Obama Portrays Blanche Lincoln As A Populist Crusader In Radio Ad

[freddie mertz]

Sam Stein

Obama Portrays Blanche Lincoln As A Populist Crusader In Radio Ad


President Barack Obama has cut his first ad in support of Sen. Blanche Lincoln's re-election campaign, urging Arkansans to back the incumbent Senator for her work on two policy topics that have become focal points of her primary campaign.

In a personally-narrated radio spot, Obama paints Lincoln as a populist crusader who is "leading the fight to hold Wall Street accountable and make sure that Arkansas taxpayers are never again asked to bail out Wall Street bankers."

"On health care," Obama adds, "Blanche took on big insurance companies by voting to end discrimination against Arkansans with preexisting conditions and fought for tax credits that will help thousands of local small businesses provide insurance to their employees."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/04/obama-portrays-blanche-li_n_563028.html

Oh brother!

:nuke: :wow: :puke: :spray:

[mitchum]

1. That's just crazy talk

[polichick]

2. What bullshit - the prez should be ashamed of himself. nt

[ClarkUSA]

8. Bill Clinton should be "ashamed" of his "bullshit", too, right? The Clinton machine is behind her.

I understand a sitting president who's the titular head of his party supporting a Democratic party incumbent with a radio ad, but why is Bill Clinton going whole hog when he doesn't have to and isn't expected to?

He must be really grateful for that pro-NAFTA vote of Lincoln's that he's touting in one ad. :)

Bill Clinton Writes Fundraising Letter For Blanche Lincoln
http://news.firedoglake.com/2009/12/17/bill-clinton-writes-fundraising-letter-for-blanche-lincoln/

Bill Clinton Throws His Support To Blanche Lincoln
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/.../bill-clinton-throws-his-support-to-blanche- lincoln/

James Carville Pens Fundraising E-mail For Blanche Lincoln
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/james-carville-pens-fundraising-e-mail-for-blanche-lincoln.php

BILL CLINTON APPEARS IN NEW LINCOLN ADS

"One ad... defends her for her pro-NAFTA vote..."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/04/30/2290991.aspx

[polichick]

19. Hell yeah, he should be ashamed too. nt

[freddie mertz]

26. Agreed. Blanche sucks and has to go. nt.

[Vincardog]

38. Agreed. Blanche sucks and has to go. In spite of what the DLC and Obama says nt.

[ClarkUSA]

42. President Obama is fulfilling his duty as head of the party. Clinton is exercising his prerogative.

I'd say the latter is much more surprising than the first, but neither man needs to be "ashamed" just because some keyboard critics say so.

[depakid]

50. He has NO such duty whatsoever!

Though people can surely make one up to rationalize this behavior.

[ClarkUSA]

52. Of course he does. Democratic presidents have always supported Democratic incumbents.

Now...

"Stop talking shit and back it up with something that supports your claim.

Why don't you give me a list of races where a Democratic President campaigned against incumbent Democratic Senator in a primary. You won't find more than one or two examples in the last 60 years if you find any at all. Go ahead. Name the Senators. Trash talk doesn't prove your point."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=286598&mesg_id=287901

I'll let the Radical Activist speak for me. He and I are still waiting for that list. :)

[depakid]

53. Only in your mind... which will rationalize anything Obama does

Presidents have NO affirmative duty to campaign for incumbents- particularly incumbents who undermine their own policies! Never have- and never will.

Twisting shit around like you and the poster you mentioned seem to do- and looking for an instance where a president actively campaigned for a primary opponent in no way supports your bogus proposition.

Fact is- Obama doing this projects weakness and is counterproductive both in the sense that Lincoln's a sure loser in the general election (even more so in an anti-incumbent year) and it telegraphs to every two bit extortionist in the Senate that there aren't any consequences for opposing his agenda!

Brilliant move on all counts, eh?

[ClarkUSA]

57. No, I was referring to historical precedent, which you cannot disprove with mere polemic.

If you disagree, then show me a list of races where a Democratic President campaigned against an incumbent Democratic Senator in a primary.

[depakid]

59. Historical precedent is that Presdients don't go out of their way to campaign

for those who oppose their agenda!

Among other things, you need a lesson in basic reasoning and logic.

[ClarkUSA]

60. Prove it. Provide a list of the races where a Democratic President campaigned against an incumbent

... Democratic Senator in a primary.

[depakid]

64. As mentioned, you need a course in logic

though your apparently, your response shows that some improvement in reading comprehension might be useful, too.

[ClarkUSA]

65. lol! You don't have an example of a single case where that has happened, am I correct?

It appears you are the one whose illogic is in full display because you obviously do not understand what "historical precedent" means.

[depakid]

66. That's not the issue here! -though it does seem to be your twisted take on... something

The issue is whether the President has an affirmative duty or tradition to campaign for those who don't support their agenda in a primary.

You and the poster that you mentioned claim there is- I told you that you're both full of it.

Actively campaigning for the primary opponent has nothing to do with that.

[ClarkUSA]

68. Moving the goalposts now that you've been proved wrong?

Nevertheless, I stand by what I said: Democratic Presidents, being the titular heads of their parties, have always fulfilled their duty to support Democratic incumbents in primaries. Historical precedent supports my asssertion.

[depakid]

69. You are really something! You can't even follow a logical argument- much less make one

You throw out some irrelevant matter (that I'm not even going to bother to look up) -and claim to be "proven" right.

You sure you're in the right party?

Once again, the is NO such duty- nor is there any such stupid and dysfunctional tradition.

You actually think LBJ would be out there making radio ads touting the "populist" credentials of someone who opposed his policies and agenda?

:rofl:

Nope. But because Obama does it, it must be so.

[ClarkUSA]

71. You're the one claiming there's "historical precedent" yet can't name one instance of your claim.

Remember this "logic"?

depakid (1000+ posts) Wed May-05-10 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #57

59. Historical precedent is that Presdients don't go out of their way to campaign for those who oppose their agenda!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=287760&mesg_id=288348

I am still waiting for examples of this alleged historical precedent.

[depakid]

75. That's exactly right! They don't!

And the "proof" you require isn't proof at all, but the absence of events occurring.

Most presidents haven't had this bizarre aversion to holding politicians (or torturers or corporate criminals) accountable for their behavior.

Of course, that begs the question of whether Obama might tacitly hold the same sorts of views as Blanche Lincoln- and wants her around so that he's got cover.

Could be that's the case, and it would help explain the president's proclivity for taking gratuitous slaps at Democratic constituencies.

[freddie mertz]

76. Wow.

About halfway into this, I noticed a shift from a "debate" over "do presidents historically campaign FOR incumbents in primaries" to "do presidents ever campaign AGAINST incumbents in primaries."

These are not equivalents. Staying neutral in a primary is not the same as campaigning AGAINST an incumbent in one, is it?

Silence is obviously not an endorsement, but it is not the same as actively working against that candidate.

I guess I must have missed something in there. Weird how that happened.

O8) :evilfrown: :rofl:

[ClarkUSA]

83. Splitting hairs again?

<<Staying neutral in a primary is not the same as campaigning AGAINST an incumbent in one, is it?>>

Okay, so name a list of races where a Democratic president stayed "neutral" and did not endorse an incumbent Democratic senator in a primary.

[depakid]

87. Psychologists and various other writers have recognized the phenomena for decades now

Even so, it rarely fails to impress.

[ClarkUSA]

81. That's baseless polemic. You have yet to offer any instance where a Democratic president failed...

... to support an incumbent Democratic senator in a primary.

[freddie mertz]

92. Local Dems, including recent DNC officers, are complaining about it in Colorado.

http://www.coloradostatesman.com/content/991665-open-le ...

Read it carefully, ClarkUSA.

[ClarkUSA]

94. "Page Not Found " Do they have an incumbent Democratic Senator who's complaining? n/t

[freddie mertz]

95. OOPS. Try this link. Local Dem Party officials, in an open letter.

http://www.coloradostatesman.com/content/991665-open-letter-president-barack-obama-democratic-national-committee-officers-and-democra

[ClarkUSA]

101. They are entitled to their opinion. However, what they said does not contradict historical precedent

I notice that they are using weasel phrases: "ever became involved" / "to engage". They do not dispute that Democratic Presidents have always endorsed incumbent Democratic senators in a primary.

[freddie mertz]

102. Do you have a historical source for your claim?

You have insisted there is no precedent for national parties staying out of primaries.

My guess is that the history is more complicated than that, but I have yet to find a narrative history that discusses it any depth.

I'd love to know how new this is, because it at least SEEMS new to me, or at the very least, more HIGH PROFILE than in the past.. maybe that is a product of the expansion of media sources...I really don't know.

[ClarkUSA]

103. You're misspeaking. I never said that.

<<You have insisted there is no precedent for national parties staying out of primaries.>>

I never said that. I said that Democratic Presidents have a duty as the titular heads of the Democratic Party to endorse incumbent Democratic Senators during a primary, as in the case of Blanche Lincoln. If there is no incumbent, then it is traditional for Democratic Presidents to not take sides publicly, as in the case of Hawaii's House race.

<<... at the very least, more HIGH PROFILE than in the past.. maybe that is a product of the expansion of media sources...>>

We finally agree on something. It is not new, but it is more "HIGH PROFILE than in the past" for the reasons you've suggested.

[freddie mertz]

104. I still can't find any evidence that sitting presidents ALWAYS endorse, or USUALLY endorse...

The incumbent in a primary context.

The Colorado people report, and I have no reason to disbelieve them as of yet, that they have never seen this before.

If you have access to some good sources, I wish you would share them for the edification of us all.

[ClarkUSA]

105. I'm done kicking this thread. You're just spinning your wheels at this point.

And as I said before, the "Colorado people" used weasel words and didn't specifically dispute the fact that sitting Democratic presidents have a duty to endorse incumbent Democratic Senators during a primary.

Repeat, I'm done kicking this thread and the other one you started to continue your ongoing attempt to cast aspersions, however meaningless, against Democratic President Obama.

[depakid]

108. And you won't find any, either!

Because there isn't any.

[freddie mertz]

112. If he had any evidence, he would have used it by now.

I am pretty sure of that.

Now he's got two threads attacking Lincoln's opponent up.

That speaks volumes.

[totodeinhere]

125. Historical precedent? I thought that Obama ran his campaign on a promise of change,

not following precedents.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

110. It applies to you as well

If President Obama came out in support for killing kittens, you would find a way to support it as well.

[polichick]

54. +1

[tsuki]

79. No. He should be getting his appointees through the congress, not

telling Arkansas voters which democrat to vote for. He, or Rahm, thinks he has a national machine.

[robinblue]

116. So, Obama has a duty to be a hypocrit!!

[fortune]

126. When I hear "duty" I think of something that's written somewhere

Like a rule, or something.

[freddie mertz]

3. Do they warn aspiring presidential candidates that they have to surrender their souls?

As part of accepting the job?

[ClarkUSA]

70. Why are you replying to your own OP?

:crazy: :tinfoilhat:

[freddie mertz]

74. Posted in the wrong place.

Thanks for pointing that out for me.

[avaistheone1]

107. However, I thank you for saying it.

[Blue-Jay]

4. Damn you, Fartbama!

[Moochy]

56. Who would have thought that fartbama gets funnier every time you post it?

It doesn't.

[chill_wind]

5. And so far, she's the top recipient of Gas & Oil money in Congress,

in 2010- and third in line with just BP (just behind Conway and Murkowski).

In light of the present disaster, just wait until somebody writes THAT ad.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x534058

[Sebastian Doyle]

6. Blanche Walmart is to populism

..as BP is to environmentalism.

[AtomicKitten]

7. Also: Bill Clinton cuts two radio ads in support of Blanche Lincoln.

Bill Clinton Cuts Ads for Sen. Lincoln
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/04/30/bill-clinton-cuts-ads-for-sen-lincoln/

By Susan Davis

Bill Clinton, former president and former Arkansas governor, is lending his support to Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln in a pair of new radio ads running in Arkansas.

In one, “That’s Why,” Clinton credits Lincoln with helping him revive the U.S. economy during his administration.

“As a member of Congress, Blanche helped me to get America’s economy moving again when I was president, casting critical votes that ended decades of deficit spending, led us to balanced budgets and record surpluses and, most important, helped create almost 23 million new jobs and record family incomes,” Clinton says in the ad.

In the second, “Real Record,” Clinton defends Lincoln’s voting record and says she is “being criticized from both ends of the political spectrum.”

snip

[ClarkUSA]

9. He's even touting her pro-NAFTA vote in one ad. He and James Carville are fundraising for her, too.

Bill Clinton Writes Fundraising Letter For Blanche Lincoln
http://news.firedoglake.com/2009/12/17/bill-clinton-writes-fundraising-letter-for-blanche-lincoln/

Bill Clinton Throws His Support To Blanche Lincoln
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/.../bill-clinton-throws-his-support-to-blanche- lincoln/

James Carville Pens Fundraising E-mail For Blanche Lincoln
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/james-carville-pens-fundraising-e-mail-for-blanche-lincoln.php

BILL CLINTON APPEARS IN NEW LINCOLN ADS

"One ad... defends her for her pro-NAFTA vote..."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/04/30/2290991.aspx

[AtomicKitten]

18. The good news is that Halter is gaining on Lincoln.

She has little chance of hanging on to the seat so I hope Halter gets a crack at it in the GE.

[freddie mertz]

23. That is good news.

Hope the spot doesn't help her, and I doubt that it will.

[freddie mertz]

11. Two wrongs.

I guess they DO make you sell your soul to get that office!



Scary.:evilgrin: :scared:

[ClarkUSA]

15. Um, sitting Democratic Presidents ALWAYS support Democratic Party incumbents.

However, why would ex-president Bill Clinton and his henchman James Carville do such a thing when they are not expected to? Guess Bubba must really love Lincoln's pro-NAFTA vote that he touts in one ad.

[AtomicKitten]

17. No, in fact it's traditional to support incumbents.

Now you and I and others will agree Blanche Lincoln is a turd candidate, but that does not mean by any stretch of the imagination that Obama or Clinton or any other Democrat is doing anything "wrong" or out of the ordinary supporting the incumbent Democrat.

If it's your state, your remedy is to support the primary challenger.

[freddie mertz]

21. I would prefer that presidents not get involved in primaries.

But if they "must", endorsements that bear even a slight resemblance to the truth are always preferable to (and perhaps even more helpful to the candidate than) ludicrous fictions like this one.

[AtomicKitten]

24. Hey, I'd prefer the Republicans be struck mute permanently.

Your crusade to demonize this president is tiresome and, to be honest, gratuitously stressful in this already stressful political environment.

[freddie mertz]

25. I agree about the Republicans, but it won't happen.

As for the rest, my only "crusade" in this case was to report the facts.

If you want to avoid stress, don't read the bad news.

[AtomicKitten]

27. LOL. No, I'm quite certain you've been pegged accurately. nt

[freddie mertz]

28. Nonsense.

You tried that before as I recall.

[dionysus]

37. uh.. fred? your agenda is pretty transparent ya know.

:rofl:

[freddie mertz]

39. Always attack the messenger. nt.

[ClarkUSA]

43. Always attack President Obama. nt.

[saracat]

114. As opposed to NEVER criticize the president? I guess Lincoln n is just peachy to you?

She is such a fine upstanding version of a Democrat?:sarcasm:

[mkultra]

118. as opposed to ALWAYS criticize the president.

which makes the idea of constructive criticism a mask for more nefarious intents.

[saracat]

120. Thank you for perfectly illustrating my point.

[AtomicKitten]

124. and you theirs

[saracat]

127. I think not . I notice no one reponds about Lincoln. Hmm.

[dionysus]

36. + 50

:thumbsup:

[Bobbie Jo]

63. Raise ya +50

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[Hippo_Tron]

40. The Presidential endorsement is an incredibly powerful tool

Why should the President relinquish that for blanket neutrality?

[tsuki]

80. Apparently Colorado feels the same way.

http://www.coloradostatesman.com/content/991665-open-letter-president-barack-obama-democratic-national-committee-officers-and-democra

"We are alarmed that this long-standing tradition has been violated by the current National Democratic Party and our current President, whom we both supported for election. It is inappropriate and unacceptable for national Democratic Party officials and the President of the United States, who is the titular head of the Democratic Party, to engage in Democratic primaries. Colorado Democrats have the inalienable right and intelligence to select their own candidate for the highest political position in the state without interference from our Democratic leaders in D.C. who are supposed to be supportive of our local parties and candidates.

We are further distressed by the thousands of phone calls coming into our state from people hired by the DNC Organizing for America (OFA) group who have been given phone scripts telling Colorado Democrats how to vote. Colorado Democrats have the knowledge and wisdom to think for themselves and make their own decisions without someone who is not a Colorado voter telling them how to vote. We resent the fact that money we have contributed to the National Democratic Party is being given to OFA organizers to interfere in our U.S. Senate primary..."

[freddie mertz]

89. Here is more of that, addressing ClarkUSA's SPECIFIC charges...

"Former Executive Director of the Colorado Democratic Party, Mr. Darryl Eskin, added that “When I was Executive Director, it was a firm principle that the State Democratic Party not endorse or support primary candidates participating in the party caucus process. It seems that big money still talks louder than the grassroots in the Democratic Party. If that doesn’t change, our current role as the preeminent party nationally and in Colorado will be short lived and the voters will toss us out like yesterday’s newspaper.”

(signed) Polly Baca and Ramona Martinez

Baca is a former Colorado state senator (1978-1986), former Vice Chair of the Democratic National Committee (1981-1989), served as Special Assistant to the Chair of the Democratic National Committee (1971-1972) and served as a member of the DNC from 1973-1989. Martinez served as a member of the Democratic National Committee for 16 years (1996-2010, Chair and Vice Chair of the DNC Hispanic Caucus (2001-2009) and Secretary of the DNC Women’s Caucus.

April 30, 2010
Vol. 111, No. 19

http://www.coloradostatesman.com/content/991665-open-le...

So these two former NC officials assert that intervention by the president and the national party apparatus in primaries is something new and troubling.

Worth putting that on the table, seems to me.

Thanks tsuki.

[freddie mertz]

96. Fixed link HERE.

http://www.coloradostatesman.com/content/991665-open-letter-president-barack-obama-democratic-national-committee-officers-and-democra

[zulchzulu]

10. Sounds like Blanche will be cornered to vote on stuff later on

That's how it works.

[freddie mertz]

13. Like she felt so obliged over the past year?

Spare me.:crazy:

[bvar22]

41. YES!!!...

Just like when they gave Lieberman his seniority and committees....so he would be forced to vote with the Democrats!
BRILLIANT!

[freddie mertz]

78. + 1000000.

Yes, we really got a lot of bang for that Joe support.

[depakid]

51. Worked so well with Lieberman, that we ought to try it again!

[polichick]

61. There you go with that reality thing again. :)

[FrenchieCat]

12. Everyone should keep shitting on Pres. Obama.......about everything he says and does.....

and that will get done exactly what some want.

And when we lose the house, the senate,
and in 2 years the White House,
I'll tell you won't give a shit.....
me.

Cause I'm through with all of the folks who everytime this President scratches his ass,
everyone is there with a magnifying glass trying to see if there is room for their foot
up in there.

Crying and whining about every fucking thing ain't gonna get us shit......
not a damn thing....not today, tomorrow or ever.

But folks should keep it up, since they think they are making a difference.

[freddie mertz]

14. Don't blame the messenger. nt.

[ClarkUSA]

16. Not everyone...only the same ol' 24/7 Obama critics who seem to be in a perpetual state of outrage.

Despite their constant braying about the base, it's important to note that they represent a small fraction of Democrats, as a large majority approve of Pres. Obama's job performance.

[Forkboy]

20. Endless praise won't get us shit either.

I take that back, shit is exactly what it'll get us.

So we have two positions that produce shit, both of which are pretty common here on DU. We have the endless bithcers and the endless praisers. Two sides of the same useless coin.

[freddie mertz]

22. Who you callin' a bitchah?

Just kidding, I could care less what anyone calls me.

Thing is, what the spot claims bears no relation to reality.

I suspect that may actually hurt her, and does the president no favors either.

[Enthusiast]

30. Why have a president that caves

on Net Neutrality and other vital issues?

He either strongly advocates for Net Neutrality, with no hidden health care reform-like tactics, or I will actively work against him. And I mean that. I am done with traitors to the cause.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[QC]

33. +1000000

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[saracat]

115. Really? Like Obama has ever displayed the fact he has any coattails?

Some don't really care about whether we have progressives in congress or even if Liberals are elected. All they care about is the President. And they support him right or wrong. But some of us realize that the most important thing is to get real progressives elected and get their vote. Blanche Lincoln has not proved to be one. Many of us are promoting liberals.The same cannot be said of the WH, and that is really sad. Working to elect real progressives is the only thing that will help us accomplish anything.

Oh and that whining about "every f***ing thing", is about education the environment and Civil Rights, all of which are far more important than any President. But some think these issues only are important in select cases. And only when politically expedient.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bvar22]

34. Chronic Rising Revulsion.

"By their works, you will know them."

bvar22
Proud member of the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party

"Centrism" = almost Hard Core Republican




"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans."
---Paul Wellstone

[bvar22]

35. K&R...back UP tp +2

because there are some at DU who don't want YOU to have this information.

[freddie mertz]

44. Maybe the unrecs are coming from folks who disagree with the substance of the spot.

I mean, the idea that this senator is some sort of fearless defender of the people against the big insurance companies is ludicrous any way you slice it.

Notice too that for all the attacks on me for posting it almost without comment ("oh brother" and a few snarly smilies), not one person here is defending the rhetorical substance of the endorsement.

Not one.

[bvar22]

45. SOP for that crowd.

There IS no rational defense unless one happens to support the Republicanization of the Democratic Party.

So Attack the Messenger and Ad Hominems is all that is left.

Clearly, you just HATE Obama.
Case Closed.

[Bobbie Jo]

67. Gee...maybe it is just about the "messenger."

:shrug: Go figure.

...or perhaps your so called "rhetorical substance" says more about your thinking than the subject of the post itself. At any rate, the "substance" of this particular post appears to fit your pattern.

[frylock]

47. and obama is a fierce advocate for gay rights

:rofl:

[bvar22]

48. and he won't sign a bill without a Public Option...

He's going to renegotiate NAFTA too!

[depakid]

49. It's bad enough that he cut the ad in the first place

but was it really necessary to be dishonest about the matter?

[ClarkUSA]

55. How is President Obama being "dishonest about the matter?"

Folks here have been swooning over Blanche Lincoln's derivative amendment to the financial reform bill lately. And she did vote for cloture during the HCR debate, even if she didn't vote for the final bill.

[depakid]

58. Oh, please

Blanche Lincoln a populist crusader?

That does nothing other than undermine his credibility.

[ClarkUSA]

62. President Obama never said that, did he? He's not responsible for Sam Stein's HuffPo spin.

Nothing President Obama actually said is "dishonest".

[freddie mertz]

73. Do you really believe she "took on big insurance companies"?

That is the direct quote.

[ClarkUSA]

84. Let's not cherry pick the quote. Here's the full text of his quote...

""On health care," Obama adds, "Blanche took on big insurance companies by voting to end discrimination against Arkansans with preexisting conditions and fought for tax credits that will help thousands of local small businesses provide insurance to their employees."

That is factual.

[freddie mertz]

90. Talk about cherry-picking. She voted for it before she voted against it.

Arkansas' two senators have voted against a companion bill reshaping parts of the new health care reform law. Democrats Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor on Thursday voted against the companion measure that passed the Senate on a 56-43 vote. They were two of only three Senate Democrats to vote against it. The measure was sent to the House.

Hours later, the House voted 220-207 for legislation making changes to the law President Barack Obama signed on Tuesday. The changes include better benefits for seniors and low-income and middle-class families. While Lincoln says overall she is happy with health care reform passing and believes it will benefit Arkansans, she was not happy with Thursday's process and had to vote "no" to the fix-it bill. Below is a statement she released. Lincoln made the following statement following Senate adoption of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act: "I am proud to have worked for nearly two years to help craft and pass the Senate Health Insurance Reform Plan that I watched the President sign into law on Tuesday," Lincoln said.

"While not a perfect bill, the Senate plan represents a delicate balance of insurance reform, Medicare protections, deficit reduction measures and assistance to small businesses. The plan underwent a thorough, transparent debate. The original proposal was first available for public inspection on November 21, 2009, and debated and amended on the Senate floor until its final passage on Dec. 24. "My opposition today to the package of amendments sent over by the House was that it did not undergo the same scrutiny and transparency as the Senate health bill that is now law. This vote does not hinder my commitment to ensuring that implementation of health care reform helps Arkansas working families and small businesses to the fullest.

"This new law will reduce costs for small business owners and the self-employed so they can reinvest their savings in their companies and hire more workers. It will force insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions, preserve Medicare for future generations and reduce the deficit by more than one trillion dollars over the next 20 years."

http://www.todaysthv.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=101704

[ClarkUSA]

98. So did John Kerry, as you seem to have adopted his sincere words as a mocking denigration...

... as Republicans did in his case. Moving the goalposts won't work, either. It's clear that President Obama wasn't being dishonest, as Blanche Lincoln's cloture vote helped the bill reach a final vote, which easily passed under reconciliation.

[freddie mertz]

99. I was a proud supporter of Sen. Kerry.

That doesn't mean everything he said or did in the campaign was effective.

I have no defense to offer regarding Se, Lincoln, however.

[IndianaGreen]

72. If Blanche Lincoln is a populist crusader, then Saddam flew one of the planes that hit the WTC

This gets Laugh-In's Fickle Finger of Fate Award!

[dflprincess]

77. By Obama's standards,

he probably thinks she is a populist.

This guy once referred to Wellstone as a "gadfly". He has no clue what a real populist is.

[newspeak]

117. O referred to Wellstone as a gadfly?

You have the reference? Because I miss and greatly respect the late honorable Wellstone. If he did make that comment, then he's right in company with the bush gang who apparently couldn't stand Wellstone. I'll take a Wellstone over any of them.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

119. Here you go:

http://davidsirota.com/index.php/mr-obama-goes-to-washington

Obama’s deference to these boundaries was hammered home to me when our discussion touched on the late Senator Paul Wellstone. Obama said the progressive champion was “magnificent.” He also gently but dismissively labeled Wellstone as merely a “gadfly,” in a tone laced with contempt for the senator who, for instance, almost single-handedly prevented passage of the bankruptcy bill for years over the objections of both parties. This clarified Obama’s support for the Hamilton Project, an organization formed by Citigroup chair Robert Rubin and other Wall Street Democrats to fight back against growing populist outrage within the party. And I understood why Beltway publications and think tanks have heaped praise on Obama and want him to run for President. It’s because he has shown a rare ability to mix charisma and deference to the establishment.

[freddie mertz]

122. Wow. That last line was pretty prescient.

Sirota seems to have defined what we have seen since the election more succinctly than anyone has since.

I will be paying closer attention to his stuff from now on.

[gravity]

82. Obama is doing his job of helping Democrats get elected

Blanche Lincoln is someone in the Senate who can help Obama with his agenda. The Republican is just another no vote.

[bvar22]

86. This is a primary.

There is another Democrat in the race, much more Progressive than Blanche.
Obama is campaigning for the Conservative.
Obama is not "helping Democrats get elected."
He is helping Conservatives get elected.


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans."
---Paul Wellstone

[depakid]

88. And associating himself with upopular and incompetent losing conservatives

who drive wedges into the Democratic base.

[laughingliberal]

85. I'd prefer not to see the President working to elect a candidate who ran ads bragging about her

obstruction of the Democratic agenda.

[freddie mertz]

91. Here's Gibbs giving Blanche a pass for these very ads:

President Obama isn't bothered by a new ad from Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), in which the senator touts her independence from the Democratic Party and states her opposition to key Democratic policies, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said on Thursday.

Speaking to reporters just hours after Lincoln's first ad went on the air, Gibbs stressed that the president continues to "support" the Arkansas Democrat in her primary fight, even if she is now attacking parts of his agenda. In her ad, Lincoln touted her work fighting against cap-and-trade legislation and a public option for insurance coverage as illustrations of her independence.

"The president supports Senator Lincoln who is an incumbent member of the Senate and understands, even as he is the head of the Democratic Party, that not every Democrat is going to agree with him on every issue," Gibbs said. "And he is not going to agree with every other Democrat on their views. He believes that Senator Lincoln is serving her state well and believes she should be returned for an additional term."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/04/obama-not-bothered-by-lin_n_486280.html

The price of obstruction and opposition is less than zero.

[VMI Dem]

93. So the defense of this is that its tradition?

LMAO.

[AtomicKitten]

123. Nothing to defend. Ever heard of the concept that possession is 9/10 of the law?

Same goes for incumbents. It's easier and more cost-effective to defend a seat that is already held by the candidate. It's not just traditional, it's smart strategy.

You are and have always been entitled to vote for whomever you wish. I wonder why you think you're entitled to inhibit that right for others because you disagree.

[xxqqqzme]

97. Lincoln a populist!

Wow, now that is a stretch.

[QC]

100. I'm sure that Obama genuinely believes her to be a progressive crusader.

From where he's standing, she is.

[bvar22]

111. Too True!

Obama's Democratic Party is NOT the Democratic Party I joined 46 years ago.

"In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world."--FDR

I really, REALLY miss THAT Democratic Party.
:cry:

In the past, I mercilessly ridiculed Middle Class Republicans for voting against their own Economic interests.
NOW, the Democratic Party is demanding that I do he same.

"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

[dumpdabaggers]

106. Lincols is going to lose either now or later.

Dhe is typical of the Truman statement, given the choice between a real Republican and a fake Democrat, the real Republican will win every time.

[Name removed]

109. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AngryAmish]

113. acx v

[Nikki Stone1]

121. K

K