BwaaaaWaaa! Obama beats the Repigs at their own game!

From now on, when Republicans think of Ronald Reagan, they will think of Barack Obama....who I hope will become the Democratic Nominee for the General Election.

Everytime that the Republican Nominee invokes the name of Ronald Reagan, the Repug listeners will think of Obama, the opponent. These voters will feel compelled to seek out what Obama has to say, just to see why this guy is even mentioning Reagan, their savior. Once they hear what he has to say, and/or go to his rallies .....cause one thing can be said about Obama; he gives speeches that brings tears to the eyes.....many will become Obama supporters.

They will also see Obama as strong....just like they did Reagan, who had no Foreign Policy experience was seen strong by those who care about such things...and elected him as there was the Iran Crisis occuring. Of course, they have credited Reagan for an awful lot in reference to Foreign policy that they still hold up.

It will also help him transcent his color with these voters...those who might normally have a problem with that (you know the Repigs)

All Obama needs now is for Ron Reagan liberal son to endorse him, and we are ready set to go.

I find this a delicious Irony! :rofl:

GOBAMA!

DISCLAIMER: T never liked Reagan, never voted for Reagan, never thought of Reagan in warm ways....so this is simply a political analysis...kind of like the one that Obama made.

they have heard it alright.

They haven't heard that Obama is a marked man for his comments though.

I wanted to add, that they won't look at him as a standard Democrat and discount him automatically.
that's also a good position for Obama to be in .

Obama in these days? Is he gaining converts to Democratic ideas or the Obama version of centrism-pandering??

or hadn't you heard. Its a stereotype that is very real. Why do you think that certain person are told not to come to campaign in certain states, etc....?

Obama has very Democratic ideals, that are actually quite more progressive than both of the Clintons, and yes, more progressive then even John Edwards.

The problem with a lot of voters who vote against their own interest and vote Republican, is that they have bought into the propaganda that Democrats are automatically this and that. Obama can rise above this stereotype......I do believe.

Doesn't hurt that is endorsements are from such diverse factions of our party. From Barbara Lee to Ben Nelson to Leahy to Tim Johnson to Kerry to McCaskill.

Just a wee bit harder.

He needs a strategy for expanding his image to be moderate and only the easy strawmen the GOP assault.

He said this statement would probably help Obama more than hurt him because the majority of people in this country
think that Reagan was a great president. (I hated him and thought his administration was a disaster for this country.)
Jonathan was saying that only the left has negative feelings for Reagan. He also said that Reagan is extremely popular
in California and this statement would definitely help him gain independent support out where you are.

He also said that most of the Union people in Nevada are young and do not share our animosity of Reagan either.
Given what Alter was saying, the people here who are making fools of themselves are just that foolish.

The kind of guy who votes "present"

but nice try, Billbuckhead. :rofl:

It's almost like :tinfoilhat:bama supporters fantasize about Republicans. The reality is that most Republicans are Republicans because they hate blacks and most other minorities. ever hear of the Republican "southern strategy"?

Cuz not all republicans think that way... obviously.

I live in Buckhead, one of the most diverse neighborhoods in America that also borders an Hispanic neighborhood and a Jewish neighborhood. Quit blaming the messenger.

The moderates and independents will.

The Republicans who will laugh at this aren't the ones Obama is after. The Democrats who can't swallow this as either a political move or a sincere bi-partisan gesture... aren't the ones Obama is after.

They are.

I cant count the number of Republicans I know personally, or post on various message boards that want the chance to vote for Obama instead of the losers the GOP is running.

If Hillary gets the nomination, you can forget those moderate Republicans from even thinking about voting for a Democrat.

They hate her.

and now, they have an excuse....and then Obama will do exactly like he said in that interview that folks don't want to hear to its end....enlist them in our fight to bring good progressive government back to this country.

What about a news interview? Please do tell.

Rallies win early primaries and caucuses. But elections?

Remember? :shrug:

It looks like Kerry and Edwards and they lost not only the Electoral College but the popular vote as well so I do not understand your point.

are you reading your posts?

Why wouldn't you have rallies to energize your supporters to get them out to vote?

And, OK.

Yes, of course, rallies occur during the general election. I did not mean to imply they didn't. I was saying they have more of an impact on a smaller scale, like in the run up to primaries and caucuses.

It's a win/win for them.

Obama enables and legitimizes their mythology- while at the same time causing a row among progressives.

They love it when candidates pander to the right, to people who in a million years will NEVER vote for them. It's been a beauty of a "strategy" for almost 14 years, and I'm sure the more astute are hoping for yet another replay.

Obama didn't pander right. He simple stated that Reagan's Presidency ushered a change in political idealogy...where the right became the center, and the center became the left....which is one of the reasons that a lot of folks here at DU ain't as liberal as one would expect, and have a closed mind.

You can continue to insist as to what people will do, and maybe if and when you are proven wrong, you can send me a note.

I would suggest that you don't underestimate anyone, even if they happen to be a Black 1 term senator from Illinois with a funny name. By the time Obama is through, is name will be an household name.

In this situation though- inagine how the Republicans will play the Reagan resurection cards if Obama got the nomination. Oh man, I can see the comparisons with the disgusting coded language now. And the race card's only one of the games they'll use.

Digby pretty well summed up what I was thinking when I first saw the comments-

the attitude that it is an outrageous horrible thing to even acknowledge that Reagan was a skillful politician who managed to completely transform politics in the last part of the 20th Century . . .

is one of the reasons that Ronald Reagan ate our lunch and managed to transform politics in the last part of the 20th Century.

It's stupid and short-sighted to be so blinded by hatred of Reagan that we cannot even rationally analyze his impact without being attacked. While Democrats were busy laughing at him, calling him dim-witted and unelectable, he was picking off voters, converting them to his side and sailing on to victory. I appreciate seeing a Democrat who can step back and take a clear-eyed look at him.

I noticed this thread. If I understand your original premise, Obama is memejacking Reagan in the brains of Republicans (and Reagan Democrats). OK, even Digby seems to be thinking along similar lines. If that is a case, does it not seem reasonable to assume that there would be an equal but opposite reaction on the other side of the political spectrum? In fact, a mud fight with progressives would further the goal of memejacking (R) brains, because Obama would be on their side of the fence. Seems like politics to me.

However, it is not a bit insincere to complain about that predictable outrage? It isn't as simple as a 'union line' with Reagan, too many people and things died on his watch for it to be so simplistic or one dimensional. So please, if you must frame this controversy in "beating them at their own game" then take your predictable lumps with more grace.

If Obama really trusted his ideas and his message he wouldn't need to resort to such low tactics.

By proof, who did you project would win Iowa?

Maybe next we should compare SAT scores. :eyes:

We'll wait.

What's next? an attack on Democrats? Barack Lieberman

You're mad that the only thing Hillary can do is galvenize Repigs to go vote against her, maybe? :shrug:

That's not my fault.

just a Democrat, who often objects to the vile nature of the obama campaign

YOu call it vile, but that doesn't mean it is.

Obviously you have a stick up your ass in reference to Barack Obama. I'm sorry about that, but I cannot help you. It is not my job. :shrug:

completely so in awe of this man, you cant see past the rose tinted glasses, none of us have to agree but can you actually take the blinkers off for one minute.

I'm a big Hillary supporter and I can see things she has gone wrong with but what i cant stand is a politician claiming to be whiter than white and saying i'll change things when tbh he's just a run off the mill same old politician. He panders to whatever crowd he's in and plays shifty games and then stands back and goes, nothing to do with me.

A wolf in sheeps clothing. At least I can be more comfortable with a politician that goes, yeah Im a politician but at least i'll say it straight to your face.

Obama to me is a man who i have no idea who he really is, i've read the books, and i still cant see what he stands for with all the rcent stuff he's done.

A politician is bad enough, an appeasing panderer is the worst kind.

You live in a fantasy dearie

A lot of those republicans that liked Reagan will in no way ever vote for a black man, and i can tell you a lot of them will be pissed that he's invoking their name to gain political points, it may just backfire in his face to be honest.

Just like Black people could probably never win Academy awards in your world....let alone run for the highest office in the land and pose a challenge to a 20 year political machine called Clinton.

Keep thinking about what people can and cannot do....with your badass self.

Its at that point now where the slightest hiccup will bring you down. This is potentially one of them.

In the Red/purple states alone, thus far, Obama has won the endorsements of Sens. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and former Sen. Gary Hart of Colorado, and Govs. Jim Doyle of Wisconsin, Tim Kaine of Virginia and Janet Napolitano of Arizona.

And the electoral stats show that in 2000 and 2004, George W. Bush carried North Dakota with 60.7 percent and 62.9 percent of the vote. A Democratic presidential candidate has not carried the state since 1964. Bush carried South Dakota with 60.3 and 59.9. It has not voted Democratic in a presidential election since 1964. Bush carried Missouri with 50.4 and 53.3. This bellwether state has voted with the winner in every election but one (1956) in the last 100 years. Bush carried Nebraska with 62.2 and 65.9. It last voted Democratic in 1964. Bush carried Colorado with 50.8 and 51.7. It last voted Democratic in 1992. Bush carried Arizona with 51 and 54.9. It last voted Democratic in 1996. Bush carried Virginia with 52.5 and 53.7. It last voted Democratic in 1964. Bush narrowly lost Wisconsin with 47.6 and 49.3.

I wonder why they didn't endorse Whiter Clinton or Edwards? Seem like they would love having a popular former President's wife or a "real" White southern guy sitting at the top of their ticket instead, according to your world. Almost makes one want to scratch one's ass, hey?

WTF was he thinking.

if he didn't pull a Reagan out of his hat.

Let's be blunt.

Indeed, Obama's making a shrewed move to differentiate himself from the other two candidates who mainstream america DO consider "too liberal." However sincerely Clinton has moved to the middle, 40-45% of americans simply hate her and will never budge on that. Edwards is perceived as very radical by mainstream america.

Obama is trying to appear centrist and more independent. A united with a vision for ALL america.

Blah blah blah.

Invoking Reagan is risky, because it can undercut him with much of the core Dem base who reject any step outside the partisan union line (let's be honest). However, I think his own base is different from Clinton or Edwards' bases. He can actually afford to do this and is the one pulling in independents and long lost democrats tired of the partisanship.

Indeed, he's associated himself with Reagan's Legacy which isnt the same as with Reagan himself.

Imagine somebody invoking Lincoln in a Presidential debate in October, and the opponent then trying to rip apart Lincoln on technical historical points about his imperfections, personal problems, policy contradictions, etc. Nobody wants to hear that crap. We have a story about Lincoln and we're gonna friggin stick to it.

It's like trying to invoke MLK, Gandhi, Mother Theresa... WHATEVER... in a way that undermines their legacy. This isn't academia. This isn't a history forum on CSPAN. This is a Presidential election with a populace that can barely find USA on a map. They don't want to hear attacks on Reagan about how he wasn't a great President. Not anymore.

Even older DEMOCRATS don't care to get into that debate... again.

The idea that Obama can get up there and suggest that Reagan's ability to unite america and change course is something the Clinton campaign cannot undo. That's why they immediately praised Reagan, as well.

The hardcore partisans who cannot rationally accept any nice words about a Republican will hold this against him, but Obama isn't banking on that group anymore. This group, including the Clintons, have shown themselves to be more concerned with rabid partisanship than the truth. This group ignored, denied and then defended race baiting, voter suppression, etc. It's time to move the party beyond this way of thinking.

...we think how that asshole fucked up our country and why the fuck is Obama trying to suck up to him.

Obama has so lost my support for these primaries. And I'm ashamed of any democrat who tries to spin this Ronald Reagan comment as something good. I lived thru the Reagan years - don't you or anyone else tell me this is a good thing.