I'd be more impressed with those bashing Obama over his "Reagan" remark...

If so many of them weren't campaigning for the New York Senator who's running to Obama's right. Not much to his right, but enough to question their motives and sincerity.

Especially since so many of them also backed the lawsuit designed to make it much harder for working people of color to vote in the Nevada caucuses.

I don't back Obama, but this is just getting lame, folks.

lame.

I'm really split on whom to support - so I'm not prejudice toward any of the candidates in particular. I keep fluctuating on my choice, and right now I'm not sure at all.

Do you have a link to what he actually said? I'll read it and tell you what I think.

ok well, i was 6 years old when reagan was elected, but i remember what i learned in government and history classes. everything he says in that clip can be verified and supported with facts. reagan WAS a unifying and iconographic figure for the republicans and as such had the support needed to affect much sweeping change.

from that statement i glean obama wants to be the liberals' answer to the conservatives' reagan. nowhere does he say he admires reagan's policies and positions. i have common sense enough to know it's understood obama does not agree with, condone or admire reagan's policies. i mean come ON! their ideologies are diametrically opposed.

that said, somehow, some way, reagan hit on a magic formula for touching people and eliciting their admiration and trust that propelled him into the political stratosphere. obama wants to be the one to do that now. what's wrong with that?

...he was charismatic. I personally don't like Reagan's policies, but I don't deny that he communicated well, and did usher in a time of change - unfortunately worse for many people. Reagan did connect with many, many people because of his personal qualities.

I think that's the thrust of what Obama's saying. He wasn't alive during Kennedy's time, so what other leader since then had an ounce of charisma? For Obama's (and my) generation, Reagan is a point of reference.

That's what I think. And I still don't know whom I'd support. Probably doesn't matter much because it will be decided before my state votes.

"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."

After all, Ollie and Poindexter and the tribe actually did get charged with crimes. Didn't stick, but they did get charged.

"I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what is different is the times. I do think that, for example, the 1980 election 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. They felt like with all the excesses of the 60s and the 70s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think he tapped into what people were already feeling. Which is we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."

Clearly, Obama is talking about Reagan as a politically effective figure, NOT saying that he liked Reagan's agenda. You can acknowledge that Reagan WAS effective without endorsing the stuff he did. It's like the TIME "Person of the Year" award, which, as everyone misunderstands, is about the importance of someone over the previous year, not a stamp of approval of WHY that person was important.

Obviously this thought is too complicated for many people to follow. Go figure.

Give me Edwards or Obama over the Princess of Peace any day of the week.

When El Perro Grande based his whole political style on aping the Gipper(mixed with JFK and a bit of Elvis, mind you, but still...)

Johnny is my number 2, and I hope he wins in Nevada.

I haven't figured out - other than a ploy to get crossover votes. UGH!

Obama was talking about politics, effective politics, and Reagan's political strategies were extremely effective. So effective we are still suffering under the disastrous results today. Obama does not agree with Reagan's policies. He would not turn to Reagan's policies. What he wants to do is build an effective majority for the left the way Reagan did for the right.

effective politician he was?

I just don't like what Obama said.

lame. An unfortunate rumination on Mr. Obama's part ... but it does appear to me he was evaluating Reagan's ability to forge a coalition and a consensus, rather than advocating Reagan policies. Just my thoughts on the matter.

But enough of this reasonableness! What am I doing? My man is behind in the polls! I must attack, Attack, ATTACK!!!!

OBAMA IS A SKULL AND BONES REPUBLICAN INFILTRATOR!!!!

:sarcasm:

I'm just saying let's deal with the real issues.

There are real issues at stake here ... and different approaches to dealing with them. And it is on that basis we should choose our sides.

All these guys are gonna gaffe and wander into the mental weeds from time to time now. Take a look at them. Obama, Edwards, Clinton have all been working their asses off. Round the clock. For weeks. They are tired, and fully engaged in a struggle to win the nomination. We have to expect sharp elbows and harsh words from time to time, and every now and then the odd ill considered comment. These comments should be considered ... but I suggest we be careful not to attach too much weight to them.

I do not doubt the sincerity of any of these candidates. Since I do not know any of them personally, it is hard for me to judge them on a detailed assessment of their character. All I can really do is look at their platforms, and look at how they present them. I did so. I made my choice. I am happy with it. But I have not closed my ears or eyes ...

I would hope that supporters of Clinton and Obama have made their choices similarly. I think those of us who have are reluctant to make over much of matters like this, for we recognize they are not necessarily signficant.

I don't know, but I'd bet there are strategic reasons for the comment.

I don't see Clinton as being "to Obama's right," fwiw. Their policy positions/proposals are very similar.

the right. Their votes have been similar, when he's bothered to vote. He votes present mostly. Then you can't yell at the bad votes.

wasn't all chummy with Reagan's vice-president, a man who was later president and started our little venture in Iraq, and who's son later hijacked the country and went to finish what his daddy started, but completely fucked it up.

I'm an Edwards supporter, and although I wish Obama hadn't said what he said, it's just politics people. It's not good politics in my opinion, but it's politics all the same. All the collective condemnation of that one remark is rather petty.

However, it seems that Obama's supporters, but I hope not Obama himself, don't understand the depth of the hatred some of us still have for St. Ronnie.

I could not read the front page of any newspaper for two years after that empty suit took office.

Even now, just the mention of his name drives me just insane, even more than the Shrub.

All I want in Nevada is an honest vote, and I don't know what the hell is going on.

However, as a former union-side lawyer, I know that things are not all nicey-nicey when there's a lot at stake.

Some people will do anything to win, and it is not a personal attack on either of the candidates or their supporters.

If it's not clean in Nevada, we Dems will never hear the end of it.

If you think there's evil in that position, so be it.

The words aren't good, and I don't think much of the strategy behind using the "R" word.

I assure you that I'll hear it later, but I doubt that I will change my mind.

This guy reminds me of the folks in the fancy law school I went to. All entitled and too slick by half. I wouldn't vote for any of the folk I knew there, and it was as close to the big H as you can get without being there. Obama hasn't convinced me that he's any different from all those men and women that I wished I'd never met, including the ones who ran the legal publication emanating therefrom.

How's that.

Yeah, "entitled" and "slick" guys work as community organizers on the South Side of Chicago. They practice civil rights law and teach instead of hooking on with a high-end corporate firm.

Again, I don't need the lecture. I went to a less than prestigious law school, most of my clients are the working poor, and I earned my Democratic stripes in then-very red NH in the 1980s. I have no problem whatsoever with Obama's remarks. Anyone who actually listens to his words or reads his remarks can see that he was not making a value-based comparison of Reagan vs. Clinton, but commenting on the long-term political and social transformations that each administration brough about. Clinton was a better president, but he didn't leave a lasting mark on the larger political landscape. Reagan was wrong 99.7% of the time, but there are thousands of people my age who came of age during the Reagan era and maintained sympathy for the Republicans because of an affection for Reagan's style.

And not all the people I'm talking about went with a high-end corporate firm.

I've heard your lecture time and time again here on DU, mostly from you folks who came of age in the '80s, have less personal experience with Presidents, and also seem to have suffered some pretty bad teachers of history. Remember, we oldies were alive in the '80s, too, and I'll never forgive him for the things he did for which we will literally pay for as long as I live. But I'm sure you know all that.

We see the world differently, and the Obama candidacy seems to aggravate the divide.

I see no point in continuing this discussion.

I saw Reagan for exactly what he was. Trash. Rich trash, but trash nonetheless.

but it's always nice hearing the actual words, before making a comment on the speaker's intent.

The video clip didn't change any of the meaning of the words, IMHO.

You candidate is a smart guy, and obviously chooses his words well.

It's hard not to doubt the sincerity of those who are obvious Hillary supporters.

If they had actually done something productive back in the Reagan era. My best friend, an Obama supporter, told me today that "I worked 20 hours a day for Walter friggin' Mondale. I think I earned my anti-Reagan credibility"!

I was volunteering for Democrats when I was a high school student back in the 1980s. II was arrested protesting apartheid at the South African embassy in 1985. The last thing I need is a lecture from a 26 year old Hillary drone about how I am a stealth Republican because I have the nerve to support a Democrat other than the chosen one.

I don't see how you people support Clinton and attack Obama for his remarks with a straight face.

I wish you would expound on that and make a separate post. There are quotes from his book that go directly to that point, that we got a lot of negotiating to the right during the 90's because Clinton hadn't verbalized a set of values that would take us in a new direction. Large parts of what was implemented in the 90's was a continuation of Reagan/Bush policy.

I don't believe I backed any lawsuit, although I dislike caucuses on principle.

Please show me one post where I did this "backed the lawsuit designed to make it much harder for working people of color to vote in the Nevada caucuses". I have plainly laid out my reasons for Obama and Reagan.

Seems to me you just wanted to take a swipe at Hillary for whatever reason, and it looks bad on you to make the assumption that you did in your OP. So forgive me if I say your thread is lame.

No one is advocating for the ability to "make it much harder for working people of color to vote"

People have to work at locations that they arent allowed to caucus at = bad idea
Giving one caucus location more weight per number of people present than at another locations = bad idea

What those spinning the voter disenfranchisement stuff fail to comprehend, is that we expect that Hillary will be getting a large chunk of the votes of those people in the at-large caucuses.

It's state politics and union bickering that's at the root of the problem. And it needs to be fixed.

Looking at a side by side comparison of Obama and Hillary on the issues, Obama edges slightly further right of Hillary as it applies to policy issues. I was surprised as most people about this fact, since Obama seems to have an air of progressiveness about himself. But the truth is, his rhetoric doesn't match his policy proposals. Look it up.

And FWIW, I'm about as lefty as they get, so I am not under an illusion that any of the top three match the majority of my views. But I have decided to place my early bet on Hillary for the win, since she has the wherewithal, confidence and tactical knowledge to take on the GOP machine and win.

Obama's ratings are much stronger in those categories.

I speaks to Mercer's ultimate electibility.