Front Page Daily Kos - Kos points out how Bill Clinton and JE are distorting Obama's statement.

Thanks Kos!

edit to add:

I don't know why he didn't include Hillary's statement which is also a distortion:

"I have to say, you know, my leading opponent the other day said that he thought the Republicans had better ideas than Democrats the last ten to fifteen years."

has been hyped hither and yon about what his words did NOT mean.

As an Edwards supporter, I remain disillusioned about his outrage over the historical Reagan remark. John is too smart, he knows better. I am not surprised, however, to hear Big Dog spinning something else that Obama didn't say. It all smaks of desperation.

Thanks for posting this :-)

That's what I've tried to argue here with the whole reagan dust-up, but things here are a bit too shrill at the moment for for some folks to see it that way. Then again, whatever, they're just doing what politicians do.

can think for themselves would read this tripe.

If I wanted Marcos to be my guru, I would we writing there.
His opinion is just that, HIS opinion. It is NOT Doctrine or law.

Why even use Reagan in any manner? Hmm? Because Obama has CONSISTENTLY reduced and diminshed the stalwarts of Democratic Principles, trashing Baby Boomers, those who worked endlessly in the 60's or 70's for peace and civil rights, calling the latter, excessive.

Who needs Republicans when you have an appeasor centrist, for the expediency of attracting crossover votes?

No matter how you spin it, Obama framed his response by channeling Reagan as an example of the Republicans being a Party of Ideas.

Sure they are.....bad ones!

It is a fact that Obama said they had "a lot" of ideas, and that Bill Clinton and John Edwards lied and said that he said they had "good" ideas. Take your BS elsewhere. They have been caught in a LIE, and are being called on it. No way you can spin it away.

and re-read my post. Obama did say that the Republicans were the "Party of Ideas" for 15 years, in the same context that he decried Democratic excess.

Now, you tell me whether or not this was using Reagan to express a positive or a negative? Hmmm?

He's not my guru, and he doesn't do my thinking for me. I just happen to agree with him about this. I would rather have the White House back with a few cross over votes than see another repug elected.

I will start by saying he was overall a good president, and I actually like the guy. But honesty is not his strong suit. When he wants to be, he can be a shifty-eyed bull-shittin' mud-slingin' SOB. He can twist things around to fit his targeted mud sling. I have lost a lot of respect for Bill Clinton during the past month. It really is unfortunate that he felt that he had to stoop this low to help the wife he was not loyal to. Maybe he had to. But it is a tragedy, nonetheless.

:sarcasm:

Kos got in hot water by not disclosing fast enough when he was working for Dean. I doubt he'd make the same mistake twice.

Note: I am sure rinsd knows that, but many other readers may not know it.

I have added a sarcasm thingy.

But yes if he does get involved formally with the campaign he had better disclose it.

(I guess I wasn't clear about that!)

Still, that little sarcasm thingie is probably a good idea. :)

Nevada Clinton said when she's President the are going to have PAID bloggers. Kind of reminds me of Bush and how he likes to bribe people.

When Clinton is president the government will have bloggers, just like Ariana Huffington. Except they'll be paid. http://www.lasvegasgleaner.com/

I can't help but wonder if Edwards did his 180 (becoming a populist) on the advise Clinton. Think about it. The DLC creates their own "populist" candidate, has him play up to the liberal commentators, bloggers, etc (Clinton did say he can talk an owl out of a tree), has him help out Hillary during the primary, then during the convention he is tapped as VP b/c the Clintons want to unite the party. It took awhile before people figured out they had been had by the Clintons. I wonder how long it will take people to figure out they've been had by Edwards (if that's the case). I could be wrong but there's something about the whole Clinton/Edwards relationship and interactions that have always puzzled me. Of course, Edwards could just be a dupe who is played by Clinton. I'm sure a whisper of being Hillary's VP would make Edwards do anything he could to help out the Clinton gang.

but your take on Edwards is pure P-A-R-A-N-O-I-A.

Cult thinking at it's best. "Everyone is out to get us".

common and have been good buddies since the impeachment days. Everyone talks about what a political genius Clinton is. They've been planning this campaign for years so it make a lot of sense to have Hillary's VP running at the same time and helping her out. I don't think it would take a genius to come up with that plan. Plus by having Edwards remade into the liberal darling (doing a complete 180) it helps them unite the party at the end.

in the 80s and voted for GHWB twice?



Oh yeah. I'm going to trust his judgment on Reagan.

Bill Clinton lied. They can't win on the truth, so they lie, lie, lie.

:loveya:"Nothing floats my boat like Reaganomics ".

must have REALLY pissed him off to get him to chime in.

Why the lying? Bill Clinton has been caught in way too many lies as of late. And I don't know WHAT John Edwards was thinking.

He has lost a hell of a lot of credibility with me.

Bill has too big of an ego problem.

of the issues of the 60's-70's!!! Like, we still don't have to fight to preserve what was won then, what has been slowly taken away by the GOP and Vichy Democrats???

Screw that!

Obama calling the Repugs the "party of ideas" without qualifying the statement means that he appeared to be admiring, praising, lauding, the Repugs for challenging conventional wisdom. I know that he sees himself as the "candidate for change" and perhaps the one to challenge conventional wisdom, whatever that is, again no qualifying remarks.