How do you know what they are going to do?

Maybe.

Or maybe the madness has already run its course.

I cannot support the Clintons any more.

I do not know who I will vote for, but the two of them have lied to me one too many times.

I am tired of it.

greg you are pathetic. You are reduced to making the case the gop are the party of ideas. Pathetic.

It depends on the definition of "of." Lets give Hillary a chance to clarify that statement.

So...your point is what??? It's an opinion. It's not hers.

Greg,
I know Josh says that because you get equally critical mail both pro-Hillary and pro-Barrack you must be balanced. That's what the Washington Post and MSNBC claim too.
You're anti-Hillary bias is very evident. Story after story in which you highlight every slight to the Preacher and answer all the attacks on him yourself. Every time he calls Hillary a liar, which is every day, that's just the truth apparently and completely acceptable.
You're biased and it's obvious.
This site is no better than Huffington Post.

A Senator saying the Republicans are the "party of ideas" in 1981 is quite different from a Senator saying the Republicans are "the party of ideas" in 2008, specifically referring to the past 10-15 years, in the context of a Democratic primary nomination. Apples and oranges. Obama needs to change the subject, not say "other Democrats have thought the Republican party was the ideas party too".

Greg,

Who cares what Moynihan, who is long gone, said long time ago? He is not running for president now. But Obama is and it matters what he says.

Obama is welcome to use Moynihan (who I bet most of the voters in South Carolina can't recognize) to rebut Hillary! I am sure that would be a brilliant tactic.

More importantly, I think this says something about Krugman and his axe to grind against Obama, whatever the case and facts. He's lost all credibility in my book.

"Late Update: I am emphatically not endorsing Moynihan's views here"

What are you doing?

Anybody who doesn't believe the GOP was the party of ideas since at least the 1980's has been living under a rock. Welfare reform, NAFTA, think tanks, massive industry deregulation, these are ideas, bad ones, but ideas nonetheless.

What? You're kidding, right?

Someone said the same thing 27 (twenty-seven) years ago in a different time and a different context?

Do you honestly think that's going to work? It's even a stretch to call this a stretch.

Apparently, there is alot of irrationality out there.

The madness isn't over.

Someone above accused Obama of peddling a dead senator. What's funny is that this story quotes a book by Krugman (mentioning Moynihan), who has been highly critical of Obama in the past.

People who say Obama "loves" Reagan or any other derivation thereof is intellectually dishonest and not to be trusted.

Just like those who suggest Hillary is a "Goldwater Girl" and such similar tripe. Intellectually dishonest and not to be trusted.

Jesus, you people all belong in the nuthatch! Now I fully understand Plato's Republic. This is an example of his fear of democracy IN ACTION!

Thanks, Greg, for like, you know, reporting. That is, for choosing to evaluate a campaign's claims, rather than simply transcribing warring press releases.

Hillary's charge against Obama was intellectually dishonest and unworthy of her. She knows damn well that the Republican Party was the "party of ideas" in the 1980s - after all, it was her husband who overthrew the tired orthodoxies of the Democratic Party in 1992, arguing that we needed fresh approaches to compete. Moynihan, whatever his flaws, never shied away from difficult truths. Voters learned to respect that, even if they didn't always agree with him. I very much regret that Hillary hasn't been, at least in that respect, a worthy heir.

When confronted with an obvious distortion of a quote, reporters ought to go beyond their standard practice - asking the rival to rebut the outrageous claim. That's a losing proposition for the aggrieved party, and simply incentivizes candidates to go on launching innaccurate attacks. If the lede in yesterday's New York Times had read: "Sen. Hillary Clinton attacked her rival, Sen. Barack Obama, yesterday, for claiming that the Republican Party had been the "party of ideas" under Ronald Reagan. But Senator Clinton's own predecessor, and one of her acknowledged political heroes, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, used the same words to describe the Republican Party at the beginning of Reagan's time in office. The attack appeared to be part of a strategy to distort comments Obama had made about the political appeal of Ronald Reagan, and to suggest he endorsed his policies, which he has not," you can bet Hillary would drop the issue. As long as it's he-said, she-said, Clinton wins, and we'll see much more of the same.

Someone needs to do some research on whether Hillary's had botox injections.. It hurt Kerry in 2004 and we need someone who's ready to fight! ;)

Look. There's almost no space between Obama and Hillary on any substantive issue. Stack either up against any GOP candidate, on the other hand, and the differences are huge.

It's simply wrong to claim that either Hillary or Obama admire Reagan's policies, whatever Hillary told Brokaw or Obama said to an editorial board.

What's sad is that Hillary is using this as a stick to beat Obama. She knows better. She's not stupid enough to believe. But it's expedient, and apparently, that's enough. Sad, really.

I am soooooo tired of the Clinton machine

"Great tactic by Obama and his shills to bring up a dead Senator."

Obama didn't bring it up. Krugman did. Adn if you think Krugman is an obama schill, then you're braindead.

“Democrats have to have ideas to win,” he said. “We were missing in action in national security and we had no positive plan for America’s domestic future.”

Barack Obama....? Nope, former President Bill Clinton...

This is the difference between a skilled politician and an unskilled one... Slick Willie had sense enough not to use the "R" word... but, both comments are decidedly similar...

Loki:

So it's a zero sum game? If Republicans had ideas, then Democrats must not have had ideas? I don't think that's accurate and I certainly don't subscribe to it, simply because it defies logic. There aren't a limited set of ideas in the world, such that one party can garner a majority of them and thus claim the mantle of "the party of ideas". In fact, what I think what is at issue, is whether that party's ideas were DOMINATING the American agenda. Maybe that's a helpful way to look at it. It's not placing a value on the nature of the idea (i.e., whether they were good or bad), but acknowledging that their ideas were resonating with a majority of the American electorate.

Would anyone argue that since Reagan (and really up until 2006), Republican ideas did not resonate with a majority of the American eletorate? Looking at Congressional races, I'd say that was the case, but I'm open to any other interpretation.

Hey, it will be great idea for Obama to approvingly quote Moynihan!
After all it was the faux Reagan Moynihan who coined the term "benign neglect" as his recommended policy towards our black citizens.
Yeah Obama, another knuckle dragging Rethugacan to link your campaign to!

They're discussing Maureen Dowd's "2-Headed Monster" op-ed on MSNBC..

"Bill’s transition from elder statesman, leader of his party and bipartisan ambassador to ward heeler and hatchet man has been seamless — and seamy.

It’s odd that the first woman with a shot at becoming president is so openly dependent on her husband to drag her over the finish line. She handed over South Carolina to him, knowing that her support here is largely derivative."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/23/opinion/23dowd.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Keith,

He said they were the party of ideas. Not a party of ideas. There are only two viable parties in this country. If one is perceived to be theparty of ideas, than there is no doubt the other is not.

Thatis what Obama was saying. He thinks the Dems are a party without ideas. That is what his comments were meant to suggest.

What? Are you suggesting that Obama start attacking dead Democrats, too? I guess he has pretty much run out of living Democrats to attack, so maybe you're right.

loki,

He never said zero ideas. Don't make Clinton supporters look stupid.

Hillary says in this article--which is still up on her site--that Ronald Reagan is one of her favorite presidents.

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

Discuss.

"a former Harvard professor who prided himself on his intellectual honesty, Moynihan felt compelled to admit the impact of conservative ideas on American social thought, above all in economics. His generosity was refreshing and also ironic."

youknow, if you take out Moynihan's name and put in Obama's it really is a startling comparisan of who they are and what they were trying to do in their remarks.

tony,

Nice find. Looks like a flip flop. Maybe she'll wag her finger soon.

This does a good job at pointing out Clinton hypocrisy:

http://donklephant.com/2008/01/20/the-hill-bill-show-gets-exposed-on-meet-the-press/

Hillary is our Donald Rumsfeld. They both tout their long experience, and how that makes them superior to every one else, and only they have the solutions, but both of them failed miserably on the biggest tasks they took complete charge of. Rumsfeld on Iraq, and Hillary on Health Care reform.

Hillary Donald Rodham Rumsfeld Clinton.

The Hubris Axis without a clue.

While greg was busy using nexis to pump up obama and repubs here is what he didn't see:
Seven of 10 black female lawmakers who have made endorsements are supporting Clinton
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/8055.html

Hillary says in this article--which is still up on her site--that Ronald Reagan is one of her favorite presidents.

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

http://donklephant.com/2008/01/20/the-hill-bill-show-gets-exposed-on-meet-the-press/

Greg,

Moynihan affirmed this in his 1996 book, A Personal History of Social Policy.

He said the Republicans by the end of the Carter administration had become the party of ideas and this was the "onset of the transformation of American politics".

He later references this again, saying the Republicans won in 1994 once again "as a party of ideas, and of change".

He doesn't immediately point out that the ideas were bad ones. He does spend considerable time pointing that out throughout the course of the book, but as with Obama's remarks, most people can ignore that if they wish to attack him.

I don't think what he or Obama said was controversial. Anyone with even a basic understanding of our political history would agree. The problem is with people trying to twist Obama's words around to attack him for political gain.

loki

It's the tactics Obama is pointing out,
not vis-s-vis the conservative agenda
those tactics espoused.

Put on your thinking cap and tell Bill to
stop waving the watch in front of your face

because you are getting sleepy -
wake up

Okay, I've had it.

If anyone gets nominated, I can't possibly support them. Not even a Republican or Independent.

I'm telling everyone to get back to Washington and filibuster FISA.

http://act.credomobile.com/campaign/wiretapping08

While they're at it, they can make Harry Reid resign.

Leadership? It can start with balls or it can start from the head, but it has to start somewhere.

Anyone who posts without writing their candidate (and hopefully others) is a jerk.

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_republican_democrat

Maybe Obama should start telling the press that he forgives the Clinton's their sins and prays for their departure from lies and hate to rejoin the Democratic Party.

The Clintons are certainly exploiting a lot of ignornace. Obama will just have to learn to speak to a third graders level of undertaniding of politics. Reagan did transform politics whether you agree with his politics or not. Reagan convinced a large number of Democrats that had always voted for Democrats to vote Repulbican and many of them continued to do so ever since. That is a fact. All Obama is arguing is that the Democrats have the opportunity now to do the same thing and pull over Republicans to the Democratic camp and the Clintons who should be embracing the idea of drawing more people to the Democratic party are exploiting the ignorance of voters about politics to divide the electorate and lead to more apathy among voters who will not show up to vote for Democrats now or in November. If we nominate the Clintons we deserve to lose election. Ignorance is bliss I guess.

Hillary says in this article--which is still up on her site--that Ronald Reagan is one of her favorite presidents.

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

http://donklephant.com/2008/01/20/the-hill-bill-show-gets-exposed-on-meet-the-press/

Didn't Ronald Reagan win two terms by large majorities? Isn't that clear proof that the majority of voters decided that he was the one with the ideas that appealed to them. We hold these truths to be self evident, regardless of how Philandering Bill, and his Frustrated Wife try to distort the facts.

IgnoranceIsBliss

the name suits you

Liam, you don't get it. Those are facts. The clintons and their minions don't want facts. They want to wallow in the glory of the clintons for the next four years. Worship at the alter of clinton and ignore reality. It really is frightening that so many people buy their lies and distortions. I guess that's the american education system for you.

Among the many huge ironies here, perhaps the most delicious is the degree to which Hillary, in her first campaign for Senate -- as she furiously trimmed to the center and catered to conservative upstate voters -- damn near canonized Moynihan.

Hey, Moynihan had a great idea - dismantling Social Security. What an intellectual genius.

You know they're about to invest wiretapping into the Constitution back in Washington while we're out here on the fringes of the blogosphere debating the merits of Adlai Stevenson's convention address 1956...

The Democrats have to have ideas to win. We are MIA, missing in action on national security and have no positive plan for America’s domestic future.

- Bill Clinton, 2002

I'm not willing to say that is reasonable and fair for Obama to say anything about Ronald Reagan starting a new movement in American Politics and that the conservative movement had the only ideas at the time and and that the American people accepted those ideas because they rejected the liberal excesses of the 60's and 70's.

Any Black person or for that matter anyone that went thru the Civil Rights movement in the 1960's or who even went to Harvard Law in 1991 who forgets the following does not get a pass from me about what he said about Ronald Reagan and Reagan's or any conservative ideas whether during the 1980's or 1990's:

How can Senator Obama forget about this:

In 1980 Ronald Reagan kicked off his general campaign for President in Philadelphia, Mississippi. He went there to promise to "restore to states and local governments the power that properly belongs to them". In essence he was continuing the successful Republican "Southern strategy" of Richard Nixon. Those Reagan Democrats are not to be obsolved of bigotry either.

However, for Senator Obama to put Ronald Reagan on pedestal like he did he is unforgivable (why else mention the man):

In 1964 James Chaney ,a 21-year-old black man from Meridian, Mississippi; Andrew Goodman, a 20-year-old Jewish anthropology student from New York; and Michael Schwerner, a 24-year-old Jewish social worker also from New York, all civil rights workers, were murdered in Philadelphia, Mississippi.

There is no excuse for Senator Obama not to remember this. For all the cities in the South for Ronald Reagan to choose to start his campaign in this place which is hallowed ground was and is unconscionable.

Senator Obama has to be held to a standard that all candidates should be held to and this glorification of Ronald Reagan and the conservative movement is very troublesome.

Black Americans as well as all of us should know how little Senator Obama knows about the Civil Right movement of the 1960's.

There can be no excuse for his ignorance!

He's not exactly an example any Democrat today could proudly point to, I shouldn't think.

As my post above suggests, I know of one who would, and has, over and over:

Hillary Clinton.

Many others still do too.

Moynihan was quite popular in NY, re-elected many times, and although I personally had sometimes serious misgivings about him, I don't believe he was a racist (however wrongheaded the ideas that led to that inference) and I think most (D)s feel more or less the same way -- remembering him instead as a staunch defender of Social Security and of a decent welfare state.

Any reply from Krugman on this, since he went after Obama in his column on Monday?

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/23/party-of-what/

Rachelrachel:

Take a quick survey of those who are having trouble comprehending Obama's words. Notice anything similar about all of them? And don't forget yourself.

The Clintons have EVERY interest in misrepresenting his words. So if anyone has to defend their interpretation, it would be the Clintons and their supporters.

To those of you who can't tell the difference between Hillary and the Swift Boaters: The Swift Boaters launched personal attacks against John Kerry. Hillary's negative ads, whether or not you think they are fair, are directed toward matters of public policy: the Reagan vs. Clinton legacy and health insurance policy. These are the sorts of things that ought to be discussed in a political campaign, not somebody's war record of some thirty years back.

The latest example is the Clinton camp's extremely effective effort to twist some remarks Obama made about Ronald Reagan and the years since his presidency beyond all recognition, which came up in their debate Monday night. In an interview with the editorial board of the Reno Gazette-Journal, Obama had said that Reagan had successfully "changed the trajectory of America, in a way that Richard Nixon did not, and in a way that Bill Clinton did not," a claim few people of any ideological stripe would dispute. He also said, "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."

For those of you who don't know, the "party of ideas" is a concept that people have been throwing around for quite some time in Washington, and it is almost always used in a value-neutral way, meaning the party that at a particular time appears to the public like the one offering something new and grand, and that seems to have political momentum behind its ideological thrust. Both parties want to claim the "party of ideas" mantle, but you can acknowledge that at one time or another your opponents have successfully grabbed it without saying their ideas are actually right. But Hillary Clinton responded this way:

I have to say, you know, my leading opponent the other day said that he thought the Republicans had better ideas than Democrats the last ten to fifteen years. That's not the way I remember the last ten to fifteen years. I don't think it's a better idea to privatize Social Security. I don't think it's a better idea to try to eliminate the minimum wage. I don't think it's a better idea to undercut health benefits and to give drug companies the right to make billions of dollars by providing prescription drugs to Medicare recipients. I don't think it's a better idea to shut down the government, to drive us into debt.
And if you listen to the tape, the italics are right there in her voice. Bill then chimed in, taking the distortion to an even higher level: "Her principal opponent," he claimed, "said that since 1992, the Republicans have had all the good ideas."

(Many progressives have taken issue with Obama's comments about Reagan's appeal when he won the presidency, though some seem unable to wrap their heads around the idea that describing a set of beliefs and sentiments such as those prevailing in 1980 does not necessarily mean one endorses those beliefs and sentiments.)

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_republican_democrat

The funny thing is folks, that in typical Clintonian dishonest fashion, it is actually the CLINTONS that were always the ones that thought that the "Republican Ideas" were the "good" Ideas. Let us take a look at the DLC(third way) charter of principles. See if you can recognize the fact that these DLC principles are not progressive or Democratic at all, but are really just spun up Republican principles and the very tenants of the "Reagan" Republican Party. Once again, the Clintons are exposed as the Republicans that they really are.

Courtesy of Booman, look at the interpretations in brackets of what these DLC "Ideas" really are:

"The Third Way philosophy seeks to adapt enduring progressive values to the new challenges of he information age. It rests on three cornerstones: [6]

* the idea that government should promote equal opportunity for all while granting special privilege for none; [no more affirmative action]

* an ethic of mutual responsibility that equally rejects the politics of entitlement and the politics of social abandonment; and, [no more welfare]

* a new approach to governing that empowers citizens to act for themselves.[Bush's ownership society and the privitization of Social Security]

"The Third Way approach to economic opportunity and security stresses technological innovation, competitive enterprise, and education rather than top- down redistribution [high margin tax rates, capital gains taxes, dividends taxes, corporate taxes] or laissez faire. On questions of values, it embraces 'tolerant traditionalism,' honoring traditional moral and family values while resisting attempts to impose them on others. [no gays in the military, no gay marriage] It favors an enabling rather than a bureaucratic government [ending big government as we know it], expanding choices for citizens [privitizing entitlements and services], using market means to achieve public ends [subcontracting to Blackwater and Kellogg and Root] and encouraging civic and community institutions to play a larger role in public life [charity, not hand-outs]. The Third Way works to build inclusive, multiethnic societies based on common allegiance to democratic values." [7]

Actually Greg, I think he did go farther:

And, you know, 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 there over the last ten, fifteen 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 and it's all tax cuts. Well, you know, we've done that, we tried it. That's not really going to solve our energy problems, for example.

At least in my mind.

Hillary says in this article--which is still up on her site--that Ronald Reagan is one of her favorite presidents.

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

http://donklephant.com/2008/01/20/the-hill-bill-show-gets-exposed-on-meet-the-press/

I don't know why Obama and Hillary partisans continue to engage in this debate. It's almost as tiresome as watching Christian fundamentalists duke out points of doctrine like infant baptism or dunking in water versus sprinkling.

For those who aren't wearing Hillary-tinted glasses, it is clear to see that Obama wasn't praising republican ideas, but pointing out Reagan's ability to transform the political landscape necessary to enact his agenda. One can admire the political skills of the man without admiring the man's agenda. Okay? There is nothing in Obama's remarks indicating that he admired Reagan's or the republican's ideas. I have yet to read any respected journalist who has read or watched Obama's video suggest that Obama was praising republican ideas. This is a "fairy tale" concocted by Bill/Hill's campaign to score cheap political points. End of story.

Publicus:

So if anyone has to defend their interpretation, it would be the Clintons and their supporters.

I don't see where it would be politically advantageous for the Clinton campaign to do so. Obama, on the other hand, could engage in a little damage control.

Anon:

Totally agree that the Clintons WOULD never do so. I was speaking more to the HRC supporters who seem to insist that Obama supporters have to REFUTE their intepretation.

I don't think Obama can address this directly because (1) I don't think he believes he misspoke and (2) it won't be effective. He's going to have to come as close to running a negative ad as he can without actually running one demonstrating their mendacity--preferably in their own words. Otherwise this stuff is going to stick with low information voters, which are the key to Clintons nomination. The more folks now, the more the vote Obama. If she effectively poisons the well before he can reach them, well the rest should be self-explanatory.

Lee Atwater
Bill Clinton
Karl Rove

what do they all have in common?

They tear democrats apart for sport

Greg, you're not helping your case for impartiality.

RE: "Despite this, it's also true that the Clintons have misrepresented what Obama said in some ways and made it sound perhaps more controversial than it really was, which I think is driven home by the airing of the Moynihan quote."

Oh, puleeze, who was Moynahan's target audience, what point was he trying to make by making the statement. What was he trying to accomplish with his rhetoric.

No matter how you spin it or how you try to get away from it, if you're grounded in reality, you just can't 'splain away the fact that Obama was talking to a right-leaning editorial board pandering for an endorsment that he ultimately got which arguably helped him to achieve his win in the rural areas of Nevada which he is now touting.

Please don't forget that there are plenty of people who read your coverage who are interested in what you have to say that do not engage in the comment section here. It's not in you best interest to shill for Obambi, no matter how much the commentors here demand that you do.

Keith,

You really can't help yourself, can you.

"I think it's fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last ten, fifteen years..."

...were the party...etc

Do you really, honestly think he only was saying they just happened to have ideas as well as the Dems? Is it really not at all possible--to your thinking-- that he meant the Dems were in fact bereft of ideas during this time? This is not at all possible?

from media matters
http://mediamatters.org/items/200801200007

January 18 statement from the co-owner of Salmon Press Newspapers that Clinton "did not say Reagan was her favorite President. She didn't say anything close to that."

From Cutler's statement, featured on Clinton's website:

The question posed was originally what portraits would you hang in the White House if you were President and as the dialogue progressed, who are the presidents you admire most?

She [Sen. Clinton] listed several presidents that she admired and mentioned she liked Reagan's communication skills. She did not say Reagan was her favorite President. She didn't say anything close to that.

What you guys don't seem to get is this:
The specific reference to Reagan implies
that Bill Clinton's years weren't the years of ideas.
That's what miffed the Clintons so much
(remember that Hillary is essentially running on Bill's experience -- she keeps
saying she played a prominent role in the White House during Bill's administration).

~ Jess

I was appalled and enraged last week at Obama's Reagan comments. I've calmed down since. I still don't like what he said, but whatever. It was a gaffe, nothing more - not his first and probably won't be his last.
He could have easily cleared this up last week by acknowledging people's feelings about Reagan, or that he understood why people were mad at him, "clarifying" his remarks or some such, and everyone would have moved on. It's too late to do that now, and going on trying to defend it ensures the mud will keep sticking.

Moynihan: "The Republicans are now the party of ideas."

Krugman: "His [Moynihan] generosity is refreshing..."

That's more damning than anything Obama said.

sadie wrote on January 23, 2008 3:50 PM:

In a strange way, I don't think anyone is being dishonest here, if you really look deep at the issues. Hillary believes that it took a President to pass the Civil Rights Act, and without LBJ nothing would have changed. She really does believe that we don't need to be the party who presents our platform and ideas to the mainstream in a way that inspires them to actually overwhelmingly vote for us instead of against their own best interests.

Obama really does believe that we've been fighting against Republican ideas for the past 27 years, instead of effectively presenting our mainstream ideas to the people in a way that inspires them to vote with us and for their own best interests. He believes that even while Bill Clinton was President we were so busy fighting against the Republican ideas and the "vast right-wing conspiracy" machine, that we were not able to solve problems like health care, labor rights, the environment, and equality for all. He really does believe that it took leaders like MLK and JFK who gave up their lives to present the people with ideas that they should be voting for that inspired the people to act and put pressure on law makers, including LBJ, to bring about the changes of the Civil Rights Era.

There is nothing dishonest about this fight - Democrats are at a crossroads with two clear paths!

Do we vote for somebody who will only act when they are overwhelmed to do so by the people - right (as in the Civil Rights Act) or wrong (as in the way Hillary voted with the wrong Republican ideas of George W. Bush on Iraq)? Or do we vote for somebody who knows what is right and will inspire others with those right ideas, to act so we can build a broad coalition and finally pass a progressive agenda?

Greg,

I'm sorry, I just don't see why it's *necessary* for Obama to add the nuance and shading you and Krugman seem to require.

I'm sure you already know what Obama DID say, and it's a stretch to call this even faint praise:

"And, you know, 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 there over the last ten, fifteen years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom."

I dunno. I'm not a hard-core liberal. So I'm bewildered when I read a lot of complaints from folks who are nursing old wounds and seem deeply emotionally invested in making sure the Republicans are appropriately shamed for screwing us over. While I certainly understand their enduring anger toward Republicans, I don't understand why they seem to transfer that rage to liberal/progressive/Democratic spokespersons who don't "adequately" give intensity to their rage. Exactly what purpose does this serve, really?

It reminds me of a recurring problem my husband has with his mom, who divorced his dad 20 years ago. She's still plenty mad and very *invested* in her anger. And she ADDS to her anger by resenting my husband for not being as angry at his dad as she is. I mean, I believe she takes it as a PERSONAL affront that he doesn't *adequately* reflect her own anger. It isn't enough that he has acknowledged her grievances and sympathized with her over the unkind treatment she lived with. She needs and demands him to hate his dad as much as she does. It just seems bizarre to me.

Anyway, I don't know if there's really any parallel here. It just reminds me of this whole Obama-Reagan thing.

And yet, Kelly, it appears to be the Clintons' position that Obama should have attacked Kerry and Edwards more directly in 1984 for their war authorization votes.