I almost feel sorry for the Obama defenders.

He has put them in one hard spot, defending a guy who praises raygun's talents and even holding him above the last Democratic president as more effective. Comments that the repukes were the "party of ideas" for all the years they were in power.

They are forced to explain away such remarks, reminiscent of the "no difference between me and bush" on Iraq comment, as something good for the Democratic party. (this is still the Democratic party in the midst of the Democratic nominating process, right?)

And they are trying, but some bullshit you just can't spin.

I almost feel sorry for them...almost.

why should he continue this charade of running as a Democratic hopeful.

What is Democratic about him?

That's not meant as a compliment, btw.

Or is logic too much for you to wrap your mind around.

Nor do I want to.

he didn't. He said given the excesses, and what was taking place at the time - the country was ripe for change - enter Reagan. Reagan DID make significant changes in this country - for the worst, but changes none the less.

There seems to be a pattern.

Obama cultists. Ain't it a bitch?

Pages 156-157

"The conservative revolution Reagan helped usher in gained traction because Reagan's central insight--that the liberal welfare state had grown complacent and overly bureaucratic, with Democratic policy makers more obsessed with slicing the economic pie than with growing he pie--contained a good deal of truth."

He obviously agrees with some of what Reagan did. We need to find out what Reagan policies in particular he agreed with.

I feel sorry for all of us if Hillary is nominated and even more so if she is elected.

Misstating the facts as you are above does not make them true.
And I know there is no point in explaining these facts to the truly dense that
are lingering here.

But that won't stop the machine from smearing him.

let me say that barack obama was wrong to praise reagan but i think mr obama has alot to offer, as do all our candidates.

welcome to DU!

i think this will be a board where we can all engage in heated, but friendly debate.

And welcome to DU.

the only dem president i know was bill clinton but i was too young to vote for him. i look forward to voting in november.

You'll keep throwing this handful of shit at the wall until it finally sticks, won't you?

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51P6G4G2S0L._AA280_PIbundle-6,TopRight,0,0_AA280_SH20_.jpg

or

In fact they have 35 years experience.

is about the best way I can say it too. :hi:

I don't remember the Reagan years but any history book will tell you that Regan did move america in a more conservative direction. Therefore what Obama said was factual which is more than what I can say for your candidate many times.

you're reading revisionist history books. read a lil about Iran -Contra which
Raygun conveniently coldnt remember. He was asunuvabith in many other areas also,

Then after Raygun we had boosh 1 with who didnt even pretend trickle down,
1000 points of light...give out of your own pocket..cause the govt isnt going to

12 years of that crap

now read up on Clinton years and the economy and how poeple made out

I made more money in my business than I ever had in my life

plus Clinton left office with 5 trillion dollars surplus .....

which the "uniter" promptly gave to his oil buddies as so called tax cuts...

and your idol is praising raygun and dissing Bill.

and I'm still not voting for Hillary....nor obama....what a bum he is - hhitler hypnotized people with speeches too

he never said rayguns policies were good and that clintons were bad. Did you even watch the clip or are you just making shit up based on spin thrown out here by other candidates suporters?

so her only hope is to make folks hate everyone else. She cannot run on how good she is, only on how bad John Edwards and Barack Obama suck.

In the meantime we have spent last week arguing about racism, this week arguing about Reagan. Next week we will discuss how crappy Nixon was and why the postage stamps keep going up in price.
Then maybe by June we will get to, oh, I don't know, why young men are still dieing in her war.

Did Hillary come with a laundry list memo - later to be retracted? Did she make Obama push reagan in an interview? She IS all powerful, that Hillary!
Nice spin though.

Maybe in reverend Phelps' klansas they do.

Allow me to rephrase:
A large section of the American public really does hate Hillary Clinton. We can't deny this. Some hate Hillary, some hate on Hillary simply because they hate Bill.*
Another chunk of Americans dislikes her, but doesn't hate her, for the same odd mix of reasons.
Yet another group of Americans distrusts her, or is simply tired of Clintonism. If I were guessing, I'd say a third of the Democratic party has serious issues with Hillary Clinton. And maybe another third are on the fence.
And yes, some of my fellow Democrats love Hillary Clinton without reservation. no matter what she says or does.
But many within her own party are sick of the DLC style of "leadership" of the Clintons. Remember, these folks squandered every opportunity they were given to really change America. Instead of health care, for example, they gave us welfare reform, centerist triangulation politics, a few scandals and school uniforms-quite a profile in courage.I would also argue that NO republicans love Hillary Clinton. But yes, SOME independents are Hillary fans.

So she is in a pickle when it comes to appealing to non-DU reading Joe or Jane Public. Which frankly is the vast majority of voters.

The problem she faces is that she is not as well liked as Edwards or Obama. She can't do much to make herself more likeable at this point, as most people have pretty much made up their mind on Hillary Clinton. She is a known entity. But she can alter peoples impressions of Obama and Edwards.
Now, if she can drive them down to her level, she can make the argument that "we all stink, but I have more experience at stinking".

Not much of a slogan, but that's essentially what her campaign has become.

*Bill is a mixed blessing. Hillary has to dance around Bill Clinton. So far she has successfully been able to say she is responsible for Clinton's successes, but oh. no, not any failures. This will soon change. Right now the republicans are killing each other. If Hillary gets the nomination (which I think is probably a 75% probability) they will turn everything on her. Everything from the Clinton Era, version 2.0. Plus the new stuff from her time in the Senate.
Plus whatever new shit they can make up before August.
The republicans will run against Bill Clinton. (And we will run against George Bush. Neither of which will actually be on the ballot.)

And another thing while I'm at it. Is this a 3rd term for Bill Clinton, or A Hillary Clinton Presidency? I wish Team Hillary would explain this one to me.
It strikes me that Hillary flounders on her own. Only when propped up by the establishment, the DLC machine and by unleashing Wild Bill is she able to beat a young, inexperienced black guy with a funny name. And then only by 2%.

:thumbsup:

at you ;)

for your cohorts when Obama wins the nomination.

I'm with you, Skip Intro.

But what I finally realized is that I have stayed at DU all afternoon and evening, for the first time, and am seeing names posting varying opinions, slamming whoever the hottest thread is.

When the race-baiting wars and Donnie McClurkin wars were going on, I know people claimed lots of posters were trolls. But this is the first time I'm actually seeing it!

Makes me feel better, 'cause I hate to think of honest-to-goodness DUers saying some of the stuff they're saying.

And remember, Obama Supporters: this is coming from an "Obama is my second" person. NOT an Obama hater. In fact, I have never dissed any of the candidates. Today was the first time I even entered the fray because it was a hot button issue for me.

...but someone can't keep it in his pants. And that's not even counting 1994...

is smart like Reagan did?

That's how Reagan got the economy moving again. Everyone ran up their credit cards to write off the interest on their taxes.

It made no sense to the consumer to do that - they spent the next five to ten years paying off the debt.

But it was a win-win for the GOP. Credit Card companies got their piece of the pie and it created spending by the consumer.

It screwed everybody in the long run, but that's the GOP's expertise.

That's just one look at Obama's hero - Ronald Reagan the "agent of change".

I read in my history books that Hitler ushered in change, too.

Change for changes sake is a mistake.

Think. It's Patriotic.

Someone does not already have 8K on thier credit card.


Alot of Americans already have huge credit card debt. I doubt that anyone who is struggling with debt will run up credit cards for the tax break.

Obama holds in high regard an administration willing to screw over fellow americans for personal gain.

But welcome to DU!

You'll get it sooner or later!

He admits that the tactics were effective. He did not say anything about the policies.

Please try again

Tojo used them

Hitler used them

Mussolini used them

Lenin used them

Were they right?

Obviously not.

No spin needed.


In 2004 the Democratic Party made the HUGE mistake of nominating someone who voted for the war in Iraq (like Hillary did).

Obama quit attacking people who voted wrong on Iraq to help our candidate.


That isn't bullshit. Everything the Clintons say... Now THAT Is Bullshit!!!!


Depending, of course, on what the definition of what the word "is" is.

With just 56 posts mind you!.

Welcome to DU!!!

Proof pukes want Obama as the nominee.

are you seeing a vast right wing conspiracy against you ???


LOOK OUT!!! BEHIND YOU !!!!!!



I am new here, yes.
I have never voted Uncommitted before so I came here monday night to look into it before voting tuesday.

Lots of people want Obama as the nominee. More every day.

Hindsight is 20-20. If you think any other candidate could have done better against GOP controlled broadcast media that protected Bush, more than any other president, an inept DNC Chairman, lack of party support, and a WEAK Ohio (and other states) Democratic Party, you are wrong.

I was just trying to show why Sen. Obama spoke more softly about the Iraq War in 2004.


I voted for Kerry too ya know

It's the second time that's happened today. (poli slaps head and says, Duh!:think: ).


My bad. It's been a hard day here, but thanks for the clarification in your post. :thumbsup:



On edit: Welcome to DU. :hi:

Duh guess what every election there will be more votes than the last until the baby boomer's die off the population continues to increase. Its the most retarded line I see repeated over and over and over.

No shit they got more votes there were more people around to vote. What a stupid dishonest statement it is, used to make some kind of political point that means absolutely nothing.

btw, most DUers have their profiles public...

If she wins the nomination the republicans will.




Also, I only expected to come here for one night (before the Michigan Primary) so my profile and notifications are all minimal at best. I may change it later if I stay interested long enough.

what can you do?

The beauty of supporting Obama is that it doesn't require strict, blind allegiance to some stale orthodoxy.

...or the hope that some hyper-calculating politico will find a focus-group tested, poll-driven key to electoral advantage.

No, you are only the "BORG" of cultist Democrats, Obamite!

Talking point, assimilate,.

Spin and rinse Cognitively Dissonant statements.

Obama is what you get when you set out to create a formulaic candidate. There isn't one scintilla of genuineness in his canned rhetoric.

Better watch out, Reagan's going to come and get you in your sleep.

His supporters have their fingers in their ears, going "lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala..."
You can't get through to them.

'almost' something worth saying. :eyes:

I actually do feel sorry for us all. In the blind race to win at any cost- we are selling out ourselves.

Who needs enemies with a group like this??

We are going to have to learn to live together peacefully- Otherwise we condemn ourselves to this continual downward spiral.

It isn't just the republics that are taking this nation down, we are doing a pretty effective job of it right now.


PEACE~

i`m not a loyal democrat if i vote for him? then i should flip a coin to see "which republican" i should vote for. .........maybe i should have voted for keyes.

Piling on is fun, huh? I'll remember that...

I didn't think so.

As for Hillary supporters, I'm sorry they have such a need to want to go back to the Clintons like that's the best thing this coutry can offer. It is so clear to me that they have been the worst thing to happen to the Democratic Party for years.

If you do any research on just what happened to the Middle Class because of the Clintons with NAFTA, DOMA, the loss of the House and Senate to the Repugs, the Telecommunications Act, China free trade deals and of course the embarrassment of Bill not being able to keep his zipper in his pants, you'd run as fast as you could from them and their legion of turncoats and liars.

Don't feel sorry for Obama supporters. You're the one who needs help.

And if I go get the link there'll be no reply.


been there, done that

in 2004 Obama was asked about Iraq

He said that there was no difference between himself and Bush IN THE WAY THE WAR WAS BEING MANAGED!

Yes that was wrong, the management was a disaster. He was softening up his criticism because our '04 candidate had voted to authorize the war (like Hillary).


He Did Not Say He Thinks We Should Have Invaded Iraq !!!

HE HAS NEVER SAID THAT HE THOUGHT WE SHOULD HAVE INVADED IRAQ!!!!!


He always said that we never should have invaded Iraq.

I await ANY link. There is NONE.

MR. RUSSERT: You were not in the Senate in October of 2002. You did give a speech opposing the war. But Senator Clinton’s campaign will say since you’ve been a senator there’s been no difference in your record. And other critics will say that you’ve not been a leader against the war, and they point to this: In July of ‘04, Barack Obama, “I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don’t know,” in terms of how you would have voted on the war. And then this: “There’s not much of a difference between my position on Iraq and George Bush’s position at this stage.” That was July of ‘04. And this: “I think” there’s “some room for disagreement in that initial decision to vote for authorization of the war.” It doesn’t seem that you are firmly wedded against the war, and that you left some wiggle room that, if you had been in the Senate, you may have voted for it.

SEN. OBAMA: Now, Tim, that first quote was made with an interview with a guy named Tim Russert on MEET THE PRESS during the convention when we had a nominee for the presidency and a vice president, both of whom had voted for the war. And so it, it probably was the wrong time for me to be making a strong case against our party’s nominees’ decisions when it came to Iraq.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21738432/page/2 /
------------------

you were saying....

http://mediamatters.org/items/200801140002

Kurtz misrepresented Obama's 2004 remark on Iraq war stance

"On Iraq, on paper, there's not as much difference, I think, between the Bush administration and a Kerry administration as there would have been a year ago," Obama said during a luncheon meeting with editors and reporters of Tribune newspapers. "There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who's in a position to execute."

<...>

Obama, a state senator from Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood, opposed the Iraq invasion before the war. But he now believes U.S. forces must remain to stabilize the war-ravaged nation -- a policy not dissimilar to the current approach of the Bush administration.


All of this was said during the week of the kerry nomination at a time when Kerry had still not backed off his Iraq war support and was said in deference to our nominees positions at the time.

Of course I am sure you will ignore all that and cling to the cherry picked quote like the good little toady you are.

And the "room for disagreement" statement? And the "don't know how I would have voted" statement?

Yeah, he said things he didn't mean. He said so. Right there in my post.

He admitted he said things he didn't mean because of the political reality. The political consequences of his convictions (supposed) would have been too high a price to pay, so he betrayed those convictions (supposed) for the sake of political expeidiency. He said as much.

Your spin falls flat in the face of his own words.

talk about spin. So you are upset that he twisted himself like a pretzle to avoid bashing our nominees during the week of the convention am i reading that corectly?

So you admit that he was always against the war and only said what he did to try and cover for our nominees during the week of the convention.

And becuase of that you use it to bash him. Do I have that right?

Is that the best you got?

honest.

It is the fact that I have to twist myself into a pretzel to believe him here, but not there, but definitely here, and for sure now and tomorrow. That is the problem with having convictions you betray at the drop of a hat. No reasonable person then knows when to believe you.

I understand the dismay at Obama clearly, with his own words, being shown to be less than sincere, less than honest with the people he now seeks to unite behind his vaugely-defined mantra of "hope" and "change" you can "believe in."

However, his words are there - he said these things, not me. And facts like this you just can't spin away.

Does it bother me that a presidential candidate admits freely to crafting positions based upon the political envirionment at the time, and would betray even supposedly deeply held convictions for fleeting political posturing? Yeah, it sure does. I am surprised it doesn't bother you.

That is exactly my point, thanks for proving it


Sorry I took so long to reply but I actually leave the house now and then, you may not understand.


Again, there is nothing in that interview that says he thought he should invade Iraq. He Never Said He Should Invade Iraq.

Why don't you put up a link to a statement where he said we should invade? Because there isn't one.


He said ...words to the effect... that he stopped attacking people who voted for the war because both Kerry and Edwards had voted for the war and he didn't want to hurt their chances to win.


He used the fact that he did not see the classified Bush Lies about Iraq as a way to suggest that he might have had a different opinion if he had been lied to.

The truth is that he still made the correct decision when it was time to make a correct decision, unlike Edwards, Clinton and Kerry (who has endorsed Obama).


I don't understand what you think you are calling me out on.

He never said we should invade, and he explained why he did not attack supporting the war during the 2004 presidential campaign.

He voted for funding the troops, we all know that any vote against funding would have been twisted to be a vote against our people on the ground.

This old chestnut has been debunked by Media Matters and other fact-checking groups.

The FULL QUOTE is:



See how it's slightly different if you don't shave off the full conclusion.

As for the quote used about "agreeing about the war", Obama was talking about supporting the troops. The only way to somehow take away how Obama has not been firmly against the war is to lie about what he said or cherry-pick his quotes in a misleading way.

In fact, he went on to try to excuse himself by saying the political climate at the time wasn't good for him to be honest about his supposedly deeply held convictions. He all but said he was lying then for political reasons.

You try to dismiss the clear nature of the question, his quotes then, his excuses for saying them, by choosing one quote and then claiming that the second sentence somehow erases the meaning of the first.

What about the other two quotes? Did he use some majic words right after to negate what he had just said there too?

Why didn't he challenge Russert if the quotes were inaccurate, instead of claiming he said things he really didn't mean for political reasons?

:shrug:

The fact that he said things he didn't really mean for political reasons is no excuse. In fact, it makes me wonder if what he's saying now is for politcal reasons.

How can you know?

he did it to provide cover for Kerry and edwards he stood nothing to gain from those comments. Clearly all it did was give fodder for dolts like you to use to bash him. You would have prefered perhaps that after he brought down the house at the convention he turned right arround and said our nominees were horribly wrong?

You're grasping at straws here and you know it.

lordy...

a Clinton supporter who is questioning the integrity of another candidate?

We know because the political reasons did not directly benefit him, it was for the party.

We know because as soon as the '04 elections were over he went right back to his original statements.

We know because he isn't a habitual lier like both the Clintons are.

We know because Kerry now has endorsed him for president.

We know

:rofl:


So what is he saying now that he really doesn't mean but must say because the political winds demand it?

Too much low-income housing?

Too much health care for those who need it?

Too much education available for those who qualify?

Too much equality for minorities?

Too many gains for women?

Just what were those "excesses" that Obama decries?????

I hate Reagan" schtick. It's getting tired.

Do you care to discuss any real issues or are you too invested in this "who's more liberal" pissing contest?

just how much more are the obamabots gonna try to push the bull shit?

First it was his BLATANT pandering to homophobic religious fucking wacko bigots,

then is was his being too cowardly to actually vote Yes or No but instead vote "present"...

and now this...

I will NEVER vote for him - I will campaign AGAINST him...

Hillary is not my ideal candidate by a long shot - but obama is a fucking inexperienced HACK at best...

but, in the general, you can't campaign against him here.

And you can't spin the fact that he plans to vote for thought crime legislation.

Refusal to see the danger signs is no better than those that still blindly support Bush.

Wash. Rinse. Repeat. ... but it's still bullshit. :shrug:

Hypocrisy is alive and well within this thread. :thumbsdown:

Who the hell was that? I didn't realize there was a following for him in 92-96. Who was the Governor of Alaska to which you refer?

:crazy:

Explain away what remarks? He is right. Raygun did more to advance and change republican politics and american politics than either nixon or clinton. Whats to explain or do I need to put it into terms a three year old can understand.

Just because you dont like reality doesnt change the fact that it is reality.

it's only mid January, this will be a cake walk...

But what is your alternative? Vote repug?

self-promotion.

Clinton supporters for having a candidate that can only get votes from staged acts of desperation.

Meanwhile, Obama is talking about transforming politics with a real mandate. He represents the future of our Party. The Clintons need to leave the stage.

the analogy of change and the pendulum swing fits Reagan very well. Reagan in 1980 precipitated the pendulum shift to the right. Now the pendulum is shifting to the left. Obama should have explained that in some way. But, explaining that the pendulum is swinging left would probably alienate the conservative voters, which could be a problem for him. He seems to be a pragmatic candidate not willing to embrace the left wing of the party. It seems he would rather play to the conservative wing and crossover voters. Let John Edwards have most of the progressive wing.

It must be difficult when two corporate candidates run against teach other (Clinton and Obama). They each have to carve out niches of the same conservative voting block. It would then seem to become more a contest of personalities, genders, and race, instead of positions.