I understand Obama's trying to tap into the "Youth Vote" but does he have to do it like this?

I understand Obama's trying to tap into the "Youth Vote" but does he have to do it like this?

And, it's disappointing that he seems to diss the accomplishments of the 60's and 70's by saying people voted for Reagan because of the "excesses" of that era and "big government without accountability." He seems to disparage former President Carter and those who worked in the decades of the 60's and 70's for Civil Rights,Womens Rights, Consumer Rights and Environmental Protections. I'd like to have heard more of the interview...but the snip seems to stand alone in it's forcefulness of his stating what he feels was the "Reagan Change."

For those who stayed out of the Obama/Reagan flap that's been posted here because they didn't want to get involved but are of age group who lived through Reagan's two terms and remember how he worked to undermine or destroy the good movements that came out of the "60's and 70's" you might want to watch this (this was posted in DU Videos but I'm linking to the You Tube):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaoYD7iZG9w

It's the second time he's dissed the very accomplishments that make his candidacy possible.

I think he's underestimating young people, who love the music of the 60s and seem to appreciate the era more than he does.

Mr. Obama was a 38-year-old state senator and University of Chicago lecturer, unknown in much of Mr. Rush's Congressional district. He lived in its most rarefied

neighborhood, Hyde Park. He was taking on a local legend, a former alderman and four-term incumbent who had given voters no obvious reason to displace him.

Mr. Rush's name recognition started off at 90 percent, Mr. Obama's at 11. Then Mr. Rush's son was murdered, leading Mr. Obama to put his campaign on hold. Later,

while vacationing in Hawaii with his family, he missed a high-profile vote in the Legislature and was pilloried. (One Chicago Tribune editorial began, "What a bunch of

gutless sheep.") Then President Clinton endorsed Mr. Rush.

"Campaigns are always, 'What's the narrative of the race?' " said Eric Adelstein, a media consultant in Chicago who worked on the Rush campaign. "In a sense, it was

'the Black Panther against the professor.' That's not a knock on Obama; but to run from Hyde Park, this little bastion of academia, this white community in the black

South Side -- it just seemed odd that he would make that choice as a kind of stepping out."

The episode revealed a lot about Senator Obama -- now running for president, against the odds again and with a relatively slim résumé. It showed his impatience with

the frustrations of his state Senate job; his outsize confidence; his fund-raising powers; his broad appeal; and his willingness to be what Abner J. Mikva, a former

congressman and supporter, calls "a very apt student of his own mistakes."

<snip>
There they began the tedious process of challenging hundreds of signatures on the nominating petitions of state Sen. Alice Palmer, the longtime progressive activist from the city's South Side. And they kept challenging petitions until every one of Obama's four Democratic primary rivals was forced off the ballot.
Palmer served the district in the Illinois Senate for much of the 1990s. Decades earlier, she was working as a community organizer in the area when Obama was growing up in Hawaii and Indonesia. She risked her safe seat to run for Congress and touted Obama as a suitable successor, according to news accounts and interviews.

But when Palmer got clobbered in that November 1995 special congressional race, her supporters asked Obama to fold his campaign so she could easily retain her state Senate seat.

Obama not only refused to step aside, he filed challenges that nullified Palmer's hastily gathered nominating petitions, forcing her to withdraw.

"I liked Alice Palmer a lot. I thought she was a good public servant," Obama said. "It was very awkward. That part of it I wish had played out entirely differently."

His choice divided veteran Chicago political activists.

Is this guy just another self-serving narcissistic con man??

Obama! yes to your question...100%

Americans are easily fooled by slick talkin' confident guys ~ from bullies on the playground, to sexy bad boys, to criminals in the boardroom, people in this country fall for them! (Maybe people in other countries fall for them too, I don't know.)

maybe that's why obama really doesn't like the clinton. this goes back sometime. just a thought.

The "themes" sound appallingly similar ... an entrenched animosity for the activism of the "60's" (which ran from the 50s to the 70s) is cartoonish, at best.

1956 - Brown v. Board of Education
1964 - Civil Rights Act
1972 - Roe v. Wade

That's what "activism" gained ... and we could use MORE, not less.

For such a smart guy, he seems really misguided about this.

are in relation to how voters who supported Reagan perceived the way the government was at the time.

If someone said "Some Germans thought Hitler was a great guy" would you accuse them of saying "Hitler was a great guy"? No, because it's dishonest. The same shit is being pulled on Obama.

Obama has been my second choice, and I really dislike posts that intentionally trash and/or mislead/misinform about "rival" candidates so I appreciate the respectful way you posed this question.

This truly bothers me. As have several things since the last debate. It bothers me because I didn't used to be afraid of him getting the nomination...honestly, I'm starting to. Granted, I'm all about interpretation and am the first to realize we all interpret things differently and for different reasons, but I've felt him moving right to a rather sudden extreme. And all the endorsements he's gotten of late (which I tend to congratulate he and his supporters for)...in light of his recent overtures, it's all now making me wonder what's up?

Here's his Reagan quote:

"I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what's different are the times. I do think that for example the 1980 was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."


The thing I am mostly stuck on is what he meant by the "excesses of the 60s and 70s"? Excesses in terms of civil rights, the women's movement, etc....but the government/corporatocracy excesses became full-blown in the 80s under Reagan.

I mean, I get him trying to appeal to the many Reagan fans and wanting to get repub votes, but he seems to be doing this at the expense of democrats, and in a way that I don't believe is deserved. I don't think anyone should have blind party loyalty, but, geesh...

I don't get it. :shrug:

I'm not bashing the guy, but I am concerned (just as many Obama and Clinton supports are concerned for their own reasons about Edwards...I always have to throw that in as a caveat...lol. ;-) )

And after I posted I remembered that one of the Big Government Programs that Lyndon Johnson put into place allowed thousands of American "Youth" to get "Student Loans" that enabled myself and hubby to get through college. College wasn't that expensive then...and the interest rate was low. That was a great program and should be credited to Johnson's "War on Poverty," and Dems of that era. I imagine that Obama got some money to get through Harvard on those funds since I don't think he came from a wealthy background.

that people in THE COUNTRY--not himself--felt that the excesses of the 60s and 70s were troubling, not him personally. That is an historical point, but not an ideological one. Certainly one can differ with his interpretation of history (for example, one can argue that the country moved in a different path because of baby boomers becoming settled in home ownership and PTAs or because the cynicism produced by the 70s made Reagan's cynicism about government resonant), but what Sen Obama is talking about is the country, not himself, and the cultural zeitgeist that allowed Reagan to make the changes he did.

Without trying to speak for him, I think that Sen Obama believes that the country is ripe for transformation again, just as it was in 1980, but that it will take a different direction. If you replace the "excesses of the 60s and 70s" with the "corruption and incompetence of the early part of this decade," it all becomes clear. It's a simple analogical structure.

Reagan is very much a hot button and he had to know that.

And he dissed Clinton in the process. I'm not one to have blind party loyalty, but I strongly believe he had an agenda with this. One I am very uncomfortable with. He's been my second choice.

is the language that he uses. In many of his statements, I see a viewpoint that government is part of the problem, not part of the solution. And that's a very conservative or even Republican way of looking at things. Even though she's been bought out by the establishment, Clinton still uses the language of an old-fashioned liberal - who sees government as a *solution* for the problems that the country faces. So that's why I do trust Clinton more than Obama. They've both basically been poll-tested to death, but in the language that they use, I think we can get an idea of how they will govern.

Is his way of saying that government is part of the problem?

It's the implication - gov. is "uncool" and staid and boring, and we need to make it cool again by creating "change" and "bringing people to the table" (to do what is never specified). This message really works equally well for a Dem or a Rep, & it's quite similar to the message of Reagan and even Bush circa 2000. Change, uniter not a divider, get good people, HOPE, optimism, etc. But Obama never really gets into what he wants government to DO. And I suspect that this is because he's not really a fan of government as an institution or as a mechanism for improving people's lives. Whenever he speaks, Obama talks about bringing change & creating a new direction, and I wait for that moment when Obama actually says what he wants to change about government & what new direction he wants the country to move in. That moment never comes.

Those were Reagan's words. He was an anti-government activist. Obama wants to make government "cool" because he wants to see it actually transform people's lives. People forget, I think, that in the middle of Reagan's horrific presidency Obama was working in Chicago's housing projects, seeing the results of Reaganomics closer than almost anyone.

Because we heard what Obama said loud and clear today, and we know full well what kind of president that bag of filth was.

I am EXTREMELY dissapointed.

Not Banned Yet

.

Taken objectively and in the ways he meant them, they were perfectly fine statements. I'm not sure what was upsetting about this. But thanks for the link, so that I was able to hear for myself what happened today.

There is not one single thing Reagan ever did for the better of this country , not one thing . He began to tear this country apart begining with de-regulation and union busting . This went on to tear down and destroy all sorts of social sevices including closing institutions and tossing mental patients out in the streets , there were suddenly all over the streets where I live .

To bring up Reagan is equal to bring up GW where both are comparable in their destruction of this country .

Obama talks about accesses , those who are un-familar with Reagan please go to google and search out the facts . There is no way Obama can reverse what he has said unless some other hopeful comes up with something even more insane like Huck did , but there are limits even to insanity .

I think he thinks that and believes that...but he doesn't GET that those of us who lived under Reagonomics and STILL live under it...are sick and tired of "SUPPLY SIDE Reaganomics...Bubble and Bust, Bubble and Bust"...and that there are many of us who VOTE who feel he is TRASHING our LEGACY...WHAT WE FOUGHT FOR for SO LONG...against so many Obstacles.

I'm sure OBAMA knows this...but some of his "Handlers" have GONE OFF trying to "RUN HIM" to just have him appeal to the "Youth Vote" when ALL AMERICANS are what I thought his message was supposed to appeal to.

Trashing the "60's and 70's Folks" might bring him in the Under 40 year old voters...but it's Very Divisive...which I thought went against what OBAMA is running on... ? :shrug:

I think he has some "Handlers" that are screwing up... I hope he deals with them.

Then he mush take full responsibility for his statements . If he choses to pander then he's screwing the Dem base .

illustrate CHANGE that really helped the country...Democratic change, instead of resurrecting that F*cking bastard REAGAN, whose name should NEVER been brought to the forefront except to BASH WHOLEHEARTEDLY.

I'm not voting for Obama or Hillary....God, he's just getting on my nerves!!

Program or the past. I was young once...and (I still think I'm young) but Obama's Marketers are positioning him as the NEW AMERICA...FORGET THE PAST! I think that postioning him that way loses him votes by those of us who are STILL ACTIVISTS...after all these years...and we vote and are involved and we do our best to keep "fighting the fight."

Maybe the "Youth Vote" can carry the '08 ELECTION....Maybe they are the ones who will carry him over the top. But, trashing the rest of the voters by not acknowledging the "legacy" could cause some problems for him down the road...if he wins. Because it says he doesn't UNDERSTAND the "GREATIST" in Dems Presidential History and there will be groups who will see that who will think about it and work against him.

Maybe he will BE the NEW MESSIAH for GLOBAL COMMUNITY...but...some of us have heard the "whisperings of the Sirens" in Politics for years. The disenchanted....find other outlets.

I wish he could have been better than the direction he is going with this Reagan Worship...for CHANGE...Reagan Change?

are in fact too young to have actually lived through the Reagan era - I think he believes it's a calculated risk to help win over even more of that age group, knowing there's no "hard drive of nightmarish memories" that these kids will be forced to think about when he brings Reagan up.

just the concept of change without any detail of substance or direction - that its just another cyclical part of our political landscape.

I want change from the nightmare that is the last seven years. I don't perceive this administration as establishment that is unreceptive to its citizens - I perceive it as a wild, WILD, departure from anything remotely cyclical or normal or reasonable. Any suggestion that Bush Jr. fits in with the previous administrations is absolutely absurd.

We don't need a president that will put an end to the business-as-usual style of government because the last seven years have been anything but!

I keep looking for how he will deal with Wall St. Criminals, Big Pharma in deals with FDA and killing folks out their with drugs they withold information about...and Infrastructure...and how we pay down our National Debt without having Sovereign Wealth Funds (Communists and Terrorists as Jim Cramer of CNBC calls them) buying up AMERICA!

So many problems we have..that I don't have time to list here...but HOW will OBAMA did us OUT OF THIS..without a NEW BUBBLE? What if the Fat has hit the FAN...and it's PAYMENT TIME..when he gets into Office? What if all the REPUG/SUPPLY SIDERS WET DREAMS suddenly go into MELT DOWN?

What would OBAMA DO...except re-visit some "HOPE FOR AMERICA...SHINING CITY ON THE HILL...Reaganomics" we've all have found is DEVASTATION FOR AMERICAN PEOPLE...those Consumers and Service Workers and WalMart Greeters and the rest of us Business People just TRYING TO HANG ON? :shrug:

and are looking to throw us overboard rather than have to pay for our Social Security and Medicare. They also want Boomers to retire so they can get their jobs. Obama is appealing to that demographic.

The reality is that we didn't get everything, unless we were born into wealthy families, whose children always get what they want. In some ways, we had a harder time than our parents did because there are so many of us that competition to get into college and later for jobs was fierce. We couldn't live on one income, the way our parents did, even though we had fewer children than they did. But I've never heard any Boomers say they resented their parents for those reasons. It was just how life went; they had a better economy than we did.

It's just trendy in some circles to dis Boomers these days. Pretty sad, I think.

to have as President, as we protested.
Because we had one TV, one car, and a transistor radio.
We didn't have the 4-bedroom, 2 1/2 bath homes like the one I now own---after living in a row-house for ten years on 2 teachers' salaries.

The TRUTH? They hate us for our Beatles!

Because, hey, you never know EXACTLY who your constituency will be in the future.

Instead, Obama disparaged even Bill Clinton's balanced budget and peacetime, let alone LBJ and FDR's, by asserting that RR's changes were somehow more profound (in a way they were, but Obama makes no distinction between hideous changes and good ones).

So---He looks to RR as his change-model, and he pooh-poohs my generation's struggles and accomplishments.

Thanks, Barack.

balanced budget and peacetime. What he says about Clinton's election is that it was not transformational and, by virtue of the fact that he was unable to undertake a progressive "revolution" as Reagan did for conservatives, he is correct.

and did NOT do so for the last 2-term Democratic president in decades.

If you think his listeners care about his nuance, you and he (if, indeed, he wants his nuance noted), IMHO, over-estimate the public's analytical abilities.

I think in the quotation he says that Reagan understood the nation's mood for change and used it to his advantage. Ron Reagan Jr seems to agree with my understanding of it, too:

"They both came along at times when society was on the cusp of change and they are both agents of change," Ron Reagan Jr, told the Huffington Post. "As far as Barack Obama being a similar agent of change, that remains to be seen. But what I do see him saying is that we are in a historical moment right now like the 60s and 80s. And I think he's right. We are overdue for a cultural shift."

And, just like Clinton, too. Slogans and no substance.

Maybe it's just the way people have to run any more but it's intellectually repugnant.

I guess I'm going to be spending a lot of time in the photography forum soon. :(

he's kind of a tool

Oye, he's a simpleton.

the 1960's. That is one reason why the Rethugs love him so much. They hate the Clintons and everyone else because they respect the work that was done break the back of the pro-suppression conservative environment of the times before.

Youth voters aren't exactly "plugged in" to the Reagan Revolution.

A reasonable top limit on the "youth vote" as talked about in demographics is 30 years old. Someone who is 30 today would have been 11 years old when Reagan left office 19 years ago. Someone who is 18 today wasn't even born yet, they were born during Bush Sr.'s term.

Reagan cultism appeals to late-baby-boom and early-gen-X moderates and conservatives, not to young liberals. Young liberals tend to look back on the 60s and 70s positively, not negatively. I'm 23, and I know that throughout high school and college, 60s and 70s retro fashion was quite popular. We idolize the civil rights era leaders like Dr. MLK Jr., JFK, RFK, Malcolm X, Che Guevara. We hate the 80s and everything that came out of it.

Even if Obama were praising Reagan (he wasn't), how exactly is that supposed to play well with the young crowd?

the young evangelical Republicans who are told that Reagan was almost a saint. Appeal to Republicans and Republican youth who have him as a hero...might be what Obama's consultants are urging him to do. Or, maybe Obama seriously admires Reagan. :shrug:

--than there ever was in the 60s and 70s. Another Obama dogwhistle message that government in the service of repression and militarism isn't quite as bad as government in the service of the general public.

God complex. Don't we already have one of those in the White House? Obama scares me and I think people better start looking past the glossy veneer and start really paying attention to him in toto.