neighboring state of Oklahoma, where it coalesces with gay-baiting, and where Arkansas-born and Arkansas-bred Sally Kern has been one of the biggest mouths shouting the loudest and meanest.

But Oklahoma is not the whole world, either, thank God. And thank God for Oklahoma, for making us appear just a tad less ignorant than we are, these days.

There is plenty of time, and hopefully McCain will continue to befuddle his way along and scare people (even those I spoke of) into thinking maybe the black guy isn't so bad.....

We shall see.....

May your dreams come through, jazzy.

They're what keep us moving forward.

On a different note......just watching 60 Minutes. It seems the military has a 'ray gun' that can stop anyone cold in their tracks, but it doesn't harm them. It's very futuristic, and the military is not comfortable using it.......wanna gues why???

It doesn't kill. My oh my!

Hey, Jazzy.......missed you lately!

"I have yet to hear more than faint apologies for the very overt racism I heard preached from many white pulpits little more than 50 years ago in Arkansas,"

Same here, MuddlingThrough. Some of us didn't recognize it in our churches at the time, but the racism was there. I was taken aback a couple years ago as I read Dale Bumpers' great little book, "The Best Lawyer in a One-Lawyer Town. He alludes to the racist mentality (p. 144) that prevailed in this way, referring to a 1963 happening in his hometown of Charleston, Ark. "A year later, the pastor of the Methodist church came into my office and said, "I need fifteen hundred dollars to put a new roof on the nigger church. I've go you down for a hundred dollars." I'm sure it never occurred to the preacher what he was revealing about himself. I always enjoy your thoughtful posts, MT; and I join you in hoping jazzy's dream comes true. (And jazzy, like Ci.Ci, I've missed ya, too!)

Haven't been run out of town yet, just laying low and keeping you kids honest,,,nice to be
missed.
Makes me sad to think back, as a little girl in Camden, playing around an uncle's grocery
store and when a Black person came in he'd say, *Whatcha want nigger?*
Some things just stick in your memory.

I remember when I was a very little girl, my grandfather died. He owned a farm in Greenville Tx. (They supposedly had a sign over the town square at one time that read "Home of the blackest land, and the whitest people.")

There was a black family that lived on my grandfather's land and worked his farm. They were not allowed inside the all white church when he died. I remember asking my mother why they were standing outside and singing along and she said "just because".

When we were older I asked again and she admitted that 2 of her sisters wouldn't permit them in the church. My mother was the closet liberal in her family and I guess I'm it for mine.

I think we're going to be OK in the end. It's not going to be easy or fun or pretty. A lot of the folks around us here in Arkansas, especially the older ones are going to have to have a come to Jesus moment in the voting booth. Not matter how badly we want to change it, if you were born before 1960 in Arkansas you grew up in a racist society. My grandparents generation said nigger when they meant a black person. Most of them didn't mean anything by it, it was the name they were taught to use for a person of color.

When I was a kid in Kentucky in 1959, on the edge of the little town of Grand Rivers, there was a restaurant by the name of Nigger Mary's. I really can't remember if that's what the sign said, but that's all anyone called it. Mary was the sweetest old woman of any race you ever met and everyone within 20 miles would have tackled a Bengal tiger if it had tried to attack Mary. The good news is they expanded Kentucky Lake, forced Mary to sell her property, she moved into town and died a millionaire. Good.

I didn't realize until I was older that Nigger Mary was a terrible name. I didn't realize it was wrong for black people to be forced to use a different entrance, wait until the white ticket taker was ready to sell them a ticket and climb 2 flights of stairs to sit in the truly death defying 2nd balcony of the Malco Theatre on Garrison Avenue when I was a kid. It was normal, it was life in the early 60s in my town.

As you know I could go on for days, but my point is.....the older you are the harder it's going to be to vote for Barack Obama. The last months of Ma's life I saw her struggling with that decision. I'm sorry she won't be here to vote for Obama in November, but I'm glad she's off the hot seat because I loved her, warts and all. I believe, had she lived, she would have cast her vote for Obama. I double-dog promise you she never entertained thoughts of voting for McCain or any other Republican this fall.

I think when voting day comes in November, a lot of old people and a lot of the younger ones saying this moment they'll vote for McCain will in fact cast their vote for Obama. Secondly, in all this time the guns of each camp have been aim at our Democratic candidates. Just wait until next week or the next when the path is cleared and Obama/Clinton turn both their barrels on poor old man McCain. The Democrats haven't had this much ammunition to hurl at the Republican since 1932. By November McCain will look like the death scene out of Bonnie & Clyde played in super slow motion. So...hold on a little while longer, we're gonna be alright.

Old LargeAss has me smiling again. I don't know who murishaw is, though my wife said she thinks he's from Pine Bluff and I don't know what it means for me to be ON THE WALL. Is that like O'Reilly putting people on notice? My advice Large, is to seek professional help. Things are not going well for you, obviously, and come November, they're gonna get worse. Please do not hurt your family or co-workers. You aren't hearing God, those voices are just in your head. Get some medicine fast, your preacher will help you if you'll just let your problem be known. Again....please do not hurt your family.

And thanks Eureka, for the link to the brilliant Sara person. I skipped the fun and games yesterday...I'm too damn close to typing ALL IN CAPS myself, so I took a Sanity Day and skipped the FL & MI clambake. I forgot there was still a Roosevelt working in the party, but now I remember seeing James on something a couple of years ago. From what I've read both Ickes, Sr. & Jr. were and are real pieces of work, but at times had and have a vision when no one else has a clue. I hope Sara is right when she says they'll both be pulling for the same team by November. Except for our friend, Large, I think we'll be alright and someday the years 2000-2008 will just be an ugly memory.

PS I don't know if all this goes on in other states, but I'm mighty proud of the majority of the people who post regularly on this blog. This blog is good for Arkansas. Even when we disagree, it's been a real pleasure getting to know you and I know your hearts are in the right place. I hope one day we'll get to meet in person.

You're right, DBI--good people blogging here. Ci Ci stands out because she has been nothing but gracious to me, while I remember a snarky response of mine to her some time ago. Thank you, Ci Ci, for your forbearing, and I apologize if I came across as snarky.

Thanks for your kind words, too, durango. I sometimes take a self-imposed break from blogging if I sense myself getting overheated, and prone to snapping at folks. This election cycle has done that. Thankfully, at my family's gatherings, even when we snap and snarl about Hilary and Barack, we end up smiling and making nice to each other in the end.

That's what family does.

A state that has produced Daisy Bates, Bill Fulbright, Dale Bumpers, Martha Mitchell, Wesley Clark, and so on can't be all bad. Wish we had more leaders of their ilk around these days.

You don't owe me an apology Muddling, and I can snark too - sometimes that's the only thing that fits.

You mentioned yesterday that you are gay and it reminded me of a time from my younger days.... My husband of eight years had just come home for the umteenth time after drinking too much and was telling me how unhappy he was. He had a very unhappy childhood, but by this time we had a 4 yr old son and a 6 weeks old son. I looked at my two babies and suggested he go out and get happy because his family obviously coudn't supply that.

As I struggled with two children in a family where I was the first to entertain divorce, much less get one, two things came to my rescue. I gave my resignation to my boss saying I now had to find a better job to support my children, and she told me to wait a week. She then resigned her job and suggested I be promoted. I was stunned. She was ready to retire but it was still unbelievable.

The second thing that happened was that a close friend in my department (300+ people) saw my fear that I couldn't handle the job and literally propped me up till I got my sea legs and was successful on my own right. He also took me and my sons under his wing and with his loving partner, they became surrogate dads for my two babies. He and his partner would plan Sundays with us and invite us to picnics and even motorcycle rides (for me and the older boy). I never had experienced more unconditional love ever.

To this Baptist girl, it was reaffirming if nothing else. I was never inclined, despite my religious brainwashing, to believe that people are bad for just being and doing whatever they were meant to be or do, but, had I needed a lesson, they certainly provided one.

Anyway, snark away and I'll promise to snark back.

Interesting story, Ci.Ci. One of the best friends I have, going all the way back to college days, is a Viet Nam war hero who's gay. Never a time he hasn't been there to help when I got myself into a mess, and numerous others would say the same about him. I'll leave all the snarking to you and MT. I'm a mild-mannered, peace-loving guy. Don't like to stir up fusses and refuse to be drawn into 'em. If only everybody could be like me!

I guess we should all be more peaceful, but sometimes a good old slugfest tends to clear the air.