She's vicious. I can't stand her, but she has an instinct for the kill that is Bush-like.

I'm starting to wonder if Obama has that instinct, I've yet to see it. I'm rooting for him. It's time for him to hit back hard.

Just like in New Hampshire, the Clintons resort to lies and misleading attacks in the last days before the election.

Here's the main point. When Hillary blasts Obama for his Reagan remarks, she will be lauded. When Edwards blasted him, way before Hillary did, he got slammed.

This is just a run-of-the-ill example of Clinton's intellectual dishonesty. She knows damn well that Obama didn't say or mean what she says he did.

I've read snippets of Obama's comments, and listened to part of the interview, and I think he's right on the mark when he talks about how Reagan was able to swing the country hard right in a way that Bill Clinton was never able to do.

That being said, he's probably going to get hammered over this in the primaries, and Clinton's campaign has demonstrated repeatedly that they are willing to slime their opponents.

On the other hand, a lot of non-Democrats don't think Reagan was so awful. Perhaps Obama is reaching out to them, and I don't know if this is necessarily a bad idea.

I was suprised and amazed that Obama mentioned Reagan, and I'm wondering if it might have a counterintuitive effect--(not on Democrats, obviously--but on other voters...)

Here's the main point. When Hillary blasts Obama for his Reagan remarks, she will be lauded. When Edwards blasted him, way before Hillary did, he got slammed.

Dear Mr James,

That was precisely the point I was trying to make on the other thread. Sen Clinton's campaign so far has proven to be an extended aping of John Edwards. Edwards's health plan becomes Clinton's health plan. Edwards' economic stimulus package becomes Clinton's economic stimulus package. Now Edwards' cheap-shot talking-point becomes Clinton's cheap-shot talking-point. Nice work if you can get it, that, but one rather has to wonder why Clinton's supporters prefer to get this stuff through the intermediate agency of Clinton instead of direct from the source (especially given that the head-to-head match-up polls show that the actual source is more electable in the GE than the intermediary).

His point is spot on -- hello democrats! We have not controlled government since 1994 -- wake up -- his comments were critical of the Repukicans -- she is acting like one -

The I-Barrack now with I-tunes for the I-bot generation.

This is a personnal attack but Obama's comedy routine was just good clean fun. The blatant bias against Senator Clinton in the so-called progressive media makes me sick.

Go ahead, pick Obama in spite of the fact that he's increasingly a Republican mouth piece. He's on GQ. He must be cool.

Did you ever hear a Republican praising Roosevelt or LBJ?
never!
Democrats like Obama need to get their shit together before they ask to become president or a party leader. If I want gooper talking points, I can listen to rover or grover or kristol.
He needs to take his foot out of his mouth. and dont tell me we should understand what he is trying to do and say--I dont.

"...It's better we realize this now, instead of in the general when the Republicans take him down and we lose the White House."

Yes, because we all know how much Republicans hate it when you say good things about Reagan. Give me a break.

Seriously Hillary fans? This is the kind of politics you want to embrace? Yea, this kind of shit is sure to end the bitter partisanship in Washington. Best of luck...

They should make this appearance into a TV ad. I hope the networks pick this up and run it in contrast to the Clinton surrogate wars.

Obama Goes for Laughs Instead of Jugular

By SUNLEN MILLER
LAS VEGAS, Jan. 18, 2008 —

With only hours to go before Nevada Democrats begin caucusing, Barack Obama took a new tact in his battle with Hillary Clinton  laughing at her criticism of him.

Obama opened a town hall meeting by drawing laughs as he went point by point through Clinton's attempts to discredit or criticize his record.

Obama brought up, in almost comic perplexity, Clinton's criticisms over his recent debate answers, the bankruptcy bill, Yucca Mountain, Social Security and lobbyists. He presented himself, by contrast, as the one who is the straight shooter, and Clinton as a candidate who will say anything to get elected.

Responding to the fallout from Tuesday's debate question over each candidate's weakness, Obama mentioned his messy desk and said that he loses paper easily.

"So I thought, ya know, 'cause I'm like an ordinary person, I thought that they meant 'what's your biggest weakness?' & So the other two [Clinton and John Edwards] they say, they say well my biggest weakness is 'I'm just too passionate about helping poor people.' 'I am just too impatient to bring about change in America,'" Obama said.

"If I had gone last, I would have known what the game was. I could have said, 'Well ya know, I like to help old ladies across the street. Sometimes they don't want to be helped. It's terrible.'"

Obama then took on the bankruptcy bill and criticized Clinton for her reasoning for voting for the bill.

"So Sen. Clinton votes for this and then she says, 'I voted for it, but I was glad to see that it didn't pass.' What does that mean?" Obama exclaimed to the crowd. "If you didn't want to see it passed, then you can vote against it. People don't say what they mean."

Obama moved on to the proposed nuclear waste site at Yucca Mountain and Clinton's recent questioning of Obama's position.

"I have said over and over again I'm against Yucca. & I think the science is not there. I've never been for Yucca. Never been for it. Never said I was for it. Suddenly you've got the Clinton camp out there saying 'He's for Yucca.' What part of 'I'm not for Yucca' do you not understand?"

Obama moved to Social Security, responding to a mailer in Nevada the Clinton campaign has sent out criticizing Obama's plan.

"Suddenly you have a flier out by the Clinton campaign saying 'Obama is proposing a trillion-dollar tax increase on hardworking Americans.' Now understand that here in Nevada only 3 percent of the people make more than $97,000 so maybe she thinks that middle-class folks [are] making a million dollars. I don't."

Lastly, Obama hit hard on Clinton's criticism of the ethics reform bill he passed in the Senate with Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis.

"She mocked our bill. This is an example of saying what you mean. She said, she's been saying over the past couple of weeks, 'You know, this bill doesn't do anything. You know, it was just a little, symbolic bill. If Sen. Obama thinks that's a big accomplishment, that's his right.' Keep in mind she had voted against some of the provisions that would have made it even stronger. So only in Washington can you vote to weaken a bill and then complain later it wasn't stronger."

Obama then said he looked at what she said about the bill on the floor of the Senate and reports back that what she said was 'this is excellent legislation and I'm proud to be voting for it cause this is really making progress.'"

"Wait a minute, you can't say one thing back then and now say something complete opposite now," Obama exclaimed as the crowd roared in laughter.

After getting through the list, Obama wrapped up by concluding, "Those kinds of tricks, that kind of approach to politics is what has to stop. Nobody believes anything. Voters don't believe what politicians are saying."

He then promised the audience, "You won't hear me saying one thing one day to one audience and then saying something else another day to a different audience because I think it's politically convenient."

peterboy, I'm glad you asked! The answer to your question is "yes".

"I cast my first vote for Roosevelt and the full Democratic ticket. And like Jack - and millions of other Americans - I soon idolized FDR. He'd entered the White House facing a national emergency as grim as any the country had ever faced and, acting quickly, he had implemented a plan of action to deal with the crisis. During his fireside chats, his strong, gentle, confident voice resonated across the nation with an eloquence that brought comfort and resilience to a nation caught up in a storm and reassured us that we could lick any problem. I will never forget him for that."

-Ronald Reagan, An American Life

Well.....Reagan WAS awful. He took Prop 13 and supply side as far as he could. Then, like Obama, he built a personality based appeal that ushered in W who pushed those ideas to their ultimate. We are harvesting those fruits today and for the rest of our lives. No self respecting Dem should ever point to Reagan as a model.

You don't have to say specific words to imply certain attitudes. "Dr. Feelgood" Obama, by his measured manner, came across as being an admirer of the GOP. Of all the presidents in history he could have chosen for his little bipartisan rhetoric, why choose Reagan? It has clearly inflamed the Democrats and given the Repubs a pat on the back for what could be implied as praise for a job well done. Ms. Clinton is right to blast him, and I want to see this issue front and center, because Dr. Feelgood defined himself once and for all.

Gnopple-

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Fine, work against Hillary. You deserve what you get.

Urg, THIS is why I hate her. I used to defend her even though I didn't agree with some of the more conservative Clinton policies, but who she has shown herself to truly be in this campaign has appalled me. To be so dishonest and manipulative, so callous and disingenuous, all to deceive voters, destroy your opponents, anything to win IN A PRIMARY for Christsake. It disgusts me that she is in our party.

And to Organizer: No, there is no way in HELL I will get behind her if she wins the nomination. She disgusts me. I can't stand her, she has been no better (maybe even worse) than a Republican in this campaign, she has stooped to unbelievable lows to destroy anyone who gets in the way of her quest back to the White House, and I'll be damned if I ever give her my vote. I could never vote so such a sleazebag in good conscience. If she wins the nomination I am switching to Independent, because I refuse to be associated with a party whose leader is that dishonest and power hungry. She can try to lie and say that Obama loves Reagan, but she obviously loves Bush/Cheney/Rove, at least when it comes to her tactics and political honesty.

Oh, and for a little perspective, she has stated on the record (it was even published in one of her Iowa endorsements) that Reagan and Bush Sr are among her favorite past presidents. How DARE she try to twist Obama's words and then denounce him when SHE has ACTUALLY praised Reagan!! And lets not forget who she wanted to send out on diplomatic missions to be the "new" face of America: Bush Sr. And also, she campaigned AGAINST LBJ back in the 60s, if she had her way he would have never been elected president. Give me a break, she is disgusting and hypocritical to the extreme. You are a sad sad person Hillary Clinton. You don't belong in our party.

I h8 Hillary. sorry, but i do. I"m a democrat, a pretty liberal one at that, and I will never ever ever vote for her. Ever.

This is one of the reasons why. She is distorting and drawing conclusions that can't be drawn from what Obama said. He never ever, said, or implied even that "republicans had better ideas than democrats."

How you run your campaign is how you'll govern. And if your willing to lie, distort, and mislead to win, she'll use lies, and distortions to win her political battles in the White House. I guess Hillary's definition of "change" means just changing WHO is doing the lying and distorting.

Hillary could have criticized Obama for what he actually said. Instead, she decides to criticize him for something he NEVER said.

How do you clinton supporters justify that? And how much of this slime ball politics are you willing to tolerate?

i'm an obama supporter, but to be fair, did hillary vote for the bankruptcy bill? i thought they both voted against it.

TPM is becoming as useless as every other media outlet.

boy..its why I hate hillary and why i love hillary. For her to say that Obama was praising the republicans or reagan is a lie. He was commenting on transformational presidencies and said that reagan was one(which he was like him or hate him) and that nixon and carter and clinton were not.

But on the other hand, she and her are absolutely vicious on other candidates just like the republicans are so that is why I love her..or maybe I just want to beat republicans so bad, I will do anything to win..yep that's clinton..willing to do anything to win

the republican smear machine isnt going anywhere. You gotta fight fire with fire jim.

Naive really doesn't even cover it around here.

So we've had about 3-4 posts today of Clinton campaign talking points. When are we going to get Obama's and Edwards'?

The Dems are going to lose the general. They're going to nominate Hillary, a year of Hillary fatigue and hatred will pass, and we'll be looking at eight years of Mitt or McCain or Huck. Some Democrats can stand Hillary. Half of America HATES her.

katie:

"Play hard or go home. Obama is just like Kerry, he doesn't have the backbone for this kind of hard ball. I'd rather not lose again."

So, you endorse deception, misrepresentation, and outright lying in a campaign?

And, if so, why should anyone vote for any politician, because you can never trust what they say?

I'm glad you've figured it out CT Voter.

DC isnt going anywhere, the lobbyists, the republicans, the big evil corporations, its here to stay. You gotta play in the big leagues with the big guns, and WORK for change, and FIGHT for the change.

Obama should have spent a few more years in the minors.

First of all his comments appear to pertain more to Gingrich than to Reagan, though he did "praise" Reagan very recently as well. However, whether his supporters think it's fair or not, his characterizations of the Thug party as "the party of ideas" come a tad too close to being Republican talking points than the reality warrants. The implicit praise I think is going to turn off Dem voters in the primaries and serve as fodder for the Thugs against him in the general if he makes it that far. It would go something like: "If you want the reincarnation of those big change Reagan years and those "party-of-ideas" Gingrich years, why not just vote for the real thing---a Republican?"

"If he can't take the heat from Hillary, what does he expect to get from the Republicans???"

Can't take it?!!! What are you talking about? Hillary is digging her own Herbert Hoover grave here. He Reagan baited her and she lurked in a corner for two days staring at the shiny object, and then finally bit. I know Bill prompted her. It was his legacy that was being discussed.

Ongoing win for Obama, however long this stays in the news.

Obama talking about Reagan being a change agent and having better ideas is a bit strange for a Democrat. It does not seem to bother either Obama or his supporters that Reagan kicked off his campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi and talked of states rights.

Also isn't Obama indirectly endorsing Clinton's statements about Dr. King and President Johnson? Reagan undoubtedly changed many things. However, he was following on the tax-revolt in California and the many movement conservatives.

Either Obama is insulting all the people who made Reagan possible or he is acknowledging that a President who can get things done, whether Johnson or Reagan, is crucial to enacting dreams into law.

I don't think it's a better idea to privatize Social Security.

This is part of why I cannot support Hillary Clinton. She knows Goddamn well that Obama doesn't support privitizing Social Security. But she has no problem purposely misrepresenting his position on this issue or a host of others for personal gain. She's disingenuous, at best. Downright slimy at worst.

I'm glad you've figured it out CT Voter.

Yep. I'm glad you're so capable of spotting snark, too.

"WAY too nuanced. He's a terrible politician...with no killer instinct. It's better we realize this now, instead of in the general when the Republicans take him down and we lose the White House."

Katie, you're awesome. Keep posting.

katie wrote on January 18, 2008 3:29 PM:

Cry me a river.

She's good at that isn't she?

took a new tact in his battle with Hillary Clinton . . .

If I could take a moment from the partisan ranting to do a little grammer policing, it's tack goddamit, not tact. "Tack" refers to the ziz-zagging you do in sailing when the wind is not directly behind you. "Tact," in the immortal words of Cordelia Chase "is just not saying things that are true."

Sorry, I see people doing this one more and more and it drives me crazy.

In fairness, Obama didn't really say that Republicans had better ideas than Dems

Then why the stenography? She says something false and you are honor bound to repeat it without labeling it false? Please spare us the faux objectivity "she said, he said" that we are all so familiar with.

Did anyone watch the full interview? If you haven't - go watch it and ask yourself afterwards - has Hillary ever shared this honestly and bravely?

These people are relentless. She has taken his comments out of context and is preying on the soundbite voters again.

This whole thing remind me of the Republicans in Michigan. In a moment of honesty McCain tells the voters that he can't bring the jobs back. Romney, on the otherhand, promises to bring them all back.

In this case, Obama makes the honest statement that Reagan changed the political landscape in a way the triangulating Clinton never did. Hillary, like Romney, panders.

There are two honest candidates in this race and the independents are begging the parties to nominate either one of them. Whether the Democrats, the Republicans or neither listen is what the primaries are about. I just wish the Democrats would get it right for once. Four more years in the wilderness will be hard to take.

well..i guess I would post anonymously if I was just going to personally attack a candidate.

Good work! Thanks for the extra woman voters!

This is the primary people, Obama shouldn't be running in the general with this I heart Reagan crap already.

NH and Iowa both show that DEMOCRATS, real ones, not the lofty latte sipping ones here on the blogs, vote for Hillary.

And the make up the majority of primary voters.

Moderate republicans vote for McCain. Obama tried this wink in NH and it backfired, and it will in NV also.

It does not seem to bother either Obama or his supporters that Reagan kicked off his campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi and talked of states rights.

Excuse me, sir, but that does indeed bother me. Are you actually laboring under the impression that any of us Obama supporters liked Ronald Reagan? Please allow me to disabuse you of that misimpression.

Any other Obama supporters out there care to help Mr Greenbaum understand the reality of our campaing here? If you did not like Reagan, please let him know, as he is evidently confused on this point. If you thought that Reagan's speech at Philadelphia was despicable, please let him know, because evidently Mr Greenbaum has somehow been left with the opposite impression.

This lying harpy had better win in the fall. I'm 56, a lifelong Democrat, and quite frankly, she makes me sick.

Its time for the Clinton dynasty to end. Hilary knows damn well that Obama was pointing out that RR transformed the country ideologically and Bill Clinton did not. If he had, we would have had Universal health care. But, thanks to his, and Hilary's inability to handle that one, we don't. But, hey, she's the candidate of experience. What Bill Clinton did was, after messing up and allowing the Republicns win Congress, play the hand he was dealt very shrewdly and gain a number of significant tactical victories over the Republicans. If you want a tactical Presidency engaged in a political death struggle almost constantly, with some mild, but the current grid lock firmly in place, vote for Hilary. If you want an opportunity for a progressive transformation a long the lines of the conservative transformation gained by Reagan, vote for Obama. That, and no dynasties, an end to identity politics, and the final burial of the stupid culture wars

Where's the actual quote where Obama is saying that Reagan/Republicans had the "better" ideas?

Was it too damned "nuanced" for you to understand his point -- that Republicans in the '80s on were challenging the status quo, and the Democrats didn't fight back their ideology in an effective manner, but now it's the Democrats' turn to be the party of change? Is that really hard to understand?

You might argue that point, but don't be such a lying sonofabitch to pretend he said "I love me some Reagan!"

RP@4:01 PM:

I think thats the most accurate reading of the situation yet...

Think about it. Obama says that if he had been the last one to have been asked the question "what is your greatest weakness", he would have known what was up and come up with an answer like that of Hillary or Edwards.

But how many of us here beyond the age of 20, who have been on a job interview, have not been prepared for the question "what is your greatest weakness"? How naive and out-of-touch and sheltered must one be, never to have anticipated such a question?

-------------------

this, again, is indicative of the kind of politics Hillary supporters are relying on. the JOB of a Presidential candidate is to answer questions HONESTLY, not to prepare all their answers ahead of time according to what tests best in your pollster's focus group. Obama answered the question earnestly, Edwards and Clinton gave what were obvious non-answers that they thought would go over better.

the former is what we need, the latter is what we've been getting up until now that hasn't helped us. Obama supporters GET that concept, Hillary supporters don't.

DEMOCRATS, real ones, not the lofty latte sipping ones here on the blogs, vote for Hillary.

katie, I'm confused: Are you or are you not "here on the blogs"? You're posting, so either you're here or you're not katie. I'll go out on a limb and conclude you're both katie and you're here.

Therefore, I guess you're not a real Democrat?

Therefore, I guess you're not for Hillary?

"Hillary Attacks Obama Personally?" She addressed the statements he made, in a political context. Call it unfair, if you want, but wouldn't a "personal attack" be an attack on him personally, rather than his political views?

And can the Obama supporters please stop whining? Horors, a candidate cast her opponent's statement in the worst possible light. It's called campaigning, folks. It's not "Rovian," and it's not a "slime machine." I really think the only thing you guys would tolerate from Hillary would be if she praised Obama. Anything else is "slime."

Do Clinton supporters not see that she is lying? Do you not read carefully?

Last week on Meet the Press Hillary lied and said that Chuck Hegel agreed with her that a vote for the Iraq authorization was not a vote for war. But in fact Chuck Hegel had said that about his own authorization wording, not the wording Clinton voted on. She just flat out lied about her war vote. Her WAR vote! To the people who support her, don't lies like that bother you? I really don't get it.

I hear a lot of people saying "We're Democrats, so we'll vote for Hillary no matter what she does." As an independent and has no loyalty to either party, I have a different perspective.

No candidate, in either party, has positions I completely agree with. But I think policy is only part of the equation. To deal with unforeseen challenges, I want a president with exceptional character, judgment, and leadership abilities. Someone who is more concerned with what is right than what is popular, and who is able to make the right course of action popular. Senator Clinton's blowing with the wind on the Iraq war made me doubt that she had the appropriate qualities, and this campaign has confirmed it.

Hillary Clinton would not be a good choice for president. She has managed, in a relatively short period of time, to confirm all of the worst rumors about the Clintons: the poll-driven waffling, the looseness with the facts, and the pursuit of power at the expense of the greater good.

Barack Obama has the potential to be a truly great president, fundamentally re-aligning the country. I have watched the entire hour-long interview in which he makes the "Reagan" quote, and you Democrats should recognize a good thing when you see it.

I suspect a Democrat will win in November, and I hope it is Obama. But if Clinton is on the ballot, this independent will stay at home or vote for McCain.

If you're interested in the interview:
http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080115/VIDEO/80115026&oaso=news.rgj.com/breakingnews

Talk about spin. Wow is Hillary a piece of work. And stupid too! She's walking right into a trap.

What Obama actually said was that the Clintons hadn't changed direction like Reagan did, which is a polite way of saying they endorsed Reaganomics lite. Which is easy to factually substantiate on NAFTA,deregulation, etc.

And Obama was only "praising" Reagan's political skills, in the sense that he did actually change the country's direction. Which again highlights that despite the Clinton's supposed charm and political skills, they failed on progressive legislation, and went with Reaganomics the rest of the time.

Hillary is just walking into this, and making herself out to be a liar and spin doctor again. Stupid. But old habits I guess.

Score another for Obama.

I guess I'll ask again since no one has answered yet.

Hillary could have criticized Obama for what he actually said. Instead, she decides to criticize him for something he NEVER said.

How do you clinton supporters justify that? And how much of this slime ball politics are you willing to tolerate?

ChrisO wrote on January 18, 2008 4:05 PM:

"Hillary Attacks Obama Personally?" She addressed the statements he made, in a political context. Call it unfair, if you want, but wouldn't a "personal attack" be an attack on him personally, rather than his political views?

Personally, not a "PERSONAL attacks". She attacked personally, as opposed to smearing him and being dishonest about what was actually said through surrogates. She PERSONALLY was being dishonest about what was said, both technically and what was the meaning of what was actually said. But like the Clinton campaign, and now Clinton herself, you can't seem to read words as they are actually given and the meaning of what they say in an honest and accurate fashion.

I'm saying it was a stupid point to make, and that things like that will be exploited by republicans in the general, kinda like
"I voted for it before I voted against it."

That would be a valid analogy, katie, if the crux of their statements were the same. They're not. No amount of wonkery could puncture Kerry's "I voted for it before I voted against it."

However, you don't have to read/hear very far into what Obama actually said re Reagan to know it bears no relation to the spin that Hillary, Tucker Carlson, and Pat Buchanan are trying to pin on it.

Yeah, the way to win in the DEMOCRATIC primaries is to praise the "sainted" Republican president Ronald Reagan.

Apparently, Barack Obama does not feel any respect for any of the Democratic presidents, such as (for instance) President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Maybe Obama just didn't think any Democratic voters would recall that Ronald Reagan had one of the worst administrations for anyone who wasn't rich and privileged.

For those who do not recall the Reagan years, here's a link to bring you up to date: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040628/editors

Maybe someone could recommend it to Obama.

Jammer-

You are awesome.

That is all.

PLEASE READ THIS. It's from Hillary's OWN WEBSITE. An endorsement of her from the Salmon Press, who owns 11 newspapers across New Hampshire.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674

The money shot:

"But no president can do it alone. She must break recent tradition, cast cronyism aside and fill her cabinet with the best people, not only the best Democrats, but the best Republicans as well. We’re confident she will do that. Her list of favorite presidents -- Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan -- demonstrates how she thinks."

Q.E.D.

Obama answered the question earnestly, Edwards and Clinton gave what were obvious non-answers that they thought would go over better.

Yeah, and this is exactly what you hear from the doe-eyed 20 year old naifs who, when asked about their greatest weaknesses, actually told the interviewers the real deal. "But I thought they wanted honesty!!! they protest -- while everyone around them snickers.

And, look, the problem is that by Obama's own admission, he didn't even realize that he should have expected for the question. How naive is that, for God's sake? How many of us haven't had to parry such a question?

Obama not only does he talk about hope -- a lot -- he talks about the
importance of talking about hope. He talks about how he hopes to talk more about talking
about the importance of talking about hope.
He touts unity the same way. If we all buy into his "message of hope," he explains, then everybody
-- blacks and whites, men and women, Republicans and Democrats, lions and gnus, bears and park
rangers, Superman and Lex Luthor -- will be united!

Apparently, Barack Obama does not feel any respect for any of the Democratic presidents, such as (for instance) President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

poetry,
What in Obama's comments re Reagan made you conclude he has no respect for FDR?

Southpaw wrote on January 18, 2008 4:13 PM

Perfect. So katie, going to cry us a river (is that sexist of me?) over the endorsement on her own website which states:

"But no president can do it alone. She must break recent tradition, cast cronyism aside and fill her cabinet with the best people, not only the best Democrats, but the best Republicans as well.. We’re confident she will do that. Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan - demonstrates how she thinks."

Or are you and the Clinton supporting liars going to demand that Hillary reject and disavow the endorsement she was so proud of that she posted it on her own website which touts how her thinking is and her favorite presidents are George H.W. Bush and Reagan?

"How naive is that, for God's sake? How many of us haven't had to parry such a question?"

Jesus, the guy gets slammed for answering a question honestly - lord forbid.

katie wrote on January 18, 2008 4:16 PM:

No one cares about past votes anymore

Then why did you bring them up about NH and Iowa?

People dont care what you did before, they want to know what you're going to do for them now.

katie,
If Dick Cheney promised to get us out of Iraq, repeal his tax cuts, amend No Child Left Behind, personally donate millions of dollars and every weekend for the rest of his life to remaking New Orleans ... would you support him for president?

I mean, if you really don't care about the past ...

Katie and Jammer: Your both so right on this issue.

Winning elections these days is all about defining your opponent.

If (God forbid) Obama is nominated, as an unkown to most of the voters, the Republicans can and will swift boat him to the point where he'll be lucky to have W's poll numbers.

Hillary is a known quanitity by virtually all the voters. Her negatives may seem high, but the Republicans won't be able to move them any further.

I have a question:

What did Obama do to try to stop the war in 2002?
What did Obama do to try to stop the war in 2003?
What did Obama do to try to stop the war in 2004?
What did Obama do to try to stop the war in 2005? (He voted for more war funds)
What did Obama do to try to stop the war in 2006? (He voted for more war funds)
What did Obama do to try to stop the war in 2007? (He voted for more war funds)

Is it enough to say "I was against the war" and give a few speeches about it?

Why didn't Senator Obama use the filibuster?

He claims he wanted to stop the war, but not enough to stand up?

http://www.bartcop.com/

Southpaw, you can't really compare what Obama is saying now with what people said about Reagan right after he passed away. That's not the time for being partisan and critical, generally.

And to you ignorant Hillbots in this thread who are saying that if "Obama can't take the heat from Hillary on this then the Republicans will kill him", he has shown he can take the heat, he always comes back with a response, and generally the response makes the Clintons look worse for it. You have absolutely NO reason to say that he doesn't have a backbone or can't stand up to attacks, because he has time and time again turned these kinds of attacks around and came out on top. His only problem is that the media gives 80% air time for her attacks, and 20% or less for his response, so it often gets overlooked, but he responds strong and intelligently to these sorts of attacks, and to say he "can't take the heat" is nothing more than mindless Hillary-talking point echoing drivel. Go learn to think for yourself you pathetic drones. You are an embarrassment to this party. It is no coincidence that every poll shows that the more EDUCATED you are the more likely you are to vote for Obama.

A Democratic 'Reagan' effect would be a good thing



I will support Hillary if I have to, but this latest attempt (echoed in concert by Erica Jong over at HuffPo) to spin up an anti-Obama narrative (where it has been so difficult to do so) is getting so utterly desperate. Bill, Hillary, and all of their surrogate voices are seriously tarnishing their reputations, win or lose, by employing shallow tactics against a candidate like Obama.



Today, America is in a similar socio-economic and emotional state as it was on the eve of the 1980 election, and what Obama is brilliantly pointing out (for any with the capacity to hear) is that while Reagan used positive symbolism and poetic rhetoric to grasp that moment and move the electorate in a conservative direction, it is possible that in such a moment a similarly positive, symbolic figure could shift the culture toward a progressive paradigm.



Clintonites are grasping at and distorting this Reagan comment because the prospect of such a paradigm shift catalyzed by Obama (indeed, a hopeful possibility as of today) is utterly dangerous in its optimism to the pragmatic style (not unrespectable itself) that Clinton is offering. And I do not personally dislike Hillary Clinton by any means.



Unfortunately, to Hillary-supporters chagrin, Obama just has a naturally greater "EQ" (emotional intelligence) - and a sense of the American culture as a whole - than Hillary: Obama is more like Bill Clinton and Reagan (e.g. natural, savvy, 'winner') where Hillary is more like Gore and Kerry (e.g. stiff, wonky, 'loser').



The phenomenon of 'Reagan Democrats' says a lot here. After Bush II isn't this the moment of opportunity - for a unifying candidate - to create a version of that phenomenon for our side? Can you see Hillary making that happen?



Its sad that the reconciling spirit with substantive arguments that both put forth at the Nevada debate seems already deteriorating. I still wish them both the best.

"Southpaw":

For heaven's sake, when President Clinton said those nice words about Ronald Reagan, it was in response to the fact that Reagan HAD JUST DIED.

Most decent people will try to say something nice when commenting on the death of someone, even someone with whom they disagreed.

See "Ronald Reagan dies at 93" at: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/05/reagan.health/index.html

Winning elections these days is all about defining your opponent.

If (God forbid) Obama is nominated, as an unkown to most of the voters, the Republicans can and will swift boat him to the point where he'll be lucky to have W's poll numbers.

Hillary is a known quanitity by virtually all the voters. Her negatives may seem high, but the Republicans won't be able to move them any further.

---------------

so you're simply assuming that the big mean Republicans will go to town on Obama, but in the same breath assuming their attacks won't have any effect on Clinton? in other words, you're saying that we should not nominate Obama based on what the Republicans MIGHT do to him, and should nominate Clinton based on what the Republicans have already done to her?

i hate to break it to you, but Hillary's negatives are high enough that even if the big scary Republican attack machine moves them a few points, she has no shot of winning the election. by contrast, Obama polls the best among Republicans and Independents, but JUST WAIT until that terrifying Republican machine, with Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck at the helm, gets ahold of him!

what a load of total tripe this argument is.

I see, Paulie, so Hillary's comments were made about Reagan after his death. Which distinguishes her statements from Obama's in what way, exactly? I was not aware that Reagan had been reincarnated.

Besides, like I told you, here's your money shot:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674

"But no president can do it alone. She must break recent tradition, cast cronyism aside and fill her cabinet with the best people, not only the best Democrats, but the best Republicans as well. We’re confident she will do that. Her list of favorite presidents -- Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan -- demonstrates how she thinks."

ah hahahahahahaha.

I just hope I don't hate *all* of our candidates before the primaries end ;-)

Besides, like I told you, here's your money shot:

Oh, please.

The release is NOT something that Hillary's own campaign composed, nor is it something Hillary herself is directly quoted as saying.

It is somebody else's summary of something that Hillary said, about who her "favorite" Presidents might be. God only knows what was REALLY said by Hillary, and how she may have qualified what she said. Maybe Hillary liked the way Reagan smiled or groomed his hair when he delivered his speeches. Who the hell knows? There's no content there, and it's way too indirect to conclude a damn thing.

Really, is that all you've got?

Are you calling Bill Clinton a liar, then?

Look, even Tim Stinking Russert wouldn't dare to use words from what is in effect a eulogy against a politician -- as if he could do "gotcha" with that without inducing gales of laughter. He'd look like an even choicer fool than he already does.

For Christ's sake.

Nice try, franklyO.

Here's the beauty part. SHE PUT IT UP ON HER OWN WEBSITE!

Whatever arguments you could otherwise make about the Salmon Press and its reporters somehow taking statements Hillary had made to them out of context, somehow interpreting an off-the-cuff compliment of Reagan into a statement that he was one of her "favorite" presidents... they all disappeared when Hillary PUT IT UP ON HER OWN WEBSITE!

Man, I am really enjoying this one. Gotta link to it just one more time, for effect.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674

"But no president can do it alone. She must break recent tradition, cast cronyism aside and fill her cabinet with the best people, not only the best Democrats, but the best Republicans as well. We’re confident she will do that. Her list of favorite presidents -- Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan -- demonstrates how she thinks."

-Salmon Press
12/12/07
Endorsement of Sen. Hillary Clinton

Look, even Tim Stinking Russert wouldn't dare to use words from what is in effect a eulogy against a politician

frankly0,
If I'm understanding you correctly, then it is okay for a politician to lie at a funeral, but it's not okay to point out that s/he is lying. Is that correct?

Are there any other occasions where it's okay for a politician to lie to the American people?

Frankly0:

Can you post a link to Obama's statement that Clinton is referring to in her comment? I've watched the entire 49 minute video and I don't recall him EVER saying or intimating that the Republicans were the party of better ideas.

Here's HRC's statement: "he thought the Republicans had better ideas than Democrats the last ten to fifteen years"

This is a clear, unambiguous statement, that suggests a clear and unambiguous statement from Barack, so it shouldn't be hard.

I am glad that Obama supporters find Reagan's presidency as not something to praise. Thatis why it was odd for Obama to praise Reagan.

It is also strange to me how many of Obama supporters think it is terrible to say things about him that are true. Not only is Katie right about the need to withstand Republican attacks that are complete lies. If he is already trying to suppress accurate claims how is he going to survive his version of "swiftboat?"

Daniel A. Greenbaum:

Same request I posted to frankly0:

he thought the Republicans had better ideas than Democrats the last ten to fifteen years"

Please provide a link to Obama's statement that supports HRC's allegaion. It should be just as clear and unambiguous as her allegation.

I am an Edwards supporter, but I think Obama said nothing about Republicans being better and the video clip everybody is watching (about his not being a "singular" figure) is obviously part of a larger interview that --if listened to by anybody with an ounce of sense--would show the context correctly.

Obama is being pilloried for nothing. Edwards criticized Obama for using Reagan as an example AT ALL; Hillary seems to be piling on extraneous stuff. Both are doing something they should not.

I'm going to have to hand this one to Obama.

Clinton responded very poorly with a comment that is clearly not true and also hypocritical if you look at her own comments on Reagan. That's a clear unforced error.

The thing is, you have to look at the Republican contest as well as the Democratic one. All of the Republicans are trying to make the case that they are the One True Heir of Ronald Reagan, and even a cursory analysis shows that none of them can measure up.

Obama is trying to make the point that Reagan convinced a lot of life-long Democrats to vote Republican for the first time in their lives, and a there are a lot of disaffected Republicans out there now wondering if it's finally time to vote for a Democrat. If Obama can bring those into his tent, he's unbeatable.

Quote from Obama:

I think it's fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time over the last 10 or 15 years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom.

How many times do you have someone say that somebody had an idea that "challenged conventional wisdom", without the presumption that that idea was an important one to pursue? In virtually every case in which people utter such phrases, that's the exact implication. If they want to indicate that those ideas were nonetheless terrible, they would simply say so in the very same context. Does Obama say so? No he doesn't. He just says that those ideas are now, in effect, old hat. Where is there any sense communicated about how horribly those ideas worked out? Where? Obama acts as if they were just fine and important ideas, but now outdated. And, of course, he is most definitely saying that Democrats did not even have any real ideas during the same period -- indeed he disparages any Democratic ideas as "conventional wisdom".

What kind of real progressive feels that that in any way accurately captures the horrors visited on us during the last 10 or 15 years by Republican "ideas"?

The thing is, you have to look at the Republican contest as well as the Democratic one.

I believe Splitting Image hit the nail on the head.

Which might show Obama's ability to see the big picture in a way Hillary doesn't.

Which some voters might see as an important trait for a president.

If Obama and his campaign are paying attention to the Republicans now, while Hillary and Edwards see only Obama, what does that lead us to believe Obama will do if/when he wins the Dem nomination?

What does it lead us to believe Hillary will do? Or Edwards?

Once again,there is an expectation of a coronation and canonization of Obama . It's politics. I was just watching side by side the Obama and Hillary interviews in the Reno Gazzette site and I find the "conventional wisdom" crack ridiculous. She is right to criticize, you call it attack. Gee, it's politics.

Frankly I second your comments. For an education watch the interviews side by side. The whole hour.

Ugh... Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 5:20 PM is my post. Damn TPM site never remembers personal info on Mac web browsers.

franklyO,

i'll take your strawman and do you one better. if someone thinks an idea is fine, should it not follow that they want said idea to continue. why be an agent of change if you think the old ideas were as you say "just fine."

obama may lose a lot of people with this but it's because in some ways he's talking calculus to a fifth grade math class. he makes too many peoples brains hurt by having to think beyond the reflexive catch phrases.

but that hour-long interview was easily one of the best sit downs i have seen of a politician in quite some time.

Hilary will lead the Dems to a big defeat, and many Dems, including myself, will leave the party and go independent if she is nominated. That's because we are not so blinded by parisanship and sentimental worship of the Clintons that we can't see Hilary's campaign for what it is: sleazy, uninspiring and deceitful. Most of the country will also see them for what they are. This goes double if McCain is nominated. She does not put democratic politics in a favorable light at all.

Also, what is this talk about the Rove playbook working? Look at the state of the Republican party right now. The only way for them to make a comeback is if we turn into what they have become, and that's what Hilary's campaign represents.

Watch Hillary's and Obama's interviews with Reno Journal and the discuss the candidates.

http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080117/VIDEO/80117047

This is what it really comes down to:
"The problem many of us have with what Obama said is HOW he said it and what he chose not to say."

he didn't say it the "right" way.

Obama pretty much laid out a blueprint to reverse the last 30+ years of rightwing politics and many on the board cannot get past the idea that he didn't reach for soap to wash his mouth out with soap after mentioning Reagan's name.

Well they do say a prophet is never honored in his own country. We can expand that to political visionaries too.

People here are very negative. I have seen both Obama and Clinton and both are very strong. To hate either of them is really wrong. Shows ignorance.

Its funny I have lived in Washington my entire life.

It’s a slow city that change takes a lot of red tape or a person able to work the system. Dishonest crafty and people who know people actually do the best in Washington.

Washington is not going to change folks to be hones I read a lot of comments how Dishonest or crafty the Clintons are. It’s because they have worked in Washington for 8 years.

The main problem with Obama is he has a great message and hope for people but when it comes to Washington he from what I see does not have enough Dishonest or Craftiness to get the job done.

I am thinking of Carter or a Bush they are very one way thinkers. The Clintons use every Tact to win. Do you want the US to Win or Lose?

In some ways you comments made me even more sure with my decision that I want to vote for Hillary because politician’s effectiveness is rated in terms of how they can affect people to get some small change to happen in a city that rejects change.

I am a young person but I have worked in Washington and lived here my entire life something other Americans I really feel don’t understand the DC area.

katie, just wondering is Hillary pays you by the post? Or is it simply a case of unreserved and unwarranted devotion?

Don't give me this "it's politics" crap. THAT's what Obama is seeking to change, and agents of change will always be resisted by those of the status quo. And President Clinton had the nerve to assert that Obama's the "establishment candidate"? Smell what you're shoveling.

Can I just point out that anyone who says "We cant afford to lose the White House for another 4 years and that is why I am voting for Hillary Clinton" is a damn fool.

We are poised at a unique moment in time and we have to be very careful who we put into the White House because the challenges we face as a country are huge.

Like it or not the reaction to Bill Clinton's presidency gave us Newt Gingrinch and it gave us Dubya.

I am willing to lose another 4 or 8 years of the Presidency if it means not having Billary back in there to ensure a national backlash and give us another 14 or 16 years in the wildnerness like it did last time.

I would like ot turn a questions that the Hillarybots are fond of posing back to them:

If Obama is the nominee, will you still vote for him though he (arugably, at best) praised Ronald Reagan?

If so, the please just shut the hell up. As has been shown on this website, the Clintons have made numerous positive allusions to Saint Ron themselves.

It's possible to admire someone's succes without agreeing with all of that person's values and behavior.

And we, as Democrats, should all admire Reagan's success at winning elections with an undeniable mandate.

And for those with a blind spot for just how much handwringing Dems have done over the last few years about this idea thing, here are some links (simple google search):

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/01/01_451.html

http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2007/08/do-democrats-ne.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-03-20-our-view_x.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16387-2004Jul26.html

http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/ac/2006/05/swing_ideas_not_swing_voters.php

I don't offer any of these up as proof of anything other than the fact that there was some considerable handwringing over the lack of direction of the Democratic Party.

Wow, glad to be welcomed. How you gonna welcome your buds the Republicans and Independents? Coffee and cake?

brewmn"If so, the please just shut the hell up"
Finnegan""We cant afford to lose the White House for another 4 years and that is why I am voting for Hillary Clinton" is a damn fool."
"Scientific wrote on January 18, 2008 5:53 PM:
katie, just wondering is Hillary pays you by the post? Or is it simply a case of unreserved and unwarranted devotion?"
"george wrote on January 18, 2008 5:51 PM:
Katie, you are a moron. You are just like those people in the office who lie, back stab and cheat their way to a promotion. It is easier to break everyone down then it is to bring yourself up. Obama has a much more positive and encouraging personality. He will bring the best out of this Country, she will bring the worst."

His point about the Republicans being the party of ideas for the last 15 years, is certainly very debatable, but to construe that as saying they had BETTER ideas is clearly fraudulent. Same old. The fact is that the Democratic Party for a long time has not effectively advanced new, fresh, progressive ideas for the country. His comment is a criticism of the Dem. Party and I feel it's largely warranted. The Clintons will try to miscontrue his words because they know that it is basically an accurate description of where they have led the party. The Dem. Party has NOT been one of bold ideas for a very long time, and THAT is what Obama wants to change. It HAS been a timid, poll- driven party for a long time, and if you can't take that criticism of where the Clintons have led our party, then by all means, vote for more of the same.

"I hate her....She disgusts me. I can't stand her"

For those of you who feel this way, here's what I wish:

I wish there are people in the world who hate you as much as you hate Clinton.

I wish that whatever you harm you secretly--or not so secretly--wish Clinton, they wish you.

Whatever you dread most, whatever gives you nightmares, whatever pain and suffering you can imagine for her, I pray those people imagine for you.

You seem to believe that bragging about your hatred is virtuous; it isn't.

It's simply pathological.

[i]Obama's Words"The Republican approach I think has played itself out. I think it's fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time over the last 10 or 15 years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom. Now, you've heard it all before. You look at the economic policies, when they're being debated among the presidential candidates, it's all tax cuts. Well, we've done that, we've tried it..[/i]

Obama is a pathethic joke. While he acknowledges that the ideas have played themselves out, his claim of Republicans being the party of ideas for the last 10 to 15 years is ludicrous.

This argument is really a joke. A bad choice of words on obama's part, but get over it. I guess the clinton people have nothing better to do.

By the way, let's change the discussion. What new ideas did Mr. Bill promote as president? What "progressive" change did he bring about or promote?

Hmm, I don't recall anything. Maybe you clinton people can help me out.

Here's what I'll say for myself and my distaste for HRC as the Dem candidate for president:

Hillary Clinton is my senator. In terms of representing the national Democratic party, she has done a good job. In terms of representing NY...eh. What can I say, she's not actually from here. Her only roots here are political -- so she has a good political base. And in NY, that's really important, b/c politically active Dems are just wired and into things. Her connection to 'regular' NYers consist of the occasional "listening tour." But whatever. She's a good tactitian in the Senate; she's a party leader. She's not a President that will be able to push beyond the gridlock that is NOT limited to President Bush.

The fact that she's learned from her years of observing (and being attacked by) the vast right-wing conspiracy and the fact that she constantly mentions it to justify her toughness for the General Election, goes directly to the point that she has no interest governing. She wants to be a culture warrior, but on the Dem side. No! That gets us nowhere -- that loses us the Senate and/or the House.

The closest point to make me rethink my promise to work against her is that has been made in these comments in the Supreme Court issue. It is true we're going to lose one or more USSC seats and could use a smart fair jurist. But I would add that putting a liberal on the bench for the sake of putting a liberal on the bench does little in the long term. It makes the court LESS relevant. Ideological judges on either side are equally repugnant.

[too long of a post -- sorry]

For those eager to bash Obama over his remarks, have you checked out what HRC had to say about Reagan?

From her webpage:
Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan - demonstrates how she thinks. As expected, Bill Clinton was also included on the aforementioned list.

And here's what Bill had to say when Reagan passed away:
“Hillary and I will always remember President Ronald Reagan for the way he personified the indomitable optimism of the American people, and for keeping America at the forefront of the fight for freedom for people everywhere…

Sound familiar, haters?

Could someone (presumably an HRC supporter) please make this argument:

1) Reagan did NOT turn the country substantially to the right.

and

2) The GOP has NOT controlled the debate over "ideas" for the past 10 to 15 years. (Just look at the record of Bill "the era of big government is over" Clinton.)

Truth is you can't win either one of these actual arguments. However, if you can distort what Obama said just enough, you can kid yourself into believing that Obama is a right-winger.

Of course buying this argument about Obama leaves you with an HRC argument of "just as right-wing as Obama...but with more experience!"

Nice.

Wow, and I was starting to feel some empathy for Hillary for a few days there. I even thought about voting for her, but am disgusted by the way her campaign is nit-picking and twisting Obama's words (which actually ring true when taken in context). Enough of this Karl Rove–style BS.

Great summation of Obama's point from Ezra Klein:
---
But what Obama is doing is what [Grover] Norquist most wants to avoid: He's homogenizing Reagan's political legacy. He's reconstructing it as accountability in government rather than smallness of government, clarity of purpose rather than conservatism of purpose, dynamism and entrepreneurship rather than backlash and upward redistribution. So what's going on here is twofold. First, Obama s suggesting he has a fairly grandly ideological view of the president's role, and that it includes harnessing the ideological forces of the moment to push the country in a new direction. Second, he's sanitizing and subtly reworking Reagan's legacy, and more than Reagan's legacy, the lessons of the 80s, so they fit with a liberal worldview, rather than undermine it. Oftentimes, I think Obama's unifying rhetoric is a little naive and soft, but this actually seems like a fairly loud dog whistle mixed with a fairly smart attempt to revise history.
---

TPM/EC has really "jumped the shark" in my estimation. It is allowing its biases to color is reporting of facts, not just it commentary. You guys should have a soul searching staff meeting a decide what your purpose is. I thought it was to balance mainstream media with more honest, insightful, better informed reporting and commentary, not to imitate its biases.

Save the nation and get Bill back on viagra, prozac and the dating circuit. Talk about Clinton fatigue.

Califone"After this primary, and if Clinton wins the nomination from the dems, I will not vote for Clinton in the general. She is a politician, not an agent of change. If women want to set themselves back for the next fifty years, elect Clinton."

Please, can you tell me what an agent of change is? I know that in these times we re-work words for our purposes, we tinker with language to protect ourselves from reality, but what is an "agent of change"?

Obama is not a politician? ( I see dead civilians are collateral damage kind of thing)

It doesn't matter how Obama parses his support of Reagan and Republican policies or changes, to do so simply discredits his role as a Democratic candidate. We already have Lieberman, we don't need another Lieberman-Democrat.

Heh, guys will you all get "secret agent of change decoder rings" from iChange Agent?

I am just gonna go back to my hippie mobile and retool for the new culture war, the agents of change, the generation that eats up all the crap the system feeds them and comes back for seconds while forgetting. The generation that sits and plays video games in a pot haze while their brothers, or their lower income counterparts die in Iraq. I will just retool my culture war outfit, ooops, it's in vintage shops and you guys are wearing it cause you could not come up with your own outfits , oh yee agents of change.

Oh yee agents of change and privilege, don't worry, the culture wars of the past don't have to resonate with you. You are beyond social, civil and economic justice, you have MySpace and you all have loads of awards from your school years. You are the "it" generation.

Hope you look good in the bread lines that are coming when you get so pushed out of shape that the super Agent, Inspector Gadget was not lionized, coronated and cononized.

Doesn't Hillary list Reagan as one of her favorite presidents?

In fact, from the NYT

"She came to Wellesley as an 18-year-old Republican, a copy of Barry Goldwater’s right-wing treatise, “The Conscience of a Conservative,” on the shelf of her freshman dorm room"

Well, at least we know where her conscience lays.

Anne: So, Obama is not a politician? So how will a non politician do a politicians job.

Agent of change, may be a googleable term as are a myriad of terms. But it does not make it legitimate for defining the candidate for a political party nomination, who should be a politician. If he appears as an "agent of change" that is not his job description that is an adjective that makes a segment feel good, like the new an improved. Sanitized for your protection.

Hillary is on record stating that Reagan (and Bush Sr.) are on her list of favorite presidents:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674

"But no president can do it alone. She must break recent tradition, cast cronyism aside and fill her cabinet with the best people, not only the best Democrats, but the best Republicans as well.. We’re confident she will do that. Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and REAGAN - demonstrates how she thinks. As expected, Bill Clinton was also included on the aforementioned list."

For the record, what has us folks pissed about his remarks, watch the whole interview.

Not direct quotes but approximations watch the video, the whole thing.
1. Reagan changed from the "excesses of the 60's and 70s, something in the area of "big government." This is the lead to the "ideas of the Republicans". So, the Agent of Change, acts like a politician to buy votes.

2. The one that pissed me off: the culture wars of the 70's and 80's do not resonate with him. He reduced the civil rights, the anti war and all the issues of that period to the banality of the Republican meme: culture wars. His dismissal of all the struggles for a Republican and Indie vote was rather startling. (again being a politician)

3. The last ten minutes he basically sounds way too much like Bush in how he will run the country: "Not an Operating Officer", guess what, we have to have one, cause the delegation, no responsibility thing does not work. I know everyone thought it was cute that he admitted to losing papers, but guess what, when the memo comes that tells you that Osama is a threat, before 9/11, I don't want a president who will lose the paper.

Watch the videos, his and hers.

This is meaningless. Billary is making a big deal because they have nothing significant that they can say about obama.

The fact of the matter is that Billary will be sitting on the sidelines in 09 desperately hoping their daughter will find a voicebox.

But HRC LIKES Reagan: on her website:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674

and maybe this was just being nice to a dead guy...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4092735

Does this woman know how NOT to lie?

Obama’s opponents are now trying to make a big deal of his observation–certainly historically correct–that Ronald Reagan’s type of leadership created a sea-change (for good or for ill) in the American polity.

Obama was also pointing to the fact that Reagan was an excellent communicator who connected with the public in a way that many others–like Nixon and Bill Clinton–did not.

Furthermore, Obama’s questioning of the relevance of Hillary Clinton’s type of “experience” in confronting the new challenges the United States faces receives validation from an interesting case in American history.

It also points to why Obama’s outsider status might actually be just what is needed to successfully restore the U.S. to international political creditworthiness.

Lincoln biographer David Herbert Donald showed how what might have been perceived as the Great Emancipator’s serious shortcomings as a war president and commander in chief actually turned out to be some of his greatest assets.

Remember, Lincoln came to the presidency having only meager experience–much less than Sen. Obama’s–in public office, let alone experience in the Executive Branch. (Lincoln’s experience in the military was limited to little more than two months service during the Black Hawk War.)

According to Donald, Lincoln was also fortunately unburdened by convention, precedent, and standard operating procedures in facing war’s challenge. (The parallels with Obama kind of leap from the page, no?)

However, Lincoln was also a quick study who grew into greatness through trial and error in pursuing the most significant of his goals.

Lincoln also knew democracy’s ancient lessons. When Cicero finished speaking, the people said, “My, how well he spoke.” But when Demosthenes finished speaking the people said, “Let us march!”

“Public sentiment is everything,” Lincoln noted. “With it, nothing can fail, against it, nothing can succeed. Whoever moulds public sentiment, goes deeper than he who enacts statutes, or pronounces judicial decisions. He makes possible the enforcement of these, else impossible.”

Martin Edwin Andersen, Churchton, Maryland

P.S. Memo to Hillary: Next Monday we will be celebrating Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, not Lyndon Johnson Day.

I am shocked and amazed by the degree to which Bill and Hillary have disgraced themselves in this campaign.

And yet Hillary thinks that Lieberman should keep his committee assignments despite his support of McCain, who unlike Reagan, is a threat in the here and now.

Immediately after Reagan died--on June 28, 1994--CNN reported that:

"Former President Bill Clinton and his wife, Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, issued a statement that praised the former president for his optimistic outlook."

The CNN report continued:

"'Hillary and I will always remember President Ronald Reagan for the way he personified the indomitable optimism of the American people, and for keeping America at the forefront of the fight for freedom for people everywhere,' their statement said."
(See:http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/05/reagan.main/index.html)

More interestingly--and in retrospect understandably, given their common penchant for lying--President Bill Clinton eulogized Richard Nixon at his funeral like this: "May the day of judging President Nixon on anything less than his entire life and career come to a close."

(See: The New York Times, April 28, 1994; http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9805E5DD1730F93BA15757C0A962958260)

Now the Clinton camp followers hypocritically make Obama's statement of fact--that Reagan ushered in a sea-change in U.S. politics, whether you agreed with his direction or not--into some claim that Obama is less than genuine in his politics.

Clinton talking point No. 1: That Reagan busted unions, therefore Obama must been less than committed to the labor movement.

Meanwhile, people forget that Bill Clinton pardoned the union-busting international financier Mark Rich.

(See http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0212-04.html)

Elsewhere I have blogged that Hillary Clinton is the Democrats' Richard Nixon in pumps.

Need there be any more proof?

Martin Edwin Andersen
Churchton, Maryland

Martin Edwin Andersen "P.S. Memo to Hillary: Next Monday we will be celebrating Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, not Lyndon Johnson Day."

Not to worry, Obama dismissed all this as part of the cultural wars of the past. So, the Agent of Change, does not want to refight those battles, he is beyond that.

"...any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction."

-- Hillary Clinton, October 10th, 2002

"That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics."

-- Barack Obama, October 2, 2002

Barack Obama should just run on the Republican ticket:

Barack Obama doesn't care what Florida Democrats say on Jan. 29.

In a memo released Tuesday, he reiterated his long-standing view that their primary votes will be worthless.

http://www.sptimes.com/2008/01/16/news_pf/State/Obama_stirs_fight_wit.shtml

Obama Interview With SF Chronicle Editors

Sen. Obama was interviewed by the SF Chronicle editorial board yesterday - the one hour interview can be seen here:

Below is a press release from Hillary's campaign where she states the Reagan is one of her favorite presidents, along with H>W> Bush.

"The era of big government is over."

Who said this? Ronald Reagan?

Guess again. Bill Clinton.

And who's Clinton's best buddy now? Daddy Bush.

What a bunch of unbelievable hypocrites.

I really don't care if Reagan was Hillary's 10th favorite president, or if Bill said he was a nice guy when he was memorializing him upon his death. Neither of them spoke of him admiringly in the frickin' Democratic primary! Is it really so hard to get why that is maddening?

Reagan's method for bringing change was to set segments of our society against eachother. He should not be admired as a change agent.

As far as the Iraq war goes, why hasn't Obama been front and center trying to end funding for it? That is certainly what those of us who were happy to see him elected expected.

Kos picked up the link where Hillary praises Reagan.

The "new" Hillary seems an awful lot like the "new Nixon" circa 1968.

Caveat emptor!

Martin Edwin Andersen
Churchton, Maryland

Who's Bill's best buddy now? Papa Bush. Bill has said on several occassions that he really likes Papa Bush.

No to Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton/Bush

Posted on Hillary's Website. Seriously.
Go to http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674

"But no president can do it alone. She must break recent tradition, cast cronyism aside and fill her cabinet with the best people, not only the best Democrats, but the best Republicans as well.. We’re confident she will do that. Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan - demonstrates how she thinks. As expected, Bill Clinton was also included on the aforementioned list."

It is extraordinary the Clinton defenders are pretty much conceding that she lied, but that proves that she is tough or capable of hardball politics, or that Obama must thereofore be naive, because he doesn't understand you have to lie about your oppnents in order succeed in politics.

"...I think it's fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time over the last 10 or 15 years..."

Does anyone on this thread READ FUCKING ENGLISH?

As far as the Iraq war goes, why hasn't Obama been front and center trying to end funding for it? That is certainly what those of us who were happy to see him elected expected.

EXACTLY !

Obama is just another Republican whose agenda does not include the average american, learn that now before its too late. Money rules america, where even compassion comes with a price (sicko).
The only hope for progressive change for all americans will be with Hillary.

This comment and reply should come with a Severe Cognitive Dissonance Warning.

Who are the defenders of the status quo ? Is that you ?
Reagan did spawn a 'sea change' in American politics.
Obama hopes to spawn a new 'sea change'. Change based on the ideals of unity - not division (and certainly not modeled after Reagan's ideas)
How can anyone look at the state of modern politics and the outlook for our country guided by our current stautus quo - how can this 'sea change' of unified working government not make sense.
Anyone who has paid any attention knows what Obama is speaking of about the Republican Party being guided by 'ideas' for the past 15 years... you don't have to subscribe to those ideas but they are, none the less, ideas. The same could be said of the Democratic party of the late 50's and into the 60's - Kennedy Idealism. Both of these movements ran their course and were watered down by time. That explains the state of the Democratic Party in the 70's and 80's. It also explains the 'washed out' state of the Republican Party today.
--- Why do 'we' resent being talked to as if we had the capacity for knowledge. That is how Barack Obama is speaking to America... as if 'we can' understand. Why would we sell ourselves short and believe that we are past our zenith... that we are a declining people. Come on people... Now is the time to show some strength of character.

Barack Obama for President of the UNITED States of America.

For all of those years that Democrats were getting their butts kicked and Newt was leading the way naming federal buildings after his teflon-ness, the Dems were where the Republicans are now. It is absurd to say that Obama is in any way in favor of the Republicans or their beliefs.

Reagan did horrible things, but even if they are ideas completely contrary to things Democrats hold dear–they were ideas that kept those aweful Republicans in the White House for 12 years and congress for longer.

The steps to a cure: first step admit you have a problem. Establishment Democrats can deny, point fingers and get angry all they want.

Hillary wants to take the country back to when the Democrats were losers. She is stale and dry as her losing night picture in Iowa with Albright, Wes Clark and Bill behind her. She's the past: Hillary Clinton will never be president.

Oh yeah, and I agree.

Hillary Voted For The War.

She also voted for a path to war with Iran. She's a Joe Lieberman-Bush/Cheney-McCain hawk.

Obama is trying to kiss California's backside. What he doesn't realize is that he just pissed off most DEMS over the age of 35. There maybe some out there even younger that remember what a sleeze Reagan was and always will be in my families mind.

Reagan hated unions. Obama needs a history lesson before he starts talking about stuff that can get him kicked out of the DEM party.

Oh noes! Reagan comments! Faintly reminiscent of the ones Bill Clinton delivered a couple years back:

“Hillary and I will always remember President Ronald Reagan for the way he personified the indomitable optimism of the American people, and for keeping America at the forefront of the fight for freedom for people everywhere. It is fitting that a piece of the Berlin Wall adorns the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington.

“President Reagan demonstrated his strength and resolve after leaving office when he shared his struggle with Alzheimer’s Disease with the world. We will always remember his tremendous capacity to inspire and comfort us in times of tragedy, as he did after the loss of the space shuttle Challenger. Now he, too, has “slipped the surly bonds of Earth to touch the face of God,” and we can rest assured that, as joyous a place as Heaven is, his wit and sunny disposition are making it an even brighter place to be.”

Bushes deal with the Saudis, arms for oil reminds me of when Reagan sold arms for hostages. That didn't come back to bite us on the backside did it? The Iran-Contra Affair became the largest political scandal in the United States during the 1980s.

Begging for oil from a country that harbored most of the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11 is pathetic.

Wow Jim,

You got the Clintons saying something nice about a dead President.
I AM STUNNED!!!

Do you have something else where the Clintons say something nice about anyone else that has passed away.

If the person I was backing for President lost their mind and said they wanted to run America into the ground the way Reagan did, I'd be desperate to.

Hillary voted for the war
Hillary voted for the war
Hillary voted for the war
Hillary voted for the war
Hillary voted for the war
Hillary voted for the war

So, to recap:

1. Obama said something incredibly stupid, praising a repug whose main appeal was to covert (and overt) racism, who fought to gut the legacy of the Civil Rights movement and thought the greatest "excess" of the 60s was that the Negroes got uppity.

2. Obama rightly comes under fire for his stupidity and willingness to slam Democratic politicians and ideals in order to appeal to the repug base in an open primary (NV) and the general election.

3. Obama's cultlike followers immediately launch into defenses of his remarks and of Ray-Gun, allowing as how ol' Ronnie was a really neat guy and the O man is a shrewd politician for invoking his name. (NO mention can be made of reaganesque outrages like "welfare queens", "big Black bucks", Philadelphia Mississippi, multiple attempts to kill the Voting Rights Act, reagan's real dissing of MLK, his support for South African apartheid or any of the rest of Ray-Gun's degenerate legacy.)

4. Edwards and Clinton throw more kindling on the fire, rightly pointing out that Obama is either incredibly naive, utterly clueless, cynically manipulative or all of the above in his adoration of the necrophiliac lust object of modern conservatism.

5. Obamatons all over the internets lose their collective minds.

Really, this is like watching the paulbots spamming and whining their way through cyberspace. The spectacle of so many people engaging in such twisted hypocrisy is fascinating. Apparently, Obama could advocate vivisecting puppies for pleasure and his followers would flood the net with 101 reasons why torturing puppies to death is objectively good. A fair number would immediately confess to puppy-killing just to be like their idol, while others would vow to kill a puppy tonight in his honor.

Funny, but scary at the same time.

Wow...!!! Beat all of us into submission. Yes, I am for Obama. Yes, he is the one, the only the true saviour. I renounce all the other Democratic devils--false propets. There is only one christ child and it is Obama. He will save us. He will anoint us. He is the true agent of change, cause Google said so. All of the false prophets of the 60's and 70's we will throw into the fire. Cleanse our soul and find the redeemer. Yes, yes..after all these years, I found salvation. No need to question yourself, or leaders. There is truth and it comes in the form of a man...OBAMA. She, the woman is satan, she who dares to question the christ child we will stone her and demonize. How dare she? When finally salvation comes that you all don't fall on your knees and pray? And John Edwards, how dare he claim he is the voice of the people? How dare he question the holy spirit, the anointed one. Obama was first for the people.

Phew...do you think now I will be spared from damnation? Heh, will you true believers forget my transgressions and put a good word for me? I succumb to the power of the one and only. YOU WIN. I will go to my cave and hide while you fix the world, peace man. (oops, he is not for peace, he said he likes some wars in the Reno Gazzette interview ) ok....no peace. Yeah no peace, bomb Pakistan. Yeah..bomb Pakistan cause he said it's ok. (must show we are macho to the indies and republican new friends)

It is sad when fellow well intentioned patriotic democrats distort each others statements. Obama was clearly stating the obvious and attacking the republican presidential candidates. Reagan was mentioned constantly in the last republican debate by each candidate. Obama stated clearly the fact that the republicans have had control of government for the last 15 years and they continuously spewed that Reagan was their mentor and that they strive for Reagan ideals. Obama then states that it hasn't worked by saying "we tried that". All correct. I support Hillary for now (Florida voter), but if she continues to listen to the campaign advisors and not her own judgement she will lose me. I learned my lesson from the John Kerry campaign. Don't listen to the advisors.

I love how solid your support is. So your saying she should walk on egg shells and lose just to win your support?

did anyone see the 2 speeches on c span tonight obama looked off his game

Quoting a misquote is never, never going to ger Obama elected to anything. Obama will never be president because he is under handed and can't be trusted.

How stupid is Obama? The Republicans were "The" party of ideas for ten to fifteen years?

He's too fucking stupid to be president if he thinks that's an honest statement. I've been a Democrat all my life and worked in politics from the late seventies on. The Democrats have never been short of ideas that were popular with the American public. In fact, Democrat ideas remained more popular with the American public through out both Reagan and Bush's administrations.

That's the problem with Obama - when all is said and done, he's a dumbass who is primarily supported by dumbasses. I have no idea how someone like josh got on his side except to say that misogyny and narcissism can dull even the smartest man's senses from time to time.

And yes, if you feel any different about Clinton than you did about Dodd or Biden (both of whom have a more conservative voting record than she does), then you're engaging in misogyny.

Someone wrote:
"I know if she wins we'll unite behind her as we must."

I say, speak for yourself.

More distortions by Hillary.
I kinda like the bold move by Obama. It might play well in the western and southern states. Especially in California, where indies can vote in the Dem primary.
Also, with Hillary having on her website that Reagan is one of her favorite presidents, the hypocrite card can be played against her...again.

Well Hillarys camp is a little busy cleaning up Obamas messes to find time to take down a misquote. You would think the number of presidents there would have been a give away that it wasn't true. For me I have only one favorite president, President Kennedy.

Richardson Colorado Campaign Co-Chairs, Superdelegate, and Steering Committee Members Endorse Hillary Clinton

Makes you wonder, why not Obama?

Of course, they're both Republicans...

Tom,

Guess who launched misleading attacks and lies in NH?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNrlSn7ndAA&e

Oh, and did you forget how Obama slammed Edwards over the 527s, calling on him to "stop" the ads when he knew that it was ILLEGAL for Edwards to coordinate with 527s. And let's not forget the health care ads Obama ran in Iowa when he claimed his plan was "universal."

Obama isn't clean either--at all. They're politicians people.

Lest we forget Hillary's own sentiments about Reagan, check out her website:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674

An excerpt:

"Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan - demonstrates how she thinks. As expected, Bill Clinton was also included on the aforementioned list."

Feel the love.

Layla,

Don't you mean Bush, Clinton, Bush and Bush? You are a Obama supporter aren't you? Since Obama has the same blood running through his veins as Bush and Cheney he would be a 3rd generation Bushey. Oh, that's why he loves Reagan such much.

OBAMA AND BUSH AND CHENEY BEING COUSINS IS ALL I NEED NOT TO VOTE FOR HIM!!!!!

LETS SEE: (AS OF JAN 18.08)

HILLARY HAS 190 SUPER DELEGATES

HILLARY HAD 24 VOTE DELEGATES

OBAMA HAS 103 SUPER DELEGATES

OBAMA HAS 25 VOTE DELEGATES

THE FACTS ARE THE FACTS

To Jane @ 2:14 a.m., and others attempting to make any mileage out of the Cutler statement posted at Hillary's official spin site, "Hillary Hub":

I noted this in the related thread (re Bill's subsequent attack on the same subject) as well, but please look closely at Cutler's "non-retraction retraction."

http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=5309

His statement says only that Hillary never told the Salmon Press that Reagan was "her favorite President." He *never* denies that she named Reagan on a list of her favorite presidents (which is all that the Salmon Press endorsement says she said), he only states that she never said he was #1 on that list. Of course, as Kos has noted, his admission that Hillary stated that she "admired" Reagan almost makes this point moot. Nonetheless, this is a carefully worded denial intended to give his candidate of choice some political cover for her and her husband's big blunder today, while at the same time avoid making the false claim that the prior editorial was in any way inaccurate.

As with most of their tactics, the Clintons are banking on ordinary Americans not paying enough attention to pick up on the distinction. Just like Gonzo with his line about those "other" intelligence activities, which were not the NSA wiretapping program "that the President disclosed." Or, for that matter, the "sexual relations" that Bill did not have with that woman. In each case, technically accurate. If, that is, you buy the view that, in the first case, the wiretapping program ultimately disclosed by Bush (on the heels of the NYT story) was somehow distinct from the program as it existed prior to the changes made at Acting A.G. Comey's insistence following the Ashcroft hospital bed incident; or, in the second case, that fellatio is not sex. Cutler's statement is in the same vein: literally true, and yet completely beside the point.

Here's the thing. Some of us *are* paying attention. And then we're blogging about it. Welcome to the internet age, folks.

Many of the last comments are only logical if your a republican supporter. Obama said nothing wrong. READ IT:

OBAMA:
"The Republican approach I think has played itself out. I think it's fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time over the last 10 or 15 years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom. Now, you've heard it all before. You look at the economic policies, when they're being debated among the presidential candidates, it's all tax cuts. Well, we've done that, we've tried it."

He is saying the Republican way of Reagan is over. Been tried. Economic policy favors the upper crust. He is saying their time is over. Clinton should have agreed. Get rid of the advisors.

Seriously Hillary fans? This is the kind of politics you want to embrace?

Are you kidding me? He walked straight into this one.

There was a moment in one of the earliest debates. Hillary was asked about the NY plan to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. She said, paraphrasing, "I don't support it, but I understand why they're doing it."

There was a beat, and then Obama jumped on it. And he got her for 'contradicting herself'. When we all know that in reality, she was being nuanced.

That kind of nuance when it comes to immigration is not a big deal in the Democratic party. However, nuance in regards to Reagan? Obama has gotten himself into some very sticky territory--at a time when you avoid stickiness.

I felt a bit bad about it at first, not seriously but in a casual sort of way--but then I reflected that this has a connection to the fact that Obama's policy proposals are, according to my reading at least, to the right of both Edwards' and Clinton's (plus Clinton has the skills and experience to back her proposals up). And meanwhile he has the progressive vote. I think the progressive vote has been suckered, in this case. I'm not saying that people shouldn't support him--there are good reasons to support Obama--but I find that they are supporting him, quite often, because he gives the impression of being more progressive. That's a bad reason to support Obama. While Clinton has not been willing to publicize this issue, for whatever reason (maybe she doesn't want to be thought of as the leftist?) Obama has just handed her a golden opportunity to do so in a personality-based way. Now I would prefer a policy-based approach, but they aren't calling me up for advice...

Why can't Hillary be honest and straightforward. If Obama is such a bad candidate, why can't she find real differences to point to? Instead, she twists his words to create a strawman to attack.

Ronald Reagan was a leader with ideas, just like FDR was a leader with idea. Their ideas and their values were very different. But, both managed to lead the nation and implement their ideas at different times in history.

Hillary and her attack machine are trying to divide the nation into warring camps. Its her only hope. Obama is a uniter, a man of vision, ideas, character, natural leadership for change and the future. Hillary is Mrs. Bill Clinton and the candidate of Washington establishment corporate serving status quo. She is about the past.

Hillary is about more Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton,and that is scary.

Obama has the potential to be in the league with FDR, JFK, Reagan when it comes to uniting and leading with IDEAS.
Hillary and her attack dogs hate that and lying is their only hope.

When is TPM going to come right out and just endorse Obama? Your 'headlines' are beginning to look like Drudge and Fox Noise:

1. "Hillary Personally Slams Obama" vs "Obama camp: Hard to take her seriously"
This sounds and looks exactly like a Fox Noise segments of any democrat vs any republican. Only difference is this is democrat vs democrat. It's 'Hillary' vs Obama. It's she 'slams' vs a comment. How is 'hard to take her seriously' not a slam and a sexist slam at that?

2. "Hillary Backers open fire on Obama" vs "Obama cites Reagan" vs "Edwards Hits Obama"
Again, we have 'Hillary" opens fire", Edwards "Hits" and Obama merely "Cites".

If Obama, his camp and supporters think these are hits, smears, attacks and slamming they are going to have a very hard time in the general election.

My suggestion to Obama supporters, go read up on the candidate, read back issues of the Chicago Tribune, Black Agenda Report, The New York Times. For NOW the media and the republicans are backing off of him but that will change. But don't fool yourselves into thinking this love fest in the media will continue, there is much in what Obama says and does they can and will have a field day with.

Before anyone goes off the wagon on me, I have no horse in this race. I'm not 'special' and the DNC nor any candidate cared about the Republican controlled Florida Legislature's moving our primary up, no exceptions were made the DNC merely stripped my right to vote in a meaningful way and took our delegates. No 'special' ruling so I could vote at work with my union bosses looking over my shoulder.

I will vote for whoever the victor is and pray that this schoolyard juvenile he said/she said ends before any more voters declare as they do here "I will never vote for (Clinton/Obama) after this" "I'll vote McCain before I'll vote for __________" fill in the blank. My position is "I will vote for Clinton, Obama or Edwards BEFORE I would EVER vote for ANY REPUBLICAN!

How utterly childish, foolish and reckless this all is. Tone it down. One can disagree without it all being slams, hits and attacks. This isn't a beauty contest, candidates can opine and point out where they disagree with their opponent without it being an attack. One can write a headline without using slam, hit, and attack, you manage very well when it's Obama.

Therea,

Poor poor Hillary is such a victim. Get real.

Hillary LIES. She lied about what Obama said and then attacked him based on that lie. Then her attack dogs like you go out and pretend that what Hillary said is true.

Hillary is unqualified. She is Mrs. Bill Clinton with coporate dollars, not enough to make anyone president.

Obama is a visionary, natural leader, with the capacity to inspire and unite this nation to address the major problems that confront it and move into the future with positive ideas and consensus.

Hillary and her supporters should stop the dishonesty and GET OUT OF THE WAY. And please please take that foaming at the mouth, raging, Hillary-hack Bill Clinton with you.

ditto on puzzled post

I have made the decision I will NOT vote for Mrs. Bill Clinton.

If I cannot stomach the other "Republican" candidate, I will encourage and hope for a Bloomberg run.

Voting for Hillary would be abandoning all my standards regarding the integrity I feel a president must have. I do not trust her in any way.

To Anonymous

Did you read the post? I said I have no horse in this race. Florida gets no voice in the primary, we can vote if we so choose but our voice will not count a the convention.

If you are so brave as to call me, someone you do not know, an attack dog, be brave enough to use your name or at the very least a fake name.

Clinton supporters should "GET OUT OF THE WAY"?
Really? They should just crown YOUR candidate?
apparently, by your own tirade, you are proving my point. If you can get so upset by what I said, which was not a attack on your candidate, then I suggest you get a prescription for a tranquilizer to get yourself through the general election should Obama win the nomination. You will need it.

Pathetic. I don't think I've ever been more offended in my life.

Clinton supporters actually have the guts to complain about bigotry against their candidate?

Yeah, because the "20 year olds" who "don't know anything about the issues" and so on are totally the most bigoted people in the world. I have not seen one post from a Clinton supporter in this thread attempting to engage in a reasoned discussion on this. So, perhaps I'll have to start a reasoned discussion.

I support Barack Obama for the Presidency of the United States. I will not be voting, either in the primaries or the general election, to my great disappointment. I will not because I will not be old enough- much less 20.

Yes, I do know what the issues are. The issues are whether or not the Democratic Party wants to keep the White House, or not; and whether or not they want to turn the onslaught of the Conservative movement around, or not.

Barack Obama is a politician campaigning off the promise of change and hope. Do you know what will happen when a politician that people believe to be their savior takes office? GOVERNMENT becomes representative of those things. That's right- simply by virtue of his rhetoric, Barack Obama can tilt the country back to the left.

He has been, I feel, more candid with his comments about the military and use of military force, more candid about a number of issues I care about, and generally less dishonest than Hillary Clinton. That's not to say, of course, that he never lies, or that we should excuse him when he does- but it does mean that he's better than Clinton on that front.

Personally, I like a candidate that tries to bring in new voters, tries to make America more liberal, and tries to reach out to voters who are of other parties (as it has been said, "Obama Republican" has a lovely ring to it).

I will not support a Democrat for the General Election unless either Obama or Edwards is on the ticket- not, of course, that my support matters much.

Now, I welcome, and would much appreciate, an actual conversation, like the one Hillary promised, about this election.

There is a really disturbing trend in the Hillay campaign - a Bush-style effort to intemidate a free press. Hillary's charges of victimization by everyone simply undermine her credibility and appeal as a leader. But now Bill and her mean machiine seem to be saying if you oppose Hillary or call atttention to her negatives in any way, you are sexist.

This may persuade women to vote for her and elect her president -- the Victims United campaign. But can Hillary really govern on the platform of vicitimization. I don't think Hillary will last long in international leadership circles by accusing Arab nations, Russia, Korea and China opposing her because she is a woman and ganing up on her.

I don't think Hillary is showing strength as a person and leader by always always playing the victim.

Who ever is in a union and votes for Obama gets what they deserve. In new hampshire Obama and Oprah bullied a working union picket line so they could cross it. Regean done more damage to unions and they have never recovered. So Regean is Obama's hero

Ok let's look just at the Bush years. The Republicans have put forward many ideas and worked to accomplish them. I don't think they are good ideas,but they are clearly ideas with a purpose:

1.Neocon vision of the Middle East and taking control of oil supplies

2. Trickle down economics with major tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans

3. privatization of Social Security

4. privatization of every government function including the military

The list is much longer

Now someone, please list the big Democratic ideas being accomplished by the Democratic Congress under the brilliant leadership of Pelosi and Reid?

oops

They have not even come up with any ideas for ending the war in Iraq, which was their mandate from the people. In fact, they let Bush escalate the war.

Please someone, show recent examples of the Democratic party as the party of ideas?

Yes Bad as they are, these are big ideas that the Republicans have put forward and are accomplishing. Once again Obama shows deep insight. Hillary's efforts to distort are just too transparent. Does she have anything constructive to say in this campaign?

Puzzled, one word, Nope. Nothing constructive at all. Just playing the victim and lying to promote the clinton restoration. It is so transparent when you hear her speak. It is always, I, I, I. Obama gives a speach and its always we, we, we. The differences between the two is striking and yet clinton people just don't see it. It is sad.

Hate to say it - Hillary's right. Only "ideas" the Republicans have had in the last 10-15 years is how to steal elections, slander people, and start stupid wars.

David Seiser,

Hillary is the expert on MUD.

Obama was simply making the point that is time for the Democrats to take the lead on ideas again.

It surprises me that Hillary and her supporters want to attack him for that. The only reason would be that Hillary has no ideas and is threatened by the notion of leading with them.

Very sad commentary for Hillary, her campaign and misguided supporters. She is doing real damage to Democracy by embracing the tactics of Karl Rove/George Bush in a Democratic primary. She is managing to alienate many voters who should be her supporters, but reject her methods.

Hillary is a dishonest candidate. She frequently distorts facts to fit her purpose. We have lived for seven years with a president who does that frequently and has put us in a horrible war, in part with Hillary's help, based on lies. The last thing this nation needs is another president who governs with lies. I could never support Hillary for president.

to say things as "i hate her", "she is scum". etc i cant believe what i am seeing. What are these so called obama supportes, hate mongers. The GOP ideas vs democratic ideas is the issue people. Yes I think Sen. Barack misstated what he meant but I dont hate him. Sen Clinton ( and she is senator which demands simple courtisy) or Sen. Obama ( and yes the same applies to him) would be better for us then any GOP candidate on issues alone. That goes or Mr. Edwards also. I guess I am tired of seeing democrats playing the same as Carl Rove would with name calling, etc. It will only lead to a GOP victory if we are not aware of this pettyness.

Theresa you are a hillary shill. Very obvious. Everyone in Florida should have been disenfranchised after your rigged election system, Bush brother governor, Bush campaign chair secretary of state, and corrupt legislaturre allow George W. Bush to claim electoral votes he did not win.

In the last Congressional elections, Florida's corruption again allowed REpublicans to claim Congressional seats based on rigged voting machines.

No voters in Florida of either party should have their votes counted for any national election until they end the corruption in their election system. The same is true for Ohio.

But I can understand why being from Flordia you would be a Hillary attack dog. Hillary's values are a strong match for Florida's corrupt citizens.

When I say "get out of the the way" it is not on behalf of any candidate ,but in the interest of honest elections and restoring democracy after the horrible, divisive, dishonest, corrupt reign of Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton.

P.S. Annonymous is just as accurate a name as Theresa.

Hillary is looking for any opening. All Obama said was that Reagan was able to galvanize support in this country for his platform more than any president since Richard Nixon. And that is including the Clintons. That statement is true. It's a comparison to his own campaign where he's trying to bridge the gaps between young and old, working class or middle class, regardless of race or gender. And that's what it's gonna take if people in this country are serious about taking on the problems we now face. In a roundabout way Obama was saying the Clintons are divisive. That is also true. To say that Obama is a Reagan supporter is ridiculous. It's an observation - not an endorsement

Who voted for the new BK laws?

A voting guide, take note so you can vote against the Members of Congress who voted in favor of this law next time they are up for re-election:
Senate

NAYs ---25 (the good guys!)

Akaka (D-HI)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)

Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Mikulski (D-MD)

Murray (D-WA)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Wyden (D-OR)

YEAs ---74 (the bad guys)

Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)

DeMint (R-SC)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)

McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Salazar (D-CO)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

Not Voting - 1 (the cowards)
Clinton (D-NY)

The hate on this site back reminds me of a Fox News Cast.

Clintons: LYING HYPOCRITES!

But no president can do it alone. She must break recent tradition, cast cronyism aside and fill her cabinet with the best people, not only the best Democrats, but the best Republicans as well.. We’re confident she will do that. Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan - demonstrates how she thinks.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674

"Hillary and I will always remember President Ronald Reagan for the way he personified the indomitable optimism of the American people, and for keeping America at the forefront of the fight for freedom for people everywhere...

"We will always remember his tremendous capacity to inspire and comfort us in times of tragedy, ...and we can rest assured that, as joyous a place as Heaven is, his wit and sunny disposition are making it an even brighter place to be." President Bill Clinton and Sen. Hillary Clinton.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4092735

And, not like Obama haters will accept this, even though it's true, OBAMA NEVER SAID HE LIKED REAGAN OR HIS IDEAS. He merely stated the obvious, that Reagan seized an opportunity for change, like we have right now, and ran with it, like he intends to do as well. The idea that Obama likes Reagan's policies is beyond ridiculous, and if you believe that, I want whatever it is you're smoking.

To Anonymous

As I have said twice before, I am not, as you so eloquently put it a "Hillary Shill".

As to voters in Florida should not be permitted to vote in any election, how very Republican talking point of you. For the record, the people of Palm Beach County knew how to vote and knew who to vote for. I can assure you, despite what the vote showed, Pat Buchanan did not get the votes that were claimed, by the voters. Nor did W. Had the ballots not been faulty to begin with, as was known by the makers of them prior to shipping but shipped non the less, the punch card ballot would have worked just fine. The Republicans rigged the vote, surpressed the vote, intimidated the voters, and stopped the count. The voter of Florida did not.

As to you being able to understand "why being from Florida" I "would be a Hillary attack dog" and that "Hillary's values are a strong match for Florida's corrupt citizens" I really have no idea what you are saying and or implying nor do I actually care. Attacking an entire state and it's citizens is really the way to go to get them to see your point about your candidate. Well done.

My name is in fact Theresa. With that said enjoy your day I am off to the beach as it is a beautiful day here in Florida and this corrupt citizen will enjoy the sun, breeze and ocean.

Obama is a respectful man, when Hillary atempts to humiliate him he ignores it because she wants to ruin his rep and cause him not to focus by making him say things that he world doesnt like. Obamas smarter than that. He's been raised though he may have made some mistakes he has been trained in the way he should go it is evident. March on Obama, you know who you are, and what you need to do and say. Don't let these people who wish you would just go away beat you like that, keep your great morals, and utilize your rights and continue that extra mile you have to go for just being a black and a man anyway. I have two sons and a husband who have all been taught to respect in all circumstances and they can maintain jobs as professionals and deal with attitude at the same time. Don,t let anyone make you roll your neck. Keep it still, Stand still and know......................represent all of America

And you heard it here too.

To Stella- I'm not 18, either.

And yes, I'm quite aware of the national voting laws.

Obama's analogy is wrong on several levels.

First, he's wrong about Republicans challenging conventional wisdom over the past 10 or 15 years with big, bold, new ideas that went against the prevailing political winds.

Their ideas WERE the conventional wisdom. They were recycled policies from the Reagan era that Clinton had largely departed from -- though not completely, considering the passage of welfare reform, NAFTA and the telecom bill -- but that they clung to with ferocity and blind devotion during their wilderness years. When they seized power in 2000, they were just picking up where they had left off in 1992, with very few new ideas except, admittedly, new and nefarious ways of bringing them about. That is perhaps the innovation Obama is talking about. If so, that's even scarier.

Obama seems to admire the political balls the Republicans employed to put their ideas into effect. I do, too. But the quality of those ideas matter. He's saying that we had to live through those 15 years -- gives these ideas a chance, see if they work, give'em a fair shot -- to learn how bad they were. Any Democrat could have told you at the time how bad they were -- we had endured the Reagan years, after all -- and it didn't take a 15-year experiment to find that out.

The Clintons were just making a simple -- and quite apt -- leap of logic. By calling Republicans "the party of ideas," Obama was, implicitly, saying "the party of good ideas" (at least, until they weren't). If not, how is this praiseworthy?

Obama's statement shows confused and muddled thinking right out of -- yes -- Republican conventional wisdom.

Here's the bottom line: When you know how the movie ends -- especially if you've seen it twice -- it tends to color your view of the entire film. It's not exactly a classic you'd want to remake.

Fellow Posters: Your unfettered love for Obama and bizarre anti-Clinton disposition is blinding you and preventing you from accepting that Barack Obama has made some mistakes this past week. It's not the end of the world for you to admit that the man is not perfect and made a stupid statement the other day by applauding Reagan and putting down the Bill Clinton presidency. The irony of this situation is that you all criticize the Karl Rove tactics, but then you fall for his revisionist ploys. You have discounted what a great President Bill Clinton was and how effectively he ran our country for 8 years. From a balanced budget and economic prosperity, to a responsible foreign policy, Clinton represented the Democratic Ideals and helped forge a counterpole to the emerging Reagan pro-Rich,evangelical-pandering Replublican revolution. Any person reading the Obama quote should be able to see that he was clearly praising Reagan. He called the Republican Party, the Party of Ideas. Fellow Democrats, HAVE YOU LOST YOUR MIND. He is putting down the things you fought for, and fought against--Ronald Reagan. I am happy to debate Hillary's flaws and faults, but please dont be so blind in your love for Obama to let the guy off the hook for everything and decry some Clintonian conspiracy twisting his words.

Why is it Hillary this and Hillary that and Obama this and Obama that? Why aren't both candidates referred to by last name or first name or both or Senator Clinton and Senator Obama? There seems to be a propagandistic frame at work here.

The comment was fair game. Everything Hillary says and does is under a microscope but Obama gets a free ride from the press. It was stupid of Obama to praise Reagan in the middle of the Democratic primary.

For those who are too young to remember the Clinton reign, Bill is no Democrat. His Presidency hurt this country.

No one should be surprised by the will to win at any cost, whether it be based on lies, distortion, or race-baiting, the Clinton's are displaying.

If anyone can loose the November election for the Democratic party, it's the deliberate distortion politics these two are now displaying to the American people.

If we really want an honest President, we wouldn't support the other half of a clearly dysfunctional relationship.

i expect that some will be flaming me for this... however, in i shall go..

There is only one point: Who prevails in the election in November.

I may not like all of what i see of the world and human emotions or motivations, but unless we acknowledge and comprehend how the world works and how our fellow humans behave, we shall be left in the dust - and yet again blow an election that should be ours.

To get it out plainly.. i may like them, but i favor neither sitting senator as the nominee. I think lingering racism or sexism are too likely to keep either candidate from winning in November - not can't win, just too unlikely. And winning in November is what counts.

The next president, almost certainly, will nominate several justices to the Supreme Court.

Does any Democrat really want a justice on the court who might help ratify the bush record of torture, prisons, and other fancy words like renditions?

Your answer better be a resounding NO. Think before you say no to any nominee the democrats might put forward. Your civil liberties, the honor to our fore-fathers, and the sacrifice of every patriot who ever rose to defend this nation demands that we reject the bush record. So do their families - widows, orphans, parents, siblings...

Acknowledge it, or seek to deny it, or argue to change it - politics, and world politics in particular, is a rough game. Some readers might not like calling it a game, but it is a most serious form of chess, strategy, counter-strategy, and fakes. And it is a game with deadly serious consequences, not some sport of fools and naive idealists - and i cast No aspersions toward any current candidate of any stripe or party. [Our nation has someone who made that silly mistake in the White House today, much to his shame, the shame of his advisers, and to the shame of our nation.]

I think that a leader needs to be devious.

Americans say they want honesty.. well..

Jimmy Carter was honest, probably one of the most honest men to hold any high office. And most voters and much of the public of this nation have rejected and ridiculed him ever since.

I think Bill Clinton was/is devious, and smart, and clever, and had a successful presidency - not all his doing, but much of it was. ... And some would argue that his lack of national experience cost the Democrats the Congress in '94 - Bill Clinton failed to sell his tax increases on the wealthy to the voters. Gingrich sold a re-cast version of reagan mythology.

What we need from our political leaders is honesty - but as in: not-a-thief, someone who will not rob the public purse. What we don't need, and should not require, is honesty as in: truth-the-whole-truth-and-nothing-but. The republican opponents are far from puritans on this point - rather their hounds are puritans only when it comes to winning..

Democrats cant afford to be purer than the driven snow - as ideal and wonderful as it might be. Our nation cannot either - see points above regarding new Supreme Court justices ratifying bush record.

The test of our leaders should be results. Their path may or may not be fully honest.

Always speaking the truth is not feasible, or wise. Our world opponents, and some of our allies, would eat our lunch. They would mis-lead us. Our actions and reactions on the world stage might be too predictable.

Now, to the point of Winning in November.... It is all about the electoral college - remember 2000, right?

Can either of our leading candidates win just one more state than John Kerry did? (Ohio anyone?) ... Or Al Gore? Had Gore won just one more state, Florida would not have mattered.

Ask yourselves:
> How many states in the South will Clinton or Obama carry against Huck, Mack, Mitt or even Rudy? Maybe Florida...

> How many states in the Plains and Mountains? Maybe Colorado... Maybe New Mexico...

That is a large percentage of the electoral college to concede to any opponent in November.

And recall.. most Voters In November are older people... not the young. We will live with their fears, desires, prejudices, etc.

I have spoken with some older voters - a very small sample - women in their 70s and 80s, who always vote. It surprises me to hear some say they refuse to vote for a woman (believing that it is a man's job). Others do not think they could ever vote for a black man. ... Ever hear of the Bradley-effect? If memory serves me, Bradley was ahead 10% in the polls and defeated by 1/2% of the Voters - in California ... (admittedly some 25 years ago)...

Point of Correction for the Ben J post: As i recall, the Soviet Union fell apart in December 1991. That would be very nearly 3 years After reagan left office. Even the Berlin Wall did not come down while reagan was in office (Nov 89 to Jun 90, and then most of it by 1991). So, no, reagan wasn't even there, though his faithful believers like to cast it that way... but then they still claim reagan's huge deficits do not matter..

Once again, Paul Krugman makes a great point -- if you don't want to read the entire column below, skip to his last paragraph. Well-stated.

I agree 100% with Krugman that NO Democrat, especially at this time, needs to lend ANY credence whatsoever to ANY Republican or any of their hare-brained ideas, period. (Only insulting the hare, my apologies to all hares out there!)

Yeah, Hillary totally overstepped on this one -- NOT cool. And yes, Obama might be lacking in some killer instincts (but I thought his come-back was actually pretty good!).

That said, I will vote for any Democrat on the ticket, be it Hillary, Obamaa, or some other Dem (or freaking Charles Manson if he's a Democrat!), because I will never, ever vote for any Republican as long as I live, not even with a gun to my head!!

~ Jill in Denver

Op-Ed Columnist
Debunking the Reagan Myth

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: January 21, 2008
The New York Times

Historical narratives matter. That’s why conservatives are still writing books denouncing F.D.R. and the New Deal; they understand that the way Americans perceive bygone eras, even eras from the seemingly distant past, affects politics today.

And it’s also why the furor over Barack Obama’s praise for Ronald Reagan is not, as some think, overblown. The fact is that how we talk about the Reagan era still matters immensely for American politics.

Bill Clinton knew that in 1991, when he began his presidential campaign. “The Reagan-Bush years,” he declared, “have exalted private gain over public obligation, special interests over the common good, wealth and fame over work and family. The 1980s ushered in a Gilded Age of greed and selfishness, of irresponsibility and excess, and of neglect.”

Contrast that with Mr. Obama’s recent statement, in an interview with a Nevada newspaper, that Reagan offered a “sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.”

Maybe Mr. Obama was, as his supporters insist, simply praising Reagan’s political skills. (I think he was trying to curry favor with a conservative editorial board, which did in fact endorse him.) But where in his remarks was the clear declaration that Reaganomics failed?

For it did fail. The Reagan economy was a one-hit wonder. Yes, there was a boom in the mid-1980s, as the economy recovered from a severe recession. But while the rich got much richer, there was little sustained economic improvement for most Americans. By the late 1980s, middle-class incomes were barely higher than they had been a decade before — and the poverty rate had actually risen.

When the inevitable recession arrived, people felt betrayed — a sense of betrayal that Mr. Clinton was able to ride into the White House.

Given that reality, what was Mr. Obama talking about? Some good things did eventually happen to the U.S. economy — but not on Reagan’s watch.

For example, I’m not sure what “dynamism” means, but if it means productivity growth, there wasn’t any resurgence in the Reagan years. Eventually productivity did take off — but even the Bush administration’s own Council of Economic Advisers dates the beginning of that takeoff to 1995.

Similarly, if a sense of entrepreneurship means having confidence in the talents of American business leaders, that didn’t happen in the 1980s, when all the business books seemed to have samurai warriors on their covers. Like productivity, American business prestige didn’t stage a comeback until the mid-1990s, when the U.S. began to reassert its technological and economic leadership.

I understand why conservatives want to rewrite history and pretend that these good things happened while a Republican was in office — or claim, implausibly, that the 1981 Reagan tax cut somehow deserves credit for positive economic developments that didn’t happen until 14 or more years had passed. (Does Richard Nixon get credit for “Morning in America”?)

But why would a self-proclaimed progressive say anything that lends credibility to this rewriting of history — particularly right now, when Reaganomics has just failed all over again?

Like Ronald Reagan, President Bush began his term in office with big tax cuts for the rich and promises that the benefits would trickle down to the middle class. Like Reagan, he also began his term with an economic slump, then claimed that the recovery from that slump proved the success of his policies.

And like Reaganomics — but more quickly — Bushonomics has ended in grief. The public mood today is as grim as it was in 1992. Wages are lagging behind inflation. Employment growth in the Bush years has been pathetic compared with job creation in the Clinton era. Even if we don’t have a formal recession — and the odds now are that we will — the optimism of the 1990s has evaporated.

This is, in short, a time when progressives ought to be driving home the idea that the right’s ideas don’t work, and never have.

It’s not just a matter of what happens in the next election. Mr. Clinton won his elections, but — as Mr. Obama correctly pointed out — he didn’t change America’s trajectory the way Reagan did. Why?

Well, I’d say that the great failure of the Clinton administration — more important even than its failure to achieve health care reform, though the two failures were closely related — was the fact that it didn’t change the narrative, a fact demonstrated by the way Republicans are still claiming to be the next Ronald Reagan.

Now progressives have been granted a second chance to argue that Reaganism is fundamentally wrong: once again, the vast majority of Americans think that the country is on the wrong track. But they won’t be able to make that argument if their political leaders, whatever they meant to convey, seem to be saying that Reagan had it right.

-------

Here's a link to this column --

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/opinion/21krugman.html?em&ex=1201064400&en=6357cec90e46a3f5&ei=5087%0A