Obama Picks Reagan Over Bill Clinton

[William769]

Run time: 01:01 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaoYD7iZG9w   Posted on YouTube: January 16, 2008 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: January 16, 2008 By DU Member: William769 Views on DU: 8483

 

[skipos]

1. Nice spin, Karl. nt

[William769]

5. Obmas speaking, what does Karl have to do with it?

[Renew Deal]

45. Here's some context

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/obama_reagan_changed_direction_of_country_in_way_bill_clinton_didnt.php

[grantcart]

127. Clinton folks only want context

when they can take a simple question like who was right on the war?, and after 30 minutes of 'context' assert that Hillary was right and Obama was wrong on the war.

[demo dutch]

137. self delete

[maddiejoan]

2. ewwwwwwwwwww

gross

[balantz]

3. Okayeeeeeee

The more I see of him.....

[Amy6627]

4. OMG! n/t

[MrsT]

6. I agree with him Obama on this

I realize you are trying to scare people away from him by posting this, but I don't think it will work.

[Vattel]

76. he lost points with me

reagan did tap into stupidity, intolerance, and racism in a way that Clinton never did

[Thrill]

81. You are obviously one of thos e people who hear what they want to hear

[bobbolink]

146. And you're one of those people who can't see the elephant in the living room.

[Lorien]

116. Amen. n/t

[DutchLiberal]

177. Exactly the drastic different trajectory Obama was talking about.,

Obama didn't say Reagan's change was for the good. You hear in it what you want to hear.

[Gonnuts]

142. Say WHAT?!!!

Oh, there's no doubt that Rayguns "put us on a different path" and that "path" lead us right to the neo-cons we're dealing with today.

I'm sorry, but this is a deal breaker. There is NO WAY pandering to the Raygun mentality people can be justified. Either Obama is ignorant to what the Raygun Revolution was all about or he's a pandering politician looking for the "tough-guy" vote. Either way placating to anything that brain-dead, grade-B actor and shell of a humane-being did is way too much for this person to take.

[wizstars]

174. Stalin put Russia on a different path too....

...that doesn't necessarily mean it was a good path for Russia.

[Renew Deal]

7. That's not what he says.

[William769]

9. Is that a puppet then?

[Renew Deal]

15. No, you're being dishonest.

[William769]

17. So then that is Obama talking?

[Renew Deal]

18. Yes, but he's not saying what you're saying.

Apparently honesty isn't your specialty.

[William769]

20. He's saying what your not wanting to hear.

[Renew Deal]

22. No, he's saying what you're not wanting to hear.

You brought this up.

[William769]

24. He's saying excately what he has said over the Summer.

I hope he keeps it up.

[Renew Deal]

33. So you agree with him

I missed that.

[Binka]

140. n/t

[gmudem]

85. He's not saying what you're deluding yourself into hearing either.

[azmesa207]

12. sound

like he approves of all that Reagan did, maybe he should be running as a Republican sure sound like one .

[LaloBorges]

57. Yes, it is

He said that "Reagan brought clarity, hope (like Obama does?); Obama also talked about all the excesses of the 60's, big government"; that sure sounds like a republican rhetoric!

[Tellurian]

8. Yep, Obama's True Intentions are beginning to show..

If it walks like a Republican, talks like a Republican, how can it quack like a Democrat?

[DutchLiberal]

178. Funny you should say that with your avatar and signature...

I have always been a big fan of irony. :)

[terisan]

10. The "excesses of the 60s and 70s! The 60s and 70s championed rights, anti-war, antipoverty,

Peace Corps

I don't care for the pandering to the Reaganites. Reagan's policies brought us homelessness, housing disaster and major economic dislocations, tax cuts to wealthy and widening of income gap.

[Renew Deal]

16. As well as Nixon, Ford, and endless war.

[terisan]

37. What brought us Nixon et al was the the people who did not stand up for human rights & civll right

If Democrats give up a fight because they are afraid of losing, they already lost.

[Divine Discontent]

21. For Obama to bring up Reagan

and not point out how HORRIBLE the 80's were for tens of millions of people, with the recession, the loss of budget for social issues because of MX missile and military expenditures, and the firing of all the striking air traffic controllers which were a govt union, yes, but it has been shown that private business then used that law to fire striking workers frequently thereafter, and of course, Reagan's illegal arms dealings.

I won't even get into why my family was hurt by him & his policies. These are more than enough reasons to not glorify Reagan's years in the tone Obama chose in this interview. Was he not around in the 80's or something????

[rucognizant]

87. Obama is a sell out!

Of course he was not around in the 80's, in a productive way, he's too young! Born in 1961. He was in college when Reagan was inaugurated! He hadn't made an investment of time in running a business. In fact, has he ever? He's been in the social services sector.
That's a very different activity. I have successfully, run a small business for 17 years, tried to restart it in post Reagan America for another 16 1/2 years, with remarkable lack of success for the energy, resourcefulnesss, experience, and talent I have put into it.
Reagan sounded the death knell for my small entreprenureal custom art business, which had been flourishing for almost 10 years and 10 before that with my husband! It died an untimely death due to the Reagan Bush recession of 1990.
I have a theory that the Boomers, gravitated to financial takeover, as a safer way to change society than getting shot at at FT Kent. It was a collective unconscious thing, many minds hitting on the same solution.Fine except that with hostility( remember that cry."Never trust anyone over 30"? I was 31 at the time, and extremely liberal,) they shortchanged my generation by changing the rules in mid stream! We were the first generation who dared to divorce, if it wasn't working out, where our elders hung on & suffered. ( WE were the social progressives!)
So we suffered a loss of financial building together as a result. ( Women were paid at least 25% less than men!)
On the other hand the Boomers benefited, ( in many cases) from their Fathers, GI education and home buying bills so they were ahead of the game financially! ( Our Fathers had survived the depression!) Nobody talked about "early retirement". You worked your way up through the comapny to CEO, retired at 65, and got a gold watch, not a fabulous million $, gold plated, payout! Then they retired on their COMFORTABLE SS INCOME THAT COVERED ALL THEIR NEEDS!
Go to any rural area where the living is cheaper, and talk to people in ther late 60's, you'll hear plenty of stories!
BTW: What goes around comes around. YOU the squeeze generation, are the ones who have to fund your parents, ( or listen to your conscience) as well as send your kids to college ( formerly not mandatory for employment, another BOOMER bright idea!)

[colorado_ufo]

108. Interesting points but a little off on the time table.

The oldest Boomers are really about 61, and that is a stretch. These were the postwar babies. "Late 60s" would put their birth 1939 through early 1940s.

Those are not Boomers (from the phrase "Post War Baby Boom," caused by all the soldiers, sailors and marines so grateful to be back home!). (For you DUers who are REALLY young :-))

[Warpy]

38. Yeah, Obama completely misread the whole era

I guess that sort of thing happens when you're too young to be much of a part of it and only hear what pudgy white men tell you on the teevee.

What he failed to say was whether or not Reagan's new trajectory did the country many favors. I'd love to hear the answer to that one.

Still, he's just not ready for prime time. No one who misunderstands the past as thoroughly as he does is ready for prime time.

[bobbolink]

47. You'd think we wouldn't even have to be reminding "Dems" of all that!

Really, this is just discouraging, and downright frightening.

:(

[Lorien]

69. Exactly

the 60's and 70's gave me hope-especially as a young woman. The Reagan era made me feel doomed, as it did most of my generation. Trying to get into college during that time was not easy with rampant unemployment and cutbacks to educational grants, and we wondered what would be waiting for us when we graduated, as there were few jobs and home ownership was nearly impossible for the young.Then there was the fear that Ronny would "push the button" and get us all vaporized.

I don't know where Obama was living or what he was doing at that time, but Reaganism was NOT a great thing for America. It was a terrible direction for the country to go. Why does Obama have such contempt for the decades that brought about so much positive change for women, minorities,the working class and the environment? The decades that were defined by liberalism? Sorry, but he's lost me.

[debbierlus]

107. Exactly: Obama, the snakeoil salesman.

I don't trust him at all.

[zazzle]

129. Britney, Paris, Obama are media creations - but Obama is also a con

[texastoast]

133. Never saw so much homelessness in Houston

until Reagan took office.

[DutchLiberal]

179. To the people who voted for Reagan, it were "excesses". That's what Obama explains.

He's doing what many more Democrats should do: trying to figure out why so many people voted for him (and Bush Sr. and Junior). If you want to draw people away from them, you got to know what attracts them in the first place.

[Divine Discontent]

11. I stopped after he started sounding like a GOP candidate at a debate

bringing up the ghost of Reagan and quickly slapping down the Clinton years - this is really unfortunate to see.

[Cant trust em]

13. Puhlease.

He didn't pick Reagan over Bill Clinton. He said that Reagan made a shift that was probably greater than a shift that Bill Clinton made. He didnt' say that Reagan was a better president than Bill Clinton. Don't insult our intelligence with this crap.

[Divine Discontent]

28. Obama has repeatedly brought up Reagan

I don't want my potential general election Democratic candidate for president repeatedly brining up Reagan, at the same time dissing Clinton, in tone, in the same thought. This is what the GOP candidates do. I have watched 2 or 3 of their debates, and they build up Reagan and attack Clinton!

No thanks.

[Cant trust em]

49. You and I are examples on how Obama and Edwards are different

Barack Obama's strategy in winning over moderates and independents is to throw them a bone by agreeing with them on something fairly innocuous, gaining their trust and then moving the debate over to his side. He disarms them by making himself not so much of a partian hack and then gets them to agree. It's a tactic I use all the time with people I meet at bars or parties who are usually to the right of me.

John Edwards, who I really like, usually takes the method of putting his ideas right up in the other person's face and confronting them. This is great on DU where most people already agree with him, but it's not great for convincing someone that you're right. This usually makes people put up a wall because they perceive a bias.

Start in the middle and move to the left. By the time I'm done they get where I'm coming from.

[Divine Discontent]

51. 'making himself not so much of a partian hack'

I like honesty. John will clearly work with people, as he did in the Senate, but America is on the verge of collapse - it's not a joke, and it's boldly stated. The Bush Adm. has gutted away our rights, our protections, our gold & influence worldwide, and hundreds of top economists and historians say we are watching the USA's downfall. It's no time to buddy up, it's time stop them because buddying up didn't get our guys in. John is not a partisan hack, and has extreme intelligence and astuteness to say things just the right way.

May we get a DEM in the end. I'll agree with you on that.

[Cant trust em]

55. Like I said, I really like John Edwards

I just think that there's a possibility that he'll be seen as a died in the wool Dem. We need people who will advance our issues without being labeled, and I think that Obama is that guy. In terms of policy I think that all of our candidates will make a great president, but I think that Obama has the intangibles that can make a national coalition of people and politicians.

[Divine Discontent]

56. well

he's certainly got the attention of millions, and that's a good thing! Whoever we get better not let us down.


Take care.

[jaybeat]

144. It's a Repuke/DLC tactic to convince Dems they can't win being Dems

That they have to "distance themselves" from the "excesses" of "the sixties," of "big government." That they have to build a "bridge" to "mainstream" voters or else they will lose in a landslide like Mondale in '84. That the only way to win is to be a "new democrat" (aka DLCer) like Bill Clinton, and to adopt right-wing sounding positions like "the era of big government is over" and pledge to "end welfare as we know it."

It is also a load of crap. Ask people about the policies they support, and it turns out that what the Repuke media calls flaming lefty radical libural unelectable fringe is in fact MAINSTREAM. More people are in line with Edward's and Kucinich's positions than Clinton's, Obama's or any of the Republicans. But they vote more for Clinton and Obama because of the MSM/right wing spin. Because of the concerted effort to turn this into a popularity contest and not a contest about issues. Because of deliberate efforts to discredit and ignore candidates who hold popular positions, and to distort and hide those positions from voters. Not to mention the whole host of actions taken by Republicans to disenfranchise whole segments of the voting population who hold non-conservative positions.

Regrettably, Obama appears to be falling into this trap. This is the trap that tamped down Al Gore so far that he was as flat as cardboard. This is the same logic that says Edwards shouldn't talk about corporations or the wealthy because that's "class warfare."

Here, now, we are at an historic time where people are so outraged and fed up with Republican policies, and the damage they have done to mainstream America is so clear, that I think Democrats can win BY BEING DEMOCRATS, despite the propaganda machine arrayed against us. I believe we NEED a Democratic candidate who will not be afraid of the labels "liberal" or "progressive," and who is not afraid to stand up and say, "I will fight FOR you, and AGAINST them!" We don't need "unity" with those who have worked since before the turn of the last century to keep us down and make us powerless and poor. We need someone who will fight these people, on our behalf.

The election of Reagan was a sham, a lie, and never would have happened if John Anderson hadn't split the mainstream vote. He then used his position to control the debate, define the terms, and begin the destruction of programs dating back to the New Deal that had been supported on a bi-partisan basis at least since Eisenhower. He made "liberal" a dirty word, and redefined as "liberal" positions which were and are mainstream and held by majorities of Democrats, independents and in many cases Republicans.

In my opinion, if Obama doesn't discuss the Reagan (counter-) "revolution" in any terms that don't describe the destructive effect it has had on people and politics for the last 28 years, then I don't know how any of us can trust his intellectual judgment. If he is thinking one thing in private and saying something else in public to get elected, then I don't know how we can trust him at all.

[Cant trust em]

145. The black and white world of internet politics

I find that as soon as I get off of the internet and start talking with people in bars or parties they aren't interested in toeing a party line. You win arguments with democratic issues, but not with party labels. It's foolish to believe that all people are going to line up in the good guy or bad guy category, even politicians. You'd be surprised how many people wind up coming to your side as soon as you haven't held up a flag labeling yourself as opposing them. Telling people that they are evil and corrupt is only going to make them dig in farther and put up a more entrenched wall. In order to affect change you have to get them to the table. You attract more flies with honey than vinegar.

John Edwards is right on nearly every answer he gives in a debate. I wouldn't change that. But those are great answers for the people who agree with you. To get people to agree with you who might be on the fence or oppose you, you work on what you have in common first.

[jaybeat]

168. Only the richest 0.01% are "evil and corrupt"

At least in a way that requires a 180-degree policy reversal to stop benefiting them and start benefiting us.

Most Americans know this, understand this, and know that Edwards is not calling them "bad guys."

FDR did OK calling out the architects of the Depression for who and what they were, and America is more than ready for someone to call it like it is again. Republicans have duped people for 28 years by saying, "We'll lower taxes on the rich, and that's good for you, because YOU are going to be rich one day, if you work hard, etc." It was and is a LIE and people are starting to figure that out.

The black and white world isn't "internet politics"--it is the "two americas" that John Edwards has been talking about. People know that, are aren't going to be hoodwinked this time by rich assholes who say, "Oooooh! Class warfare! If you succeed they're going to make you the enemy!"

[Cant trust em]

171. Your headline and your post don't match

You talk about only the richest .01% being corrupt, but then you label Republicans as liars. I am distrustful and skeptical of MOST republicans, but I don't think that you get anywhere by labeling so much. People in the outside world generally worry about issues and aren't that interested in being liberal/conservative or democrat/republican. My family is filled with registered republicans who didn't vote for GWB, hate the war, are for universal health care, raising minimum wage, etc. We can bring these people in without giving up what are our critical issues.

[jaybeat]

173. Republican politicians lied. Not all registered Republicans are liars.

Big difference, pal.

Reagan LIED to Republicans and Democrats alike. So did Bush I, Bush II, and all kinds of other Republican politicians. If a Republican can look at me and tell me that Reagan's policies were intended to improve things for the majority of Americans, I'll call them misinformed or misguided.

People in the outside world generally worry about issues and aren't that interested in being liberal/conservative or democrat/republican.

That's because they've been brainwashed by an MSM and right-wing propaganda machine that tries to tell them that liberals are bad and so-called "conservatives" are good. That progressives "hate America" and want to "punish success," or that the only reason people advocate taxing the rich is "jealousy." They've been sold a bill of goods. Pure and simple. Don't you think they should know who's been lying to them all these years? Don't you think they'd like to know?

My family is filled with registered republicans who didn't vote for GWB, hate the war, are for universal health care, raising minimum wage, etc.

Good grief! Don't you think someone should tell them that their positions are to the left of every candidate for president except Dennis Kucinich!!! Don't they know what's in the Republican party platform? Do you honestly think that in order to "bring them in" we have to gloss over the fact that Republicans are and have been forever opposed to those policies? That Republican politicians have lied, cheated and stolen from the American people?

[Cant trust em]

175. There is a difference

One that I've highlighted and one that you only now stopped using after I busted you out on it.

I agree with you that some people have been duped into believing that liberals are latte drinking, sushi eating, hippies. But I still maintain that MOST people are more interested in which politicians they think will keep the country safe, provide good schools for their kids, provide an economy that fosters job growth. Liberal and conservative are all just terms that are thrown around to divide people without thinking. Our two party system is too big to reflect the complexity of what voters want. My family is a perfect example of this. They want government small, taxes low, handguns, women's rights, homeless activism, sensible foreign policy, a strong military used responsibly. That is my uncle. If a politician were to court his vote, he'd best stay away from labels and negativity.

[LaloBorges]

59. I see....

So, lie to later move people to your side of the argument? So...what is real from Obama? What has he said that we can believe? Is the "Change" and "Hope" stuff just something to bring the voters and their votes to his side so that he can screw them later?

[Cant trust em]

62. You don't lie

You use the minor thing that you have in common with people as an olive branch.

[mnhtnbb]

99. This is precisely the Bush tactics. Remember how he promised to be a 'uniter, not divider'?

Remember the compassionate conservatism? What's been so compassionate about cleaning up after Katrina?
Remember he promised not to become a nation builder? What the hell's he doing in Iraq?

The more I hear from Obama, the more I'm inclined to think I don't know what I'm buying with him.

I'm with Edwards as long as he's in it--I hope all the way to the White House.

[Cant trust em]

150. This is a dumb argument

Because George Bush talked about uniting people therefore anyone who talks about uniting people is bad? Not liking Obama might be one thing, but this comparison with GWB is illogical.

[bobbolink]

147. "start in the middle and move to the left" How's that been working out for us the last 7 years?

:crazy:

[Cant trust em]

149. It worked well in 2006

[bobbolink]

152. Absolutely! We got LIEberman!! Hurrah!

:crazy:

[Name removed]

154. Deleted sub-thread

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

[desi]

14. Good Catch Billy.

Who would have ever imagined that Obama was a fucking Reaganite? A Reagan "democrat." And he has the nerve to compare/contrast the criminal enterprise that was Raygun/Bush to Clinton/Gore? Fucking Amazing.

K&R

[William769]

19. Why do you think last summer he kept quoting Reagan.

If it walks like ond and acts like one...

[desi]

29. I know why and it's become more obvious as the campaign

grows shorter and he keeps losing steam. He is pandering to the radical right's (and extreme left's) hate of Hillary and everything Clinton for their votes. Can you say "Zell Lieberman?"

This needs to be kept kicked...

[bobbolink]

148. "Can you say 'Zell Lieberman?'"

Great catch!

:rofl:

[Cameron27]

23. Blech

it's not enough to have the republicans fawning over this old con, now Obama has to kick in too.

[ChiciB1]

25. This Is About REAGAN... Not Obama... But I Think Ronnie RAYGUNS

as I fondly call him was NOT the person most people think he was! There were FAR TOO MANY things he did that were illegal, and he was ALWAYS given more benefit than he deserves.

Now as to Obama saying what he did, I guess he remembers Reagan as many WANT Reagan to be remembered! I can't agree with him and I wonder if he knows very much about his administration. Is it all about perception of what Reagan was, or does he not know??

[Divine Discontent]

36. like I said...

how could Obama NOT know how bad Reagan was for the working and poor during the 80's? Was he in another world? The Reagan Adm. was horribly anti-union, anti-worker, anti-poor (big time), and all about pushing the USA into a negative focus away from policies that helped people, while ACTING like were a great dynamic country, with stars & stripes a wavin'!

ICK Obama! How could you sit there and cast a positive light on anything involving Reagan, while dissing Clinton, and not immediately saying after that slap at Clinton, 'although, there is no question the Reagan years were not one kind to unions, civil rights, the homeless and poor, or the deficit for that matter'. Maybe he says that later. Has he ever been asked who was better for the country? He SOUNDS clearly like he has a bit of Reagan-love in him.

[ChiciB1]

61. One More Word.... De-Regulation!!! That Helped A LOT Too!! n/t

[Yael]

26. He isn't saying that he agrees -- only that Reagan did the best job of

turning direction. Can't say as I disagree with him.

You get 4 Ks out of a possible 5 for the spin though.

KKKK

[va4wilderness]

27. What's the Context?

I'd like to hear what comes before and after this

[desi]

31. The context is that Raygun/BUSH SUCKED

They should have been impeached and hauled off to prison for their many crimes, not the least of which was crimes against humanity.

[Mithreal]

32. This clip is cut like this for disinformation purposes

I am willing to consider all facts, too little here, can't see why anyone would recommend this one.

[FrenchieCat]

74. Here you go!

http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080115/VIDEO/80115026&oaso=news.rgj.com/breakingnews

[rAVES]

30. yikes.. I dearly hope that was taken seriously out of context.

[Mithreal]

34. context didn't even stand a chance

[Chulanowa]

35. Eek

He certainly sounds very positive about Reagan there. "The people were ready for him" and "teh excesses of the 60's and 70's" and of course, "A return to entrepreneurship"

Yes, Reagan did turn the country around. Unfortunately we were going the right way before he did that.

[balantz]

40. There are some pretty huge "entrepeneurs" who benefitted from the Reagan era.

And here we are suffering from what that administration set in motion.

He is certainly dissing this progressive Democrat and flirting with a different set of voters. I'm glad he isn't my candidate because I would feel a little sick, and would have to certainly question my choice.

[ChiciB1]

164. Plus... Listening To Him Now... He's Talking John Edwards' Message!

He says Romney talks like him, yet he just said to some extent you have to take on Big Business, Oil... etc.

Seems like I heard that long before, but John Edwards has said it all along! The difference is WHOSE GETTING THE COVERAGE fro WHAT!!!

[Lorien]

72. Turned it around for the wealthy. Fucked the middle and working classes

completely. I remember standing in a line for two hours to get an interview for a host/ hostess position at Bob Evans. It was a time WITHOUT hope for MANY of us.

[JDPriestly]

39. Obama must have heard this at home.

Is the grandmother that he seems to be hiding from the public a Republican? I have no evidence for this. I'm just asking.

[gateley]

41. I'm uncommitted so I have no dog in this fight, but I see the point Obama was

trying to make.

If you think back to the 1980 - Reagan did whip up enthusiasm and a feeling of power among a LARGE part of the populace (not me, of course). But beginning with getting the Hostages out of Iran (and yes I know, but people interpreted it as him being responsible) and all the "feel good" talk, there was a positive "feeling" throughout much of the country. (And again, I didn't buy into it == I never trusted him.)

I think his statement is an objective viewpoint of the times -- nothing to do with Reagan personally.

[chimpymustgo]

117. Kind of like Farrakhan calling Hitler a "great man"??? Some FACTS can't be ignored.

I like Obama, but think he'd be better as VP to Edwards.

But this comment makes me feel a little sick.

[LulaMay]

42. YUCK! Thank you. The reality is that Hillary is more liberal.

I get the feeling he doesn't know what the heck he's saying sometimes in his effort to be a well spoken orator who will please everyone. It seems to overtake him and he ends up spouting junk like this. The reality is that overall Hillary has the best, and longest, track record of very liberal thought and action as a public servant, and his is not so clear.

[Divine Discontent]

53. I am hoping, for the first time, that if John doesn't get president, that she will instead of him.

I really don't like his GOP type comments, and of course - bringing Donnie McClurkin onto his campaign's Gospel Tour when he was asked before hand not to put a total homophobe who was at war with the GLBT populace, as were some of the other acts there (Mary Mary). Not liking him so much, and I'm gonna talk with my one remaining parent about her support of him over Edwards.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

43. I wish I picked another post over this one - eom

[polichick]

44. Okay, that made me sick...

WTF????????????????

[shayes51]

58. Me, too!

[indimuse]

46. unreal...

What the hell is it going to take for some of the Obama die hards to wake up and see this guy for what he is...quack quack...

[SIMPLYB1980]

48. Sigh.

[William769]

50. Thats the candidate of hope and change.

:eyes:

[Apollo11]

86. I don't think Barack Obama approved this particular message!

Even if it is not the first time that some people tried to use similar tactics in a primary.

I guess in NH 2000 you had some independents voting John McCain to stop George W Bush.

Then in Iowa 2004 you had independents voting Kerry or Edwards to stop Howard Dean.

Precinct captains making sure independents know the rules. That they don't have to permanently change their registration to Democratic if they prefer to remain independent.

But of course I do have a problem with appealing directly to REPUBLICANS to vote for Obama - not for any positive reasons but purely for a negative reason (to stop Hillary).

[zazzle]

131. Clinton moved the Dem Party to the right - Obama is moving the Dem Party to irrelevance!

[demo dutch]

132. That's why Primaries are much more representative than the "Undemocratic" Caucuses

[FiveGoodMen]

52. Way too complimentary of Reagan for my taste!

He makes it sound like Reagan was just what the US needed.

Unless the next thing out of his mouth was, "Of course, the changes Reagan introduced were horrible," I'm not the least bit impressed with Obama's statement.

[rocktivity]

54. He mentioned Nixon, too.

And I don't think he's being necessarily a complimentary.

:headbang:
rocknation

[izquierdista]

60. Wrong, Barak

Nixon put the US on the downward trajectory, Reagan just gave it the gas. Before Nixon, there used to be budget surpluses, but once he slid some deficit spending by, the country was used to it and Reagan was able to accelerate the debt. Nixon invented the imperial, above-the-law presidency, Reagan just played the Alzheimer's card when asked to be accountable. Nixon let the HMOs have their way and set up the health care system to work for them.

Americans weren't ready for a change in 1980; they got sold a bill of goods by a TV pitchman who promised them anything and was running against a President who told the country what they didn't want to hear, that the energy crisis was real and work would have to be done to overcome it.

[Divine Discontent]

63. you said that excellently.

perhaps if you see Obama you could tell him that. As someone else said, this sounded way too complimentary to Reagan unless he followed it up by totally denouncing the policies of that horrible Administration.

[Cameron27]

64. Yep

[balantz]

65. Excesses of the sixties and seventies? WTF does he mean? The progressive movement?

Excesses of the 60's and 70's? Please. Reagan was the fool who was set up to capture the American public that had been prepared by the right to follow a nationalistic theme of a return to "morality" which was the cover for dismantling our government...Much like the fervor that followed 911! A strange choice of something to emulate on Mr. Obama's part.

[FrenchieCat]

67. You have to watch the whole thing, or

you'll miss the boat sorta speak!


http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080115/VIDEO/80115026&oaso=news.rgj.com/breakingnews

[Emillereid]

66. Dumb, dumb, dumb!

Reagan changed everything, you're right - -and put the US of A on trajectory of ruin. He started the process of welcoming the foxes into the hen house and allowing the greedy predators to eat everything in sight, including their young.

[shirlden]

68. When does he gag?

I am an uncommitted Dem and my list just got one person shorter. For a good Democrat to be able to even say the name Reagan without the gag reflex kicking in, indicates to me he doesn't know his history. That young man is not ready for the big room in the White House. Send him back to school.

:wtf:

[tandem5]

70. "we want clarity! we want optimism!"

We want fluff! Reagan?? Are you freakin' kidding me!!?

[lukebc]

71. Obama was correct about reagan

I was 15 years-old when reagan was running in 79/80and even
then at that age I KNEW that reagan represented something big.
 Even at that age (I was raised in a very progressive/leftwing
environment) I understood what reagan's economic, social and
political philosphy meant and I remember well telling my
sisters and friends that WHEN reagan was elected there was
gonna be big changes to occur in the United States and they
were NOT going to be good.  reagan was the beginning of the
f!cked up present day rightwing reactionary reality we're
f!cked up in.

I went to the link that Bleachers7 provided and there was a
very interesting posting.  The message said that during
Clinton's presidency (the "we" means democrats):

"We lost 48 Seats in Congress."

"We lost 8 Seats in the Senate."

"We lost a ton of governorships and state
legislatures."

Like it or not, the ascent of reagan was the slooooooooowwwww
ending to the vestiges of the New Deal that had lasted for 5
decades.  Whereas the ascent of FDR and the New Deal brought
an almost instantaneous realignment that brought total
Democratic control of the federal government.  In the decades
following the 1932 election, the political environment of the
United States was liberal/progressive/center-left.

The ascent of reagan was the beginning of the
sloooooooooowwwwww ALMOST realignment to a republican control
of the federal government.  It took 14 years for that
realignment to occur from the election of reagan to the 1994
election.  Though the Democrats may have had periodic senate
control since reagan, the reality is that the political
environment of the United States since reagan has been
rightwing reactionary.

Eisenhower was to the FDR/New Deal political environment as
Clinton was to the reagan rightwing reactionary
environment...... WHICH IS CLEARLY COMING TO AN END.

So yes, the election of reagan DID represent a much bigger
change in the direction of the United States - albeit a VERY
negative one - than the election of Clinton.



_________________________________________

"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the
Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have
prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and
reconstructing that country."
george w. MONKEY, "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" (May 1,
2003)

[Middle finga]

75. Lukebc, you are correct, Clinton did not blaze his own trail

just like George Bush I and II they all followed the path that Reagan carved out. In order to find a President with the influence of Reagan you have to go all the way back to FDR (Some people may argue that JFK was also very influencial). By the way welcome to the Underground.

[Middle finga]

73. Barack is 100% correct in his statement

Reagan was unique because he was able to change the thinking in the country, he got the voters to go along from both sides of isle, he changed the political dialog, in other words he ushered in a revolution whether you agree or disagree with his policies he was a trailblazer. Not only that but the presidents that succeeded him were also influenced by his policies including Clinton. As much as america likes Clinton he was not a trailblazer, many of his ideas came from Reagan. In order to find past presidents with the type of influence that Reagan had you would probably have to go back to Kennedy and FDR. These guys ushered in revolutions during their presidencies, they didn't just rock the boat, they remade the boat and their successors basically followed their leads. That's all Barack is saying, you don't have to love Reagan to acknowledge his accomplishments.

[indimuse]

77. Identity Crisis...

First he's MLK...(for his base),,Then he's JFK..(for white Dems)...NOW he's Reagan!...(for the Cross over REPGS!) smooth....

[balantz]

82. That smoothness is wearing thin.

[7horses]

78. Some people need to be reminded ...

that the first act Reagan did was to fire the air traffic controllers and then continued to break unions for the next 8 years. He deregulated businesses and allow mergers which closed steel mills and other industries in this country. He ran the highest deficit in history at that time(Now surpassed by George w. Bush).
Reagan was an actor... who surrounded himself with some intelligent people who pushed the Republican big business agenda. I can't believe that Democrats are even arguing about the so called 'Reagan revolution'.

This is another reason to vote for John Edwards. I'm sure he is not planning on being a Reagan Democrat!

[Crunchy Frog]

79. It helps to see it in its full context.

http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080115/VIDEO/80115026&oaso=news.rgj.com/breakingnews

Anyway, I agree with him. Reagan's was a transformational presidency. It was transformational in the wrong direction, but still. And he did tap into the mood of the time. I've felt for a long time that this country needed a sort of reverse Reagan, and Obama could be that person.

[1776Forever]

89. You are so right on - Thanks for the full text! 49 minutes of it -

This makes much more sense! Hope everyone will take the time to listen to this before they post like I did. Check out his top 3 priorities - Ending the War - that will help to take care of the economic crisis, Health care and the Environment.
:applause:

[jefferson_dem]

80. Thanks!

He's right.

:kick: and rec.

[William769]

90. Your welcome.

Glad to see people are really getting to see what some here really will believe.

[Jim Sagle]

83. Obama ain't nuthin' but shit.

[lukebc]

84. With this thread looks like the DU has DEGENERATED into Stalin vs. Zinoviev or Hitler vs. Rohm

Wow, DU is ALL about *party purity* now from what I can gather from the postings on this thread.

Yup, as almost every indicator seems to indicate, the United States is certainly gonna be turning away from the rightwing reactionary reagan/friedmanism, social darwinism, unregulated, unbridled, laisse-faire capitalism "supply-side" ethos destroying this land since the late 1970s and, instead, will be seeking a people-first governance.

Ah, but given the reality of (expected) *POWER*: the Democrats have sunk into the forgetting about the sh!thole of a situation of george w. MONKEY and ARE already behaving like Stalin and Hitler in their NECESSITY to "purge" **THEIR** "enemies".

Does this mean there will be a show trial or a night of the long knives for "me and my ilk"?











_________________________________________

"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country."
george w. MONKEY, "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" (May 1, 2003)

[ExPatLeftist]

88. Reagan was a treasonous war criminal.

Iran-Contra. Providing weapons to a proclaimed enemy of the US is high treason, punishable by hanging. Not to mention what he did to Central America at the time (my first hand experiences with that were horrid).

If he paved the way for anything, it was the "get over it" attitude which has been the cornerstone of the W presiduncy. starting with the election, going through 9/11 investigations, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo bay, Osama, et al ad nauseum.

Reagan should have hung from a yardarm.

Never forget.

[1776Forever]

91. Agreed - But don't you also agree that he like Hitler was a transformation figure - I hated him too!

There are certain people who can bring change into focus and Reagan and his gang of thieves were one of them. I agree with you on the fact that Reagan was totally wrong but he was very influential in a bad way! My husband was one of the people he took off the SS Disability rolls in 1980 when he came in and we had to go on welfare but we made it while some people committed suicide because of the lose! This was Reagan's priority when he came to the Presidency, to cut the rolls of the disabled! Let us never forget about this terrible influence and hope for a much better one for our future!

[ExPatLeftist]

92. Yes, I agree, and now we have another "transformation figure"...

...in a house built for nobler purposes.

I will never forget, but unfortunately it seems that most of America has the attention span of a gnat. Two things that really drove that home to me were the "get over it" cries immediately following the 2000 selection and the unmitigated praise lavished on Tricky Dick when he died...

I hope that people will realize that addressing issues of the past is not the same as living in the past and that issues of the past must, in fact, be addressed in order to improve the future. But I believe that in our increasingly sound-bite oriented society, the trend will instead continue to go in the opposite direction...

Thanks for the reply. :)

[DogPoundPup]

93. It's so obvious.....even though you clowns won't admit it

Kucinich is the ONLY one with ALL Americans best interests in mind.

[ExPatLeftist]

94. I like Kucinich...

But wonder if you really think that calling people "clowns" that have different views than you will cause them to change their minds?

IMO it will have no effect at all, and if it had any, it would be the opposite of what you seem to want. So I think messages like this simply backfire, against you and by proxy, your candidate.

Oh, and your message doesn't say anything at all. Just basically, "Kucinich is the best and you are dumb if you disagree."

I am sure Dennis would not play it that way.

But hey, you are of course welcome to your opinion and welcome to share it, no matter how it makes you look. Now I have shared mine.

[DogPoundPup]

100. Clowns are funny, what are you gettin'

all prissy about? These Hillary/Obama fans can't see how bushlike these two msm specifically chosen 'front-runners' are?

[ExPatLeftist]

102. Prissy?

Give me a break.

Take it or leave it, my opinion is that name-calling as a part of "political debate", especially with nothing mentioned to back it up, is ineffectual and makes it appear that you are not very bright. Again, that is just my opinion.

I would like to see a breakdown of why you prefer Kucinich, but just saying "you are all clowns" is a waste of your time and mine.

[DogPoundPup]

104. Kucinich has ALL Americans best interest in mind!

"when I tell you that Dennis Kucinich is first of all a sane, sane man, and secondly, fit to be president -- and thirdly: It's Kucinich time, now, because what this blue-balled, war-thwacked nation needs is not another scleroid corporate whore but a sixty-one-year-old vegan peacemonger, poor beyond corruption and honest as spit, hauling balls big enough to choke Dick Cheney.

"When I was in a room with the lead banker in Cleveland on December 15, 1978, and he was telling me that I had to sell the city-owned electric system, suddenly I was transported back in time and space to this little boy listening to and watching his parents count the pennies to pay the utility bill" -- and here Kucinich's voice softens -- "I was sitting there with this banker, and I could hear the pennies dropping again -- click...click...click..."

Then he reaches back and hurls the four-seamer, up and in.

"And because I remembered where I came from, I said no to the sale. I can't be bullied, I can't be bossed, I can't be intimidated, and I can't be tricked. I'm there on behalf of your families -- I'm there on behalf of your jobs. I'm there -- the same person who as a child listened to his parents count the pennies at the table -- "

Shouting now, Kucinich pumps his right fist up and down as the crowd cheers.

"Mom and Dad! I'm there for all the mothers and fathers who are worried about what they're paying, who are worried about their jobs, who want to make sure that they can claim that this country still belongs to working people, still belongs to the people, and there's someone who will stand for that principle."
cont. reading at:
http://www.esquire.com/features/kucinich1107?src=digg

[navarth]

115. dude.

I like Kooch too. Please stop fuckin' it up for him. Take the high road. More flies with honey. Please, bro.

[DogPoundPup]

139. Yea, the high road,

What Gore did for bush? And Kerry did for bush? LOL!

[navarth]

162. nah. that was for Bu$h

and it was a mistake, you're absolutely right. fuck yeah

but I'm talking about US here....not how we do the repubs.

anyway, do whatcha want, I just think we're gonna be better off if we don't pound each other. save that shit for the bad guys.

[MrMickeysMom]

113. I'm going to weigh in on this, too...

DogPoundPup - if it feels better to insult participants to the thread, you must have needs beyond anyone else in support of Dennis Kucinich, which includes ME.

DK would shake his head and walk away from that comment. Think about what you do when you allow frustrations to limit your ability to reason.

ExPatLeftist - I agree that we shouldn't confuse issues from the past with living in that past. I've been turned off a lot lately by lots of DU discussion threads. I'm sure a portion of that can be blamed on burnout, Another concern is how people here spend more time piling on to others arguments and less time on active reading or listening to entire interviews. You can't GET an interview like this on network television in the states, or even on NPR anymore. So, we have to make DU that place of discussion. But, so many people just want to whip up frenzy and hit "post message".

I'm going to spend the rest of my day off reading some local Home Rule Charters that have to do with LOCAL government, where I might actually make a difference. Then, I'd like to finish the Obama interview video that was linked, but I can't view it since I had to pause the video 1/4 way through.

I get the sense that we should ask these candidates follow up questions about comments regarding "change agent" presidents. If we don't ask the questions soon the powers that be are going to simultaneously exercise the power of the state and the power of the market. Then, we won't have a tinker's chance to find out what these people REALLY stand for who want the White House so badly.

Peace for Iceland and the US- MMM

[DogPoundPup]

136. Good grief...

Oh my, I'm the bad gal , used the word clowns. Oh my word, I'm sure to end up in a detention center or someplace similar ( http://www.alternet.org/rights/73991/ )...afterall, "wethepeople"just allow our civil liberties to be crushed, our constituion, bill of rights and habeus corpus to be just pieces of paper with words that don't mean anything, we spend billions of dollars a week to destroy another country while our country's infasructure crumbles and we don't have the money to fix it, etc. etc. etc...

Now,... I forget what I was saying, show me your rope leash again MrMickeysMom.

[MrMickeysMom]

172. I don't have to say a thing...

Sorry, I have no rope leash, and I'm not sure what your point is beyond understanding the state of our endangered democracy. We agree on that.

This is a Democatic discussion group. If your goal is to have a conversation, then by all means, have one. If you came for an argument, well, here ya go-

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-572077907195969915

[pnwmom]

95. Not only that, but in the same breath he equates Clinton and Nixon! Wow.

And this is supposed to be a positive campaign?

[Chicken George]

96. What an idiot.

Obviously not ready for prime-time if he thinks Democrats who lived the 80's have forgotten about Raygun/Bush crimes against America and its less fortunate citizens. I'd say unbelievable but that is not the case. Obama is fucking CLUELESS.

[ingac70]

97. WTF???

With all the spending Reagan did, Obama is talking about him stopping the growth of government?

[humbled_opinion]

98. OMG don't get sucked into this

BS... Obama is the real deal its time for Change.

[durrrty libby]

103. His change = "create a kingdom on earth" No thanks

[humbled_opinion]

120. Simply Insane.

Your argument has no merit... Obama never mentioned a Kingdom on Earth... Where is your reference... Stop with the Obama Bashing.. Sometimes I think I logged onto Freeptards by mistake.

[durrrty libby]

135. Hey clueless use google before throwing around

baseless invectives. BO supporters are ill-informed fools

[sallyseven]

109. It is time for a change

So don't vote for Obama because he is a republican no mater how you frame it. Republicans from Reagan to Bush 1 skip some years and bush 2 all hate the working people and everyone who is not rich. Now that Obama has made it he thinks he is rich so that is why he thinks republican. Very few black people reach back to help other blacks get ahead. That has been true for many years.

[humbled_opinion]

121. That is a Hillary Scare Tactic

Because she and BIll will say and do anything to get back in the WH and for what purpose more divisivness in the country... More Lying to America, More sitting on their ass while Terrorists plot and plan and act on us... More Monica?

Bill and Hillary don't need to be back in the Oval Office to get a BJ they can just come here to DU ... Some of you on this site are so blindly led I will compare you to Bushbots.

[noiretextatique]

143. black people have progressed mainly because of each other

if black people didn't "help each other get ahead" who in the world did? culturally speaking, i am not so sure obama is connected to our struggle in america...that i will grant you. but at least he knows he can't get a cab in certain places.

[Joey Liberal]

101. I'm disappointed by Obama

Reagan was a disaster for the country. He spent us into oblivion and made huge mistakes in the middle east. He sold missiles to Iran. I'd take Bill Clinton over Reagan any day.

[BigD_95]

106. I agree

Im really disappointed by Obama. Reagan was one of the worst Presidents ever and has this fake image. He is the one that is to blame for killing the unions among other things.

[Joey Liberal]

166. Welcome to DU:).............. n/t

[debbierlus]

105. I watched it. Title is spin. Content of Obama's view of Reagan disturbing

He is talking about Reagan as a force of change & capturing that change. Reagan's change however was a destructive force that was the beginning of the end. It was greed and lack of compassion and each man for himself. It brought a new mentality of ME, it split the nation into the blue & red state mentalities we see now.

Obama talking of this as transformative without being ultimately destructive exposes him as a superficial, self serving politician of the status quo.

I don't like him, and I am not the least surprised at this pathetic 'commentary'.

[tinrobot]

110. Reagan did change this country - it's a fact, so what's the fuss?

I don't think Reagan changed it for the better, but he did change it. More importantly, the people of the US did change the way they viewed government and politics because of him.

Obama says he's a similar agent of change, but a change away from Reagan's policies. If he actually follows through on his promises, he'll change it for the better.

The thing that bothers me is that Obama talks of himself in that way - shows a lot of hubris.

[cooolandrew]

111. To come to his defense he's talking of how Reagan intially united America. Unity is the answer to..

...get things done not necessarily bi-partisan but unity of the nation if they are on his side heis unstoppable.

[Lorien]

114. United? Hardly

maybe the Dems on Capital Hill were buying his snake oil at the time, but as a High School and College student in the Midwest I can tell you that the VAST majority of young people I knew hated and feared Reagan. I only knew four republicans personally during his term in office. Everyone else was a Democrat who was flabbergasted that anyone in America would so easily be bamboozled by his absurd rhetoric. Can you imagine a time in the future when people will be saying "George W. Bush united America" because he managed to bully most representatives into giving him what he wanted? Same thing.

[noiretextatique]

169. thank you...i don't know where the people who are saying this

were in 1980 and 1984, but reagan was as divisive as they come, and he presided over two of the most corrupt administrations in modern history. there was (and is) intense opposition to his destructive policies, and those of us who are old enough to remember don't see that time as the glorius period that the MSM is trying to sell it as now. reagan's reign was as dismal as bush jr's.

[Hello_Kitty]

112. I can't say I'd blame him if he did pick Raygun over Clinton at this point.

Considering what assholes the Clintons have been lately, I mean.

[femrap]

118. There are so many flaws in what barack is

saying...he seems to know what all the American people in 1980 were thinking. Bull shit.

First of all, ronnie's 'Morning in America' was 1984, NOT 1980. And ronnie was using the Hostages as a campaign issue in 1980...not 'Happy Days.'

1980 marked The Beginning of the End for the Middle/Working Class. It marked the start-up of the NeoCons.

The trajectory that ronnie put us on was Union Busting, Big Deficits, Huge expenditures for the Pentagon, Using Economic Hitmen in 3rd world countries and then killing the nation if they did not abide financially....that trajectory was one of decline, death, and destruction.

And 'excesses of the '60's and '70's.....barack must be in cahoots with rove, because that is what scared him and his other neocon buddies....blacks and women were achieving equality and the message of Peace was gaining ground. No way could these nerd white boys stand for that. After all if a black or woman could do their jobs, what does that make the rich white boy? NOT SUPERIOR! And this scared the hell out of them....and that's when they decided they better team up with Religious rich white boys and start manipulating the stupid, non-thinking sheeple.

[balantz]

126. You got it!

And let's throw in the war on drugs, while our military jets were used to bring the shit in. And then don't forget the crazy crack-heads (mostly black) who needed to be put in prison extra long to punish them more severely for a terrible addiction of unfortunate souls that needed compassion and treatment instead of condemnation and elimination.

[femrap]

158. Hell....we could write a book

on "What Was Wrong With Ronnie." A very thick book, indeed.

He truly provided misery, pain, and suffering to millions.

[balantz]

163. And we are suffering still, in fact the worse is just peeking on the horizon.

We truly need a real progressive president who eill FIGHT to help us get our country back!

[noiretextatique]

170. if may interject, add to the list his inaction on AIDS eom

[jodini]

119. Yikes!

That is sad and troubling to me that he would infer that Reagan was more of a "change" candidate that Clinton. WTF? No matter what context this was in, it is still disappointing. Regardless, I think we could easily play "gotcha" with the various candidates who are simply trying to get the nomination at this point and will vary their messages somewhat to suit the audiences they are playing to. Clearly, he is trying to gain momentum w/ "Reagan" democrats and Reagan-lovin independants and Repubs. I will stick to my mantra of "I will support ANY of our candidates happily because they are incomparably better than the Republicans, always". However, this type of stuff bums me out. I still think he, Clinton or Edwards would be exceptional presidents.

[TexasBushwhacker]

122. Well, that's good to know!

Don't get me wrong. I will vote for any Democratic candidate in the general election, even though my first choice is Edwards. But this tells me a lot about Obama. If he's saying this and REALLY believes that Reagan was a better president, a better force of change, than Clinton, that's good to know. If he's just saying this as a back handed way of insulting Hillary's husband and the job he did and the job she might do, that's good to know too.

[humbled_opinion]

124. Spin, Spin Spin..

You are all falling for the Spin... The intention is for the Repukes to split the party over Race and Religion... So now because Obama said that he is an agent of change compared to how Regan was an agent of change as a Republican... What he is telling you is this... HE will be to the Democratic Party what Regan was to the Repub party.. Don't you get it...

He is not going to adopt Repuke principles... He is for real and stands on Principled Leadership... Come on folks, I thought there were serious thinkers on this board...

[TexasBushwhacker]

151. Whatever

Like I said, if he ends up being the Democratic nominee in the general election, I will vote for him, but he isn't my first choice now or before I watched the video. I'm voting for Edwards in the primary.

[Sam Ervin jret]

123. Reagan is the reason we have no BIG Government OK so NO FEMA for KATRINA, no oversight for LEAD in

toys, no UNIONS no OSAH to be sure people are working in safe conditions (how many people fell of that idiots Trump building the other day?) all of this is related to REAGAN

OBAMA makes a point then makes the opposite point. Reagan was great because he caused change--- except he changed all the WRONG things and has sent us in a shit hole. Obama keep saying you want "smaller government) but how can you say that and still get the social programs, infrastructure, health care, OSHA, FEMA, environmental issues, not to mention the Real, not imagined(and there are some) foreign threats that this country has to face. The problem is not idealological blocking and gridlock or vitriol. We do not need to be brought together by lack of ideology. We need and the ideas and ideas out, fought through, out in the open (i agree with obama on the openness).

To say Reagan was anything but a disaster for this country shows a distinct lack of historical perspective. To use his getting elected as an example of how people will take anything when they are desperate for change is a warning to us all and ultimately true.

Being not offensive is not enough of a reason to be president. Being change is not enough to be president. This is not about you OBAMA!!!!! It is about US. Grow up get over your self and see US in eight years when you'll be a great president. If he becomes president NOW I feel his eight year time will be wasted.

To me he is the Bobby Kennedy of our day for our 18-28 year old kids. Which is great! But he has not had the experience that even Bobby had had. He needs to ripen a little while. The kids say no. We want him NOW. Which is what kids are like. But you only get to be president for 8 years. Why be a mediocre president NOW when you can be an extraordinary president in 8 years. I know this takes patience and maturity to see, but I really think it makes sense.

And by the way, no, I am not a person who is a Hillary supporter. I like her and Edwards and Obama, but the guy I would have voted for already had to drop out. But isn't that America for you and me. Insm't that America. It's somethin' to see.

[MilesColtrane]

125. He's making a commentary on the history of the political mood of the country,

not "picking" Reagan as a better president.

What IS disturbing to me is that he fails to mention that all of Reagan's rhetoric about "morning in America", government accountability, smaller government, and his aw shucks benevolent grandpa persona were complete bullshit.

The American people may have wanted these things when they voted for Reagan, but they sure as hell didn't get it.

If anything, Reagan's policies, when in office, where in direct opposition to his campaign promises. (Much like the "uniter" George W. Bush promising no nation building.)

For Obama to totally ignore this truth, and not even mention it as an aside, makes me think that he is deliberately pandering to disaffected Republican voters, and I don't like it.

[demo dutch]

128. That will be that. I don't like this one bit! Obama supporters be carefull what you wish for!

[Hutzpa]

130. You guys are all full

of shit, and William769 is the greatest shit eater of all.

How could you folks fall for this spin shit by will769, I don't trust him to have my 1cent.


Ad Hominem!!

[desi]

182. Talk about "Ad Hominem!!"

and being full of shit...

[The M Double]

134. DU

Context everyone... CONTEXT!

My freakin' Gawd... What a bunch of tools!

[demo dutch]

138. Here's the entire interview.. in the context of "change"

http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080115/VIDEO/80115026&oaso=news.rgj.com/breakingnews

[Kermitt Gribble]

141. Exactly why Obama is my 3rd choice.

I'll vote for him in the GE if he wins, but I won't like it.

[oasis]

153. When Reagan began his '80 presidency run where 3 civil rights workers were murdered

in Mississippi, he was sending a message of "hope" to white racist.

[Divine Discontent]

155. UGH!

just watched the part of the interview AFTER what we see here (20 minutes into it, http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080115/VIDEO/80115026&oaso=news.rgj.com/breakingnews) - he actually goes on to say ------

"fair to say the the republicans were the party of ideas the past 10-15 years", and they "challenged conventional wisdom", but they're now only talking in debates about "tax cuts". But let's back up - read those first two comments.


Very disheartening. The Democrats have fought for the rights of gays, women, workers, more so against the Iraq occupation, the environment - the GOP has fought to stop any advancements.


Yeah, Reagan put us on a fundamentally different path from Carter, Sen. Obama... totally different.

[judaspriestess]

156. Just got back from a town hall meeting with John Edwards this morning

and he mentioned what Obama said about reagan. Mr. Edwards said under NO circumstances would he EVER bring up reagan and talk about him in comparisons to anything Democratic.

On edit: To me, the whole point is there are lines you just don't cross period. Bringing up reagan is just wrong.

[Hulk]

157. I have to agree with many posts....Obama just lost points with this absurd clip.

I'm disappointed in what he had to say, partly because in my humble opinion, I believe that ronnie the actor did more to destroy this country's future than any other president I can think of.

The brain dead repugs credit him with breaking the back of the Soviet Union and "take down that wall" crap. Was ANYONE paying attention to the drain of man power, attention and finances going on in Afghanistan at that time?

All ronnie did was introduce us to Queen Bitch, his wife; ran up the largest deficit in American History for some screwed up space program that never worked properly; began the rapid destruction of the middle class jobs and the unions protecting them, decontrolled the airwaves so we can listen to bullshit like vannity, bor, limpballs on three different channels at one time in the Southeast of the country and most other rural areas; and introduced Alzheimer's to the White House and proved how an empty shell of a human, such as the present resident, can become the leader of one of the greatest nations in the world with the worlds most powerful military.

Nice job ronnie. Way to blow smoke out of your ass Obama.

[Truthiness]

159. Reagan made a bigger impact on America than Clinton

For better or worse, it's absolutely true.

[Joey Liberal]

167. For worse n/t

[gordontron]

160. That's a completely dishonest title for this thread

Congrats on strangling his words to mean something they don't. I'm an Edwards supporter, but this is simply misleading. He is saying that Reagan changed the direction of the country more than Clinton did, that's not necessarily a positive thing, but given previous posts that doesn't seem to penetrate.

[desi]

181. Have you seen what Edwards had to say about Obama/Raygun?

If you have not, make an effort to do so.

[november3rd]

161. Trajectory

That's a good choice of words. Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that nobody else has: downward.

[KoKo]

165. Once again Obama disses the 60's & 70's...calling it an era of "excesses"...

and that Reagan moved us into an era of "entreprenuership."

[DutchLiberal]

176. Nice spin! Obama certainly did not "pick" Reagan over Clinton.

All he stated was that Reagan dramatically changed the trajectory of the country. He did not say the change was for the better. Nobody can argue Reagan's victory was the beginning of a whole new political movement (resulting in Junior's mess).

[va4wilderness]

183. Also Not Shown: Obama mentioned JFK as a similar change agent...

He essentially was saying that the Reagan Era had played out, that a new way of thinking had already arrived and that it was time for politicians to catch up with the American people.... If you listen to the entire video. None of this is captured in this "sound bite" video. I agree: "All he stated was that Reagan dramatically changed the trajectory of the country."

I have not made up made up my mind and it probably won't matter, since we don't vote till Feb 12. But I certainly think that Obama is one of the more acceptable of the candidates. The (long) interview does not dissuade me at all. In fact, I think the interview shows that he will be able to get things done, that he will put average people ahead of corporations and the superwealthy, and that he will move forward in a positive direction on a variety of fronts (getting us out of Iraq, health care, climate change, etc.). Of course he is not the perfect candidate. None of them are. But I hate to see things taken out of context and boiled down into sound bites the way this was.

[DutchLiberal]

184. I don't think he will put average people ahead of corporations and the super-wealthy.

And the reason for thinking this, is very simple: like all the other presidents of the last 50 years, Obama has already been bought and paid for by the very corporations he vows to fight. He will not bring change. Maybe he wants to, but he can't. And he knows he can't. The corporations who are paying him now want something in return once he gets into the White House. Same with Clinton, same with Edwards.

It's not so much a matter of Democrats versus Republicans, but a matter of corporatism versus populism. And as long as the people (even the very same people that always protest against corporatism here at DU) continue to elect the candidates that are backed and built up with millions of corporate money, the status quo (corporations ahead of average people) will continue.

[va4wilderness]

187. You're right.

I'm still trying to weigh the candidates and all their virtues/faults. One of these candidates is going to get the nomination and if it's Obama, I hope his background as a community organizer/constitutional scholar actually means something and he uses his smooth approach to get some real reforms in place. But is he already beholden to his supporters from the "money primary."??? That's a good question. I said "acceptable" but I should have used stronger language. I'm definitely NOT overjoyed to say the least, but one of these candidates is getting the nomination, I assume. I have similar doubts/concerns about all the other major candidates. It's too bad in this country we only have two parties: a right wing party (GOP) and a middle of the road party that despite its occasional rhetoric to the contrary, has no spine (Dem).

[usregimechange]

180. He doesn't compare them generally, what a Rove style distortion!

[ElsewheresDaughter]

185. he is def to naive to be president....what the fuck was he thinking when he let these words pass his

lips....jays'us h christ!

[Labors of Hercules]

186. Obama just needs to stop speaking intelligently,

stick to speaking only in shallow terms, and never refer to anything (or anyone) that may not be perceived as "palatable" to the Democratic base in a positive light.

:sarcasm:

[Kat 333]

188. omg

VERY SCARY :scared: