Arkansas Blog

by my reckoning, there are at least 3000 major and minor policies, regulations, laws, etc. enacted by the Bush Administration that require repealing or amending. above and beyond the fact of several thousand mid/upper-level apparatchiks who need re-acquainting with the private-sector instead of promotions. with less than 3000 days (in two terms) a President Obama will certainly have his work cut out for him (and never forget that many "fixes" would require Congressional approval, not always the certainty that common sense would suggest)

indeed, if not for political 'realities', one could argue that the first and only item on next year's legislative agenda would be an omnibus bill, taking the Federal Register from December 2000 (when the "breach" occurred) and the Federal Budget of FY2001 as the basis for amendments, and thus President Obama and the Congress could spend his first "hundred days" implementing "fixes" en-masse. It make for one helluva national debate, would it not?

there are many "fixes" that a President Obama would be able to make with another 40 or so new Democrats in the House of Representatives, and another 7, 8, or 9 new Democratic Senators, that will not be possible without them.

thus, it is not just winning the Presidential Election that matters. the margin of victory and the number of new Democrats on the Hill will mean the difference between 'normal' change and 'historic change'. the kind of change not seen in the United States since 1932.

and even "historic changes" will only be temporary, without a better US Supreme Court.

Are we sure it makes a difference anymore who is POTUS? Seems Obama, like any other pol, blows in the wind when it comes to supporting conservatives. He admires Reagan who gave us Rehnquist and Scalia, and he now favors the death penalty and guns in DC. I'm not so sure it matters who is POTUS.

Yup, Ci.Ci., I'm actually shocked by how quickly Obama became a Clinton. I never did buy the Savior/New stuff...too old, too jaded by the last seven years; but I really thought he spoke from the heart about a few things. (Plus I was hoping some of my fellow bloggers were correct all along.). For me, the Republican immunity for law-breaking corporations' betrayal was too much. He's a lying politician who will do anything to win....which could be a great thing if winning is EVERYTHING. Plus...the Reagan stuff, as you mentioned, still isn't sitting well. No good words for the best Democratic President that we've had in decades (Bill Clinton) yet un-prompted praise for the horrid Reagan.

But truthfully, I was thrilled to put that crap behind me once Hilary was out of the race (a relief, actually) and then...bam...Obama starts wheeling/dealing like he sucked the triangulating right out of the Clintons. New politician my ass.

when it comes to learning something new
they say for every day there's a first
i've heard Obama called many things this year
but "a Clinton" is certainly the worst

Obama has to win big to have any chance at changing things significantly
and if that means he has to pander to Christians (of the Harriett-type)
so be it.

Oh please, muleboy, I'm so tired of this gotta-win justification crap that I'm not buying anymore. (Yes, I'm voting for Obama.) Even I know what the road to hell is paved with...and I don't believe in Hell. There's political pandering and then there's totally selling out...as in voting for the retroactive immunity for law-breaking corporations. Obama isn't even bothering to be subtle in his priorities...and I know I'm not one of em.

It's ironic as hell that Obama's supporters are excusing the very political sins they trashed the Clintons for doing.

CiCi & others- here's the link for the 1 minute video clip where Obama talks about Ronnie Raygun:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFLuOBsNMZA

My impression of Obama's comments re Raygun must be different from yours. Obama correctly says that Raygun's election in 1980 fundamentally changed the direction of the country where that was not true with Clinton's election in 1992. As a flaming liberal and someone who voted against Raygun both times and for Clinton both times, I can't disagree with Obama's analysis. Raygun's election in 1980 did fundamentally change the country's direction, not in a way I liked but did so none the less.

Watch the video and see if you actually hear what you think you recall Obama saying back in January. I don't take Obama's comments as praise for Raygun, but rather as an acknowledgment of how the country underwent a fundamental change in course when Raygun took office.

Almost every historian would agree.

Well Max, you may need to post this supreme reminder every single day between now and November. Watching Obama act just like Clinton and hire the old Clinton machine operatives has me about ready to leave my presidential bubble on my PAPER ballot blank. I know he has inherited an appallingly conservative inept corporate loving D party infrastructure... but there is no excuse for abandoning civil liberties in the FISA fight but actually supporting the so called compromise goes beyond the pail. The fourth amendment is as sacred to me as the first and second. I just can't ignore what's happening... and will continue to fight it without compromise. If the constitutional scholar / new party leader can't back up the constitution now, I can't place my confidence behind any belief there will be any better supreme nominees in the future. Especially when we send folks like Pryor in there to fight for federalist nominees tooth and nail.

ES, my friend, perhaps I awoke in a different world today, but all things being equal, would we want a McBush making SCOTUS appointments or Obama-Bill? It's really a no brainer. Republic senators will break their current RECORD HIGH on filibusters to thwart BHO's judicial nominees. It is a critical juncture. If BHO is the best we can do in this scaredee-cat world of terrorisks and outsourcing gubbermint then he gets my vote. I'm not ready to emabrace a total corporate plutocracy just yet and one more R-Approved, GRADE A, corporatist judge on the bench then we can really kiss our Constitutional Republic goodbye. Perhaps it's too late. I think the knuckledraggers have packed the lower courts which impact our lives much more than SCOTUS. Only eight years in D-office can undo that and maybe not then. The best I can hope for is 2 moderate-liberal judges retire while BHO is prez and Scalia has a disabling heart attack or is blessed with Alzheimers, in case he isn't already.

I think eLwood has the situation exactly right. Selah. And dare I add that it ill-behooves Clintonistas to demand uncompromising purity on key issues from the candidate?

Thanks eLwood.. copy and save that, amigo.. Like I said.. I may need to see it every day.. considering how far to the right the rest of the D party leadership runs these days. For petes sakes, all I am asking is the Dems give yellow dog Americans a 200+ year old 4th amendment bone. (right now)

personally, i've yet to hear a convincing argument that anything was wrong with the 1978 FISA law (iirc, that 'secret' court only turned down a handful of requests in over 20+ years)

but, it is an election year, and the Bush Administration, whatever else you may say about them, has proven extremely (pardon the pun) adept at playing power politics on the Hill.

in just over 200 more days a new President/HoR/Senate will begin their work. and so very much more can be accomplished, the more new (and new kind of) DEMS take up residence in each. especially if more of the new Reps & Sens are from the "progressive" (now perhaps "regressive"?) wing of the Democratic Party, who could provide the key votes and pressure to return FISA to it's former status. (among hundreds/thousands of other "fixes")

but none of that can happen... unless they all (or almost all) win election.

i know this weeks FISA statements/actions by Obama sucks, but if he is calculating what it takes to win his election by as big a margin as possible AND as many new DEMS as possible, down the ballots, then i have to trust his political instincts and HOPE he knows what he's doing. (which his track record for the past year and a half is most reassuring)

I listened again to the video of Obama's remarks, Waterboy, and 'factually' I agree RR did make a change in America that we still live with today - I recall telling a friend before RR won the election, that he was making it PC to be selfish and greedy and I could never like the man.

That said, if Obama meant that the changes were bad changes, this man who speaks so eloquently, failed to get that across. He said "He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."

How anyone can hear that or read those words and not see strong admiration for Reagan, I can't imagine. I'm not saying he appreciated all the changes - I'm sure he did not - but he exudes strong admiration for Reagan and I saw in Reagan a charlatan of the first degree - I hated the man and Reagan "tapped into" nothing in my opinion other than a gullible public ready for a thief with a smile.

FREE SPEECH TV IS PRESENTING LIVE TV VIA WEB Conference of Media Reform is now showing. Images are excellent on my cable connection.

click blue

Vic Snyder & the Rev. Mrs expecting triplets.

A great point.

This election is critical. There is no room for error thus we have no luxury of protest voting.

Even moderate voters, believing in the benefits of stalemates thus forced compromise, should clearly see the harm of a unbalanced court.

(iirc, that 'secret' court only turned down a handful of requests in over 20+ years)<<

Here's the score: 18,458 approved requests from FISA for 30 yrs; 5 requests denied.

muleboy - I disagree with your giving D's or Obama a pass on this immunity for Bush and Telcos business.. Glenn Greenwald painted a pretty clear picture why in his post today.. (at my name) I think the GOP is a dangerous criminal threat us all and should not be scuffed off... but at the same time.. somebody has got to stand up to these fascists! Pick something Dems! Lies into war... or illegal assault on our liberties, something, anything. Show a spine an a glimmer of leadership.. All the rest is just going along with the criminals to the point I can't tell the difference between them and I am tired of trying to do so.

Demonstrating leadership on an amendment/citizens basic rights would rally for more Americans support right now (for any party) than the other way around, imo.

Does anybody here think OB would appoint Hillary to the Supreme Court? Would it (a president appointing a rival) be a precedent? Hillary has no judicial experience, so is she qualified? Would she accept a court appointment if it was offered? Click on my name.

CiCi- I guess we just look at the world through different eyes.

My take on Obama's January comments was him saying that it was the special circumstances in 1980, not Ronnie Raygun himself, that allowed the country to so fundamentally change its direction. I didn't take is as complimentary of Raygun in the least.

Obama is also saying that the same situation is true this year, namely that it's not Obama himself who can effect fundamental change in the opposite direction from Raygun just by being who he is, but is due more to circumstances setting up just right to allow such fundamental change to take place. In a way it is a very humbling statement for Obama to make ("it's not just me, it's also being in the right place at the right time with the right tailwinds"), but I may be the only one who interprets his comments that way. C'est la vie!

I guess no one truly knows, Waterboy, other than Obama himself and he, like most pols, will say whatever is expedient at the time. I admit I don't like him much, but I will for a certainty vote for Obama because the alternative truly is worse, though I'm not sure how much worse. I think we know what to expect from McCain and it is the great unknown about Obama that makes me nervous as hell.

Digging around on the link that Eureka provided took me to Digby and something he said that made a whole bunch of sense and is something we should have already digested and used as a filter. I quote:

"The sainted Tim Russert, the Everyman from Buffalo, owned a seven million dollar vacation home on Nantucket. Chris Matthews makes five million dollars a year. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But they are hardly the voices of average Americans and I fear that an awful lot of powerful Democrats, similarly situated, turn to such "salt of the earth" millionaire celebrities as their touchstones to the "regular" people."

The starving Liberal media is no longer starving and it's playing hell with our news coverage. Poor folks take chances, poor folks leave the house with a gun or a pitchfork in their hands....never rich folks. Rich folks want the status quo because it's a damn good thing for them. When you got the world by the tail, you don't want some mixed race Chicago lawyer coming along upsetting your very very comfortable apple cart.

Now, this has not much to do with Obama voting for immunity for the Telecoms. But Obama is a million dollars away from being a poor man. He's a rich man too and that could explain his "running to the middle" bullshit. Eureka's link says it all......running to the middle is WRONG, sucking up to Bush's disastrous policies is WRONG. Re-electing Bush enablers like Mark W. Pryor and Blanche W. Lincoln is WRONG.

We are not a country of the middle or the right when it comes to war and torture and spying or government handouts to the rich. So someone needs to get this message to Barack Obama......the convention hasn't happened. He is the supposed nominee, but just piss off about 80% of those delegates and see who winds up as the official Democratic nominee. Jesus.....it's all like a bad Hollywood script these days!

I don't know, Ci.Ci.

I've always liked Obama. Liked Hillary too. Never liked McCain.

Disclosure.

What makes ME "nervous as hell" is McCain's 72nd birthday, his mysterious secret health history (he won't share it) and his notorious reputation (even among his Republican peers) of having the temper of a two-year-old.

Obama's had shizz thrown at him from day one because of his color. He's developed the temper of an adult male. Seems to me Obama's learned to respond, "What's best for this situation?" Not, "What makes me look most 'manly.'"

McCain's calling his wife a "cunt" in public was perhaps more revealing than anything else about the man, if you explore the layers of implications from that one word in that situation.

That, plus, of course, McCain's ugly childish temper. The man is 72 and dying. When, exactly does he plan to grow up? Ever? Plus his continual flip-flopping when you compare quotations from a decade ago to those from today.

Obama's the opposite of another religious-pandering irrational old Republican dim bulb POTUS.

Seems to me like he's done a pretty good job of standing up to assaults against his "experience," positions and his race.

No temper.

Calm, rational, fact-filled logical discussion.

I don't know. Call me stupid.

But it looks to me like a choice for POTUS between a white 72 year old adulterous cancerous curmudgeon with a volatile and childish temper who hasn't bought gas in years and hasn't paid his property taxes in . . . I could go on and on . . . or voting for a rational grownup who knows how to react adultly to conflict.

Oh, yeah.

The grownup's black.

So the coming POTUS election comes down to a white, dying, religious panderer and adulterer with a vicious childish temper who's promised we'll be in Iraq a hundred years . . . and a black moderate faithful husband and grownup who happens to be black?

America gets to reveal how far, or how not, it's come on Racism.

Yes, it does.

Norma, I understand that most here don't agree with me, and I admit I've done a 180 on Obama since the early days. I was delighted when he announced because I thought he was brilliant and although I appreciated the Clinton years and the idea of the 'first woman POTUS', I was all for Obama and very upset at the smears against him. I began to be disenchanted during the debates. Invariably, he would sit silent when a question was asked and then look at Hillary. She would respond with a very good answer and he would say "I agree with Hillary". It got to be funny after a while and I began to think that he was another "all boots and no cattle". He is great with a message, but not so great extemporaneously. I know that isn't a prerequisite but it looked to me he was riding Hillary's coat tails.

But he really lost me, when some of us began to question whether or not he could win, and because that uncertainty was based on the fact that some Democrats won't vote for a black man, those who raised that issue as something we needed to think about were branded "racist." He may not have used the words, but he certainly condoned it. There was never anything Hillary said about him (other than the time she said McCain was more qualified - which was probably true - but she shouldn't have said it anyway) - that was nasty or racist. In fact all his troubles came at his own hands - his "bitter" remarks - Rev. Wright, Father Pflegher, Michelle and "proud" for the first time, "sweetie", etc. - not from Hillary. The media made a heyday out of everything Hillary said - assigned ugly motives, etc., and they just went along for the ride. But, the capper for me was when an interviewer asked Michelle if she would support Hillary if the roles were reversed and she said "she didn't know" she would have to think about that. There was also a report that Obama "couldn't" consider Hillary for the VP slot because Michelle wouldn't approve. I decided to hell with both of them.

If they aren't in it for the country - rather than their personal egos - I just don't give a damn about them. I thought he had great potential - probably still does and probably will be a good president - but I won't be surprised if he is a very poor one because we don't know him - we know nothing about him and he truly has NO experience at all.

Bonnie Erbe, who is a real favorite of mine, put it well, I thought - "The seal is emblematic of all that is wrong with the Obama campaign: presumptuousness, self-aggrandizement in lieu of substance, unadulterated hunger for power and social climbing. The seal makes him look as if he has appointed himself president before being elected to the post. This is such a mark of bad judgment it makes one think: God help the American public...."

I am not about to vote for McCain, and Obama's speech in Unity helped me a lot - but I'm not liking this guy as a person - we'll have to see what kind of Prez he is, because he won't lose - that's certain.

Ci.Ci.

Maybe we have variant recollections about the debates. I thought Obama was equally well-informed as Hillary, and equally well-spoken.

I just think this is fundamentally an exercise in America's persistent racism.

Look. I'm no blinkered voter. Obama's campaign staff has fucked up royally. Donnie McClurkin, anybody?

So did Hillary's.And so continues McClain's campaign.

So what.

We've all had enough time, those of us who are interested and informed and not just opinionated, to research and evaluate these POTUS candidates.

But the elephant in the living room is that Obama's black.

Jesus H. Christ, Razorbacks. It's 2008.

Still?

THANK GOD JOHN MCCAIN IS EVEN IN THIS RACE. HOPEFULLY THE NEW, WHEN THEY ARE APPOINTED, JUSTICES DO LEAN CONSERVATIVELY. THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO WOULD BE THRILLED TO GET THEM ON THE COURT. AND WHILE WE ARE AT IT, SHAME SHAME I GUESS FOR THE SNYDERS FOR HAVING MULTIPLES, WHO DO THEY THINK THEY ARE HAVING KIDS AND NOT GETTING ALL OF YOUR PERMISSION. GET A LIFE YOU JELLY BEANZ .

HAD TO GET SOMETHING FOR NAUSEA AFTER THE HILLARY, OBAMA SPEECHES IN UNITY. GUESS BILL DIDNT GET THE MEMO., OR MAYBE HE DID. JUST WHO DO YOU THINK WILL BECOME PRESIDENT IF SOMETHING HAPPENS TO THE PRESIDENT, RIGHT. METHOD TO THE MADNESS, AM BETTING IT WILL BE HILL. NOT THE DREAM TEAM, BUT THE NIGHTMARE FROM ELM STREET. WE ARE IN FOR THE MOST DISASTROUS ECONOMIC FIASCO, SINCE THE TIMES OF JIMMY CARTER,. THEY WILL PALE TO OBAMA'S . YOU ALL WILL BE PRAYING FOR A GEORGE BUSH TO SAVE YOUR TUSH AND HE WONT BE THERE.
EVIDENTLY MR OBAMA HAS NEVER TAKEN A FINANCE 101, OR IF HE DID , DIDNT PASS IT,
HE HAS SUCKERED EVEN THE MOST "INTELLECTUAL" IF THAT IS WHAT YOU WANT TO CALL THEM.
THEY WILL FIND AFTER HIS ELECTION, IF INDEED IT IS TO BE, THAT THEY DID NOT TAKE THE PROPER CURRICULUM . THEY WILL NOT BE PREPARED FOR WHAT IS TO COME.
EVEN DBI WILL TAKE BACKWATER, MARK MY WORDS. MAYBE NOT DAY ONE. BUT HE WILL , BUT IT WILL BE TOO LATE. I FIND THIS TO REMIND ME THAT IT IS NOT PARTY UNITY, IT IS TOTAL LOCK STEP., SOMETHING ALL DEMS SEEM TO ABHOR., THEY ARE UP TO THEIR LIBERAL ASSES IN IT.

SWEET DREAMS LIL DUMBO DEMS. WATCH WHAT YOU PRAY FOR, YOU JUST MIGHT GET IT.

LORD HELP US

==================================================================
Obama's remarks about Presidents Reagan and Clinton were his way of hitting back at President Clinton. Obama took President Clinton's remarks personally and he repeatedly belittled President Clinton's legacy as retaliation. Now President Clinton is making Obama wait for a phone conversation. It's just boys being boys.
==================================================================

Norma, you must be kidding - even the blathering media on MSNBC and CNN who adore Obama noticed he couldn't answer a question in the debates until Hillary first answered and then he would always say "I agree with Hillary". It was painful.......

How anyone can argue that giving retroactive immunity to corporations for illegal activities--NO MATTER that everyone's intentions were pure and that the White House said it's OK---is beyond my understanding. Corporations are not above the law and neither are presidents. Otherwise, let's just install another Royal Family and let their wise edicts rule.

Waterboy...we'll just have to agree to disagree about the Obama/Reagan stuff...since we obviously interpreted his words differently. I will admit, however, that those words hit a nerve with me. The re-writing of Reagan's presidency by the Republicans has reached ridiculous. My god, I'm expecting a Sainthood or some other Divine ascendancy before the Rabid Reaganites are through retelling his tale. So to have Obama empower the Reagan Presidency as he dissed Bill's...was a bit much.

Anyway...time to move on to bigger crap: The FISA stuff and Obama's flip flopping like a landed fish. First, NOTHING will get me to vote for McSame. Second, I'm voting for Obama regardless, but Obama's crap still stinks. Clearly, he ain't any different than the Clintons...and that's sad, very sad.

I honestly feel your pain, eureka; I honestly though Obama was better than the Clintons. Now I know he's just better, waaaay better, than the alternative.

(Sorry I left my stuff hanging...family, family...)

speaking of stuff hanging...

down to who can snark the meanest
over logic that's the cleanest
no wonder so little gets resolved
where internet intercourse has diss-olved
but at least the DEM nominee's properly penised