Here is the only thing I will say on the "Reagan Issue". Short and sweet (and smart)

The Republicans are and were always going to make this the year the they invoke the sacred memory of Reagan,right? McCain is boasting that he is the true inheritor of the Reagan legacey, that he was a "foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution", right?

Are all the self-blinded, willfully ignorant Obama haters with me so far?

Okay, so what Obama did was to inocculate himself and his campaign against the Repukes gaining the lion's share of the independant vote that remembers Reagan with fondness (or who's parents remembered him with fondness).

It was smart. It was politics. It was the beginning of the process of making everyone believe they are on the same team again in this country and the reason most people do not recognize it as such is because they are so used to the politics of division.

That's all. Thanks for listening.

On Edit: I wanted to add something I just posted below.

In the end, a myth is just a myth. A symbol just a symbol.

They are like mirrors and people see what they want to see when they gaze into them.

A smart politician, a smart leader, uses symbols effectively to reach people.

So what Reagan means to YOU is not as important as it what he means to EACH PERSON.

If Reagan made people feel hope, pride and optimism, it is a good thing to evoke THAT aspect of his memory as a symbol of what we all want to feel about our country, about our fellow americans.

SOME OF US WANT VERY MUCH TO LOVE OUR COUNTRY AGAIN!!

THAT is what Obama was appealing to. Bravo.

You will NOT find someone who persoanlly despised the Reagain presidency more than this Bonobo. But it is irrelevant to this discussion.

Maybe because Reagan was their Governor he is trying to get support there.

He'll pander to anyone that will listen, its a different thing every week.

Use your brains for god's sake!

Any intelligent politician would realize that the "pandering" you are talking about would potentially lose more votes than gain when he is in the middle of a Primary battle!

I can assure you of that.

I have always detested Reagan.

Bill repeatedly did this with Republicans.

is the very embodiment of the politics of division.

Reagan was a more divisive President than our current one. He blamed the "liberals" for every woe in the country.

To exalt the myth about the symbolism of this criminal is incredibly divisive.

Whaaaaaaat!???

:crazy:

:shrug:

:wtf:

I would venture to guess you weren't around when he was President.

The hope and optimism crap is a revisionist myth. He was divisive and utterly ignorant. His whole schtick was to demonize FDR and fourty years of liberal progress as well as the counter culture, which he did with great cruelty a sickly grin on his face. He was the living embodiment of the culture wars.

Read up on what he did to Vietnam war protestors while Governor of Ca.

He was regressive. He wanted to force the country to return to the fifties and live a long dead leave it to beaver existence. The man was a delusional, evil fraud.

The premise of your OP is totally incorrect.

Again, it is NOT what Reagan actually meant. What he actually did. Whether his calls for hope and optimism were REAL to you or me.

The point is that he made many people feel that way and that now especially, in these divided times, his name has become almost synonomous with the IDEA OF OPTIMISM. His presidency has come to DENOTE THAT.

Do you understand what I mean? Are you capable of trying to understand what I mean? Can we not bridge this ridiculous semantic gap? Will you not stop making hay long enough TO OPEN YOUR FRIGGIN MIND?

I have been watching politics like a hawk for 25 years. Never taking my off it. I am no spring chicken and I have seen all these same tricks played before in every election cycle. I know what I'm talking about.

Your opinions are sincere and valid and mine are opportunistic and insincere? Why don't you try to accept at face value that I have a logical, credible, authentic belief that you are wrong. Disrespecting someone you don't even know by assuming they are coming from a place of insincerity is not a particularly smart way to try to persuade. Have I called you an "Obamabot" or implied that you were only offering partisan bullshit? No, I take you as being sincere, but think you are totally off base.

I don't CARE what the media myth is about Reagan. I watched it firsthand. A Democratic candidate for President should not be exalting or perpetuating that myth. Reagan's legacy was not one of hope and optimism, but one of despair and massive dishonesty.

Sincerely short-sighted with regards to this issue.

provide them with the tools to help themselve. Reagan represented none of this. Remember trickle down economics, that was a great time - give to the rich and hope some of it falls of the table to the groveling poor below. Words about hope don't help the hopeless.

Have no fear, they're working on it 24/7.

In the end, a myth is just a myth. A symbol just a symbol.

They are like mirrors and people see what they want to see when they gaze into them.

A smart politician, a smart leader, uses symbols effectively to reach people.

So what Reagan means to YOU is not as important as it what he means to EACH PERSON.

If Reagan made people feel hope, pride and optimism, it is a good thing to evoke THAT aspect of his memory as a symbol of what we all want to feel about our country, about our fellow americans.

SOME OF US WANT VERY MUCH TO LOVE OUR COUNTRY AGAIN!!

THAT is what Obama was appealing to. Bravo.

You will NOT find someone who persoanlly despised the Reagain presidency more than this Bonobo. But it is irrelevant to this discussion.

You are just using the issue to make hay and diminishing your own reputations for fairness and clear-mindedness in the process.

Could you and I POSSIBLY be in agreement on something?

...you might be able to see where I was coming from regarding Lieberman in 2006. My argument during the general election was simply that it was bad strategy for the grassroots to paint him as a Republican because that would make Republicans more likely to vote for him rather than their own candidate Schlesinger. Just because I wasn't saying the worst possible thing about Lieberman that I could think of doesn't mean that I wanted him elected.

You can probably also see where I find complications with grassroots politics: it makes clever strategies that are sometimes counterintuitive much more difficult to implement, because it's difficult to make so many people on your side understand what you are trying to do (so that they don't wreck the whole thing), while at the same time trying to decieve the other side. And strategy is almost always somewhat counterintuitive because warfare is largely based on deception.

and I, as well? What is wrong with the two of us?

Could it possibly be we see the difference between complimenting an astute politician for seizing the campaign as opposed to lending acclamation to that politician's issues? Is that a distinction most DU'ers simply don't want to think about? If not, think about this: George W. Bush. Want 8 more years of the same? Then fail to make this distinction!

Both men, Bush* and Reagan, have and had little going on as far as pure, raw intelligence. Both had and have a lot of political acumen, enough to charge the direction of a campaign and to seize the White House.

Keep your eye on the prize and how people claim it. This is a fight for that prize, not the literal occupancy of said White House. There's a huge difference and please start to notice that difference before it's too late.

is the one parrotting the lie that Reagan inspired hope and optimism, in some kind of nostalgic valium haze, and turned the country around from the awful liberal excesses that preceded him.

If you are incapable of seeing the difference between the use of symbols and speaking literally, you and I will not be able to ever have a discussion because frankly you lack the critical thinking skills to have an intelligent discussion with.

Tell me when you are willing to be reasonable.

Wow.

:crazy:

well said, ms queen. my sentiments exactly.

He didn't appeal to people by showing optimism?

by trashing the environmental movement, etc.

He appealed to people all right... but the only kind of "optimism" it involved would be on the part of those who wished those noisy minorities would shut up... the kind who wished that Carter hadn't made them slow their cars down... the kind who wished that tree-huggers would let them burn as much energy as they wanted... etc., etc., etc.

Dressing up that vileness as "optimism" is whitewashing.

Plus: Obama is racist, lol.

:shrug:

party's history. FDR and JFK easily come to mind. Even the late great Constitution and Bill of Rights might be brought up, but I guess not by politicians who have cooperated with the Bush Crime Family by voting for the Patriot Act and other legislation which has shredded them.

Some of our country want to love our country for what it was and could be again. Spinning out cotton-candy rhetoric and bowing to the myth of St. Ronnie will do nothing to further that goal.

It is the people who miss "morning in America" that we need.
Tell them all to fuck off and die and we will never have a country again. Just 2 sides bitching forever at each other.

Look at this board for Christ's sake -and we're all Democrats.

We will need Indies to beat McCain or whoever.

We MUST take back the south, the pick-up truck drivers, the regular folk.

nominating an African American who praises Ronald Reagan is hardly the way to go about it.

If you think it is, maybe you should come down here for a spell. The North Carolina Democratic Party was progressive enough to nominate a black candidate for the U.S. Senate twenty years ago, which was not too surprising since our base is comprised predominately of liberal whites and African Americans. But did you ever hear of Jesse Helms? Well, that is who we ended up with. And who are our senators two decades later? Elizabeth Dole and Richard Burr. Look them up if you aren't familiar with their records.

No, even if the party nominates John Edwards, a native of North Carolina who is speaking out forcefully on all the populist issues which might draw in some of the disaffected "regular folk" you refer to, it will be touch and go in North Carolina, which is more progressive than most Southern States.

A hard-hitting populist campaign, even one waged by an African American, might bring some working-class whites back into the fold, since it would appeal to their economic interests in these increasingly hard times.

But praising St.Ronnie will only convince them that they have been right all along.

kids who don;t remember, but everyone else who loved Reagan? They ain;t ever going to vote for him.

but assume away.

just like john and rudy and and and

Same reason all the TeeVee preachers stay in business. It doesn't mean than anyone with a message of hope is a hypocrite, though.

Or do you think he's going to be a hopeful, dynamic, and optimistic charmer as he slips the shiv into your back?

:eyes:

Know thine enemy... And let your emotions blind you to that knowledge at your own risk.

NGU.

if you listen to some of reagan's supporters here, they claim the entire country groveled at reagan's feet because of his message of "hope and optimism." i remind them that not all democrats drank the reagan koolaid...a lot of us voted against him...twice. and so did our parents. until bush was installed, reagan was the worst. it's sickening to see a democratic candidate tap-dancing around that reality.

"Trust, but verify."

We could use a bit of trust toward the people who have stepped forward, offering to lead in a time where there is no leadership. Mistrust is what's guiding people down the wrong path in their analysis of the Dem candidates. They're looking for verification of their mistrust, which bends the brain into believing every little word said carries some insidious deeper meaning, code or subtext.

If a cop wants to write you a ticket, he'll find a reason. If you want to mistrust a candidate - ANY candidate, or any human being for that matter - you can always find a reason. For those of you waiting for Superman, and those of you thinking Superman has arrived to save us - tough luck. But it doesn't mean we should reject any potential leader who's not Superman. And we shouldn't reject anybody who's offering to lead us through the crappiest time in recent history - just as a matter of taste. We're a diverse group with different outlooks and situations, and we need a team of doctors with different prescriptions. We need all the heroes we can get.

And that is what we need!!!!!!!!!!!:kick:

He did. He never said that Reagan was a great president, etc...

both Obama and Hillary will usher in a new era in politics, no matter which one gets elected.

Stop parsing. This is NOT a big deal!!

It really shows your ignorance if you let this innocuous comment bother you.

The comment did not bother me.

I am addressing the DU'ers who it DID bother.

No need to get nasty.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1192

I wonder why Obama fell for it.

I don't think Obama fell for it.

He is appealing to people who felt it.

I don't agree.

Please allow me to attempt to give you a run for your money on that. :)

He's either naive or too slick by half. But I don't like it ONE bit.

My problem is what it reveals about the way his Presidency would work.

Sorry --but I don't like this whole messianic cult of personality thing that Obama seems to believe is the role of the President.


I don't need a new "God" to worship. I don't need a new "vision" of a great and glorious new future.

I need someone to go into the Oval Office with a mop and a flame thrower to undo the damage of the last administration.

Frankly, this is the sort of thing about Obama that scares the crap out of me.

But it is a big country with a lot of extremely different-minded people in it.

If he overtly carried a mop and flame thrower, I guarantee you he would not be elected president.

He is being a politician. Your projecting this "messianic complex" on him is unwarranted and something of a straw man in my opinion.

He is trying right now to win this election and trying to begin to heal divisions. THAT IS the role of the president like it or not.

The president is not some hopped up beaurocrat with a red pen. The POTUS needs to provide vision and to unite the country.

I don't see Hillary doing that, but I think Obama's numbers and his rhetoric suggest he maybe can do just that.

Respectfully yours,

B

That is how he campaigns --and his insights into Reagan being "transformational" is to me a sign of things to come under an Obama Presidency.
He made this same argument during the last debates as well.

He has repeatedly made this argument of the role of the President being a visionary --and this is WRONG HEADED.

I don't want a visionary President --because then it becomes about the President's vision --and NOT THE PEOPLE'S vision.

I want a President that works for us --not one that thinks they can lead us all to their own version of the promised land.

Reagan was such a man. So is Commander Chimpy McCokespoon. Enough of that crap.
Obama has already said he doesn't want to "fight the old battles". Well --I do. And I want to WIN them as well.

Give me a work horse. Not a show horse.

Unfortunately, her track record shows she is a loser.

Her biggest and most important fight was for health care.

She showed there what her presidency will be like.

One big failure. Because she has no political instincts and cannot deal with the other side. She got her ass kicked and we got nothing as a result. Worse, in fact, because no one has even attempted to fix the health care issue as a result of her epic ass-kicking.

I want some improvements. I want some aid. I want some help. I want some common sense. I want some unity.

Chimpy McCokespoon is NOT a visionary and besides, not all visions are the same. Your statement that it should be the "people's" vision is naive. Which person's vision? Yours? Mine? Who's? A president needs to lead -and not by holfing a finger to the wind to find the most politically expedient path either.

Obama shows a willingness to say things that are unwelcome. I'm sure Hil would bever have made this mistake or the "mistake" about the "cluttered desk". Whether it was true or not. She is too calculating for my tastes.

to pander out of political expediency.

I anxiously await him throwing all the queers under the bus in order to unite this country.

Who else will he throw under the bus? Baby Boomers? The Left Wing? Maybe all he will wind up leading are Reagan Democrats.

I know you remember the Reagan Presidency. But you don't seem to remember BEFORE the Reagan Presidency that well.

What is your point exactly?

I believe it is Hillary that is the "panda bear". So I guess neither of us likes "panda bears". On that we agree.

BTW, why not Edwards, other than your "feeling" that he is slimy. Please bear in mind, he has been a lawyer for a long time, so that slime was a necessary adaptation and is only skin deep.

I could care less about that. I actually find his experience as a lawyer to be commendable.

I simply don't trust that he's who he says he is now. His Senate record and his current conversion to being a populist progressive is just to much for me to believe.

Even if it IS a real conversion -- The GOP will paint him as 100 times the flip-flopper that they painted Kerry.

He didn't do much of anything in 2004.

Do you not read polls on this subject or something?

I remember him playing on American's racism, creating the "welfare queen" myth.

I'm sorry, but I won't look at his last string of gigs as unifying using hope... they unified people mostly by using selfishness and greed.

That is not the point! No argument here.

You don't or won't or can't understand the point I am trying to make.

with anything but appeals to greed, selfishness, and bigotry.

This whitewashing of his methods is frankly disgusting.

It's bad hope, but it's still hope.

NGU.

for appealing to the lowest common denominator?

He should be criticized for that, not praised.

Don't you think that conjuring up Reagan's name will actually hurt Obama? After all, Reagan is a textbook example of how feel-good symbolism can serve as a smokescreen for destructive intentions.

Obama is already dealing with the accusation that he is style over substance. I don't think hitching his wagon to Reagan's star will help. In fact, it may even prove the point of his skeptics.

supporters won't try to ADDRESS this, rather than just making stuff up about how we're SUPPOSED to perceive this.

I for one am not willing to sacrifice liberal ideals because "some people" (post 49) prefer revisionist history about Reagan as opposed to the actual truth.

I haven't heard the soundbite, but I seriouly doubt Sen. Obama was praising Raygun. As far as I can tell from what I've read, he was making an observation about Raygun's gifts. The fact that Sen. Obama didn't add a disclaimer to the effect that Raygun abused those gifts doesn't make the observation any less true.

:shrug:

NGU.

Why not pick a unifying leader who wasn't criminal, murderous scum?

Why not pick a unifying leader who united people behind OUR principles? Progressive principles?

Why add to the witewashing of Reagan's true campaign methods? Why pick a unifying leader who unified people using the values of hate, bigotry, greed and selfishness?

...how much spite and bitterness one has to wade through to find an excellent point in this whole debate. I know people are still angry about that evil old man's reign - because I am too - but do WE have to descend to the lowest common denominator to prove it?

NGU.

Did you have any friends die of AIDS?

Did you know anyone who was forced out of a mental health care facility?

Were you aware of his administration's efforst to support apartheid in SA?

The list of his administration's disgusting efforts is long, and the effects are still with us (no CAFE standards, no more Fairness Doctrine).

Sorry, but IMO the bitterness and anger is quite understandable and entirely reasonable. The devastation he wrought on this country won't be forgotten for a long time.

...but not Raygun?

By the way, your post is an excellent example of what I'm saying. I said that the anger is entirely understandable - that, in fact, I share it - but that the bitterness and spite (i.e., the nastiness) are beneath us. You, however, have quite obviously let your emotions blind you. Otherwise you wouldn't do something as nasty as imply that I said the anger isn't understandable.

NGU.

I guess my not noticing where you carefully made your distinction between what you consider to be "nasty" and "acceptable" levels of anger makes me nasty, too.

*sigh*

...better than that. You're better than that. I know you are.

And please don't put words in my mouth like "acceptable levels of anger." This is about the fact that we need to control our anger and channel it for good, rather than letting it control and destroy us.

NGU.

and I agree about the invective (sort of)... but the "sort of" is because I do also honestly think that LACK of anger has destroyed our party more than anything else. We tolerate too much, compromise too much. We are fighting criminals for whom no low is too low to sink to in order to achieve their goals. You can't compromise with people like that. They are enabling criminal behavior. If there are a few exceptions, fine... but they are the exceptions and that is an important point.

All that is based on my assumption that you were referring to bitterness directed at Reagan / Republicans.

If you meant the stuff that people here direct at each other, then I just agree flat-out, with no exceptions.

...putting words in Obama's mouth, putting words in their fellow DUers mouths, and worse, and all because they're letting their anger make them irrational. Yes, be angry - BUT AIM BETTER!!

That's all I'm saying.

NGU.

that i have seen. :eyesroll:

"Look at this shiny thing." The repukes will try to get the public to totally ignore the past 8 years, and concentrate on the "glory days" of Saint Ronnie, in a feeble attempt to win back the "Reagan Democrats." So they'll repeat Reagan, Reagan, Reagan, over and over again, and how "wonderful" he was.

I notice a lot of trolls on this board have received the memo.

I already received a call from my sister-in-law this morning...."See even Obama KNOWS Reagan knew how to run things" Ok...well would she be willing to vote for Obama in the general election? "No way, democrats don't know how to do anything right."

Never Mind FDR & LBJ had greater "landslides", Never mind the Clinton economy being better than Reagan's, Never mind Clinton cut the size of government, Never mind FDR took us throught a real "transformation" from a Depression,and a War, Never mind civil rights & voting rights were passed on LBJ's watch.

Democrats can't do anything right.

Heck of a job, Obama, thanks!

I should have known better when he voted to confirm Condi Rice, after Barbara Boxer knocked herself out.

You know what Obama looks like? A Stupid ass.

Wonder if Rush will thank him for "carrying water" for them.

The guy is beginning to look very much like a rookie. You don't say this shit and not look at the consequences.

I'm just amazed at the stupidity.

Don't wear yourself out too early - its going to be a long day.

I try to have an intelligent thread and you accuse me of being a "robot".

Your name will be remembered by me and others as one of the people that did NOTHING to further the cause of intelligent conversation.

It is you, sir, who are the robot.

Ronald Reagan kicked off his presidential campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi.
That was a symbol that sent a huge message primarily aimed at white Southern voters.




It's a symbol I've never forgotten.

State's rights?

Yeah... he united the racists all right.

Are you intentionally perpetuating the straw man or do you lack the ability to see more deeply into an issue?

Side O! reads the sentence in an objective manner. The ball is rolling is similar to The Reagan is elected.
Side O? reads the sentence in an experiential manner. The planet is dying is similar to The Reagan is elected.
Side O! reads the word Reagan and thinks example of a political machine.
Side O? reads the word Reagan and feels that is like swearing in church.
Side O! remembers other stuff that makes them mad and throws it at O?.
Side O? remembers other stuff that makes them mad and throws it at O!.

Meanwhile, the planet is dying and stuff, please focus.

first social security- then pandering to bigots, now this.
jeeze he's just embarrassing himself. really sad.

so much money. he has talked about "fixing it" . it's been part of his courting the youth thing- ols people got so much any they are screwn in comparison. have seen that he is buying into the RW scams about ss. scary.

this RW talking point.

You know, cause Krugman "hates" him and all. :eyes:

gays, atheists, old folk...
he must think all them young voters are just stupid enuf to buy into this regan stuff.... there's no explaining this.

"excesses of the 60s and 70s?"

Michael Schwerner, James Chaney, and Andrew Goodman

All three were members of CORE, the Congress for Racial Equality, and were working to register Mississippi's African-American voters during the summer of 1964. They were stopped by two carloads of Klansmen, who shot and killed them all, in Philadelphia, Mississippi. Reagan came to Philadelphia in 1980 and launched his campaign in the tiny town (population less than 7,500) with an impassioned speech about "states' rights," which was recognized by all as a symbol for retaining the scourge of segregation.

"When a Hollywood performer, lacking distinction even as an actor, can become a leading war hawk candidate for the presidency, only the irrationalities induced by war psychosis can explain such a turn of events." -- Martin Luther King about Ronald Reagan

I kept mentioning it - but forgot the details. And the MLK quote - perfect too!

:sarcasm: tag I assumed I didn't need. (The "excesses of the 60s and 70s" is an Obama quote, or so I've been led to believe.)

I figured the info about Goodman, Schwerner, and Chaney would be meaningful regardless.

That is the point.

Are they necessarily unconvertible racists too?

The only thing Raygun united was hatred. Only MSM calls it optimism. we know it as nationalism. It reared its head when the war started - the burning of the Dixie Chicks records - that was Raygun's legacy speaking. His base. That Obama seeks with your blessing.

bad on principle - it;s just wrong!
Bad as strategy: Raygun lovers don't vote Dems, especially black ones.

That is my short and sweet statement on it. And I am going to keep on making it.

Until raygun, this board was mostly an Edwards Obama haven. Why did the Reagan non-issue change all that?

and Clinton's support of Goldwater: people like you like to make big things out of nothing.

I perceived the home/haircut "issue" to be nonsense.

I perceived the LBJ/MLK "issue" to be hopefully a misunderstanding... possibly an attempt to make hay out of an innocent statement.

I perceive Clinton's support of Goldwater ancient history.


But I perceive this differently because there are other transformational leaders that championed our progressive values... and instead of picking one of those, Obama chose to mention Reagan.

:eyes:

And yeah... it's apparently an actual issue. No matter how much you and a few other Obama supporters wish it wasn't.

Just like the Edwards haircut/ house crap has everything to do with those threatened by Edwards' candidacy
and the MLK crap has everything to do with those threatened by Clinton's candidacy

NON ISSUE.

That is for sure.

I may have you mixed up with someone else...

so I can wait and see. Whoever has the best chance of defeating our worst candidate, Clinton, will get my vote.

I have a hard time keeping people straight with the candidate avatars.

Good luck. :hi:

ACTIONS speak louder than WORDS about dead Presidents.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/cluster-bombs-have-got-to_b_50165.html

The time has come for a vigorous public propaganda campaign in the United States against cluster bombs. These weapons need to be thoroughly discredited and de-legitimized. Friends don't let friends drive drunk, and they don't let their friends' tax dollars be used to supply weapons that blow off the limbs of little girls in Lebanon or Iraq, either. 98% of the victims of cluster bombs are civilians, according to a report by Handicap International.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgUpOchF23Y

I actually heard those remarks of Obama's this morning. It appeared to me he was not praising Reagan, the man or his policies, he was simply commenting on his ability in a moment in time to reach out and change the direction of a campaign, appealing to those moving in that present moment in time. His inference, I thought, was that it was in fact Obama's goal to do exactly that, to change the direction of this election. And that is a lofty goal, I believe.

So, all those posters who yesterday were railing about Obama's praise of Reagan, how he admired him more than Clinton, either were attempting to instigate a deliberate misrepresentation of Obama's words in order to make his supporters think twice about continuing that support, or they simply did not listen closely enough to the context of Obama's words.

It was Reagan the campaigner, the politician, that Obama was commenting on, not the issues Reagan embraced.

Either way, this is getting to be very tiresome, hearing people deliberate misrepresent the thrust of a candidate's comments for the purpose of misleading those in the listening audience. But it is not contained to this website of course, we hear it constantly in the media. The only way to make a logical decision about any candidate and whether he or she is worthy of your support is simply to do your own research on the issues and make up your mind as a result of what you learn through that venue.

did not embrace Reagan's issues. He applauded the fact Reagan seized control of the campaign and changed the direction of it. It should come as no surprise to anyone here that that is exactly what Obama has said from the beginning he would like to do. In fact, he's outlined some of the bare bones of how he would like to do exactly that, so, as I said before, it's much to do about nothing. But that's getting to be the thrust of her campaign -- grossly exaggerating everything that comes out of Obama's mouth.

I will be very surprised if Obama can cling to the thought of winning this election if he does not trot out some Chicago street smarts. I know he publicly has disclaimed wanting to use these tactics, but if he continues to take the high road, it is clear she intends to pulverize him.

Interesting to observe, right?

Sam

There are few analytical thinking skills on display here on DU at the moment.

I thought his only "problem" is that he thinks too much. I guess the days have gone by when a thinking President would be viewed by the American public as a true commodity.

Sam

Intelligence makes most Americans feel dumb.

That is why Bush was elected and that is what it REALLY means when they say "a person you want to have a beer with". It actually means "a person who does not make you feel inferior and stupid".

I have been discussing this on several threads tonight. I truly despised Reagan and what he stood for, and remain today appalled by things he did. But one does not have to be inherently intelligent to be politically adroit. Think George W. Bush*. He too seized the campaign, and consider the Bush* results of the last 8 years. The two are very similar in character. Not too much there in the intelligence quotient scale but absolutely nothing lacking when it comes to "seizing" the campaign.

It not just "most Americans" but many so-called political junkies who cannot make that distinction, and that's a real disappointment.

What have we learned, to repeat the Morning Joe familiar question, in the last 30 years. Politically speaking: nothing.

Sam

Very smart. ;)

Anyone with half a brain knows what Obama was saying, and the outcry was, of course, the poster's goal, and it kind of amuses me. Of COURSE I'm going to run out and vote for Hillary now because Obama said something nice about Reagan... :sarcasm:

If I wanted to, I could spend hours finding videos, quotes, lines in speeches, by candidates other than the one I'm backing, become OUTRAGED by it, and post it out of context, but I have better things to do with my time. It's unfortunate that some people don't.

it's revisionist fucking history. no progressive person, certainly no one expecting my vote, should be endorsing or even invoking reagan in any way shape or form.

...but that's not analysis. anyone can use image over content but that's not leadership.

let me just say, i'm not familiar with the clip you refer to, but i've listened to obama time and time again, and each time he has failed to impress me. to put forward the image of reagan in any sort of positive light is, to me, beyond unimpressive.

you are as modest as your candidate.

Just because we have a big problem with something that just came up today, doesn't mean we've been or are Obama haters.

But keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better in some way.

I'd better add "self-blinded" and "willfully ignorant to my sig line."

:shrug:

:puke:

I look forward to Obama praising Ralph Nader but will keep breathing (while I wait for someone to clarify his stance on the New Deal).

Is loving Ronnie a pledge of allegiance now? Will we be kicked out if we refuse in an Obama administration? :shrug: