Will Blanche Lincoln Switch Parties?

Like Charlie Crist in Florida, Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln looks like electoral toast. Given her performance today in President Obama's "Question Time" with the Dem Senate Caucus, it seems fair to speculate whether she is planning on switching parties. The Hill reports:

Sen. Blanche Lincoln (Ark.) on Wednesday asked arguably the most contentious question during a discussion between Senate Democrats and President Barack Obama, hitting at conservatives and liberals. Lincoln [. . .] asked Obama to push back against "people at the extremes" of both parties, especially against Democrats "who want extremes." She also took a swipe at Obama's White House, referencing a constituent who "fears that there's no one in your administration that understands what it means to go to work on Monday and make a payroll on Friday."

Mitch McConnell would have been pleased. Obama responded to her as if she were a Republican:

Obama responded by defending steps his administration has taken to right the economy and said "Moving forward, Blanche, what you're going to hear from some folks...[is that] the only way to provide stability is to go back and do what we did before the crisis. [. . .] If the price of certainty is for us to adopt the exact same proposals that were in place for eight years leading up to the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression...the result is going to be the same."

Blanche Lincoln wants to run as a Republican. She may as well start now.

Speaking for me only

< Saints LB Stands Up for LGBT Rights | Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    If she wants to keep her job (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 01:25:55 PM EST
    That might be the right course of action. (no pun intended)

    I don't think she has any chance electorally as a (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by steviez314 on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 01:35:12 PM EST
    Republican either (unlike Crist who does have a chance as a Dem).

    I suspect she knows the writing is on the wall and has just decided to act like a sore loser early.

    Agreed n/t (none / 0) (#69)
    by joanneleon on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 06:15:33 PM EST
    Since Democrats don't want to (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 01:37:18 PM EST
    re-elect Blanche, she might as well end the charade she's been engaging in for so long and just make the switch; I hope karma takes a big chunk out of her hind end and she loses anyway.

    I'm sick of these craven fence-sitters.

    Don't let the door.... (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 01:45:53 PM EST
    If she's waiting for me to beg her to stay, she'll have to wait until h#ll freezes over.

    When Democrats have to spend more time battling the members of their own party than they do Republicans something has to change.

    I have a couple of people I wish she'd (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by cawaltz on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 02:08:29 PM EST
    take with her. As long as they are going to be anti choice, pro corporate, tax cutting morons who are going to wave pom poms while social programs are gutted so the Defense Dept. has the ability to blow up the world seven times over they might as well be Republicans in name as well.

    What social programs have (none / 0) (#31)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 03:03:11 PM EST
    been gutted?

    Are you playing dumb? (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by cawaltz on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 03:16:17 PM EST
    States have had to cut budgets for their social programs left and right(which you might say falls on the state except for the fact that Federal funding ALSO is utilized for many of these programs).

    Additionally, it's domestic plans that are going to be frozen while the Defense Dept. will continue to be allowed to buy as many bright shiny new toys as they like. Perhaps your okay with teachers facing the ax to pay for drones, I'm not.


    Defense is federal (none / 0) (#57)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 04:16:15 PM EST
    State budgets are not federal.  You need to make that clear you are complaining about state budgets.  Btw, I am all for axing the Dept. of education and giving that money that it takes to run the department.  back to the states to put in the front lines of education.  

    Money for social programs (none / 0) (#60)
    by cawaltz on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 04:22:34 PM EST
    are federal AND state.

    I'm complaining about Federal as well as State.

    Money was cut that shouldn't have been cut back when conservatives were in charge of the henhouse.

    The idea of giving the money back to the states so they can cut it and preserve tax cuts is absurd.

    Exhibit A. Virginia wil be cutting their education budget to preserve a car tax credit.

    You gotta love conservatives though. They know how to pretend to sell something in a patriotic way to the sheeple"frontlines of education" indeed.


    Exhibit A (none / 0) (#63)
    by cawaltz on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 04:36:36 PM EST
    Here's what your "front line of Education"  looks like.

    "Virginia legislators also will debate trimming $357 million from K-12 education in part by capping the number of support staff members that schools can hire and reducing health insurance funding for faculty and staff members. Also being considered is cutting aid to colleges and universities by 26 percent over the next few years, a move that will probably lead to tuition increases. "

    Golly gee, what a wonderous model! I didn't even get to the part where he talks about the wonderous salvation of charter schools even though students in charter schools actually did more poorly in math then their public school counterparts in the 2003 study conducted. Yippee though taxes will be low. Who cares that in 20 years the same people we short changed on education will be responsible for our country's well being? Everyone who isn't "connected" ought to be practicing saying "do you want fries with that" anyway.


    How many kids does the DOE (none / 0) (#71)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 07:35:38 PM EST
    educate anyway?  How many kids in their graduating class?  

    How many kids (none / 0) (#73)
    by cawaltz on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 09:20:03 PM EST
    are in the graduating class of the State of Virginia DOE or for that matter any STATE DOE(you know the people you were just hours ago suggesting should be responsible for education?)Or are you going to play dumb again and suggest that states are responsible for graduation even though Federal Funding provides money for education and is largely responsible for a good portion of low income and minorites having the ability to graduate.

    Will your new suggestion be we go back to the good ol' days when people were responsible for educatin' their own younguns in between plantin crops?

    You keep diggin that conservative ditch though.


    Question (none / 0) (#75)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 10:10:44 PM EST
    Would you trust your own child's public education to some of the state legislatures we have in this country?

    Much more than (none / 0) (#76)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 08:08:19 AM EST
    the feds.

    The states would have more (none / 0) (#77)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 08:09:21 AM EST
    money if the cost of running the DOE was turned back over to the states.  

    Here's where it was cut in 2005 on a federal level (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by cawaltz on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 03:44:04 PM EST

    Now states are having to cut the program and what a boon that will be since the Federal government splits the cost 50-50 with most states.

    Hey though we can afford an entire room full of tech equipment to spy on Americans. Who cares if over 2300 cases were an abuse of government authority right? It's money well spent. Much better use of our resources than paying for health care or education for our future citizens.


    That's why Obama should not have responded. (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by BrassTacks on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 02:17:27 PM EST
    He should be above getting into these kind of battles with democrats.  Why must he always be so defensive?  It's not helpful to our party.

    He's been catering to Lincoln, (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by ruffian on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 02:52:56 PM EST
    Lieberman, Nelson, etc for a year, with no good result for the country or the party, to the point where it was impossible to know his own opinions, both personally and as leader of the party. I think an honest, public exchange of views can only help.

    Better that (none / 0) (#30)
    by Emma on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 02:56:39 PM EST
    they engage in an honest, public exchange of legislation.  :)

    Of course (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by ruffian on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 03:22:35 PM EST
    but I'll take this for a start.

    What? (5.00 / 7) (#33)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 03:15:03 PM EST
    Not helpful to the party?  How, pray tell, is pointing out that the Republicans screwed everything up royally and that going back to their policies will only make it worse-- how on earth can that possibly be bad for the Dem. Party?

    1. It wasn't a battle

    2. He wasn't defensive-- unless any attempt to point out the folly of the other side is "defensive," in which case we're even more doomed than we already are

    3. If she listened, he gave her some d**n good ammunition to shoot back at her unhappy constituents.  Maybe if she'd had a clue to begin with instead of just caving, she wouldn't be in the position she's in now

    4. WHat's bad for the Dem. Party is people like Lincoln trying to run as Dems but acting like Republicans.  If people want a Republican, they'll vote for one.  They have no need to vote for a Republican running on the Dem. line.  She's never gotten that.  Poor Blanche.  Bye-bye, Blanche.

    Lincoln is Right. President Punches Democrats (none / 0) (#70)
    by kidneystones on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 07:23:22 PM EST
    To be pissed. We know for a fact how little the WH thinks of the left: "F$cking r#tards". (apologies for even mentioning this slur.

    Anyone think that Obama, and Rahm, and Blanche, and Ben sat around the table saying: but progressives have a point. Doubtless, President Say Anything promised Lincoln that he shares her frustration and contempt for the 'extreme' elements in the party. What Lincoln and Ben are looking for is a little public consistency from a guy who campaigned with a great big cross in the middle of his Kentucky election posters. Vote for me, I'm Harold Ford's more pious brother.

    Hey, lookee I'm a Christianist, too, got poor Ben and Blanche thinking, just like liberal gays, that they had an ally in the President. Obama certainly acts like a pro-business backroom deal-maker. Lincoln is rightly pissed, I'd say.

    Presidents Punching Democrats in Public Might make more sense a: the President happended to be a Republican; or b/if the public had a greater sense of why. The public doesn't. If Obama had a better political team (Rahm) he wouldn't have to be negotiating with Dems.

    The president had all the ammunition he needed to hammer Republicans in 2008-9. He held fire and now they've risen from the zombie grave. I mentioned on another thread how much damage Obama did to Coakley by cutting that backroom union deal on HCR just days before the election.

    Right now the only accomplishments Dems are going to be able to point to for 2010 is breaking most of the promises made to the voters in 2008 (let's not go there, now) and now compiling a list of all the Dems other Dems can blame for getting SFA done with control of the WH, Senate and House.

    A little grace under pressure might go a long way towards winning.


    I chuckle at the thought (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by andgarden on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 01:46:08 PM EST
    if her even attempting a Republican primary. She has absolutely no path to reelection IMO. Her R opponent would have to be revealed at the last moment as a child molester.

    Take one for the team (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 03:35:21 PM EST
    and do something helpful....at least she could go out with her head held high....

    Yes(with appropriate re-arrangement) (none / 0) (#25)
    by KeysDan on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 02:40:59 PM EST
    as former Governor Edwin Edwards, of her neighboring state, once said about his election prospects: A sure thing unless I am caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy.

    Edwin Edwards' campaign (none / 0) (#39)
    by Zorba on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 03:27:58 PM EST
    was also responsible for the bumper sticker: Vote for the Crook- It Matters" in 1990 when David Dike was running against him.  ;-)

    Yes, but I think (none / 0) (#42)
    by KeysDan on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 03:33:30 PM EST
    you mean David Duke :)

    I did, KeysDan (none / 0) (#54)
    by Zorba on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 03:59:52 PM EST

    She is feeding into the GOP narrative (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by lucky leftie on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 02:01:15 PM EST
    that Obama is too "leftist."  The GOP repeats it ad nauseum, pundits solemnly assure one another that it is true and even people in our own party reinforce this unsubstantiated, nonsensical claim.  

    Buh-bye, Blanche.  Good lucking getting health insurance when you become unemployed.  Maybe helping to derail HRC wasn't so wise.    

    Having served in the Senate since 1998, she will (none / 0) (#35)
    by DFLer on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 03:16:12 PM EST
    vested in the gov. retirement and health plan if she loses, so no.....no problem for her on the health insurance, I think.

    Good to hear (none / 0) (#50)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 03:49:01 PM EST
    I'm so glad to hear that her pension, health care and future are secure! (snark) Maybe she can form a support group with Zell Miller for want to be Republicans.

    Love the headline over at Huffington (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Left of the Left on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 02:42:21 PM EST
    on this one:

    Obama Calls Out Conservative Democrats For Their Timidity


    Story continues below

    From there, Obama turned to a more pointed critique of Lincoln's argument. "If the price of certainty is essentially for us to adopt the exact same proposals that were in place for eight years leading up to the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression -- we don't tinker with health care, let the insurance companies do what they want, we don't put in place any insurance reforms, we don't mess with the banks, let them keep on doing what they're doing now because we don't want to stir up Wall Street -- the result is going to be the same," he said. "I don't know why we would expect a different outcome pursuing the exact same policy that got us into this fix in the first place."

    More stuff to get the fanboys a flutter. Like defending how Republican he is to republicans.

    Cheers! (none / 0) (#34)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 03:15:32 PM EST
    That's been my argument from the start. I just hope he believes it. Democrats have been too timid at this message. Republicans came in with a surplus budget and left with the worst deficit on record. People (including those in DC) need reminded of this.

    eh. (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Left of the Left on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 03:42:34 PM EST
    Obama lecturing on timidity, is like him chastising someone for trying to be bipartisan. That was just the headline though.

    I dont disagree with his message, but it isnt 2008 anymore, we've been in charge a year. It's harder selling yourself as an outsider when you're the leader of the free world, cutting backroom deals. Fanboys'll eat this up, but I dont think the publics going to keep buying it.


    BTD - I am surprised you didn't (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 03:38:21 PM EST
    mention the exchange with Bayh.  Obama actually schooled him a bit on his deficit hawk baloney.

    THE PRESIDENT: Well, I'll tell you why the Democratic Party should be trusted -- because the last time this budget was balanced, it was under a Democratic President who made some very tough decisions. (Applause.)

    Now, having said that, we have been complicit in some ways over the last decade. The prescription drug bill -- not paid for. Two wars -- not paid for. Two tax cuts -- not paid for.

    Thought that was pretty good - hope Obama means what he says.

    OMG (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 03:39:15 PM EST
    He actually (sorta) mentioned something good Bill Clinton did?  He's probably going to need to lie down for a while....

    Wow, now he recongnizes (none / 0) (#67)
    by Andy08 on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 05:10:54 PM EST
    Bill Clinton?  Unfortunately though, regarding creation of jobs and
    controlling deficits, Mr Obama is no Bill Clinton. So, Bayh question stands unanswered in the minds of many ...

    My prediction (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by NYShooter on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 05:50:43 PM EST
    for November's election:...... Big Surprise!

    The rage building in the electorate this year is anti-incumbent, and the surprise is that the "throw the bums out" chant is non-partisan. Proportionally, as many Republican incumbents may lose their seats as Democrats.

    That will mean the GOP will lose its.. minority? (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by beowulf on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 09:57:49 PM EST
    If you throw all the bums out, then its a net win for the minority party.

    how would you be able to tell? (none / 0) (#78)
    by NYShooter on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 10:07:01 AM EST
    Democrats are a minority in the Democratic Party now.

    and Democrats pay the price (none / 0) (#4)
    by lilburro on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 01:42:18 PM EST
    for not correctly applying the Overton Window concept.

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by cawaltz on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 01:48:23 PM EST
    I'm not even sure they know what the window is let alone how it works.

    Just look at how they treated single payer advocates.


    many of the people in arkansas (none / 0) (#8)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 01:52:59 PM EST
    who call themselves democrats would not be recognizable as such to most democrats.
    her problem is with most people now seems to be that she has not done this kind of stuff enough.

    Lieberman could too (none / 0) (#9)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 01:54:53 PM EST
    If they can battle Democrats to a 50-50 split in the Senate, Republicans could also try to bring Democrat-turned-independent Sen. Joe Lieberman all the way across the aisle. Lieberman recently said "it's possible" that he could run as a Republican in 2012 -- "a good, old-fashioned, New England moderate Republican" -- which should have been an alarm bell for Democrats concerned about keeping his vote.


    the fact that bomb loving (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 01:58:43 PM EST
    rape gurney Joe could be considered a moderate republican speaks volumes about what has happened to the political spectrum in this country.

    anyone to the left of Genghis Khan is a moderate.


    This country's political (5.00 / 0) (#18)
    by cal1942 on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 02:10:41 PM EST
    spetrum has gone so far off track; I'd say that Attila The Hun is a centrist.

    Bomb loving rape (none / 0) (#32)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 03:04:29 PM EST
    gurney joe?  You too classy for me.  You must be "progressive".

    I am actually (none / 0) (#53)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 03:56:36 PM EST
    and the problem with most "progressives" is that they let themselves be intimidated by comments like yours from telling the truth about people like bomb loving rape gurney joe.

    Heh (none / 0) (#59)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 04:19:27 PM EST
    snip., save.

    he can try (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by CST on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 02:10:18 PM EST
    to run as a republican, or independant, or whatever the hell he wants.  But right now at least, CT isn't having any of it.  No one in CT, not the dems, indies, or repubs has a favorable opinion of him right now.  In fact, I think he's hovering in the 30s.

    So good luck with that Joe.  And to both Joe and Blanche I say "good riddance to bad rubbish"


    The 30s (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 02:34:53 PM EST
    that sounds high- last I heard he was at Sub-Bush in 2008 levels in Conneticut- or course that was right after he voted for Cloture- great strategy that- piss off Dems by shifting to the right, then slap the GOP by not going full wingnut.

    I see an (none / 0) (#10)
    by scribe on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 01:58:33 PM EST
    "Arkansas for Lincoln" party in your future.

    Nice answer by Obama. Does this (none / 0) (#12)
    by observed on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 01:59:39 PM EST
    mean he is going to let the Bush tax cuts and estate tax repeal expire?

    Im jsut happy (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 02:01:03 PM EST
    he seems to have awakened from his long slumber

    Just in time to lose the majority (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by cawaltz on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 02:50:28 PM EST
    (banging head on desk) Inept and Democrat appear to be synonyms.

    yep (none / 0) (#29)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 02:54:53 PM EST
    I notice the house in burning.  let me get dressed.

    The budget would seem ot indicate (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 02:36:32 PM EST
    that for all people over 250,000 we're going back to pre-Bush tax levels, and for all under it we're staying the same (which is probably smart- there's literally no way anyone could sell letting the middle class portions expire in this climate).

    Sound like (none / 0) (#15)
    by cal1942 on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 02:01:29 PM EST
    go to work on Monday and make a payroll on Friday.

    Republican talk I've heard all my life.  Practically boilerplate.

    which is ironic (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by cawaltz on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 02:11:03 PM EST
    since they are union hating morons that are hell bent on denying those same go to work on Monday and make payroll on Friday people affordable health care or a floor on wages that actually means you don't have to beg the government for handout.

    Other than that sort of stuff they are all about the working man snort


    Yeah, especially since their (none / 0) (#20)
    by observed on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 02:15:04 PM EST
    dream world would be "Go to work on Sunday; collect payroll Saturday at 10 pm when your shift finishes. Oh yeah, and good luck getting to a bank with your schedule. For only $40/wk, we'll deposit the check in the bank for you"

    don't forget, "Here's some scrip, (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 03:24:43 PM EST
    You can use it at the company store or to pay rent on your company house."

    Interesting (none / 0) (#80)
    by cal1942 on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 12:26:43 PM EST
    A neighbor's father rented a company house in a mining town for nearly 20 years.  The company finally offered all its renters an opportunity to buy the houses they'd rented. Her father jumped at the chance as did many others.  Eighteen months later the mine closed.

    The company knew they were going to pull out and took that opportunity to pick up a load of cash from their workers who were left with no way to pay their mortgages.


    So this (none / 0) (#22)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 02:33:07 PM EST
    the Friday Q&A with the GOP, is Obama just starting to get a little peeved or what.

    could she please take (none / 0) (#40)
    by cpinva on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 03:28:23 PM EST
    nelson and stupak with her, when she goes? oh, and give webb & warner a smack on the back of the head on her way out the door, maybe knock some sense into them?

    i must admit to some confusion though: if sen. lincoln truly represents the wishes of her constituents, why not just run as a republican to begin with? why the facade? clearly, there's something i'm missing about AR.

    Did (none / 0) (#41)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 03:30:36 PM EST
    the demographics change since she first ran?  Remember - she was elected as a Dem when Bill Clinton (shhh!  I know we aren't supposed to mention him!) was president and won right before he was impeached - I think the tide was turning very much in the Dems' favor at that point, no?

    Arkansas and West Virginia (none / 0) (#44)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 03:37:22 PM EST
    are very conservative now.....and becominmg more so....

    Just as Illinois and California used to be Republican states.....


    Their BS detectors (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by cawaltz on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 03:52:37 PM EST
    have gone off. If the dems had actually led on pocketbook issue I daresay they'd be calling themself "conservative."

    It's the flavor of the week though since Democrats seem heckbent in ensuring Aetna gets theirs and ignoring the fact that the majority of the country wants an option for health care that doesn't have to be purchased through the private industry.


    They might be again (none / 0) (#46)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 03:38:33 PM EST
    very soon....

    The formula for winning a statewide (none / 0) (#64)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 04:37:08 PM EST
    race in California has been the same for more than 20 years.  You have to be, in order of importance:

      1.  Pro-choice.
      2.  Pro-environment.
      3.  Pro-death penalty (although this is fading somewhat.)

    A Republican who is good on #1 and 2 above can win on anti-tax platform, but it is hard to do.

    Boxer won by 20 points in 2004--in a strong Republican year--because her Republican opponent, Dan Lungren, was anti-choice....

    This year Carly Fiorina has said that she is pro-life....She may win the Republican Primary saying that, and that is generally what happens--the pro-choice Republican gets beat in the Primary....But she is behind right now to Tom Campbell who has been running for the Senate for a generation.....In 1998, he was a member of the House from San Jose, I think, when he voted for Impeachment--I sent him an-email saying that DiFi would kick his tale in the upcoming Senate race....And she did.

    If the Republicans get lucky and put up pro-choice Campbell, they will make it harder on Boxer but she should be fine...


    My mom is a CA Republican (none / 0) (#66)
    by nycstray on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 04:54:43 PM EST
    not sure where she stands on the DP, but ya got 1 and 2 right ;) And she will vote for pro-choice Dems over pro-life Repubs, especially if they are female. She drew that line in the sand years ago. I wouldn't be surprised if she's been marking her ballot for Boxer all these years. {ssssh! don't tell your father!} lol!~ that's what she said years ago when we first started getting women in positions.

    I'm not familiar with Campbell, I'll have to check him out when I get there so I can be prepared to keep mom checking the correct boxes ;)


    At the risk (none / 0) (#51)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 03:52:28 PM EST
    of getting slammed with snarky comments, poll after poll after poll shows Hillary would have won both those states handily, had she been the nominee in 2008, so I don't know if the states themselves are getting "more conservative" or not.

    These maps from Gallup (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 04:14:42 PM EST
    are interesting....Link

    They show Arkanasas as being as conservative as the rest of the South....West Virignia (see the second map) has as few liberals as the states  of the Deep South and the Mormon West.

    Sure, occasionally a candidate will have special appeal outside a traditional base state--a special connection as a favorite son or daughter, or an ability to connect--that is unique to him or her.  

    That Hillary might have won Arkansas or West Virginia is really not the point anymore, is it?


    That didn't take long.... (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 04:15:55 PM EST
    I think yours praising Hillary was faster (1.50 / 2) (#58)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 04:17:52 PM EST
    Nice strawman (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 04:26:01 PM EST
    It wasn't praise, but then again, you seem to have a weird definition of things when anyone even mentions her name.  It was a fact (based on polls of course) that a Democrat, as recently as 2008, could have won those states and won handily.  Arkansas and West Virginia have always been "conservative" states, but a Democrat still could have won them - which doesn't explain why Blanche Lincoln is getting her a$$ handed to her.  It has to be more than "the state is getting more conservative."

    Maybe (none / 0) (#62)
    by Emma on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 04:28:15 PM EST
    some Dems are seeing value in separating themselves from Obama?  Just a thought.  I don't actually know.  Of course, if so it's the ConservaDems.  Too bad it's not liberal dems.

    Twofer (none / 0) (#65)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 04:38:58 PM EST
    That's two posts in this thread praising the Clintons...Don't you think that is getting anachronistic?

    DINOs be-gone! (none / 0) (#72)
    by pluege on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 08:33:55 PM EST
    lets get down to the real democrats and stop jerking around pretending there is a great dem majority:

    lincoln, bayh, LIEberman, Baucus, Nelson, Landieu - BE-GONE!!!

    the republicans got one thing right: drive to the extremes and make the gelatinous middle choose: violent criminal greed-obsessed insanity on the right, or community, equality, empathy, quality of life for all on the left.

    Actually (none / 0) (#79)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 11:14:05 AM EST
    This is kind of hilarious.  The whole session was scripted beforehand, so Blanche's question was meant for her to look tough to her constituents and for Obama to look tough to his.

    Democratic leaders planned their question time with Obama well in advance, discussing during a meeting earlier in the week who would get to ask questions.

    "In the leadership meeting we talked about it," said Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), who was called on for a question and is among the most endangered Democratic senators up for reelection this year. "I think the majority leader did take a list early on."