Sorry but you guys are really making fools of yourselves.

I stayed away yesterday hoping cooler heads would regain the GDP. Flame me if you must. But these arguments about
Obama running on the Reagan platform are hopelessly ignorant. His point is about elections not policies. Yes Obama is a
centrist candidate. Hillary is a centrist candidate. And for that matter so is Edwards. He speaks a great line about populism.
It was not reflected in his Senate campaign in NC or in his Senate record. He, too, in reality is a centrist. The only true
progressive is Kucinch. He, is for the most, part my political match. I have donated money to both his 04 campaign and
to this one. I want him to get out his message. I am enough of a pragmatist to know the country is not listening.

I am enough of a pragmatist to know that many Republicans and Independents are listen to Obama. He is our only candidate
that they are listening to in significant numbers. I want us to win with a majority large enough to matter, large enough to effect
real change. To get this kind of change, we need these voters, whether you like it or not.

Emotions are running high here. Our country has been under the spell of the Republican ogre for so long that I can understand people being
supersensitive to any mention of our nemesis, Ronald Reagan. I also understand exactly what Obama is saying about transformative political shifts
and how it is our turn to create one, one which will benefit the citizens of this country, not one that worked to the benefit of the power structure
at the expense of the people. I have arguing this for weeks on DU.

I think it is subtle and not as easily understood as I would hope. I have decided that is because we have been so traumatized by the harsh political
climate of our times and find it difficult to not be reactive and partisan.

I strongly believe that Obama is right about this opportunity for shift. I know that if it is to happen, it will take a candidate that is a fresh as
Obama is to do it. This is sadly, as much as I wish it were otherwise, something that Hillary or even Edwards cannot do. Hillary is just too
polarizing and Edwards has been around too long.

and a VP run?

What the OP means is, "Don't trust anyone over 50!"

Wait...that doesn't make sense either

we would have already seen it. It is Obama that draws the attention of moderate Republicans and the most independents.
Edwards clearly draws the interest of many independents, but not as many as Obama has.

Edward voters, take it easy with your reactivity. Edwards is my second choice. I think he has some great ideas.
Although I am not comfortable with his legislative record. It seems to belie his message.

I repeat I think Obama is the person who will draw the most voters from outside our party. Is not that what we
want?

So from now until the end of time our Democrats can pander to their insanities?
Sorry. They can keep their culls. We don't want them either.

I don't buy any inflamatry talking point. In fact, I hate you-tube viral Internet politics.

I ask you this though. Please ask some Obama supporters to stop defending Reagan's policy.
And stop minimized the horrible Reagan legacy such as AIDS.

Hertopos

:shrug:

You're taking small snippets of a long interview out of context if you think Obama supports Reagan's policies. :banghead:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4091712&mesg_id=4091712

I repeat. I have no problem with all this You Tube thing. That's you tube as much as all fuss about Hillary and MLK thing, I don't care.

However, in this thread, there is a person who went to far for Reagan.

Hertopos

Obama supporters are not defending Reagan. I'm starting to wonder at your game here.

Krishna, krishna... Kerry, Kerry...

Hope you can bear the flames! :)

Nice going.

They want their little idol to win.

You can't reason with such people.

he will take the votes from the pukes and indies but then govern as a Democrat.

The enemy is listening to him and liking what they are hearing. How is that supposed to instill in liberals any faith that he will do anything positive?

I have the same problem with Clinton and Edwards, but at least they have not made it (compromise with the cons) so central to their appeal. That is all that Obama is saying - he will bring people together. No promises of any progressive agenda, just an indication that he will do everything he can to include the cons and pukes. What about the Democrats?

Whether we liberals like it or not, centrism holds the prize of victory for either party.
Where Obama breaks from the pack, is he shows an ability to pull more voters from
the moderate right and center. You are wise to ask then what would he do with
this support.

To answer that we need to look to his record and to his policy statements.
I would call him a progressive centrist. He is more connected to big business,
the nuclear and coal industries, and the insurance companies than I would like.
And that concerns me as it does with HRC as well. Yet he does have a progressive
tone to his message and to his legislative record.

Still the most important theme in his campaign is the promise to govern as
a leader of all of us. That means that we as a people are would be asked to redefine ourselves.
That we see ourselves as one people again. Now that seems hard in this fractious political climate
that has bathed us all for nearly three decades. I believe this transformation is not only possible; I believe it
imperative for our survival as a nation.

Your post asks an important question. Can we trust him to have our best interests at heart?
Of course, that is the most important question that any of us can ask about any candidate.
And each of us has to make that decision individually. You asked me. I say despite my concerns
about his centrism and business support, I am ready to take the risk, because up to this point
nothing else is working and we, as, a country are sinking fast.

Thanks for asking such an significant and thoughtful question.

I'm just enjoying the show... :popcorn:

(P.S. I strongly believe that all of this "Obama supports Reagan" based on those comments, is good news for Obama)

mean that somebody else is dumb or incompetent and that the "Sorry" poster is the one who intends to enlighten the world.

I am just egotistical enough to think that there is an amazing amount of irrationality in this place,
and that there are a few here, who could be enlightened.

after 8 years of the worst president in modern history, and reagan is very close second for that title. obama's pandering is just plain stupid, given that reality.

It's like a GOP playground around here.