ObamaCare: The Death Story

A parody of the consequences of ObamaCare presented by FortHardKnox.com.

---

ARRA News Service

Democrats' Criminalization of America's Health Care

ARRA News Service -Yesterday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other House democrats rolled out their health care plan called "America’s Affordable Health Choices." Part of their plan would force employers to offer workers health coverage or face severe fines. Also it would forcw individuals to participate in a health insurance plan or face penalties that would generally vary with their income level. Maybe it should have been called "Criminalizing of America's Health Care" or the "Destroy Individual Choices in Health Care."

The Heritage Foundation is reporting the cost of the bill at $1.3 Trillion. The bill is 1,018 pages and comes to $1.264 billion per page. It even includes universal abortion coverage at taxpayer expense. The Congressional Budget Office, not a conservative "right minded" think-tank, reported that the health care reform plan proposed by House Democrats on Tuesday will add more than $1 trillion ($1,042 billion) to the national federal budget deficit over 10 years (2010–2019) . And, this is only their preliminary estimate of the damage.

The CBO report states that its cost estimates are not comprehensive. They are only preliminary as administrative and other costs are not yet projected. Heritage advises, "But even this analysis understates the true costs of the bill. The CBO only scores bills on a ten-year time frame, and House Democrats have designed their bill to obscure the catastrophic long-term fiscal path on which it places our country."

Heritage identifies that according to the CBO, the cost for the first four years is just $84 billion, but then it accelerates sharply. By 2019, the new entitlement is set to cost American taxpayers $254 billion. So while many Americans may look at the $1.3 trillion price tag over ten years and conclude the plan will cost $130 billion a year, in reality it will cost nearly double that. By backloading all the spending, the House is hiding the true cost of their plan from the American people. Between 2018 and 2019, federal costs for the new entitlement and the enlargement of Medicaid would increase by a combined 8.9%.

Last week CNS News reported that Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) introduced legislation calling for a $540-billion tax hike to pay for the health plan that President Barack Obama insists will be “deficit neutral.” This tax is a new surtax on households earning $350,000 and above. It starts at 1%, bumping up to 1.5% at $500,000 in income and to 5.4% at $1 million. Since many small business owners fall within this income range, this surtax will also be a huge job killer.

The Washington Post writes: [T]here is no case to be made for the House Democratic majority’s proposal to fund health-care legislation through an ad hoc income tax surcharge for top-earning households. …There is simply no way to close the gap by taxing a handful of high earners. … Pretending that “the rich” alone can fund government, let alone the kind of activist government that the president and Congress envision, is bad policy any way you look at it.

Summary: President Obama, Democrats in Congress, powerful special interests and influential lobbyists are hard at work in Washington, D.C. trying to drastically change our current health care system. They are seeking to replace it with a "nationalized health care " system where the politicians and government officials will dictate the kind of medical services you and your family receive and the rules under which you access care and coverage. Read : Patients First - Vote No on Government Run Health Care and then take action.

Major "Earmark" in Democrat Bailout Agreement

Update (9:58AM, Sept. 26th): While Sens. Harry Reid and Chris Dodd stand before the news this morning pontificating and mocking Republicans, especially Sen McCain, for the perceived delay in reaching agreement, they also continues to prevaricate. Sen. Reid and Speaker Pelosi initially asserted that they needed McCain to clinch a deal for Democrats and now they are like a pack rabid dogs blaming John McCain for the deal falling apart. In fact, the deal fell apart before McCain arrived.

A republican senate source has confirmed that the questioned provision reported in this post is being opposed by Senate Republicans which has upset Democrats. Republicans are not opposing the obvious issues identified by Reid. They are working to get rid of the questioned provision "if they can." Also, they have already gotten the Democrats to back down from providing "most" of the money ("future profits") to the groups mentioned in the article "to a much smaller percentage." Negotiations are likely to continue throughout the day. Obviously no one is happy - especially the majority of the American public.

Breaking News - Bill Smith, ARRA Editor. I received a copy of "Agreement in Principle" relative to the $700 billion "bailout" being proposed and supported by Senate Democrats. The one page agreement from the U.S. Senate Banking Committee details guidelines to be put in place relative to taxpayer protection, oversight and transparency, home ownership preservation and Funding Authority.

While on the surface the agreement looks generic and positive, However, the "devil is in the detail." There is one detail that Democrats are concerned that Republicans will not agree to in the bailout agreement. That is if the Republicans even see the item. It seems that this issue may be one reason that many Democrats have hounded Sen. John McCain and pushed for his speedy approval. Senate Majority Harry Reid (D-NV) has already identified that it is Sen. John McCain's approval, not Barack Obama approval, that is needed to secure the agreement of Senate Republicans. In fact, the questioned provision indirectly focus on some prior concern regarding Sen. Barack Obama involvement with various organizations. Maybe that is why Obama would prefer being at a debate in Mississippi than being in Washington D.C.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) cohorts are also hounding Sen. McCain to agree. They know that neither the House Republicans nor the House Blue Dog Democrats are going to sign on easily to an agreement extending $700 billion "bailout" if Sen. McCain disagrees. Pelosi does not have control of the fiscally conservative Blue Dogs who are not happy with committing $700 billion to the "bailout" effort.

In the "agreement in principle," there is the effect of a major "earmark" which commits money from future "profits" to be given to nonprofits organizations like ACORN, National Council of La Raza and potentially the National Urban League. This agreement clearly evidences that the Government expects to benefit in the future from the bailout when the values of property rises and mortgages or properties are then sold by the Federal government. The agreement --

"Directs a certain percentage of future profits to the Affordable Housing Fund and the Capital Magnet Fund to meet America's housing needs."

In the proposed bailout agreement, Sen. Christopher Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee and other Democrats desire to pre-direct that future funds (profits) not be returned to the taxpayers via the treasury but that they be used to underwrite potential questionable (maybe even illegal activities) of certain nonprofits which have had a hand in promoting and expanding access to "no money down" loans for minorities, illegal voter registrations and extensive lobbying activities.

Let’s examine the connection of the Affordable Housing Fund and the Capital Magnet Fund with the various nonprofit groups mentioned above. In July, 2008, a Wall Street Journal article addressed the previous housing bill signed into law:

Provide[d] a stream of billions of dollars for distressed homeowners and communities and the nonprofit groups that serve them. One of the biggest likely beneficiaries, despite Republican objections is Acorn, a housing advocacy group that also helps lead ambitious voter-registration efforts benefiting Democrats. Acorn -- made up of several legally distinct groups under that name -- has become an important player in the Democrats' effort to win the White House. Its voter mobilization arm is co-managing a $15.9 million campaign with the group Project Vote to register 1.2 million low-income Hispanics and African-Americans, who are among those most likely to vote Democratic. Technically nonpartisan, the effort is one of the largest such voter-registration drives on record.

The organization's main advocacy group lobbied hard for passage of the housing bill, which provides nearly $5 billion for affordable housing, financial counseling and mortgage restructuring for people and neighborhoods affected by the housing meltdown. A third Acorn arm, its housing corporation, does a large share of that work on the ground. Acorn's multiple roles show how two fronts of activism -- housing for the poor and voter mobilization -- have converged closely in this election year. The fortunes of both parties will hinge in part on their plans for addressing the fall of the nation's housing market and the painful economic slowdown. . . .

Partly because of the role of Acorn and other housing advocacy groups, the White House and its allies in Congress resisted Democrats' plans to include money for a new affordable-housing trust fund and $4 billion in grants to restore housing in devastated neighborhoods. In the end, the money stayed in the bill; the White House saw little choice. What most riles Republicans about the bill is the symbiotic relationship between the Democratic Party and the housing advocacy groups, of which Acorn is among the biggest. Groups such as the National Council of La Raza and the National Urban League also lobby to secure government-funded services for their members and seek to move them to the voting booth. Acorn has been singled out for criticism because of its reach, its endorsements of Democrats, and past flaws in its bookkeeping and voter-registration efforts that its detractors in Congress have seized upon. . . .

Sen. Obama is especially reliant on registration drives, such as Acorn's with Project Vote, to help him win the White House. The Illinois Democrat draws his strongest support from blacks, Hispanics and young people, groups that are among the least likely to be registered. After law school, Sen. Obama was the director of Project Vote in Chicago. . . .

Democrats on Capitol Hill have helped to steer millions of dollars in housing and other grants from the federal government toward Acorn and groups like it. The groups must qualify and compete for the money, which is typically doled out from the federal government to states and municipalities. The housing package includes a new, permanent source of affordable-housing money that congressional Democrats and grassroots groups have sought for years. The Affordable Housing Trust Fund and the Capital Magnet Fund will be funded by a tax on mortgages backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage titans.

That tax eventually will channel upwards of $600 million annually in grants for developing and restoring housing, mostly as low-income rentals, available to Acorn and other groups. Democrats on Capitol Hill and housing groups say the housing-assistance money is vital to helping Americans hit hardest by what some call the largest drop in home values since the Great Depression. But they acknowledge the perception of political conflict in giving federal funds to an organization that does political work. "We are guarding against it," said Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank in an interview. He secured the Affordable Housing Trust from his seat as chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. . . .

Acorn describes itself as the nation's largest grassroots community organization, with more than 400,000 families organized into 1,200 neighborhood chapters in 110 cities. Over four decades, Acorn has turned its broad membership into a powerful lobbying tool. Its representatives are well-known in the marble halls of the Capitol, and press local, state and federal governments . . .

ACORN is the agency where Sen. Barack Obama worked as a trainer for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform (ACORN), whose affiliate, Project Vote, is known for voter fraud. It is this same organization from which a large part of the mortgage mess has grown. After Harvard Law School, Obama provided legal representation for ACORN. Obama sat on the boards of the philanthropic Woods Foundation and the Joyce Foundation which both funneled millions of dollars to ACORN.

In 2006, the Wall Street Journal addressed Acorn Indictments. In a recent article, additional complaints, indictments and arrests and conviction of ACORN members for voter fraud have been detailed for Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Washington State, and Wisconsin. Democrats on Capitol Hill have steered billions of the taxpayer monies to risky ventures and to nonprofits organizations like ACORN, National Council of La Raza through the government’s Affordable Housing Fund and the Capital Magnet Fund. As a result groups like ACORN have developed powerful lobby groups to secure tax money for their organizations. Now the proposed "agreement in principle" for the $700 Billion "bailout" seeks to continue the protection of this process. In another article by James H. Walsh, a former federal prosecutor, it was noted that:

ACORN Housing Corporation (AHC) was instrumental in its passage of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) which has plagued the mortgage markets since 1977. The U.S. Congress through the CRA compelled banks and lending institutions to make loans to “communities of color” disregarding sound economic and risk guidelines. CRA encouraged the relaxing of “outdated” risk-management protocols and underwriting obligations by lending institutions. In the name of ending discrimination, no longer were “communities of color” required to provide verification of income, employment, credit history, ability to pay homeowner bills, or down payment. In response, many banks and mortgage groups bundled trillions of dollars of “subprime” loans and sold them to investors here and abroad. It is these bundled Community Reinvestment Act mortgages, doomed to fail, that are today causing financial strain in U.S. and global financial markets.

In short, a Democrat Congress and President demanded that banks change the rules of good banking and open the Pandora’s Box of mortgage defaults and foreclosures now coming to a head. This home-parity concept of the radical left was mobilized by ACORN resulting in a purchase of a property without any credit, income, employment, and a zero down payment.

In 2003, Fannie Mae home-parity funding in Chicago reached $600 billion. When Franklin Raines, former chair and CEO of Fannie Mae, stepped down in 2004 but managed to take with him a multimillion-dollar parachute and a monthly pension of $114, 393 for life, and should he die, for his wife’s lifetime. Until recently, Raines was an advisor to Obama.

Open Secrets reveals the investment made by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in Democrats and details the Top 25 Democrat Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac contributions in 1989-2008. The top three in order were Senators Christopher Dodd, John Kerry and Barack Obama.

When government tries to fix social issues through the use of the taxpayers’ money, there are consequences. Now the American taxpayers are being called upon again to underwrite the problems exacerbated by the prior actions of former and the current Congress and past administrations. It is hoped that Senators and Representatives will avoid this massive "earmark." All "future profits" from the resolution and disposition of the alleged current bad mortgages ("bad paper"), should accrue to the American taxpayers as a whole and be returned to the Treasury. Any determination as to the use of "future profits" should be determined by those elected and representing the people at that future point in time. No agreements should include an obligation on the potential "future profits." No agreements should support questionable programs that support organizations that contributed to the failures of mortgages or to the bad lending practices promoted by prior Congresses and administrations.

CNN Spins Again

CNN Headline, "Rove: McCain Went To Far". Now for the reality. Rove said both campaigns were pushing their ads too far. Don't believe me, listen to the tape...

CNN apparently suffers from selective hearing as Karl Rove thought the lipstick remark was inappropriate and then he said both campaigns have taken their ads one step too far. However, CNN is only interested in the part of the statement that is critical of McCain. 'The Most Trusted Name in News?' Really?

---

CNN Spins Again

McCain Palin Reform Ticket Tackle Change

Reform: 1.the improvement or amendment of what is wrong, corrupt, unsatisfactory, etc.: social reform; spelling reform.

Change: 1.to make the form, nature, content, future course, etc., of (something) different from what it is or from what it would be if left alone: to change one's name; to change one's opinion; to change the course of history.

From Dictionary.com

---

There is a difference in the promise of a change versus the promise of a reform. First, a reform ticket acknowledges the good of the initial structure, and seeks to route out what has corrupted it. The promise of change simply says things will be different; possibly better, possibly worse, but definitely different. Change lacks specifics, reform seeks the goal of fixing the problems.

While reform includes some change, the basic promise differs, and this is evident in the two campaigns. The Obama campaign promises to be different than President Bush. Different how? In party affiliation, in political philosophy, a broad sweeping promise to not be 'him'. However, the McCain campaign says through reform they'll fix Washington. Washington is 'broken', but it is not inherently bad. The government structures of America are quite remarkable, however, with power comes corruption and the McCain/Palin ticket seeks to rectify problems of waste and corruption. The 'reform mantle' take a sliver of the 'change argument' and focus it on specifics. The idea of change is often appealing, but change can be good and it can be bad. Simply promising not to be 'that guy' is not concrete plan for what type of change one seeks.

McCain Palin Reform Ticket Tackle Change

Remote Control - Democrats Quoted

Democrats Hidding Behind Bush

Bill Smith, Editor: Congressional Democrat leaders attending the DNC 2008 in Denver are attempting to transfer their failures to President Bush in an effort to distract voters by claiming their candidate is running against the Bush/McCain or McCain/Bush ticket. America is not stupid. Bush is retiring to Texas. And, Sen. John McCain as a maverick has never been part of the Bush team. It is true that Bush and McCain have conservative principles on which they agree. However, McCain as a maverick never placed party line first and often reached across the Senate isle to work with Democrats on critical issues. McCain has a leading democrat backing him and even the current identified Democratic vice president said positive things about McCain's qualifications to be president. Allegiances are shifting everywhere but with the Democratic leadership in Congress

While the candidates carry out their campaigns as they determine best, the Congressional Democrat leadership hides their failures behind George Bush. They are pursing a "con" job on the voters. They are working hard to sell their head-in-the-sand approach to energy policy to the American people. This may prove to be difficult with the divisions in their party who are deciding whether to continue following the inept Democrat leadership's refusal to produce more American energy. Some are tired of their leaders' ineptness and are considering joining with Republicans and sensible Democrats in support for policies like opening more areas to offshore drilling. ABC News reports that Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI) is concerned that Democrats’ lack of action on a comprehensive energy solution could cost them politically. Abercrombie has joined with his GOP colleague Rep. John Peterson of Pennsylvania to urge a vote on an offshore drilling proposal.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t appear that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is paying attention. Pelosi has not been bothered by these situations and has even advocated for Democrats with competitive races to lie and side with the Republicans because she can still stall and control things back in Congress. Though she’s been saying that drilling could be part of an energy package, she refuses to commit to a specific vote. Reuters reports, “She criticized President George W. Bush and other Republicans for presenting offshore drilling as an answer to the recent rise in U.S. gasoline prices, saying expanded drilling would not affect prices for a decade and then only by a small degree. ‘I don’t think that's a good alternative. But if they can prove that it is, and they want to pay royalties to the taxpayer ... then we have something to talk about’. . .”

Non-leader Pelosi would rather deal in distractions than grasp the laws of supply and demand. She says that drilling is not in her DNA. She would do well to read today’s New York Times, which discusses the recent rapid increase in American natural gas production. The Times writes, “Domestic natural gas prices have already plunged 42 percent since early July, an even faster drop in price than oil or most other commodities, in part because the rapid supply growth has begun to influence the market. Price spikes remain possible, of course, but throughout the industry the shale discoveries are causing a shift in thinking about the long-term outlook.”

Although doubtful, Democrats who understand how supply and demand work will be able to use their time in Denver to convince Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to that a “find more and use less” approach to energy is the best way to lower gas prices and provide more energy to America. Republicans have put forward a number of serious plans to do just that. It begs the question, when will the wiser more reasoned Democrats stop being lead by people who are disgracing their positions and hurting the American people? Also, noticeable is that five Democrat senators put themselves forward as qualified to be President of the United States and yet, not one of them would lead the effort to replace an inept Harry Reid. Pelosi and Reid, democrat agents of "no" change!

230,000 Reasons Lieberman Is Not Acceptable to the GOP as VP

ARRA Editor: While Sen. Lieberman (D disguised as ID) prides himself as a maverick and is supporting Sen. John McCain (R) for President, Lieberman not only caucuses with the Democrats, he also gives them money. He recently made a second donation to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) in what some see as a effort to assure of keeping his position as Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee intact, regardless of the outcome in November. In addition, Lieberman has been giving money through his Responsibility/Opportunity/Community PAC to various re-election campaigns for Democrat Senators.

Glenn Thrush at The Crypt reports:

After forking over $100,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee last year, the Connecticut Democrat-turned-Independent has written a second $100,000 check to DSCC chairman Chuck Schumer in recent days, according to a people familiar with the situation. “Basically, he doesn’t want everybody to hate him,” one Lieberman-friendly Democrat said. “Plus he wants to keep his committee.”

Lieberman caucuses – awkwardly — with Democrats at their weekly meetings but is on the outs with many in his longtime party . . . More than a few have talked about stripping him of his committee post after November.

Thus Lieberman’s schmear campaign. Lieberman’s Responsibility / Opportunity / Community PAC, has given the DSCC $30,000 since last year – in addition to doling out smaller donations to the New Mexico Democratic party and the re-election campaigns of Democratic centrists Max Baucus, Mary Landrieu and Mark Pryor.

Did you see the 230,000 Reasons? Money Talks: Lieberman in two years gave the DSCC $100,000 + $100,000 + $30,000 to elect or keep Democrats in power.

Free Speech of U.S. Representatives & Senators at Risk

Bill Smith, Editor: U.S. Senate sources identified today that the Democrat leadership is seeking and developing actions to restrict the free speech of U.S. Representatives and Senators with both the public and their constituents. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised the most “open and honest Congress” when Democrats took over Congress at the beginning of last year. However, a majority Democrats have continually demonstrated that they don’t intend to live up to that pledge. In addition, online sources, Soren Dayton and Ed Morrissey are reporting that Democrat-controlled rule-making bodies in the House and Senate are trying to restrict and regulate the use of members’ communications on the Internet.

Ed Morrissey reports on the schemes in both chambers, asking “Why do Congressional Democrats fear free speech?” In the Senate, Rules Committee Chair Diane Feinstein (D-CA) is proposing a rule that would require her panel to essentially become the Internet speech police for the Senate. It would be up to the Rules Committee to “sanction” which websites and forms of communication they deem appropriate for senators to use, and would then require their regulations to apply to any domain not ending in “senate.gov.”

Even worse, the committee is seeking to be able to regulate content since the rule would give it the authority to require the removal of any content it considers in violation of Senate rules.The upshot of this proposal is that senators’ ability to use websites such as YouTube, Facebook, and others to communicate with their constituents and the American public could be jeopardized and the content of those communications subject to approval. On top of that, the rules are vague enough to raise concerns over how they might apply to basic things like guest postings on blogs like RedState and Townhall. No such restrictions exist on any other form of communication like TV and radio interviews or op-eds in newspapers. What is it about free speech online that Democrats find so threatening?

Voters Approval of Congress falls to 9%! Lowest Ever Rating!

ARRA News Service - Rasmussen Reports survey issued this morning shows voters giving the Democrat lead Congress with the lowest approval rating of any Congress in history.

Rasmussen Reports: The percentage of voters who give Congress good or excellent ratings has fallen to single digits for the first time in Rasmussen Reports tracking history. This month, just 9% say Congress is doing a good or excellent job. Most voters (52%) say Congress is doing a poor job, which ties the record high in that dubious category. . . . Congress has not received higher than a 15% approval rating since the beginning of 2008. . . . [Read More on Survey]

Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leaders Harry Reid have achieved the most dismal record ever with their liberal agenda and failure to address critical National issues like rising gas prices, homeland security, and the mortgage scandles. Their efforts to prohibit American owned businesses from Drilling for Oil in our own country and their actions restricting electric power companies to the use higher cost natural gas verses using cheap available coal is driving energy costs and gas prices beyond acceptable levels for the American people. It has not gone unnoticed by the public that these leaders have supported trial lawyers over loyal Americans who obeyed the requests of the Federal government to protect America. The public notices the effort of the congressional leaders to promote the bailout of banks and mortgage companies who promoted bad lending practices while ignoring the homeowners who are losing their homes to these same institutions. If democrat senators and reprentatives are concerned about America and regaining the voters' confidence, they should immediately replace Reid and Pelosi as their leaders.

Obama's Lacks Support in Arkansas & Oklahoma

Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: John Brummett is an Arkansas political columnist who continually displays a nostalgic belief that Democrats Party still reflects conservative ideals. There may be some conservative democrats in the region, but they are floundering in a party controlled by liberals. Brummett, being pro-democrat and an associate of democrats, appears to understand his local brand of democrats. He appears to find Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to be more conservative than Sen. Barack Hussein Obama. While Obama is a black male and Clinton is a white female, remove their sex and race and they are both equally suited liberals. Hillary Clinton does have more "life experiences" than Barack Obama and is clearly "native born." But being tired of us Arkansans, Hillary kept her beloved ex-president, migrated to liberal-land New York, and walked right into the Senate a full fledged liberal.

Brummett's association with the people and attitudes within the Democrat Party in Arkansas and Oklahoma affords us insight into the region's Democrat backlash against Barack Obama as their presidential nominee. The backlash even seems more strident with the likelihood that Clinton will not be their vice presidential nominee. In a recent article that appeared in The Morning News, Brummett comments:

"I wrote about a palpable lack of fire for Obama among Arkansas Democratic officeholders -- such as Gov. Mike Beebe, who cited a "deep-seated fear" of Obama in Arkansas, and U.S. Rep. Marion Berry, who said his tank of enthusiasm had pretty nearly run dry -- there was a related development in the section of Oklahoma that abuts the western Arkansas border.

"U.S. Rep. Dan Boren is a third-term conservative Democrat representing the 2nd Congressional District of Oklahoma, which starts at the Arkansas line and runs to Kansas on the north and Texas on the south. It's just across the state line from Siloam Springs and Fort Smith and Mena and De Queen, not so far from Texarkana. It bounds our 3rd District, which is Republican already, but it also bounds our 4th District, which has a Democratic congressman in Mike Ross. . . .

"Boren's is a conservative district and one of the largest geographically in the country, owing to the sparse population. It went 66 percent for Hillary Clinton over Obama in the Democratic primary on Super Tuesday and it went heavily for George W. Bush in the general elections in 2000 and 2004. Boren, son of former U.S. Sen. David Boren, can read those returns. He told the Tulsa World that he could not endorse Obama. He said he admired Obama's rhetoric about a new politics, but pointed out that Obama had been rated the most liberal member of the Senate by the National Journal. He said that didn't seem so new to him. He said he had to respect the will of his constituents.

"In a way this means nothing. Obama can't compete in Arkansas without Hillary as his running mate. Obama is going to get pummeled in Oklahoma either way because Oklahoma is Arkansas without those enlightened (or static, if you prefer) Democratic influences. The point is that, for all the talk of a new day and of a race that is the Democrats' to lose, the Democrats find themselves in old and familiar territory. That is to say they have a nominee whose competitiveness seems foreclosed in large sections of the country, primarily ours. . . ."