BO suffers from moments of transcendence, and I happy that HRC is there for the reality smack down

Before I get into my reasoning, for the interest of full disclosure, I will say two things about myself that may, or may not, color my mind set. First, I do not watch msm. Second, I have no dog in the fight between BO and HRC.

BO has those moments, where he forgets that he is running for the Democratic nominee for president. We all have those feel good moments. Those moments of vision that tells us, hell, with just a little change in perspective, there really isn’t much difference between us all, and can’t we just be friends. But what BO is forgetting, is that Dems have spent years in the trenches, being shit on by Repugs programs and ideology. This to me is forgivable, as long as he stops it. HRC is there to give him a reality check. I thank her for that because I don’t know how much more of this type of talk I can take without completely being demoralized and not being able to vote for him if he is the nominee. I can take so much. I have only so much tolerance, understanding and sympathy. And I don’t care if BO said ‘good’ or ‘bad’ ideas. Hair splitting is hair splitting. BO, a piece of advice, the primary is young, STFU about the Repugs in this context. Please Please

Very Debbie Downer like.

I certainly would not label her in the "optimist" category. Her "realism" tells people that the system is the system and forget trying to change it. Forget trying to get the influence of lobbyists out of the system. Everyone does it she says.

Blech.

She is ok with the selling of Washington. end of story.

called him on it. Honestly, believe it or not, it's a good thing.

Coming to an Endorsement Announcement really soon.

I saw earlier a post to the effect that Ted was anointed king of the Party - by an irony impaired fan.It even went as far to harp on Ted's far superior personal ethics to bill - and to seal the cluelessnes - on the crucial importance of "delivering Massachusets"

anyone this primary season.

himself up for the latest.

.......And I don’t care if BO said ‘good’ or ‘bad’ ideas. Hair splitting is hair splitting. BO, a piece of advice, the primary is young, STFU about the Repugs in this context. Please Please

Maybe Bill can SMEAR a real American Dynasty,too.

Backing Obama-Ted Sorenson

"At issue were remarks Mr. Obama made last week to The Reno Gazette-Journal. While he spoke positively of Reagan and described the Republicans as “the party of ideas,” he did not say that he admired Reagan.

“Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that, you know, Richard Nixon did not, and in a way that Bill Clinton did not,” Mr. Obama told the newspaper. “He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. He tapped into what people were already feeling, which is, we want clarity, we want optimism, we want, you know, a return to that sense of dynamism and, you know, entrepreneurship that had been missing.”

At the debate, Mr. Obama said that Mrs. Clinton had “provided much more fulsome praise” of Reagan in Tom Brokaw’s new book, “Boom!,” in which she is quoted as saying: “When he had those big tax cuts and they went too far, he oversaw the largest tax increase. He could call the Soviet Union the Evil Empire and then negotiate arms-control agreements. He played the balance and the music beautifully.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/22/us/politics/22truth.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Obama is accurately describing history. The country was ready for Reagan's ideas in 1980, as I for one was shocked to find when he won overwhelmingly. It was not just Carter who lost that day, all over the country prominent liberal Senators lost. It was a completely unexpected tidal wave. (Coincidently, this weekend, a friend of my husband's who volunteered for Culver was talking to us of how devastated they were watching the defeat of so many outstanding Senators.)

Here is the summary from Time. (their joy is way too apparent, but it does give the list of who lost):

"The results surprised even the most optimistic Republicans. They had counted on a gain of maybe four or five seats in the Senate. They ended up with an eleven and possibly twelve—enough to give them control of the chamber for the first time since 1954. And victory was all the sweeter since the election toppled most of the Senate's leading Democratic liberals: George McGovern in South Dakota, Frank Church in Idaho, Birch Bayh in Indiana, John Culver in Iowa, Warren Magnuson in Washington, Gaylord Nelson in Wisconsin, and John Durkin in New Hampshire. Only a few liberals managed to keep their seats: California's Alan Cranston and Missouri's Thomas Eagleton won easily, while Colorado's Gary Hart barely beat back his Republican challenger, Mary Estill Buchanan and Vermont's Patrick Leaky seemed to have won by a hair. Two other Democrats refused to concede defeat on Election Night: Elizabeth Holtzman of New York and Incumbent Robert Morgan of North Carolina."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,950490-1,00.html

It's a good thing MSM are not the actual voters (at least I hope so)

the Senators who lost in the 1980 elections. That list is fact. Time was the first place I found it and they did a decent job describing them - people can read through any bias. Many losers were GIANTS - McGovern, Bayh, Nelson etc. (even Javits, who though Republican was liberal).

the Repugs want to bring this up, then they should go for it. But for a Democratic Nominee to bring this up is just rubbing salt on wounds. This will turn dems against him. It is not appropriate. Believe me now or later, but I know your gonna believe me.

History is a series of pendulum swings. In the late 1970s, the country was looking for something different and they swang to the right. It was not just the election of Reagan, but the defeat of many of the best liberals we had. The case he is making is that after 28 years we are ready for the pendulum to swing back to different set of policies. In fact, 2006 may be seen as the start of that swing in retrospect.

I remember watching the 1980 results and remember how bad they were. Obama's words do not rub salt in that wound, much the opposite - he is proclaiming that if we make the case, we are on the verge of a swing back. I hope it is as strong as the movement in 1980 was. That would give the President the mandate to make the large scale changes needed. The next President could be as great as FDR in returning the country to values all of here would accept.

I have more trouble with HRC speaking of how Reagan knew to counteract the tax cuts with tax increases when needed. The problem is that he greatly decreased the taxes on the the richest people, then one of the biggest increases was in the much more regressive payroll taxes. I wouldn't give Reagan as much credit there.

Jersey's in da' bag, Hon !

Hillary will win big there.