That's Senator Franken To You

My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over.

Al Franken, the former SNL Funnyman, has won the U.S. Senate race in Minnesota, with his decidedly unfunny opponent, Norm Coleman conceding defeat.

Way to go guys. Only took you eight months. Healthy children have been conceived and born in that time, albeit prematurely.

For Republicans, this is yet another in a long line of kicks to gaping hole that used to be their gut. Not only does their Doomsday Theory of 60 seats in the Senate being controlled by Democrats inch closer to reality, but simply speaking, they threw the pocketbook at this problem, spending over a million bones in the last three months.

I've only met handful of people from Minnesota, and none of them are worth a million dollars.

That's not to say that Democrats didn't put a lot into soon-to-be Senator Franken's campaign either. Franken is going to have an even greater impetus to achieve in his inaugural term. He will be heavily scrutinized by his opponents, but also the independents in the Land of 10,000 Metaphorical Lakes.

I'm very interested to see how Franken fares, regardless of his political leanings. Democrats can recognize good, hard work from Republicans and vice versa. Independents don't care about that stuff anyway. Franken should have no problem being a good speaker, but let's see if he is persuasive. Or at least worth the trouble of letting Minnesota go eight months without being represented by two Senators.

Even Arkansas has that.

Speaking of the Natural State, the local angle could be that now Sens. Lincoln and Pryor, moderate, rural Democrats, will have more pressure on them than they had when Democrats lacked the filibuster-ending 60 votes. Every Democratic vote will now be crucial. Expect those who are trying to temper the more liberal-inclinations of the party for the sake of their political lives — like Lincoln, a Democrat up for re-election in 2010 in conservative Arkansas — to feel more heat.

Today, Lincoln and Pryor both professed their reservations for the House-approved Cap-and-Trade bill. While it will be much more difficult to achieve in the Senate, you can tell by the ruckus in the House that it's an important Democratic issue. And if President Obama is going to phone lil ole Rep. Mike Ross, D-Pig's Knuckle, and try to get him to vote for such legislation, one has to believe that for Obama-issues, Pryor and Lincoln will get Obama-calls too.

I'm looking forward to hearing Franken's first floor speech. And I'll be watching for Pryor and Lincoln's reactions.

Hat and Swap — Cap and Trade

Apparently these legislative types in Washington didn't get the memo that I was leaving work early to book it to St. Louis on Friday afternoon. They had the audacity to make landmark decisions while I was away from my post. For shame!

As you likely heard, the U.S. House passed the U.S. Clean Energy and Security Act, also known as a variant of cap-and-trade, by a skimpy margin, 219-212. With a name like 'Clean Energy and Security' who could vote against this bill? Turns out a lot of people, and most of the Arkansas' congressional delegation.

Republicans dubbed this a "cap-and-tax" bill, and being that it was written by the likes of representatives from California (gasp!) and Massachusetts (fie!), were nearly unanimous in their opposition to the bill. The story was the schism between Democrats, rural and otherwise.

Rural folk are against cap-and-trade. The business of agriculture runs on gasoline fumes. The expenses, while a mild irritant for John and Jane Q. Automobile Driver, would be devastating for the farming industry, and could have a negative ripple effect (such as a rise in the imports of food and cloth), say opponents.

Subsequently, rural Democrats balked, leading to the squeaker vote. I spoke with several delegates who had "great concerns" over how this would effect the biggest business in Arkansas, which is of course, agriculture. There were references from all to "importing food and cloth like we import oil," all of which were negative references.

We can all see how the votes went down for our delegates, plain as day now. 75 percent were against it, with only one opting for it.

While the state's lone Republican, John Boozman, was surely against it, national media attention was given to the remaining delegates of our very Natural State. Mike Ross made some noise voting against the bill in committee. Marion Berry and Vic Snyder were the question marks.

Most speculated that Berry would follow Ross' example. In my discussions with Ross, he said that he plainly believed it to be a bad bill for Arkansas, so much so that when President Obama personally called him to support the bill, he say "Thanks, but no." Berry's district is just as if not more rural and agriculturally-based as Ross'.

If Berry and Snyder were the question marks, with the more 'urban' (as urban as an Arkansan can be) Snyder would have to have been considered the bigger wild card of the two. Snyder told me that he hadn't made a decision but that he indeed had concerns about the bill.

Those concerns were obviously alleviated. The decision itself is not necessarily remarkable. The congressman said that he was weighing the decision, understanding the potential difficulties for his agricultural constituency. One side obviously won out over the other.

The dissent on the other hand was slightly more remarkable. Sens. Pryor and Lincoln have not spoken favorably about the bill. I'm not sure exactly what their latest words on the matter have been on the matter, but cap-and-trade is expected to falter in the Senate, where urbanosity and rurality (words?) is spread more thinly between two Senators per each state.

Either way, a majority of Arkansas' congressional delegation believed that this bill was bad for Arkansas. The state Farm Bureau had come out against it, before and after amendments to accommodate rural economies were included. One delegate (Ross) was the rallying clarion for Blue Dogs against the bill.

What did Snyder see that the others did not?

Caption Contest! Too Soon?

I don't know if you've heard about this fifty times yet, but Michael Jackson died yesterday afternoon. If your office is anything like mine, all working ceased to look at TMZ/figure out what TMZ is, yell at everyone surrounding your desk, go outside and yell it on the streets, pull a fire alarm, and then just scream unintelligibly.

Then someone started comparing him to Elvis and you just lost it, didn't you. Me too. Apples and Oranges, man.

Anyway, here's a political photo I snagged while drifting through photos of the King of Pop. It's Reagan giving Jackson a civic award for being a good role model (hindsight?), and also for lending his hit song 'Beat It' to an anti-drunk driving campaign. Show him off right, kids. Show him off right.

Lattimer won last week. He gets to watch me moonwalk.

Oh yeah, I guess no one knows that about me. I can moonwalk. Seriously. Not kidding. I can do it.

Have at the CapCon.

Politics In Motion and Grains of Salt

Just when one Arkansas Republican Senate hopeful takes himself out by devouring his foot with an insensitive statement, another one puts on a bib and gets ready to chow down. Or was it?

This Curtis Coleman remark, the one about needing a visa and shots to go to southeast Arkansas, has caused a minor stir. I say minor because only one side is doing the stirring. That stirring is making the whole picture look like it's not just being stirred, but it's a-brewin'.

Its an excellent example of how everything viewed in the political light can be potentially beneficial and potentially hazardous. It just depends on which side one looks at it — and exploits it.

I have to admit the first I had heard about the statement was from the Democratic Party of Arkansas, decrying it. The Demozette certainly didn't think much of it, or otherwise they've gotten very bad about burying leads, which I doubt. The Party sent out an email calling it an insult and clamoring for an apology. At the time, I had nothing else to base that information off of, save for the statement itself, and the Democratic response.

So I called Coleman, and talked to him about it. He laughed the whole time, saying that it wasn't necessarily taken out of context, but was intended to denote a great metaphor than it was like a foreign land, traveling from one corner of the state to another. He says it certainly wasn't intended to refer to the southeast corner of the state as a disease-ridden third world country. He then went on about how long he lived in Southeast Arkansas, and how much family he had there, and how his first son was born there, and so on and so forth.

Stripped down: You have statement Y. You have political party, cause, affiliate, whatever X and political party, cause, affiliate, whatever Z. X is going to play Y to its own greatest benefit, same with Z. The variable X and Z are just that: variable, and in this case, to be taken with a large grain of salt.

Democrats, hoping to squash any semblance of a challenger from the GOP for their Sen. Blanche Lincoln, are going to make this sound like the worst thing that they can possibly make it out to be, hopefully derailing Coleman's maybe-campaign. "Outrage!" they cry, and begin to make inferences that maybe just aren't there.

Republicans — and one in particular, Coleman himself — will spin it the other way. A moderate spin would be to say that one who is offended by it, ought not be because that'd just be overly sensitive. The biggest spin, the path Coleman chose, was to say that it meant nothing but heartfelt and wonderful things, metaphors of diversity and such.

The truth is likely in the middle: It was probably not as insensitive as Democrats would let on, but it could be perceived as such, so Coleman probably shouldn't have said it. It's really as simple as that.

All we can do it look at the statements, the facts, and make our judgments. Whether or not someones wants others to agree with our judgments — which is the goals of all politics and especially political campaigns — is up to that deciding entity itself.

Hold the Phone: Lincoln 'Doesn't Favor' Co-Ops, 'Not Against' Public Option

"It's a complicated thing," Sen. Blanche Lincoln laughed while talking me over the phone Tuesday, after we discussed health care for about 30 minutes.

She's right. And the minutiae is excruciating.

As it's toward the end of an article about a study rather than the subject itself, a shift on Lincoln's stance in the health care debate might be buried. I reported last week that Lincoln favors a co-op rather than the public option proposed by the President.

I said it because that's what she had said. She said perhaps I misunderstood, rather, that she believed her colleagues would be more receptive and understand better the idea of co-ops, being that they are so prevalent already, with electric and housing co-ops and the like.

She doesn't prefer a co-op over a public option. Rather, she prefers what works.

"People have gotten too tied up in titles and don't focus on the goals," said Lincoln. "The key is to meet the goals," citing those goals as making sure that whatever it is is competitive, transparent, efficient, affordable, and provides an option of coverage for those who'd like to keep their insurance.

"Co-op? Sure. Public option? Sure. Fall back plan? Sure. State to state plan? Sure," said Lincoln.

Lincoln said that there are a number of different definitions for the term "public plan," some in which the government controls everything, and some of which that have varying degrees of government intervention therein.

What does a public option mean for Lincoln? She wouldn't say. Rather, she just made sure that she was clear on the matter: She's for whatever, as long as it gets those aforementioned goals attained.

Right now, nothing is on paper. There are proposals, there are prototypes being scrawled in closed door meetings. But there is no one clear plan, so far, that has been agreed upon. If that plan comes out, and it works, she'll be for it.

So for the record: Sen. Lincoln isn't for the co-op, but she's not against the co-op. She's not for the public option, whatever that is, but she's not against the public option either.

She's for whatever it is that works.

Public Option vs. the Field

Pretty good write-up here from Politico, nailing down the nuts and bolts of what they call the final piece of the health care puzzle, namely the public option that Obama specifically stipulated he would like to see in the bill but is causing many moderate Democrats to balk.

Politically, it's a problem of rhetoric, which is, as I stated in the previous post, is ironic, as the best quality of our new President is, admitted by both sides, his soaring rhetoric.

Had this public option been called anything else less-socialist-sounding, moderate Democrats could have had this sucker sent through with little to know problem. Call it a "due service," or a "personal medical option," something other than public, which connotes the socialist-stigma that the President already is having to deal with from his critics.

But I guess you gotta give it to the President: At least he took the honest road and called the spade a spade. It is what it is. Being what it is, he may not get it. The public option, that is.

Sen. Blanche Lincoln has said that she prefers a cooperative rather than a public option, saying that there is a grave concern of the government usurping the abilities of a private industry to make money fairly. The problem is that big businesses in the private industry are easy targets, and everybody already assumes and believes wholeheartedly that they are crooks.

If the health care industry were run on the backs of "mom and pop" type family doctors and such, it'd be a different story.

This debate is about helping out the 47 million who don't have health coverage without pulling the legs out from under everyone else. Obama said that the only reason he wants the government to be a competitor in the public sector is to keep everyone in that business honest. Lincoln said that they're looking into the needs that the private sector either can't or has yet to provide.

It will be a matter of convincing everyone, i.e. voters, if there's any other way. Well, I say voters. Vocal, interested constituents at this point. Although with the way candidates are piling up against our own Senator Lincoln, it's campaign season year round.

Department of Irony: Obama the Silent

So. Looks like this thing in Iran is escalating pretty quickly, no?

Indeed, this it is. It's got people wearing the already-environmentally-trademarked color green in support of those rioting in Tehran here in the states. The Iranian media has been ordered to blackout the biggest news story in the country, namely, the riots and the election that caused them.

The only word is coming from amateur sources. Twitpics, camera-phones, and facebook are playing an integral role in telling the world what's happening over there. 'Neda,' a young protester who was allegedly shot in the chest and died on camera, is being used as a martyr for their cause.

All of this compelling turmoil going on in the world, and the world wants to hear from the most compelling man in that world right now: President Barack "Check my $tats" Obama.

Yet the gregarious chief executive has remained vigilantly silent.

Oh, the irony.

The man whose rhetoric can sweep men, women, babies, and some mammals off their feet suddenly has a case of feline-mandibular-seizure. The cat seems to have his tongue, that is.

I think it's showing his intelligence, personally. Thoughtfulness, if not intelligence.

People are clamoring for him to say something, anything about it. Joe "WHOOOOOO's Gotta Microphone?!" Biden has already voiced his unsolicited opinion, saying there are real concerns about the legitimacy of the election. Well, duh, Joe. Someone who many call a dictator calls the election —for him, of course— only two hours after the polls close?

The other day I was speaking with Sen. Mark Pryor, interviewing him for something other than this post. Pryor commended Obama for his silence. In our conversation, he related this issue to a similar one Reagan faced early in his presidency, namely, the oft-forgotten situation in Dec. 1981 in Poland, in which their government declared marshal law, which P.O.ed the Soviets, which got the Pope in a fuss, and so on and so forth. Like I said, it's oft-forgotten, but Reagan, for the most part, bit his tongue on the matter.

Pryor says that showed Reagan's political savvy to reserve plight-shifting judgment and says that Obama is showing the same. I tend to agree; Obama's opinion on the matter might not solve anything, as odd as that might seem. It could in fact have adverse effects on the situation, like strengthening the resolve of the man who is unwilling to open himself to the possibility of being ousted from office or pushing someone who is just about to go on a violent tirade instead of a peaceful rant just over the edge.

The fact is we don't have all the facts. Time Magazine's Howard Chua-Eoan (hat tip to Blake Rutherford) asked what aren't we seeing in Tehran. The answer is undetermined at this point. And as my associate John Brummett advises me, if you don't have anything worth contributing, you ought not contribute at all.

I guess that's what Obama's doing. Despite criticisms being levied for his omission, I'm willing to give him a pass.

Caption Contest! BARRYYYY Ya Gotta See The BayBEEEE

If you didn't know that the title of this Caption Contest was referencing Seinfeld, leave this blog and never return.

In the age of 24-hour news coverage and social media buzzing constantly, I can't believe I haven't seen this picture before. Should make for a great Contest. Probably won't. Allow me:

• BO: He's gonna barf! HE'S GONNA BARF! SOMEONE! QUICK! HE'S GONNA BARF!
• Baby: Oh my God! It's President Obama! Can you sign my head or something?
• BO: Staring contest. Go.
• BO: Usually kissing babies is a welcome change to the rigmarole of shaking hands all day. Usually.
• Caption: Obama surprised to find a baby that looks exactly like Hillary Clinton.

There we go. That should get someone going. Last weeks winner was Robert Everett Simpson. He was rewarded with affection from yours truly.

Get it.

Fmr. President Bush Punches, Body Slams Obama Look-a-Like Repeatedly, Forces Him to Say 'Uncle'

That's what we call a misleading headline. That, in fact, never happened. Last night President George W. Bush spoke in Erie, Penn. last night, and after saying repeatedly that he was not going to criticize his successor, President Obama, the headline "Bush takes swipe at Obama policies" is what ran.

While mine would be a wild exaggeration, and the Washington Times would be a mild one inferred from the policies and principles of a man who overtly is of a different political persuasions than the person who has his job now, I think you get my point.

On the front end, let me admit that defending George W. Bush is like repairing a dishwasher while it's running; next to impossible. While Democrats joyously revile him as an anthropomorphized plague, Republicans and conservatives often squirm at a man who expanded government at a rate of 3 percent per year. His low polling numbers are a combination of that, as well as the scorn of independents who see his slow-talkin' ways and think "yokel."

I don't plan on defending his presidency or even he himself. But in this instance, on Wednesday, June 17, 2009, in Pennsylvania, Bush is getting a raw deal.

The Times purports that Bush took two stances — one, defending his administration, specifically with regard to terrorism, and two, his endorsement of the private sector — and posed them as a direct affront to President Obama.

The latter point is odd to me: President Obama himself has said that the private sector is well and good, he just wants to be able to compete with it to "keep it honest." When someone endorses that private sector, how is that necessarily swiping at Obama. Let's not turn our 44th into a socialist just yet.

But I'm not naive, either. Quotes like "You can spend your money better than the government can spend your money," said by Bush, aren't pointed blindly. But it's a bold assertion to say that he's lampooning Obama directly. Sure, he may be taking a swipe at Democrats, the leader (and face and lifeblood and perhaps only hope) of which is Obama, but what would you expect a Republican to do?

Simply because Bush is not going to criticize his successor does not mean that he is going to give everything Obama and Democrats do a ringing, bright-eyed, cheery endorsement. The man's still a Republican. He's not dead.

Which leads me to the former: Why on earth wouldn't a former president defend his administration?

It's in stark contrast to the one currently in office. "Change" has certainly come, nominally and otherwise. President Obama is not going to do things the way President Bush did this, in many instances, thankfully. One is a Republican, one is a Democrat. You could go point for point, but I don't think a conservative is going to stand for Bush being compared to Obama, or a liberal standing for Obama being compared to Bush.

I don't know what to make of it. I hate cliches like "liberal media," mainly because I work in a very objective, no-nonsense newsroom (opinion columnists aside; while we're awkwardly comparing Obama and Bush, we could be having the same conversation about Brummett and Sanders). Also, I'm pretty sure the Times is known for being more conservative than liberal, which would make "liberal media" an odd pickle in that case. It just seems to pit Bush in a no-win situation. He either agrees with the populace, who is gaga for Obama, and throws his own administration under the bus, or he sticks up for his tenure, making it look like a slap in Obama's face.

President Bush can be blamed for a lot of things. I don't think this is one of them. Especially after his repeated statement: I'm not going to criticize the current administration. I'm sure this will be criticized as apologetic toward Bush's Administration. It's not. Just this one evening's speech, and the coverage therein.

Is Tom Cox Really the Worst Person in the World, Keith?

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

You know if a Republican screws the pooch and Max Brantley doesn't verbally skewer him, he's probably okay. Olbermann probably should have consulted with him, Max that is, first.

What Does a 'Nervous' Blanche Lincoln Mean?

Elections being what they are, candidates may begin to feel the heat unusually early these days, and by these days, I mean in recent memories.

Barack Obama campaigned for two years. As did Hillary, McCain, Huckabee, et al. It's what you do now. Maybe it's for the best; Keeps politicians on their toes and keeps their feet to the fire to represent their constituency. The Founders set up varying years of tenure so there would be varying levels of insulation from the constituency, but that's the way it is now anyway. Deal with it.

Anyway, that's why we're looking into Sen. Blanche Lincoln's rerere-election bid a mere 15 months prior to the date. Not just us. She's looking hard at it too. You can look at her campaign cash stash if you need convincing.

David Sanders' Sunday column about her concern about the election confirms what everyone knows: It's going to be a tough re-election, but she's confident she's got the firepower and the name recognition to over come it.

But over $2.5 million — maybe even more at this point — cash in hand already doesn't spell confidence. It spells the need to obliterate, crush, destroy any opponents after aptly scaring away sane candidates.

If you feel in the mood to hear an interesting, strong-worded and long-winded rant conversation on how much money matters in a political race, ask David Kinkade of the Arkansas Project, former Asa Hutchinson wingman during the 2006 gubernatorial race. It made a believer out of me.

The field vying to beat Lincoln is shifting awkwardly, kicking the dirt and shrugging. Finally, we have someone other than Kim "Shalom" Hendren who has officially declared, but I forget his name and know him only as "that Tea Party guy." Oh, yeah. Tom Cox. The shortness of his name will help its recognition, but he still has quite a long ways to go, he himself acknowledging last night that he is indeed a "fringe" candidate.

One thing I'd be interested to see is if the national Tea Party folks rally behind Cox. It's been widely reported that he's the first from the Don't-Tread-On-Me movement to run for office. Basically, it's a question of whether or not FoxNews cares enough about an Arkansas Senate race. There might be a lotta dollar to be had in that circle.

Or maybe not. I'm hearing that some people might not be so keen on this idea, taking a dissent movement and anthropomorphizing it into a senate candidate. That would be one to watch.

I'm hearing the force is strong with Tom Cotton, again with a cool short name, and I hear Harvard credentials to raise cheddar. Not to mention a Disney-esque narrative that would give anybody a good chill. Not everyone may love war, but everyone loves the troops. From what I gather, this guy is a good soldier.

Baker is giving me the same feeling the now-Senatorially-defunct Tim Griffin was giving me: A whole lotta talking, not alotta walking. While I think Griffin might have been doing it for reasons other than a Senate seat, Baker has twin reservations: A family back home (awwww) and a plush, enviable seat in the Arkansas legislature. I'm beginning to think maybe his funding resources might be bailing on him, and he's not assured that he can win. But that's just me. He could announce tomorrow, then I'd look like the buffoon.

Curtis Coleman is an enigma. He says he can raise the money. He obviously has a very scripted response to anyone who has a problem with his divorce (which you can go here if you'd like to see the bajillion comments of people who do or don't), and I don't think that a state in which over 50 percent of the population has dealt with divorce will really begrudge him that (although, there's also a majority of Baptist folks — even the once who have been divorced — who say it'll affect their vote). But maybe it will.

The problems for all of the would-be challengers are the same for anybody who's taking on an incumbent: Name recognition and money raising ability. There's only one person who has both, and enough of both to make a race of it against Lincoln, and we all know that despite facebook pages to the contrary, Huckabee likely has his sights focused elsewhere.

At the end of the day, Lincoln looks strong, both due to her own firepower and the lack thereof for her competition. But again, she's seen the numbers. She's collected the ammo monies. What does a nervous Blanche Lincoln mean? It means that there's something out there that isn't exactly clear that's making her at least anxious, if not nervous.

Who knows, though. Could just be an abundance of caution.

Sweet Sassy Molassy Look at How Far We've Come

Hang on guys, I'm getting a page. Is there another telephone in the bedroom that I might be able to use? Oh wait! Terry's got a car phone! Terry, give me your keys so I can start your car and use your car phone.

But how were you supposed to tweet?

Caption Contest! Everybody Who Wanna Marry a President say YEAAHHHH!

Ah, the First Couple. Elegant. Radiant. The perfect pair.

But this picture is pretty funny. Ball rolling:

MO: Come on! Y-M-C-...
BO: This is so stupid...
MO: Barry...
BO: (sighs) Aaaa.
-------
BO: See, kids? This is why you never make a bet with your wife. Or get married in general.
-------
MO: And I told Barry I wanted a diamond THIS BIG!
BO: She's right. And your parents are paying for it (winks).
-------
BO: You? (looking at kid in first row) No, I doubt you'll be President. You'd make a good...Uh...Parks and Recreation...daytime youth event coordinator. Yeah. Yeah. You do that.
MO: YAYYY! PARKS AND RECREATION DAYTIME YOUTH EVENT COORDINATOR! YAYYY!

Weak sauce, I know, but they're just SO GOOD LOOKING I CAN'T MAKE FUN OF THEM.

No one won last week's CapCon, as there was no CapCon last week. Suckaaas.

Is Pres. Obama Setting Democrats Up To Fail?

President Obama is sitting pretty.

He is very powerful right now. He is the Executive Branch, he has a commanding control of the Legislative Branch — so much so that when he doesn't like the direction a bill, he merely gives the word, and it's automatically done (cough, health care, cough)— and he's about to insert his first of who knows how many Supreme Court Justices to a lifelong assignment (the average for SCOTUS/Prez is 1.7, but this is early in Obama's Administration and the bench could likely have two more vacancies by the end of Obama's tenure).

But let's not kid ourselves. Obama has done very well for himself without having a ton of credentials. Had he not run for President, he'd be running for re-election in the Senate for 2010 for his second term. Not the second time, but his second term. Prior to that, he was an Illinois state senator and a professor of law.

His first foray into the national spotlight was a speech at the DNC convention in 2004. What got people on the Obama boat was his soaring rhetoric, his telling narrative and those big pearly whites of his. In a word, his appeal. Couple that with an acerbic sentiment toward the Washington status quo, worded by a singular word "CHANGE," which was so breif it literally fit any profile of anybody who wasn't happy with the government, which is usally everybody.

Obama has got it, that appeal. Everyone loves him. He's as much of a celebrity if not more so than Sarah Palin, only he has credibility whereas her largest splash in the media is getting into verbal fisticuffs with late night talk show hosts. Obama was a guest on similar shows, not the punch line.

Obama uses this appeal to get what he wants done, namely a very progressive agenda that would have been difficult for anybody to get accomplished, even with a Senate and House in their pocket. This is a center-right country after all, and I haven't really heard many arguments to the contrary, rather that it's remarkable Obama has functioned, worked and succeeded in those parameters. He's got the look.

But is that look, that appeal going to be a stumbling block for future Democrats?

You can see it now. Obama is pulling his weight for those with less than fortunate appeals. Let's take Harry Reid, the Senate leader. Tepid, awful, lousy polling numbers for this guy, and Obama is going to make sure he gets re-elected in 2010. $789 billion in taxpayer money for stuff like butterfly atriums in Florida? Obama flashes the pearly whites, and there she is, passed and ready to be doled out.

Obama can do these things because he's Obama. Will anyone else other than Obama be able to do these things?

Obama's polling numbers are at a positive mid-to-high 60's range. The direction of the country, the approval of Congress, and certain issues that the government is pioneering, like the economy, foreign policy and health care, are all sinking quickly.

The mystique of Obama will, in my guess, carry him through 2012. He will be remembered not only as a great accomplishment but for his various accomplishments. His rhetoric is certainly worthy of stature. But as the Republicans have a dearth of leadership, could it not be said that there is a similar dearth with the exception of Obama and his Administration?

The aforementioned Reid is more popular than Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has unenviable polling numbers as well. Most think she's been less-than-honest about her dealings with the CIA. Hillary Clinton has swing, but by 2016, when she'd be able to run for President, she'd be as old as John McCain was when he ran, which was his primary campaign fault. Not that she couldn't lead Democrats without being President. I may just still be in that mode where I see Hillary running for the top office with reckless abandon. Those were the days. Now she's just globetrotting the world, and from what I hear, doing a good job.

I'm curious to see the Democratic roster. If they get a handful of names, they'll have a handful lot more the Republicans. But I'll be more curious to see if they can keep up the far-leftward approach that Obama has been taking.

Obama can get away with it. I haven't seen anyone else in politics be able to pull it off. After eight years of it, do you think people will still find it meritorious when broached by someone who is inherently less likable than Obama?

Who Competes with the Government? And Wins?

"I fought the law and the law won." -Sonny Curtis and the Crickets

I read in the New York Times over the weekend that President Obama is getting a little bit fed up with the rate at which health care legislation is getting taken care of, and even more concerned that some of the things he would prefer to be in the legislation might get left out.

One note toward the beginning stuck out in my mind. The article states that one of the primary notes Obama is concerned with making certain is in the bill is the government-option insurance plan that would compete with private companies.

During an interview several weeks ago with Blanche Lincoln, who has given many lines of press releases on the matter of health care in this session, said she would be in favor of such a government option. Basically, the program would give every one the same benefits as a Federal Employee, which everyone knows are just grand. But it would be an option if they so chose; If they've got a better plan, they'd be more than welcome to choose that.

In a lot of ways, it makes sense. Think of the United States Post Office, slugging it out with the likes of FedEx, UPS, DHS, a friend of mine proffered. There is a service that needs to be rendered, in this care, health insurance. In order to keep the other companies honest and not gouge, the government would directly compete with them in order to insure that the prices were fair and affordable.

It's basic economics. There's a demand. Competition is the backbone of free market functionality. If insurance companies are going to run their affairs like cartels, who minds the government being a thorn in their side, keeping them honest?

Still...

It'd be like playing against the home team. In a stadium they built. In a state they run in a country they regulate. The rules are all theirs, and can change any rule at any time for any advantage, with a simple vote by 600 people who work for that team.

Plus, I'm pretty sure the goal of business competition is to put the other guy out of business, which I hope isn't the goal of the U.S., unless that business is an illegal one.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist. We landed on the moon, the Holocaust happened, and Barack Obama is a legal U.S. Citizen and a Christian to boot. But giving the government free reign to compete against another business sounds trickier than the fruits might be worth.

I wrote awhile back about my slight aversion toward the new seat belt restrictions that passed through the Arkansas Legislature this year. My aversion was not that police officers are inherently racist and therefore it should be assumed they are going to pull over every African-American they see on the road. My hesitancy is that there will already be that suspicion, and rather than wind it further down the road, always having it assailed, it might be better to find another avenue.

Health care might be an issue that needs resolving post haste, I don't think there's anyone who believes the contrary, and that everything is a-okay right now. But I'm not sure that the possibility of the government under-cutting one business and then perhaps moving on to another is going to sit well with people.

Since I already spoke to one of them about it, I look forward to hearing about possible pros, cons, and maybe even alternatives from our delegates.

And Now For Our Feature Presentation

Well, Zachary was ill. And before that he was busy. And before that, he said that the next four sentences on his blog would be spoken in the third person. Zachary was right, and apologizes for the absence.

So, by my calculations I haven't posted in about a week. Pretty eventful, in those few days, I reckon. Let's do some quick hits, some "Stuff From Around...", or some of whatever Rutherford and Lance call it when they just post briefs and links. At least Kinkade branded his; The rest of us are screwed:

Jesus H. Tapdancing Christ, I see the light!: According to Politico, Pres. Obama invokes the name of Jesus Christ more so than his evangelical predecessor Pres. "Born Again" Bush. While Bush made it a part of his identity, Obama has embraced all religions, including reaching out to non-believers. It's an understandable move: About one in ten people walking around you in America believe he is a Muslim. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I'm willing to bet that percentage is a tad higher in Arkansas. Looking at you, Grandma.

Republican Headliners Get Awkward: Sarah was invited, but she got subbed out for Newt, but unbeknownst to her, so she totally went up there, and then said stuff. Meanwhile, Huck did his own thing at the same exact time. And you thought the new 90210 was going to suck.

Don't Worry I'll Be Leaving Shortly: Dan Greenburg classes up the Arkansas Project with a touch of electability, this time opining on the merits of term limits. He says experience is overrated, and new-blood is invaluable. He probably voted for Obama. I'm sort of torn; While it's always good to liven up the place, and allow for new thoughts and faces and energies — not to mention the daunting incumbent advantage — I always tend to think that it leads people to focus on the elections rather the numbered days they have in office. Doesn't count for the Prez.

Talk Like An Egyptian: You'd have thought the press could've come up with a more sensitive name than 'The Muslim Speech.' Obama addresses the role of the United States in and with the Middle East and collectively, the Nation of Islam, using his personal appeal at home and abroad to make a speech that will be remembered for a long time. It was good, but there were several quotes that could be used by Republicans as ammo. The problem? Many in the GOP wont be able to enunciate a clear rebuttal, as they will be red-faced and slobberingly angry-toned, and will therefore come across as nothing more than an mad, sweaty-toothed, bigot/honky. The GOP needs a smooth talker. Badly.

Senator Get the Kids Out of the Room: Stormy Daniels, pornography actress(?) is, by many people's count, seriously taking this whole Senate run seriously. Seriously. No, we mean it. Politics just got interesting, or at least unboring.

Your Daily Dose of Onion (NSFW, audio):

Obama Drastically Scales Back Goals For America After Visiting Denny's

The Reddest Blue-State or the Bluest Red-State?

Ask anyone outside of Arkansas whether the Natural State is red or blue. If someone answers "blue," assume they are a political operative or at least someone in the know on Arkansan politicking.

The vast majority will unblinkingly answer "red," and likely look at you like you're an idiot for asking such a weird question.

Yet Arkansas has a deep-seeded identity confusion, one that is rarely addressed, save for every four years, and even more rarely analyzed. I don't think anyone really quite knows why Democrats rule the state with an iron fist, except in the third district, while (hometown elections aside [kinda]) the state is an automatic lock for six electoral college votes to the Republicans.

I've heard many theories, tradition mostly. The Good Ole Boy network that permeates the political process in Arkansas has its roots in the Democratic Party, perhaps from the days when that party was the one discussed as a regional party anchored in the South. That network, a selective one, helps its own for a couple or four generations and viola! You have a tradition of a Democratic reign, fueled by being the right person in the right place at the right time.

Another theory is that the lack of a large metropolis in Arkansas, which altogether has about 2.85 million, aids state Democrats. Metropolises, often populated with a ethnically diverse demographic and universities that have tended Democratically in recent history. The lack thereof in Arkansas' case keeps Democrats from being held accountable to the far left, whereas they would otherwise be scrutinized by them in states with large metropolises.

Not that Arkansas doesn't have any liberal Democrats. But if you take most of these Democrats out of Arkansas and put them anywhere else, they'd be Republicans. I distinctly remember speaking with a former State Rep. about why he was a Democrat, when I knew that prior to his election, he voted Republican. He responded that if he ever wanted to get anything done while in office, he had better be a Democrat to have a fighting chance.

Talk about a Good Ole Boy network.

So the titular question is the same as asking a Zebra whether he's black with white stripes or vice versa. A better analogy would be a wolf in sheep's clothing, or in this case, a Republican in Democrat's clothing.

I'm not sure what all this means, except that Republicans have an underutilized advantage of having a national party that is more congruent with the state's populace than Democrats. The problem Republicans then becomes solely an issue of leadership and roster.

Term-limits have opened up the incumbency barrier that allows Good Ole Boy networks to thrive and allows parties such as the Democrats in Arkansas to dominate for decades and decades. If the state GOP ever got some more well-known, respected members of local communities to add to their roster, they'd be formidable with the backing of an overtly conservative populace.

Now who those Republicans would be and how the state GOP would lead them is something else completely. I bet it's the reason behind the party's record as the all-time minority since Reconstruction.

What Couldn't Beebe Do?

As much as he'll hate it that I'm regurgitating and relinking another Arkansas author, John Brummett, the consummate political columnist and humanitarian, as well as my best friend in the whole wide world, made an interesting point that seems to have slipped under the radar, but opens the door to something that isn't often discussed here now in the third of his almost-assured eight year reign.

What else is Beebe going to do?

This will be a more discussed query in four years, when the governor will be winding his reign down, tidying up his legacy, and trying to pick who the next governor of Arkansas will be (I hear Beebe thinks the attorney general is just a swell guy).

Beebe, on the cover of a reputable periodical about state and local governments, has been hailed as perhaps one of the state's best governors, even by the person who has been voted as the state's best governor, Dale Bumpers.

Beebe is currently 62 years young. By the time he exits, forced out by term limits, he'll be 67, a still politically viable age, especially if good health prevails, heaven forbid the contrary. But Beebe is who he is because of where he's been: Arkansas. The thought of Beebe flying off to Washington doesn't seem like something we could see our cover boy doing.

Then I read this:

Imagine Beebe’s doing that today, announcing that he would run not for re-election, but for the U. S. Senate, and imagine him doing so because the incumbent of his own party, Blanche Lincoln, looks anemic in the polls.

Lincoln, Dustin McDaniel and Bill Halter would collide — she in frightened flight from a race she’d almost assuredly lose and the two men in frantic pursuit of the vacancy Beebe would be creating.

He's right. He's got more pull than Lincoln. Than Pryor. Than Berry. Than anyone. The fact of the matter is that Gov. Beebe is hands down the most powerful politician in the state, federal, state, and local combined.

That fact in and of itself opens a lot of doors to what Gov. Beebe could do.

Now there's nothing to say this is what he'll do. He could very well do what many believe he will do, ride off into the sunset, leaving an unblemished legacy as the best ole guvner this state has ever done seen. But, while that might be the only option for not just some, but many who are pushed out by term-limits, this is not the case for Beebe. He is unfettered.

And he's done it before. After being pushed out of the legislature in which he resided for about a billion years or so due to then-new-fangled term limits, Beebe set up shop as attorney general, waiting out Huckabee for the governorship.

Maybe there's another office that Beebe could inhabit. Could is the wrong word. Would is a better word.

It's there if Beebe wants it. And again, the fact that he could is a lot more than most people who could can say.

Hankins v. Rutherford: Too Civil/Lacking of Bloodshed To Be Entertaining

The minor tremors about the Arkansas blogotwitterspheres today were regarding a column published by Arkansas Business publisher Jeff Hankins on the omnipresence of new media and the subsequent rebuttal by blogger Blake Rutherford of Blake's Sentient Bull Dozer.

Hankins says that media is now everywhere thanks to these meddling kids and their blogs and their twitters and their pop music. Rutherford retorts, "Yeah, so?"

In short, they seem to agree with one another about the viability and actuality of new media being on the prowl, but disagree on whether or not this is necessarily a causal "pitfall." Rutherchevy says that people have been spreading rumors and traditional news outlets have been getting it wrong for quite sometime, and to blame new media for those conventions is downright erroneous.

He also points out that it's a vast generalization to say that bloggers wouldn't correct themselves if they admittedly got a scoop wrong, which is true. But come to think of it, I don't see a lot of corrections made, unless it's regarding a source, quoted statement, or something else supplementary, rarely affecting the entire body of the post. But maybe the blogs I frequent are rarely wrong (ARKANSAS BLOGOSPHERE ELITISM! FIST PUMP!).

There's more agreeing going on here than not to really say this is a debate. As I say this, I'm hoping that a shirtless Hankins is storming down to the Bowen Law School, kicking open the door to Rutherford's law class to open a can in front of his students, ya know, to spice this narrative up a bit, but in case that doesn't pan out, it seems that both made good points about the whole state of affairs, without stomping each others' toes. Cue to the cheesy Full House electric guitar, denoting a valuable lesson to be learned.

Hankins is right: The media in its new form is now everywhere, unfettered by the old media's rules and governance. Rutherford is right: That doesn't mean that old media is infallible, not that Hankins was claiming it to be.

I actually spoke on an SPJ panel about the rift or symbiosis of old and new media. I really believe that the cream will rise to the top, meaning credible bloggers are more likely to be carried on and be successful than those that are known to spew bias and misinformation to prove its own point or attain a cheap, non-informative goal.

I think that credible blogs do indeed hold themselves to standards. We all know the credible blogs around town. While I certainly see bias in the analysis, very rarely are they flat out wrong about the events. In fact, I don't recall any. In double fact, I recall one such blog — Max Brantley's not-very-originally titled "Arkansas Blog" — getting information regarding the no-smiling law on our driver's licenses that turned out to be bogus and through investigation — huh? fact checking? on a blog?! — and then corrected it, shedding light on the subject through good ole fashioned journalistic checking of sources.

But "citizen journalism" is here to stay, anyway. It ought to. At it's very core, all journalism, conventional and otherwise, ought to at the very least be geared toward the citizenry.

"This (Card Check) Thing Is Dead" - Sen. Pryor aide

Stand corrected, aides to Sens. Lincoln and Pryor. Remember! Senator Lincoln is all that stands between crooked Wall Street and a diversely populated cardboard box plant; Between the mafia and children eating breakfast cereal.

And here I was thinking that this card check thing really was dead. Color me a dunce. Hat tip to Kinky Kinkade for the flyer, and another for winning the caption contest. I was worried I'd have to give myself a prize.