Skip to main content

I found it painful to read yesterday's diary regarding Barack Obama's comments about Ronald Reagan. Seeing such obviously sincere people completely misinterpret Sen. Obama's comments and misunderstand the rare opportunity that Obama offers to the progressive community prompted me to attempt an explanation of that opportunity. Many Kossacks appear to be missing the possibilities for the generational change to progressivism that Obama is trying to achieve. Only by winning the kind of mandate that Reagan won can major change be accomplished.

Far from agreeing with Reagan, Obama instead is attempting to reverse Reagan's legacy. He is doing so by following Reagan's successful battle plan for winning a complete generational realignment of politics in this nation. He cites Reagan not for his policies, but for the man's undeniable political prowess. Reagan achieved a generational shift toward conservatism, still the dominant philosophy in the nation. Simply put: Reagan won, and we lost (as did America).

Now, because of the incompetence, stupidity, and sickeningly vicious politics of George W. Bush, we have a chance to overthrow not just the Bush/Cheney junta, but to completely overturn Reagan's victory. Only Obama, because he attracts the crossover votes necessary to achieve a powerful mandate, can do it.

The chance for the kind of generational realignment achieved by Reagan comes rarely. Only a nearly complete disillusionment of the majority of the population offers that window of opportunity. FDR, as the Depression struck, seized the opportunity, as did LBJ after JFK's assassination, as did Reagan after more than a decade of strife left the majority of the population willing to try something new. Obama now sees a new chance for complete change.

These generational shifts go back a long way. Political conservatism dominated the 1920s. Harding and Coolidge allowed business to run amok in the 20s. Most Americans agreed with that approach. Throughout that decade the average American zestfully played the stock market as though it were a sure bet. Then, absent rational regulation, business collapsed and the roar of the 1920s morphed into a howl. Herbert Hoover, once a great humanitarian (Hoover had led the relief drive that saved many thousands of lives in Europe after the devastation of World War I), found himself trapped within his conservative philosophy. Government, he believed, must keep its hands off business. Hoover simply did not believe that he could marshall the power of the government that was necessary to aid devastated Americans, as he had previously aided Europeans.

Enter FDR, who understood how to reach voters during the desperate times. With the nation both economically and emotionally depressed, FDR ran his campaign with a strong message of optimism. "Happy Days are Here Again," he trumpeted. Of course he trounced Hoover, winning a strong mandate from voters.

In his first term, using the power of that mandate, FDR quickly pushed through his National Recovery Act and Social Security, (begun in 1935, although it did not pay benefits until later).

It was a generational realignment toward progressivism that lasted through Truman's administration.

After World War II and Truman's administration, which was perceived as a failure by the vast majority of the population, the country again turned mildly toward conservatism. Fortunately, smiling, optimistic Eisenhower was a far more progressive Republican than the rest of his party.

But Eisenhower's landslide victory was a realignment toward conservatism of a milder sort than we know today. The window of opportunity wasn't open in 1960--it took a candidate as inspirational (and optimistic) as JFK to barely eke out the narrowest victory in U.S. history.

After JFK's assassination, however, LBJ was able to win one of the greatest landslide victories in history, giving him a mandate to push through major progressive legislation, including Medicare. Johnson won not on optimism, but on an overwhelming sympathy vote from a traumatized nation, yet the mandate worked just as well to give LBJ the power he needed.

It could have been another realignment toward progressivism until LBJ ruined it with the Vietnam War.

The turmoil of the 60s turned half the country toward political conservatism. The nation divided along the lines we still see today. Because of Watergate, Nixon lost his chance for a generational realignment after his second, massive victory. Carter won with only a narrow victory that reflected the nation's continuing division, and was unable to achieve his goals as president. Then the struggling economy and the Iranian hostage crisis set the stage for another big shift.

Enter Ronald Reagan. He beat us. He also implemented shortsighted, egregiously destructive policies that were, intentionally, the polar opposite of progressivism.

How did Reagan beat us? By winning the kind of mandate that gives a president the power to achieve major change. Reagan capitalized on the sour mood of the country by running, as had FDR, on optimism: "It's morning in America." He was smooth and constantly smiling. He kept his fearmongering gentle: "There's a bear in the woods." He convinced large amounts of Democrats, the famed "Reagan Democrats" to vote for him.

As a result the Democratic congress, realizing that many of their constituents had voted for Reagan, feared that they would lose their jobs if they did not capitulate to Reagan's legislation. Because of that mandate, Reagan was able to achieve major change. That change was for the worse, but change it certainly was.

It was a generational realignment toward conservatism that has lasted for 28 years.

This is basic democracy, basic politics. If a candidate can win a strong mandate, as president he or she will have the power to implement major legislation. That mandate comes only by winning a significant amount of crossover votes from the opposing party.

Narrow victories do not give presidents that power. That's what Obama means when he says that a 50+1 victory "just won't do."

However, the opportunity to achieve such a mandate comes along only about once a generation, it seems. Now is such a time. A window has opened that can allow a complete shift in political philosophy. Americans are now so completely demoralized by Bush with his incompetence and aggressive attempts to keep us divided that they are searching for a new beginning.

That new mandate is what Obama is trying to achieve. Obama understands how Reagan did it. Reagan identified the yearnings of the majority of the population in 1980, and capitalized on them. Obama is doing the same in 2008, by capitalizing on the demoralized mood of the nation. He realizes that the majority of the population, Democratic, Republican and Independent, simply are heartily sick of the constant, vicious foodfight between polarized conservatives and progressives. He offers hope that things can change for the better, the nation can unite as it has not since before the 1960s.

That's why there are now "Obama Republicans" out there.

Only by appealing to Independents and to many demoralized Republicans can we achieve the kind of political power, that strong mandate, that can effect sweeping change. Bill Clinton never won that kind of power from the voters and thus was unable to shift the country toward progressivism. Instead, he found it necessary on too many occasions to capitulate to conservatism. DOMA, NAFTA, and welfare reform stand as testaments to the fact that Reagan's conservatism still dominated the nation, even while it was led by Clinton. That window wasn't open in 1992. It took a politician as talented as Bill Clinton to eke out a narrow victory.

Obama is running now, instead of four or eight years from now, because he knows that window of opportunity is open. Americans are so sick of these constant polarizing battles that they're nauseous. (Evidence: the positive, relieved reaction of most of the nation to Obama's 2004 convention speech.)

That's why only Obama has a real chance to achieve a generational realignment to progressivism. Sens. Clinton and Edwards, while both highly competent and strong candidates, forcefully promise to just keep slugging away, to continue the battles that have been raging since the 1960s. While that approach certainly attracts those of us who have engaged in those battles and who want to humiliate the opposition, it precludes the chance to win those crossover votes, that sweeping majority necessary to get major change accomplished. Hillary (as did Bill) and Edwards are still using tactics that appeal to only half the country, trying to expand the liberal side into the slightly bigger half. While emotionally satisfying and pleasant to Democrats, such tactics continue to alienate the half of the country that does not share our beliefs. Even if either were to win the election, as I believe either could, their approach stands less chance to win the powerful mandate they need actually to implement progressive change.

When Obama trumpets "Change we can believe in," he's talking about a complete shift in politics, a shift to progressivism that will last for decades. Because of his broad appeal, his ability to inspire as no one has since the Kennedys (he is older than both JFK and RFK when they died, incidentally), his basic civility, and his talent for bringing people together, he just might be able to win the kind of majority that will annihilate Reagan's achievement. Should he win the kind of mandate that Reagan won, by appealing to as large a swathe of the nation as Reagan did, he could gain the political power that is essential to implement major legislation. He could win the clout necessary actually to achieve universal healthcare, strong action on climate change, equal rights and much of the rest of the progressive agenda.

Here is our opportunity to win a real victory, one that will realign the nation to the progressive side for another generation at least, and finally begin the 21st century.

An Obama victory would be a complete, total repudiation of Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and his pathetic son, because instead of merely defeating a conservative candidate, it would defeat conservatism.

It's the chance to finally, permanently, bury Ronald Reagan.

Originally posted to Fonsia on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 05:24 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tips for my first diary (339+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PrometheusSpeaks, Lestatdelc, Kitty, tsackton, Ed in Montana, aisling, JR, Katydid, PLS, gregonthe28th, Joe Willy, ihlin, Stevie, Odysseus, ABB, skyesNYC, raatz, jmelli, jennybravo, Better Days, AaronInSanDiego, zonk, Fro, folgers, Munguza, TaraIst, lrhoke, MarkC, TrueBlueMajority, sarac, perpetualstudent, existenz, dengre, byteb, steviemo, Fishgrease, Heimyankel, antigonos, LynChi, darboy, ablington, cookiesandmilk, bawbie, koan, TX Unmuzzled, autoegocrat, cosmicrob, tithonia, Luam, bethcf4p, bumblebums, exNYinTX, nightsweat, angelmom, nanoboy, Nonie3234, noexpert, strengthANDwisdom, Heart of the Rockies, jeepdad, PBCliberal, kissfan, Dumbo, timmyc, Ash Tree, Boston Boomer, erhan04, linnie, chockfull, DAVE DIAL, brown girl in the ring, metal prophet, highacidity, Pithy Cherub, Vermonter, ptmflbcs, DistrictDonkey, Zueda, Wayward Son, taonow, peraspera, sgilman, badlands, karenc, itskevin, Glinda, HooverWhoWontSuck, dmsilev, SGlennW, SneakySnu, Embee, nicta, snout, mihan, businessdem, missliberties, pointsoflight, casperr, cityofgates, Damien in Texas, jaywillie, john from vermont, Man in Black, ohiolibrarian, lizah, arielle, dufffbeer, Pirate Smile, bwintx, ChiGirl88, larrybutch, jj32, KayCeSF, edavis, Knightrider, Schwede, Texas Populist, dss, bibble, jim bow, donailin, Illissius, ebbinflo, machiado, Big Tex, frostyinPA, davidincleveland, bloomer 101, historys mysteries, Pokerdad, radarlady, DianeNYS, JanetT in MD, mjd in florida, Bodean, Luetta, citizenx, Clem Yeobright, huckleberry, NewJerz, pureproductofamerica, nameblock, 21st Century Man, JoieDe, jorndorff, LABobsterofAnaheim, sueNaustin, sofia, paul minot, baskil, Todd Smyth, sick of it all, ivorybill, onanyes, Jaboo, Gottayo, turnover, eddeevy, hcc in VA, Matt in AA, begone, kubla000, Major Organ, Audio Guy, alchemillamollis, Jennifer Clare, gwilson, Icy, BobzCat, Fasaha, cas2, 417els, RogueStage, Crestingwave, bluejeandem, Sagittarius, johnsonwax, earwulf, a gnostic, irishamerican, charlestown dem, play jurist, CAL11 voter, MJ via Chicago, JCWilmore, uniqity, gatorcog, FireCrow, JVolvo, gotalife, baronzito, boatsie, Andy30tx, weidheimer, DemocraticLuntz, Ludd, frankzappatista, Miles in WesternWA, ToxicTidepool, Exile, kafkaesque, jpfdeuce, Lesser Dane, coolsub, Oothoon, sasher, theark, orrg1, ohiomeister, ccyd, Terlis, fisheye, Donkey Underpants, recusancy, malik5470, dotsright, Guy Fawkes, GetTogether, clashfan, oscarsmom, Castine, crankyinNYC, vets74, maxalb, KateinIL, unionboy, FishOutofWater, TtexwiTyler, kath25, oscarsdad, holder, Azdak, Practical Progressive, chicago jeff, jamesia, NHTimes, sqz23, Rumarhazzit, Tackle, wuod kwatch, Empower Ink, extradish, cville townie, jules4sail, trivium, sand805, webphantom, kafkananda, FolsomBlues, shadydan, mconvente, SicPlurisPoenaPrestantia, Citizen King, condorcet, Mad Kossack, ShadowSD, ynp junkie, dotster, NotGeorgeWill, Phil N DeBlanc, brklyngrl, Steve15, soulonaroll, zerone, mamamedusa, shanay, canoeist, lovingj, r squared, Mannabass, wscrews, Mother of Zeus, Akonitum, beltane, Greasy Grant, MrrarA, Happy Days, Brian A, pamelabrown, mnc, icebergslim, mad clamor, vernonbc, karpaty, DanK Is Back, Barry C aka Casey, noddem, Rachel Griffiths, inflector, enarjay, KttG, psericks, Drewid, jalenth, jayday, tsqd, LCA, echatwa, a night owl, omegajew, BYw, SteamPunkX, Anr, IntertubeGuy, palantir, Tom0063, ludwig van brickoven, Robinswing, Rich Santoro, Kimball, ryangoesboom, bhagamu, in2mixin, Bule Betawi, cybrestrike, El Yoss, there will be blood, pwr2thepeople, Glacial Erratic, illdemforchange, Texanomaly, Hobelhouse, a synthetic cubist, MoNut, Big Blue Colorado, broui, ronnied, sunhaws, clambake, DaNorr, cantelow, Michael James, Mojo Jojo, a wolf raised by boys, velvet blasphemy, txdreamer, smash artist, XerTeacher, DemsUnited

    (Although I probably shouldn't say that.)

    I see that there have been other diaries on this subject today, but I'll offer this one as my own take on it.

    Thanks for reading it.

    May your entire existence be one sensuous, frolic-filled experience lived in defiance of care.

    by Fonsia on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 05:26:13 PM PST

        •  Thank you thank you thank you! (35+ / 0-)

          This is such a wonderful breath of fresh air after all the WTF ZOMG OBAMA HRTS REAGAN HE SUX diaries that have been popping up like cockroaches today...

          Just another surfer on the wave of change. Barack Obama '08

          by El Yoss on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:12:38 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  After reading 525 comments I am jumping line... (7+ / 0-)

            The word "tax" sends Republicans shrieking into knee jerking mass hysteria...without the slightest consideration of its context and total disregard for anything else the speaker/writer has addressed.  "Tax" is a bad word!  Anyone who says it out loud is a bad person who hates America and wants to starve their children and steal their neighbor's dog!

            I have read so many absurd expansions and irrational interpretations of what Obama "really meant"...saying he has praised and wants to emulate everything Reagan.

            The word "Reagan" has become the Democrats' equivalent of the Republicans' "Tax". One word sound bites that have miles of inaccurate and fabricated trash attached to them.

            "Evil is a lack of empathy, a total incapacity to feel with their fellow man." - Capt. Gilbert,Psychiatrist, at the end of Nuremberg trials.

            by 417els on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 02:20:45 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  "Cash Tax" versus "Debt Tax." Equal burdens. (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Clem Yeobright, 417els, lightfoot, maxalb

              GOP "tax cuts" only shiuft the tax burden over to borrowing.

              It is the same burden.

              Nothing much changes on how much hurt happens.

              If anything, GOP "Debt Tax" hurts more because of the added interest penalties.

              This fact -- the Debt Tax -- needs to be documented and used as a major election issue.

              GOP incompetence/lies from 2001 through 2006 stuffed a $1,000,000,000,000 Debt Tax onto America's citizens.

              Dixie Chicks, Amy Winehouse, Imus, and Lenny Bruce. Overcome evil with good.

              by vets74 on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 04:52:48 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  I disagree (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Clem Yeobright

              Reagan spells very bad economic practices to me and anti-socialistic programs.  Why do you think there are homeless on the streets and more every day?  Reagan economics!  Why do you think there are less people in the middle class today?  Reagan economics! Why is there no health care for all of Americans?  Reagan economics!  Why did the administration fail in Iraq and in the Katrina devastation?  Reagan economics!  Reagan = Friedman = the Chigago School of economics.  When you say Reagan in any form other than in destructive terms, I shudder.  I worry that Obama is from Chicago, that he now might follow Reagan economics instead of dusting off Keynsian economics.  
              Where I was considering him before, I no longer am doing so and won't until he explains this Phopah!

              Not only did we beat the British now we have to beat the Bushes.

              by libbie on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 09:55:05 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  He HAS explained it but some refuse to (0+ / 0-)

                acknowledge its meaning (which was apparent to many of us on the first reading) and continue to imbue his words with outrageous connotations that ARE NOT THERE.

                Taking a few words, divorcing them from their context and magically weaving them into Dracula's cape to claim a candidate is a vampire smacks of hysteria.

                Dkos is engorged with this stuff right now and it's spit out on all three candidates...Clinton, Edwards as well as Obama.  It gives me a Karl Rove headache.

                My state's primary isn't until May, so my candidate preference is irrelevant.  However, we have three choices all of which tower high above anything the GOPers have dredged up.  I will unequivocally support the Democratic nominee.

                ..."Reagan" is a nauseating word for sure, but it has more blinding power than it remotely deserves if it eclipses the context in which it is used.

                "Evil is a lack of empathy, a total incapacity to feel with their fellow man." - Capt. Gilbert,Psychiatrist, at the end of Nuremberg trials.

                by 417els on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 06:50:39 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  Fonsia, I'll recomend you just for that. (17+ / 0-)

          But I'm getting a little tired of the whole Reagan debate.  I thought today's big news was the culinary workers caucus legal decision, and Bill Clinton's temper tantrum over it.  Reagan, though, is still dead.

          •  Seizing the "Opportunity" is right! (26+ / 0-)

            Why some Democrats would willingly blow this chance to gain a national leader capable of destroying "Conservatism" as a ruling coalition, is totally unfathomable.  And he has potential to provoke positive social changes even far beyond that.  He could finally end the Civil War.  

            Obama is the atomic bomb against the Old Guard in this country.  Maybe some people aren't ready to give up being the permanent opposition.

              •  Obama IS the Old Guard, dressed differently (24+ / 1-)

                and playing the moderate democrat. He tells us who he is every day.

                I'm laughing at those of you performing contortions and writing long essays about what he meant regarding Reagan

                He meant one thing, pure and simple.  He wants to be viewed as the mythologized president (albeit playing for another team) that Reagan was.

                Reagan sold us down the river.  I will hazard a guess that Obama will never, ever bring up the horrible things done to this country under Reagan's regime.  The destruction of the environment, the saving and loans scandals, the burial of the middle class, recessions, lies about El Salvador and Nicaragua, air traffic controller union destroyed...I mean please.

                Instead he spoke of Reagans 'greatness' and that he gave America what they wanted.  You really believe they wanted all of the above?

                Obama supporters will gyrate, twist and turn to justify what their candidate said on the matter.  What they refuse to really see is what's before them...A candidate who desperately wants for no one to pull back the curtain.  The press provided cover for Reagan...They're doing the same for Obama.

                •  Bitter fool (23+ / 0-)

                  you really don't get it?

                  god i feel for your soul, the anger and hatred you have for the republicans, for fellow americans... they're a well meaning bunch, most of them listless actually, not too plugged in, easily swayed.  you on the other hand should know better. your obvious hatred for so many, including obama, speaks of a dark soul adrift with anger and resentment.

                  free yourself from that or you will continue to be the problem along with the republicans.

                  •  Great Post, Kubla. (9+ / 0-)

                    It speaks the truth.  I don't understand why people hate other people so much.

                    ----------

                    Economic Left/Right: -8.50

                    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.51

                    by MrrarA on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:57:48 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Sometimes I do think WE are the problem (13+ / 0-)

                    From 30,000 feet, what's really the problem with this country?  Is it the parties? The companies? Or the people?

                    The parties and the companies are just collections of the people, so in the end, it's the people.

                    The problem with the people is the tribalism, the us against them, win at any cost mentality that is exibited in full force on the right and on the left.

                    Hillary Clinton is the Embodiment of what is wrong with our country. - Voter Suppression tacktics WITH Plausible Deniability to boot - Racial Bating of Surrogate - Race Card Victimization theatre - Politics of Fear and elevating a laughable plot into Al Queda - Red Meat and Alienation in calling Bush Pathetic

                    John Edwards at least saves his vitriol for the right targets, those people among us who aim to steal from the common man.

                    Barack Obama on the other hand appeals to the other side of people, the side that is civilized, the side that is optimistic, the side that makes us one Community.  It's no longer a team sport, a Blood Match when he's involved, and for some amongst the Tribe, that's Dangerous because they've been invested in their fucking team and anger for so long they stop seeing the Forrest and can only see the Tree infront of them

                    Truth is, if the people came together, that would be solving the problem halfway.  Call me naive, call me kumbaya, I don't give a fuck, but its powerful shit to consider that we have a modern FDR in our midst, yet some are still holding on to their team, A LOSING TEAM ('94), and risking the future of our country and our world for their own petty hatred, their own tribalism.

                    •  How could you possibly know that Obama (11+ / 0-)

                      is the modern day FDR.  He hasn't done anything yet.  Our country truly suffered during the depression.  People lost their homes, jobs and families.  There was no money or food or anything until FDR stepped up and literally got this country started again.  Obama has a long way to go to get compared to FDR.

                      •  and fdr (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Fonsia, Texanomaly

                        evolved into who he became after his first 100 days in office. .. he most assuredly was not viewed as the 'unifier' and the 'visionary' he became when he first took office.
                        what has hapened to us, that we are so reviled by & accussatory of those who offer a platform of renewal, engagement, a leader who already has so successfully inspired what is undoubtedly the most successsful grasssroot movement of volunteers who are working their asses off because they have been intrinsically motivated to rise  out of apath and participate.
                        Imagine the incredible work which will be undertaken by this movement under the leadership of Obama?

                        •  Ok Tom (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Clem Yeobright, vets74

                          Thanks for the info on Scientology.

                        •  Here's why some of us.... (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          vacantlook, Clem Yeobright, seancdaug

                          don't trust Obama:  you mention that Obama will provide 'renewal', 'engagement', that he is a 'leader' who has already 'successfully inspired'.

                          Do you know what those words mean to me? Absolutely nothing.  They are platitudes and empty rhetoric.

                          I liked Obama when he said these kind of things at the convention a few years ago, expecting that if elected, he would back up his words with some actions.  Instead, he has spent most of his Senate term campaigning rather than working like we pay him to do.  

                          If he or any candidate wants me to believe what they are saying, then go out and do something.  Show some actual leadership. The problems facing our country right now are legion and we shouldn't be just trying to wait out the Bush administration.

                          You can trust his words if you want to, but past experience tells me that what politicians say on the campaign trail usually rings pretty hollow after they are elected.  I'm looking for someone whose votes and actions matches their rhetoric, and frankly candidates like that for any office are in extremely short supply.

                          "I'd rec you if I could." - cometman

                          by cometman on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 07:43:03 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                    •  Riiiiight (6+ / 0-)

                      And the insurance and pharma and weapons and oil and banking boys will just say "hey, you know the progressives are cool!  Let's just give them what they want." I find that very hard to imagine.  This is a zero sum game here, and it's our last shot.

                      The necessary switch from petroleum to alternate fuels is an opportunity for the United States to create a new national industry.

                      by arvo on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 10:25:58 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  And if Obama was as argumentative as Edwards... (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        maxalb, cybrestrike

                        ...they'd shoot his black ass.

                        You guys forget the history of this country.

                        And that it repeats.

                        "Lone gunman" -- yeah, sure.

                        Dixie Chicks, Amy Winehouse, Imus, and Lenny Bruce. Overcome evil with good.

                        by vets74 on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 04:55:32 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Sad to say that is my fear. (3+ / 0-)

                          As I watch him in debates & whatever televised speeches I can see,  I worry that it could happen again. Can't even give voice to it. I doubt that my voice will even matter by the time of the PA Primary, but I support Edwards, and will vote enthusiastically for whomever the Dem candidate winds up being.

                          "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what's right." Isaac Asimov

                          by maxalb on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 07:07:08 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  I forget nothing. (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          historys mysteries

                          if anybody needs to fear the nightworkers,  it's Edwards.  Obama's playing ball. He's there to give %110 for the coach.  He's happy to be on the team.  He's not ruffling any feathers.  Unfortunately, we need to ruffle feathers.  

                          The necessary switch from petroleum to alternate fuels is an opportunity for the United States to create a new national industry.

                          by arvo on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 07:32:02 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Do that in office. Not now. (0+ / 0-)

                            Edwards gets away with it because he's not winning primaries.

                            All he's doing is keeping "Tonya" from locking it up.

                            Dixie Chicks, Amy Winehouse, Imus, and Lenny Bruce. Overcome evil with good.

                            by vets74 on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:46:32 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  Argumentative Obama = painted as Malcolm X (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          lrhoke, Clem Yeobright, vets74

                          ....Angry young black man trying to take over the government.  We can hear the swift-boating now.

                          Besides, what's up with this assumption that fighting must be loud, noisy, and obvious.  Personally, I'm less worried about the army we see miles away than I am of the spies and covert ops going on within my own castle.

                          Just sayin...more than one way to "fight." Spies and saboteurs are usually more effective than pitchforks these days.

                    •  Ok, you're naive. Enjoy your Kumbaya. (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Clem Yeobright, CTDemoFarmer, inHI

                      Save the Democratic Party, support John Edwards for president.

                      by ichibon on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 01:25:57 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  Not so nice (7+ / 0-)

                    That's not so nice a thing to say. Bitter fool, I mean.

                    Please do read a book about the Reagan years. I don't hate Ronald Reagan personally; he was a very genial man. But his polices hurt many people. Certainly we shouldn't stop telling the truth.

                    Buy local. John Edwards

                    by greenapple on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:17:33 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  But you guys who keep talking about the bad (6+ / 0-)

                      policies of the Reagan admin are completely missing the point.

                      It's as if you haven't even read this diary--you just see that it's about the Reagan thing again, so jump in with comments about "Reagan is bad."

                      The only point of the Reagan comparison is the ability to put together a new broad-based coalition--in Obama's case, of Democrats, Independents and moderate Republicans--to create a generational shift in American politics.

                      An Obama victory would be a complete, total repudiation of Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and his pathetic son, because instead of merely defeating a conservative candidate, it would defeat conservatism.

                      It's the chance to finally, permanently, bury Ronald Reagan.

                      "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember the professionals use water."

                      by Happy Days on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 07:18:40 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Yea, you can say all of this all the while (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Clem Yeobright

                        forgetting why Reagan is the epitome of what the NeoCons represent and why invoking the name of Reagan is the standard of ultra, right-wing Republicans throughout the nation.

                        We all know why Obama did it, but the fact that he crossed the line of Centrism in an effort to curry favor with Republicans and right wing Independents to the exclusion of progressives, liberals and matter of factly, left of center Dems will gain him no points whatsoever.

                        A horribly, bad move on his part and particularly insightful for understanding the political message he puts forth.

                        My Homer is not a communist. He may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a communist, but he is not a porn star. -Grandpa Simpson

                        by xobehtedistuo on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 08:03:33 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  The reference to Reagan was not an appeal to (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Ericwmr, Foodle, Citizen King

                          adherents of Reagan.  After all, Obama will reverse all of Reagan's policies.  

                          It was an academic-type comparison of recent presidents who did or did not transform the political landscape.  (Nixon, Reagan, Clinton)

                          Yes, Obama does appeal to independents and moderate republicans.  But use of the name Reagan was not part of that.

                          Can you objectively say that Reagan did not transform the political landscape?  That there were not "Reagan Democrats?"  

                          Using Reagan as an example for something, regardless of how accurate, was probably a bone-headed move for Barack politically.

                          It shows the overwhelmingly difficulty of speaking objectively about anything in our hyper-partisan climate today.

                          "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember the professionals use water."

                          by Happy Days on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 09:01:01 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I think we are unworthy of him. That must be it. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            lightfoot, xobehtedistuo

                            You kids behave or I'm turning this universe around RIGHT NOW! - god

                            by Clem Yeobright on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 10:17:52 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  An "acedemic-type" of comparison? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Clem Yeobright

                            Stop kidding yourself. Where was the academia in the comparison. That Nixon and Clinton weren't able to effect the anxious centrist vote of the competing party the way that the faux optimism and false calls of transparency in government did for Reagan?

                            When your first reply to the question is "Reagan" and then in passing a mention of JFK, the motives become as transparently crystal as your motives for using bold type.

                            My Homer is not a communist. He may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a communist, but he is not a porn star. -Grandpa Simpson

                            by xobehtedistuo on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 10:44:00 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I must tell you, (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Clem Yeobright, xobehtedistuo

                            I was a little miffed when I read about what Obama said about Reagan but I thought that maybe it could be taken a few different ways.  I didn't really think that but it didn't get me ballistic.  However, if you are a Democrat, you don't have to be Malcom X to never ever ever mention Reagan in a good light because people who don't think about these things as much as we do, say oh even Obama likes Reagan.  We don't need anyone to say that because it makes our job of discrediting Republican greed that much harder.

                            What sent me over the top last night was this guy's utter dismissiveness of the baby boomers when he said, "I'm not invested in the 60s and the 70s.  To me Viet nam was just a war.  *It was the excesses of the 60s and the 70s that brought us where we are today."  That was a little paraphrasing but you can judge for yourselves by listening to the entire interview at http://news.rgj.com/...  

                            This is where I want Obama to be brought down hard because this guy not only says nothing about the future, he dismisses the past.  It was not the excesses of the 60 and 70s, it was the carpetbagging of America in the 80s and the 2000s that is the reason we are in big trouble today.

                            I don't understand how you all could vote for someone who doesn't understand history and speaks in empty generalities about the future.  You know the same bullshit America heard from George W. Bush.  What happened to standards?  Remember how we all criticized and name called Republicans like Bush who said nothing and didn't understand history?

                            I also find Obama is very dismissive of women's issues.  Seems like this guy missed an awful lot of votes or voted present whenever the issue was about women's privacy rights.  Then let's also not forget how this alleged reformer and agent of change wouldn't join in the filibuster of the Alito confirmation.  

                            Who knows what this guy is?  I sure don't and I have been paying attention.

                            One final thing, I think it was emmabrody that wrote such a civil comment against Obama and she  was attacked and trollrated.  Maybe Obama supporters know there is no there there and they need momentum because once this guy has to explain what he is, people will be looking for the door.

                            "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis

                            by cpa1 on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 10:44:37 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  How can you so completely twist what he said? (0+ / 0-)

                            You said:

                            It was not the excesses of the 60 and 70s, it was the carpetbagging of America in the 80s and the 2000s that is the reason we are in big trouble today.

                            You are refuting something he never said.  He did not say nor even imply that the excesses of the 60's and 70's are responsible for the trouble we're in today.

                            You and he agree that Reagan and the Bushes are responsible for the trouble we're in today.  

                            The "60's and 70's" remark simply pointed out that the problems and discontent with the direction of the country during those years paved the way for a charismatic Reagan to come into power to effect a major change.

                            It turned out to be a very bad change even for a large percentage of those who supported him, but the point was that at that point in time America was ready for major change and Reagan capitalized on that.

                            "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember the professionals use water."

                            by Happy Days on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:21:02 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  difficulty vs. inability. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Happy Days

                            It shows the overwhelmingly difficulty of speaking objectively about anything in our hyper-partisan climate today.

                            You've made one of the clearest and most concise interpretations of this argument that I've seen, but I'll chime in a different take on that last part quoted above:

                            This isn' a matter of DIFFICULTY speaking objectively, but an UNWILLINGNESS due to hyper-partisanship.  The vast majority of people posting here are obviously intelligent enough to get the pedestrian interpretation of these remarks.  Unfortunately, many of these same people are also smart enough to have learned a few things from the Karl Rove and Scott McLelland school of Complete and Utter Bulls--t.  

                            I'm going to play the cynical optimist for just a second here...On the whole, we know what the intended message was, and we also know exactly how to spin for our own purposes. Even if it were possible to poll this reliably, I'm quite sure we'd see that most of those pushing this Reagan=Obama memo were yelling "conspiracy theory" at anyone who questioned the string of questionable remarks coming from the Clintons several days ago.

                            As a few have said, 'tis the silly season.  Until baseball season starts, "spin" has taken the mantle of America's favorite pasttime.  

                          •  Eric (3+ / 0-)

                            Some of the problems we have today come because of people like Obama who will say what is politically expedient or safe.  If Democrats would have blasted the intestines out of Reagan, there never would have been the fucking Bush tax cuts.

                            You say we know what he means.  Eic, I don't, I honestly don't.  He said things during that interview that he volunteered and didn't have to say.  He basically trashed the Democratic agenda just like Reagan did.

                            I heard him say that he want to return to the Clinton tax brackets but we know all too well that that is not enough and who is he saying that for...to placate us or to placate Republicans?  You start with the Clinton rates as your offer and you end up moving that 15% bracket to 20 percent and that is not nearly enough.  I think there should be a top bracket of 50% for those whose incomes are $20 million and up.  I don't think someone earning $20 million should be in the same bracket as a couple earning $200,000 and if that income if from passive sources (Int, Div, Rents) there is no Soial Security or Medicare tax.

                            I have to tell you that if he were a true progressive, someone who with all his being  detested the war in Iraq, how in God's name could he have voted to confirm the war's biggest cheerleader and the most incompetent of anyyone one in the Administration.  Rice was a total failure and he voted to confirm her.

                            I don't know who Obama is and I have been on the Dkos for at least 5 or 6 years and I have seen how angry these same members have been with other Democrats who fail to commit like Obama does.  

                            I don't like this guy at all because I have never seen a bigger phony in my life.  He has no idea how politics work in Washington DC and he has gotten everyone by the balls because people who think they are progressive want to prove it and what better way than to vote for an African American.  Problem is, this one is a snake oil salesman.  

                            There are too damn many like him in the Democratic Party now and putting one on top would be the end of the party.  This guy is another Lieberman, Harold Ford, Jr., John Breau, Ben Nelson Mary Landreux...et al.  He is a DLCer and we know what Kossacks think of DLCers...right?

                            I think that Nevada interview is the real map to Barack Obama.  He is an empty headed good talker with no sense or care for history.  He is delusional about his own ability.  Listen to that video...the whole thing!  To me it was very disturbing and everyone here is taking to big a leap before they know who this guy is.  Even if he isn't a Reagan lover, mentioning his name without all the negatives is just like what we have with Pelosi and Reid.  Most of us have always said, we can never really win until we are proud to redefine liberal from Reagan's anathematic slur and be proud to be called one.  You cannot govern like a liberal hiding in the shadows behind Reagan.

                            "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis

                            by cpa1 on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 01:25:07 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Ummm.... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Fonsia

                            Some of the problems we have today come because of people like Obama who will say what is politically expedient or safe.

                            You have it backwards.

                            Because Obama is objective rather than purely partisan, he is saying things that are not politically expedient or safe.  And you guys are trying to kill him for it.

                            But because he does speak honestly, time and daylight eventually show his so-called gaffes to be accepted wisdom.  (Many considered his speech against going to war with Iraq as a political gaffe at the time.  Also his statement during a debate that he would meet with our enemies without preconditions. etc. etc.)

                            "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember the professionals use water."

                            by Happy Days on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 01:43:39 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Winning one despite the Gipper symbolism.... (0+ / 0-)

                            While I disagree with your basic interpretation of how Reagan was used and what that was intended to convey, let me first say that it is an increasingly rare pleasure to find myself in a polite and nuanced disagreement.  Let me also add that, contrary to the sometimes accurate stereotype floating around here, I am not one who believes Barack Obama was crucified, died, and rose on the thrid day. Not only is he human, he is a national politician.....so much for the purity test.

                            My oft repeated understanding of the Obama/Reagan comparison is that Obama uses speaks symbolically, not ideogically, of the mythological Reagan - and only to the extent that this mythological Reagan is broadly regarded as the agent and symbol of a pivotal political shift.  Certainly it can be argued that things also changed under figures such as FDR or Hitler.  In the case of Hitler, I believe it safe to say that the average national opinion of Hitler is considerably lower than that of Reagan.  In the case of FDR, the symbolism is that of a great yet less broadly understood man and symbol.  This is due to the time elapsed between these two presidencies, not an indication that FDR is any lesser than Reagan.  Dealing purely with symbols of leadership models in a vague sense, Reagan reaches a broader audience because he is more recent, and more living Americans were alive during the Reagan era.  That, and Americans on the whole have a terrible sense of history.

                            Invoking Reagan invokes the idea of uniting Democrats with a smile,  just like smiling Grandpa Reagan united Republicans, albeit for a VASTLY different agenda. At the same time, Reagan also symbolizes a moment where many began to change their political affiliation, even if not always on the most intellectualy sound basis. Yes, Americans are largely furious with President Bush and the Republicans, but we cannot forget that the Democratic controlled congress is viewed even less favorably. (true, though I agree that’s misguided and unfair.)  Though the symbol is ultimately empty once one scrutinizes the details, the Rorschach poll on Reagan generally comes back as "happy warrior and likable guy."  This is not the result one gets conducting that test here, obviously, but we partisans alone can’t win this alone.  Like it or not, we need some of that moderate squishy middle this fall.  Unfortunately, that means overlooking a certain amount of bullshit and at least putting up the pretense of willingness to compromise on some matters.

                            If one were to poll 5000 Dkos members and 5000 completely random Americans, few would argue that Reagan fares better in the non-Kos sample.  In this sense, I see Obama making a strategic move for the middle, rather than shoring up the most partisan Democrats who currently trend more favorably for Hillary Clinton.  In gambling terms, there is more potential upside for an Obama candidacy by playing for the less committed center. Some will call this safe and treasonous, while others will call it a strategic play for the electability argument and a head start on the possible general election campaign.  At an even more basic level, this becomes a debate between ideological purity and realpolitik.  This is the point where I believe you and I will sharply part ways, but perhaps I am mistaken. It is my sole opinion that the discussions of the matter all too often become a case of black/white, either/or,  all or nothing.  While the philosophical discussion of party direction is an immensely important topic, I do not accept that these discussions should always dominate the direction of electoral strategy.  I say this on two assumptions - first: that no candidate will give us everything we want and second: that we must win in November to get much of anything we want.  

                            When we elect a president, we do not elect a supreme being who is the ultimate authority on every detail of every political issue that a President must address.  Expecting this of any person, especially in an increasingly complex world, is unreasonable and impossible to fulfill.  In the search for one savior, we have no chance to save ourselves.  Quite frankly, any candidate who will pretend to be the all knowing expert in all areas is automatically suspect in my eyes.  To quote Hillary in an abstract sense, it does take a village.  In this case, that village is an administration, chosen and guided largely by the village chief.  At this point, we look at the generally proposed ambitions, and make a vote of confidence in the capacity, judgment, and character of the candidate.  Part of being a great leader, in my mind, is to recognize your weaknesses as well as strengths.  If a candidate admits they’re oblivious on global warming but dilligently seeks to bring an Al Gore into the circle on that matter, I don’t see that as a weakness or flaw.

                            Call me prematurely cynical, but I’ve all but given up on that Athenian ideal of a well informed citizenry who makes meticulously informed decisions and pays attention to policy debates with the same scrutiny of a collegiate debate judge.  While it may be a sad reflection on our culture that style and soundbytes matter to a meaningful degree, that’s the truth we face and are unlikely to change between now and November.  If ideological purity, micro-policy prowess,  and unwavering consistency were  dominant factors in these races, we’d currently be working to re-elect a Democratic president.  Call me a cynic, but I do believe Reagan had one general thing right when he said...paraphrased "the only way to get 100% of what you want is to ask for/take it in 5-10% increments."  Yes, that sometimes requires compromise, and is likely to earn me the label of DLC shill.  I understand what "Kossacks think of DLC’ers," but I’m not inclined to embrace groupthink from either a candidate or a blogsite.  I am an American affiliated with the Democratic party who regularly reads and comments on DailyKos.com.  I am also a Barack Obama supporter, but there is no rational reason why one cannot be all four of these simultaneously.

                            Before I touch on policy specifics, I will opine that we have three strong and competent candidates remaining in this race.  Of these and barring an act of G-d, only two of them have a snowball’s chance at securing the nomination. Of all three,  I consider Obama the party’s best shot at retaking the White House while also holding the line or making further gains in Congress.  Both HRC and Obama will be faced with unique new challenges by vitrue of sex and race, but it is my own conclusion that Obama - due to an ability to lure new, non-traditional and swing voters, has a greater chance at jumping his hurdle than Hillary Clinton does.  Fair or not, much more of the jury has been in on her for well over a decade. To make a crude business metaphor, Obama has more upside potential in terms of expanding the brand.  Disgruntled though many will be if Hillary loses,  I can’t see tremendous numbers of her base (proportedly the more "loyal and reliable" Democrats) sitting this one out at the risk of serving up a smarter and more articulate version of George W. Bush.  The fact that Obama may yet rival the JFK/RFK standards in terms of inspiring activism among the younger generation is also a nice plus in this sharply divided country.  To really lean on my bias though, I am sincerely afraid that Hillary Clinton will kill her chances for the White House en route to Denver.  Whether due to truth, spin, or both – the red flags are emerging.  Given the tenor of this campaign, I fear a mass exodus or apathy among African Americans, young people, southern Democrats, and men in general.  This is compounded with a disadvantage among swing voters unless we’re running against Mike Huckabee.

                            Frankly, if cynically, I see winning as the first step.  I see Obama as the best chance on those terms. While all of his positions will fail to meet the ideals of misc. factions for misc. reasons, I’ve yet to see any chance that we get more of what we’re after under President  Mitt McHuckliani.  Win first, then present the bill.  Once we end our infighting over the nominee and fight to put that nominee in office, then our attention turns to fighting to tweak that President and Congressional agenda more to our differing preferences.

                            To get to your specifics finally, I’m not arguing that Condi Rice has turned out to be a disaster.  I won’t presume to understand his rationale behind that vote.  What I will presume is that nothing is ever as simple as aye or nay in Senate votes.  Deals are made, powder is kept dry, good ideas in bad words are rejected.  If we learned anything from the failures of Kerry/Edwards 2004, we should have learned that always taking every vote on face value is overly simplistic.

                            As someone who is NO expert on what should or should not be the optimal national tax policy for this current situation, I will duck that question and trust that Obama and those advising him, Warren Buffett for one, know a little more than I do on the matter. While we may not get a perfect or perfectly fair tax reform, I’ve no doubt that it would get more unfair and muddled than this current cut and spend system.  

                            I’m not even going to touch the "white liberal guilt" theory.  While there will surely be some of that, there’s no realistic indication that this is the plan or the predictable result.  That said, It works out better for us if white guilt overrides white racism should Obama clinch the nomination.

                            From the stragegic view, I actually see this failure to focus on specifics as a wise tactic thusfar.  Obama wins without question so long as he’s playing on the "likability" field.  Why volunteer to play on the road when you’re on a winning streak at home?  To take this one step further, I believe we should look back at our failed criticism of Bush in the past.  The Gore and Kerry campaigns got so wrapped up in trumpeting their superior command of detail and debate style that it backfired.  All this screaming of "all hat, no cattle" served to set a bar so lot that Bush only had to show up for a debate without pooping his pants in order to get positive spin walking out of the event.  For the record, I thusfar guess Obama has more going on upstairs than the current resident.  When public opinion (read – more than just us here) shifts toward more demand on nuts and bolts, he’s likely to surprise people even aside from the low-expectations theory.  The policy papers are there for those who are interested, and one doesn’t rally 20 thousand Texans out in the rain with 45 minutes of nuanced technospeak on tax policy.  Different appeals to different audiences....I see this as an asset, rather than a liability.  The guy reaches largely targets the audience and connects.  Obviously, you one doesn’t use the same speech for a college rally that they use for a CSPAN convention or on the Senate floor.  That’s one more parallel to the Reagan myth/symbol: "the great communicator."  

                            Delusional about ability?  I read this much like egocentric or audaciously confident, right?  Fair or not, there is some truth to that old joke about Washington being "Hollywood for uglier people."  Humility on the presidential campaign trail is smoke and mirrors.  Some pull it off better than others, but I respect anyone who doesn’t pander by constantly reminding us how humble they are - either overtly or through reference to their childhood.  

                            As for everything else, we should have a better idea as the direction of this race unfolds...Given their current popularity, Pelosi and Reid  should certainly not be assumed to have tremendous job security regardless of the Presidential contest.  Nothing is certain, and every choice here requires a leap. Obviously, I prefer a leap forward, but do realize I may have to settle for something less than exactly what I pesonally want.  

                            Thanks for the writing exercise.....Nice change of pace from rerun news and COPS..LOL

                          •  Yes. Speak at your own peril. (0+ / 0-)

                            To make objective observations in this highly partisan season is practically suicidal, apparently.

                            "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember the professionals use water."

                            by Happy Days on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 01:30:17 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  No where is the word Republican in my post. (12+ / 0-)

                    You can stop searching for metaphor right about now. I told you what Reagan did as a president, and I'm appalled that Obama held him up as an implementer  of what Americans desired.

                    You twist what I wrote in order to hold up Obama's theme of hope and togetherness.

                    Reagan ripped lives apart.  And he did it with a smile.  Then he became ill and no one in the media took him to task.

                    Obama continues to hold up the tradition the MSM began of deifying the president who caused us so much harm.  There is utterly no justification for what Obama said, other than his own political expediency.

                    Perhaps you're too young to have been there.  I lived through that time and everyday prayed it would be over.  I never thought it could be worse.

                    And along came George W. Bush.

                    •  Reagan brought the largest (8+ / 0-)

                      number of homeless people this country had ever seen. The middle class suffered greatly under Reagan.

                    •  Emma, you and the others who keep citing (5+ / 0-)

                      how bad Reagan was, are misprepresenting Obama's reference to Reagan and completely missing the point of the diary.

                      Obama did not praise Reagan.  And he certainly did not praise Reagan's policies.  He spoke only about how Reagan tapped into people's huge dissatisfaction with the status quo to shift the political landscape to the right.

                      Obama will tap a dissatisfaction with the status quo to shift the landscape to the left.

                      Only by appealing to Independents and to many demoralized Republicans can we achieve the kind of political power, that strong mandate, that can effect sweeping change.

                      Of our candidates, only Obama has that appeal to independents and demoralized republicans.

                      "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember the professionals use water."

                      by Happy Days on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 07:27:36 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Happy Days (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Clem Yeobright

                        Obama has done what every half-dead Democrat has done for 25 years when Republicans wax poetic about Ronald Reagan.  They say nothing but the good things, none of which really have anything to do with Reagan.

                        Every time Reagan's name is mentioned, the words greed, arrogance, carpetbagging, stealing for the middle class, and debt beyond belief should be coming out of Democrats' mouths.  So what does Obama do?  He says our problems are do to the excesses of the 60s and 70s.  Is he an imbecile? What excesses of the 60s and 70s is he talking about?  Maybe you need to watch that interview he gave in Nevada.  It's here: http://news.rgj.com/...

                        Then he blames our medical problem on the baby boomers who are getting sick or will be getting sick causing 80% of the cost to be spent on 20% of the population.  What is he saying there, let them die if they don't have millions to pay for their own elder care?  

                        Listen to what he says, not just his campaign slogans, phrases and platitudes.  He is empty with no sense of history.

                        "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis

                        by cpa1 on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 11:13:36 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  You're dead wrong. (15+ / 0-)

                    The bitter old cranks (I'm one of 'em) are right.

                    Reagan sold snake oil. Carter told Americans what they didn't want to hear: "Peak oil is coming, turn down the thermostat, look for alternative energy."

                    Reagan said what America wanted to hear: "Support the Saudis and drive a big car; everything will turn out fine."

                    BTW, Carter had put a solar panel on the WH; Reagan took it down.

                    Look at where Reagan's happy talk got us.

                    In any case, it's the wrong frame for a Democrat.  If you want a positive frame for a transformative president, pick FDR, or even (with all his faults) LBJ,

                    The hungry judges soon the sentence sign, And wretches hang, that jurymen may dine.

                    by magnetics on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 09:07:11 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Almost nobody alive remembers FDR. (4+ / 0-)

                      Easily 90% of Americans have some positive memory of the Reagan presidency or, at least, of the funeral.

                      The righties have hammered the lie that Reagan ended the Soviet Union.

                      Its a crazy idea.

                      But, to quote the ancient Greeks: A lie told 5,000 times is the truth.

                      Dixie Chicks, Amy Winehouse, Imus, and Lenny Bruce. Overcome evil with good.

                      by vets74 on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 05:16:15 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  "Nobody Remembers FDR"...... (7+ / 0-)

                        Because our beloved educational system barely gives his achievements a mention (not to mention the continual FDR bashing by the right--vis-a-vis Glenn Becks diatribe against him last night). Progressivism is looked on as just one step from removed from Communism.
                        I was shocked that my kids did not learn anything about the rise of unions, Eugene V. Debs, etc. in their American History classes. (I am from Wisconsin, home of "Fighting Bob" La Follette a Republican turned Progressive Populist.  At the time I attended school there we were well versed in progressive politics!)

                        "The map is not the territory" Alfred Korzybski

                        by historys mysteries on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 07:48:46 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  Bring me a pan so I can barf. Puhleeeeese. (4+ / 0-)

                    God I feel for your soul?  They're a well meaning bunch?  Right.  Look where they've gotten us in 7 years.  On the verge of economic collapse, invading a sovereign country (Iraq), stealing & corruption, draining our treasurey, nuclear war with (fill in the blank), and aw jeez, I guess they are a well meaning bunch.

                    You need to take a hard look in the mirror, Alice.

                    Next time I tell you someone from Texas should NOT be president of the United States, please pay attention. In Memory of Molly Ivins, 1944-2007

                    by truebeliever on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 10:45:10 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Oh forgot to mention over 1 MILLION innocent Iraq (0+ / 0-)

                      Iraqis dead, over 5 million in one of the largest refugee crisis in the world.  All in OUR name, all with OUR hardearned money.  Yes, they are a well meaning bunch.

                      Lest we forget, over 1 million of our men & women  have passed through that Godforsaken freefire zone called Iraq, dead/wounded/or forever damaged.

                      Next time I tell you someone from Texas should NOT be president of the United States, please pay attention. In Memory of Molly Ivins, 1944-2007

                      by truebeliever on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:08:47 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                •  Amen emma. Why didn't he use JFK or Roosevelt? (7+ / 0-)

                  They were both generational changes!

                  But he used Reagan.  Ronald FUCKING Reagan.

                  The guy who began the destruction of unions, put mental patients on the street, and begat homeless families.

                  I remember.  I was there.  He sold arms to Iran using coke from the Contras.

                  He created the largest deficit in history...until George W. Bush.

                  Oh, and dear commenter below...  

                  We don't HATE Republicans.  We understand them. We have seen them systematically dismantle every thing our country stands for.  And if Obama puts Reagan as someone he looks up to, well then, we have a lot to worry about.

                  Next time I tell you someone from Texas should NOT be president of the United States, please pay attention. In Memory of Molly Ivins, 1944-2007

                  by truebeliever on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 10:41:06 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  if you think it's a problem that (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Clem Yeobright

                  The press provided cover for Reagan...They're doing the same for Obama.

                  don't worry. That'll stop the minute the primaries are over.

                  Enough about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. We've got a country to save! Ask me about John Edwards.

                  by output on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 10:46:56 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  That's what has you laughing? (0+ / 0-)

                  Cause the Pavlovian response of some of the responders around here to the mere mention of the man's name is what has me laughing this morning.  

                  "The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting." Milan Kedrun

                  by Guy Fawkes on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 10:48:45 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Obama's Change (0+ / 0-)

                I am sure, I will lose some change from my pocket to Obama if he is elected.

                Others have lost already very much change by donating him lots of change.

            •  Why Do You Think That? (5+ / 0-)

              I'm serious... Why do you think that Obama embodies these progressive values?
              I am clearly not seeing what you are seeing.  

              The necessary switch from petroleum to alternate fuels is an opportunity for the United States to create a new national industry.

              by arvo on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 10:08:10 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I've been following Obama... (8+ / 0-)

                since February. I've vetted him better than I have most previous girlfriends because I don't like to be fooled.

                I followed him around filming a documentary for three months trying to find some inconsistencies. I had my Chicago friends who knew him give me the scoop.

                Obama is progressive. Look at his Illinois record and what people in Chicago say about him. Dig deep.

                He's not running on a progressive agenda but he clearly has one. All his policies point that way. His life's story shows this. He worked as a community organizer giving up a job as an investment banker. He worked in civil rights law.

                What about Obama tells you he is NOT a progressive?

                •  It'd Be Easier (5+ / 0-)

                  To get that if he'd talk and act like one.  The triple-gaming makes it tough.  So we're expected to believe that all this talk of cozy bipartisanship is just a smiling,  cunning mask? That  when he gets elected he's going to go after the roots of the corruption that is killing this country?  That he's going to aggressively pursue that tough agenda?  Shake hundreds of billions out of big oil?  Crack down hard on the pharmas and the gun rackets?  

                  The necessary switch from petroleum to alternate fuels is an opportunity for the United States to create a new national industry.

                  by arvo on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 07:38:31 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  He does act like one. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Fonsia

                    He just doesn't talk like you expect a progressive to.

                  •  Bipartisanship doesn't have to be a dirty word (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Foodle, Fonsia

                    As a community organizer, I assume that Obama understands that bipartisanship can consist of finding allies around an issue (even if you don't agree with your allies about other issues) and getting a win-win-win-win agreement.

                    For instance, in Ohio, large industrial users of electricity and consumer groups are trying to get legislators to re-regulate the electric producers and distributors. Seems likely to pass in a bipartisan vote. Republican-controlled legislature and Democratic governor.

                    What is more, bipartisanship is the only way to have a functioning democracy--and is a normal and natural process for Democrats. Your other option is the Soviet-style, Republican "party discipline". which ignores the differing interests of the people whom the Republicans are supposed to represent.

                    Happy the man and happy he alone--he who can call today his own ... John Dryden

                    by ohiolibrarian on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 10:14:57 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Until (0+ / 0-)

                      White House power tacitly understands and takes on the entrenched interests that are strangling this country  we will have no hope of surviving the coming combined wallop of peak oil,  plundered infrastructure, outsourced and offshored manufacturing base, criminally corrupt healthcare, etc...  

                      But of course this is a bipartisan problem, too, as the corporatists are themselves bipartisan.  As Warren Buffett puts it with at least the grace of some embarrassment, "There was a class war.  We won."  Somebody needs to remind those vampires that this war is not over.  FDR did it, TR did it to some extent with his trust-busting, and now it's time for another round of  battle.  Booting big oil from the halls of power would be a nice start.

                      The necessary switch from petroleum to alternate fuels is an opportunity for the United States to create a new national industry.

                      by arvo on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 11:06:12 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                •  Infelctor (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Clem Yeobright

                  maybe you filmed the Nevada interview here: http://news.rgj.com/... , where Obama said

                  that he is not invested in the 60s and to him Viet Nam was just another war and our problems stem from the excesses of the 60s and 70s.  He said nothing about the Republican carpetbagging of the 80s and 2000s.

                  So, how in your right mind can you draw the conclusion that Obama is a progressive?  He didn't have to say those things, he volunteered them and to me that doesn't make him a progressive or a conservative.  It tells me he has no fucking idea what he is talking about but he has latched onto a message of change that he stole from Edwards.  Obama will turn out to be a cameleon who will try to not take a stand on anything and if he has to it will change with wherever he goes.  Right now he needs the progressive so he fakes that but that interview gives this guy away, totally!!!!

                  "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis

                  by cpa1 on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 11:34:11 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

        •  PLEASE keep writing (6+ / 0-)

          Wow, great diary. First one up and you're rec-listed!

        •  LIked it? (2+ / 0-)

          A tour de force.

          Please don't hesitate to write for us again.

        •  This was one of the best parts (6+ / 0-)

          "That's why only Obama has a real chance to achieve a generational realignment to progressivism. Sens. Clinton and Edwards, while both highly competent and strong candidates, forcefully promise to just keep slugging away, to continue the battles that have been raging since the 1960s. While that approach certainly attracts those of us who have engaged in those battles and who want to humiliate the opposition, it precludes the chance to win those crossover votes, that sweeping majority necessary to get major change accomplished."

          This is a serious question that those who have questioned the unity approach need to ask themselves honestly: is humiliating the opposition at every turn, and the sense of satisfaction that comes with it, more important than implementing a long-term progressive agenda?  

          Do we really want Rudy, Romney, or Huckabee to be able to turn to our nominee in 2008 and say "you voted for this war and I didn't"? Think about it.

          by ShadowSD on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 06:13:33 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I find myself somewhat conflicted (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PatrickUK, stacystace, Foodle, ShadowSD

            First, I'll admit to a desire to see the other side humiliated.  Each of us has witnessed the profound damage to our nation, our relationship with the world, and ourselves that started with Reagan and reached its nadir under the current Administration. When I hear South Carolinian evangelists on the radio talking about their "values" and the need to torture people and their respect for the Confederate flag, I think to myself, if ever the good Lord was provoked to send a plague, let Him send it now.

            But I do support Obama for a number of reasons, one of which is that he does hold out the promise for a reallignment.  Let those who voted for Reagan and Bush be welcomed back, without rubbing their noses in the past.

            However, the one thing I want to hear from Obama is that there will be investigations and trials.  Integral to the process of reallignment is the need for transitional justice, as we move on from an Administration that has at every turn sought to undermine the Constitution.  

            We can't have a reallignment as long as Dick Cheney is hunkered down on his estate in Maryland like Augusto Pinochet, an open lesion on the political process.  The architects of US torture policy, those who turned the Department of Justice into a wing of the RNC, those who knowingly broke our most fundamental laws... they need to be investigated, charged, tried and their legacy thoroughly and publicly repudiated before the whole world.  

            I'm an Obama supporter, and I was comfortable defending him during this whole Reagan debate.  But the one thing that genuinely concerns me about him  is that I see no sign that he will address the issue of transitional justice here in the United States.  I believe that he will reverse course and restore the proper balance between the branches of government, and quickly remedy the most egregious abuses.  But we will not get our country back and retore our stature abroad, until at least a few of the worst Bush Administration offenders are securely housed in federal prison.

            In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock. ...Thomas Jefferson

            by ivorybill on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 07:54:14 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I totally agree that that needs to be done (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ivorybill, Foodle

              That has concerned me for some time, and I strongly hope a President Obama would do all that in his first term.  There is no hard evidence either way that he would.  I'm inclined to think that he would do so if the timing was right, but there's really no way to know, because even if he had such intentions, there would be plenty of valid reasons for him not to show those cards now.

              Do we really want Rudy, Romney, or Huckabee to be able to turn to our nominee in 2008 and say "you voted for this war and I didn't"? Think about it.

              by ShadowSD on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 08:33:16 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  He has shown that card. In his YearlyKos (0+ / 0-)

                breakout session, and on the trail in Iowa, he said that he was going to get his AG to do a thorough investigation of everything the Bush administration did.

                May your entire existence be one sensuous, frolic-filled experience lived in defiance of care.

                by Fonsia on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 11:20:36 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  Great First Diary (41+ / 0-)

        The RENO GAZETTE JOURNAL agrees with you when they endorsed Barack Obama today. Remember, it was in the interview with their editors that he Juxtaposed Reagan, Nixon, and Clinton....

        Obama embodies party's vision

        Nevada Democrats should caucus for Barack Obama, the freshman U.S. senator from Illinois, to represent them as the party's nominee to run for president of the United States. He has the personal characteristics and political instincts expected of the person who leads this nation.

        The Democratic front-runners seeking the favor of Nevadans make strong presidential candidates. New York U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton has worked to be an excellent public servant and has aimed toward this end for the past 35 years; former North Carolina U.S. Sen. John Edwards' climb up the economic ladder has placed him in a position where he can understand and also aid the middle class.

        Clinton, however, continues to struggle under the cloud of her husband, the former President Bill Clinton. She is challenged to escape the perception that she represents the status quo and that the advisers, the bureaucracy and the baggage from the former president's administration would follow her into the White House — if she were to make it through the November election.

        And, although well-meaning and concerned about the welfare of the grass-roots, Edwards does not seem to connect with the Democratic base, and he has not demonstrated the kind of bipartisanship that gets things done.

        Obama embodies the political and ideological perspectives that the party projects.
        He represents the platform of political unity and workable populist economics that he and party members believe will reinvigorate the economy and solve many of the other problems the nation is facing, such as questions regarding health care, immigration, war, energy independence, the tax structure and particularly the mortgage crisis. Fixing the housing market is critical to restoring our economic health.

        One can fairly describe Obama's philosophical optimism and charismatic manner as too idealistic, even a tad dreamy. But he also demonstrates the courage to stand his ground where necessary, willing, for instance, to salute both President John Kennedy and President Ronald Reagan as agents of change in times when the country needed change.

        Meanwhile, his background and experience have given him the insight needed to deal with the world in a different way. He knows how to listen and to respond appropriately to questions, propositions and opinions, regardless of whether he agrees.

        The Democratic caucus is about looking at the candidates through a lens that is focused on the party and its goals. It also is about looking past the primary season and choosing the individual who can win in November. It must be someone who can unify the nation on domestic issues, successfully uphold its democratic ideals and restore its reputation as a global force.

        Obama should be the party's choice.

        Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth. ..John F. Kennedy

        by irishamerican on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 05:44:00 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  So why isn't Obama saying it? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Clem Yeobright, lightfoot
        You know, I've noticed a distinct tendency for folks round here to fight rearguards for Obama using their words, while he launches into another stump about Leaderhip and Hope.

        --

        The President is not my master. He is Chief among my servants.

        by DemCurious on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 08:53:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Saying what? (0+ / 0-)

          All the code words, familiar phrases, and red meat shibboleths that you want to hear?  That has already been asked and answered: That rhetorical rut turns off those not already part of the Democratic base, and would be self-defeating of Obama's aim for a broad-based mandate.  If you insist on hearing the message in progressive vernacular, then you are going to have to be content with the product of translators, because Obama isn't going to speak that language.

          •  If I understand you correctly (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Clem Yeobright, lightfoot

            You're saying that pandering to the right is fine because it'll get him elected?

            Well, either he's being honest about wanting to revive the Reagan era, in which case he can go fuck himself, or he's standing in front of us and lying, in which case he can go fuck himself.  Perhaps we have different expectations of the standards of integrity that a President should aspire to.

            --

            The President is not my master. He is Chief among my servants.

            by DemCurious on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 09:51:15 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Falso choice (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Foodle, Fonsia

              He's not pandering to Republicans.  He's speaking to the ability of Reagan to transcend political lines.  There's a reason the term "Reagan Democrat" is currently a part of our political lexicon.  Senator Obama is trying to position himself to be a candidate for all of the people, and to try and build a truly transformational movement.  To do that you have to work with everybody, not just the people who think and act like you.  

              "The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting." Milan Kedrun

              by Guy Fawkes on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 10:39:27 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  You don't understand me correctly. (0+ / 0-)

              Obama is no more trying to revive the Reagan era nor lying to us than he would be supporting anti-abortion activists or lying to us if he were to use the "you must be stewards of the earth" biblical passages in an effort to persuade evangelicals to support his environmental policies.  He is using different words than you are accustomed to, but that is because he is talking to more than just the Democratic base.

    •  Tipped and Rec'd (31+ / 0-)

      I'm getting sick of hearing about this subject, but your diary added a fresh take on the issue that I'm glad we got to hear.  

      Full Disclosure: I'm an Obama Supporter

      by smash artist on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 05:35:32 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  And you nailed it (9+ / 0-)

      Well done.

      See!?!?!

      THIS (the recent diary list and painful overreach by the anti-Obamaites) is what we get by removing Shakespeare from the canon!

      I've kind of gotten the feeling that had Kossacks been in attendance at that Shakespearian funeral, they actually wouldn't have gone after Brutus -- they would have either gone home or actually strung up Marc Anthony!

      I guess everyone's got their own blog now.

      by zonk on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 05:46:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  oh thank you, Fonsia. You have explained (26+ / 0-)

      everything clearly and precisely.  I knew what Obama meant when he referenced Reagan, and so did some others here who tried to set the record straight.
       But others either didn't understand or took the opportunity to purposely misinterpret Obama's words.
       I appreciate this clarification and your impressive first diary.  
       And I agree Obama gives us this great chance to bring long-lasting progressive change to this country.

    •  I'm so happy to add your "recommended" tag! (12+ / 0-)

      Making the rec list with your first diary is way cool.

      Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.
      IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST.

      by TrueBlueMajority on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:09:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  thank you!!! (8+ / 0-)

      The Obama-Reagan diaries have been INANE! Finally, this one gives an intelligent analysis.

      So many guns...so few brains. --Philip Marlowe

      by Castine on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:20:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yazoo (5+ / 0-)

      Nicely done.  Thoughtful.

    •  ihope it's far from your last (8+ / 0-)

      voices of reason have been in short supply around here lately

    •  Now You've Given Me... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bethcf4p, mamamedusa, Texanomaly

      Writers Block! What a great first!
      However, you must realize that cogent arguments are too complicated for the raised on video generation. I mean, you have so many words to read and so many facts to process when all I want is the RED MEAT!

      I don't see how you're ever going to impress those who have never seen a scene last more than three seconds, think "cliff notes" are too involved and video gaming deepens their cognitive abilities. But you sure as hell impressed me!

      Look, I'm just so green with envy at your awesome writing and insightful presentation that I'll never be able to write my first now. Just hope this ain't your last (irrespective of the fact that there ain't no such word as ain't, or irrespective).

      the best way to win a fight is to persuade your enemy that you're right - failing that, call for JRE!

      by DaNorr on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:32:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Thank You (11+ / 0-)

      The  reaction to an analysis of history, and using Reagan's name, was so stereotypical a knee jerk reaction, to listening without hearing..... it puts the left in bad light.

      Building a progressive movement that taps into the dissatisfaction America has right now,  was the subtle implication that was being invoked, when Obama mentioned the R word.

      Overthrow the Government ~Vote~

      by missliberties on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:42:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Brava! (4+ / 0-)

      Well-done. I hope this one sinks in.

      "......" -- Harpo Marx

      by BobzCat on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:52:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Kudos! (4+ / 0-)

      Very well done!  I hope to see many, many more!

      I have the distinction of being called a media whore by Courtney Love. -Maynard J. Keenan

      by arielle on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:10:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Here's the interesting thing... (14+ / 0-)

        Reagan mouthed a lot of conservative platitudes, but when push came to shove, he actually redefined conservatism into the truly maglinant monstrosity it is now.

        In the long haul, he didn't reduce or stream line government, he--like Bush--bloated it with rotten crony appointments and misapprobriated funds.

        He cut alternative energy programs (famously destroying existing solar panels on the White House and Capitol) and dumped whatever other funds were available into a ludricrious star wars program--that has yet to be proven in testing, much less in the field, much less offer safety. It appears the only thing the weapons systems do is provide a big fat pig tit to Defense contractors (something most of us already knew).

        He cut funding for things like the FDA and EPA but increased outlays to the military and nuke programs (MX) that completely offset them.  He was also a disaster in foreign policy, funding the war in Afghanistan vis a vis the Mujihadeen, descendants of the Muslim Brotherhood with not a few cells controlled by our villian du jour, Osama bin Laden.
        He also avidly supported the so called contras in Nicaragua, legal or illegally. Either straight through our tax dollars or through allies who received kickbacks in the form of weapon system transfers (Saudi Arabia).

        So, in any classic sense of conservatism, Reagan is a stone joke. He is actually much closer to Bushism which is precisly this: big crony capitalistic (oil, defense) government in a distinctly fascistic relationship with the Military Industrial Complex.

        The conservatives so called social agenda--bash gays, bash sex, bash drugs--is strictly playing to their base. Not one of them seriously gives a damn about the social shit: count on it.(while your at it, count the number of suppressed/ repressed homosexuals, pederasts, the Republicans have managed to field in the last few years. What's up with that? Something about that elephant trunk that attacts sexual hypocrites?)

        At bottom neither Reagan nor Bush give a shit about the cultural agenda or the foreign policy agenda.

        It's all about money. Kick backs from the privy industries (defense and oil) and the happy ancillary benefit of raping the middle class monetarily--and please God, while you're at it--make sure the poor don't get anything but a kick to the butt with their face to the curb.

        Bush and Reagan have always been on the same pathetically power-centric team.

        Obama coming along and saying he's going to overturn that is good. But it ain't revolutionary. Don't kid yourself. If you're half a progressive, it's just common human deceny.

        You can lead a conservative to facts--but you can't make him think.

        by DelicateMonster on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:35:46 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  FUCKING BRILLIANT!!! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      davidincleveland, Guy Fawkes

      BRAVO!!!

    •  good work, with some disagreement (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      highacidity, 417els, DaNorr

      i disagree that it's "only obama" who can make the realignment.  i think edwards could accomplish the same thing because so much of the working/middle class is starved for the message of economic populism that he's preaching. but obama has the higher level of political charisma, and so is more likely to effect the realignment successfully.

      still, he could oughta get him some of that economic populism to add to his re-form message.  together the obama charisma and edwards message could leave a smoking crater where the republican party once stood, an accomplishment for which future generations just might manage to overlook our gross neglect of the environment, human rights, justice, our national finances... you get the idea.

      but very well written in any case. i recommended even though i've been avoiding reccing any candidate diaries, both because of the writing, and the excessive stupidity of the obama=reagan diaries.

      l'audace! l'audace! toujours l'audace!

      by zeke L on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:11:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Edwards could also have done it (6+ / 0-)

        . . . but people have obviously responded more to Obama.

        I would easily have dropped my support for Obama and switched to Edwards, if things had turned out the opposite.  For the sake of the country, I hope Edwards makes the right decision and throws his support to Obama when the right time comes, when it really gets to the point where if he doesn't, Hillary wins.

    •  Well said and argued (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      highacidity, davidincleveland

      Not bad for a first Diary, or your hundredth.

      You captured my frustration with the Reagan comment reaction exactly.

      Thank you!

      I hope to read many, many more.

      Cheers

      Time to clean up DeLay's petri dish! Help CNMI guest workers find justice! Learn more at Unheard No More.

      by dengre on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:30:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Reality check on how Reagan won... (10+ / 0-)

      Despite all the post-1980's hagiography that attributes  Reagan's success to "optimism" and "It's morning in America," the Gipper relied as much (if not more) on cynicism, disinformation, and the proven tactics of Nixon's racist Southern Strategy, to wit:

      - Reagan campaigned at racist Bob Jones University in 1980.

      - The same year, he spoke near Philadelphia, Mississippi, where civil rights workers had been famously murdered in 1964. Reagan said, "I believe in states' rights. I believe we have distorted the balance of our government today by giving powers that were never intended to be given in the Constitution to that federal establishment."

      - his campaign stole Jimmy Carter's debate briefing book and happily used it to prep Reagan for the debates.

      - in 1982 as a Supreme Court case loomed, Reagan authorized his Treasury Department to drop the IRS case against Bob Jones U., whose tax exempt status had been revoked for racial discrimination against blacks.

      - for years Reagan fulminated against a non-existent "Welfare Queen" in Chicago he claimed bilked taxpayers out of six-figure sums and drove around in a cadillac.

      - in 1986, Reagan vetoed sanctions on the Apartheid dictatorship of South Africa, but was overridden by Congress. He defended the dictators saying S. Africa, "stood beside us in every war we've ever fought," even though they sided with the Nazis against us in WWII.

      - Reagan publicly claimed that nuclear ICBMs could be recalled to their silos after launch, so people shouldn't worry about accidental nuclear war.

      - While publicly talking tough, insisting he would never capitulate to terrorists, he was secretly trading weapons for hostages with our terrorist enemies in Iran.

      There are countless incidents like these in which Reagan --rather than rallying Americans with hope and optimism to transcend their fears and prejudices-- encouraged people to stop fretting and just feel good about being racist, greedy, and unconcerned about the less fortunate. It was his modus operandi.

      The fact that Reagan did it with a cheerful grin and could get people to like him is a sign of his sociopathology, not his virtue.

      •  Great Comment because the Diarist (0+ / 0-)

        has no clue what Reagan did and he or she write with the same empty thoughts from which Obama speaks.

        Reagan won by raising hate and fear to a new level.

        As you wrote above, Reagan got the middle class to hate the Welfare Queen that never existed and then he got everyone to hate the liberals for taking money away from them to give to this fictitious welfare queen.

        He got Americans to hate unions to allow his friends to run much more profitable businesses on the backs of the middle class.

        He prevented a real renaissance in America that would have happened after the ending of the Oil Crisis that lasted 8 years.  He prevented it by his unprecedented cutting of taxes (the top marginal brackets only) from 50% to 27% on salaries and from 70% to 27% on Interest, Dividends, Rents and Royalties...you know the income of Old Money.  Meanwhile the middle and upper middle classes say no tax relief.

        And the worst thing this old disgusting bastard did was to make a deal with the Iranians, (he was a private citizen and a candidate at the time) to not release the hostages in Iran until after the 1980 elections in exchange for military equipment, fighter jets and god knows what else.  The hostage crisis killed any chance Carter had for re-election and raised the level of hate and fear in the American electorate.  Reagan was a traitor in my eyes and should have imprisoned for that move alone.

        Meanwhile, Obama has the audacity to forget all that, and so many here think that's OK?  Is that what you want from a Democratic candidate to be that clueless to invoke Reagan's name with everything negative he did?  Not me, I don't want that kind of person as my candidate.

        "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis

        by cpa1 on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:02:01 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I am so glad (3+ / 0-)
      you decided to write this, for you did a great job and I think you make it all very clear.

      Ecxellent first diary.

      Be a hope monger.

      by kpardue on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:59:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Fantastic first diary! (6+ / 0-)

      You hit the nail right on the head. In particular, when you say:

      Sens. Clinton and Edwards, while both highly competent and strong candidates, forcefully promise to just keep slugging away, to continue the battles that have been raging since the 1960s. While that approach certainly attracts those of us who have engaged in those battles and who want to humiliate the opposition, it precludes the chance to win those crossover votes, that sweeping majority necessary to get major change accomplished.

      you focus on the central argument in favor of Obama. People are bone-tired of fighting in the same way. I think that is the central difference here, and one that many on this site tend to miss. Obama can end these fights because he can win them without fighting in the same old ways. I know many Republicans who are actually quite liberal, but they have been put off of voting for Democrats because of the rhetoric. They are sick of listening to it. What if we had someone in office who did not keep on with the polarizing rhetoric, got our basic values enacted, and was then freed up to move us further in a progressive direction?

      I think perhaps many of us who have been fighting for decades could be afraid that such a possibility seems too good to be true. I happen to think that the country is ready and we have the best candidate possible to move forward.

      Really good diary. Thanks for taking the time to put it together with such eloquence.

    •  outstanding,fonsia, outstanding! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      davidincleveland
    •  Fantastic Diary! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      davidincleveland, mjd in florida

      You are a superb writer, Fonsia.  This is an inspiration for my future first diary.

      Thanks for sharing.

    •  This does not give me hope. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Fabian, Clem Yeobright, lpeacock

      You're praising capitalization on the sour mood of the country, rather than presentation of policy positions, to win a mandate. And Obama cites the most divisive President in memory as an example for changing the country's trajectory to a new path. I certainly hope he meant his method rather than his righteousness.

      I guess I must just be cynical, but both seem to be less than principled positions.

      Perhaps if Obama could explain just what "excesses of the sixties and seventies" and lack of accountability he was referring to, I could understand his intentions just a bit. I was struck by this reference in the same way I was struck by Alito's reference to "people behaving badly" during the same period of highly active dissent. I was around then, and what we really had in excess was war, profit and power all feeding into and feeding off each other, followed by a President of the eighties with a popular mandate feeding from and expanding on all those excesses, and with a complete lack of accountability.

      This does not give me hope.

      "At this point, what's inappropriate?" -Crow.

      by jorogo on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 11:03:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  "Excesses of the 60's and 70's" (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Foodle, Citizen King, Fonsia, DaNorr

        I remember the 60's and 70's, too.  Just take the 60's.  You had political activist groups like the Weathermen and other groups who took to violent means of political expression and protest.  Some of them even killed people.  All of this got a lot of media coverage.  Many average people ("the silent majority?") started to see the entire "left" movement as associated with these unacceptable tactics.

        Yes, there were excesses.  Yes, that hurt the mood of the country toward their causes.

        And the accountability observation is on-target as well.  Many new government programs were put into place curing LBJ's War on Poverty, but appropriate oversight and accountability was not put into place to make sure all this money was spent effectively.

        "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember the professionals use water."

        by Happy Days on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 07:49:32 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I will control myself here (0+ / 0-)

          I gather you call yourself a progressive?  How old are you and if you are old enough, what were you doing in the 60s?  You call that excesses?  I'd love to know if that's what Obama thinks too.

          You think that the Weatherman and maybe the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS)too killed people?  Who did they kill and how many?  Maybe they were just  protesting an illegal war that killed 53,000 Americans.  Maybe the Weathermen killed nobody but some of their own members died  in an accident in Greenwich Village.  

          Much of the trouble seen by middle America came from FBI plants who acted as students to ensure that every peaceful demonstration would turn as violent as possible for the six o'clock news.  It was the FBI agents working for Nixon and Agnew who threw the rocks and pipes

          Wherever yours and Obama's memory comes from, the violence was minuscule compared to the non-violent protests that went on all over Washington, DC. and many other college towns. I was in them and not once did I see anything violent other than Nixon's CDUs (Civil Disturbance Unit) coming onto the campus of GW and riot clubbing and macing innocent kids walking down the streets.  As a matter of fact, I was in many meetings where we talked only about what we could do to stop the Nixon boys from instigating violence and often at the meetings were members of the Chicago 7, Ruben, Hoffman, Davis..etc.

          Some of the guys and gals in the Weatherman were a little nuts but the bombs never killed anyone and never caused that much damage.  It was wrong but nothing compared to what Nixon and Agnew were doing.  They were murderers.

          So maybe you and Obama, are you an Obama advisor, need some history lessons because you do not have any idea of what went on in the 60s.  

          I am glad you liked the War on Poverty, so you and Obama don't think that was excessive?  However, you feel that money wasn't expended efficiently and for that you are willing to blame the 60s and 70s for our problems now?  

          Do you have any clue what happened in the 80s or what has been happening for the last 7 years?  If you are what Obama has as supporters, I don't want any of you or him!

          "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis

          by cpa1 on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:46:35 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  And your diary is a good example of why people (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Clem Yeobright, lpeacock

      like me  consider his followers as being cult-like. You/they will take each negative thing he says or writes and spin it into something positive, just like any other cult does.

      Save the Democratic Party, support John Edwards for president.

      by ichibon on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 01:23:54 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Did you really read this diary? The whole diary? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Foodle, Citizen King, DaNorr

        Or are you just getting your two cents in with your pre-conceived opinions?

        The "BO praises RR" mantra is more cult-like than the thoughtful and rational analysis in this diary.

        "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember the professionals use water."

        by Happy Days on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 07:53:03 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes I did read it, and stand by my (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Clem Yeobright

          comment. I'm not the only one to consider his campaign like a cult, which I believe one definition is when the leader can do no wrong, where the followers will make excuses for any wrong thing the leader says or does, sound familiar?

          Save the Democratic Party, support John Edwards for president.

          by ichibon on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 09:42:41 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Thank you (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      davidincleveland

      You get it.

    •  A professorial discourse, unscripted (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      davidincleveland, lpeacock

      The former law professor is there to surprise us, challenge us, make us think.  What a change.  Are we ready for such change, or are we so wedded to the phenomena of candidates who recite scripts that we can't accept spontaneity?  By the way, if there was ever a scripted candidate, it was Reagan.

      As to one pundit saying that Reagan is "beloved" in California?  Maybe among Republicans, but not among Democrats, who cordially loathe him.  Last time I looked the California primary is coming up, which does not permit party line crossing.  Democrats and some independents will choose a candidate, but don't count on many of either voting for Obama out of nostalgia for Reagan.

      •  Law professor? I head he GAVE us the law (0+ / 0-)

        After he put the Lion King on his throne, got Ariel and her father back together, and saved Nemo.

        Oh yeah, and straightened out that shit about the Color of the Wind  ...

        You kids behave or I'm turning this universe around RIGHT NOW! - god

        by Clem Yeobright on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:44:32 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  AAAH! You said Reagan! Pox on you! (5+ / 0-)

      You be a witch!  You have named he-who-shall-not-be-named!  We must burn you at the stake!  Go now and repent at the alter of Alter of Progressiveness!  It matters not that you did not praise the Devil! Ye have invoked his name, and his evil spirit will now take our souls!

      Seriously, excellent diary.

    •  An amazing first diary (7+ / 0-)

      This is the clearest analysis that I have seen on those comments. I don't understand those who have distorted it by assuming that saying that Reagan did cause a change means he did good. This seizing on a few sentences and distorting them beyond believe has been the RW game for years.

      In a way, in terms of the economy - one area where Reagan created change, the result is what John Edwards speaks against daily. Under Reagan, the gap between his 2 Americas increased. As the rich became richer, they were further rewarded with massive tax cuts. In a final piece of chutzpah, the surplus raised to build reserves in the social security system via a less progressive tax than the income tax was used to make the budget look less unbalanced than it was.

      Under Clinton that same trend continued and, in fact, accelerated. It is true that as the economy soared that the poorer America benefited as well, but less so than the inhabitants of the McMansions.

      How can Edwards not see that Reagan led a massive change, when he speaks against the fruits of that change daily?

      Another example is global warming. Under Carter, we were moving to using less energy. The cause was that  oil had become more expensive and for a while scarer, but even then we knew that oil made us dependent on the middle east. Global warming was not yet a major issue. Reagan's change said we could use as much as we wanted and that mind set did not change as we entered the Clinton years, in spite of all Gore's excellent work. The movement was still to bigger and bigger SUVs, that by virtue of definition weren't effected by CAFE standards.

      Obama is right that on these issues and on foreign policy, Reagan led a massive change, that every candidate, in both parties,  is saying needs to change. The Republicans, of course, will not admit that the original force for the change in the last 2 and a half decades that led us to disaster was Reagan, their hero, but it is true.

      Obama is speaking of the need for transformational change. Change from the worldview of Reagan and the conservatives which has dominated the country for decades. This is the case for why none of the Republicans can really be the change candidate. They will NOT reject the views of Reagan.

      I watched their last pathetic debate and they all were speaking of themselves as change. I heard Gingrich reference the French election where the new  President, a member of Chirac's government ran successfully as the change candidate by saying that Chirac deviated from their parties true beliefs. It was his view a conservative could do that here.

    •  A star is born! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      davidincleveland, mjd in florida

      This would be an awesome diary from anyone.  Considering it's your first--UNBELIEVABLE!  

      Thank you for finding the perfect words for my feelings.  Those who don't understand are incapable of circumspection.  Sadly, there's a lot of that around here lately.  

      candidpsychiatrist.com - Giving contemporary psychiatry the good spanking it deserves.

      by paul minot on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 06:39:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  first? mega-kudos. this was brilliant. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      davidincleveland, mjd in florida
    •  A Fine Diary Indeed! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      davidincleveland, mjd in florida

      I'm glad to keep finding like-minded thinkers among the Obama supporters.  Cheers to you!

      I'm sorry. I'm so sorry -Dr. Who

      by SteamPunkX on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 07:24:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well written diary! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      davidincleveland, mjd in florida

      I haven't seen anything on any blog or paper or broadcast that more accurately hits the nail on the head about why I support Obama and we he will change America.  

      I hope for MANY more diaries like this one.

      www.barackobama.com

      by darboy on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 08:14:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  right on! Outstanding diary! Go Obama! Fire it Up! (0+ / 0-)
  •  Yep. (15+ / 0-)

    I'm tired of this subject. Can we talk more about the fried squirrels?

    This information cannot leave this room. Ok? It would devastate my reputation as a dude. Relentless!

    by ablington on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 05:27:22 PM PST

  •  Orly? (3+ / 0-)

    http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/...

    The economic philosophy sounds like the last gasp of Neo-liberalism to me.

    I will make them have it. I will stuff their mouths with Gold!--Aneurin Bevan (on the NHS)

    by Salo on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 05:28:39 PM PST

    •  I agree with Obama. (7+ / 0-)

      It's a good article.  People should read it and think things over, not be dogmatic.

      •  ahhhhhhhhh..... (7+ / 0-)

        ....ahhhhhhh. gawd.

        At some point you might recognize that people have antithetical interests and although they must cooperate to survive (noone lives subsistence in the West). My objection is not dogmatism.

        Many of the left leaning people voting for him do not realize he is a neo-liberal globalist.  They just see the anti-war bit and reckon he's "right on".

        Obama is a clearly a Globertarian/Glibertarina and The Grad students at the Uodf C are about to perform their next excellent experiment on us all.

        I will make them have it. I will stuff their mouths with Gold!--Aneurin Bevan (on the NHS)

        by Salo on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 05:39:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Spell out your view a little more for me. (8+ / 0-)

          I've read Obama's book and I know what he stands for.  I udersstand him to be for fair trade in the following sense: He recognizes the mutual benefit of voluntary economic exchanges and hence is for expanding global trade, but he also understands that market failures cross borders and is for putting labor and environmental standards into our trade agreements.  I think that's right.  There needs to be a recognition that permitting abuse of workers and the environment is a kind of subsidy, just like a tariff or direct subsidy.  You want to call that "Globertarian"?  Fine.  Is your alternative protectionism?

        •  I went looking for his 2002 speech, (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mamamedusa, Happy Days, Michael James

          (one of many, actually, about Iraq that he made), in order to refresh myself.

          A couple of key quotes:

          I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

          [...]

          I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

          I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

          So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. [...]

          I find this very refreshing, because it's everything that I thought at the time.  I wasn't opposed to war.  I thought it was a DUMB WAR.  (And, ultimately, we found out it was also an intensely corrupt and false war.)

          I become concerned when I hear the word globalist, because I know how many people we have on the left that are EAGER to use American troops (other people's kids) for well-meant ends.  Bush managed to harness some of that sentiment in his rush to war.  

          I am fundamentally opposed to such military do-gooder-ism.

          Last June, we had a special election for the CA-37 seat to replace the late Juanita Millender-McDonald.  One of the best speakers at the debates was a Green candidate, Daniel Brezenoff.  He gave a wonderful speech blasting Bush for getting us into it and questioning Bush's motives.  But later, when I went up to speak to him after the event, to praise him, he told me that he wants to keep our troops in Iraq "to prevent the inevitable bloodbath" when we leave.

          I know a lot of people on the left that use that as their reason for wanting to stay, even now, even after all the bloodshed that we HAVEN'T prevented, all the chaos we HAVEN'T prevented.  He made a very compelling, liberal-sounding argument for why we had a moral obligation to stay there and help the Iraqis.

          And that's fucking bullshit.  We messed up their country.  We aren't the people to stay there and fix it.  We have no moral authority or right, much less duty or obligation, to stay there and fix anything.  We are predators in their country.  A change of presidency doesn't alter that fact.  We need to get out of there and, if all hell breaks loose, support the efforts of others to fix the problem.  

          And this kind of liberal globalist view of American foreign policy is also extremely condescending.  We are supposed to settle another country's civil war?  What possible authority can we have amongs the people of another country, one with which we share no common language, religion, or cultural history, to "help them" pick a new leader, new way of government, new power structure, new division of lands and rights.  Anything we do will instantly collapse as soon as we leave because it will have been imposed from the outside, just as South Vietnam collapsed in upon itself, an empty hollow shell made up to look like a Western style democracy.

          So I share your concern about globalists.  But I don't hear in Obama's words, AS YET (and I'm wary of it), the kind of words that worry me, the kind that even the GREEN Party candidates are using in dark-blue areas like CA-37 (Long Beach, California).  It's cultural arrogance based on an implicit, subliminal acceptance of an imperial role for the United States.

        •  Not to mention (5+ / 0-)

          that the diary, well written as it was, just claimed that Edwards and Clinton couldn't get a mandate without ever explaining why that's the case. Also claimed that Obama could without ever explain why that's the case. Well written and heart felt as it was, it was really just more generic talk about the hope he provides certain quarters, without any back up for that.

          I personally think the mandate is coming whomever the Dem is. Because I think Americans are that done with conservative policy.

          Living with offense is the price we have to pay for living in a free and diverse society. Being offended is not the same as being oppressed. ~ Irshad Manji

          by belly on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:16:23 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Fair point--here are a couple of quick thoughts (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Foodle, Fonsia

            on that.

            The key is to change the color of the electoral map and win a broad mandate of the American people, not a 50.1% win.

            Clinton is polarizing.  I think that is generally understood and agreed.  There is an irrational but deep-seated hatred of her among large segments of the population.

            She can definitely win in November, but there will be no broad mandate.

            Edwards' strident and adversarial approach in putting out his populist message is also not likely to gain the broad mandate that could bring the country with him.

            "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember the professionals use water."

            by Happy Days on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 08:24:46 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  You agree, jurist, and I agree but... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        belly, lightfoot

        I'm an Obama supporter and also an academic. I read Obama's comments as academic and I agree with them on that level, as you do.  On the other hand, having read thru the comments of others and watched cable news tonight...I'm pretty sure it was a dumb move.  Obama has offended a lot of people:  Progressives because they hate Reagan and Reaganites because they think Obama is arrogantly comparing himself to Saint Ronald. This may hurt Obama unless, of course, another juicy story replaces it in the news.  Frankly, I wish he hadn't said it and wonder if it was the beginning of his critical campaign in California...god,I hope he hasn't been that corrupted.

        •  If I may add... (7+ / 0-)

          "Obama has offended a lot of people"...yet AGAIN!

          Why is it Obama's followers have to keep clarifying his rhetoric to me, and telling me to read between the lines? Was Obama's appearance on a stage with Donnie McClurkin meant to underscore his bedrock affirmation for gay rights? Was Obama's scolding of the Democratic party over their alleged intolerance of religious folks actually a demonstration of his commitment to the Establishment Clause and party solidarity? Is Obama's concern over the "nasty aspect to politics on the internet" and dismissal of Daily Kos in particular actually a warm and fuzzy embrace in appreciation of the Netroots' activism?

          Isn't Golden Boy supposed to be some kind of great orator (maybe the traditional media will hype his candidacy by asking "Who would you rather spend an hour in a lecture hall with?")? Why shouldn't we just take him at his word when he says this shit?

          At least Hillary (who's become my second favorite) doesn't make me feel like she takes my vote for granted.

          My other car is a pair of boots.

          by FutureNow on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:41:54 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't agree FutureNow but... (0+ / 0-)

            I do concede your points are fair. Any candidate who can craft an inspiring message and deliver it brilliantly, who has shown good judgement, consistency and transparency, has the right values, and a broad worldview has to go a ways to turn me off. I think Obama is an extraordinarily talented potential leader.  But...as I said...of all the criticisms I've read of him, yours makes the most sense.

    •  what he is is very obvious. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      arvo, belly, lightfoot, lpeacock

      Instead of recommending traditional welfare-state liberalism as a solvent for socioeconomic inequalities and dislocations, Goolsbee promotes programmes to essentially democratise the market, protecting and where possible expanding freedom of choice, while simultaneously creating rational, self-interested incentives for individuals to participate in solving collective problems. No wonder, then, that Obama's healthcare plan is specifically designed to give people good reason to buy in, without coercing them. Likewise, as George Will reported in a column from October, Goolsbee's proposal for reducing income inequality is to lower barriers to higher education, the primary factor in determining future earnings, and noticeably does not rely on state interventions in the market, which can succeed at equalising income at the price of reducing it across the board.

      How this is done I dunno.

      Goolsbee and Obama's understanding of the free market as a useful means of promoting social justice, rather than an obstacle to it, contrasts most starkly with the rest of the Democratic field on issues of competition, free trade and financial liberalism. Back in the spring of 2007, when the term "subprime mortgage" was beginning its ascent to ubiquity, Goolsbee composed an impressive op-ed in the New York Times, noting that - fraudulent lending practices aside - subprime products are a powerful tool for democratising the credit market and opening it up to lower socioeconomic strata, and had been substantially successful in reducing financial constraints on working-class people. Crack down on fraud by all means, but don't cut off an important avenue of economic empowerment for working people, and most of all don't do so in the name of working people.

      This is just funny.

      The evidence that Obama heeds Goolsbee's lessons is ample, his healthcare plan being but one of many prominent examples. Whereas Clinton has recently taken to pulling protectionist stunts and rethinking the fundamental theoretical soundness of free trade, and Edwards is behaving like the love child of Huey Long and Pat Buchanan, Obama instinctively supports free trade and grasps the universe of possibilities that globalisation opens up, and seamlessly integrates it into his "audacity of hope" theme. As he remarked in a recent debate: "Globalisation is here, and I don't think Americans are afraid to compete. And we have the goods and the services and the skills and the innovation to compete anywhere in the world."

      Obama is a globertarian with an economics advisor from the U of C Econ School.

      I will make them have it. I will stuff their mouths with Gold!--Aneurin Bevan (on the NHS)

      by Salo on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 05:36:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Behavioral economics is a break from (15+ / 0-)

        laissez faire theories based on the classical homo economicus theory of human nature, rational maximizers and all that.  There's a real fundamental theoretical break there and you're running roughshod over it.  We should be forward thinking, pragmatic, and evidence-based, not hung up on 20th century dogmas and 20th century rhetoric.

      •  Thanks, this is more reason to vote for him (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        highacidity, fisheye, cybrestrike

        as far as I'm concerned.  I never knew you were such a romantic Salo :)

        I have Clinton fatigue already

        by hollywood politcaljunkie on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:53:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Ugh (6+ / 0-)

        This misses the most important aspect of the destruction Reagan wrought on the middle class - substantially reducing the top marginal tax rates, shifting the tax burden to the Social Security tax (which BTW was a slight of hand that most completely missed at the time and to this day apparently fail to comprehend), and cutting the capital gains tax rate which is very arguably the far greater driver of the wealth concentration that has followed.

        Education is worth shit if there are no good jobs available because the ever smaller cadre of owners of capital have no reason to keep it invested here.

        We are suffering today because Reagan followed by Bush Jr. made it so that the top .1% take ever more money out of the system and spend it on consumables made overseas.

        A couple of physicists did great work demonstrating that changing the rules as the GOP has leads inevitably to wealth concentration. I reference an HBR article Wealth Happens in this post that discusses the research. I can't help but mention one item from the HBR article; there is an all too great risk of hitting a wealth concentration tipping point beyond which the number of people holding the lion's share of wealth could suddenly collapse. Can you say Guatemala?

        Democracy is a contact sport...

        by jsmagid on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:12:09 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  This sounds like Scientology (0+ / 0-)
      •  the times they are a-changin'. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        417els

        Likewise, as George Will reported in a column from October, Goolsbee's proposal for reducing income inequality is to lower barriers to higher education, the primary factor in determining future earnings

        Higher education should not be viewed as a purely vocational education, since a liberally educated and engaged populace is the foundation of a strong democracy. But beyond this point, higher education is only a "primary factor in determining future earnings" if jobs are available in the chosen academic major fields of study.

        But without properly addressing social disruption caused by runaway globalization, only jobs in the service sectors will be safe. Even formerly high-paying jobs in the engineering and high-tech fields have come under steadily increasing pressure from rampant off-shoring. In a Washington Post Op-Ed, Princeton University Professor of Economics Alan S. Blinder states:

        ...offshoring of service jobs from rich countries such as the United States to poor countries such as India may pose major problems for tens of millions of American workers over the coming decades. In fact, I think offshoring may be the biggest political issue in economics for a generation. ....I estimated that 30 million to 40 million U.S. jobs are potentially offshorable.

        Even the staid and conservative IEEE-USA Board of Directors wrote:

        The offshoring of high wage jobs from the United States to lower cost overseas locations is currently contributing to unprecedented levels of unemployment among American electrical, electronics and computer engineers. Offshoring also poses a very serious, long term challenge to the nation's leadership in technology and innovation, its economic prosperity, and its military and homeland security.

        From my perspective of being born in the "Rust Belt" back when it was still a vibrant economic powerhouse, and watching all of the jobs begin to leave our shores starting in the 1970's continuously and accelerating into the present day, I think Obama would do well to refine his stand on these issues related to trade and jobs. We have had more than 30 years of Milton Friedman-style economic neoliberalism, corporatism and relentless social disruption, and it is time for some real change. I hope Obama can articulate a truly new direction for the country in this regard.

        It is both a great challenge and a great opportunity for Obama.

        The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. -FZ

        by lightfoot on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 10:09:23 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Greedy Neoliberals making Marx (0+ / 0-)

      look like a prophet again, like the robber barons and captains of industry before them. Obama needs to dump neoliberal Goolsbee as an adviser.

      Even George Will grudgingly approves of Goolsbee:

      ...Goolsbee no doubt has lots of dubious ideas -- he is, after all, a Democrat -- about how government can creatively fiddle with the market's allocation of wealth and opportunity. But he seems to be the sort of person -- amiable, empirical and reasonable -- you would want at the elbow of a Democratic president, if such there must be.

      Will is wrong about economics moving to the right. The progress in the last ten years has been in the areas of imperfect competition, social influences, and irrational behavior, and away from the elite-serving simplistic neoliberal economics-as-physics trend that was pushed by corporate funding in the three decades prior.

      The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. -FZ

      by lightfoot on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 06:19:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Why not Pinochet? (9+ / 0-)

    If we're looking for someone who completely changed the political culture of his country for generations, why stop at 'weak tea'?

    When Reagan went to Mississippi to kick off his campaign, he threw down the gantlet to the nation.

    What would Paul Douglas say? What would Paul Simon say?

    You kids behave or I'm turning this universe around RIGHT NOW! - god

    by Clem Yeobright on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 05:28:41 PM PST

    •  Don't you really mean Kissenger/Nixon? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Joe Willy, Clem Yeobright, lpeacock

      After all Pinochet just did what we told him to....

    •  Um, Pinochet was a dictator. (11+ / 0-)

      Obama is using basic democracy.

      May your entire existence be one sensuous, frolic-filled experience lived in defiance of care.

      by Fonsia on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 05:50:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Reagan was a demagogue. (8+ / 0-)

        Do you think he was just passing through Philadelphia Mississippi and thought 'Gee, maybe today would be a good day to start a presidential campaign'?

        You kids behave or I'm turning this universe around RIGHT NOW! - god

        by Clem Yeobright on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:02:28 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oh I agree. Reagan used racism, no question. (18+ / 0-)

          Like Obama, I am not praising Reagan. I despise Reagan. I'm trying to say that he won not only an election, he won a generation.

          We finally have the opportunity to reverse that now.

          May your entire existence be one sensuous, frolic-filled experience lived in defiance of care.

          by Fonsia on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:11:10 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  First, Reagan was behind Carter in the polls (4+ / 0-)

            two weeks before the 1980 election.

            Second, the papers were talking generally of 'a failed presidency' in the week before Reagan was shot. "Honey, I forgot to duck" saved him.

            Third, America could not wait for Reagan to leave office from Jan 1987 to the end.

            Fourth, George H.W. Bush did not campaign for a third Reagan term.

            People are rewriting history here.

            You kids behave or I'm turning this universe around RIGHT NOW! - god

            by Clem Yeobright on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:17:06 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Wow...you're accusing HIM of rewriting history??? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              strengthANDwisdom, Foodle

              America could not wait for Reagan to leave office from Jan 1987 to the end.

              In 1987 and 1988 Reagan's Gallup approval rating (the only one that polled monthly) never dipped below 48%, and only once was his disapproval higher than his approval.  His approval averaged around 53% in '87 and 56% in '88.  When he left office, it was at 64%.  Not as good as Clinton or Kennedy, but it's laughable to say "America could not wait" for him to leave.

              Nice try.

          •  He did not win a damn thing except the media. (5+ / 0-)

            Regan and his whole team were nothing but traitors.

            •  The were something other than that... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              highacidity, frostyinPA, Matisyahu

              ...they were twice elected, once with a 49 state majority.

              They may be assholes, but they were assholes who knew how to set a nation down a fundamentally different path.  Hell, can't we at least admire our enemies when they complete great (though terrible) feats?

              But few of us are destined to make a big difference in life; if I can make a little difference, that has to count for something. -G'Kar, 9/22/07 Rest in Peace

              by JR on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:39:21 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Obama did praise Reagan. (12+ / 0-)

            From MTP, Oct. 22, 2006

            But I think, when I think about great presidents, I think about those who transform how we think about ourselves as a country in fundamental ways so that, that, at the end of their tenure, we have looked and said to ours—that’s who we are. And, and our, our—and for me at least, that means that we have a more expansive view of our democracy, that we’ve included more people into the bounty of this country. And, you know, there are circumstances in which, I would argue, Ronald Reagan was a very successful president, even though I did not agree with him on many issues, partly because at the end of his presidency, people, I think, said, "You know what? We can regain our greatness. Individual responsibility and personal responsibility are important." And they transformed the culture and not simply promoted one or two particular issues.

            http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...

            Which issues does Obama agree with Reagan on and which of Reagan's policies did he approve of?

            From the newspaper interview in Nevada, just before the comments on Reagan:

            We can’t waste money.  I don’t care whether we’re wasting it in the Pentagon or in social programs that have outlived their usefulness and no longer work... I want to spend it in a way that actually works or give the money back.

            Which social programs have "outlived their usefulness and no longer work?"  It sure sounds to me as if Obama agrees with Reagan on social programs but also wants to cut down on Pentagon spending.

            Reagan's social programs threw mentally ill people out of state hospitals and into the streets.  They made families with children homeless.  During the Reagan era, there wer families who lived in cars in supermarket parking lots in Cambridge, MA.  

            Reagan wanted to get rid of social security, but at that time it was just too radical an idea.  Now a Democratic candidate for president can actually have an economic advisor who advocates private retirement accounts.  My how times have changed.

            If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. -- John F. Kennedy

            by Boston Boomer on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:08:12 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Remember Block Grants? (8+ / 0-)

              The Reagan era slight of hand that resulted in the things you cited, driven by the intended consequence of pushing taxes down from the federal to state and local governments forcing increases in almost always more regressive taxes - sales taxes, flat state taxes, flat local earned income taxes.

              Reagan tax changes and huge cuts in funding for state and local programs was directly responsible for an explosion of homelessness, the end of all kinds of ancillary school programs, bridges crumbling, on, and on and on.

              If there is anything to "admire" about Reagan it is how easily and how well he lied through his teeth. Morning in America indeed.

              Democracy is a contact sport...

              by jsmagid on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:23:24 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Fills the heart (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Boston Boomer, lightfoot

              with hope, doesn't it!  I'm sorry but I couldn't help myself after reading the point you make in your last paragraph.  Things are a changing here, just can't decide if it is for the better.  

              •  I hoping I die before I end up a bag lady (7+ / 0-)

                pushing a shopping cart.  

                Sorry, I've been so angry about this for the past two days.  I don't think younger people understand what a red flag they are waving when they praise Ronald Reagan to the progressives who had to live through his regime.

                If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. -- John F. Kennedy

                by Boston Boomer on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 09:02:08 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  which is why you 'boomers' don't get it (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Foodle, mamamedusa, cybrestrike, Fonsia

                  Clinton, but Edwards too, offers more pointless trench warfare with the most to be gained being minor policy advances on all the issues we care about. You're so embittered at what has happened in the last 30 years that you can't see that this is the best you can hope for with the kind of campaigns Clinton and Edwards are running.

                  Obama is a roll of the dice, sure. But at least there is the possibility of a realignment in our direction of the type that Reagan achieved for conservatism.  If Obama disappoints then you lose nothing - because that's all you'll achieve with the likes of Clinton. Clinton is the only thing that will rally and unify the Republican party. Even if she wins, she won't have the coattails that Obama would have.

                  A vote for Clinton is a certain vote for more of the same. A vote for Obama is a vote for a least the possibility of escaping it.

                  Sponge Bob, Mandrake, Cartoons. That's how your hard-core islamahomocommienazis work.

                  by Benito on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 10:23:37 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I don't believe in Obama the way you do. (5+ / 0-)

                    I'm very worried that he has two top advisors who favor privitization of social security.  I also doubt that he can win the general election.  I doubt Hillary can win either.  I think we are likely to get another Republican President, and that would be a terrible outcome.  If either of them is elected President, I'll continue to fight for the American I do believe in.

                    I've seen the vulnerability of old age close up.  I cared for my mother-in-law for nearly 20 years until she died a little over a year ago.  My parents are in their eighties now and I'll probably be taking care of them before much longer.  

                    You go right ahead and patronize me and dismiss my opinions and tell me I "don't get it."  I don't care what you think of me.  I don't know you from Adam. But I know something about politics and about life. What you're saying won't convince me to vote for someone I don't trust.

                    If Obama gets more specific about what he wants for this country and how he intends to achieve his goals, I'll be listening.  Right now, it's all a lot of vague talk.

                    If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. -- John F. Kennedy

                    by Boston Boomer on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:03:35 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  and how will Obama privatize social security (0+ / 0-)

                      even if he wanted to? (which he doesn't)

                      With a Democratic Congress - especially a filibuster proof Senate?

                      I don't trust Hillary. Period. Look at her vote on Iraq and her position on Iran. My wife who hates George Bush more than anything else and is as liberal as anyone here - she has said she may vote for McCain if Hillary wins the nomination.

                      And don't kid yourself about social security. Reform, of some sort, will come. But, would it not be far better to have reform shaped by progressives rather than ones controlled and blocked by conservative Republicans?

                      I feel for your parents. I do. But my wife and I are scared of starting a family because we don't see how we can afford it. How is concentrating solely on social security helping me and my family? The world is tit-for-tat, you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. What are you offering to me?

                      If I'm condescending, I'm sorry. But, your generation got us here. Lead in a way that gets results or get the hell out of the way.

                      Or vote for Edwards and potentially watch the nomination go to Hillary.

                      Sponge Bob, Mandrake, Cartoons. That's how your hard-core islamahomocommienazis work.

                      by Benito on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 08:18:32 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I don't need or want your advice about whom (0+ / 0-)

                        to vote for.  Didn't I already make that clear?  But I'll share some of the wisdom that comes with age.  We are all in this together, and in fact that is the traditional philosphy of the Democratic party and really of America--it is written into our founding documents.  Sadly, Reagan convinced so many foolish people that greed, money and power are all that count in life.  If we don't stick together and work for a better America for all, we will all go down together.

                        That American spirit is what got my parents through the Great Depresson, the Dust Bowl, and WWII.  My parents will be OK, because they worked hard and saved and they raised five children who are responsible and caring and who believe in that basic philosphy:  we are all in it together.  When you get to be my age, you realize that family is really the most important thing of all.

                        My "generation" didn't get you into whatever mess you are in.  "Generations" can't be said to be homongenous groups that are collectively responsible for something.  We all do the best we can with what we are given.

                        I'm not worried about social security for my parents or for me.  We are already taken care of.  I care about it for your generation and for my nieces and nephews and their children to come.  I did not suggest that you should concentrate on social security at all.  If you want the world to be a place where we're all on our own, then vote for that.  

                        Ironically, when I first heard Obama speak, I thought he believed in restoring an America where we are all in it together.  But I learned something very different.  Obama says he wants unity, wants to reach across the aisle, but he doesn't want to reach out to actual Democrats.  He is dividing the Democratic Party, and if he becomes President I hope he finds some way to repair the damage he has already done.  Right now he is a divider every bit as much as Bush is.  But it remains to be seen if he can even win the nomination, much less be elected President.

                        I wish you and your wife well, and hope you do have children if you want them.  If it means enough to you, you'll find a way.  

                        I'm not going to let go of my belief in real Democratic values.  This country is on the wrong track, and I just don't think Obama is the answer.  To quote Langston Hughes,

                        O, let America be America again--
                        The land that never has been yet--
                        And yet must be--the land where every man is free.
                        The land that's mine--the poor man's, Indian's, Negro's, ME--
                        Who made America,
                        Whose sweat and blood, whose faith and pain,
                        Whose hand at the foundry, whose plow in the rain,
                        Must bring back our mighty dream again.

                        Sure, call me any ugly name you choose--
                        The steel of freedom does not stain.
                        From those who live like leeches on the people's lives,
                        We must take back our land again,
                        America!

                        O, yes,
                        I say it plain,
                        America never was America to me,
                        And yet I swear this oath--
                        America will be!

                        If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. -- John F. Kennedy

                        by Boston Boomer on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 11:54:29 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                •  I understand (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Boston Boomer, maxalb, lpeacock

                  I have been surprised at the divide between those who take offense to Obama's manner of discussing that period and his supporters.  I'm not sure of which has been more disturbing, Obama going there or his supporters insisting that those who were offended accept his what they believe he intended with his statements.    

                  Obama supporters might do well to take a cue from his victory speech in Iowa where he says it's time for a president "who will listen to you and learn from you even when we disagree."  The same can be said for the discourse here between people who don't always see everything the same way.  

                  •  Wish he'd thought of that on the NRA question. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Boston Boomer, standingup

                    He sure sounded like an old-fashioned confrontationalist on that one - I kind of liked it!

                    You kids behave or I'm turning this universe around RIGHT NOW! - god

                    by Clem Yeobright on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 10:34:03 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Thanks. (5+ / 0-)

                    I wish I had the feeling that Obama is listening, but I just don't think he is.  I think he's very full of himself and thinks he knows what's best for all of us better than we do.  And that is reflected in the discourse of his supporters.  

                    Until I started reading the candidate diaries and saw the anger from the Obama supporters at the slightest questioning of him, and their dismissive attitudes toward older people, I thought he was an exciting candidate.  I didn't really look at his ideas until I saw the cult-like fervor of his supporters.

                    If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. -- John F. Kennedy

                    by Boston Boomer on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:07:31 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I had (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Boston Boomer

                      hoped we would be using the primaries as a time to push and persuade the candidates to be more representative of us.  But it appears to be the other way around, same as always, choose the candidate and back their agenda with no respect to where it might be wrong or even improved.  

                      Some of the anger is coming from the large anti-Hillary contingency here.  I hate to see it but there is almost a level of cognitive dissonance with anti-Hillary Obama supporters.  There is too little difference between the two of them when taking a hard, objective look.

                      •  I wish we could find a way to push (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        standingup

                        the candidates.  I don't know if that would be possible except when they are running in a primary in a person's home state.  But if one of them becomes President (and I'm not confident of that at all), we will have to stay active and watch their every move and push as hard as we can.  I think we have made some difference in the past four years.  It's going to take some time.

                        If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. -- John F. Kennedy

                        by Boston Boomer on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 11:59:10 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

            •  Kinda dumb questions, don't you think? (0+ / 0-)

              Which issues does Obama agree with Reagan on and which of Reagan's policies did he approve of?

              You really want Obama to go through policies from 80-88 and say, "That one I wouldn't have, that one I would have?"

              Why not just address the policies of, oh, I don't, know, THIS CENTURY.  

              Jesus, I'm glad all the other campaigns have time to waste in a big kumbaya, let's talk about Reagan moment.  

              Pat Leahy? Zoe Lofgren? They are naive chidren Reagan worshippers that have no experience with the right wing attack machine.

              by Inland on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 06:04:34 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  Paul Simon Was One of Obama's Mentors (9+ / 0-)

      I'm certain that Paul Simon would be very proud of Obama.

  •  You can lead a horse to water,... (4+ / 0-)
    but you can't make it drink.  What is this horse that Obama seeks to lead?
  •  Well Put (24+ / 0-)

    Thanks for this. Funny that I used the Reagan comparison over the weekend with my friend who LOVES HRC. I said I want the amount of change that Reagan brought. I wanted Dems to be talking about one of our former presidents and the great change he brought 20 years after he is out of office.

    Keep your eyes on the prize.

    by Better Days on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 05:31:55 PM PST

    •  Me too! I said (11+ / 0-)

      Obama is OUR Reagan, the liberal Reagan.  I think he can do for liberals what Reagan did for conservatives.  I said that to my MOm, who is dead set on voting for HRC, although she likes Obama and thinks he will make a great president in 8 years.

      •  sorry but considering the damage (8+ / 0-)

        that Reagan policies inflicted on this country, I could never even begin to call a candidate that I pull the lever for, "OUR Reagan".  Makes me ill to my stomach as does Obama's comment.

        •  Get over it. (19+ / 0-)

          It's a reference ONLY to this:

          Obama WILL get Indies and some dissatisfied Republicans.

          Obama WILL turn red states blue.

          Obama WILL restore the word "liberal" to it's rightful place of respect in mainstream society.

          That's how he'd be OUR Reagan.

          That's the ONLY way he'd be like Reagan.

          Nothing in his 25 years of public service suggests otherwise.

          What Washington needs is adult supervision. --BARACK OBAMA

          by broui on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:00:58 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  NO (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            akr nyc, Clem Yeobright

            He won't. He has already killed himself in red states with his attack on the NRA that was just as irresponsible as his glorifying of Reagan. He won't win a single red state if nominated because the NRA is a lot more popular there than he is. Dream on!!

            We support John Edwards because John Edwards supports us!!

            by RDemocrat on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:35:13 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  What attack was that? (7+ / 0-)

              The one where he said he supported the 2nd amendment?

              Where he said he respected people's right to hunt?

              But we have to address the gun murders in the city?

              How is that killing himself in the red states?

              It's asking both sides to sit down and find a solution to an obvious problem.

              He did that with the death penalty in Illinois with protesters and cops and found a solution.  

              And if what you say is true, why are all these red state senators and governors coming out to endorse him saying he's the only one that can turn their state blue?

              What Washington needs is adult supervision. --BARACK OBAMA

              by broui on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:56:36 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Assault weapons ban (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Clem Yeobright

                It sounds so sensible to us we don't think of it as an 'attack.'  To those red-staters, it's pyoore pinko commie librul castrayshun.

                States in play - Virginia, Missouri, Arkansas.

                Everyone is talking about crime... Tell me who are the criminals. - "Equal Rights," Peter Tosh

                by Nastja Polisci on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 11:37:11 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  buck up and suck up (0+ / 0-)

          then bend over.

          I will make them have it. I will stuff their mouths with Gold!--Aneurin Bevan (on the NHS)

          by Salo on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:04:11 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  now i know why obama supporters make me (6+ / 0-)

            ill...read "And The Band Played On" or "Sleepwalking through History" or rent "Angels in America" and then come back and talk to me.  Better yet, read Digby's excellent analysis of this statement"

            http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/...

            •  Digby (5+ / 0-)

              touches on the same points that I have pondered for some time.  I wonder if we aren't witnessing more of a power struggle with competing factions of the center of the party than a true shift in the party.  

            •  Yeah (0+ / 0-)

              Terrible. No one in power cared. That's what happens when you lose fucking elections or can't win a governing majority.

              You folks are like shell-shocked soldiers - unwilling to give up the bitterness of past defeats to try something new.

              Go ahead, try more fanatical frontal assaults against fortified positions - that's what Edwards is promising. Or, just sit back in your own trench and just fight rear-guard actions while you leave the initiative with the enemy. That's Clinton. These tactics might win battles, but they don't win wars.

              Or, you could try to outflank them with Obama and win the political commanding heights for a generation. Reinforce social security and put forward new programs and policies beyond what we have now that the Republicans will spend another generation attempting to undo.

              So, what is it? Do you want to move the front a couple of hundred yards or a couple of hundred miles? Your choice.

              Sponge Bob, Mandrake, Cartoons. That's how your hard-core islamahomocommienazis work.

              by Benito on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 10:35:17 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Why don't you run? (0+ / 0-)

                I like flanking movements, but I would feel a lot better if you weren't projecting on your candidate what he has never indicated he will do.

                What I hear from Sen Obama is ceasefire in place and soccer games across the DMZ at xmas ...

                You kids behave or I'm turning this universe around RIGHT NOW! - god

                by Clem Yeobright on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 10:42:32 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  and Edwards and Clinton? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Fonsia

                  Edwards has no real chance of winning.

                  Clinton? I suppose her vote for Iraq and defacto support for Bush's Iran agenda constitutes what, turning the trenches over to the the other side? Hey, I guess if one's willing to look past your husband running around on you for sake of political payback down the line - what's dead soldiers worth to ya?

                  I have personally heard Republicans say they will vote for Obama.

                  I have personally heard Democrats say they will not vote for Hillary.

                  Sponge Bob, Mandrake, Cartoons. That's how your hard-core islamahomocommienazis work.

                  by Benito on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 10:56:14 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Elmo Roper stopped polling in September 1948 (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    lightfoot

                    because there was no doubt Dewey would win.

                    If Roper could make such a bone-headed mistake, how can you have so much confidence in your predictive capabilities? You come off as a blowhard, you know.

                    Further, since you claim some academic credentials, surely you know the aphorism "The plural of anecdote is not data". Think about it.

                    You kids behave or I'm turning this universe around RIGHT NOW! - god

                    by Clem Yeobright on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 11:01:50 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  yawn (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Fonsia

                      Paint me a picture of how Edwards gets the nomination.

                      His problem is that he's painted himself into a corner as the champion of the white working class. These folks aren't enough to win elections and are unreliable in the South.

                      Maybe he'll win. He's better than Hillary. But I don't think so.

                      Sponge Bob, Mandrake, Cartoons. That's how your hard-core islamahomocommienazis work.

                      by Benito on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 08:24:29 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

        •  That's only because you're wilfully (15+ / 0-)

          refusing to listen to what he said, instead of what you wanted him to say.  Obama said NOTHING positive about Reagan's policies--only his mandate.

          Sheesh, you'd think Democrats wouldn't WANT a mandate like Reagan's since after all Reagan had one and he was bad so we couldn't POSSIBLY have that!

          Never give up! Never surrender!

          by oscarsmom on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:12:02 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  ha, right! (8+ / 0-)

            we don't WANT to win elections, I mean, by gosh, that's what Reagan did!

            So many guns...so few brains. --Philip Marlowe

            by Castine on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:30:42 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Here's what you are missing though. (13+ / 0-)

            Reagan spelled out what he wanted to do, and people voted for it.  Basically, Reagan promised he'd cut taxes, throw poor people off welfare and into the streets, and stop preferences for ethnic minorities.  And "Reagan Democrats" bought into Reagan's mean-spirited, racist, sexist, homophobic platform.  

            Obama, according to what many of his supporters say, is running some kind of stealth campaign, where he acts centrist, gets lots of money from big corporations, and then when he gets into office he's going to suddenly rip off his centrist costume and become a progressive.  

            Mandates are based on people supporting your policies, not your personality.  To have a mandate, Obama would have to state clearly what his philosophy is and in what direction he plans to lead the country.  He's not doing that now, but he'll have to do it if he gets the nomination.  

            The president Obama admires delivered the goods to his supporters.  We were able to save social security and some semblance of welfare.  But Bill Clinton took care of that.  Next to go will be social security and medicare.  After that, Reagan's legacy will be complete.  I sure hope that job is not going to be completed by a President who calls himself a Democrat.

            If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. -- John F. Kennedy

            by Boston Boomer on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:24:58 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Again, very nice! Are you an academic? n/t (0+ / 0-)

              You kids behave or I'm turning this universe around RIGHT NOW! - god

              by Clem Yeobright on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:27:33 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Sort of. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Clem Yeobright

                I'm an elderly grad student working on a PhD in developmental psych.  Thanks.

                If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. -- John F. Kennedy

                by Boston Boomer on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:53:48 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  lol (0+ / 0-)

                  Are you serious? A psychologist saying people 'rationally' vote according to policy? Maybe you should read the political psychology literature before commenting on voting behavior. Framing, control of discourse, perception control - all these are critical to wining elections and winning votes.

                  If 'policy' was the answer, why did Bush win twice? Why did Reagan win 49 states?

                  Furthermore, 'cutting taxes', 'strong defense', and 'social security reform' are neutral, vague marketing terms that everyone can define in their own way. Reagan did this all the time.

                  Sponge Bob, Mandrake, Cartoons. That's how your hard-core islamahomocommienazis work.

                  by Benito on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 10:41:18 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Just got up, didja? Haven't had your coffee? (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    akr nyc, lpeacock, xobehtedistuo

                    That was really uncalled for.  

                    You kids behave or I'm turning this universe around RIGHT NOW! - god

                    by Clem Yeobright on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 10:45:49 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  How odd. (4+ / 0-)

                    Where did I say that the average person votes on policy?  Reagan did use simple terms, but he clearly let people know what he planned to do and he did as much of it as he could.  Reagan ran by dividing Americans on race, gender, and class lines and on eliminating taxes and regulation.  He was quite up front about it in general.  He was able to get away with his racism because he was a "genial" old coot whom we had all seen on TV for years.

                    Your comment is very revealing of who you are.  I couldn't care less what you think of me.

                    If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. -- John F. Kennedy

                    by Boston Boomer on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:16:09 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

            •  Thanks Boston Boomer (7+ / 0-)

              For pointing out the whole bogus rationale of the supposed "stealth campaign."

              Obama supporters want to believe he'll fool Reagan's supporters into voting for him and then turn into a liberal hero that he's never, ever, ever been in his political life.

            •  I disliked Reagan (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              aisling, Fonsia

              intensely. But you would have to be blinded by this kind of distaste to overlook how effective he was in making the Tip O'Neill led Democratic Congress cave in to his agenda.

              I think Obama is singularly talented to do the same thing once in office. This is the difference between Obama and Clinton. Obama understands that others don't necessarily see things his way and seeks to find a hook by which to bring them in; Clinton is so convinced of her moral superiority that she can't acknowledge the need to bring in the opposite side -- only the need to make "trade offs". It may be a crude analogy, but Obama is about seduction, persuading the other side; Clinton is about prostitution, buying off the other side. The former is a monumentally more effective approach over the long term.

              •  I haven't seen it. (6+ / 0-)

                You say it. He says it. I have not seen it.

                [Oh xrist, please don't tell me now that Tom Coburn was nice enough to let him co-sponsor a mundane government records law. This is like putting 'high school computer club' on your resume - you do it if you have absolutely nothing else to fill the page.]

                You kids behave or I'm turning this universe around RIGHT NOW! - god

                by Clem Yeobright on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:08:40 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Don't forget about the "ethics" bill. (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  vacantlook, Clem Yeobright, sima, lpeacock

                  The one that has so many loopholes that the lobbyists have already figured out how to get around it.  All they have to do is have a staff member set up the lunch date and stand instead of sitting down while they use our "representatives" to rob us blind.

                  If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. -- John F. Kennedy

                  by Boston Boomer on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:56:33 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  The point about Obama (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Fonsia

                  is that his coattails in Congress will mean Coburn won't matter. That's what winning a generational majority means.

                  But, hey, if you're ok with the tried-and-failed trench warfare of Clinton or Edwards, then, by all means, do that whole 'Charge of the Light Brigade' thing.

                  Sponge Bob, Mandrake, Cartoons. That's how your hard-core islamahomocommienazis work.

                  by Benito on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 10:43:15 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Okay, I've had enough. (3+ / 0-)

                    Please cite examples where the Obama 'new way of governing' has been effective, anywhere in the world, in industry, in business, in any sphere.

                    Enron and the derivatives industry also touted 'new ways of doing things' and derided the tired old methods of calculating profits by, you know, selling things of value for more than you paid for them.

                    Is Obama the 'Enron candidate'?

                    BTW: Why hasn't Sen Obama demonstrated his skills and settled the Writers Guild strike?

                    You kids behave or I'm turning this universe around RIGHT NOW! - god

                    by Clem Yeobright on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 11:05:50 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  He's been kinda busy trying to calm down Kenya (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Clem Yeobright, Foodle, mamamedusa

                      He hasn't publicized it, but he's made radio appeals for the Voice of America and has been doing some quiet telephone diplomacy, working with the State Department.

                      All this has been between rallies in NH and elsewhere.

                      May your entire existence be one sensuous, frolic-filled experience lived in defiance of care.

                      by Fonsia on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 11:20:55 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Not sure this is an (0+ / 0-)

                      example of new way of governing, but does show skill in bringing in the other side.

                      Obama's work on confession bill - Illinois Legislature

                      •  Thanks. I had already read this, but thanks. (0+ / 0-)

                        By showing officers that he shared many of their concerns, even going so far as to help pass other legislation they wanted, he was able to quiet the fears of many.

                        Yep. That's where I see my UHC dreams going down the drain ...

                        You kids behave or I'm turning this universe around RIGHT NOW! - god

                        by Clem Yeobright on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 07:17:36 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  Tell me (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Fonsia

                      House does a black, urban liberal win among the cracker rednecks in downstate Illinois? It's by taking their concerns seriously and trying to work out a pragmatic solution - by turning zero-sum into win-win.

                      Could Obama be an empty suit?

                      Sure. But how is that different from what we've got now with Hillary? At least there is a possibility of change here.

                      Edwards could be an agent of change too.... But I just don't think he can win. I like his spirit - but I don't seem him gaining enough middle-ground support to win.

                      Obama is optimistic, reassuring and calm. He speaks not with anger but with understanding when in front of a crowd. He's not an empty pantsuit like Clinton or a crusading, embittered populist like Edwards. Which do you think is more attractive to people on the fences who aren't quite sure which way they will vote come November?    

                      Sponge Bob, Mandrake, Cartoons. That's how your hard-core islamahomocommienazis work.

                      by Benito on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 08:34:34 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Answer (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Clem Yeobright

                        House does a black, urban liberal win among the cracker rednecks in downstate Illinois?

                        He runs against Alan fricken Keyes.

                        It would've been bizarre if he hadn't won his senate seat in a landslide.

                        "Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a big fat white guy who is threatened by change."

                        by faster democrat kill kill on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:34:38 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

        •  Are you really that stupid (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Fonsia

          to not understand context?

          Really? Or are you simply a schill.

          Reagan was the GOP's FDR. Did that make Ronnie Raygun a liberal? No.

          FDR won a devastating victory that crushed conservatives for a generation.

          Reagan won a devastating victory that crushed liberalism for a generation.

          Or, are you going to spin a 49 state loss in 84 the way neocons spin Iraq today? Boomer liberalism failed as a majority-winning political project. Let the young folks have a try before you folks fuck up anything else, ok?

          Sponge Bob, Mandrake, Cartoons. That's how your hard-core islamahomocommienazis work.

          by Benito on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 10:27:50 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Listen here, you little whippersnapper... (6+ / 0-)

            Boomer liberalism failed as a majority-winning political project. Let the young folks have a try before you folks fuck up anything else, ok?

            "Boomers" are not one huge block of like-minded robots with identical histories.  Being young or old is irrelevant.  Being able to understand context, as you point out, is imperative in all things having to do with the past, the present and in recognizing what path can potentially lead to a saner future.

            "Evil is a lack of empathy, a total incapacity to feel with their fellow man." - Capt. Gilbert,Psychiatrist, at the end of Nuremberg trials.

            by 417els on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 11:09:22 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  then why are where we are today? (0+ / 0-)

              Who has been in control of the Democratic party and liberal institutions for the last 20 to 30 years? Where are the victories? Where is the progress?

              Don't.

              See.

              It.

              It's been one long retreat after another.

              Sponge Bob, Mandrake, Cartoons. That's how your hard-core islamahomocommienazis work.

              by Benito on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 08:28:06 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Today is a result of ignorance and bad choices (0+ / 0-)

                made by many people of all ages over a long period of time up to the present.  If you are over 21 years old, a lot of people from your generation took part in allowing the disasters of late.  Does that mean you and all of your peers are to blame for the horrendous state of affairs?  No, of course not.

                To blame 'Boomers' and 'Xers' and whatever other categories are based on date of birth...to paint everyone in a particular age group with the same wide brush (of blame or kudos) is myopic and shallow minded.

                The last 7 years have wrought a colossal criminal and humanitarian disaster.

                With the exception of Romney, all of the GOP candidates are Pre-boomers.  With the exception of Chris Dodd, all of the Dem candidates are Boomers.

                Boomers: Clinton(s), Edwards, Obama, Kicinich, Howard Dean, Gore, Feingold, Olbermann

                Not Boomers: Reagan, GHWB, Cheney, Negroponte, Perle, Wolfowitz, Broder, Novak, Murdoch, Ailes, Dobbs, Robertson & Fallwell, Scalia...Dana Perino, Jonah Goldberg and Tucker Carlson.

                So, Benito?  Who are the young folks you recommend to replace the Boomer fuck-ups?

                "Evil is a lack of empathy, a total incapacity to feel with their fellow man." - Capt. Gilbert,Psychiatrist, at the end of Nuremberg trials.

                by 417els on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 05:15:43 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  no, you really need to go back and read (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Clem Yeobright, lpeacock

            some history books and then come back and talk.

      •  I don't WANT a 'liberal Reagan', do you see? (5+ / 0-)

        It's easy to destroy, and it's hard to build up.

        Reagan was 'successful' because he took the easy road.

        That's all there is to it.

        You kids behave or I'm turning this universe around RIGHT NOW! - god

        by Clem Yeobright on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 05:49:39 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You miss the point. (15+ / 0-)

          He's talking about the dominance for the Republicans Reagan created.

          28 years.

          Now, you don't want that for Democrats?

          Oh.  Okay.  Too bad.

          What Washington needs is adult supervision. --BARACK OBAMA

          by broui on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 05:52:29 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Separating causes and effects, are we? (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Boston Boomer, santh, lpeacock

            Reagan had a certain effect, and very carefully chose the route.

            You seem to propose that there are many routes to that same effect.

            Many of us are dubious. At least.

            You kids behave or I'm turning this universe around RIGHT NOW! - god

            by Clem Yeobright on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 05:59:36 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Clearly. (7+ / 0-)

              At your party's peril I suspect.

              You people seem to want to play the same tactics that has lost far more than it has won since Johnson.

              Obama has said, let's change the tactics and you can't handle it.  You accuse him of being Republican.

              Obama recognizes that a Republican played the game far better than any Democrat in the last 40 years and he's to be vilified?

              No.

              He's suggesting we take a page from that book.  We ought to change our game plan and try winning on a regular basis.

              What Washington needs is adult supervision. --BARACK OBAMA

              by broui on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:07:27 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Um, borrowing from Fritz: Where's the beef? (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                darrelplant, Boston Boomer, santh

                Saying things is not the same as doing things.

                Recall that Reagan spent 20 years building his legend. Do you suppose that was part of his secret?

                How does Obama duplicate that?

                Sure, what you propose would be nice.

                Saying it doesn't make it happen.

                Where's the mechanism?

                You kids behave or I'm turning this universe around RIGHT NOW! - god

                by Clem Yeobright on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:14:26 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Do you deny 25 years of public service? (4+ / 0-)

                  Do you 25 years of putting his words into action?

                  As an organizer?

                  As a professor?

                  As a state legislator?

                  As a Civil Rights Attorney?

                  As a Senator?

                  There is plenty of beef.  

                  What Washington needs is adult supervision. --BARACK OBAMA

                  by broui on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:18:27 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I deny 20 years on the national stage. (7+ / 0-)

                    I am really tired of people saying "Words mean what I want them to mean."

                    As I'm tired of "We make our own reality."

                    Think about it.

                    You kids behave or I'm turning this universe around RIGHT NOW! - god

                    by Clem Yeobright on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:20:48 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  The Liberal... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Clem Yeobright

                      Maybe people like this think we should have a "liberal Nixon" too. He won a couple of elections.

                      And hey, so did W! The "liberal George W. Bush" sort of has a ring to it, don't it?

                      I think there will be a staggering loss of human life out of all proportion to the stakes involved... Sen. George McGovern, March 1965

                      by darrelplant on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 10:12:10 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  If (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    vacantlook, Clem Yeobright, sima, lpeacock

                    Obama is so successful "reaching out", why didn't he use his compromising approach to get SCHIP passed? Or is healthcare for children less important than Obama getting elected?

                    If his approach would work, SCHIP would have passed. In case you missed the headlines while "reaching out" for Obama, it didn't.

                    We support John Edwards because John Edwards supports us!!

                    by RDemocrat on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:39:14 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  But he even said in the debate (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      lightfoot, lpeacock

                      I passed a bill on that

                      I don't remember the topic, but I had to wonder how you 'bring people together' when you claim you did something by yourself that only the entire Congress can do ...

                      You kids behave or I'm turning this universe around RIGHT NOW! - god

                      by Clem Yeobright on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:47:13 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  I deny Brou-- You're Lying about His Experience (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Clem Yeobright

                    He's been a Senator for 2 years which is his entire national record, BTW.

                    And a professor . . . he never was a professor.  He was a LECTURER.  And that is a BIG difference.  

                    Look that up again.

                    And if you're wrong about his record, what else are you getting wrong and exaggerating about to yourself and some others?

                    •  I'm not lying. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      highacidity

                      3 years as a Senator at the federal level.

                      He was a professor.

                      YOU can look it up.

                      I have no need of lying.  Nor do I have need of smearing others.  Candidates or bloggers.

                      Maybe you do.

                      If that makes you feel better, so be it.

                      But it doesn't make you factually correct.

                      What Washington needs is adult supervision. --BARACK OBAMA

                      by broui on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:04:14 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Your candidate has the thinnest resume (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        LimosineLiberal, lightfoot

                        since Lincoln. Why not just say that Lincoln did pretty well as President, instead of scraping the bottom of the barrel for some kind of 'accomplishment'?

                        You kids behave or I'm turning this universe around RIGHT NOW! - god

                        by Clem Yeobright on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:11:04 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I could but don't need to. (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Fonsia

                          He has more legislative experience than either Edwards or Clinton.

                          He was a Civil Rights attorney.

                          He was a professor of Constitutional Law.

                          He was a Community Organizer.

                          That is far from thin.

                          What Washington needs is adult supervision. --BARACK OBAMA

                          by broui on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:33:25 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Oh, how great is the will to believe! (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            LimosineLiberal, lightfoot

                            Good for you, broui.  If you aren't going to mind the rolled eyes you'll be getting from everybody you know for the next several months ... go for it!

                            You kids behave or I'm turning this universe around RIGHT NOW! - god

                            by Clem Yeobright on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:43:06 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It's thin-- I dismantled your Professor of (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Clem Yeobright, lpeacock

                            Constitutional Law, he was a lecturer in a class where he never let his positions on THE CONSTITUTION be known.  See other reply.

                            But you're really excited about the voter registration stuff too?  Another day for that but of resume puffing.

                            Hillary 2008, CEO, COO, Commander in Chief, and President Ready on Day 1

                            by santh on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 02:49:55 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Do you know anything about good teaching? (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Ericwmr, Fonsia

                            As a teacher, and in his case Professor, (seriously, look it up - it's well documented, liar), you NEVER spew your own opinions if you have any credibility.

                            You make your students formulate their own and then you push them to back them up and then you make them back them up better than they did the first time.

                            But you don't lead them to an opinion.

                            That's NOT good teaching.

                            That's preaching.

                            What Washington needs is adult supervision. --BARACK OBAMA

                            by broui on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 07:33:17 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Unless, of course, Obama revealed his opinions (0+ / 0-)

                            in which case you will come back having reviewed your entire pedagogical philosophy ...

                            You kids behave or I'm turning this universe around RIGHT NOW! - god

                            by Clem Yeobright on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 08:21:27 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Your arguments are circular and tiresome. (0+ / 0-)

                            What Washington needs is adult supervision. --BARACK OBAMA

                            by broui on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 11:21:26 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  Edwards and Clinton (0+ / 0-)

                          Clinton: Rode husband's cock to White House, looked past other women blowing her husband, faced humiliation for a chance at a Senate seat and a Presidential bid on her own. Feminists should be proud. At least Margaret Thatcher did it on her own.  

                          Edwards: Law practice. One-term senator. Failed bid for presidency in 04 and junior partner of Kerry debacle.

                          Yeah, why are these two even being remotely considered again?

                          Sponge Bob, Mandrake, Cartoons. That's how your hard-core islamahomocommienazis work.

                          by Benito on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 10:49:23 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                      •  Sorry, You're Lying Lecturer NOT Professor (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        LimosineLiberal, Clem Yeobright

                        You're not telling the truth. You don't check all your facts which makes me wonder about the rest, you  certainly did not in this case because you just had a second opportunity to do it.

                        Now, Hillary Clinton was a Lecturer too, but she doesn't pretend she was a "Professor" to bolster her resume.

                        And just so you know he'd be your kind of "lecturer" he ran his classes in Constitutional Law in a loose  style where he was known "mostly as a listener."

                        Nice right?  You like that?

                        And as you would all love so much-- they NEVER where Obama actually stood on  . . . THE CONSTITUTION.  Scary to me, but you'll love this because it's vague, fuzzy, and you're going to see whatever you want to see in this quote from a student who liked him like you do.

                        "He didn't just cold-call people all the time," Janis said. "He was willing to be engaged. A lot of time with faculty members, you know what point of view they're coming from. He would rarely say, 'This is what I think.' He kind of had a mysterious air to him because YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHAT HIS POSITION WAS ON ALL THESE ISSUES [of Constitutional law]." </ </p>

                        Chicago Sun Times February, 2007

                        Hillary 2008, CEO, COO, Commander in Chief, and President Ready on Day 1

                        by santh on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 02:47:21 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  You lie. I don't. Check the facts. (0+ / 0-)

                          Obama Forged Political Mettle In Illinois Capitol

                          By Peter Slevin
                          Washington Post Staff Writer
                          Friday, February 9, 2007; Page A01

                          CHICAGO, Feb. 8 -- When Sen. Barack Obama heads downstate to Springfield on Saturday to announce his candidacy for president, he will speak in lofty tones of America and Abraham Lincoln, but also of a more prosaic topic: his own eight years in the Illinois Senate.

                          The heart of Obama's political résumé lies in Springfield, where he arrived in January 1997. He was a newcomer to elective politics after time as a community organizer and University of Chicago law professor operating largely outside the city's Democratic machine.

                          What Washington needs is adult supervision. --BARACK OBAMA

                          by broui on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 07:38:12 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  Oh, Hillary was born to "lecture" (0+ / 0-)

                          Too bad she had to take that coast to coast.

                  •  Reagan proved his cruelty (3+ / 0-)

                    by creating a huge homeless population in California before duplicating it nationally in the 80's.  Working with all those California libruls, no less.

                    He could be counted on to do the other dirty tricks, and add looking askance as AIDS spread to please that element of the electorate as well.  The McLurkin contingent.

                    Everyone is talking about crime... Tell me who are the criminals. - "Equal Rights," Peter Tosh

                    by Nastja Polisci on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:10:39 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Actually he's continuing the same old (7+ / 0-)

                tired tactics we've watched being tried for years now.  I don't see anything new he's adding except his ability to talk.

                Well Clinton had everything he had and look how that turned out.  

                ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

                by Rebecca on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:20:53 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  "You people?" (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Clem Yeobright, lpeacock

                If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. -- John F. Kennedy

                by Boston Boomer on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:26:27 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Why did Obama not invoke FDR? (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Clem Yeobright, lightfoot

                Why did he invoke Reagan?

          •  Is that supposed to be an inspirational Obama (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Clem Yeobright

            quote?

            Uugh.  Someone else called him "cool" but that quote ought to put an end to the stereotyping.

            Actually, the Democrats were in the majority in both houses of Congress during the entire time so what do you mean?

            This election is ours to lose, like Kerry V. Bush.

        •  Here we go (10+ / 0-)

          "I don't WANT a winner!  I don't WANT a 50-state majority!  That MUST be bad since Reagan had it!!!"

          Never give up! Never surrender!

          by oscarsmom on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:13:17 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Nobody has proposed the MECHANISM by which (10+ / 0-)

            Obama builds this majority.

            As Paul Wellstone knew, "You don't get change by wishing for it."  He would be mortified to hear what Obama has said.

            You kids behave or I'm turning this universe around RIGHT NOW! - god

            by Clem Yeobright on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:22:17 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  So where is anyone saying that? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Clem Yeobright, belly

            It's not that we don't want to have a 50 state win it's just that we don't see Obama doing it.  Of all of them he has the worst chance to win this election as far as I'm concerned and it's his naive ideas and poor political judgment that leads me to that opinion.  

            ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

            by Rebecca on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:23:08 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Clem Yeobright, upthread (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              byteb, Mother of Zeus, broui, DaNorr

              plus many others, by implication.

              Also those who denigrate our first great rhetorician in decades by belittling his gifts as "dreams" "empty promises" "nothing but poetry" etc. which is also bullsh*t.  What do Dems have against winners?  Must we always settle for the boring old politicians like Mondale, Kerry, old Gore, Hillary?

              Never give up! Never surrender!

              by oscarsmom on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:28:09 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  And we come full around to Carlyle and Peel. n/t (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                santh

                You kids behave or I'm turning this universe around RIGHT NOW! - god

                by Clem Yeobright on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:32:21 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  OK that's enough (9+ / 0-)

                Our first great rhetorician in decades?

                Excuse me but Bill Clinton was the young charismatic politician before him.  Before his character was trashed by the right wing before he was attacked so viciously he was the amazing politician.  

                Right now Obama is not the greatest anything.  He's a very talented charismatic man.  He's given a few good speeches that inspired people.  Bill Clinton could beat him on that point hands down.  Obama has no accomplishments to point to that deserve all this he's the greatest anything yet.  

                Until he accomplishes something how about we come back to earth and talk about him as another human being and not perfection incarnate.  

                You don't even know if he can win the candidacy.  So cut the hero crap.  I am so tired of hearing a Democratic candidate referred to in such worshipful terms.  You do realize that if he gets into office we're going to have to ride his ass, just as we will for anyone who gets in, to push him our way.  We can't afford to have this kind of unrealistic attitude toward our politicians.  

                Give him time he will be just as boring as the rest of them.  Part of the reason he's so amazing to some people is that he's still a blank slate.  When that slate is filled in some more the glow will go away as it did for Clinton.  Especially once he's taken the same treatment the Clintons did.  

                ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

                by Rebecca on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:38:03 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  You're right let's just give up on Obama! (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  elesares

                  There's no hope,

                  Never give up! Never surrender!

                  by oscarsmom on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:41:39 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Sorry, this topic just brings out the snark in me (0+ / 0-)

                    Signing off now, so you'll all be spared.

                    Never give up! Never surrender!

                    by oscarsmom on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:42:46 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  LOL (5+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    vacantlook, oscarsmom, Ewellian, sima, santh

                    You do run from one extreme to another.

                    I realize you're trying to be sarcastic but it's just showing silliness.  Obama isn't the be all and end all of our hopes you know.  In fact, having an untested rather naive candidate could be the worst thing for us.  I'll have more hope if he loses the primary.  See I don't see this election as the turning point of everything.  I see it as another step in a long term movement to change our political culture.  That's one reason I find the Obamamania so unsettling.  Too many Obama supporters seem to think if he doesn't win it's

                      THE END OF EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!

                    Such drama.  But I'm not interested in turning this into an either/or black/white option.  Obama losing isn't a problem for me.  Even if we lose the presidency it's not the end of everything. I want a Democratic president in and it will make things much harder if we don't get one but I will still be out here working to change the political culture.  Will you?

                    ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

                    by Rebecca on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:50:14 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  I don't have to give up on him. (5+ / 0-)

                    Giving up implies that the person inspired your hopes and dreams to begin with.  For some reason, I'm not susceptible to the Obama magic.  He may be the future of the party, I don't know.  Good luck to him and his supporters.

                    If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. -- John F. Kennedy

                    by Boston Boomer on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:36:19 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  'Bringing people together' (4+ / 0-)

                  I thought Obama - and the others - had the opportunity to show some talent in this area on Tuesday when the question of the NRA came up. An obvious answer was

                  NRA members don't want their children shot down in their school hallways any more than any other American.

                  But instead, Obama went into a clumsy confrontational shtick on the NRA. That makes me wonder ...

                  People: There are people out there who have degrees in conflict resolution and negotiation. Is there any evidence that Obama has even an introductory understanding of these fields?

                  The only evidence I have is that he says so. Kind of like the guy who promised "I'm a uniter not a divider".

                  You kids behave or I'm turning this universe around RIGHT NOW! - god

                  by Clem Yeobright on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:09:00 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  This is one of the points I've been wondering (5+ / 0-)

                    about since the Donnie McClurkin incident.  If any incident in his campaign cried out for conflict resolution and bringing people together which he touts as his best ability.  But that situation was allowed to deteriorate just as the race war was allowed to deteriorate.  

                    As you said I have seen no evidence of it.  You'd think for someone who was good at this tackling those two situations would have been a great chance to show people how good he was. Those would have been high points for his campaign instead of low points.

                    ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

                    by Rebecca on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:18:36 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Conflict (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Clem Yeobright

                    People: There are people out there who have degrees in conflict resolution and negotiation.

                    That sounds like a job for President Kucinich's Department of Peace!

                    I think there will be a staggering loss of human life out of all proportion to the stakes involved... Sen. George McGovern, March 1965

                    by darrelplant on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 10:16:55 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Have you read this? (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  mamamedusa, Fonsia

                  http://www.pickensdemocrats.org/...

                  He knows what he's doing.  He just makes it look easy.

                  •  I wish I've seen him do it. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Clem Yeobright

                    But he hasn't shown his supposed skill.
                    The Donnie McClurkin incident was a situation that was deteriorating and kept deteriorating.  So if he knows what he's doing so well he can make it look easy why didn't he use those skills there.  

                    This recent incident where both sides were to use Clem Yeobrights words

                    some heavy-handed old-style political one-upmanship on both sides

                    the situation again deteriorated and divisiveness and strife built up between the two candidates supporters.  Where were those vaunted skills in bringing people together?  These two incidents cried out for conflict resolution and those skills he says he has in bringing people together and yet they were no where to be seen.  If he had been able to use those skills in both those situations he would been able to point to them as examples of his skill instead of having two low points for his campaign.

                    I think the problem is that he has little experience in running a national campaign for office.  He is depending heavily on same DC consultants who've advised our candidates so poorly.  Which is why in both incidents he used such poor political judgment.  

                    I've read that article before and it's an interesting article.  But it doesn't really address the point being made here as to why he's not really good at conflict resolution and bringing people together when it counts.  

                    ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

                    by Rebecca on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 11:27:07 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

            •  Here's the kicker (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              darrelplant, Boston Boomer, santh

              When Reagan ran in 1980 (having been rejected by his party in 1964, 1968, and 1976), he was a known quantity.

              Everybody knew Reagan. Many of us resented most of all his displacing 'The Old Ranger' on Death Valley Days.

              Therefore every 'new' bit of information had to be merged with thousands of items in the awareness of virtually every American.

              For Obama, every new datum represents a huge proportional increment for most people. A new charge on the weekend before the election may constitute a 10% data increase for a significant part of the population.

              You kids behave or I'm turning this universe around RIGHT NOW! - god

              by Clem Yeobright on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:30:43 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  It's easy to be amazing when you haven't (7+ / 0-)

                done anything to piss people off yet.  Once he has to do more than show up and quietly vote for a bill his glow will go quickly.  It amazes me how people can attack Clinton for his past while not realizing that Clinton was once the Obama of his day.  The young, promising charismatic politician.  They should realize that when they look at Clinton they are seeing their own candidate 20 years down the road.  

                ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

                by Rebecca on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:41:47 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Very good points. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Clem Yeobright, santh, lpeacock

                We all knew Reagan.  We knew he was a shill for big corporations long before he ran for Gov. of CA.  I remember when he was elected governor.  What a joke.  And then when people talked about him for president--it was hilarious.  I still can't believe so many people bought his act.  He was nothing but a front man for the big money men behind him.  He couldn't form long-term memories for at least his entire second term--maybe before.  He didn't even recognize his own cabinet members.  And now people want to make him into some kind of "great president."  Sorry, not buying it.

                If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. -- John F. Kennedy

                by Boston Boomer on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:45:11 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I passed through Sacramento the night he was (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Boston Boomer

                  inaugurated.

                  Hey Obamites: Do you know that Reagan held his gubernatorial inauguration at midnight, the first legal minute he could become governor?  Who says Obama has to be inaugurated at noon, right?

                  I drove right through.

                  You kids behave or I'm turning this universe around RIGHT NOW! - god

                  by Clem Yeobright on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:02:44 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Lehrer (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  lpeacock

                  There's actually a song from a couple of years before Reagan's gubernatorial win by satirist Tom Lehrer about song-and-dance man George Murphy, who was elected junior senator. It shows that things haven't changed in more than 40 years:

                  Hollywood's often tried to mix
                  Show business with politics,
                  From Helen Gahagan
                  To Ronald Reagan,
                  But Mister Murphy is the star
                  Who's done the best by far.
                  Oh gee, it's great,
                  At last we've got a Senator who can
                  Really sing and dance!
                  We can't expect America
                  To win against its foes
                  With no one in the Senate who
                  Can really tap his toes.
                  The movies that you've seen
                  On your television screen
                  Show his legislative talents at a glance.
                  Should Americans pick crops? George says "No,
                  'Cause no one but a Mexican would stoop so low."
                  And after all, even in Egypt, the pharaohs
                  Had to import
                  Hebrew braceros.
                  Think of all the musicals we have in store.
                  Imagine: Broadway Melody of 1984.
                  Yes, now that he's a Senator, he's really got the chance
                  To give the public
                  A song and dance!

                  When Lehrer sings Reagan's name, he adds a little question mark to it, as if the very idea was completely bizarre. Of course, we know better now.

                  I think there will be a staggering loss of human life out of all proportion to the stakes involved... Sen. George McGovern, March 1965

                  by darrelplant on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 10:28:27 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  we'll see after nevada and SC (4+ / 0-)

              if Obama can't win the majority. Iowa was extremely telling . .i never would have believed it, but now I see the attraction and Edwards does not have it.

              "The Meek Will Inherit The Earth" -8.13/-7.03

              by donailin on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:43:50 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yes we'll see. (6+ / 0-)

                But he's going to have a harder challenge now for a bit.  In the coming primaries Clinton has the edge right now.  Edwards is pushing hard too.  He's adjusting his campaign.  We'll see.  

                This is good for us and the eventual candidate.  One thing about Obama that worries me is he doesn't have much experience in campaigning.  For all Obama supporters try to say otherwise he hasn't had to face the full fury of the right-wing attack machine and their friends in the media.  He's been their favorite Dem so far and had an easy ride.  It's good that he'll have to fight for those votes he needs.  Otherwise he'd hit the GE totally unprepared.  

                I wonder just how attractive Edwards would be if he weren't being blacked out.  But we may never know since he is.  Of course, he may pull it off lol wouldn't that be an amazing political story?  I'd love it.  

                ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

                by Rebecca on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:57:44 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  exactly (4+ / 0-)

            i mean, reagan won in 1980 with 44 states and in 1984 with 49 states. I'd cal that a mandate and he did all manner of things with the support of the working majority, blue and red alike. now years later with the internet and a good rear view mirror, we can see how his policies have led to what we have now. maybe a lot of progressives hated him then and hate him now,but they are in the minority and no amount of fist shaking is going to change the majority of Americans (over the age of 50)views: that Reagan was a GREAT president; , he ended the cold war, and that whole city on a hill/we're the best country on earth business. You cannot change minds on that, when folks think of reagan, they think of national unity and pride, which is exactly what Obama hopes to restore with a slight caveat: the policies will be progressive and centered on collective contribution, participation, and sacrifice for the betterment of the whole.

            I really believe that bloggers are the only ones who hate Reagan because theyre informed, but the message will resonate positively with ordinary folks  who aren't political junkies.

            "The Meek Will Inherit The Earth" -8.13/-7.03

            by donailin on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:42:12 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Nope. You're blowing smoke about Reagan. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              darrelplant, Boston Boomer, santh

              We 'people over 50' laugh at him now as we laughed at him then.

              You kids behave or I'm turning this universe around RIGHT NOW! - god

              by Clem Yeobright on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:10:48 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  youre in the minority (0+ / 0-)

                thats not opinion, thats fact. you're simply in the minority. reagan is historically by all accounts considered a great president.

                im not making this up, its common wisdom. i dont agree with it, and you dont either, but this mostly uninformed country does.

                dont get mad at me for that.

                "The Meek Will Inherit The Earth" -8.13/-7.03

                by donailin on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:20:47 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  Bullsh*t! (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              peagreen, demoKatz, santh, lpeacock

              I'm well over 50 and I remember Reagan's administration well.  I hated what he did to this country then and I hate it now.  I'm not realizing anything in retrospect.  Reagan was a joke to most people until he finally broke through using the Southern strategy along with playing to the economic fears of working class Democrats in the north.  He hinted that their economic struggles were all the fault of those lazy "welfare queens" the the cadilacs they bought with all the money they got from the government.  They bought it hook, line, and sinker.  And we are stuck with the results.

              If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. -- John F. Kennedy

              by Boston Boomer on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:52:32 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Majority (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Clem Yeobright

              Reagan won in 1980 in a three-way race, where John Anderson took more than 6% of the vote. Reagan barely pulled more then 50% of the vote.

              I think there will be a staggering loss of human life out of all proportion to the stakes involved... Sen. George McGovern, March 1965

              by darrelplant on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 10:33:39 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  REALLY!!! (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            akr nyc, Clem Yeobright, lpeacock

            Only a 50 state majority?

            Gee, must be some good shit that you're smoking.

            Obama supporters are delusional. Really, this fantasy world of everyone singing "Kumbaya" must be beautiful.

            But in the real world, such "post-partisan" gibberish will get its clock cleaned by the Rethugs who will make expose Obama's mealy mouthed mush as the drivel that it is.

            I hear him speak and I hear, "sellout".

      •  Bill Clinton is my "Kennedy." (7+ / 0-)

        Screw Obama!!!! I do not want another four years of on the job training on how to be Regan. George H. Bush had a 49 state victory. What did he change?

        I do not want to dilute the Democratic Party with independents and republicans. I want to convert them to Democrats. If we can not and lose...fine. We should keep trying. Better to be who we are and let the world accept us for who we are.

        Screw Obama.

        Present.

    •  Until Reagan, (5+ / 0-)

      no Dem would have said "the era of big government is over."  After Obama, Reps are going to talk like progressives.  Hopefully.

  •  Good first diary (11+ / 0-)

    Well said.  A generational change - yes!

  •  It was willful misinterpretation... (20+ / 0-)

    not serious assessment of Obama's remark.

    Complete and utter foolishness, akin to the hysteria over HRC's MLK/LBJ remarks.

    •  And as an Obamabot, I agree that Hillary (12+ / 0-)

      was unfairly attacked for that comment.

      May your entire existence be one sensuous, frolic-filled experience lived in defiance of care.

      by Fonsia on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 05:40:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Unfairly attacked by whom though? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        highacidity

        I really don't think that "ill-advised" (which is what Obama said) was that harsh of a criticism.  I'm sort of sorry that the whole thing became poison because I would have liked to hear Obama say more about his views on how change comes about as applied to MLK and LBJ.

        •  Obama didn't comment on it until after it had (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          highacidity, davidincleveland

          become a flame war amongst the AA population.

          But yes, I'd like to hear his take on it too.

          What worries me is that if Hillary wins the nomination, the AA voters might desert her. In Michigan, 70% of the AA voters went "uncommitted." They left their houses and went to the polls just to vote against her.

          And I don't think she deserves that.

          May your entire existence be one sensuous, frolic-filled experience lived in defiance of care.

          by Fonsia on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:17:07 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You think they will not vote for her in the GE? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Clem Yeobright

            Of any constituency the AA one is the least likely to cut it's own throat over a political disagreement.  Once the candidate is chosen they will be among the best supporters.  They know they will be the ones suffering the most if a Republican gets in.  Reality is much closer for them than for some of us.  

            ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

            by Rebecca on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:25:33 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I hope they will vote for her in the GE if she (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              highacidity

              gets there.

              May your entire existence be one sensuous, frolic-filled experience lived in defiance of care.

              by Fonsia on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:45:11 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  She has the best chance at the moment. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Clem Yeobright

                I'm not really happy with any of our candidates.  But I'd rather Clinton got the candidacy than Obama just because of his unrealistic ideas.  I also don't see much difference between them politically.  I know Obama people get angry when the DLC is mentioned in connection to their guy but he really is as much DLCish as Clinton.  They are remarkably alike in their voting.  

                If I'm going to get a DLC type as president I'd rather have one people will be on guard with than one that induces the amount of hero worship Obama does.  

                ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

                by Rebecca on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:03:23 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, similar in that (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DaNorr

      people that claim Obama is a Republican because of what he said about Reagan even though they know full well he isn't are like those that claim HRC is a racist for what she said about MLK.

      I agree though that her comment was ill-advised.  I have a hard time saying that about Obama's comment though since it's something I've thought in my head about his candidacy even before he said it!

      Never give up! Never surrender!

      by oscarsmom on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:18:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  and if he had praised him, it would mean nothing (16+ / 0-)

    we loved it when Webb used Reagan for our purposes, why should we hold anyone else to a different standard, especially a standard we can only enforce by deliberately distorting someone's words?

  •  Reagan made no bones about naming the agents... (11+ / 0-)

    ...of evil destroying the American way of life for those middle-class white Democrats who became "Reagan Democrats."

    For Reagan, there were traitors among us:

    It was the minorities.

    It was unions.

    It was the "blame America first crowd."

    Morning in America was part of his game, but the "bear in the woods" was an even bigger part, and the endlessly repeated story of the "Welfare Queen" was the core.

    Reagan was all about addition by division.

    Do you remember the man or his campaigns?

    Reagan didn't go around commenting on the great political instincts of John F. Kennedy or Lyndon Johnson, or their responsiveness to the "excesses" of the 1950s.  For Reagan, Kennedy and Johnson were implicitly part of the problem.

    So if Obama is going to play the Reagan game (which is now the Rove game, by the way) when is he going to start naming Republicans and their failed agenda as the true cause of most of our woes?  Maybe start with the mortgage scam of the century?

    Open the pod bay doors, HAL.

    by Minerva on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 05:36:07 PM PST

    •  don't stop at Obama=Rove (16+ / 0-)

      the Obama=Hitler barrier has already been broken. Run with it!

    •  Reagan didn't play the Rove game (10+ / 0-)

      That's the whole point.

      Rove plays 50+1 politics, just enough to get elected.
      Reagan tried to crush opponents.

      If Reagan played by Rove's rules in 1984, mondale would have carried more than D.C. and his home state.

      Injustice is a mental disposition which removes equity from the realm of morals- John of Salisbury

      by kafkaesque on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 05:42:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's bull. Where did that come from? (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MadRuth, Minerva, Salo, santh, lpeacock

        Nonsense, utter nonsense.

        You kids behave or I'm turning this universe around RIGHT NOW! - god

        by Clem Yeobright on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 05:54:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Mondale and Ferraro. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Clem Yeobright

          Obama sounds like Mondale.

          What strikes you as obvious about  that ticket?

          I will make them have it. I will stuff their mouths with Gold!--Aneurin Bevan (on the NHS)

          by Salo on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:01:15 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not sure what you're saying is bull. (0+ / 0-)

          But if its the results of the elections:
          Here's the 1984 electoral map
          Reagan: 49 states; more importantly 525 electoral votes
          Mondale: 1 state and D.C.; a whopping 13 electoral votes

          Here's 1988
          Bush's incumbency election, therefore a better example
          Bush: 31 states, 286 electoral votes
          Kerry: 19 states and D.C.; 251 electoral votes.

          And if I were to summarize the strategy of that campaign in one sentence (w/o invoking the gay marriage ballot measures) it would be to describe it as a best of three contest between OH, PA, and FL. Take two and take the White House. Sounds like a 50+1 plan to me.

          Injustice is a mental disposition which removes equity from the realm of morals- John of Salisbury

          by kafkaesque on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:13:40 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  One datum does not a trend make. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            santh

            Reagan won reelection in 1984 because the economy happened to be strong at the time.

            You kids behave or I'm turning this universe around RIGHT NOW! - god

            by Clem Yeobright on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:19:05 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  C'mon an entire data set consists of 2 campaigns (0+ / 0-)

              I can not remember the 1980 election (too busy trying to remember to use the potty) so I make no allusions to know how that campaign played out.

              But a cursory glance at the electoral results indicates to me that Reagan must have been trying to win most states, especially if Carter had been leading just a couple weeks prior. Otherwise, he could never have changed so many minds across such a broad swath of the nation.

              In 2004*, at least 40 states were uncontested going into homestretch and most of the rest received a wink nod and empty promise by each side. The three states I previously mentioned consumed all the attention.

              I would have been astounded, as I believe most would, if such a dramatic electoral shift had occurred in the election.

              *Forgive me. I know 2000 would be a better comparison, but I remember better how the states broke and how the campaigns behaved last time, so I stuck with it.

              Injustice is a mental disposition which removes equity from the realm of morals- John of Salisbury

              by kafkaesque on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:38:48 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  You konw who did '50 states'? Nixon (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                santh

                He promised at the convention he would campaign in all 50 states and out of nothing but stubbornness he spent the next-to-last weekend in 1960 in Alaska.

                Many have said that if he had spent that time in down-state Illinois, he would have won.

                You kids behave or I'm turning this universe around RIGHT NOW! - god

                by Clem Yeobright on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:41:25 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  But will Reagan Democrats vote (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Minerva, Clem Yeobright

            for Obama?  How is he going to attract them?  Reagan did it by invoking fears of "racial quotas" for ethnic minorities and women who were going to take away their jobs.  

            If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. -- John F. Kennedy

            by Boston Boomer on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:00:04 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Republicans and Indies are already coming (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Fonsia

              over.

              Did you even look at the numbers in Iowa and NH?

              What Washington needs is adult supervision. --BARACK OBAMA

              by broui on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:07:59 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I was asking about the Reagan Democrats. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Clem Yeobright

                Are you saying that Obama plans to build his supermajority with Republicans and Independents--no Democrats?  He's writing off the progessives, the baby boomers, the elderly, and I guess even the Reagan Democrats.  Where does the supermajority come from again?

                If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. -- John F. Kennedy

                by Boston Boomer on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:48:00 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly. Nobody's played the 50-state strategy (12+ / 0-)

        since Reagan.

        Dean was right. It works.

        May your entire existence be one sensuous, frolic-filled experience lived in defiance of care.

        by Fonsia on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 05:54:48 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Reagan's "50-state strategy" was called TV (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Clem Yeobright

          Reagan's campaigns had a stunningly weak "ground-game" -- nothing remotely like Bush had -- though it was Reagan's guys who started turning evangelicals into foot-soldiers for plutocrats.

          Instead, Reagan mopped the floor with Mondale in the debates, dog-whistled his racist themes in every TV appearance, and carpet-bombed the airways with commercials implying the Soviets were about to get us and Democrats were dangerous pansies.

          The Reagan revolution wasn't fought district by district, state by state.  It was fought by 1) creating innumerable right-wing think tanks to create a roaring background noise in support of economic and geopolitical fairy-tales, 2) capturing power within the existing right-wing institutions, and 3) basic application of the emerging science of marketing (particularly segmentation and message testing) to political campaigns.

          Open the pod bay doors, HAL.

          by Minerva on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:43:41 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Carter was ahead in the polls (0+ / 0-)

        two weeks before the 1980 election. How do you explain that?

        You kids behave or I'm turning this universe around RIGHT NOW! - god

        by Clem Yeobright on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:08:51 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Gotta link? nt (0+ / 0-)

          Never give up! Never surrender!

          by oscarsmom on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:22:25 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Oh hell. I have my memories. (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Boston Boomer, joanneleon, santh, lpeacock

            But wikipedia  - and I don't regard this as dispositive in any way, I'm just tired tonight - does say:

            According to Carter' Press Secretary Jody Powell's memoirs, internal tracking polls showed Carter's tiny lead turning into a major Reagan landslide over the final weekend.

            I know that on the afternoon of the election my family and I did not anticipate the result.

            You kids behave or I'm turning this universe around RIGHT NOW! - god

            by Clem Yeobright on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:37:37 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Neither did I & it was my first ever time voting (3+ / 0-)

              and I got very drunk that night.

              But I also recall feeling very defensive and nervous in the weeks leading up to the vote knowing that Jimmy Carter was the better choice BY FAR but also seeing that Reagan possessed the confident swagger of a winner (even if it came from a Hollywood sound stage).

              Clinton rejected Saul D. Alinsky as outdated. Obama has lived Alinsky's teachings. That is one core difference between them.

              by Bill White on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:22:46 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  The Rs were nervous too, be assured. n/t (0+ / 0-)

                You kids behave or I'm turning this universe around RIGHT NOW! - god

                by Clem Yeobright on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:36:53 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  I was never so shocked as when (4+ / 0-)

                Reagan carried Massachusetts.  We were the only state that went for McGovern.  It was sickening.  But people bought into the media narrative of blaming Carter for the hostages making fun of him for wearing sweaters and turning down the heat in the white house, trying to get Americans to cut down on using so much oil.  Gee, he was such an idiot, warning us about the energy crisis.  Reagan knew better.  Greed is good!  If you've got it flaunt it, and the hell with the poor.  They deserve it.

                If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. -- John F. Kennedy

                by Boston Boomer on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:05:48 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Abso-damn-lutely on the way he flogged Iran (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Clem Yeobright

                  The key to Reagan's margin of victory at the end was the way his campaign successfully channeled rage about the hostage crisis -- which seemed to have gone on forever at that point -- at Carter.

                  Open the pod bay doors, HAL.

                  by Minerva on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:47:08 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  According to Wikipedia a debate (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Clem Yeobright, santh, lpeacock

            In his closing remarks, Reagan asked a simple yet devastating question that would resonate with voters in 1980 and beyond: "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" According to Carter' Press Secretary Jody Powell's memoirs, internal tracking polls showed Carter's tiny lead turning into a major Reagan landslide over the final weekend.

            Though I think it was a combination of many things one of the most devastating was the nightly count of days the hostages had been held by Nightline.  I remember watching that every night.  It was very affecting to see.  

            ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

            by Rebecca on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:28:22 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Reagan had a more persuasive narrative (4+ / 0-)

          Also, Carter was hobbled by the mess in Tehran.

          I am still very suspicious that Clinton 42 helped bury evidence from Iran-contra that would have put Bush 41 is a very very bad light. That could have sunk Dubya's chances even before they had got going.

          Reagan also made people comfortable with their prejudices. He was a story teller. And for better or worse a story teller has an inherent advantage over a policy wonk or a litigator with average Americans, even if the story is bullshit.

          Clinton rejected Saul D. Alinsky as outdated. Obama has lived Alinsky's teachings. That is one core difference between them.

          by Bill White on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:00:10 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  This was the 2nd Presidential election I voted in (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Clem Yeobright, mamamedusa, Fonsia

          And I remember it clearly. In my first I'd voted for Carter. Before the second I was planning to vote for him, but we were all pissed off at how the hostage crisis seemed to dominate his every waking moment, and that he seemed totally incompetent in doing anything about it. There's no way that I would vote for Reagan, I voted for John Anderson. He was saying the right things at the time, and I was dumb enough to believe there might be enough exasperated people that he could actually win. Like I said, it was my second election...

          I think the third party challenge together with peoples disgust at the way Iran was manipulating Carter (and he was playing into Reagan's possible manipulation of the whole crisis) played a big role.

          Nevertheless, I happen to agree with Fonsia here. I don't think so much that Reagan carried the country into a new era as he pretended (much like Bush did) that he had a huge mandate, and got the MSM to play along until it became a "reality". I think Obama is far from a lightweight. He was right on Iraq, He was right on the bankruptcy law, which is more than you could say for either Edwards or Clinton. I've read his books, and he understands the issues deeply (so does Hillary, but she doesn't make the right decisions!). I think he has the potential to surprise those who underestimate him.

          It's not what you know, it's what you know that ain't so -- Yogi Berra?

          by orrg1 on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:22:03 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Reagan was a genial empty suit (6+ / 0-)

        with Alzheimers. I don't care how many people he fooled, he is not a role model for anything.

        "There are no happy endings in the Bush Administration". - Randall L. Tobias

        by MadRuth on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:58:50 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  What planet do you people live on? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Clem Yeobright, lpeacock

        Talk about conflating strategy and outcomes.

        You note that Reagan won a crushing victory against the poster-child for milquetoast, inarticulate candidates, with a campaign heavily reliant on racism, fear, sliming, and changing the way business was done in Washington and conclude that he had a "50-state" strategy?

        Whereas Bush won a narrow victory against a wannabe Mondale in 2000 with a campaign heavily reliant on moderate pragmatism, hope (a uniter not a divider who would change the way things were done in Washington), sliming, and changing the way business was done in Washington and conclude that he had a 50%+ 1 strategy?

        Then Bush wins 2004 against a wish-he-could-be-a-wannabe-Mondale with a campaign purely based on fear -- the wolves commercial was a total rip-off of Reagan's Bear in the Woods -- and that's also a 50%+1 strategy?

        It was Reagan's boys who first started big-time organizing evangelicals (recognizing that they had put Carter in the White House in 1976) -- and they extended this strategy into the churches themselves,  taking over the governing bodies of major religious organizations and ousting moderates.  Rove himself was a foot-soldier for Reagan (and Nixon before him), and protege of the Reagan and Nixon hacks who invented modern slime politics.  As are all of the Bush operatives.  Fear-mongering, gay-bashing, economic fairy-tales about laffer curves -- Bush invented none of it.

        If it weren't for Ross Perot, this same bullshit would have worked for 7 straight elections now...

        Open the pod bay doors, HAL.

        by Minerva on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:29:40 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  You are wrong about Reagan playing (11+ / 0-)

      Rove's game.  That exactly what he didn't do.

      Reagan actually did make no secret of his admiration for FDR, by the way.  Wanted to emulate him, in fact.  Openly.

      And Obama has pointed to failed Republican policies and called out the politics of selfishness, castigated do-nothing government, excoriated the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" mentality over and over and over.

      Mortgage scam, you say?  How about Obama-Durbin mortgage fraud legislation?  

      Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) proposed a sweeping set of federal reforms Tuesday to combat mortgage fraud, ratcheting up enforcement and creating a national database of brokers who have been disciplined.

      Obama's bill would increase funding for federal law enforcement programs, create new criminal penalties for mortgage professionals found guilty of fraud and require industry insiders to report suspicious activity.

      Mortgage fraud is "robbing thousands of Americans of their dream of homeownership, and costing the mortgage industry hundreds of millions of dollars each year," Obama said. "Congress needs to come to the table and do its part."

      When will people get it through their heads that Obama is no empty suit?  If you want to bash him, first you'd better read through his website, read about his accomplishments in the Illinois legislature and the Senate, and read some of his speeches.  Then bash him.  I doubt you will still want to, however.

    •  Exactly right, well said. nt (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lpeacock
  •  Excellent (15+ / 0-)

    Flat excellent

    That's almost exactly what I wanted to say about this mess, except far more lucid, and well-versed than my version would have been.

    Keep writing; and more importantly keep agreeing with me. (The latter being the most important to writing a good diary)

    Injustice is a mental disposition which removes equity from the realm of morals- John of Salisbury

    by kafkaesque on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 05:38:21 PM PST

  •  Outstanding diary. (8+ / 0-)

    One of the best I've read in awhile. Highly recommended.

    I'm sorry I overreacted. Really.

    by turnover on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 05:40:57 PM PST

    •  (a) I agree, except (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      highacidity

      (b) kid oakland's most recent effort is pretty damn good also.

      but

      (c) this diarist is a rookie, it appears.

      = = =

      I read this just after reading k.o. -- I think I need a cigarette, and I don't even smoke.

      Clinton rejected Saul D. Alinsky as outdated. Obama has lived Alinsky's teachings. That is one core difference between them.

      by Bill White on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:55:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Obama IS Reagan. Pie in the sky, and ... (10+ / 0-)

    ... no hard questions taken.

    Where there is vision like that, the people perish.

    We must defeat them over there, or they'll follow us home ... hide under our beds ... and grab us by the ankles when we get up to pee.

    by RonK Seattle on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 05:41:53 PM PST

    •  If any criticism comes from Sen. Obama's comment (0+ / 0-)

      This should be it.

      I don't support it, but I understand why you state it.

      Injustice is a mental disposition which removes equity from the realm of morals- John of Salisbury

      by kafkaesque on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 05:47:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Heh, this from the person who said (9+ / 0-)

      the Clintons had the  most successful foreign policy in the history of humanity.

      Double heh.

      "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

      by Geekesque on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:12:05 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Indeed so, as scored by objective outcomes. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        joanneleon, FelisRufus, santh

        You can make endless arguments (and counterarguments) on subjective bases, or -- as you did, if I recall -- you can credit their successes to Reagan and all subsequent adverse events to them.

        But on levels of peace, security, general welfare and positive influence achieved by a world power, both for the nation and the globe, you can't come close.

        And then, as The Onion put it, our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity was over.

        Thanks for bringing that up.

        We must defeat them over there, or they'll follow us home ... hide under our beds ... and grab us by the ankles when we get up to pee.

        by RonK Seattle on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:15:01 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Objective outcomes like 500,000 dead in Iraq (0+ / 0-)

          and another 500,000 dead in Rwanda?

          I guess that was, to use Ms. Albright's parlance, 'worth it.'

          "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

          by Geekesque on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:41:31 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  You mean like with FDR? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Fonsia

      Franklin D. Roosevelt saw that Hoover's failure to deal with these problems could be used as a platform for his own election, promising reform in his policy called the New Deal. Although vague about how he would remedy the situation, Roosevelt won by a landslide, and this "critical election" marked the collapse of the Fourth Party System or Progressive Era. The voters soon were realigned into the Fifth Party System, dominated by Roosevelt's New Deal Coalition.

      Upon accepting the 1932 Democratic nomination for president, Roosevelt promised "a new deal for the American people." (The phrase was borrowed from the title of Stuart Chase's book A New Deal published earlier that year.) Roosevelt entered office with no single ideology or plan for dealing with the depression.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/...

      FDR was vague with what this "New Deal" was and the American people ate it up like pie and he created an ideological change that lasted to through the sixties.  

      Pie and the Sky worked pretty well for him.    

      •  FDR was conservative on promise ... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Clem Yeobright

        ... and pragmatic in execution -- wielding the "levers of power" to construct programmatic, bureaucratic solutions in spite of many obstacles. Kind of the (Bill) Clinton style.

        Obama has promised something bigger than any serious candidate has ever promised ... you just can't tell what it is, exactly, no matter how you twist the focus knobs.

        We must defeat them over there, or they'll follow us home ... hide under our beds ... and grab us by the ankles when we get up to pee.

        by RonK Seattle on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:14:59 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  really?? (0+ / 0-)

    Shrubby boy has a pretty good amount of power after losing the popular vote in 2000 and getting about 51.5% in 2004.

    "Give me a lever long enough... and I shall move the world" - Archimedes

    by mconvente on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 05:43:26 PM PST

    •  And his legacy is thuggery. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      highacidity, dotster

      No generational shift there, just a continuation of thuggery.

      He's opened that window for Obama to destroy the conservative mandate that Reagan won.

      May your entire existence be one sensuous, frolic-filled experience lived in defiance of care.

      by Fonsia on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:00:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, because Congressional Democrats are cowards. (0+ / 0-)

      They have not gone to the mat for anything except Social Security.

      And because there is a lapdog, beltway-corporate press that worships Republicans. Reagan, the Teflon president. His "electoral mandate," a term coined just for him. "Filibuster" vs "60 votes needed to pass."

      The two are not unrelated, of course.

      A Republican with a narrow victory and the press cheering him on every step of the way is equivalent to a Democrat with a massive margin at the polls.

      I am not sold on Obama at all. I am not confident that he will actually use his mandate, even if he gets one, to achieve sweeping generational change. Nor am I convinced that a big electoral victory will be much of a mandate if the whole campaign has been about muddying the issues and trying to be all things to all people. Mandate for what?

      But I think that yes, the Obama strategy revolves around winning big, not narrowly, which, incidentally, could be about having a margin of victory that is too big to steal.

      Vote for Hillary, dump Howard Dean, bring back McAuliffe, end people-powered politics and restore triangulation.

      by expatjourno on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 02:17:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Keep writing diaries. (15+ / 0-)

    This argument has been going on in several diaries for 2 days now.

    But, I suspect it's a pivotal one.

    Because, folks, unless people understand Obama on his Reagan comment, they are not going to understand him period.

    But once they get the Reagan comment, maybe then, the Democratic party has a shot at 28 years of the kind of dominance that Reagan created for his party.

    What Washington needs is adult supervision. --BARACK OBAMA

    by broui on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 05:44:14 PM PST

  •  Sorry but (10+ / 0-)

    Obama's comments reek of academia. It's like saying the word "great" measures magnitude (neutral values connotation) even though most people assign a positive value to the word and then saying something like Hitler was great because of the impact he had on the human race. From a magnitude of impact perspective sure he was great, but from a values perspective he was beyond terrible.

    I've said that an Obama nomination would go down in flames Dukakis-style. This comment just reminds me of Dukakis' death penalty answer - a perfectly fine statement from an academic but tone deaf to real people.

  •  There are a lot of tone deaf people..... (0+ / 0-)

    coming to see him during the campaign. No wonder American Idol sucks so badly...

    Deny. Distort. Divert. It's not just for Republicans anymore....

    by Azdak on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:04:56 PM PST

  •  nice job! I knew you had it in you! n/t (3+ / 0-)

    Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.
    IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST.

    by TrueBlueMajority on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:06:41 PM PST

  •  Terrific first diary. (5+ / 0-)

    Hope we see many more from you.

  •  While you are writing about Reagan on (7+ / 0-)

    a progressive blog (Like Clinton said, "How Pathetic") Canada did this today:

    "Canada's foreign ministry has put the United States and Israel on a watch list of countries where prisoners risk being tortured and also classifies some U.S. interrogation techniques as torture, according to a document obtained by Reuters on Thursday"

    http://www.haaretz.com/...

    I think diary writers may want to write about something really important.

    "It takes a Clinton to clean up after a Bush"

    by gotalife on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:10:20 PM PST

  •  Great diary! (5+ / 0-)

    I agree with you.  Obama mentions Reagan not because he loves his policies but he wants to IGNITE a movement to progressive ideals and re-frame the political landscape the way that Reagan changed the landscape to a more conservative one.

    It's obvious to me.

    "Si se puede!" "Yes we can!" - Barack Obama

    by Drdemocrat on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:15:35 PM PST

  •  er (0+ / 0-)

    i'll buy that... i.e. the explanation of barack's reagan comments, to a degree:  it was scripted and so they knew it would elicit this response.. bad energy.

    that said, i still can't tell if the hillary/mlk incident was scripted or not...

    ...but i DO think barack's reagan comment was scripted and, while for good reason and along the lines of your argument, he could have chosen FDR or JFK... instead of the republicans' wet dream, i.e. reagan.  but to me, this is tempest in teapot.

  •  something is wrong with the message (9+ / 0-)

    or the messenger, if indeed "he came to bury Reagan" and now is spending two or more days trying to explain his comment, trying to say what he REALLY meant.

    If you're going to bury Reagan, then do it!

    This is precisely the kind of comments of Obama don't give me any faith at all that he knows what hes doing, and secondly, if he is really telling the truth here.

    Say what you mean, mean what you say, walk the talk, or get out of the way!

    sign the petition at http://www.impeachbush.org

    by DrKate on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:20:40 PM PST

  •  Reagan was already buried. Obama dug him up. (10+ / 0-)

    It may gain him some traction in California, as the pundits suggest, but it will prove costly over here on the left side of the party.

    Bad idea, you ask me.

    "Everyone is tired of this man...you have to remember he is a member of a social class which has profited from wars." -Doris Lessing on Bush

    by perro amarillo on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:21:39 PM PST

    •  Reagan lives until we bury him (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      aisling, dotster, lpeacock, cybrestrike, Fonsia

      We still have Reaganomics.

      We still live under the spectre of fear.

      We still have de-regulation.

      We still have out of control corporations.

      We still have a shrinking middle class.

      We still have a "me" mentality in this country rather than a "we" mentality.

      We still have "liberal" as a dirty word.

      No.  Reagan isn't buried.

      Reagan lives.

      We have to bury him.

      What Washington needs is adult supervision. --BARACK OBAMA

      by broui on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:29:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nice job Obama's doing of that! (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MadRuth, lpeacock

        Let him tell us how he'll turn all that shit around, instead of venerating the sonofabitch's political skills.

        I've never seen anybody do something like this in a goddam primary before. Makes me question both his intentions and his judgement.

        "Everyone is tired of this man...you have to remember he is a member of a social class which has profited from wars." -Doris Lessing on Bush

        by perro amarillo on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:46:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  While you people scream about him (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Fonsia

          he has been telling us what he'll do and how he'll do it.

          But you haven't been listening.

          And NOBODY has run a primary campaign like this ever.

          What Washington needs is adult supervision. --BARACK OBAMA

          by broui on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:04:00 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You people? I've been fairly neutral so far. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            highacidity, lpeacock

            But since you just got here, you wouldn't know that.

            "Everyone is tired of this man...you have to remember he is a member of a social class which has profited from wars." -Doris Lessing on Bush

            by perro amarillo on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:16:03 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I've been here a while. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              highacidity, cybrestrike, Fonsia

              But I don't recall your stuff.

              My apologies.

              I'm just saying that this line that Obama hasn't been providing substance is B.S.

              It gets old.

              What Washington needs is adult supervision. --BARACK OBAMA

              by broui on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:21:56 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Here's what I don't understand: (4+ / 0-)

                If John Edwards had sat down with those editors, he'd have talked about poor people, healthcare, reducing the influence of corporations in government, etc. Obama wants to talk about

                I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what's different are the times...I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.

                I'm sorry, it all sounds both naive and egomaniacal to my skeptical ears.

                "Everyone is tired of this man...you have to remember he is a member of a social class which has profited from wars." -Doris Lessing on Bush

                by perro amarillo on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:46:04 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Wants to be president, not DO president? Yep. n/t (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  perro amarillo, lpeacock

                  You kids behave or I'm turning this universe around RIGHT NOW! - god

                  by Clem Yeobright on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:55:01 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Well, to be fair (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Clem Yeobright, lpeacock

                  Edwards isn't playing this kind of politics this time around. If he has something to say, he's puts it out there. Obama and Clinton are both playing the association game, though I think Obama's winning that one. At any rate, his remarks, though I vehemently disagree with them , are easily explainable. He was giving an interview to the Nevada press days before the Nevada caucus. At some point, he began appealing openly to Republicans and Independents to help him win with some radio spots. Where is one place that Reagan is still enormously popular? You guessed it, conservative Nevada, neighbor to Reagan's old state. He was pandering, dog whistling, if you will.

                  Living with offense is the price we have to pay for living in a free and diverse society. Being offended is not the same as being oppressed. ~ Irshad Manji

                  by belly on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:07:32 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  O, E, and C, don't disagree on much really. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  mamamedusa, Fonsia

                  Their disagreements to most voters are almost semantical.

                  So where they can draw the most distinction is HOW they plan to get the job done.

                  Edwards says he'll fight hard.  I believe him.

                  Clinton says she'll fight too.  I don't believe her because she's in bed with too many special interests.

                  Obama says he thinks the way to go is to build a huge mandate and that way the fight isn't so difficult - we can bowl them over because Republicans have to deal or they go home.

                  What Washington needs is adult supervision. --BARACK OBAMA

                  by broui on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:13:15 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Um, think you should study their policies (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Clem Yeobright, lightfoot

                    They disagree quite abit!

                  •  Really, is that the kind of change Obama (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Clem Yeobright

                    represents ... a change in tactics?

                    Personally I'm sick and tired of apologists and conciliatory Democrats. For the past year we've heard nothing but bitching about the "Do Nothing Democratic" Congress. Always asking who has the balls to stand up against the Republicans. I'm all for change, but real, substantive change that will move this country in a long, overdue progressive direction. I don't care about a change in tactics or coming together with a Republican agenda that defines the reasons I vote Democrat in the first place.

                    In these times of dire economic, political, foreign policy needs and the detrimental damage the NeoCons have done to this nation in the name of nothing other than a repulsive opportunity for personal gain and to ensure future gain by stacking the political decks ... conciliatory policies are not what I'm looking for. Touting a overtly right, centrist policy is exactly why we are currently in the weakened position we are in today.

                    As a person who was undecided between Edwards and Obama, you can bet your sweet patooty that Obama is out of the race for me. I could care less what every mind reading, apologist has to say about what he actually "meant to say." No thanks. I saw the entire interview  and know exactly the type of conciliatory policies on his agenda and the direction he wants to take my party.

                    Oh, and by the way, let's not forget the birth of dkos and what it represents when considering the DNC, much less a candidate that sits to far to the right of even that agenda.

                    My Homer is not a communist. He may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a communist, but he is not a porn star. -Grandpa Simpson

                    by xobehtedistuo on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 09:53:16 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Obama is the most liberal candidate running. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Fonsia

                      You need only compare records to know that.

                      The difference is the respect with which he treats others - or his tone.

                      He's not an apologist.  There is no evidence of that.

                      You mischaracterize.

                      What Washington needs is adult supervision. --BARACK OBAMA

                      by broui on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 11:26:26 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                •  But he did talk about health care, (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  highacidity, 417els, mamamedusa, Fonsia

                  the enviroment, the economy, and what he would have done if he was there during Hurricane Katrina.  He mentioned that he like the economic policies of the Clintons.  That HRC, Edwards, and he have a pretty similar health care plan.  He talked about how he wanted to make the process of this government transparent and to hear all side of the debate so that the citizens can make an educated decision about the issues.  He talked about the importance of people movements, which is where this quote is taken, and then finished up with how the Republican Revolution is done and people are tired of tax cuts for the rich and conservative policy and that the people can create a new reality if they wanted to because others in American history had before.  He talked for an hour about a myraid of subjects all connected to how he thinks Americans can take back the country with honest debate and discussion.  That you don't just run the buearacy but you try to fix and change it so it works for the people.  He also said that he wanted people with experience and good ideas. That he wanted, if he was nominated, a vice president that would be able to be president and also help him where he is weak.  

                  He talked about many things, but of course, the only part people focused on and MSM focused on was him talking about Reagan and a precieved bash against Clinton.  He complimented the Clintons several times, but they don't play that.  He complemented Al Gore and said he would be a great man to be an ambassor for this nation.  Doesn't get any play.

                  Obama said many things in that tape before and after that comment about Reagan that puts the Reagan comment in context with the other things he was saying about people developing their own power in government.  That is what would make the government 'cool'

                  But for some reason we are only able to discuss the fact that for ten seconds he discussed Reagan and the different trajectory that he put the country on.  The same way we discussed Hillary's two seconds of a speech to death for no real reason even though she was making a valid ideological point as well.  Both instances have been blown way way out of proprotion.

          •  Mo Udall comes to mind ... n/t (0+ / 0-)

            You kids behave or I'm turning this universe around RIGHT NOW! - god

            by Clem Yeobright on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:40:11 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  LOL! (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Clem Yeobright, lpeacock

            How old are you?  

            And NOBODY has run a primary campaign like this ever.

            Sorry, but that's just ridiculous.  And are you thrilled that MSNBC is saying your candidate is "ga-ga for the gipper?"

            If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. -- John F. Kennedy

            by Boston Boomer on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:19:03 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Obama critics please answer me this (9+ / 0-)

    What is wrong with increasing the size of the Democratic party?  

    What is wrong with a bigger tent?

    What is wrong with inviting Independents to join the party?

    What is wrong with inviting Republicans to leave their party and join the Democrats?

    Because that is what he means with this Reagan quote so many of you have demonized.

    And by the way, that is what he has already done in two states - grown the party with Indies and former Republicans.

    And that is what he is doing around the country even now.

    So what is wrong with winning, I mean really?

    I'm an Independent who will join the party on 2/9 when my state caucuses.

    Should I not?

    Am I not welcome?

    Was that quote about Reagan really so far out of line?

    Are you really that stupid?

    What Washington needs is adult supervision. --BARACK OBAMA

    by broui on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:23:42 PM PST

    •  Trust in our government (6+ / 0-)

      and our representatives has been so severely damaged that I (and I will grant you it may sound ridiculous) don't really want Republicans in my tent. Btw, I'm not anti-Obama, but I'm not sold and I did not demonize his remarks. Bringing up Reagan will produce negative responses, that is just a fact. I also don't believe that many of the voters that Obama draws think about politics in any sophiticated way. They certainly are not equal to some of the economic and poli sci references made here. So it gives me kind of a sick feeling to think about the charisma aspect of the whole Obama enthusiasm. Having seen the lack of backbone on the part of many Dems, my trust level is not good. I wish the "get over it" comments were a little less frequent. Some folks are trying to be thoughtful and are reticent about jumping on bandwagons.just sayin'.

      ..."For beauty," I replied. "And I for truth,-the two are one; We brethren are"... E. Dickinson

      by peagreen on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:40:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wow. (4+ / 0-)

        So, were you intending to insult me there or was I an exception to your rule about Obama supporter not thinking about politics in any sophisticated way?

        I think I see what you're driving at despite the insult though and maybe you hit on something I hadn't considered before.

        You or many like yourself have become so disappointed by the lack of anything resembling good government for the past 40 years that when the idea that maybe a candidate who just might be the real deal comes along, you are afraid to make yourself believe for fear of being disappointed.

        I understand.

        I am 40 years old.  

        Nixon
        Reagan
        Bush
        Clinton
        Bush

        What do they all have in common?  In some way, they all dishonored and disrespected the office of the presidency and thereby us - you and me and everyone else.  Some did it worse than others to be sure but they all did it.

        So, 36 out of 40 of those years ought to kill my faith in government, no?

        But, I believe that every so often in our country we are presented with the potential for great movements.  The door opens and we Americans choose to step through.

        FDR took us through.

        MLK, JFK, Bobby, and LBJ took us through.

        Lincoln

        You get the idea.

        I think we have that moment now.

        But it requires more than a simple majority.

        It requires Indies.  

        It requires even some republicans who have become really unhappy with their party.

        It requires a movement, not a majority.

        The door is open.

        Obama can lead us through.

        And before you criticize me for not being someone who thinks through politics in a sophisticated way.  I would argue that you are simply wrong there.  You don't know me.  You judge without knowing but I forgive you.  I refuse to be jaded right now.  I choose to believe.  I got a kid on the way.  I got no choice.

        What Washington needs is adult supervision. --BARACK OBAMA

        by broui on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:55:02 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  oh so sorry no insult intended (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          highacidity

          at all!!! I was thinking only of people I know who have been new to things political and really are not informed in a really sophiticated, went to college and studied stuff way. In fact I am a good bit older than you. Was wide awake through the 60's and lived in a big city where there was a lot political stuff going on around me.I was in no way criticizing. I never make personal remarks...it is not my nature. I understand what you are saying. Obama as not persuaded me. Maybe no candidate can.

          ..."For beauty," I replied. "And I for truth,-the two are one; We brethren are"... E. Dickinson

          by peagreen on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:07:53 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Okay. Not taken that way then. :) (5+ / 0-)

            But I will say this then.

            I am a high school teacher. I teach rhetoric.  I have not until this week revealed who I support this election.

            All fall semester, my students engaged in research, seminar, and debate about this election.  My seniors will vote this year.  Some will be eligible in time for our caucus/primary.  Some not until November..

            Long story short (unless you want to see the diary I did on it - link below), my students WANT to make a good decision.  They are on top of it this time in a way that I wasn't at their age.  They know the urgency of this election.

            And the results, well, the results were pretty overwhelming for Obama.  But their rationale was pretty thoughtful, not just for young adults, but they were thoughtful period.

            Nah, I think this year is a bit different from elections I've seen.  People are looking closer.  These blogs are not necessarily indicative of what's happening out there.

            The kids are thinking this through more than you think.

            The Seniors Weigh In

            What Washington needs is adult supervision. --BARACK OBAMA

            by broui on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:18:41 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  What are you complaining about? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Boston Boomer, peagreen

          Are you really that stupid?

          Insults?

          Slap happy is a platform.

          by averageyoungman on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:14:00 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  JFK won in a squeaker. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Clem Yeobright, lpeacock

          I was up all night watching the returns.  JFK knew how to fight dirty though.  He was real partisan Democrat.  He didn't take any garbage from Republicans.  

          If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. -- John F. Kennedy

          by Boston Boomer on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:25:30 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Obama is a Democrat too, and he will also (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mamamedusa, Fonsia

            refuse to take any garbage from the Republicans.  The Kum Bah Ya characterization of Obama is a misnomer.  Yes, he is rhetorically brilliant enough to reach across to independent and some rational Republican voters, but that doesn't mean he will allow himself to be swiftboated like John Kerry did.

            •  I thought Obama was the post-partisan (0+ / 0-)

              candidate.  I've been told that repeatedly.  JFK was definitely partison, as I said in my previous comments.

              If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. -- John F. Kennedy

              by Boston Boomer on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:05:28 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Just getting elected doesn´t do it (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Clem Yeobright, lightfoot

          It´s the policies (and I won´t call you stupid).

    •  What is wrong is that (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      averageyoungman, joanneleon, peagreen

      I don't believe it is just Obama who is increasing the size of the Demoratic Party.  Eight years of George Bush and the Republicans blocking any progress in Congress have done that.  Analysts are saying that any of the Democrats will beat any of the Republicans.  They all have been having great crowds turn out to see them.

      The problem is, that we are at a junction with the opportunity for great change, and, ON THE ISSUES, Obama is the least progessive of the top three candidates.  That is the reason I don't eant Obama.  I want a President who will take this great opportunity and REALLY turn things around.

      Also, in his statement, Obama talked about the "excesses" of the sixties and seventies.  You mean the programs for the poor and disadvantaged?  I saw the change that happened when people were turned out of institutions and denied welfare.  To this day, we are left with street people, in numbers that didn't exist before Reagan.

      •  Obama was talking about (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        arielle, mamamedusa, Fonsia

        the PERCEPTION of the excesses.

        I doubt that someone who devoted the early part of his life to serving the poor and the disadvantaged would see helping them as a bad thing.

        For crying out loud, look at his Illinois Senate record.

        When liberals saw 9-11, we wondered how we could make the country safe. When conservatives saw 9-11, they saw an investment opportunity.

        by onanyes on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:46:36 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well then he shouldn't pander to (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          santh

          Republicans or right-winged Independents by erecting the specter of Reagon.  They did perceive excesses where we saw justice, and I don't respect Obama playing political games.  I thought Obama was supposed to be the straight-forward and honest guy.

          Obama is smart and knew what he was doing.  

          •  He's not pandering. (5+ / 0-)

            He's tapping into their outrage.

            There is, courtesy of The Only President We Have, a group of people who are disillusioned with their previous;y held political philosophy and they are desperate for something that, well, works.

            These are NOT the few, the proud, the 29%ers. Nor are they they disgruntled Christian fundamentalists who are waxing poetic over Huckabee.

            These are (or, potentially, were) moderate Republicans and Independents who are open to being persuaded by logic, reason, verifiable data, and transparent process.

            Oh.  Teh.  Horror.

            I have the distinction of being called a media whore by Courtney Love. -Maynard J. Keenan

            by arielle on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:24:34 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not coming to vote against Republicans (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        highacidity, 417els, mamamedusa, Fonsia

        I'm coming to the Democratic party to vote FOR Barack Obama.

        I saw him in November 2006 when I purchased his book.  I read the book.  Then I read the older book.  Then I made my decision.

        In Iowa and NH, the evidence is that they are coming for Obama.

        Elsewhere, you will find the same thing.

        You are deluding yourself to think that it's enough to be "Not Bush".

        Further, Obama's record proves he is more progressive than Dennis Kucinich.

        Where do you get your information?

        What Washington needs is adult supervision. --BARACK OBAMA

        by broui on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:58:57 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  from Obama himself (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          greenapple, seancdaug, santh, lpeacock

          nuclear power, liquid coal, more free trade deals (Peru), not a true universal health care plan, etc.  He is just weaker than either Edwards or even Clinton.

          I am voting for both a good candidate AND the issues, not just a personality.

          And, yes, I am also voting for the Deocratic party.  I despise the positions of the Republicans and their "trickle down" mentality, another term introduced by Reagan.  We are suffering from that mentality more than ever today.

          •  Again, records don't back your argument. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            highacidity, cybrestrike, Fonsia

            He's not FOR nuclear power or liquid coal, he's interested in hearing if it can be done cleanly.  If it can't (and I seriously doubt it can) then do dice.)

            But you know that.

            His Health Care plan is as good as is likely to get passed for the time being.  I wish it were otherwise.  But, we have to move in steps.

            But, to assume that any one of the three plans (which are not very different from each other anyway) will be the same when they get done as they are now, is just naive.

            Again, Barack Obama has 25 years of walking the talk with no need of compromise.

            Edwards and Clinton cannot say that.  

            He is rated more Progressive than Kucinich.

            What Washington needs is adult supervision. --BARACK OBAMA

            by broui on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:29:36 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  He is also pro liquid coal (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              greenapple, Clem Yeobright

              If you saw the CNN/YouTube deate in July, he actually adovocated for nuclear power as "part of the mix", and Exelon, this country's top nuclear power company, is one of Obama'a top supporters.  Obama voted in favor of the  recnt energy bill that gives 25 billion dollars in tax aides to the creation of new nuclear power plants, of which there are now 29 in the planning process.  He is doing nothing but  moving forward with nuclear power, even if he is now fudging his language in Nevada.

              If you like all this, and some people do, go ahead and vote for him: but if you don't, take a closer look.

              •  he wants to research and evaluate everything (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                cybrestrike

                He's since backed away from liquid coal a bit but he's still talking about clean coal for power.

                Most people agree that an increase in our nuclear fleet is going to be required to ween ourselves off coal.  Plus many of the exiting plants are overdue for replacement with newer safer, more effecient designs and can't be due to political pressures.  As recently as ten years ago the plan was to replace all nuclear plants with coal.  The growing consensus is that that would be the worst possible thing to do.

                IMHO, Edwards is either ignorant, pandering, or really likes melted ice cream.

              •  Well good, I think folks who don't believe that (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                mamamedusa

                Nuclear is going to be part of the energy mix at least in the short term if we are going to reduce our CO2 emissions are naive.

                I guess this is probably an area where you and I disagree.

            •  Think you need to re-study BHO´s positions (0+ / 0-)
        •  And what happens if Obama is not the nominee (3+ / 0-)

          or fails the general, or when he leaves office?

          We need to draw in indies and Reps on the issues and values to stay with the party, not just the man.

          Thats what Reagan did, and I dont see Obama emulating that at all.

          Obama post-partisan retoric establishes nothing of branding for the party.

          Its all Obama or bust.

    •  Man, those people are coming anyway (0+ / 0-)

      A lot of them. It's not about Obama creating the moment, it's about him sensing it. But here's the thing, those people are coming because they've actually had a change of heart. They don't want war, they're sick of tax cuts for the wealthy and being scared to death. They aren't coming because of anything Obama is saying. They are coming because of the affect of the war, the economy, the hope, yes I said hope, stirred in a lot of people about the historic nature of this election. Not because a black man could be president, or a woman could, but because they will. Either one of them. The election is a total toss up right now, and is unlike any election we've ever had. There's no calling this primary (even though I did just call the GE), so we should just all sit back, reap the benefits of our boon, and let the candidates fight it out.

      Living with offense is the price we have to pay for living in a free and diverse society. Being offended is not the same as being oppressed. ~ Irshad Manji

      by belly on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:15:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not really. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        belly

        Some will to be sure.

        But many will just stay home in November if nobody inspires them, you can count on that.

        Same old shit means we stay home.

        What Washington needs is adult supervision. --BARACK OBAMA

        by broui on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:23:57 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I just explained to you (0+ / 0-)

          How this election will never ring a same old shit theme. Never. It's going to be exciting all the way down to the wire, at least primary-wise. Then we'll see how it shakes out. Turnout is going to be huge between the dissatisfied and disaffected, as well as those that are looking for a more optimistic message. This is an historic election. I think Dems stand to gain a huge mandate any way you look at it between Obama and Clinton (sorry Edwards supporters). If this means that you intend to stay home if you don't get your way, however,  well, that's another thing altogether.

          Living with offense is the price we have to pay for living in a free and diverse society. Being offended is not the same as being oppressed. ~ Irshad Manji

          by belly on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:34:42 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Essentially calling me a baby misses the point (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Fonsia

            Indies are coming out because we see Obama v. Clinton as Same Old Shit v. Maybe Something Moves Finally.

            If Same Old Shit wins in the primaries.

            Indies in large part will stay home in November.  Or vote 3rd party.

            What Washington needs is adult supervision. --BARACK OBAMA

            by broui on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:41:07 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I never called you a baby (0+ / 0-)

              Essentially or otherwise. Now you've identified yourself as an independent and suggested  that independents will stay home if Obama is not the nominee. We're almost there. Are you staying home if it's not Obama? Or voting 3rd party?

              Living with offense is the price we have to pay for living in a free and diverse society. Being offended is not the same as being oppressed. ~ Irshad Manji

              by belly on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:51:28 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I've always ID'd myself as and Indy (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                cybrestrike, Fonsia

                I have said since the day I started at the Kos, who I am.

                I am an Indy who tends to agree with Progressive views in the neighborhood of 75% of the time.  That makes me pretty liberal.

                I once thought of myself as a Democrat.

                I worked for Paul Tsongas in 1992.  

                I saw too much dirty politics from the Clintons, too much ugliness and it made me doubt.

                By 1994, I had completely left party affiliation because it became my view that parties were holding our country hostage with an ideological fight that most American didn't want any part of.

                I continue to hold that view.  Too many people in both parties are so passionate (too passionate?) about their ideologies that they have no respect for the views of others.

                Well these "other" are your neighbors, your friends, your family.  Their POV is just as valid as yours, despite how much it differs.  When you disrespect them, it turns many off of the process.

                If you can't see that, then no amount of calm rational discussion is going to help you.  Sorry.

                I have stated I have grown interested in coming back to the Democratic party because I see Obama as bringing a more rational human approach to our politics that invites EVERYONE in.  Not just your little (and I do mean little) club.

                I have stated that if your party is not smart enough to recognize what he brings to it by making him the nominee, I and many like me will do one of the following:  vote for Republican, vote 3rd party, stay home, or leave it blank.  

                I won't vote Republican.  But I would do one of the others, to answer your question because I have a long memory of the Clintons and what they did to Paul Tsongas, who was a good and decent man.

                And a myriad of other reasons.

                What Washington needs is adult supervision. --BARACK OBAMA

                by broui on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 07:10:55 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Paul Tsongas was my "first love" as a candidate (0+ / 0-)

                  Met him a few times, too. And, alas, went to his funeral. I have a good friend who was and is very close to Paul and the family. My friend is Obama all the way.

                  I really wonder what Niki will do--she's now a superdelegate and Bill campaigned for her. I think Niki always got along pretty well with Hillary, too.

                  Tough choice for her.

                  But I share your sentiments.

                  I wish Paul were still here.

                  May your entire existence be one sensuous, frolic-filled experience lived in defiance of care.

                  by Fonsia on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:31:31 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Edawrds supporters would NEVER stay away (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Clem Yeobright, lightfoot

            from the election and they will vote for whomever is the nominee. Problem is that it will be hard for me to be excited about Obama or Clinton.

    •  What´s needed is progressive policies (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Clem Yeobright, lightfoot

      that the President will work for and Obama is not providing those, in his "big tent" campaign.

  •  Exactly! (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dotster, cybrestrike, Fonsia, DaNorr

    That is what Senator Obama was talking about.

    Getting such a coalition together that we can accomplish everything we want to accomplish.

    It's takes someone who can convince the American people. And not just our side, but the middle and even some right of center Americans.

    Barack Obama is that person.

    It's not a sign of weakness to learn from a mistake. It's a sign of stupidity to keep doing the same things over and over without ever learning~Dave Dial

    by DAVE DIAL on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:24:28 PM PST

  •  The folks in Reno understood him (6+ / 0-)

    And the Reno Gazette-Journal just endorsed him.

    http://www.politico.com/...

    Barack Obama. Because we can do better.

    by poblano on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:29:40 PM PST

  •  Obama is smart - the Reagan comment was meant (14+ / 0-)

    Keith Olberman tonight suggested that part of the target audience for the Reagan comment was California- that many people in California supported Reagan- and even though they may not remember the policies, they remember their positive feeling.

    I think many people on the democratic side are trapped in a time warp - fighting the last war -- and not realizing the bankruptcy of interest group politics.

    The dems - especially Clinton and Edwards - have built careers and campaigns out of parsing the electorate, saying these and these and these are our people - and we will win if we get a bare majority.  That is a path to power - not a path to governing.  Yes Bush got power, and 8 years of destruction -- but now look at how repudiated he is among the American people, and how they are rejecting his party.

    Obama's message is that the magnitude of what confronts us -- global warming; income inequality; broken health care; export of jobs -- is so great that only a tidal wave of popular will can force the kinds of changes that begin to deal with these problems

    This is why I support him - because he has a strategy for winning that really works-- he is risking a lot by not running the traditional campaign- look at the flap over Reagan - but he has the potential to bring the greatest reward.

    In the 1960's, I wanted everything at once- an end to the war; racial equality, income equality; end to sexism and hatred of women -- but now, I am willing to settle on movement in the right direction.  It is naive to think that this country can change overnight -- just like you can't turn a super tanker on a dime.   But once you start turning -- it becomes really hard to stop.

    Obama is marshaling the forces that will start the turn to the left - it is amazing to me how people cannot see what an opportunity this is.

    "Ah, what an age it is when to speak of trees is almost a crime for it is a kind of silence about injustice" (Brecht)

    by tsackton on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:35:56 PM PST

    •  Excellent comment (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      onanyes, 417els, cybrestrike, Fonsia

      Reagan's damage took 28 years to take full effect.

      It may take that long to repair that damage and build something better.

      And you are right.  

      It will take an immense amount of political will over an extended period of time.

      You have to get far more than 50%+1 to make that happen.

      What Washington needs is adult supervision. --BARACK OBAMA

      by broui on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:41:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Lawrence O'Donnell made that comment (0+ / 0-)

      Not Olbermann. I don't have the transcript because it's not up yet, but I'll bet a TR this is the case. Normally this would be an innocuous inaccuracy, but given Olbermann's influence here I think it should be corrected.

      O'Donnell also suggested, carefully without using verbal extremities, that those who support Edwards - and by extension anyone left of Senator Obama - are [paraphrasing] "on the left side of the Democratic party." He mentioned this more than once. You mentioned risking a lot. Marginalizing the "left side" of the party - that's a big risk.

      Slap happy is a platform.

      by averageyoungman on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:07:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  yes, I think it was Lawrence O'donnell (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        highacidity

        I don't know how to edit a comment - but I think you were right.  It was O'Donnell that made the comment on Olberman's show.   But who said it is less important to me than the actual thought which I felt had merit.  I trust others will also judge it by the idea- not who said it.

        "Ah, what an age it is when to speak of trees is almost a crime for it is a kind of silence about injustice" (Brecht)

        by tsackton on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:58:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's an important distinction to make (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Clem Yeobright

          Considering O'Donnell apparently has something against Edwards, having recently written an article titled "Edwards is a loser."

          Being from California, I can tell you the idea that invoking Reagan's name is going to deliver Independents and Republicans to Obama is fanciful. If they break for him, it won't be the result of touting Reagan.

          Slap happy is a platform.

          by averageyoungman on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 06:29:35 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Well I consider myself on the "left" side of the (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mamamedusa, Fonsia

        Democratic party, and I support Obama, in large part because of Edward's horrible Senate voting record.  I can't believe these Edwards supporters who simply ignore his voting record, and then demonize Obama even though he has one of the more progressive voting records in the Senate.  The bottom line is that if Obama gets the nomination, he will clearly be the most liberal nominee that we have had in decades.

    •  It's frustrating (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Fonsia

      that more ppl here just don't get it. Clinton is more of the same, and despite her claim to "35 years blah blah blah," she actually has a very spotty, marginal and unremarkable record from her single term as senator. She's also from a different generation and is incapable of taking us forward in a way that we urgently need right now. Edwards is an ex-one-term senator without the judgement we desperately need after a Bush administration, who had the chance to do something for "the little people" and didn't. Obama is our best chance - a virtually spotless candidate with proven judgement, integrity, honesty, sincerity, intelligence, and vision who can inspire an entire nation that will likely never come again in our lifetime. It depresses me that more people can't see how outstanding this candidate is. They seem to want to cling to the candidate they identify with personally (e.g.,older women, boomer, blue collar) as opposed to identifying with what we need as a nation.

      A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves.

      by charlestown dem on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:22:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  If this is your first (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    highacidity, arielle

    I am looking forward to your second!

    Great job; well put together.

    When liberals saw 9-11, we wondered how we could make the country safe. When conservatives saw 9-11, they saw an investment opportunity.

    by onanyes on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:43:07 PM PST

  •  Let's face it, Obama's remarks about Reagan (12+ / 0-)

    were designed to get a nod of approval from rightwing independents and wavering Repubs--not Dems. This diary is an unsuccessful,laborious effort to convince progressives that Obama was being progressive and not simply pandering for votes from the right. Why this need to pander to the right?

    •  don't agree totally (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      highacidity, Fonsia, broui

      maybe he was saying that WE could get the kind of 40+ state victory that Reagan got?

      Pandering: that means tax cuts for the wealthy, draconian social measures, etc.  I didn't see him offering any of that.

      When liberals saw 9-11, we wondered how we could make the country safe. When conservatives saw 9-11, they saw an investment opportunity.

      by onanyes on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:48:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Apparently Obama not only needs someone to (6+ / 0-)

        keep his desk clean, he also needs interpeters to explain what he really was saying. I repeat: There is no reason for Obama to pander to the rightwing of the Repub party. The progressive wing of the Dem party is getting its usual short shrift in these Presidential races. At least John Edwards is still interested in mobilizing the progressive wing of the Dems. Heaven help progressives if JRE is not in the race to keep the heat on Obama and Clinton!

        •  Edwards is the one pandering! (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Fonsia

          He is pandering to a small group of "progressives" who are evidently too wrapped up in his rhetoric to actually go and look at his Senate record, where he voted for MFN status for China (that was a great help to the American worker and also a great aid to the cause of human rights!), he voted for the war, he voted for the Patriot Act, he voted for NCLB, he voted for bankruptcy deform, need I go on?  When will you guys realize that Edwards is a wolf in sheep's clothing who has tactically decided that the best way to win this primary is by tacking as far as he can to the left.  Don't get me wrong, I like the man's rhetoric now, but how can you trust him when he has changed his mind on so many issues.  He is our Mitt Romney!

          Oh, and yes I am still pissed off at him for being a lousy VP candidate, what makes you guys think that he will do any better at the top of the ticket?

          •  If he is pandering to "progressives" it is not (0+ / 0-)

            getting him as far as the pandering carried on by the other two candidates. What about Obama's and Clinton's Iraq funding votes enabling Bush to keep the killing going on? If Obama is true to his original convictions, why would he vote to fund an unpopular and illegal war? Pandering to the militarists or military industrial media complex? JRE has perhaps not voted the way you would like on certain bills, some of which I agree with you on, however, he has apparently been true to his claim that while in office he never took lobbyist money.  Can the same be said for Obama and Clinton? He is the only candidate of the three remaining who has opted for public financing of his campaign during the primaries? The others have opted to shun public financing and would apparently prefer to pander to large corporate donors to win.

            JRE is the only candidate who is talking about poor and working class issues directly as compared to the other two candidates and is the only one who directly confronts the issue of fighting the large corporations to wrest changes from them to deliver universal healthcare, support for the middle class, and to bring the focus back on creating and retaining American jobs. I support JRE because he is talking about an unpopular agenda, even among many Dems, an agenda that refuses to lap up the happy talk and the return to the 90's talk that is being promoted by the other two candidates. That said, I would support either Obama or Clinton if either is the nominee. At this point it is a no brainer. Edwards has the agenda I agree with and he is the guy I support.

            •  First of all, I never said Obama was perfect. (0+ / 0-)

              I didn't agree with his voting for funds, but he has since reversed his position on that issue and has recently voted against funding the war.

              Second, you falsely claim that John Edwards has not taken any money from lobbyists.  That is false.  He has taken $18,900.00 from lobbyists.  Now that is a percentage of his total contributions, but the same can be said about Obama.  Unfortunately, the same can not be said about Hillary Clinton who has taken a great deal more lobbyist money than anybody else in the race including all of the Republican candidates.

              Your claim that no other candidate is talking about the poor is also false.  Obama is  talking about poverty as well.  

              •  OK, I accept that Edwards received $18,900 (0+ / 0-)

                from lobbyists, although it is fair to assume that this low amount is tantamount to gaining no significant influence over a future President Edwards.  As to speaking about the poor and middle class, such discussion forms the centerpeice of the Edwards campaign while it is absolutely not the centerpiece of the Obama and Clinton campaigns. None of what you say causes me any concern about the authenticity of the Edwards campaign. In fact, I made another contribution to Edwards today after reading your comments. Good luck to you and your candidate, as well!

      •  What do you see Obama offering (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lpeacock, crazyshirley2100

        in terms of social programs?  From the quotes in the Nevada interview and others, I get the feeling he wants to cut or privatize social programs.  Apparently his primary economic advisor is pro-privitization.

        If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. -- John F. Kennedy

        by Boston Boomer on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:29:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Where do you get this crap from! (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cybrestrike

          He has said nothing about cutting or privatizing social programs!  Where are your "quotes"?  This is another blatent lie!

          •  He said that the changes Reagan made (0+ / 0-)

            in social programs were needed.  The quotes have been posted all over Daily Kos, along with the video of the interview.  Watch it yourself.  When someone speaks approvingly of Ronald Reagan making needed adjustments in LBJ's poverty programs and then says Reagan taught us that "individual responsibility" is a good thing, I tend to get very suspicious.  "Individual responsibility" is code for removing the safety need that keeps people from homelessness and poverty.

            If you trust Obama when he uses these Republican code words, that's up to you.  When Obama parrots Reaganite language like that, it doesn't make me want to vote for him. He, himself emphasized during the last debate that words are powerful.  He knows exactly what he's doing when he uses right-wing code words.  The message should come through loud and clear to anyone who lived through the Reagan era.

            If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. -- John F. Kennedy

            by Boston Boomer on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:15:38 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  No he didn't say they were needed; he actually (0+ / 0-)

              made it clear that he didn't agree with many of Reagan's ideas.  He never said that cuts in social programs were needed.  You are putting words into Obama's mouth!  Give it a rest!!!

          •  And why does he have two senior (0+ / 0-)

            campaign staff members who support privitization?  Why is his top donor Goldman Sachs?

            If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. -- John F. Kennedy

            by Boston Boomer on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:16:42 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  I don't think so. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      arielle, broui

      The guy is a professor. I think he was talking in a quasi-academic sense about why Reagan won.

      The Grand Hissyfit (Also known as the reaction to Ned Lamont's endorsement of Barack Obama).

      by bhagamu on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:58:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Unfortunately, it followed his comments (8+ / 0-)

        about turning away from the changes made by activists in the '60s-'70s. Some of us paid dearly. I'm not willing to give up those changes for anyone's vague vision. We've had more than enough of that from the neocons.

        Every time I hear him, I like him less -- and I spent most of my adult life in academia. I'll keep reading, though.

        "This chamber reeks of blood." -- Sen George McGovern, 1970

        by cotterperson on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:10:00 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  He said "excesses" (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          417els, cybrestrike

          You said "changes made by '60s and '70s activists". Where did he say what you said, and in what context?

          The Grand Hissyfit (Also known as the reaction to Ned Lamont's endorsement of Barack Obama).

          by bhagamu on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:58:02 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You're right. He said "excesses." (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Boston Boomer, lpeacock

            Another generality open to personal interpretation.

            Frankly, I preferred the excesses of activism to our corporate-media hypnotized electorate of today. We don't need to be overcome by anyone's hazy, golden vision.

            We need some hard truths: Our country has been taken over by corporate crooks. They've cost thousands of lives, our entire treasury, and debt that will last two or three generations.

            Edwards wants to take them out. So do I. That's a pretty specific vision, and it MUST happen be if we are to take back our democracy to any degree.

            imho

            "This chamber reeks of blood." -- Sen George McGovern, 1970

            by cotterperson on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:15:29 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I was under the impression that he was referring (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              cotterperson, cybrestrike, Fonsia

              to Vietnam and stagflation. Remember, before the Reagan years, the narrative was that Democrats (Truman, Johnson) started wars and Republicans (Eisenhower, Nixon) ended them.

              It doesn't matter why we got into war, or that Nixon exacerbated Vietnam - it's the perception that's important, because ultimately people make decisions based on what they perceive.

              So, if the perception was that Democrats did nothing to alleviate stagflation and show more restraint as far as wars are concerned, Reagan capitalized on that perception. As far as the truth goes, I believe that Carter didn't surround himself with the most capable people, and frustration with the Korean and Vietnam wars was justified. I don't believe that the Republican Party is fit for taking credit for it, just like I don't believe that the Democratic Party should be reaping the rewards of Bush's failures (as in, they have to earn it by doing the right things).

              The perception now is that Bush starts wars, crashes economies and is a general all-round incompetent. I fully expect Obama to capitalize on that perception and use turn that negative energy - the sinking feeling you get when you think the country is on the wrong track - into a positive force for possibility.

              The Grand Hissyfit (Also known as the reaction to Ned Lamont's endorsement of Barack Obama).

              by bhagamu on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 09:19:43 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Excesses of the '60's and '70's were exactly (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lpeacock

          what the activists in the '60's and '70's were targeting!

          "Evil is a lack of empathy, a total incapacity to feel with their fellow man." - Capt. Gilbert,Psychiatrist, at the end of Nuremberg trials.

          by 417els on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:40:14 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  If there is one weakness with Obama, it is that (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Fonsia

        sometimes you can tell that he reverts to talking in an Academic sense, and unfortunately that doesn't always play well with some voters.

        However, I personally think that it is refreshing after 8 years of dumbya!

    •  Excuse me, but while I think that Reagan was an (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cybrestrike, Fonsia

      absolute and total disaster for this country, you can't deny the fact that he recieved a lot of votes from Democrats, not just "rightwing independents and wavering Republicans."  Obama is trying to bring the Reagan democrats (many of whom are finally seeing the folly of 28 years of GOP rule) back into the fold, and you Edwards purists berate him for his efforts, all the while ignoring Edwards DLC voting record in the Senate!  I am sick and tired of all of the hit pieces on Obama!  Get over it!!!!

  •  great diary. n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    boofdah
  •  It's nice that you understand so completely (7+ / 0-)

    But don't you think it's strange for a candidate to say something so unclear that we've been arguing for weeks what he meant by it? That we're still having diaries as long as yours trying to interpret it?

    He's perfectly capable of saying what he means. I choose to take what candidates say at face value - I'm not going to try to read their minds. Something so open to interpretation must have been said deliberately, and I can only assume the purpose is to appeal to as many people as possible by saying as little that's clear and specific as possible.

    •  It makes me wonder if his supporters ever get (5+ / 0-)

      tired of having to explain his statements so frequently that it seems it has become a necessary  habit, almost a condition of being a supporter.

      It shouldn't be that hard  to be a supporter of anyone that they need to interpret what he/she "really meant" that the rest of us aren't hearing or seeing as we read.

      I have faith in the intelligence of this community and the other sites in the progressive blogosphere I go to.

      This esoteric language that only Barack Obama's supporters seem to decipher correctly is a weird phenomenon one I have not observed in watching 35 years of politics in America.

      •  I get very tired of defending smears, yes. (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        folgers, 417els, fisheye, cybrestrike, Fonsia

        Thanks for asking.

        What Washington needs is adult supervision. --BARACK OBAMA

        by broui on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:30:52 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  It's really not that hard. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cybrestrike, Fonsia

        His words are clear and don't require much reading into. But when people insist on reading conservative code into otherwise plain language about uncomfortable topics it really betrays their own insecurity so people like this diarist step up to assuage the fear.

        And if you don't get it but want to, he's published two books recently and has a web site for more lengthy, in depth discernment of his brief media references. He explains quite clearly his repulsion to Reagan policy yet his "understanding" (not adulation) of Reagan's appeal to the electorate, in the first chapter of The Audacity of Hope.

        It's unfortunate 'Reagan' and 'liberal success' are not complimentary terms but that is reality, despite what some people are not willing to talk about.

        •  Why do you suppose (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Boston Boomer, lpeacock

          would be my reason for placing a conservative slant that isn't there on what any Democrat has to say? It's so unlikely that I would do that that the burden is on you to come up with a plausible motivation.

          The answer is that I have none. I'm an Edwards supporter, but I know he's not going to win, and Obama is probably my second choice. I will support him enthusiastically if he's our nominee. I'm a Democrat and I like all our Democratic candidates.

          I don't think the issue is with his books or his web site. Most people will never look at either - they will vote based on what he says on TV. My choice of Edwards was based on how he is conducting his campaign much more than it is what's on his web site. He's completely clear about what he's running on. If I'm still unclear about what Obama's running on, it's because he's being unclear, not because I'm out to attack him. Because I'm not.

          •  Well, John Edwards won't talk about (0+ / 0-)

            Reagans success so I guess his supporters don't have to think about it. That is easy.

            •  "Reagan success" is an oxymoron unless you are (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Clem Yeobright, lpeacock

              a "Master of the Universe" or part of the top 1% of the wealth accumulators of the US

              This is the weirdest discussion 2 democrats have ever engaged in..... "Reagan successes???!!!!

              I'm assuming you are a Democrat?

              •  Yeah I'm a Democrat but I have this weird (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                mamamedusa, cybrestrike, Fonsia

                way of seeing my parties defeat as a Republican victory. I guess it's a really difficult concept to grasp that Reagan was 'succusful'. But he was very effective in implimenting his agenda and getting elected with a huge mandate and then reelected and then leading his party to more Republican success in George Bush's successful campaign in 1988. And if it wasn't for Reagan's legacy they probably wouldn't have successfully installed GB junior into the white house in 2000. But hey it's only history and facts and the destruction of progressivism in America.

                This is why I think people are willfully obtuse. I can't imagine that I really have to explain the concept of Ronald Reagan having been a success. I'm about done posting here.

            •  That's not an answer (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              lpeacock

              Did you even READ what I said?

              Besides which - are you suggesting that Reagan's success is a campaign issue that all the candidates should be discussing? Silly idea.

      •  Thanks for the sanity, Merbex (0+ / 0-)
  •  Ronald Reagan: (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MadRuth, elesares, santh, crazyshirley2100

    More dead than ever.

    I am endlessly vindicated by the unfolding of history.

    by Rob Cole on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:51:43 PM PST

  •  Just wanted to point out (5+ / 0-)

    LBJ's landslide was not about "sympathy" for the assassination of JFK, it was a resounding repudiation of right-wing nutcase Barry Goldwater and his running mate (Curtis LeMay?) who threatened to nuke North Vietnam if elected (not to mention the rest of the wingnut agenda they were touting, which most Americans in those days found appalling). Ronald Reagan became a perennial candidate starting in 1968, but was always considered to extreme to ever win the nomination. What happened in 1980 was a sort of perfect storm of economic hardship and international humiliation, which Reagan was able to take advantage of...and once in power, was able to push the nation ideologically to the right (there was a long process leading up to this, and  I think the main lesson Democrats can take from the "Reagan revolution" is the importance of patience, of keeping on keeping on even when all those around you call you a nut.

    I have to admit I missed the controversy, I've been very busy offline, but it seems strange to tout Reagan for "generational change"--usually when this phrase is used in connection with Obama's campaign it signifies the idea of a "new generation" of leadership, i.e., somebody young, like Obama. Reagan was on the verge of 70 when he was sworn in....how does that fit?

    "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

    by Alice in Florida on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:52:13 PM PST

    •  here generational doesn't mean (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Fonsia

      human age, it means political era--the reaganite views that dominated the US for a generation (1980-2008).

      obama is saying what many have already said: that 2008 may be another realignment election that may bring about the dominance of the left the way reagan brought about the dominance of the right.

  •  Well, halfway there (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MadRuth, Boston Boomer, Lura

    However, the only reason that Reagan was able to win a generational victory with the young people of the 80s for conservatism that persists to this day is that he put fighting for those conservative doctrines right out there front and center.  That is what Obama precisely does not do with progressive principles.  Reagan rallied the young and the white against liberalism, he certainly didn't mush up his ideological positioning with takl of "unity" except insofar as he meant unity in destroying liberalism, the New Deal, unions, the Great Society etc.  

  •  Though this will get lost in the comment shuffle (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fisheye, Fonsia

    thought I'd mention in one of these Reagan diaries the timing of this Reagan discussion and the current caucus environment.

    There is a large latino population in both California and in Nevada.

    Remember it was Saint Ronnie who committed the ultimate sin in the wild eyed conservative mind.

    Ronnie was the one who granted what has been termed "amnesty".

    Many of the people who were given the opportunity to become citizens through that act by Saint Ronnie are now able to vote.

    And the other two biggies, or their surrogates, have been critical of Barack Obama's Reagan analysis.

    HEY YOU KIDS! GET OFF MY LAWN!!

    Mike Gravel for President, 2008

    by Walt starr on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:55:28 PM PST

  •  Thank you for your sanity. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    arielle, fisheye, cybrestrike

    I like this diary. Your thinking is very clear and methodical. Great job!

    The Grand Hissyfit (Also known as the reaction to Ned Lamont's endorsement of Barack Obama).

    by bhagamu on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:56:42 PM PST

  •  Nailed it! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    arielle, jules4sail

    Why this isn't completely obvious to all "progressives" remains the mystery that has kept us from forming a governing majority for so many years.  

    Maybe that will change after 2008.

  •  I Think You Are Correct (4+ / 0-)

    Obama wants to be the guy who comes in and creates the next revolutionary wave.  The Reagan wave is still crashing on the beach.  He's saying, "I'm the next thing."  I think that is great.

    For primary voters like myself, though ...  Some of us need more substance.  I need him (and Sen. Clinton as well) to take a weekend off, read up about FDR and the New Deal and then come back to us and tell us that "Government is going to help everyday Americans again."

    Seriously.

    Because being "transcendent change" is one thing, but it needs to be the right change for the times.  Obama's platform is not as strong as the other candidates' platforms.  He needs to build some extra credibility in the eyes of people like me who are looking for substance.

    Obama, save me from your followers.

    by bink on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:58:43 PM PST

    •  I don't think he looks at government that way (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cybrestrike, Fonsia

      and for sure doesn't want to encourage others to.

      He's not about "what government can do for you."  He's working from the perspective of "what you can do for yourself by making government your own."

      He wants to totally tear down the "us and them" concept of government and return it to "of and by the people."  He's about empowering people and "what government will do for you" is absolutely disempowering.

  •  You found yesterday's diary painful? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    arielle, jules4sail, mamamedusa

    Pain is one thing, but did it sting your soul?



    Obama: "You can disagree without being disagreeable."
    dKos: "If you aren't disagreeable, you aren't really disagreeing."

    by Vincenzo Giambatista on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:59:39 PM PST

  •  you ought to work for Barrack (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    boofdah

    as a PR manager, you certainly hit it out of the park with this diary. Brava!

    "The Meek Will Inherit The Earth" -8.13/-7.03

    by donailin on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:02:25 PM PST

  •  Someone should ask Obama if the Philadelphia (9+ / 0-)

    speech by Reagan exemplifies the hope and sunny optimism he admires in Reagan.

  •  Obama should be lambasted (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    baxxor, elesares, santh, Lura

    ...if only for causing the word Re*gan to be typed a gazillion time on this blog, and causing Obama supporters to go into contortions justifying why that disaster of a president should be emulated in any way, shape or form.

    FWIW, after positioning himself for health care "choice" and "affordability," spreading the SS "crisis" meme, trashing 60s and 70s legacies, and other "third way" plays for the Re*gan conservative vote, it's rather a Clinton or Edwards victory that would most clearly "bury" that man.

  •  It's sort of a pattern by now, isn't it? (5+ / 0-)
    1. Obama sends right wing dogwhistle.
    1. OFB rushes to explain what he "really means."
    1. Rinse, repeat.

    It gets old.

    [x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

    by lambertstrether on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:08:33 PM PST

  •  One Word - Whatever! n/t (0+ / 0-)

    "America Rising" - John Edwards we are with you.

    by totallynext on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:10:40 PM PST

  •  I can see the daily kos headlines 2010 (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TeresaInSammamishWA, santh

    What were we thinking supporting Reagan light.

    "America Rising" - John Edwards we are with you.

    by totallynext on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:13:14 PM PST

  •  I would compare Obama's comments (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    maxalb, santh, Fonsia, broui

    to those of Ron Reagan, Jr.

    It is possible to admire the Reagan's style without embracing his politics.

    Reagan took a swipe at Bush during the 2000 GOP convention in Philadelphia, which featured a tribute to his father, telling the Washington Post's Lloyd Grove, "The big elephant sitting in the corner is that George W. Bush is simply unqualified for the job... What's his accomplishment? That he's no longer an obnoxious drunk?" Since then he's been quiet about the current occupant of the White House -- until now

    .

    My father had decades of experience in public life. He was president of his union, he campaigned for presidential candidates, he served two terms as governor of California -- and that was not a ceremonial office as it is in Texas. And he had already run for president, against Ford in '76, nearly unseating the sitting president in his own party. He knew where he was coming from, he had spent years thinking and speaking about his views. He didn't have to ask Dick Cheney what he thought.

    "Sure, he wasn't a technocrat like Clinton. But my father was a man -- that's the difference between him and Bush. To paraphrase Jack Palance, my father crapped bigger ones than George Bush.

    "The people from Hope are arguing against hope." Maureen Dowd

    by jules4sail on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:14:46 PM PST

  •  I think Edwards can do better than Obama (0+ / 0-)

    But that's just me.

    Contrary to popular belief, there are Americans that are sick of Democrats capitulating to Republicans all the freaking time, compromising their voters and principles in the process.

    We definitely don't need to keep doing this.

    Whatcha gonna do, Chris Matthews, whatcha gonna do when Barack Obama and John Edwards run wild on you?

    by Brad007 on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:18:41 PM PST

  •  Just curious (4+ / 0-)

    How do you repudiate someone by adopting their talking points? Must be reverse psychology!!

    We support John Edwards because John Edwards supports us!!

    by RDemocrat on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:25:31 PM PST

  •  If a Clinton weren't running for president (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    steve9431, sima, crazyshirley2100

    He'd have probably invoked Clinton.

    However, Reagan is less of an enemy to Obama than Clinton is, so he invoked Reagan.

    Well, if you take that analogy a bit further than Obama did, Reagan was the guy who talked a big positive story, but his actions were just plain wrong.

    I can't vote for a guy who would ever invoke a Reagan analogy to make an argument for positive change, especially since the Reagan-fluffy-speeches-actual-incompetence-evil vibe is the vibe I've always gotten from Obama too.  And someone mentioned the hideous Republican dog-whistles Obama's been throwing out there too, while his DailyKos apologists try to smooth things out.  Those come into play too.  

    I can't vote for Clinton either.  I'm too suspicious of that Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton hideousness

    Looks like I'm staying home this November.  And yep, it may mean the Republican wins.  If it happens, maybe we'll get a DECENT Democrat in the White House next time.

    •  Please... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Clem Yeobright, maxalb

      ... if you find yourself unable to vote, remember:

      The Supreme Court

      The Supreme Court

      The Supreme Court

      If for no other reason, for this alone.

    •  Your staying home could be permanent... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      maxalb

      Looks like I'm staying home this November.  And yep, it may mean the Republican wins.  If it happens, maybe we'll get a DECENT Democrat in the White House next time.

      Because if the Republicans win in November, there may not be a "next time".

      In fact, I'm one of those holding their breath that BushCo doesn't manufacture an opportune emergency to enact marshal law and cancel the '08 election.

      "Evil is a lack of empathy, a total incapacity to feel with their fellow man." - Capt. Gilbert,Psychiatrist, at the end of Nuremberg trials.

      by 417els on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 01:07:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's awfully shrill.... (0+ / 0-)

        But I don't think hiring either of our two Republicrat frontrunners will help matters too much.

        •  I hope you are absolutely correct. (0+ / 0-)

          Way back I read Tommy Franks' article describing how marshal law will be executed and enforced when the next terror attack happens.  Carrying out of scheduled elections are not part of the plan.

          He was speaking in the declarative, not hypothetical, and confirmed in a question session that he does not consider it hypothetical - just a matter of when it will come about.

          Made my skin crawl then and it still does.  BushCo, so far, has gotten away with whatever they want...I put nothing past them.  Nothing.

          "Evil is a lack of empathy, a total incapacity to feel with their fellow man." - Capt. Gilbert,Psychiatrist, at the end of Nuremberg trials.

          by 417els on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 07:25:00 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  imho, John Edwards would disagree and so would (0+ / 0-)

          Elizabeth.  If he is not the Democratic nominee next November, do you believe they will throw up their hands, say it doesn't make much difference whether or not the Democrats take back the White House and wander home to sit it out?

          "Evil is a lack of empathy, a total incapacity to feel with their fellow man." - Capt. Gilbert,Psychiatrist, at the end of Nuremberg trials.

          by 417els on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 07:38:49 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  He can't. The presidential election is run by (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        417els

        each individual state, not by the federal government.

        Also, after Lincoln didn't try to cancel the election during the Civil War, Bush couldn't get away with that now.

        Although I've no doubt that somehow a national emergency will just kinda happen at the most opportune moment. But that will be an attempt to swing the election, not to cancel it.

        May your entire existence be one sensuous, frolic-filled experience lived in defiance of care.

        by Fonsia on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:56:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ooops 'Hope you're correct' was meant for you. (0+ / 0-)

          Accidentally posted it under another comment.

          "Evil is a lack of empathy, a total incapacity to feel with their fellow man." - Capt. Gilbert,Psychiatrist, at the end of Nuremberg trials.

          by 417els on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 08:54:40 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  I disagree on many levels (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elesares, belly, crazyshirley2100

    Partisanship Was Never the Problem.

    FDR had to fight for legislation to not only pass, but not be blocked by the SCOTUS, he didn't bridge the partisan gap, he even had his own cabinet against the court packing bill, but he proceeded on thus winning the war and getting key parts of the New Deal enacted into law. It wasn't from bringin the supporters of the Four Horsemen in the SCOTUS and finding common ground. Most of the substantive changes through history did come from a movement from the bottom up, but that doesn't mean that they came from unity. There are a lot of problems here; what you think its going to make a difference in Reagan Democrats has to do with the switch from Dixiecrat to Republican, because Reagan was a Dixiecrat by nature, thus supporting Barry Goldwater who was against the Civil Rights Acts of 1963-64- and 65:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

    His start in politics occurred during his work for G.E.; originally a member of the Democratic Party, he switched to the Republican Party in 1962. After delivering a rousing speech in support of Barry Goldwater's presidential candidacy in 1964, he was persuaded to seek the California governorship, winning two years later and again in 1970. He was defeated in his run for the Republican presidential nomination in 1968 as well as 1976, but won both the nomination and election in 1980.

    The Democratic party that Reagan espoused was not the party of FDR, though he did admire him in his early career, until he switched:

    A registered Democrat and admirer of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Reagan supported the New Deal before shifting rightwards out of a desire for a more limited federal government, endorsing the presidential candidacies of Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956 as well as Richard Nixon in 1960.[39] Following the election of John F. Kennedy, Reagan formally switched to the Republican Party in 1962, saying "I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The party left me.

    Of course Reagan is referring to the old philosophy that a lot political parties share in some way at one time; Laissez-faire is associated with classical liberalism, libertarianism, and Objectivism, until Social Liberalism became prevalent through Europe and added on to by FDR who redefined liberalism by setting forth the New Deal. Barry Goldwater also adopted a lot of it's principles into how he redefined the Conservative movement, when he wrote, "Conscience of a Conservative."  The Dixiecrats who switched to the Republican party as a whole after 62 also share these views, and that is not a sect I want to particularly relate to or bring together.

    We need antitrust laws and government regulation. The market is not going to correct itself, which is why I don't like Obama's market appeal to Health insurance. Its not that we can't afford it, it runs inefficiently and people don't get what they pay fo because of the interests that will have a seat at the table. We need so we should remember what was actually appealing to Reagan Democrats and it's not the same dynamic at all. It's states rights, tax cuts, and everything else that was appealing to Dixiecrats in the south.

    You give up real progressive values when you are willing to compromise with the opposition, especially if the opposition has been wrong about almost every policy to date. And we already have what you call a progressive movement in Congress, Reaching out there is only exacerbating our problems. In order to bring people together, there has to be two rational sides and there are not.

    I do commend your historical references, which add up to a lot, BUT I highly disagree with your assessment.

    I've been told: "You're Jimmy Carter posting under a pseudonym!" Tip $ 2 JRE 08

    by priceman on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:29:39 PM PST

  •  Flip Wilson Joke (0+ / 0-)

    long story short...the punchline...
    "I come to seize your berry, not to praise it!"

  •  Conservatism will get a 'seat at the table' (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elesares, belly, santh

    That's Obama's philosophy: Everybody gets a seat at the table.

    Proof? Donnie McClurkin. He got a seat at the table.

    That's what you can look forward to with an Obama presidency. Conservatives, anti-gay bigots and jeebus knows who else, all in their seats at the table.

    •  Hmm. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      grimc, nobody at all, Fonsia

      Yeah, that was a dark time, no doubt about it.

      Although, do you believe it would be a sign of progress to get religious zealots and LGBT advocates to sit down at the table and talk?  Because I think Obama might be able to get them to, and in my opinion, that would be a small step forward.

      If Israelis and Palestinians supposed to sit at a table together and talk then surely we can get the religious zealots and LGBT advocates to talk.

      •  I'll concede that he can get them together. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Clem Yeobright, demoKatz

        But for all his rhetorical talents and charm, do you honestly believe that Obama is going to get fundamentalists to change what they believe is God's word?

        I mean, come on.

        And the comparison with the IP conflict doesn't hold up. That's a situation where one factor of the entire conflict is religion. The anti-gay crusade that McClurkin is symbolic of is based on religion.

        Obama is a lot of things, but he's no prophet. He's not going to get fundies to listen to his interpretation of the Bible.

      •  A seat at the table does NOT mean they control (0+ / 0-)

        the menu nor does it mean they're given sharp knives.

        US Democracy dictates a place at the table for the minority party.  Unfortunately, right-wing mob rule has ignored this for so long that we forget how our government is supposed to conduct its business.

        "Evil is a lack of empathy, a total incapacity to feel with their fellow man." - Capt. Gilbert,Psychiatrist, at the end of Nuremberg trials.

        by 417els on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 01:18:45 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  LOL, why would they sit at the table (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Clem Yeobright, maxalb

          If they can't use the same knives they've always used.  

          Compromise with Republicans ALWAYS means giving them exactly what they want.

          •  "Always" meaning since BushCo illegally grabbed (0+ / 0-)

            power 7 years ago.  It has not ALWAYS been as it is, and provided the sitting criminals can be pried out of their offices next Nov. American government can begin to operate the way it was intended.

            Compromise and negotiation are NOT the same as capitulation...which, unfortunately, is all we've seen from the current Dem leadership in recent years.

            If the GOPers choose not to take an offered seat at the table, so be it.  But excluding them from the invitation list would be inappropriate and merely sliding into the same repulsive slime pit from which BushCo has governed.

            "Evil is a lack of empathy, a total incapacity to feel with their fellow man." - Capt. Gilbert,Psychiatrist, at the end of Nuremberg trials.

            by 417els on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 05:43:47 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Insurance companies (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Clem Yeobright, maxalb

      They also get a seat at the table...

  •  Well written fantasy bullshit (8+ / 0-)

    the bottom line is that Obama called Reagan a "great President," and that was his message.  The rest was fluff and garbage.  Remember what your high school writing teacher taught you about the five paragraph theme?  "Tell 'em what you're going to tell 'em, tell 'em, then tell 'em what you told 'em."  Okay, let's look at what Barack actuallly said. Remember, the first sentence is the subject, the middle is the content, and the end is the summary:

    But I think, when I think about great presidents,

    Get it?  What will follow will be a discussion of presidents who are GREAT. Okay, next:

    I think about those who transform how we think about ourselves as a country in fundamental ways so that, that, at the end of their tenure, we have looked and said to ours—that’s who we are. And, and our, our—and for me at least, that means that we have a more expansive view of our democracy, that we’ve included more people into the bounty of this country. And, you know, there are circumstances in which, I would argue, Ronald Reagan was a very successful president, even though I did not agree with him on many issues, partly because

    That's the heart of his statement, and the only President mentioned by name was Reagan.  Get it?  His message was simple- Reagan was a great President.  So how does he end this statement?

    at the end of his presidency, people, I think, said, "You know what? We can regain our greatness. Individual responsibility and personal responsibility are important." And they transformed the culture and not simply promoted one or two particular issues.

    And the summary is Reagan was great because when he left the White House, people believed.

    Well, it is all bullshit.  Reagan did not leave people thinking about "individual responsibility and personal responsibility."  Hell, people left that presidency thinking "the only reason we didn't indict the sonofabitch was because he was senile."  

    You can parse his words all you want to make them mean something different, but you will be entirely full of shit.  Obama's message was simple- "Reagan was great." That, to me, is entirely unacceptable, and a perfect example of Obama's continued triangulation and pandering to the right.

    Punch up your blogs and publications with cartoons from independent lefty artists.

    by dhonig on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:34:37 PM PST

    •  hey look, ma (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      folgers, arielle, HRs Kevin

      if you cut out words, it looks like they said something different from what they did!

      •  Perhaps you could tell me which words (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        elesares, santh

        I cut out?  

        Punch up your blogs and publications with cartoons from independent lefty artists.

        by dhonig on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:16:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  the entire context (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          arielle, mamamedusa, Fonsia

          in which it's evident that he thinks Reagan is wrong and that he wants to reverse his legacy by restoring people's belief that government, acting on progressive policies, can serve a positive role in people's lives. The part where, with a bit of humor, he said he wanted to make government "cool" again and reverse the Reaganite perception that it was a refuge for failures and incompetents.

          That part was kind of important, especially seeing as how it was the whole thesis of his argument.

        •  You put in "Reagan is Great!" (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          arielle, HRs Kevin

          You put those words in quotation marks, just as if Obama had quoted them.

          And then you invited us to "parse" the quote that never occurred.  

          Pat Leahy? Zoe Lofgren? They are naive chidren Reagan worshippers that have no experience with the right wing attack machine.

          by Inland on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 06:10:53 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You are wrong (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Clem Yeobright

            I did not write the quote above, I wrote that he included Reagan in "great Presidents," an irrefutable conclusion.  Additionally, I was accused above of "cutting out words," and challenged my false accuser, only to get a bullshit wishy-washy response.  In other words, you are just plain flat out wrong.  That, or a damnable liar.  I prefer to believe wrong and await an apology.

            Punch up your blogs and publications with cartoons from independent lefty artists.

            by dhonig on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 02:07:30 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  I'm thinking you're too much like Reagan for me. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      arielle

      After quoting Obama at length, you conclude:

      Obama's message was simple- "Reagan was great."

      actually putting in quotes the ONLY thing Obama DIDN'T say.

      And you dislike Reagan because he took the easy way out by lying to people?  How hypocritical.

      Pat Leahy? Zoe Lofgren? They are naive chidren Reagan worshippers that have no experience with the right wing attack machine.

      by Inland on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 06:09:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Very thoughtful (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    maxalb, crazyshirley2100

    Hi, what a well-written first dairy.

    It offers a thoughtful perspective and, as an Edwards supporter, I am pleased to see, some clarification of Senator Obama's position on Reagan.

    In my opinion, though, it doesn't reflect what actually happened during that time period. Ronald Reagan was not elected with a mandate for his policies. Ronald Reagan was elected with a mandate for himself. And a mandate against change. There had been so much progress, and upheaval, on many fronts, and there was a natural shift of the pendulum to a status quo so all the changes could be absorbed. Ronald Reagan didn't create that shift; he took advantage of it. He was a very popular actor who appeared in movies and on a nationally telecast show "General Electric Theater," before he became a governor and then president. People came to love his mellow voice and his genial appearance. But his domestic policies caused much hurt. We set off down the wrong road.

    The pendulum was never pushed back enough, and has continued to swing very far off track during the last seven years, with President Bush in office. We don't need a quiet time of unity to solidify those backward swings. Just the reverse, we need to push with all our might to get that pendulum swinging all the way back to forward progress. We have been through a strange sort of slumber for the last twenty some-odd years, and we are very far behind. Paul R. Ehrlich wrote "The Population Bomb" in the late 60s and most of us forgot about the book, but the population didn't forget to grow. We understood the concept of ecology in the 70s, then most forgot all about it, but the damage to the environment and its living creatures didn't stop.

    Of course, we need civility. Of course, we need to include everyone on the basis of our common humanity and common dreams. But the best way to achieve that goal, I think, is to be candid and open with all others, and say straight out what it is we stand for. That's the reason I respect some Republicans. I may not agree with them, but they are direct in what they say.

    Directness is one of the many reasons I support John Edwards. In many ways, we have almost thirty years to make up, certainly, environmentally, and we need that energy and push. And I know where he stands. In addition, although I think all three candidates think comprehensively, he has the broadest and widest perception. When he looks out over our country, he sees it all. Cities, and farms, small towns, and the natural resources in both our geography and people, that are our strength. When he looks at the world, he understands that climate change, trade policies, world poverty, world resources, and national security are all related.

    Again, thank you for a very well-expressed diary. We just must agree to disagree.

    Buy local. John Edwards

    by greenapple on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:36:51 PM PST

  •  The right emphasis, wrong syllable perhaps (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    belly

    Then the struggling economy and the Iranian hostage crisis set the stage for another big shift.

    Enter Ronald Reagan. He beat us. He also implemented shortsighted, egregiously destructive policies that were, intentionally, the polar opposite of progressivism.

    The morning after Reagan took office the Iranians capitulated and the crisis was over.  The joke before he was elected was "What will Iran look like after Reagan is elected?"  The answer, "flat and it glows in the dark!"

    Iran was the major issue that put the Republicans in office the first time around, that is my perception.

  •  You nailed it! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    boofdah, mamamedusa

    You knocked it out of the park Fonsia. Thanks for putting this out. I'm delighted that somebody understood Barack's comments about Reagan correctly. I would recommend that anybody who agrees with this diary also read this home run by thereisnospoon that was posted yesterday.

  •  You must be a troll (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elesares

    You're saying Reagan is Jesus!!

    I mean, he's already dead and buried.  Are you saying he resurrected and now Obama has to put him back down?  How does the Secret Service deal with protection for the undead presidents?

    Give me ten lines from a good man and I'll find something in there to hang him. - Cardinal Richelieu

    by lgrooney on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:43:25 PM PST

  •  the best analysis i have read (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    boofdah, looty

    on this subject today.

    we are living in a window of opportunity, a kairos moment that like a wrinkle in time will soon escape us if we do not recognize it and choose the only person [BHO] who will break through the dreary fog we have been living in and usher in the dawn of 21st century progressivism.

    thanks for a compelling diary.

    I was introduced to politics at the dinner table. It's still the best place to win an argument.

    by txdreamer on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:48:30 PM PST

  •  I don't agree (4+ / 0-)

    that Obama is the only one who can bring about this change; I think Edwards is also capable of it - and I will support either of them over Clinton, who is the least able to effect this kind of change, for the reasons you articulated about her husband. And whatever her own positions - and she is more radical than him, or was, anyway - she will not be able to escape his centrist Democratic operation.

    That said, I do agree with all the rest of your analysis, particularly the point that Obama was not proposing to imitate Reagan's ideas, only his method. I don't know if he made that point in the interview and it got lost in the hoopla, or if he let that slip.

    And for the record, I was never taken in by Reagan, and did not think he was all that great a communicator. I used to call him "Dr. Feelgood."

    It is not the business of the state to help its citizens get into heaven nor to save them from hell.

    by DanK Is Back on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:57:00 PM PST

  •  thanks for writing this (0+ / 0-)

    I agree.  Reagan changed things.  Obama wasn't saying it was good or bad or anything, just that it was different.

    Don't start a blog, build a community with SoapBlox - the NEW blog framework.

    by pacified on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:58:49 PM PST

  •  What he really meant (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dave in RI

    is what he said.

    Obama is the new Joe Lieberman. "Post-partisan" man, indeed.

    Let's all "reach across the aisle" and co-opt our ideals and sell our souls in order to reach those mythical "Obama Republicans". Excuse me while I puke.

    This diary is an apologist's screed covering Obama's fetid tracks in praising Reagan. What a disgrace. What a betrayal.

    If this is indicative of what "post-partisan" truly stands for, then I wil stand and shout, "Anyone but Obama".

  •  An Obama victory will bring the landslide down. (5+ / 0-)

    It will wipe clean all that has gone before, it will bury the stale rotting corpse of Republicrats: the two-sided coin of Bush, Clinton, Reagan and all the lies of these past decades.

    As our new generation has transformed the world with Silicon Valley, so will our generation transform America with Barack Obama - a new candidate for a new millennium.  Real change you can believe in.

  •  Many Kossacks completely misinterpreted the... (10+ / 0-)

    ...comments, because they wanted to completely misinterpret the comments.  Unfortunate, but true.  

    I watched the video of the comments yesterday and said, "yeah...makes sense...good point."  Then reading the obama/reagan diary last night i thought, "Did these people even see the comments??"

  •  What I didn't miss in the BO statement was his (10+ / 0-)

    assertion that Reagan set the agenda when Bill Clinton did not.  Well, Bill Clinton was able to turn the tax mess around that Reagan had started.  I assert, again, that Obama needs to read Kevin Phillips book, "The Politics of Rich and Poor."  Obama did not make it clear that he was not trying to "appear" to be a Democratic Reagan.  Well, I am not in the mood for anybody to praise Reagan in even the slightest way.  BO may think he was being coy about Reagan but "Reagan" is a fighting word to this Democrat.  Reagan tried to destroy the middle class and giving him lip-service is a major mistake.  Reagan campaigned on the politics of fear spending us into blood-red debt by trying to make us believe that Russia was a threat and I do not think ANY Democrat should evoke that SOB's image.  

    The soul is not the ego in drag. Ken Wilber

    by macmcd on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:17:28 PM PST

  •  ...I do think it means what you think it means... (6+ / 0-)

    I think that the Shakespeare quote you borrow for your diary title means the opposite of what you think it means. The implication of using that quote is that you think that Obama is cleverly scheming to rehabilitate Reagan's legacy.

    Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
    I come to bury Cæsar, not to praise him.
    The evil that men do lives after them;
    The good is oft interred with their bones.

    He was my friend, faithful and just to me:
    But Brutus says he was ambitious;
    And Brutus is an honourable man.

    When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept;
    Ambition should be made of sterner stuff.

    (...)

    •  (do not) (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      maxalb

      Ahrgh... Note to self: preview the subject as well as the comment. "...I do not think it means what you think it means..." was the intended quote.

    •  As I said twice before, I'm taking the (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nightsweat, highacidity, pico

      quotation out of context. Just couldn't resist.

      I knew some folks would catch it.

      I might even add, "I sup upon myself, and so shall starve with feeding." (Volumnia, Coriolanus,  IV, 2)

      (I actually got to perform that many times!)

      May your entire existence be one sensuous, frolic-filled experience lived in defiance of care.

      by Fonsia on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 10:02:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  As has been pointed out before... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dave in RI, maxalb, crazyshirley2100

    ... while Obama may in fact have mostly meant he wanted to replicate Reagan's electoral success and have a lasting impact on our politics, two things need to be considered:

    1. Ronald Reagan was a hardcore partisan. He didn't campaign on getting along with Democrats and working together. He campaigned on stridently conservative themes and implemented them in a partisan way. Obama is not going to turn the country in a sharply liberal direction by compromising with Republicans.
    1. Whatever else he meant, Obama did talk about the "excesses" of the 60s and 70s, and the idea of a government grown too large, and individual responsibility in what appeared to me to be a positive manner. This sounds dangerously close to accepting the conservative view of Reagan's presidency as a time of national strength and refreshing libertarianism, as opposed to the accepted Democratic view of social Darwinism, income inequality, huge national deficits, and a massive arms race.
  •  I worry about Obama (6+ / 0-)

    At this time I am still undecided.
    I too like Obama's style and oratory.  I have however noted some very lame standard politicals ploys from his campaign lately.  It makes me a little sad and wary.  
    Jimmy Carter gave me great hope.  Gosh, I liked him.  I admire him still.  But because of his inexperience, he listened to other people instead of his heart and made some mistakes.  If you want more info, I will diary details.  Anyway, I worry when I see Obama uttering hack statements like....the Reagan one which was obvious pandering and not the sort of statement I would have expected of him a month ago.  Not to mention how he panned Bill Clinton's campaign which was unfortunate and another piece of the hack stuff.  There is no way he was not a Clinton admirer.  I don't believe that.  I see him caving to those folks who are ready to tell him how to become one with the machine.  And if he does that, then we might as well have Clinton who does have more seasoning.
    Yikes...how could I say such blasphemy?
    The actual voting records of Clinton and Obama are almost identical.  Obama does have more no votes than Clinton.  But there is blessed little voting difference.  Let me see....Clinton voted for the fence....Obama....no voted.  But Obama backed the intial Secure Fence Act.  Now this is confusing.  He supported CHIP but only voted Yes on the first go round.  Both re-authorizations, he no voted.  The no voting confuses me.  Clinton voted against offshore drilling in Virginia.  Obama...wait for it...no voted.  Obama no voted on supporting the findings of the 9/11 commision, again, unlike Clinton. These are the differences I noted going over their records in the Senate.
    The money trail is almost the same.  The same folks are contributing to both campaigns with one difference.  Obama is getting some significant contributions from insurance companies.  Not sure what that means, but it is true.  
    The only person with a different money trail is Edwards.  One of his significant contributors is 'liberal organizations'.  He is the only one of the three with that distinction.
    Clinton has served on 5 different commitees and is commisioner of something lame.  Obama has no commitee time.  
    I just don't know.  I want to believe.  But I am not sure I see evidence when it comes to Obama.  Folks, educate me as to why he no voted on those issues, etc.  I do want to believe.  He is powerful on stage.

    i told you when i met you i was crazy (Joni Mitchell)

    by crazyshirley2100 on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:40:51 PM PST

    •  Thanks for the research! n/t (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Clem Yeobright, maxalb

      Son, you're makin' the same mistake with Iraq that I did with your mother. I didn't pull out in time.

      by fou on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:55:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Obama is on the Foreign Relations committee (4+ / 0-)

      and a couple of others.

      The money trail is completely different. Obama gets something like 98% of his contributions from small donors (like me) and does not accept money from federal lobbyists or PACs (he does accept money from state lobbyists, as they could not have an influence on him at the federal level--he admits that makes him impure).

      If he gets money from an individual who works for an insurance company, that has to be recorded as a contribution from the insurance industry. Not the same thing as Clinton's wholehearted embrace of corporate money.

      All the info is available on his website, here.

      May your entire existence be one sensuous, frolic-filled experience lived in defiance of care.

      by Fonsia on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 10:10:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Plus...Rupert Murdoch hasn't held fundraisers (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ericwmr, Fonsia

        for Obama, has he?

        "Evil is a lack of empathy, a total incapacity to feel with their fellow man." - Capt. Gilbert,Psychiatrist, at the end of Nuremberg trials.

        by 417els on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 01:35:35 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Then why are their voting records so similar? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Clem Yeobright, maxalb

        And why, on so many vote opportunities, is there a "NV" next to Senator Obama's name?

        Deifying him will get you nothing but disappointment. The criticisms of Edwards record are valid, however I don't see how avoiding votes is any better.

        Seems to me Senator Obama actually does know how to keep his desk relatively clutter free.

        And since when has Washington been immune to the influence of state lobbyists?

        Slap happy is a platform.

        by averageyoungman on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 06:14:23 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Vet Affairs Committee (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Clem Yeobright

        Is the only one I found on his web site.  Sorry, must have been too recent for the generic fed based web sites.  
        I looked at money trail for Obama more closely and see that 99% of his money is listed as individual.  Clinton does have 1% from pac's.  Clinton is 88% individual, 12% other (personal, loans, etc) and Obama 99% individual and 1% other.
        When you break it down by business, it is very similar to Clinton.
        And come on, this makes sense.  The big money is usually distributed between the front runners.  
        I am very curious as to why Obama has been singled out by folks in the insurance industry.  Both Clinton and Obama first line change to the health system is to give all the same coverage options congress receives.  
        Have you pulled up their web sites side by side and compared the plans?

        i told you when i met you i was crazy (Joni Mitchell)

        by crazyshirley2100 on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 08:07:45 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Want FDR? Vote for John Edwards! (3+ / 0-)
  •  Nicely Done. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mamamedusa

    That was a great diary and I am hoping to see this kind of attitude from any of the Democratic candidates.  I want to see a big sea change in this country.  I'm still in Edwards' camp a little, but I like Obama and I would love to understand his vision better.  

    Hey Hey Mama Said the way you move, Gonna Make You Sweat, Gonna Make you Groove

    by CO Democrat on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:57:25 PM PST

  •  OBAMA IS NOT GOD (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shpilk, LimosineLiberal, elesares, maxalb

    People, take a look at the new issue of The New Republic. There is a great take down of Obama in there.

    Look, Obama WANTS to be a figurehead. He WANTS to be an image. The kind of change he is promising, which is becoming more and more apparent, is just a SURFACE change.

    For god's sake, now he's comparing himself to Reagan?! By no means does he intent to "bury" Reagan. He knows that the Reagan model of the Presidency is that you create an image and you get a group of people together to run the country while you make TV appearneces and such. Well, remmeber El Salvador? Remember Iran-Contra?!

    And now he is playing down and dirty politics in Nevada - so, so much for being post-partisan. What a joke!

    I can't believe people are being taken in by this sham of a candidate!

  •  It all boils down to (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    maxalb, Fonsia

    The Republicans let power go to their heads. They treated the half of the country that disagreed with them as enemies of the state and enablers of terrorists, rather than as people every bit as American as they were. People like Rush Limbaugh encouraged this treason, just to make a few bucks, and damn if they didn't get all the Republicans to eventually believe it. That's what infuriates us the most, they know it, and did it on purpose.  The best way to repudiate that childish nonsense is to not repeat their mistake. I think Fonsia is right that there is a window to obtain progressive change with a real mandate from the people - without gleefully doling out our version of "My way or the highway". It might not be fair, because it is partly due to circumstances not wholly under Clinton's or Edward's control, but I think at this juncture only Obama could do this.

    It's not what you know, it's what you know that ain't so -- Yogi Berra?

    by orrg1 on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:59:32 PM PST

  •  People twisting into pretzels to defend Obama (6+ / 0-)

    The whole thing is sad. For whatever reason, BO repeated Republican morning in America talking points about Reagan without pointing out that they were lies, thus lending them his credence and support. Nowhere did he hint at the truth about Reagan's destructiveness. The whole thing is outrageous for a Democratic presidential candidate and there's no way to explain it away. It's almost unbelievable really.

  •  Come again? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elesares, maxalb

    If all of the above is what he meant, then that's what he should have said. I marvel at how the same people who parse the other candidates' every word, allow Obama such wide latitude.

    I don't doubt that Obama understands what a bad president Reagan was, but the Reagan/Clinton comparison was inelegant at best. If either of the others had made the remark, oh the outrage!

    This is not a criticism of Obama or the diarist, just to be clear. I'm just noting anecdotally certain recent trends that smack, to me, of inconsistency.

  •  I avoided reading this diary (8+ / 0-)

    because I'd just had enough of the Obama/Reagan thing even though I knew the diarist was an Obama supporter.  I mean, I already have my opinion on this and I've read others and, frankly, I'm over it.

    However, it's late and I have to eat my half apple with peanut butter before I go to bed so...I decided there must be something to this diary as it had been on the rec list, and fairly near the top, for so long.

    All I can say is, I'm really glad I did.  Fonsia...you have encapsulated the importance, the "urgency of now" that is the reason why we can't not elect Obama President this election cycle.

    Thank you.

    I got tased in *The Great Markos Candidate Meltdown Cranky Pants Sting of Ought 7*

    by nolalily on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 09:19:20 PM PST

    •  I like this diary a lot, too.. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      maxalb

      hope you enjoyed your apple and peanut butter.

      also headed for bed - but wanted to say congratulations on an excellent diary.

      and how I look forward to supplanting the Reagan ethos...

  •  Loved, loved this diary! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    boofdah

    You've captured how Obama's message inspires me and millions of Americans (and more every day).

    Thank you!

    I tiny, tiny nit to pick ... I would have liked the title to say "Obama comes to praise Reagan, not to bury him". A precise rendering of Antony's "I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him". Antony, despite this declaration at the top, proceeds to praise Caesar in with such eloquence that the rabble is turned against Brutus et al and Caesar's reputation is restored.

    Obama, one of the best political minds in several generations ... (he's so damned young! How does he understand this so much, apparently down to his bones? When even grandmother's are clueless about how effin' brilliant this kind of political strategy is?) ... I digress ... in several generations, understands that the visceral sense, the zeitgeist is roiling about with uncertain winds and he understands that Reagan could sense the same roiling winds, visceral dissatisfaction, "old ghosts" in the air a generation ago.

    I suspect the rabble might finally bury Reagan.

    "The Revolution Won't Be Microwaved."

    by Glinda on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 09:46:39 PM PST

  •  Fonsia...some questions (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Fabian, lightfoot, maxalb, billybam

    How old are you?

    Will you
    Take the Test?  Match your views with candidates for president:
    http://www.dehp.net/...

    Do you realize one cannot bury Reagan because he is an archetype and therefore immortal? And that without restoring the media diversity he killed off the task of undoing his policies are a terrible uphill struggle?

    --------------
    Does it not bother you that Reagan's campaign was manufacturered flag waving and totally devoid of policy content or revelation of what a Reagan Administration would do, other than go into denial about America's problems?
    And the slogan was actually, "It's Morning Again in America"

    http://www.youtube.com/...

    On careful analysis and with hindsight I realize the Reagan message was about Mammon rather than anything else, but....when I hear Obama I have flashbacks to Reagan's unnervingly pleasant campaign themes.....
    Do you know for sure what Obama's CHANGE will be and how it will be achieved?

    Do you know the best "CHANGE" speech ever, by Barbara Jordan?
    Barbara Jordan change speech at 1992 convention:

    http://www.americanrhetoric.com/...
    ---------

    Are you deliberately leaving out the parts of history which explain in more detail the abuses of the Republicans in winning elections since the implementation of The Southern Strategy, COINTELPRO, and more....? Are you aware of the catasrophic effect of the JFK, MLK Jr., and RFK assassinations? And that Johnson's landslide was because Goldwater scared the hell out of people. Wonderful quotations from the campaign:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

    And are you aware that Jimmy Carter was mentored into the Presidency by his friend from The Council on Foreign Relations, David Rockefeller ....who gave him  Republican  foreign affairs advisors from the Kissinger camp?

    And did you not catch the Republican talking points that Obama repeats when he says Social Security funding is in trouble....and that there were excesses in government and lack of accountability in the '60s and '70s....

    I'm an undecided voter with twitching antennae, or....I should say 'ears' because on the Internet ...nobody knows I am a dog.

    Take the Test: http://www.dehp.net/candidate/

    by LNK on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 09:57:28 PM PST

  •  Late here....dinner, family and all (0+ / 0-)

    but this is one of the best essays I have read in a long time.

    You are right and the time is right.  Thank you for putting it all into perspective, and in such clear terms.

    Health care for people, not for profit.

    by bloomer 101 on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 10:10:43 PM PST

  •  So if he wants to achieve generational direction (5+ / 0-)

    why didn't he just use JFK or Roosevelt as an example?
    That would have worked very well.

    But Reagan??????   WTF????

    Sure sounds like pandering to the other side.

    Or...

    Next time I tell you someone from Texas should NOT be president of the United States, please pay attention. In Memory of Molly Ivins, 1944-2007

    by truebeliever on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 10:36:23 PM PST

  •  Back to LBJ... (5+ / 0-)

    ...why don't Obama supporters know much about history.

    The political realignment happened the day LBJ signed the 1964 civil rights act.
    From that day forward the days of the southern white democrat were numbered.

    Nixon won with a southern strategy.

    Reagan won with the same strategy aided by John Anderson siphoning off votes from the dems.

    Bush continued the southern strategy and so did the Shrub.
    Reagan was a product of the southern strategy.

    Only people who did not live through the 80s, or remember those times can buy into the marketing efforts to canonize Reagan. "Morning in America" was fiction cooked up by adman Hal Riney. Reagans bandits were the spark that started what Krugman calls "The Great Unraveling."

    The only dems that won for the White House since 1960 were southern dems.

    So since many dems don't like to learn from history, lets nominate a northern Harvard educated senator.

    We used paper ballots and pens to elect Jefferson, Lincoln and FDR after weeks of counting. Electronic voting delivered a Bush victory before midnight.

    by demwords on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 11:11:05 PM PST

    •  Excellent post (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Clem Yeobright, demwords

      I can't recommend your post enough.

      I was young when JFK was assassinated, but anyone alive that day would know that day changed the direction of the country. The shock and horror, people crying everywhere. I can recall minute details from that day, as I am sure most anyone can. People with no sense of history just do not understand these things.

      Young people who did not live through the reign of Reagan just cannot understand how he ground this country down and divided us up using hatred and fear. He is the one responsible for the"Blue/Red" alienation and conflict in the country today that Bush exploits.

      Reagan's legacy must be condemned and consigned to the landfill of history before we can make any progress. Any "progressive" should understand this.

      The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. -FZ

      by lightfoot on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 11:18:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is an excellent essay. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    angelmom, boofdah, cybrestrike

    And not just because it sums up my thinking very nicely. Well written.

  •  "A Bear in the Woods" (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Fabian, Clem Yeobright, lightfoot

    This is now a benchmark for GENTLE fearmongering?

    I mean, OK, it's not Daisy, but 'gentle' is not the word that leaps to mind.

  •  Symbolism. That's what it was about. Obama.. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lightfoot

    ..elevated the SYMBOL. Most Democrats are a little more circumspect when they speak because they know their words have sway. Obama should know better, he's a symbol himself.

    It was a mistake. It was a dumb mistake in a primary. Makes me wonder if Obama is ready for a speaking campaign.

    Can't make mistakes in the general. Maybe he will say that Mussolini was transformational and forget to say he was facist. I know, over the top, but you get my point.

    Words and symbols are power. Obama misued them and the defense of this is 'intellectual'. Those defenses for intellectual statements don't play in general elections.

  •  I live in Reagan's hometown. (5+ / 0-)

    I'm surounded by people who venerate him. They believe every word that Sen. Obama spoke is true - and they have said it often to my face for years.

    I'm sick of it.

    Reagan was nothing more than a carefully packaged product produced by Mike Dever and the beavers.  These people know it, but still they buy into that myth.

    Here's another Reagan myth:  The claim that he save XXX people at Lowell Park while a life guard there is a lie.  Never in the history of Lowell Park has anyone ever had to be rescued.  Ever.

    One of my two favorite Senators needs to speak up very clearly confirming what this diarist is spinning.  I don't think he will.  

    I think the diariest is flat wrong.

    Paging John Laesch, Jerry Northington [aka Possum], and Gilda Reed. Report to Congress - Pres. John Edwards, bring `em home. Now

    by llbear on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:59:22 AM PST

  •  I'll believe when I hear it from Obama himself... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shpilk, Fabian, elesares, maxalb

    ... in these exact words:

    Far from agreeing with Reagan, Obama instead is attempting to reverse Reagan's legacy.
    ...
    An Obama victory would be a complete, total repudiation of Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and his pathetic son, because instead of merely defeating a conservative candidate, it would defeat conservatism.

    It's the chance to finally, permanently, bury Ronald Reagan.

    'til then, dream on.

  •  Thank you... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    boofdah

    This post represents a very intelligent contribution to the political dialogue. I fear a lot of self-described progressives may be too small-minded to grasp where Obama wants to take the country.

  •  Obama is the Messiah! He will save us! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jre2k8, maxalb

    And I suspect, very strongly, that the very same people who thought/think that Gore supporters had some kind of Messiah complex are now busily, blissfully humming a little tune to themselves about how only Obama will be able to make sweeping transformational change.  Only Obama.

    I think just the opposite.  The country is so screwed up, so emotionally broken, so desperate for leadership that anyone with an ounce of political savvy could swing a three year political honeymoon instead of the usual one year.  Why did Reagan get in?  Because the country was in the dumps, moral wise.  I wish I could remember the Carter years well enough to compare, but I think they may have been a picnic compared to where we are now.

    The Audacity of Ambiguity! The Climate of Change! The Search for Substance!

    by Fabian on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:35:52 AM PST

    •  Gore and Obama (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Clem Yeobright

      are both common sense and reason driven pragmatic idealists, IMO. Not "Messiahs" of one kind or the other.

      •  Still waiting for a substantive plan (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Clem Yeobright, elesares, lightfoot

        on fossil fuels, alternative energy and Climate Change.

        I need someone with the spine to tell us the painful facts and the uncomfortable truth.  I'll stand up for them, but not for politicians as usual.

        Show me the substance.  Not platforms, not proposals, not promises but A Plan, with real timelines, real goals and real, measurable milestones.

        The Audacity of Ambiguity! The Climate of Change! The Search for Substance!

        by Fabian on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 06:49:11 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  not possible (0+ / 0-)

          Think about what you are asking for. You are asking for total transparency in government, which will never, ever happen in our lives. Period.

          A real leader would stand up and say, we must all sacrifice, we must all immediately conserve.

          Good luck.

          There's only one person who is saying this, and he is not running.

          "If you want to go quickly, go alone.
          If you want to go far, go together.
          We have to go far, quickly."

          by shpilk on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 11:01:20 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  I'm a Gore supporter and I would vote for Obama (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Clem Yeobright

      last out of the other seven candidates.
      So please, do not generalize like that.

      There's a huge difference between Al Gore's vision and his flaws and Barack Obama's vision and his flaws.

      Al Gore would never issue praise for Reagan like this.

      "If you want to go quickly, go alone.
      If you want to go far, go together.
      We have to go far, quickly."

      by shpilk on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 10:07:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Nice Diary (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    boofdah

    You made a very powerful case for Obama without attaching the other Dem candidates.  I like that.

    I want my country back. NOW!

    by enough on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:48:41 AM PST

  •  Ronald Reagan killed my friends. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elesares, lightfoot

    Lots of them.  Because he wouldnt say the word AIDS and wouldnt fund AIDS research.

    Any Democrat who evokes Ronald Reagan will have to do some pretty damn hard work to get a vote from me.

  •  Frankly, I interpreted Obama's comments (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shpilk, Clem Yeobright, elesares

    as a slam on Bill Clinton.

    None of it reflects well on Obama, no matter how you spin it.

    "Women, if the soul of the nation is to be saved, I believe that you must become its soul." -- Coretta Scott King

    by Joelarama on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 05:27:37 AM PST

  •  Realignment, not Triangulation. (0+ / 0-)

    Go Obama!

    Pat Leahy? Zoe Lofgren? They are naive chidren Reagan worshippers that have no experience with the right wing attack machine.

    by Inland on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 06:01:32 AM PST

    •  Ah, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Clem Yeobright, elesares, maxalb

      but where is Obama going?  He seems to be going down a rightward curve.

      Can supply side be far behind?

      Nominate Edwards unless you want President McCain

      by jre2k8 on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 06:14:48 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Tags are your friend. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cybrestrike

        Not that you care, but anyone who really wants to know more about Obama can look up more substantive diaries than there is time to read.

        I suggest adam b, femlaw, democratic luntz, justangry and maxwell for this month's reading.

        I'm sorry if Obama's accomplishments and programs are longer than the Edwarding Platform of "I'm Against {Put name here}", but that's what substance looks like.

        Pat Leahy? Zoe Lofgren? Kid Oakland? They are naive chidren Reagan worshippers that have no experience with the right wing attack machine.

        by Inland on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 06:29:30 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Obama used a lot of words (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Clem Yeobright, elesares, maxalb

    that one uses when giving praise when he spoke of Reagan.

    Do I think Obama agrees with what Reagan did as President?  No, of course not.

    I also don't think a candidate borne of the civil rights battles should be giving ANY praise at all to a President who kicked off his run in Philadelphia, Mississippi in a nod to the racist wing of his party.  Reagan played the "Southern Strategy" like a Mozart.

    Nominate Edwards unless you want President McCain

    by jre2k8 on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 06:13:34 AM PST

    •  Obama was not born of Civil Rights battles (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Clem Yeobright, elesares, lightfoot

      He didn't even live in the US until he was 12 in 1972.  He went to some awfully pricey schools, so I don't know how down trodden or dis advantaged he was.  He is very intelligent, so he may have had scholarships.

      His only real civil rights credentials are the three years from 1993-1996 as an associate attorney in a Chicago law firm that dealt in discrimination and voting rights cases.  For which he was compensated.

  •  Every single election cycle (5+ / 0-)

    there are politicians that try to channel Reagan and/or that present themselves as the second coming of JFK.  

    Take a quick look at the two archtypes:

    JFK was about hope in gov't.  We're going to solve our problems by working together.  Ask not what your country can do for you...and all that jazz. Dems like that b/c we believe gov't can do good things in certain areas. Occasionally, Republicans channel him, too (Quayle), mainly because he was young and good looking.

    Reagan was about blind optimism.  And I emphasize blind.  It was a theory that nothing was really wrong with America unless you talked about it (kind of a bugs bunny over the cliff paradigm).  The malaise was there only because we conceded there were problems.  Deregulate, let the markets shine, and all will be good in America. No need to explain why Republicans put on the Reagan mask.  Also clear why, as an earlier poster pointed out, Reagan didn't like to acknowledge little problems (like AIDS, racism, inequality...etc).

    All the Obamaphiles who get juiced up by a realignment because he's channeling Reagan freak me out a little.  Blind optimism is not a good thing. I'd also point out that Reagan realigned the country by driving hard right on social issues and capturing working class Catholic/evangelical Dems.  That made every single later election an uphill climb for Dems. Obama's not driving hard left on anything...he's pitching a tent on the 45 yard line (and this is the primaries! He'll be squarely at the 50 yard line when he's running in the general election).  He may win, but that's hardly the "end of conservatism"...it's a few years of moderate, split the difference politics...and that's if he gets past the GOP hate and fear machine. Plus, his is a highly personalistic campaign...he may talk about giving the country to the people, but his starry eyed following is all about his personal charisma.  That's not the same as capturing the evangelical vote for the party.

  •  now I have it (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Clem Yeobright, lightfoot

    blatant pandering to those who still love Reagan.  Holy cats!  Just what I want!  My candidate invoking Reagan!

    sign the petition at http://www.impeachbush.org

    by DrKate on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 06:18:31 AM PST

  •  I respectfully disagree (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Clem Yeobright, lightfoot, maxalb

    In this careful and thoughtful analysis of Obama's remarks, Fonsia forgets to discuss Obama's analysis of why the country voted for Reagan: the (so-called) "excesses of the 60s and 70s. And that's why I can't buy Fonsia's interpretation. Those "excesses" were:

    1. the civil rights movement;
    1. opposition to the Vietnam war;
    1. the feminist movement.

    Those of us who were there and who participated in those excesses have come out on the right side of history. Those who voted for Reagan have come out on the wrong side.

    Let us not forget the excesses of the 80s -- greed, greed, greed. We live still with that legacy.

    I'm afraid Obama's pander to the Las Vegas newspaper has lost him the support of my husband and me.

  •  WRONG. Obama fucking PRAISED Reagan (7+ / 0-)
    Save your spin.
  •  Great post! NT (0+ / 0-)

    putting the riot back into patriot

    by Pop Zeus on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 06:34:09 AM PST

  •  Wonderful, wonderful diary (0+ / 0-)

    Look forward to reading your future diaries.

    The doctor said I wouldn't have so many nose bleeds if I kept my finger outta there. - Ralph Wiggum

    by jim bow on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 06:39:48 AM PST

  •  I WAS WRONG! (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Inland, lightfoot, maxalb, Fonsia

    I saw the Reagan red-meat thrown before me and I pounced without thinking it through.  Obama's right; Reagan did change the entire game, and we need to fight as hard as he did to change it back.  We can't be ashamed of our convictions.  Reagan had the stones to lay it all out there, and so must we.  Also, Obama gave us all a chance to challenge the Reagan myth and stomp on his fucking bones like he deserved.  After all...  if Reagan didn't smash the air-controllers, there'd have been no 9/11.  People need to know that, and I thank Obama for the opportunity he's given us to trash Reagan.  I was getting bored of Clinton-bashing.