Actually, I think he should hit back harder than that. Hopefully he will.

this isn't really in response to this post, but raise your hand if you're tired of clinton's distortions? she can't beat obama in the battle for ideas/rhetoric/even policy...so she resorts to the standard political BS of insulting voter intelligence via repeated distortions. she's pathetic to me.

Obama says:
"When it meant getting elected I was opposed to the war but since being in the Senate I've voted for EVERY war appropriation to come down the pike.
Oh, and to prove what I mean about those good Republican ideas, I voted for the Patriot Act too!"

Good start, but he's needs to hit back even harder. I mean he should just come out and call her a fundamentally dishonest politician.

Did I imagine Bill Clinton and George W. Bush touring around the globe like Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis these past 4 years?

anonymous...

are you unable to make a distinction between an anti-war position and a need/responsibility to fund the military *IN THE FIELD*? why is this such a difficult proposition for you folks? i was against the war from the start...but can understand the need to ensure resources for the simple purposes of security/safety during the conduct of military operations (and hopefully the withdrawal of troops). is this too subtle for you yahoos?

Ouch, ouch! Uncle, uncle! Please make it stop hurting, Mr. Obama campaign!

Wow, Obama campaign, God knows we haven't heard that Iraq war line before, and the triangulation stuff.

You guys really do think you can just dish out the same lameass, piss-warm pablum for every meal, don't you?

Wow, how dare you attack me, I am against the war from the beginning! Disgusting! Does this man have anything else to throw out? As most as disgusting as Giuliani's ceaseless claim of his "9/11" contribution. This man is as shallow as the street after a brief shower! gimme a break.

Hillary makes me sick. This vicious harpy had better not turn girly-girl if she wins the nomination, but actually, it doesn't matter: she has no shot whatsoever against McCain. Nice job, Hillbots. Thanks in advance for Bush Part Three.

Oops.. I meant "H.W." above.

ABC News, 12/27/05: "I'm an old-fashioned guy," said Bush. "I still think politics is a noble calling. I believe most people in politics are honorable people that are serving for the right reasons."

The two have come a long way since running against each other in 1992. Bush once called Clinton a bozo while on the campaign trail.

"I never thought that was an offensive word, but yeah, that was what, 15 years ago," said Bush. "You just can't go through life with a great deal of bitterness in your heart over something that happened 15 years ago."

You can't unless your name is Hillary Clinton.

I think he should wonder aloud if we can trust a president who has so much trouble with basic comprehension of language?

Obama is NOTHING more than a motivation speaker. I was thinking that myself a couple days ago, that he is basically just a motivational speaker. I was looking at a speech he had made. He didn't say anything, but he sure was eloquent about it.

His charisma will take him only so far, he needs to come up with some coherent policy positions.

1014 to 62. That's the combined electoral vote score in Reagan's two elections. Who wouldn't want to emulate that? Once again, Hillary insulting voters' intelligence. She knows better than to think that Obama wants to govern like Reagan. Obama's main point is that Reagan united the country enough behind his policies to get the kind of change the Right wanted. Obama's as much a secret Reagan Republican as he is a secret radical Muslim. As for Obama's point about the "excesses" of the 60's and 70's, wasn't Bill the original New Democrat running against those "excesses"? Shameless.

Steve Jobs introduces the new I-Barrack, now with I-tunes, for the generation of the living dead.

Yeah anonymous, get with the Obama program!
The only way to end the war is by increased funding every six months!
War is Peace!
Deficits are Prosperity!
Homophobia and misogyny are just differences of opinion!

But wait! News Flash!
Obama's Secret Super Duper weapon revealed!
Next he's going to start telling us what a grrrreat President Nixon was! Watergate was such a wonderoricious paradigm shift away from the 60's!
Ah yes, Tricky Dick! Now there was a Republican with BIG ideas!

"Wow, Obama campaign, God knows we haven't heard that Iraq war line before, and the triangulation stuff."

I guess Obama's message is working, hence your hamfisted response - keep it up barack, keep reminding voters of Hillary's Iraq vote!

Billary will say anything to win and that is something that most americans believe to be true. Bringing her back to her war vote which was a clear poll tested position at the time knowing full well that she was going to run for the presidency. Obama is the only one to unite this country. We are all tired of the clinton smear campaigns.

frankly0 wrote on January 18, 2008 4:08 PM:

You guys really do think you can just dish out the same lameass, piss-warm pablum for every meal, don't you?

The irony -- it burns.

So Obama supporters, why won't he say Reagan was a horrible leader? What did Obama mean when he referred to the "excesses of the 1960's and the 1970s"? Was he talking about the Civil Rights Act? About environmental protection? About Reagan's "welfare queens"?

And as for being an anti-war candidate, apart from his votes for funding, almost the very first thing he did when he got to the Senate was to vote for Condoleeza Rice -- an architect of the war he claims to hate so much -- for Secretary of State.

Face it, he's a moderate blank slate on which all of you are projecting all your "progressive" hopes and dreams. If he were a leader, he'd be out there selling a liberal agenda and telling people how it's good for the country instead of blaming liberals for their "partisan bickering."

Much as I support Obama, until South Carolina is out of the way, he has to be VERY careful in his attacks towards Her Royal Highness. He may have a decent lead in the Palmetto State but I think it's shakier than may realize. Many African-Americans, especially older women (the most likely to vote), all but worship the Clintons. They feel that they "owe" Bill and Hillary. In today's NY Times article, some almost seem to take out their anger at men at Obama, saying they'll vote their gender rather than race.

My gut sense is that, if Obama hits back any harder, he loses a lot of black women and, therefore, the election.

damn some of y'all are misinformed. the need to fund the war is one of the MAIN REASONS Obama opposed the war in the first place! how dumb are you people who don't understand this? Obama said that the war would require massive amounts of time, money, and sacrifice of life. as soon as the Dem Congress took over, there started to be bills calling for funding with a timetable, and Obama started voting for them as soon as they were able to make it to a vote. he introduced one of his own. initiating a war is not the same thing as believing that one, once underway, requires that the funding of the soldiers asked to serve must be taken seriously. Obama had the foresight to know how this would all play out, and it did in the EXACT way he described back in 2002, when everyone else was saying it would be a cakewalk which would pay for itself and that you were a traitor if you opposed it.

Okay, now I match my pseudonym.

Listen, people, if you cannot raise the level of discourse here...

Ah fuck it, I have no power over you people.

HRC people:

I used to criticize BHO supporters for their nasty style and fighting ways. Stuff like "Goldwater Girl" and the like really irritated me, because it's the kind of reasoning you expect from five year olds.

Now, HRC trolls are laying in with the same amount of garbage. I think if any person with any modicrum of intelligence sees the crap that has been laid out above, you are are only going to end up turning them against HRC rather than convincing them to join you.

Or, even worse, you are going to convince them in turning off their computers.

Or, perhaps, that's what you secretly hope to accomplish?

Again, why is it that HRC's policies are better than BHO's? And please, annotate your sources, ok? Thanks a bunch.

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."

Posted from the other thread. Apparently she was for Reagan before she was against Reagan. Greg, this would seem like a nice follow-up question for the Clinton campaign.

David of Burbank,

Obama didn't say he admired Reagan's policies. But he said that Reagan appealed to people who were "tired of the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s." That strongly suggests that he agrees that there were excesses in the 1960s and 1970s, and I want to know what he thinks those are.

Anna:

That implies no such thing. You are interjecting your subjective thoughts into Obama's statements. If I said Bush tapped into Americans feelings of revenge after 9/11, does that mean I believe that it was positive thing? No.

This is why HRC supporters get ridiculed so much on these threads. Your lying and distorting is only outmatched by HRC's mendacious ways.

And now that you know one HRC's favorite presidents was Reagan, don't you feel, a wee bit, silly? Just a little?

Oh Jay, Dear, fresh from my buttcrack:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00002

Dick Durbin -- our actual liberal senator here in IL -- voted against her, but not your guy Obama. It was practically his first vote.

So how are you going to excuse him, because Obama supporters are good at nothing if not defending his moderate, middle of the road, feel-good positions. Make yourself feel good about that.

One more thought: If the Clinton record is so terrific, why isn't HRC running on it? 90% of what I hear is from the school of Karl Rove slash-and-burn political campaign theory. It would far more honest - and ethical - of her to cease attacking Obama and insteadt run on her OWN (let alone her husband's) accomplishments.

Did we learn NOTHING over the last 8 years? When a candidate needs to spend the majority of their time making personal attacks, there's probably very little substance.

"So how are you going to excuse him, because Obama supporters are good at nothing if not defending his moderate, middle of the road, feel-good positions. Make yourself feel good about that."

Hillary made that same vote - that seems to be the epitome of HRC's argument, "Hey Look guys, on certain things - he's as bad as me!!" How pathetic.

Thank you GordonsGirl for your rational statement. Hillary is just playing for the outraged of the self unimformed. Obama was talking in historical perspectives, ya know, like a historian! He was not agreeing with RR policies.

Yes, Reagan changed the trajectory of our country by persuading people that they were conservatives (against their interests) and by demonizing liberals.

What I would like in the Democratic candidate is someone who changes the trajectory of our country by persuading people that they are liberals because it's in their interests -- and the interests of the rest of the country -- and by demonizing conservatives.

What I get from Obama is a basically progressive (though spotty) policy record and lots of sweet talk with conservatives. And a lot of dismissive talk about "partisan bickering." Not what I'm in the mood for.

And I don't support HRC -- never have, never will.

Jay,

This isn't about HRC's vote on Rice. We already know she's an apologist for the war; and I'd never vote for her because of it.

This is about the fact that Obama ran as being anti-war. I gave him money in his primary race based entirely on that position. And then, he turned around and voted for Rice.

So why do you think Obama did that? Because I've been trying to figure that out for 4 years now. (And in your answer, see if you can refrain from referring to HRC.)

Keith:

My guess, and that's all it would be, is that he was talking about government regulation. The heavy hand of government.

Anna:

Here's your answer (on Condi Rice):

Why did you vote to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State? Given her well documented records of misstatements and falsehoods building up to the Iraq war, not to mention her incompetence during her tenure as NSC, why did she merit your confirmation vote?
Jason Magnuson, Northern Illinois University

I voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State because I believe that the President has the right to appoint his own cabinet. He can hire whomever he wants to work for him, but ultimately it is him that I will hold accountable for any foreign policy errors. If he wants to accept Condoleezza Rice as his spokesperson for his policies, then I don’t have a problem with that. But if she makes a mistake, I will absolutely hold him accountable.

I voted against Alberto Gonzales for Attorney General because I believe that he is not the President’s lawyer, but the people’s lawyer. And the truth is that Mr. Gonzales has raised serious doubts about whether, given the choice between the Constitution and the President’s political agenda, he would put our Constitution first.

http://www.campusprogress.org/features/210/five-minutes-with-sen-barack-obama

I watched Barack Obama's comments about Reagan on Youtube and read some parts of his book and I can come to only one conclusion. He was way too postive about Reagan--the man who is responsible for much of today's homeless policy and the conservatization of the country. The man who tried to dismantled the social safety net and end liberalism. I don't think I can support Obama in the primary because of this and other gaffe's and his relative inexperience. I will probably support Hillary Clinton or maybe even Edwards since they both understand the terrible legacy of Reagan and the right wing Republicans and the need to fight the Republicans for progressive policies like health care.

If I am being honest, I don't really think Barack Obama is qualified to be president yet. I know many, many other Democrats who feel the same way. Less than one term in the Senate during which he wrote two books and campaigned for President is not enough. If you watched Sen. Obama's interview with Tim Russert when he first got elected to the Senate in 2004, even Obama acknowledged that it would be ridiculous for him to run in his first term given his lack of experience. Don't think the Republicans won't use this clip against him in the fall.

All this being said, I would still support Senator Obama in the fall as the Democratic nominee because I am a democrat, not a Republican. The Republican's have brought us terrible polices over the last 30 years (not counting Clinton's time in office). I will never support a conservative Republican when I can vote for a Democrat. I hope other Democrats come to their senses and rally behind whoever is our nominee. I know I will.

Jor,

What you don't seem to understand is that angry liberals are who put him into this position that he enjoys at the moment. It's angry liberals who have been at the forefront of the fight for civil rights, environmental protection, human rights, and a decent foreign policy.

And the reason we don't have those things anymore is because rather than have Democratic leaders explain why being a liberal is a good thing, we have people like YOU telling us we shouldn't be so angry; we're turning people off.

And I'm not asking Obama to be angry. He can be as charming and personable as he wants. But it would be nice if he didn't abandon liberals as partisan bickerers.

Oh, and for the record, who was the last angry liberal we put up for president? John Kerry? Al Gore? I'd say their problems were that they weren't angry enough.

Ann:

You must be new to sock puppetry, because it's clear you don't know what the hell you are talking about. And the fact that your links go back to yahoo and netscape pretty much demonstrate that you are, in fact a sock puppet.

Folks I wouldn't bother replying to her.

>>>Condi and Colin were the best? Really? They went along with this devastating foreign policy that they knew was wrong, and they participated in all the disastrous decisions, and they're the best?>>>

Well go ahead and nominate someone else for it then. This is like trying to pick corn out of a pile of chicken crap. At least Colin Powell was lied to, and basically quit. And word is Condi pushed from within for some kind of Iranian dialogue rather than bombing. Who are your pieces of corn?

I think Obama meant to hold up Reagan as a model for transformation... not as a model for policy or direction.

But rereading his original comment with his reference to the "excesses" of the 60s and 70s, I also suspect that he was trying to have it both ways.... seeming to endorse Reagan culturally for those who have an affection for him.... while trying to basically make the "transformational" point.

Now he's being called out on it (and rightly so? I think so). He needs to disavow his "understanding" of how Reagan was seen as an antidote to the "excesses" of previous generations, and say Reagan took us in the WRONG direction. Those "excesses" were the sound of LIBERTY and FREEDOM, not the sound of bad children who Daddy Reagan came to set straight.

I ASSUME he doesn't mean the latter, and he needs to close the opportunity to be intepretted in that way. He tried to bridge it, he's being called out, he's got one leg on each side of the draw bridge as it opens, and he needs to decide which side he's going to jump to.

Of COURSE Clinton is using this, and misinterpretting what he said entirely in one direction. She's smart. The truth is he probably meant to say both things and hoped no one would notice. Dude. People noticed. Never mind your desire to speak to former Reagan voters... a good and reasonable thing... right now you are trying to become the top Democrat and you'd better stand up and call Reagan the fascist that we Democrats know him to have been.

We're waiting. It's a test of character... the part about when you are caught trying to have it both ways you own up to the mistake and declare yourself.

We can't afford more Clinton years.

Anna:

Yes, I buy that. The war, if you recall, was already well into it's second year. Bush was an ardent supporter of the war he started, so if you object to Rice because she also was a supporter of the war, you'd never seat a Secretary of State because Bush would ALWAYS appointment someone that was predisposed to his position. Barring some fundamental for objecting to an appointee (see Gonzalez), there's really no basis for not confirming them.

The constant translating for Obama: telling us what Obama REALLY means--must wear his supporters out.

eric wrote on January 18, 2008 4:02 PM:

But it is just a deflection. Does he like Reagan or not?

We know Clinton is proud of people that endorse her because she thinks like Reagan and are among her favorite presidents:

From 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."

"And really, what's the difference between Gonzaeles and Rice?"

You're drifting into a reading comprehension problem. Obama's interpretation, as he says, is that AG is the people's attourney while SS is the President's man. I can go for that. A little theoretical maybe, but seriously, if you didn't have condi you'd have Feith or someone worse. You can't force someone down his throat, he'll just keep throwing worse and worse names at you. I'd actually argue the gonzo thing didn't matter either...look what we got, someone who doesn't know if waterboarding is torture. But at least there now Gonzo doesn't have immunity.

I'll admit Obama makes some vague centrist noise, but in the end, I think he's probably the smartest and most progressive of the big three way down deep. I have no doubts about that vis-a-vis Clinton who has proven what she is time and again despite having little more experience. His background is community organizing, civil rights law, and constitutional law. You don't do that and not have it really sink deep IMO. I've been around those people. He's just politically smart, knows how to talk to his natural enemies and sometimes bring them around, and is a great motivator. We shouldn't throw that away for DLC damaged goods, IMO.

Keith,

I reason through this a little differently.

Rice was not just a supporter of the war -- she was an architect. Maybe she softened it up a bit, but she was still an architect. Forcing Bush to put aside the architects would have been a perfectly acceptable goal, even if he eventually had to vote for someone.

In any event, I also expect someone who is selling himself as a hardcore opponent of the war owes no such deference to the White House and should have just kept on voting no. It's called advise and consent, and it's right there in the Constitution.

So I'm not buying it.

Bupalos wrote: "Actually, how can you NOT hate someone that pushed a flag-burning amendment?"

To be fair, Hillary co-sponsored a flag-burning law, not a constitutional amendment. (Still, in my opinion, a slap at the First Amendment, but I wanted to set the record straight).

Anna wrote on January 18, 2008 4:59 PM:

Yes, Reagan changed the trajectory of our country by persuading people that they were conservatives (against their interests) and by demonizing liberals.

And Obama is saying that we need to change the trajectory of our country by persuading people that they are progressives (for their interests and where they are on the issues already) and by demonizing nobody.

Thanks for unintentionally providing the opportunity to serve as a foil which underscores Obama's point for us.

At the risk of being labelled a "sock puppet" (what a ridiculous taunt to hurl at those with whom you disagree), let me say "Ann" above captures the hesitancy many people have with Obama. I find it amusing that people still lambaste Hillary for "triangulation" when Obama seems to offer a kinder, gentler FUZZIER version thereof. OF COURSE Obama was not endorsing Reagan's policies, but the calculation behind his statement is worrisome.

The press hasn't really captured the quandary those of us who support Edwards are in when it approaches time to jump (alas, a sinking) ship. The choice is not obvious, despite what some say. Edwards' and Clinton's policies dovetail more closely, but "electability" is the crucial, albeit unknowable quantity.

lestatdelc,

Very nice sentiment -- demonizing nobody.

Conservatives are systematically dismantliing the greatness of our nation. They preside over systems of torture; they invade unarmed nations; they look away from human rights abuses; they put polluters in charge of protecting the environment; they've set back the civil rights movement; they steal from the poor and give to the rich. And they have rendered "liberal" a dirty word in our political lexicon.

But no, heaven forbid we demonize them. No, no, let's work with them.

If that's what you like about Obama, then you can have him.

Well, Obama's campaign could have really taken her to the woodshed with, "This from the person who not only supported Bush's push for war with Iraq, but also supports war with Iran by voting for Bush's Kyl/Liberman bill."

I think Obama's campaign was being overly polite.

From a political standpoint, I can understand Obama's continuous harping on the Iraq invasion. But he owes a great debt to Karl Rove. Karl is the one who first pushed the idea that a yea vote on the AUMF equals support for the invasion of Iraq.

Of course that's not true. I just re-read an old March 15 2004 issue of Time magazine. Right after Kerry won the nomination, Bush was making fun of Kerry for opposing the invasion. Bush said "I suppose Senator Kerry was hoping Saddam would lose the election in Iraq". You see, at that time Karl and the Republicans hadn't sold the AUMF vote = Invade Iraq equation.

Shortly thereafter, they began pushing as truth that AUMF = Vote for War. Now it's been sold. Can't argue with math, can you?

Gabriel,

Nailed it.

Gabriel nailed it except for one thing. Those "Reagan Democrats" are now Republicans. They are in that box and they have never voted for a Democrat since.

It's the Independents we have to go after. Republican cross-overs will be few and far between.

Both hands up, yes, getting tired of the Clintons, and especially tired of having my intelligence insulted by both Clintons willful distortions of the facts.

BTW, Ann or Anna [I think the same person], Barack Obama did not write two books while in the Senate, as the first was published in the 1990's. Also, contrary to Bill Clinton's tiresome lie which asserted that Obama, 'after a year' in the Senate, then ran for president and which lie you seemed to borrow----get this, please: Obama was elected US Senator in November of 2004, took office in January of 2005 and threw his hat in the ring in early 2007.

A little simple math here, Obama has now been in the Senate three years, Hillary seven years.

In Obama's shorter years in the US Senate, he has been able to get legislation through which totally trumps anything Hillary has done in her longer years there. 78% of her successful legislation was fluff like renaming post offices, and only one of hers had any possible national significance [extending benefits to family care-givers]. Compare that to Obama's work: Gov't transparency bill with Coburn, Nuclear and weapons Proliferation legislation with Lugar, strongest ethics legislation since Watergate with Feingold.

I'm with Tapper. And speaking of big ideas, I can't wait for Obama to start praising Nixon's desire to bomb Cambodia. When even Kissinger balked, he replied: "I just want you to think BIG Henry!"

Also, am I dreaming or is there only one Obama supporter here writing under many aliases? I feel as if I'm reading the same post over and over, and it says in effect: Hillary is a liar.

Fine. Hillary's a liar. But still I wonder WHO IS OBAMA? Last month he was JFK with a sprig of RFK. This month he's Reagan. Who will it be next month?

I watched the video of Obama's remarks soon after Josh posted it, and was later surprised at the way it had been spun. It seemed pretty clear to me that he was saying FDR and Reagan were transformational leaders, in ways Clinton was not.

He even said in the video he disagreed with Reagan, but saw his style as conversation-changing, altogether reframing the debate.

Why is this controversial? And why would any Democrat who's been frustrated by the pathetic Dem leadership in Washington not say Amen to it?

I've been an Edwards supporter in this race, but sheesh. Obama is right about this. He wants to change the entire debate, right down to the assumptions.

And triangulating (see, Clinton) and compromising on principles (see Reid, Pelosi) isn't going to cut it.

That's what he was saying. Who on this site disagrees with that?

Gabriel,

You yourself should be a political strategist, you just read Obama's mind. He understands that to reach victory he needs a segment of electorate that other democrats have not been able to reach, independents, young people, and moderates republicans, his work should pay off in NV as it did in IA. NH was harder because of perception that he was going to win, many independents voted for republicans instead in the democrats primary. But watch tomorrow, Obama does very well outside Las Vegas that's where his victory will come from. Unions will help minimize Hillary lead in Vegas but she will do bad in North NV. Again tomorrow we will see good organization like the one we saw in IA. The Clintons should be careful, this is not the 90's, they are really doing a bad thing for the democratic party. Will see.

TexasDem, I respectfully disagree. You articulate perfectly what Obama would like conservative Democrat and independent-minded Republican voters to understand. However, the argument falls flat when one considers his probable motivation for waging it in a Democratic primary. I'll wager he's looking at his polls, and seeing that he can't win this thing without a sizeable chunk of independent crossover votes. "So what's wrong with that?", you might ask. Well He's saying in effect: 'vote for me, because I feel like Reagan, even though I've come to undo all of his ideas'. I'm sorry, but that dog won't hunt. I don't know about you, but I think it's a stretch to assume that centrist voters would choose someone simply because his style was like that of a former president whose ideas they appreciated. Especially when you consider that by admiring Reagan, Obama somewhat perversely advocates an explicit liberal cultural and political transformation that will endure as long as Reagan's conservative revolution has. Why would people who liked Reagan's ideas vote for their overthrow? This argument is sophist and fallacious on its face.

This is a ploy to get Republicans to get rid of the Clintons so that Obama can win the nomination. I find it beyond outrageous that a Democratic candidate would do such a thing. I wasn't sure whether or not I would vote for Obama until today. Now, I'm quite sure I will not.

Heretic,

You and Clinton share one thing in common, "anger" accusing Obama supporters is not going to help, the truth is the Clintons do not own everyone in the democratic party, maybe you but not everyone. An embarrassment to the democratic party because we don't agree with their political views and yours? True progressive welcome dissent and diverse of opinions, true progressive put interests of people before their own, true progressives are not part of the DLC, maybe you are the one who needs help and take off your blinds then you will realize that the Clintons are there for themselves. We have every right to disagree and criticize the Clintons, too bad if you don't like it.

Just putting this out there:

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."

The Clintons won in 92 and 96 and it caused those of us who supported any democratic win to ignore their cheap ways. Now that they're used against a fellow Democrat, we can see how repulsive is their lying and parsing, their win at any cost approach. In the past, win at any cost meant compromising with REpublicans, leaving Lani Guinier out on a limb, lying about sexual escapades, etc, etc. I am not sure I could ever vote for them again. They gave us a Democratic Congress, they screwed up health care for the next 12 years, they cheapened the office (I know, GWB said it first, but it's still true), they gave out pardons willy-nilly to shady characters - they are just shameless and only care about power and winning. I would like something more. If it comes to McCain vs. Clinton, I may well vote for McCain - I don't agree with him on teh issues, but I think perhaps integrity is more important, and he wins that battle hands down.

Thank you, Christie. Thank you.

Paul Krugman said -- correctly so -- that Edwards has been setting the policy agenda for the Democratic candidates for months now. But no one in this discussion is interested in that.

Depressing.

>are you unable to make a distinction >between an anti-war position and a >need/responsibility to fund the military >*IN THE FIELD*?

I think the idea here, Mr. Small-Minded, is that without funding the POTUS would have to bring them home. This seems to be something the congress can't push right. They should say "We will not fund the war, now only a heartless president who didn't support the troops would send an army into battle with no supplies." Instead the prez is pushing this: "I sent them to war, now if the congress doesn't give me a blank check THEY don't support the troops."

Just a question of which position is more politically risky, so far we seems convinced of the latter.

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:

I guess if you disagree with Clinton's tactics you should just shut up and go home? I don't see Obama picking apart every interview she gives and then distorting the crap out of it. And yeah, she voted to give Bush permission to invade Iraq- there is no way to put a positive spin on that little turd.

I don't see Obama picking apart every interview she gives and then distorting the crap out of it

No, he had his supporters to do that for him on the MLK comments and Bill's "fairy-tale" comments.

When Obama shows some of the magic leadership all his fanatics claim he has while he's a SITTING SENATOR he'll earn my support.

At least Clinton has never claimed such mystic Unity powers (though she has been successfully working with national Republicans longer than Obama). They may detest her but at least she's more than just 'present.'

It would be nice if EITHER Obama or Clinton showed the leadership that Dodd did on the telecom amnesty or if either of them showed the leadership on Democratic PRINCIPLES the way Edwards and Kucinich have. Both of the latter have shown tremendous leadership on core Democratic principles while Obama has been repeatedly engaging in right-wing talking points that even Clinton has the good sense to avoid.

Obama fanatics should also consider asking their fellow supporters to show some respect to the other Democratic candidates supporters. If Obama wins the nomination he may come to regret that his more virulent supporters have so completely alienated Democratic progressives that they stayed home and all his sucking up to Republicans wasn't enough to carry the day.

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

Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 4:10 PM: Wow, how dare you attack me, I am against the war from the beginning!

If you think we don't know what a Hitlery Clinton campaign operative looks like in print, you hold too high an opinion of yourself.

And anyone who thinks the Clinton machine doesn't include flunkies to post calculated crap on websites isn't living in the real world.

The Clintons are truly scum of the Earth. This longtime libertarian/conservative is firmly supporting Barack Obama, if only because Ron Paul has been much more effectively damaged by the corporate press machine, who do not dare pretend Obama doesn't exist like they've done to Paul. If this nation is to survive, one of these two men MUST win in November.

Listen carefully, Democrats: If you want to WIN the White House, you will nominate Barack Obama, because people like me will vote for him, especially against a Romney, McCain or (shudder) Huckabee. If you are merely into venting your stupid spleens, you will nominate Hillary Clinton, and guarantee that even Mike Huckabee can win in November.

PS: Kudos to the person above who noted how Bill Clinton and H.W. Bush have been big buddies for the last few years. THe Clintons are so consumed with their own personal ambition that cozying up to the fascist Bush family was just business as usual for them.

Regarding Hillary's "favorite presidents":

David Cutler, the co-owner of Salmon Press Newspapers, released the following statement:

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.

She [Sen. Clinton] listed several presidents that she admired and mentioned she liked Reagan’s communication skills.

I guess Hillary shouldn't have been so nuanced. Let's face it, she really stepped in it this time. She clearly isn't ready for the big leagues. She should know better than to wave the red flag of Reaganism in the faces of progressives.

If I wanted to vote for someone Republicans like, I would vote for a Republican. I want to vote for someone who cares more about getting my solid Democratic vote than about going to the right for Republican and Indie votes.

Shorter version: I don't want to vote for someone who might get a majority of the votes. I want to vote for a clear loser.

Was a against it before I voted to fund it" Obambi

Oh cut the crap. The troops were in the fucking field already. It was TOO LATE to vote against funding the goddamn war - thanks to the Experienced One and those who voted like her!

"...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

Hillary AND HER SUPPORTERS have blood on their hands.

Hey you, masters of war, "even Jesus would never forgive what you do"!

Ian Tepoot,

Thanks for bringing some sanity back to this discussion.

Obama is not only the most electable, but also he has the opportunity to bring a large coalition along with him.

Hillary might be able to get elected using the same slash and burn tactics she is currently employing (although probably not against John McCain), but if that happens it will be 50 plus 1 for the next four or eight years.

All of this Hillary-Obama stuff and not one word about JOHN EDWARDS, the Democrat with the best chance of beating any Republican in '08.

While Hillary unabashedly voted to give Bush the power to declare War on Iraq (and has never apologized for her vote, as John Edwards had the courage to do), Obama has been the consummate get-along, go-along Democrat (agreeing that it was bad, but voting every time to continue funding for it.) We have enough cowards in the Democratic ranks.

Vote for John Edwards. He's the only one who truly cares about the American working people.

Tapper,

Obama did not vote for the Patriot Act. He wasn't in the Senate in 2001 when it was passed. He jumped in to revise it during its reauthorization which just about all the dems voted for. Here's a link:

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/01/clinton-slams-o.html

And his 2002 speech was not courageous since his liberal district was anti-war to begin with.

a senate run means you have to appeal to the entire state, not just one district. when he was in the state senate, his party was in minority. that gives you an indication how red this state was at the time.

Oblapa cant come up with any original policies, Edwards has clammed up.

Or rather he's gone to (Edwards) great lengths to make sure any ideas written down on paper are shredded before dumping.

the night watchman has reported seeing a black shadow hanging out by the dumpster when ever the janitor goes to dump the garbage.

Hey facta non verba;
You may not be electing someone to have a beer with, but everybody else is. Fact is, the more likeable candidate always wins a presidential election, going back at least as far as '76, when Carter was probably equally likeable to Ford.

Hillary has very little chance of being elected. Only her ever-popular husband could conceivably rescue her. The only Rep candidate she's arguably more likeable than is crusty ol' McCain, and she can't possibly beat him, partly because, based on her own campaign theme, she'll probably vote for him herself, since he has so much more EXPERIENCE than she does!

As for Hillary "putting herself on the line", this is rhetorical crap. The right wing hated her just because she was Clinton's wife. How did she ever "put herself on the line?" She's been triangulating her stands on issues for years. And just because the right wing hates you isn't enough to make you the nominee. She's shown no ability to counteract the right wing hate machine; her unfavorable ratings are plenty proof of that!

The difference between H. Clinton and Obama is clear. Clinton is very focused on a narrow and tactical approach to politcs. Basically, she still thinks it is 1993 and, with a few tweeks, there will be a dot.com boom and everything will be fine. That approach, combined with her fear of the vast right wing conspiracy, will lead her to focus on small bore initiatives. Obama, on the other hand, thinks the country is ready for a transformation in a progressive direction. He thinks we are ready for universal health care, to deal with global warming, a return to constitutional government, and for an approach to foreign policy that is based on something other than fear and the blunt and inept use of military force. What is needed is a President who will have the trust of the American people and can talk to the vast majority of middle Americans about progressive values in a way they will understand and support. While people respect Hilary, they don't like and trust her. Hence, her Presiency, by the nature of her political skills and persona, is limited to narrow tactical advances. Obama, by contrast, becasue he has the vision, as well as a persona that America will not only respect, but like and trust, can transform America in a progressive direction. It is typical of the type of mentality that goes into supporting Clinton that Obama's reference to Reagan would generate such anger. Get over it late baby boomers. It is time to move forward. And, for those still not convinced, remember, when Hilary talks about all her experience in making change, just think Health Care task force.

hello disgusting,
Improving the Dem party ranks a very distant second to improving the nation. As someone said, the Clinton fans seem like sheep who just salute and lineup. Obama may not win the Dem nomination; Hillary and her minions have turned this into a race and gender discussion, but Obama is already changing the way politics works and getting many more young people involved. Because he tells the truth, he gets vilified by the Clintonistas. As someone said, Hillary will be President Pothole, Obama will be President New America. Take your pick!
If Hillary can defeat another truth-teller, John McCain, doubtful!!

Thank you David in Burbank for clarifying Obama's remarks about Reagan. I was puzzled at how his remarks could be taken for words of praise, admiration, or even simple approval of Reagan policies; that distorted notion comes from the deft prose-twisting that the Clinton campaign and the media engage in.

With respect to Obama's comment, I would like to remark that the Clinton Administration did nothing to halt the juggernaut of conservative ideological thought that was set in motion in the Reagan years. Instead, once in office, the Clintons contributed to the rise in conservative power as was evidenced by losing mid-term elections and delivering "Contract-for-America and Government-Shut down Newt" to the Speaker's chair to set the legislative agenda. Remember welfare reform? The Clintons squandered all of their progressive momentum coming into the white house and ultimately disillusioned our nation so much so that the ultra-scary, Neo-cons were able to take power.

Now our country is left with a choice of returning the reins of power to the Clintons and their dramas. What is going to be different? Isn't doing exactly the same thing and expecting a different outcome the definition of insanity?

With that in mind, I'd like to comment on Hillary's campaign mantra that she is the best qualified and ready to lead from Day one. Because she likes to include her time in the White house (as a key advisor) as part of her 35 years of experience I wonder where she stood on the Day one planning of the first Clinton Administration. Did she support the strategy that squandered her husband's first 100 days in office with an ill-timed battle on the "don't ask don't tell" policy for the military? Was that issue so urgent that it needed to be acted upon from Day One? Or what about how thoroughly Hillary squandered the Day one political mandate for healthcare reform during the first 100-500 days? Is this an example of her can-do readiness, experience and judgement?

And while we're remembering moments of questionable judgement, let's also remember the pro-Taliban stance from the Clinton Administration in 1993-95 and wonder what might have been if they had focused more on stabilizing Pakistan and post-war Afghanistan in the early days of the Administration. Why wasn't HRC, who by her account influenced so directly the US foreign policy decisions, more vocal about the Taliban policies, womens rights, and concerned about weapons sales/tech transfers to Pakistan? The regional problem with Islamic extremism was abundantly evident for the Clintons on Day One.

Unfortunately the Iraq resolution vote she cast at the beginning of her first "experience" as an elected public official (the first she can rightfully claim as her own elected experience) is a regrettable example of poor judgement. She, like every other elected official who voted to authorize the use of force that brought our nation the economically disastrous Iraq war, can no longer claim that their vote was cast to protect our "national security." That vote has only weakened our nation fiscally, militarily, and morally while devastating the US reputation as a leader internationally. A review of the resolution vote count makes it clear that the misadventure was a Republican idea; the only opposition came from 20 Democrats and 1 Independent in the Senate. Hillary stood with the Republicans. Her willingness to support that epic, bad Republican idea makes me wonder whether she had a brief 60's flashback to her days as a Goldwater Girl.

On balance, Bill and Hillary Clinton did little to shift the country from the conservative ideological path that was set during the Reagan years. Hillary has continued to follow other Republican ideas in the Senate; her bankruptcy vote and the recent Iran vote are two that come to mind. The latter is perhaps an example of her stalwart support for AIPAC, which is another policy position she supports that may not be in our nation's best interest, although she is not alone there.

Even though I voted for her husband twice and have always been a yellow-dog Democrat, I cannot even hold my nose to vote for Hillary Clinton. I will not vote for anyone who voted for the Iraq war, so that includes Edwards. To be fair, Obama didn't have to vote, but I have seen the interview he gave prior to the vote where he openly opposed military intervention and warned against waging a stupid war. Not a bad judgment coming from someone who is supposedly inexperienced and who didn't have the benefit of 8 years "experience" in the White House.

I like Obama's chances of leading our country with sound principles and reasoned judgment. What a change that will be! Like all politicians (people) he'll certainly make mistakes, but so far he has gotten the biggest decision any leader has had to make in recent history right. Obama has my vote if he is nominated. If not, I'm going green or independent. Not Hillary.

>Subject: I got this from an email to me.....
>
>Who is Barack Obama?
>Too many people are getting sucked in by this (piece of crap) guy,
>including Oprah (What an idiot, or is it something else?). He spells
>disaster for the U.S. and if elected we are all screwed.........Big
>Time. Anyone who disrespects the flag, dosen't even belong in this
>country, much less the government.
>
>
>Who is Barack Obama?
>Very interesting and something that should be considered in your
>choice.
>If you do not ever forward anything else, please forward this to all
>your contacts...this is very scary to think of what lies ahead of us
>here in our own United States...better heed this and pray about it and
>share it.
>We checked this out on "snopes.com". It is factual. Check for yourself.
>Who is Barack Obama?
>Probable U. S. presidential candidate, Barack Hussein Obama was born in
>Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a black MUSLIM from
>Nyangoma-Kogel, Kenya and Ann Dunham, a white ATHEIST from Wichita,
>Kansas.
>Obama's parents met at the University of Hawaii. When Obama was two
>years old, his parents divorced. His father returned to Kenya. His
>mother then married Lolo Soetoro, a RADICAL Muslim from Indonesia.?
>When Obama was 6 years old, the family relocate to Indonesia. Obama
>attended a MUSLIM school in Jakarta. He also spent two years in a
>Catholic school.
>Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is a Muslim. He is
>quick to point out that, "He was once a Muslim, but that he also
>attended Catholic school."
>Obama's political handlers are attempting to make it appear that
>that he is not a radical.
>Obama's introduction to Islam came via his father, and that this
>influence was temporary at best. In reality, the senior Obama returned
>to Kenya soon after the divorce, and never again had any
>direct influence over his sons's education..
>Lolo Soetoro, the second husband of Obama's mother, Ann Dunham,
>introduced his stepson to Islam. Obama was enrolled in a Wahabi school
>in Jakarta.
>Wahabism is the RADICAL teaching that is followed by the Muslim
>terrorists who are now waging Jihad against the western world. Since it
>is politically expedient to be a CHIRISTIAN when seeking major public
>office in the United States, Baracka Hussein Obama has joined the United
>Church of Christ in an attempt to downplay his Muslim
>background. ALSO, keep in mind that when he was sworn into office he DID
>NOT use the Holy Bible, but instead the Koran.
>Barack Hussein Obama will NOT recite the Pledge of Allegiance nor
>will he show any reverence for our flag. While others place their hands
>over their hearts, Obama turns his back to the flag and slouches.
>Let us all remain alert concerning Obama's expected presidential
>candidacy.
>The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the US from the inside
>out, what better way to start than at the highest level - through the
>President of the United States, one of their own!!!!
>Please forward to everyone you know. Would you want this man leading our
>country?...... NOT ME!!!!
>
>

________________________________________
PeoplePC Online
A better way to Internet
http://www.peoplepc.com

Great post, Abroadabroad. It's hard for the Hillarites to accept but they have a flawed and weak candidate. One that followed George Bush step by step and makes no apologies for it. Now that's conservative pandering.

Consider my hand raised!

"Abroadabroad" nicely stated. I also voted for Clinton twice -- but will not vote for Hillary.

Props also to "Gabriel" for his analysis of Obama's strategy. I hadn't considered Obama's Reagan statements as tactically adroit until I read your posts. I only hope it proves to be true in the end.

This country needs to focus on what it must get done and do the things it can get done. With our reputation around the world and our financial stability swirling around the tiolet bowl why in the hell is Steroids in baseball on C-Span, and who is the idiot that thinks it warrants a congressional hearing? when I voted to put the Dems in control of the Senate it wasn't for this!

Hillary is a divisive figure, and Bill excacerbates the problem. Now she is talking about how the effect of his prior marital infidelity on Tyra Banks. Please God, tell me that the women of America are not stupid enough to fall for this crap twice in less than 30 days. Won't this have every Clinton hater imagining Bill catting around the White House again. If Penn thought up this then he is an even bigger moron than I thought -- and has a "micro"brain.

If Obama wants to make overtures to independents and Reagan republicans to get elected, and hopefully to pull a significant Democratic majority into office on his coattails, more power to him. I hated Reagan, but not as much as Bush/Cheney. And to repair the damage they have done will require a Democratic president with a supermajority in Congress -- something I don't think Hillary can ever dream of delivering. After the election we need to have the FDR threat of stackin the Court to ever be able to undo the damage in our lifetimes. Because the new obstacle to progressive change is gonna come from the Court which has been successfully stacked with Right Wing/Federalist Society judges.

Where to begin?

First, Obama is ALREADY leading the country. All the candidates running for president are following his lead.

Second, he has ALREADY created CHANGE by galvanizing young people to vote, bringing in repub. and indp to the dems. Also, he does not take money from special interests groups or lobbyists.

Third, all HRC does is talk in circles, contradicts her campaign rhetoric with her actual record as senator and attack Obama.

Her idea about "freezing rates for 5 years" will actually hurt people in the long run who are just starting out. It will drive up interest rates for new buyers. FORTUNE magazine released this article last week.

Fourth, Obama is for OPEN govt. and has been consistent on the issues BEFORE and after taking office!! HRC has NOT been consistent. She has changed SO MANY positions before she was elected to the Senate and afterwards.

Lastly, put yourself in Obama's shoes in your everyday life. You cannot tell me that most American people would be totally satisfied if they went to a job interview and didn't get a job because their family member was ENTITLED to it. This is not a family business, this is the U.S.A.

Regardless of who you are for in this election, I think the person ENTITLED to be president is someone outside the family of the Clintons and Bushes.

OBAMA '08

I don't care who you support, but can we stick to facts?

facta non verba wrote:

"Where was/is on the FISA bill? Dodd came back to filibuster, Obama didn't. Mrs. Clinton, while she did not return, stated that she would support Dodd's filibuster. Mr. Obama is on the wrong side."

Obama supported the Dodd filibuster:

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/10/dodd_campaign_pleased_with_obamas_statement_backing_filibuster_of_fisa_bill.php

"Amazingly, he has no alternative energy proposals. Could be because two of the biggest contributors to his campaign are the coal and nuclear industries"

Why spread these lies? Obama's energy agenda is easily found on his website:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/

Whah Whah Whah, I have to tell you I have read all this Rezko stuff and I am unsure as to why Dems would believe this is not a major issue for the general election. As an unaffiliated voter I hope you are not planning on our sticking around why the Republicans really beat the hell out of your candidate on these issues you must be in denial. You will have a federal trial playing out from a city of historical Dem corruptions where your potential nominee is alleged to be the unidentified pol receiving a political contribution from a corrupt transaction unknowingly so far, just wait until the DOJ water boards these guys watch how fast they change their stories lol. Good Luck with that, this timing is surely not a mistake remembers why the 8 USA were fired.