Obama Camp Hits Back At Hillary's Reagan Criticism

Comments (175)

Steve LaBonne wrote on January 18, 2008 3:56 PM:

Ouch. Sommuch for the idea that Obama doesn't know how to play hardball.

Dave C wrote on January 18, 2008 3:57 PM:

Actually, I think he should hit back harder than that. Hopefully he will.

Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 3:59 PM:

ooh...that's rich, I'm starting to wonder which one is more out of control

Rudy "911" Guiliani or Barry "Was a against it before I voted to fund it" Obambi

pkoso wrote on January 18, 2008 4:01 PM:

this isn't really in response to this post, but raise your hand if you're tired of clinton's distortions? she can't beat obama in the battle for ideas/rhetoric/even policy...so she resorts to the standard political BS of insulting voter intelligence via repeated distortions. she's pathetic to me.

eric wrote on January 18, 2008 4:02 PM:

But it is just a deflection. Does he like Reagan or not? It would be pretty easy for him to deny it. I think he should. It would shut people up if he just said that he didn't mean to compliment Reagan, he hated what Reagan did, and so forth.

Tapper wrote on January 18, 2008 4:02 PM:

Obama says:
"When it meant getting elected I was opposed to the war but since being in the Senate I've voted for EVERY war appropriation to come down the pike.
Oh, and to prove what I mean about those good Republican ideas, I voted for the Patriot Act too!"

Tom wrote on January 18, 2008 4:04 PM:

pkoso,
I'll raise my hand to that.
I'm slightly disappointed in this response by Burton because it doesn't call out Hillary for twisting Obama's words.

Rob wrote on January 18, 2008 4:04 PM:

Good start, but he's needs to hit back even harder. I mean he should just come out and call her a fundamentally dishonest politician.

nisleib wrote on January 18, 2008 4:04 PM:

pkoso, my hand is raised.

Good on Obama. He should pummel Hillary about her war vote, it was stupid.

joejoejoe wrote on January 18, 2008 4:04 PM:

Did I imagine Bill Clinton and George W. Bush touring around the globe like Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis these past 4 years?

diogu wrote on January 18, 2008 4:05 PM:

Ouch.
The Clintons look amateurish everyday. What happened to the so-called Clintons vintage political machine?

CT Voter wrote on January 18, 2008 4:06 PM:

this isn't really in response to this post, but raise your hand if you're tired of clinton's distortions?

Yes. Her distortions, her campaign's distortions, and all the distortions from Clinton supporters.

"katie" over in the other thread argues that this demonstrates how tough and strong and unbeatable Clinton is. To me, it demonstrates that she will fit in quite perfectly in the septic tank that is Washington, D.C. And I don't mean that as a compliment.

pkoso wrote on January 18, 2008 4:06 PM:

anonymous...

are you unable to make a distinction between an anti-war position and a need/responsibility to fund the military *IN THE FIELD*? why is this such a difficult proposition for you folks? i was against the war from the start...but can understand the need to ensure resources for the simple purposes of security/safety during the conduct of military operations (and hopefully the withdrawal of troops). is this too subtle for you yahoos?

frankly0 wrote on January 18, 2008 4:08 PM:

Ouch, ouch! Uncle, uncle! Please make it stop hurting, Mr. Obama campaign!

Wow, Obama campaign, God knows we haven't heard that Iraq war line before, and the triangulation stuff.

You guys really do think you can just dish out the same lameass, piss-warm pablum for every meal, don't you?

Steve LaBonne wrote on January 18, 2008 4:09 PM:

Good start, but he's needs to hit back even harder. I mean he should just come out and call her a fundamentally dishonest politician.

Actually I think he went about it the smart and effective way. Nobody but us lunatics around here really cares about tit-for-tat exchanges about who twisted whose words. But lots of Democrats have a real problem with Hillary's never-really-repudiated support for Bush's war.

Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 4:10 PM:

Wow, how dare you attack me, I am against the war from the beginning! Disgusting! Does this man have anything else to throw out? As most as disgusting as Giuliani's ceaseless claim of his "9/11" contribution. This man is as shallow as the street after a brief shower! gimme a break.

Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 4:10 PM:

I don't think he wants to back away from his remarks, thus why the reply doesn't say she misinterpreted. His machine is slicker than hers, though many will argue his appeal is it doesn't exist. He knew what he was saying and wants it to stand knowing full well it would be misinterpreted, that was the intent. His supporters would argue him out of first degree murder, he can't lose them, plus this helps in the general. You don't hear a lot of Edwards/Clinton supporters screaming "I won't vote for him in the general". I still suspect Obama will win this nomination.

Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 4:11 PM:

Hillary makes me sick. This vicious harpy had better not turn girly-girl if she wins the nomination, but actually, it doesn't matter: she has no shot whatsoever against McCain. Nice job, Hillbots. Thanks in advance for Bush Part Three.

Ted wrote on January 18, 2008 4:11 PM:

I think I've had enough of this primary season. It was so much nicer a month or two ago when we were divided by straightforward R/D partisan hatred, instead of stylistic nuance and personal rancor.

I used to *like* HRC. Now my head has been spun so many different ways I can't even see straight.

joejoejoe wrote on January 18, 2008 4:11 PM:

Oops.. I meant "H.W." above.

ABC News, 12/27/05: "I'm an old-fashioned guy," said Bush. "I still think politics is a noble calling. I believe most people in politics are honorable people that are serving for the right reasons."

The two have come a long way since running against each other in 1992. Bush once called Clinton a bozo while on the campaign trail.

"I never thought that was an offensive word, but yeah, that was what, 15 years ago," said Bush. "You just can't go through life with a great deal of bitterness in your heart over something that happened 15 years ago."

You can't unless your name is Hillary Clinton.

Keith wrote on January 18, 2008 4:11 PM:

My guess is Obama is going to respond personally to Clinton's lying. It would be more effective (since the lie came from her mouth) and would get more press (because it came from Obama's mouth rather than his spokesperson).

But, again, it's instructive to see what Clinton has in her arsenal against Obama. So far it's her ability to lie and distort. She does that FAR better than anyone could have imagined. HRC supporters you must be proud.

Elizabeth wrote on January 18, 2008 4:14 PM:

I think he should wonder aloud if we can trust a president who has so much trouble with basic comprehension of language?

Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 4:17 PM:

"this isn't really in response to this post, but raise your hand if you're tired of clinton's distortions?"

[raises hand]

I also think ridiculing the Clintons' distortions are perhaps the best way of answering them.

She's gone beyond ridiculous to ludicrous.

Wil Burns wrote on January 18, 2008 4:19 PM:

Obama is NOTHING more than a motivation speaker. I was thinking that myself a couple days ago, that he is basically just a motivational speaker. I was looking at a speech he had made. He didn't say anything, but he sure was eloquent about it.

His charisma will take him only so far, he needs to come up with some coherent policy positions.

CT Voter wrote on January 18, 2008 4:20 PM:

This is off topic, but could all the anonymouses out there pick a pseudonym? Otherwise, all those postings from "anonymous" make "anonymous" sound like he/she is suffering from a raging case of multiple personality disorder....

Elny wrote on January 18, 2008 4:20 PM:

1014 to 62. That's the combined electoral vote score in Reagan's two elections. Who wouldn't want to emulate that? Once again, Hillary insulting voters' intelligence. She knows better than to think that Obama wants to govern like Reagan. Obama's main point is that Reagan united the country enough behind his policies to get the kind of change the Right wanted. Obama's as much a secret Reagan Republican as he is a secret radical Muslim. As for Obama's point about the "excesses" of the 60's and 70's, wasn't Bill the original New Democrat running against those "excesses"? Shameless.

Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 4:20 PM:

pkoso re:
"are you unable to make a distinction between an anti-war position and a need/responsibility to fund the military *IN THE FIELD*? why is this such a difficult proposition for you folks?"

I support Hillary so I don't really have a problem with the funding and I actually have a memory of that time and I remember that war was imminent until the AUMF delayed what turned out to be inevitable.

I do have a problem with the meme that "I made a speech opposing the war to a group of people who I needed to vote for me that wanted to hear that I supported the war" is being used against someone who actually had to make a political decision in a hostile environment, something that Barry Obambi hasn't really been able to do himself.

Sheesh, he wasn't even present for the Iran vote. Give me a break!

JimS wrote on January 18, 2008 4:20 PM:

Steve Jobs introduces the new I-Barrack, now with I-tunes, for the generation of the living dead.

Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 4:20 PM:

"It would shut people up if he just said that he didn't mean to compliment Reagan, he hated what Reagan did, and so forth."

The folks who acted like they loved Reagan and his ideas were Bill and Hillary Clinton. They followed the Republican line the whole time Bill was president. Welfare reform? You got it. Smaller government? You got it.

Clinton had no ideas of his own - all he did was borrow issues from the Republicans, chew them up and spit them out again as his "new" plans.

Tapper wrote on January 18, 2008 4:24 PM:

Yeah anonymous, get with the Obama program!
The only way to end the war is by increased funding every six months!
War is Peace!
Deficits are Prosperity!
Homophobia and misogyny are just differences of opinion!

But wait! News Flash!
Obama's Secret Super Duper weapon revealed!
Next he's going to start telling us what a grrrreat President Nixon was! Watergate was such a wonderoricious paradigm shift away from the 60's!
Ah yes, Tricky Dick! Now there was a Republican with BIG ideas!

pkoso wrote on January 18, 2008 4:24 PM:

yo, wil burns...

maybe you should check out obama's website, or...really...any number of speeches he's given on the economy/poverty, national security, etc. after you've done a little 5th grade research, report back on what substance is lacking.

the word you're thinking of is "google."

every one of these candidates has significant/substantive policy positions. clinton, edwards, all. in many cases, they're distinctions are minor. so do us all a favor and engage...or stfu.

Jay wrote on January 18, 2008 4:24 PM:

"Wow, Obama campaign, God knows we haven't heard that Iraq war line before, and the triangulation stuff."

I guess Obama's message is working, hence your hamfisted response - keep it up barack, keep reminding voters of Hillary's Iraq vote!

stemper wrote on January 18, 2008 4:26 PM:

"this isn't really in response to this post, but raise your hand if you're tired of clinton's distortions?"

[raises hand]

It wasn't too long ago that Bill Clinton was out there on TV and at events (I heard him deliver this line in person at a fundraiser) saying "I don't have anything bad to say about any of the Democratic candidates." Then his wife loses one lousy caucus and Mr. Nice is out the window. I've lost a lot of respect for the Clintons in the last couple months.

peterb wrote on January 18, 2008 4:28 PM:

Billary will say anything to win and that is something that most americans believe to be true. Bringing her back to her war vote which was a clear poll tested position at the time knowing full well that she was going to run for the presidency. Obama is the only one to unite this country. We are all tired of the clinton smear campaigns.

pkoso wrote on January 18, 2008 4:28 PM:

okay...my own 5th grade clarity revealed. poor spelling...poor grammar in my last comment. apologies.

zoinks wrote on January 18, 2008 4:29 PM:

frankly0 wrote on January 18, 2008 4:08 PM:

You guys really do think you can just dish out the same lameass, piss-warm pablum for every meal, don't you?

The irony -- it burns.

onceler wrote on January 18, 2008 4:32 PM:

yes, hand raised, I'm beyond tired of the Clintons. and there should be a damn law that no former president can go out on the campaign trail and slime their spouse's primary opponents. it demeans the election process, it demeans the office of the president, it demeans the whole damn country. especially when he's being blatantly misleading and dishonest as Clinton is being. and for her to hide behind him while he makes false but damaging claims against Obama is pure craven cowardice. I've read 'My Life', I was a fan of the Clintons until this race. but I've totally lost all respect for them. what a disgrace Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton are.

Anna wrote on January 18, 2008 4:35 PM:

So Obama supporters, why won't he say Reagan was a horrible leader? What did Obama mean when he referred to the "excesses of the 1960's and the 1970s"? Was he talking about the Civil Rights Act? About environmental protection? About Reagan's "welfare queens"?

And as for being an anti-war candidate, apart from his votes for funding, almost the very first thing he did when he got to the Senate was to vote for Condoleeza Rice -- an architect of the war he claims to hate so much -- for Secretary of State.

Face it, he's a moderate blank slate on which all of you are projecting all your "progressive" hopes and dreams. If he were a leader, he'd be out there selling a liberal agenda and telling people how it's good for the country instead of blaming liberals for their "partisan bickering."

Josh wrote on January 18, 2008 4:37 PM:

Raises Hand.

JR wrote on January 18, 2008 4:37 PM:

Much as I support Obama, until South Carolina is out of the way, he has to be VERY careful in his attacks towards Her Royal Highness. He may have a decent lead in the Palmetto State but I think it's shakier than may realize. Many African-Americans, especially older women (the most likely to vote), all but worship the Clintons. They feel that they "owe" Bill and Hillary. In today's NY Times article, some almost seem to take out their anger at men at Obama, saying they'll vote their gender rather than race.

My gut sense is that, if Obama hits back any harder, he loses a lot of black women and, therefore, the election.

David in Burbank wrote on January 18, 2008 4:38 PM:

Wow - are people dumb AND deaf. Obama never said he admired Regan for his policy, only that Regan CHANGED the direction of this country in a way Clinton did not. Now that is certainly true. And it is certainly true that the direction was the wrong direction. And he said that too.

The HRC side is desperate and will do ANYTHING to win. Those mailers in NH suggesting Obama was anti-abortion - just awful (yes, I know SHE didn't send them.) Then the law suit in Nevada (yes - I know, she didn't personally file it.) And Bill's tirade about it (OK, that wasn't her.) and never mind the Rangel distortion and the drug reference by that other guy (at least that was more true than the others.)

You know what? I'm sure i want for a president someone who didn't stand up to a cheating spouse. What does that say about her character? Is dignity less imporatant than riding Bill's coatails to fame and fortune? You know the Republicans will be raising that issue....

That's the road we're headed down, folks, if we don't all start being honest about what our favorite candidate is saying.

onceler wrote on January 18, 2008 4:38 PM:

damn some of y'all are misinformed. the need to fund the war is one of the MAIN REASONS Obama opposed the war in the first place! how dumb are you people who don't understand this? Obama said that the war would require massive amounts of time, money, and sacrifice of life. as soon as the Dem Congress took over, there started to be bills calling for funding with a timetable, and Obama started voting for them as soon as they were able to make it to a vote. he introduced one of his own. initiating a war is not the same thing as believing that one, once underway, requires that the funding of the soldiers asked to serve must be taken seriously. Obama had the foresight to know how this would all play out, and it did in the EXACT way he described back in 2002, when everyone else was saying it would be a cakewalk which would pay for itself and that you were a traitor if you opposed it.

BernieO wrote on January 18, 2008 4:39 PM:

Obama does not seem to understand that there is a world of difference between a successful politician, which Reagan certainly was, and a successful president, which he most definitely was not. Any president whose policies caused so much damage to our country is not a success!
Bush has followed Reagan's playbook, weakening environmental protections, lowering taxes and ballooning our debt, favoring the rich, opposing regulation of financial institutions leading to the mortgage meltdown. Reagan nay have been a perfectly nice man who believed what he was doing was right but his ideas have been a disaster for our country. It is time we faced up to this fact.

Angry Vet wrote on January 18, 2008 4:39 PM:

Okay, now I match my pseudonym.

Listen, people, if you cannot raise the level of discourse here...

Ah fuck it, I have no power over you people.

HRC people:

I used to criticize BHO supporters for their nasty style and fighting ways. Stuff like "Goldwater Girl" and the like really irritated me, because it's the kind of reasoning you expect from five year olds.

Now, HRC trolls are laying in with the same amount of garbage. I think if any person with any modicrum of intelligence sees the crap that has been laid out above, you are are only going to end up turning them against HRC rather than convincing them to join you.

Or, even worse, you are going to convince them in turning off their computers.

Or, perhaps, that's what you secretly hope to accomplish?

Again, why is it that HRC's policies are better than BHO's? And please, annotate your sources, ok? Thanks a bunch.

Jay wrote on January 18, 2008 4:39 PM:

"almost the very first thing he did when he got to the Senate was to vote for Condoleeza Rice -- an architect of the war he claims to hate so much -- for Secretary of State."

..back that statement up, so it won't seem that it came from the dark recesses of your buttcrack.

Keith wrote on January 18, 2008 4:40 PM:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674

"But no president can do it alone. She must break recent tradition, cast cronyism aside and fill her cabinet with the best people, not only the best Democrats, but the best Republicans as well. We’re confident she will do that. Her list of favorite presidents -- Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan -- demonstrates how she thinks."

Posted from the other thread. Apparently she was for Reagan before she was against Reagan. Greg, this would seem like a nice follow-up question for the Clinton campaign.

Jay wrote on January 18, 2008 4:42 PM:

Great find Keith..

Anna wrote on January 18, 2008 4:43 PM:

David of Burbank,

Obama didn't say he admired Reagan's policies. But he said that Reagan appealed to people who were "tired of the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s." That strongly suggests that he agrees that there were excesses in the 1960s and 1970s, and I want to know what he thinks those are.

GordonsGirl wrote on January 18, 2008 4:45 PM:

Anybody that actually reads Obama's comments on Reagan gets it. Basically, Reagan left a legacy of support and identity that has lasted far beyond his Presidency. Listen to any GOP debate - they're all competing to be the most like Reagan, knowing that still reverberates deeply in their party.

His wife excepted, how many Democrats are vying to be the next Bill Clinton? Talk about a loaded proposition...

Obama's not talking about policy. Anybody who takes a moment to be informed of Obama's record - not just his rhetoric - knows he's nothing like Reagan ideologically. What he DOES believe is that the Democrat party deserves and needs a transformative leader.

Keith wrote on January 18, 2008 4:46 PM:

Anna:

That implies no such thing. You are interjecting your subjective thoughts into Obama's statements. If I said Bush tapped into Americans feelings of revenge after 9/11, does that mean I believe that it was positive thing? No.

This is why HRC supporters get ridiculed so much on these threads. Your lying and distorting is only outmatched by HRC's mendacious ways.

And now that you know one HRC's favorite presidents was Reagan, don't you feel, a wee bit, silly? Just a little?

Jen wrote on January 18, 2008 4:47 PM:

Anna... the reason he won't say that is that it isn't true... You may hate everything that Reagan stood for, but there is no way in Hell he sweeps an election (1984, how appropriate) without being a good leader (or a good liar). The excesses may have been the violence (3 high-profile assignations), the military industrial complex, and the tune in-drop out mentality of the period. I seriously doubt he was referring to Civil Rights... and I doubt you do either.

As to funding the Iraq war... hey, here's an idea... let's not fund it and have our troops hitchhike their way back to America... Soldiers don't pick their battles... the commanders do. Not funding the mission is idiotic.

As to the partisan bickering, given how much intra-party squabbling we seem to engage in, we are proving that we do know how to bicker.

Anna wrote on January 18, 2008 4:47 PM:

Oh Jay, Dear, fresh from my buttcrack:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00002

Dick Durbin -- our actual liberal senator here in IL -- voted against her, but not your guy Obama. It was practically his first vote.

So how are you going to excuse him, because Obama supporters are good at nothing if not defending his moderate, middle of the road, feel-good positions. Make yourself feel good about that.

Keith wrote on January 18, 2008 4:49 PM:

Keith,

I don't support HRC. I've been against her from the beginning. I'm an Edwards supporter.

Answer the question -- what excesses of the 1960s and 1970s was Obama talking about?

GordonsGirl wrote on January 18, 2008 4:49 PM:

One more thought: If the Clinton record is so terrific, why isn't HRC running on it? 90% of what I hear is from the school of Karl Rove slash-and-burn political campaign theory. It would far more honest - and ethical - of her to cease attacking Obama and insteadt run on her OWN (let alone her husband's) accomplishments.

Did we learn NOTHING over the last 8 years? When a candidate needs to spend the majority of their time making personal attacks, there's probably very little substance.

Chris Brown wrote on January 18, 2008 4:53 PM:

Perhaps the point has already been made. I haven't read through all the comments.

What Obama said relative to Reagan is that he "changed the trajectory" of USA politics in a way that neither Nixon nor Clinton did.

I think it is clearly an accurate statement. Remember the Reagan revolution which caused most national democratic elected officials to role over and position themselves as conservatives.

I have heard the Obama statement a number of times now and know that he did not praise Reagan, he merely stated a fact.

In this case Clinton is radically distorting Obama's comments.

Jay wrote on January 18, 2008 4:53 PM:

"So how are you going to excuse him, because Obama supporters are good at nothing if not defending his moderate, middle of the road, feel-good positions. Make yourself feel good about that."

Hillary made that same vote - that seems to be the epitome of HRC's argument, "Hey Look guys, on certain things - he's as bad as me!!" How pathetic.

Kliebert wrote on January 18, 2008 4:56 PM:

I'll tell you what I'm sick of: a Democratic Party that is showing it's ugly side. It's as if we are swiftboating ourselves trying to decide between Hillary or Obama. What surprises me is the vitriolic hatred that so many seem to be directing towards Hillary. As the candidates more or less conceded in the last debate, their stances on the issues are really not that far apart, in stark contrast to the Republican side. And Bill Maher, credible voice on the left, said it best about Hillary just last week, something to the effect of, "You may be uninspired by Hillary Clinton, but to say you hate her, you really have to be willing to admit that it's all about you and your issues."
As retarded as the Republican view is on the issues, they are the ones who actually appear more civil and restrained in their primary season as the rest of us devour each other over two candidates (no offense Sen Edwards, but let's be realistic), either one whom could be great presidents? Everyone needs to remember in the heat of the moment, we all have to become one happy family when this is over, and I already see bad blood amongst us that won't go away any time soon.

Jodie wrote on January 18, 2008 4:57 PM:

Thank you GordonsGirl for your rational statement. Hillary is just playing for the outraged of the self unimformed. Obama was talking in historical perspectives, ya know, like a historian! He was not agreeing with RR policies.

Chautauquan wrote on January 18, 2008 4:58 PM:

Hey Tapper, Obama didn't vote for the Patriot Act, he wasn't in the Senate then. That was your buddy Hillary. She voted for it, and has been an enemy of privacy rights for some time. Look at the records, Senate.gov. Don't just regurgitate Hillary's talking points. Thanks.

Anna wrote on January 18, 2008 4:59 PM:

Yes, Reagan changed the trajectory of our country by persuading people that they were conservatives (against their interests) and by demonizing liberals.

What I would like in the Democratic candidate is someone who changes the trajectory of our country by persuading people that they are liberals because it's in their interests -- and the interests of the rest of the country -- and by demonizing conservatives.

What I get from Obama is a basically progressive (though spotty) policy record and lots of sweet talk with conservatives. And a lot of dismissive talk about "partisan bickering." Not what I'm in the mood for.

And I don't support HRC -- never have, never will.

Bupalos wrote on January 18, 2008 5:00 PM:

IMO condi and colin were probably the best of an atrocious administration. You have to approve someone, you kow. What a dumb line.

And really, what are these lines where Hill tries to say "he's just as bad as me." Hill was a hawk all the way through. Obama said "bad idea, but you broke it you bought it." I support his judgement on both sides of that.

Anna wrote on January 18, 2008 5:02 PM:

Jay,

This isn't about HRC's vote on Rice. We already know she's an apologist for the war; and I'd never vote for her because of it.

This is about the fact that Obama ran as being anti-war. I gave him money in his primary race based entirely on that position. And then, he turned around and voted for Rice.

So why do you think Obama did that? Because I've been trying to figure that out for 4 years now. (And in your answer, see if you can refrain from referring to HRC.)

Anna wrote on January 18, 2008 5:05 PM:

Bupalos,

Condi and Colin were the best? Really? They went along with this devastating foreign policy that they knew was wrong, and they participated in all the disastrous decisions, and they're the best?

Funny, I think that makes them the worst. But maybe I'm wrong to think the fact that they knew better imposed special obligations on them.

keith wrote on January 18, 2008 5:06 PM:

Keith:

My guess, and that's all it would be, is that he was talking about government regulation. The heavy hand of government.

Jor wrote on January 18, 2008 5:08 PM:

Anna, there aren't enough of you angry liberals to vote in a president. I really don't understand why people don't see this. Anger is not going to get a (D) elected. For christ sake, how many times in a row do we have to lose an election that should be handily ours, because people want more anger.

Keith wrote on January 18, 2008 5:12 PM:

Anna:

Here's your answer (on Condi Rice):

Why did you vote to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State? Given her well documented records of misstatements and falsehoods building up to the Iraq war, not to mention her incompetence during her tenure as NSC, why did she merit your confirmation vote?
Jason Magnuson, Northern Illinois University

I voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State because I believe that the President has the right to appoint his own cabinet. He can hire whomever he wants to work for him, but ultimately it is him that I will hold accountable for any foreign policy errors. If he wants to accept Condoleezza Rice as his spokesperson for his policies, then I don’t have a problem with that. But if she makes a mistake, I will absolutely hold him accountable.

I voted against Alberto Gonzales for Attorney General because I believe that he is not the President’s lawyer, but the people’s lawyer. And the truth is that Mr. Gonzales has raised serious doubts about whether, given the choice between the Constitution and the President’s political agenda, he would put our Constitution first.

http://www.campusprogress.org/features/210/five-minutes-with-sen-barack-obama

ann wrote on January 18, 2008 5:12 PM:

I watched Barack Obama's comments about Reagan on Youtube and read some parts of his book and I can come to only one conclusion. He was way too postive about Reagan--the man who is responsible for much of today's homeless policy and the conservatization of the country. The man who tried to dismantled the social safety net and end liberalism. I don't think I can support Obama in the primary because of this and other gaffe's and his relative inexperience. I will probably support Hillary Clinton or maybe even Edwards since they both understand the terrible legacy of Reagan and the right wing Republicans and the need to fight the Republicans for progressive policies like health care.

If I am being honest, I don't really think Barack Obama is qualified to be president yet. I know many, many other Democrats who feel the same way. Less than one term in the Senate during which he wrote two books and campaigned for President is not enough. If you watched Sen. Obama's interview with Tim Russert when he first got elected to the Senate in 2004, even Obama acknowledged that it would be ridiculous for him to run in his first term given his lack of experience. Don't think the Republicans won't use this clip against him in the fall.

All this being said, I would still support Senator Obama in the fall as the Democratic nominee because I am a democrat, not a Republican. The Republican's have brought us terrible polices over the last 30 years (not counting Clinton's time in office). I will never support a conservative Republican when I can vote for a Democrat. I hope other Democrats come to their senses and rally behind whoever is our nominee. I know I will.

Ann wrote on January 18, 2008 5:13 PM:

I watched Barack Obama's comments about Reagan on Youtube and read some parts of his book and I can come to only one conclusion. He was way too postive about Reagan--the man who is responsible for much of today's homeless policy and the conservatization of the country. The man who tried to dismantled the social safety net and end liberalism. I don't think I can support Obama in the primary because of this and other gaffe's and his relative inexperience. I will probably support Hillary Clinton or maybe even Edwards since they both understand the terrible legacy of Reagan and the right wing Republicans and the need to fight the Republicans for progressive policies like health care.

If I am being honest, I don't really think Barack Obama is qualified to be president yet. I know many, many other Democrats who feel the same way. Less than one term in the Senate during which he wrote two books and campaigned for President is not enough. If you watched Sen. Obama's interview with Tim Russert when he first got elected to the Senate in 2004, even Obama acknowledged that it would be ridiculous for him to run in his first term given his lack of experience. Don't think the Republicans won't use this clip against him in the fall.

All this being said, I would still support Senator Obama in the fall as the Democratic nominee because I am a democrat, not a Republican. The Republican's have brought us terrible polices over the last 30 years (not counting Clinton's time in office). I will never support a conservative Republican when I can vote for a Democrat. I hope other Democrats come to their senses and rally behind whoever is our nominee. I know I will.

Bupalos wrote on January 18, 2008 5:14 PM:

>>>"You may be uninspired by Hillary Clinton, but to say you hate her, you really have to be willing to admit that it's all about you and your issues."

Not really. I don't have personal animus towards her, but I do hate what she stands for, which is DLC centrism, dirty politics, family dynasticism, and political opportunism. Actually, how can you NOT hate someone that pushed a flag-burning amendment? I mean, come on. That's the height of cynical politics. And she was at the absolute forfront of our party in rubberstamping the invasion, right up there with Lieberman? How is that about me? What a nonsensical statement.

That's not to say I'm not going to vote for her if she's up against a republitard. I've voted for people I hate before. I always kind of hated Bill, because he seemed like a liar and philanderer to me, and it turned out he was. But I voted for him. And I would again in the same matchup. But there is a time for hate, and I'd say that reserving it for the kind of cynical hawkish politics that results in a couple hundred thousand people dead and maimed is a great place to start.

Frankly I kind of hate Bill Mar too. He's really schmarmy, a know it all, and only very rarely funny. That one might be about me though.

Anna wrote on January 18, 2008 5:14 PM:

Jor,

What you don't seem to understand is that angry liberals are who put him into this position that he enjoys at the moment. It's angry liberals who have been at the forefront of the fight for civil rights, environmental protection, human rights, and a decent foreign policy.

And the reason we don't have those things anymore is because rather than have Democratic leaders explain why being a liberal is a good thing, we have people like YOU telling us we shouldn't be so angry; we're turning people off.

And I'm not asking Obama to be angry. He can be as charming and personable as he wants. But it would be nice if he didn't abandon liberals as partisan bickerers.

Oh, and for the record, who was the last angry liberal we put up for president? John Kerry? Al Gore? I'd say their problems were that they weren't angry enough.

Chris wrote on January 18, 2008 5:17 PM:

"I will probably support Hillary Clinton or maybe even Edwards since they both understand the terrible legacy of Reagan and the right wing Republicans and the need to fight the Republicans for progressive policies like health care."

You might want to rethink that Hillary vote, since her website cites Reagan to be one of her favorite presidents.(http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674)

Keith wrote on January 18, 2008 5:17 PM:

Ann:

You must be new to sock puppetry, because it's clear you don't know what the hell you are talking about. And the fact that your links go back to yahoo and netscape pretty much demonstrate that you are, in fact a sock puppet.

Folks I wouldn't bother replying to her.

DancingBear wrote on January 18, 2008 5:19 PM:

Keith wrote: "Answer the question -- what excesses of the 1960s and 1970s was Obama talking about?"

I'll give that a shot.

Obama said Reagan "put us on a fundamentally different path, because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like, 'you know, with all the excesses of the 60's and the 70's...'"

The reference to the "excesses of the 60's and 70's was to how "they" felt, that is, the folks that Reagan tapped into to get elected in 1980, not Obama.

Bupalos wrote on January 18, 2008 5:19 PM:

>>>Condi and Colin were the best? Really? They went along with this devastating foreign policy that they knew was wrong, and they participated in all the disastrous decisions, and they're the best?>>>

Well go ahead and nominate someone else for it then. This is like trying to pick corn out of a pile of chicken crap. At least Colin Powell was lied to, and basically quit. And word is Condi pushed from within for some kind of Iranian dialogue rather than bombing. Who are your pieces of corn?

Anna wrote on January 18, 2008 5:19 PM:

Keith,

Yeah, I read that at the time.

You buy that explanation for the Rice vote. "Every president is entitled to his own cabinet?" Really? So he was firmly against the war, and he had an opportunity to register that opposition by saying that he didn't want the representative of the US to be a war-mongerer, but he let that slide because an immoral President should get to pick his own cabinet.

And really, what's the difference between Gonzaeles and Rice? I mean, couldn't he have made the same argument about Gonzales?

Okay, if you're satisfied with that . . . It still stinks to me. And I've told his staff so on a number of occasions.

mike2 wrote on January 18, 2008 5:22 PM:

I think Obama meant to hold up Reagan as a model for transformation... not as a model for policy or direction.

But rereading his original comment with his reference to the "excesses" of the 60s and 70s, I also suspect that he was trying to have it both ways.... seeming to endorse Reagan culturally for those who have an affection for him.... while trying to basically make the "transformational" point.

Now he's being called out on it (and rightly so? I think so). He needs to disavow his "understanding" of how Reagan was seen as an antidote to the "excesses" of previous generations, and say Reagan took us in the WRONG direction. Those "excesses" were the sound of LIBERTY and FREEDOM, not the sound of bad children who Daddy Reagan came to set straight.

I ASSUME he doesn't mean the latter, and he needs to close the opportunity to be intepretted in that way. He tried to bridge it, he's being called out, he's got one leg on each side of the draw bridge as it opens, and he needs to decide which side he's going to jump to.

Of COURSE Clinton is using this, and misinterpretting what he said entirely in one direction. She's smart. The truth is he probably meant to say both things and hoped no one would notice. Dude. People noticed. Never mind your desire to speak to former Reagan voters... a good and reasonable thing... right now you are trying to become the top Democrat and you'd better stand up and call Reagan the fascist that we Democrats know him to have been.

We're waiting. It's a test of character... the part about when you are caught trying to have it both ways you own up to the mistake and declare yourself.

We can't afford more Clinton years.

Anna wrote on January 18, 2008 5:25 PM:

Bupalos,

I want no corn at all in the Bush Administration pile of crap.

Obama should never have voted to confirm Rice. Period. There were 15 other senators who voted against her, including the other senator from his state.

To me, his chest-thumping about his anti-war position has always been hollow given this vote. I get the funding measures -- this I will never understand.

Keith wrote on January 18, 2008 5:29 PM:

Anna:

Yes, I buy that. The war, if you recall, was already well into it's second year. Bush was an ardent supporter of the war he started, so if you object to Rice because she also was a supporter of the war, you'd never seat a Secretary of State because Bush would ALWAYS appointment someone that was predisposed to his position. Barring some fundamental for objecting to an appointee (see Gonzalez), there's really no basis for not confirming them.

JO wrote on January 18, 2008 5:31 PM:

Both hands raised! First, it's indisputable that Reagan stood for a vast shift to the right, dreadful as that has turned out to be. The Clintons, in their vast experience, have long been Republicans-lite, modifying or slightly ameliorating Reagan's worst ideas, but offering no compelling counter version. If you doubt the veracity of their ineffectiveness, how come the GOP gained a majority in Congress while Billy-boy was romping in rose garden or Oval Office, and of the White House in 2000?

Second, Obama's campaign clearly show the difference between his approach--offering a wholly different, compelling, Democratic "vision" to counter the wretched Reagan Revolution--and HRC's workaday "fix the comma" approach to scores of micro-bills shepherded through Congress.

Third, HRC digs her own political grave by trying to imply that Obama spoke out in favor of what Reagan accomplished over the "last 10 to 15 years." Hint #1: Reagan was elected president TWENTY-EIGHT years ago, left office TWENTY years ago. Hint #2: If the period "10 to 15 years ago" encompasses CLINTON'S term in the White House--so much for that experience.

HRC cannot rebut what Obama said, so she tries to rebut what he did NOT say--thereby making Obama's point all over again.

kmblue wrote on January 18, 2008 5:33 PM:

The constant translating for Obama: telling us what Obama REALLY means--must wear his supporters out.

Keith wrote on January 18, 2008 5:33 PM:

Mike2:

He needs to disavow his "understanding" of how Reagan was seen as an antidote to the "excesses" of previous generations

Why should Obama disavow something he never said? He said that Reagan tapped into the country's concern with the growth and "excesses" of the federal government.

I swear, you folks should watch the entire video and not just the piece being floated by Taylor Marsh and her crew. They have an incentive to distort his position.

lestatdelc wrote on January 18, 2008 5:34 PM:

eric wrote on January 18, 2008 4:02 PM:

But it is just a deflection. Does he like Reagan or not?

We know Clinton is proud of people that endorse her because she thinks like Reagan and are among her favorite presidents:

From http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674

"But no president can do it alone. She must break recent tradition, cast cronyism aside and fill her cabinet with the best people, not only the best Democrats, but the best Republicans as well.. We’re confident she will do that. Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan - demonstrates how she thinks."

Keith wrote on January 18, 2008 5:35 PM:

JO:

That's a very good point. The Republicans took control of every aspect of government in the last 10-15 years. This isn't about Reagan, this was about Newt and the others who lead the conservative resurgence during that period.

Duh....

Bupalos wrote on January 18, 2008 5:36 PM:

"And really, what's the difference between Gonzaeles and Rice?"

You're drifting into a reading comprehension problem. Obama's interpretation, as he says, is that AG is the people's attourney while SS is the President's man. I can go for that. A little theoretical maybe, but seriously, if you didn't have condi you'd have Feith or someone worse. You can't force someone down his throat, he'll just keep throwing worse and worse names at you. I'd actually argue the gonzo thing didn't matter either...look what we got, someone who doesn't know if waterboarding is torture. But at least there now Gonzo doesn't have immunity.

I'll admit Obama makes some vague centrist noise, but in the end, I think he's probably the smartest and most progressive of the big three way down deep. I have no doubts about that vis-a-vis Clinton who has proven what she is time and again despite having little more experience. His background is community organizing, civil rights law, and constitutional law. You don't do that and not have it really sink deep IMO. I've been around those people. He's just politically smart, knows how to talk to his natural enemies and sometimes bring them around, and is a great motivator. We shouldn't throw that away for DLC damaged goods, IMO.

Gabriel wrote on January 18, 2008 5:37 PM:

The blogosphere continues to work itself up into a lather over this statement, while missing the point.

Obama knows spending his time trying to convert hardcore Dem's isn't going to work -- they've already made up their mind, and the ones that have picked HRC aren't going to change now. So where is his strength? The cross-over voter. The Independent voter. The Republican voter that's not so hot on their party.

The only folks getting upset about this are people that weren't voting for Obama anyway. He's trusting that everybody else is smart enough to understand the distinctions he's drawing -- which frankly is refreshing from a politician, and also, a move I think that will be rewarded.

He made the Reagan statements in context of transformative presidents, opinions on policy aside, while at the very same time calling into question Bill Clinton's legacy. Everyone, seriously; you think this was an accident?

This is political kung fu of a whole new order. It's really rather breathtaking.

Anna wrote on January 18, 2008 5:38 PM:

Keith,

I reason through this a little differently.

Rice was not just a supporter of the war -- she was an architect. Maybe she softened it up a bit, but she was still an architect. Forcing Bush to put aside the architects would have been a perfectly acceptable goal, even if he eventually had to vote for someone.

In any event, I also expect someone who is selling himself as a hardcore opponent of the war owes no such deference to the White House and should have just kept on voting no. It's called advise and consent, and it's right there in the Constitution.

So I'm not buying it.

Common Sense wrote on January 18, 2008 5:40 PM:

kmblue:

Actually what wears us out is correcting HRC supporters misstatements and distortions. Positively exhausting.

DancingBear wrote on January 18, 2008 5:43 PM:

Bupalos wrote: "Actually, how can you NOT hate someone that pushed a flag-burning amendment?"

To be fair, Hillary co-sponsored a flag-burning law, not a constitutional amendment. (Still, in my opinion, a slap at the First Amendment, but I wanted to set the record straight).

Anna wrote on January 18, 2008 5:43 PM:

Bupalos,

Oh, you Obama supporters and your theories about what he's like "way down deep." So sweet, really, you're darling. All those years of "community organizing" -- building his resume so he could go into politics and teaching at the most conservative law school in the country. Yeah, I'm sure it sunk in.

Way down deep, he's a centrist. And while he's stepping over the bodies of us angry liberals on his way to reach across the aisle, at least some of us will be prepared emotionally as he's selling us out. You guys? You're going to be really, really disappointed.

lestatdelc wrote on January 18, 2008 5:44 PM:

Anna wrote on January 18, 2008 4:59 PM:

Yes, Reagan changed the trajectory of our country by persuading people that they were conservatives (against their interests) and by demonizing liberals.

And Obama is saying that we need to change the trajectory of our country by persuading people that they are progressives (for their interests and where they are on the issues already) and by demonizing nobody.

Thanks for unintentionally providing the opportunity to serve as a foil which underscores Obama's point for us.

bob wrote on January 18, 2008 5:48 PM:

Anna's self fulfilling prophecy "You guys? You're going to be really, really disappointed."

Wait until you see droves of voters leaving the Democratic party to vote independent should Hillary be the nominee.

She's unelectable and only a fool would think otherwise.

schmed wrote on January 18, 2008 5:48 PM:

At the risk of being labelled a "sock puppet" (what a ridiculous taunt to hurl at those with whom you disagree), let me say "Ann" above captures the hesitancy many people have with Obama. I find it amusing that people still lambaste Hillary for "triangulation" when Obama seems to offer a kinder, gentler FUZZIER version thereof. OF COURSE Obama was not endorsing Reagan's policies, but the calculation behind his statement is worrisome.

The press hasn't really captured the quandary those of us who support Edwards are in when it approaches time to jump (alas, a sinking) ship. The choice is not obvious, despite what some say. Edwards' and Clinton's policies dovetail more closely, but "electability" is the crucial, albeit unknowable quantity.

Anna wrote on January 18, 2008 5:49 PM:

Gabriel,

I'm guessing that you're absolutely right. Obama is taking the unusual step of going after the center of the political spectrum in a primary -- it's usually what candidates do in the general election.

It's a risky strategy, though, because he's alienating traditional Democrats -- angry liberals -- like me.

I'm an Illinois voter, and I've been suspicious of him since the Condoleeza Rice vote. He's done a number of things I don't really like as senator. And his campaign has been dismissive of angry liberals -- like me. And now this Reagan stuff.

I normally give a lot of money to the Democratic candidate -- I've already given money to John Edwards. And more importantly, I go to neighboring swing states and do campaign work. But I'm not inclined do that for Obama -- let him go get some of his fans for that.

Anna wrote on January 18, 2008 5:55 PM:

lestatdelc,

Very nice sentiment -- demonizing nobody.

Conservatives are systematically dismantliing the greatness of our nation. They preside over systems of torture; they invade unarmed nations; they look away from human rights abuses; they put polluters in charge of protecting the environment; they've set back the civil rights movement; they steal from the poor and give to the rich. And they have rendered "liberal" a dirty word in our political lexicon.

But no, heaven forbid we demonize them. No, no, let's work with them.

If that's what you like about Obama, then you can have him.

joejoejoe wrote on January 18, 2008 5:56 PM:

Lestatdelc - Great find. That should be game, set, match.

Sen. Clinton listed Ronald Reagan as one of her favorite presidents in an interview with the Salmon Press in New Hampshire. Now she's out moaning because Obama said a kind word about Reagan's optimism.

sheerahkahn wrote on January 18, 2008 6:00 PM:

Well, Obama's campaign could have really taken her to the woodshed with, "This from the person who not only supported Bush's push for war with Iraq, but also supports war with Iran by voting for Bush's Kyl/Liberman bill."

I think Obama's campaign was being overly polite.

Jose Lopez wrote on January 18, 2008 6:01 PM:

If I were in the OBama campaing I would be emphasizing her answere in the last debat on the Bankruptcy bill of 2001. Clinton said she voted for it, but was glad it was not passed into law. If she felt it was not a good idea, why did she vote for it?!!! This is an attack line all americans can grasp.

little ole jim wrote on January 18, 2008 6:04 PM:

From a political standpoint, I can understand Obama's continuous harping on the Iraq invasion. But he owes a great debt to Karl Rove. Karl is the one who first pushed the idea that a yea vote on the AUMF equals support for the invasion of Iraq.

Of course that's not true. I just re-read an old March 15 2004 issue of Time magazine. Right after Kerry won the nomination, Bush was making fun of Kerry for opposing the invasion. Bush said "I suppose Senator Kerry was hoping Saddam would lose the election in Iraq". You see, at that time Karl and the Republicans hadn't sold the AUMF vote = Invade Iraq equation.

Shortly thereafter, they began pushing as truth that AUMF = Vote for War. Now it's been sold. Can't argue with math, can you?

Gabriel wrote on January 18, 2008 6:06 PM:

Anna-

I don't think his campaign intends to be dismissive of angry liberals -- I just think they've known from the beginning that not only would that segment of the party be impossible to capture, but those voters wouldn't be their pathway to victory anyway.

To deny Obama is a progressive because of his political strategy is a silly as calling Sen. Clinton a Republican for using Roveian tactics in her campaign.

Neither reflect on either candidates viewpoints or stance in the political spectrum; they are their approaches to be leaders.

Obama appeals to so many not only because of his progressive ideals, but because so many of us have grown tired of the divisive state of politics today. One could argue that the Democratic party has been in a form of paralysis ever since Reagan, as the political paradigm shift in this country that happened then put the Democratic party in a position of always reaction to the Reagan Agenda; we've been circling the wagons ever since, and I think this is why appealing to the hard-core Democratic constituency at all costs, regardless of general electibility has become a hallmark of Democratic candidates ever since (Bill Clinton notwithstanding). I see Sen. Clinton in this same mold; appealing to the hard-core party, not to the country as a whole.

Sen. Obama proposes we move beyond simple reaction to Reagan policies; he wants to move outside that box, and to do so, he needs to create a paradigm shift much like Reagan did -- more towards a progresive America, vs. a more conservative one. And do that it must take a true majority of voters -- across all party lines -- much like Reagan had.

I find this liberating; I hope others do to. Frankly, I think we're at a very special moment in our history, and it would be a shame if our own party prevented us as a country from taking this tremendous step forward.

texasdem wrote on January 18, 2008 6:08 PM:

Gabriel,

Nailed it.

Anna wrote on January 18, 2008 6:19 PM:

Gabriel,

I respectfully disagree, because, I think, I have a different view of what the problem is.

I don't think that liberals and Democrats bear any responsibility for the state of divisive politics today. I don't think there's too much partisan bickering; I think that there hasn't been enough coming from the Democrats.

To me, Democrats are like domestic violence survivors. We're so beaten down that we've internalized the idea that we're too angry; we're too partisan; we're unwilling to compromise when all we do is compromise. We've come so far to the center.

What I want is a Democrat who can articulate why being a liberal is a good thing. That's what Edwards does in his stump speech. He talks about taking care of the poor and supporting worker's rights and making sure everyone has health care and protecting the environment and pursuing a decent foreign policy.

Obama's stump speech, however, isn't about explaining why the liberal agenda is the best for the country. It's about transcending our differences and working together with the very people who have brought our country so low. And while this "third way" -- and that's what it is -- sounds appealing, it does nothing to restructure the agenda, to pull the country back to the left, where it was when we were ready to elect Bobby Kennedy president in 1968.

So there's nothing appealing about Obama's campaign to me. Maybe it's because I'm too old and cynical -- my first formative political experience was campaigning for Bobby Kennedy in 1968 when I was 7 years old. But Obama is no Bobby Kennedy -- he's not even close.

little ole jim wrote on January 18, 2008 6:25 PM:

Gabriel nailed it except for one thing. Those "Reagan Democrats" are now Republicans. They are in that box and they have never voted for a Democrat since.

It's the Independents we have to go after. Republican cross-overs will be few and far between.

savvy wrote on January 18, 2008 6:27 PM:

I am so glad to see Hillary digging her own grave, boy does she know how to do spade work.

Obama is a brilliant political tactician. He knew that saying anything about Reagan or not positive about Clinton would send the Hillary camp into overdrive and they would come out swinging.

Boy is this going to be fun to watch.

Now what we have here is a classic case of cat and mouse. Obama is setting all types of redmeat traps for the Clintonians knowing them to be the carniverous brawlers that they are he is enjoying himself. Because he is an 'upstart kid' the Clintons have underestimated his political acumen. They see the traps he creates for them to walk into as 'his rookie errors' lol lol

Obama is building a new voter coalition that coalition includes Reagan Democrats, people who beleived that he was a great president and most of all who believed he had great ideas as they dubbed him 'the great communicator'

Many of those Reagan Democrats are in California and California has the biggest prize of delegates...over 400 of them.

Hillary by talking against Regans ideas and policies turns that part of the electorate off, despite them being able to vote in the California democratic primary...it is another open primary!!.

Obama knows what he is doing. Just as he had his supporters saying 'yes, we can' at his concession speech in NH before he headed to NV, and lead the culinary workers in that same chant as they recalled Cesar Chavez...saying 'yes, we can. Surely I was not the only one wondering why they were chanting 'yes, we can' instead of 'fired up' 'ready to go'

Obama may not have mastered all the brawling and divisiveness of the Clintons but he is an extremely good political strategist. Obama is use to bringing folks of divergent views together and creating agreement. He is handing Clinton her ass and she does not know it. He wants her to polarize the voters he wants in his coalition. He knows the GOP voters are unhappy with their entire slate of primary choices and he wants those voters. He is willing to compete for them. Because he wants a fundamental change. Obama wants to usher in an era of progressiveness like Reagan ushered in an era of conservatism. He needs a mandate to do that and that is why he wants those voters.

For all those who are talking about Obama was fuzzy and what did he mean by excesses, recall that Reagan ushered out the era of big government he cut government spending and programs that mushroomed in the 60s and 70s those are the excesses Obama was referring to.

Also, Obama's response here is dead on target from here on out..we can expect Obama to delineate time and time again how the Clintons policies support Reagan ideas. To make Hillary love stupid.

Let's all recall, that when Bill Clinton gave his inaugral speech one of the first things he said was "the era of big government is over' and that is totally a Reagan idea...Obama is goooood.

Go get 'em Barack...aim for Bill's jugular help him go ballastic over and his adminstration's record on the trail as you need to, in order to take down MRS Bill Clinton as that is the platform she has hoisted herself up upon.

Outstanding job by Obama to take on Bill, his record and the way he maintained Reagan's policies on trade and domestic issues.

Obama has the best and brightest ideas and that is why he will be our next President.

DonnaG wrote on January 18, 2008 6:39 PM:

Both hands up, yes, getting tired of the Clintons, and especially tired of having my intelligence insulted by both Clintons willful distortions of the facts.

BTW, Ann or Anna [I think the same person], Barack Obama did not write two books while in the Senate, as the first was published in the 1990's. Also, contrary to Bill Clinton's tiresome lie which asserted that Obama, 'after a year' in the Senate, then ran for president and which lie you seemed to borrow----get this, please: Obama was elected US Senator in November of 2004, took office in January of 2005 and threw his hat in the ring in early 2007.

A little simple math here, Obama has now been in the Senate three years, Hillary seven years.

In Obama's shorter years in the US Senate, he has been able to get legislation through which totally trumps anything Hillary has done in her longer years there. 78% of her successful legislation was fluff like renaming post offices, and only one of hers had any possible national significance [extending benefits to family care-givers]. Compare that to Obama's work: Gov't transparency bill with Coburn, Nuclear and weapons Proliferation legislation with Lugar, strongest ethics legislation since Watergate with Feingold.

Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 6:46 PM:

Mike2: He needs to disavow his "understanding" of how Reagan was seen as an antidote to the "excesses" of previous generations

Keith: Why should Obama disavow something he never said? He said that Reagan tapped into the country's concern with the growth and "excesses" of the federal government.

Mike2: Right Keith, the quote marks around "understanding" were inaccurate on my part... but his actual remarks suggest that he really believes that Reagan tapped into concern with "excesses"... and that amounts to voicing understanding for that position. No progressive should want to be caught expressing that kind of understanding.

For that matter, I do not acknowledge any particular excesses from the 60s and 70s, nor do I think that concern about such alleged excesses explain Reagan's success. The analysis itself is wrong.

Obama is right that Reagan was transformational... he is very wrong in his explanation of the sources of that transformation, and phrased that understanding in terms that were entirely too friendly to Reagan for this progressive to stomach.

He's still the least bad of the viable Democrats.

fou wrote on January 18, 2008 6:46 PM:

I'm with Tapper. And speaking of big ideas, I can't wait for Obama to start praising Nixon's desire to bomb Cambodia. When even Kissinger balked, he replied: "I just want you to think BIG Henry!"

Also, am I dreaming or is there only one Obama supporter here writing under many aliases? I feel as if I'm reading the same post over and over, and it says in effect: Hillary is a liar.

Fine. Hillary's a liar. But still I wonder WHO IS OBAMA? Last month he was JFK with a sprig of RFK. This month he's Reagan. Who will it be next month?

Gabriel wrote on January 18, 2008 6:55 PM:

Anna-

I definitely hear what you're saying. It sounds like your frustration may stem from where much of mine does as well -- a lack of strong direction and vocal leadership from within the party.

I do admire Edwards' fight and passion, though I find his consistency in relation to his voting record to be a touch troubling.

In any case, I think we're all looking and hoping for the same thing: a strong leader, with a world view and core principles we agree with, that can cast those views and principles as the new course for America. Because the truth is, 4 years, of even 8 years, isn't really going to cut it -- we need something more substantial than that to really move things back from where they've gotten.

In any case, exciting times!

TexasDem wrote on January 18, 2008 7:02 PM:

I watched the video of Obama's remarks soon after Josh posted it, and was later surprised at the way it had been spun. It seemed pretty clear to me that he was saying FDR and Reagan were transformational leaders, in ways Clinton was not.

He even said in the video he disagreed with Reagan, but saw his style as conversation-changing, altogether reframing the debate.

Why is this controversial? And why would any Democrat who's been frustrated by the pathetic Dem leadership in Washington not say Amen to it?

I've been an Edwards supporter in this race, but sheesh. Obama is right about this. He wants to change the entire debate, right down to the assumptions.

And triangulating (see, Clinton) and compromising on principles (see Reid, Pelosi) isn't going to cut it.

That's what he was saying. Who on this site disagrees with that?

Jim wrote on January 18, 2008 7:13 PM:

[quote]To me, Democrats are like domestic violence survivors. We're so beaten down that we've internalized the idea that we're too angry; we're too partisan; we're unwilling to compromise when all we do is compromise. We've come so far to the center...

Obama's stump speech, however, isn't about explaining why the liberal agenda is the best for the country. It's about transcending our differences and working together with the very people who have brought our country so low. And while this "third way" -- and that's what it is -- sounds appealing, it does nothing to restructure the agenda, to pull the country back to the left, where it was when we were ready to elect Bobby Kennedy president in 1968.[/quote]

Anna, eloquently put, and yes yes yes.

jeanba wrote on January 18, 2008 7:20 PM:

Gabriel,

You yourself should be a political strategist, you just read Obama's mind. He understands that to reach victory he needs a segment of electorate that other democrats have not been able to reach, independents, young people, and moderates republicans, his work should pay off in NV as it did in IA. NH was harder because of perception that he was going to win, many independents voted for republicans instead in the democrats primary. But watch tomorrow, Obama does very well outside Las Vegas that's where his victory will come from. Unions will help minimize Hillary lead in Vegas but she will do bad in North NV. Again tomorrow we will see good organization like the one we saw in IA. The Clintons should be careful, this is not the 90's, they are really doing a bad thing for the democratic party. Will see.

Mark wrote on January 18, 2008 7:24 PM:

No, it's not about "working with the people who have brought our country low".. it's about marginalizing them by building a coalition devoted to decent progressive American values. To do that you need to reach out to people. If you take the Clinton approach you will always be "fighting" against the far right forces, and never finally defeating them. That's what Obama will do. If you doubt his committment to Democratic values, please, look into his life-story a little bit: voter registration (*cough Clinton suppression cough*), civil rights law, community organizing, powerfully against the war when it mattered, against lobbying interests, against police abuses. He has paid his dues. He does not deserve to fall victim to the Clinton's distortions, and we can't let that happen.

fou wrote on January 18, 2008 7:28 PM:

TexasDem, I respectfully disagree. You articulate perfectly what Obama would like conservative Democrat and independent-minded Republican voters to understand. However, the argument falls flat when one considers his probable motivation for waging it in a Democratic primary. I'll wager he's looking at his polls, and seeing that he can't win this thing without a sizeable chunk of independent crossover votes. "So what's wrong with that?", you might ask. Well He's saying in effect: 'vote for me, because I feel like Reagan, even though I've come to undo all of his ideas'. I'm sorry, but that dog won't hunt. I don't know about you, but I think it's a stretch to assume that centrist voters would choose someone simply because his style was like that of a former president whose ideas they appreciated. Especially when you consider that by admiring Reagan, Obama somewhat perversely advocates an explicit liberal cultural and political transformation that will endure as long as Reagan's conservative revolution has. Why would people who liked Reagan's ideas vote for their overthrow? This argument is sophist and fallacious on its face.

This is a ploy to get Republicans to get rid of the Clintons so that Obama can win the nomination. I find it beyond outrageous that a Democratic candidate would do such a thing. I wasn't sure whether or not I would vote for Obama until today. Now, I'm quite sure I will not.

heretic wrote on January 18, 2008 7:32 PM:

I assume some of you here are old enough to be aware that polls in 2000 showed that Bill Clinton would have beat W handily if he had been allowed to run. The vast majority of the country was not tired of him. They were ready for more. He had 65% approval rating during the impeachment proceedings. He was without a doubt one of the most popular and successful presidents in American history. This view that you so-called progressives have of Reagan vs. Clinton is the most vile revisionism I have ever seen on this forum. Obama supporters reveal their shallowness and stupidity just about every time they post. You are truly an embarrassment to the Democratic party. Perhaps the most ironic thing is that Obama is running on a campaign of uniting the country, yet his mere presence on the stage seems to have resulted in more divisiveness than I have ever seen in the party. The endless attacks on the Clintons, so "ably" supported by you simpletons, will scar this party for a generation. You people really need to clue up.

jeanba wrote on January 18, 2008 7:56 PM:

Heretic,

You and Clinton share one thing in common, "anger" accusing Obama supporters is not going to help, the truth is the Clintons do not own everyone in the democratic party, maybe you but not everyone. An embarrassment to the democratic party because we don't agree with their political views and yours? True progressive welcome dissent and diverse of opinions, true progressive put interests of people before their own, true progressives are not part of the DLC, maybe you are the one who needs help and take off your blinds then you will realize that the Clintons are there for themselves. We have every right to disagree and criticize the Clintons, too bad if you don't like it.

North Carolina wrote on January 18, 2008 8:03 PM:

This discourse goes to prove the pundits theories that the Wal-Mart democrats are head over heels for Hillary. These are not readers, learners or thinkers but rather sheep that probably have fallen into the same hate-rut every election. Reagan - Bush - Clinton - Bush ... fall in line a vote how you are told or terrible things will happen ... ooooh. Now go ahead and curse at me, it will make you feel better.

grover_rover wrote on January 18, 2008 8:04 PM:

Just putting this out there:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674

"But no president can do it alone. She must break recent tradition, cast cronyism aside and fill her cabinet with the best people, not only the best Democrats, but the best Republicans as well.. We’re confident she will do that. Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan - demonstrates how she thinks. As expected, Bill Clinton was also included on the aforementioned list."

chicagoguy wrote on January 18, 2008 8:08 PM:

heretic, you have a point: Clinton was popular. He remains a magnetic politician. Maybe he would STILL win if he could run. But - so what? It's one thing to say we might have had another Clinton term without that pesky amendment, but it's something quite different to say, since we could not have that, we should want Hilary.

Marx had a point, too: to paraphrase, history repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce. Gore's defeat was a tragedy. Many people who think HC is capable and progressive nonetheless fear that the election of a second Clinton would produce a farce, and an ugly, boring farce to boot.

Obama is very clever. Not as good as Bill in concealing just how clever he is; there may never be anyone better than Bill at that game. But better at it than Hilary. He would be better able than Hilary to drive the Republicans bonkers by doing the thing that great leaders in a democracy have always had to do well: speak to the citizens.

paul wrote on January 18, 2008 8:15 PM:

The Clintons won in 92 and 96 and it caused those of us who supported any democratic win to ignore their cheap ways. Now that they're used against a fellow Democrat, we can see how repulsive is their lying and parsing, their win at any cost approach. In the past, win at any cost meant compromising with REpublicans, leaving Lani Guinier out on a limb, lying about sexual escapades, etc, etc. I am not sure I could ever vote for them again. They gave us a Democratic Congress, they screwed up health care for the next 12 years, they cheapened the office (I know, GWB said it first, but it's still true), they gave out pardons willy-nilly to shady characters - they are just shameless and only care about power and winning. I would like something more. If it comes to McCain vs. Clinton, I may well vote for McCain - I don't agree with him on teh issues, but I think perhaps integrity is more important, and he wins that battle hands down.

Christie Mayo wrote on January 18, 2008 8:21 PM:

Why are Edwards policies not not discussed on this thread? Why does it start with the assumption that the only choice is Hillary vs Obama?

Anna wrote on January 18, 2008 8:30 PM:

Thank you, Christie. Thank you.

Paul Krugman said -- correctly so -- that Edwards has been setting the policy agenda for the Democratic candidates for months now. But no one in this discussion is interested in that.

Depressing.

grover_rover wrote on January 18, 2008 8:34 PM:

Oh, and Bill:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/05/reagan.health...

Former President Bill Clinton and his wife, Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, issued a statement that praised the former president for his optimistic outlook.

"Hillary and I will always remember President Ronald Reagan for the way he personified the indomitable optimism of the American people, and for keeping America at the forefront of the fight for freedom for people everywhere...

"We will always remember his tremendous capacity to inspire and comfort us in times of tragedy, ...and we can rest assured that, as joyous a place as Heaven is, his wit and sunny disposition are making it an even brighter place to be." President Bill Clinton and Sen. Hillary Clinton.

Realpolitiker wrote on January 18, 2008 9:06 PM:

>are you unable to make a distinction >between an anti-war position and a >need/responsibility to fund the military >*IN THE FIELD*?

I think the idea here, Mr. Small-Minded, is that without funding the POTUS would have to bring them home. This seems to be something the congress can't push right. They should say "We will not fund the war, now only a heartless president who didn't support the troops would send an army into battle with no supplies." Instead the prez is pushing this: "I sent them to war, now if the congress doesn't give me a blank check THEY don't support the troops."

Just a question of which position is more politically risky, so far we seems convinced of the latter.

Disgusted By Obamafans wrote on January 18, 2008 9:15 PM:

Obama Unity trolls apparently plan on tearing the Democratic party apart in order to "heal" the nation.

Brilliant plan, we can call it the Liebercrat Lite Plan B: fund the war abort the party.

Since Obama fans appear to believe that Democrats are no longer needed to win Obama the nomination of the Democratic Party I'd suggest true Democrats take another look at Clinton and Edwards.

John McCutchen wrote on January 18, 2008 9:15 PM:

Obama Interview With SF Chronicle Editors

Sen. Obama was interviewed by the SF Chronicle editorial board yesterday - the one hour interview can be seen here:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2008/01/18/MNSNUH7GC.DTL&o=0&type=politics maria wrote on January 18, 2008 9:16 PM:

Tapper: Show me when Hillary voted against funding for Iraq before you start trying to chip away at Obama being AGAINST the damn thing from the start.

Disgusted by HilBots flaming "Obamafans" wrote on January 18, 2008 9:22 PM:

I guess if you disagree with Clinton's tactics you should just shut up and go home? I don't see Obama picking apart every interview she gives and then distorting the crap out of it. And yeah, she voted to give Bush permission to invade Iraq- there is no way to put a positive spin on that little turd.

Dawn wrote on January 18, 2008 9:26 PM:

What Anna said.

Also, I really don't care if Reagan was Hillary's 10th favorite president, or if Bill said he was a nice guy when he was memorializing him upon his death. Neither of them are using him as a positive example in the frickin' Democratic primary! Is it really so hard to get why that is insulting to those of us who actually remember that time?

Reagan's method for bringing change was to set segments of our society against eachother. I don't think that is Obama's model.

Actually, judging from the Hillary-hate on the part of his supporters, maybe it is.

Dawn wrote on January 18, 2008 9:28 PM:

I don't see Obama picking apart every interview she gives and then distorting the crap out of it

No, he had his supporters to do that for him on the MLK comments and Bill's "fairy-tale" comments.

jeanba wrote on January 18, 2008 9:37 PM:

Disgustebyobamafans

Maybe Obama fans are smart enough to realize that in order to bring change we need a governing majority, democrats alone can't get it so why not appeal to independents, republicans and undecided? Are you disgusted that your gal Hillary not only democrats can't stand her but also indies and republicans will never vote for her? It is sad but true. Obama has votes of democrats, indies and undecided, you are the one who is delusional to think that Hillary can win without indies or moderates republicans. Many democrats will stay home if she is nominated, although I hope it does not happen. We are looking at a republican whitehouse win if it's not Obama or Edwards as democratic nominees. The good thing will be that the Clintons will be out of the democratic party, Chelsea please stay out no more Clintons.

Disgusted By Obamafans wrote on January 18, 2008 9:50 PM:

When Obama shows some of the magic leadership all his fanatics claim he has while he's a SITTING SENATOR he'll earn my support.

At least Clinton has never claimed such mystic Unity powers (though she has been successfully working with national Republicans longer than Obama). They may detest her but at least she's more than just 'present.'

It would be nice if EITHER Obama or Clinton showed the leadership that Dodd did on the telecom amnesty or if either of them showed the leadership on Democratic PRINCIPLES the way Edwards and Kucinich have. Both of the latter have shown tremendous leadership on core Democratic principles while Obama has been repeatedly engaging in right-wing talking points that even Clinton has the good sense to avoid.

Obama fanatics should also consider asking their fellow supporters to show some respect to the other Democratic candidates supporters. If Obama wins the nomination he may come to regret that his more virulent supporters have so completely alienated Democratic progressives that they stayed home and all his sucking up to Republicans wasn't enough to carry the day.

Dawn wrote on January 18, 2008 9:55 PM:

If I wanted to vote for someone Republicans like, I would vote for a Republican. I want to vote for someone who cares more about getting my solid Democratic vote than about going to the right for Republican and Indie votes.

Martin Edwin Andersen wrote on January 18, 2008 9:56 PM:

Immediately after Reagan died--on June 28, 1994--CNN reported that:

"Former President Bill Clinton and his wife, Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, issued a statement that praised the former president for his optimistic outlook."

The CNN report continued:

"'Hillary and I will always remember President Ronald Reagan for the way he personified the indomitable optimism of the American people, and for keeping America at the forefront of the fight for freedom for people everywhere,' their statement said."
(See:http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/05/reagan.main/index.html)

More interestingly--and in retrospect understandably, given their common penchant for lying--President Bill Clinton eulogized Richard Nixon at his funeral like this: "May the day of judging President Nixon on anything less than his entire life and career come to a close."

(See: The New York Times, April 28, 1994; http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9805E5DD1730F93BA15757C0A962958260)

Now the Clinton camp followers hypocritically make Obama's statement of fact--that Reagan ushered in a sea-change in U.S. politics, whether you agreed with his direction or not--into some claim that Obama is less than genuine in his politics.

Clinton talking point No. 1: That Reagan busted unions, therefore Obama must been less than committed to the labor movement.

Meanwhile, people forget that Bill Clinton pardoned the union-busting international financier Mark Rich.

(See http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0212-04.html)

Elsewhere I have blogged that Hillary Clinton is the Democrats' Richard Nixon in pumps.

Need there be any more proof?

Martin Edwin Andersen
Churchton, Maryland

TN _Dave wrote on January 18, 2008 10:05 PM:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/
In fact, Senator Clinton only complimented President Reagan’s communications skills – an attribute of his that has been widely praised by Americans of all ideological stripes – and did not list him as one of her favorite presidents. She also noted that she respected George H.W. Bush.

From Hillary's website: But no president can do it alone. She must break recent tradition, cast cronyism aside and fill her cabinet with the best people, not only the best Democrats, but the best Republicans as well.. We’re confident she will do that. Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan - demonstrates how she thinks. As expected, Bill Clinton was also included on the aforementioned list.

John wrote on January 18, 2008 10:08 PM:

Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 4:10 PM: Wow, how dare you attack me, I am against the war from the beginning!

If you think we don't know what a Hitlery Clinton campaign operative looks like in print, you hold too high an opinion of yourself.

And anyone who thinks the Clinton machine doesn't include flunkies to post calculated crap on websites isn't living in the real world.

The Clintons are truly scum of the Earth. This longtime libertarian/conservative is firmly supporting Barack Obama, if only because Ron Paul has been much more effectively damaged by the corporate press machine, who do not dare pretend Obama doesn't exist like they've done to Paul. If this nation is to survive, one of these two men MUST win in November.

Listen carefully, Democrats: If you want to WIN the White House, you will nominate Barack Obama, because people like me will vote for him, especially against a Romney, McCain or (shudder) Huckabee. If you are merely into venting your stupid spleens, you will nominate Hillary Clinton, and guarantee that even Mike Huckabee can win in November.

PS: Kudos to the person above who noted how Bill Clinton and H.W. Bush have been big buddies for the last few years. THe Clintons are so consumed with their own personal ambition that cozying up to the fascist Bush family was just business as usual for them.

Moonlight wrote on January 18, 2008 10:10 PM:

"Also, I really don't care if Reagan was Hillary's 10th favorite president"

The presidents listed in the quote were given in chronological order.

Dawn wrote on January 18, 2008 10:31 PM:

Regarding Hillary's "favorite presidents":

David Cutler, the co-owner of Salmon Press Newspapers, released the following statement:

The question posed was originally what portraits would you hang in the White House if you were President and as the dialogue progressed, who are the presidents you admire most?

She [Sen. Clinton] listed several presidents that she admired and mentioned she liked Reagan’s communication skills. She did not say Reagan was her favorite President. She didn’t say anything close to that.

Mark F. wrote on January 18, 2008 10:41 PM:

Obama has no "conciliatory" streak. He has a serious, sober analytical streak. And he knows why Reagan was popular. And he knows how to capitalize on Reagan's techniques. Hillary fucking sucks donkey cocks in Hell, and Bill is a filthy, lying whore. If Hillary gets the nomination, I will vote for Joe Lieberman. It won't matter at that point.

Duane wrote on January 18, 2008 10:41 PM:

She [Sen. Clinton] listed several presidents that she admired and mentioned she liked Reagan’s communication skills.

I guess Hillary shouldn't have been so nuanced. Let's face it, she really stepped in it this time. She clearly isn't ready for the big leagues. She should know better than to wave the red flag of Reaganism in the faces of progressives.

CranialRectalLoopback wrote on January 18, 2008 10:43 PM:

Triangulation ... the right wing term for compromise. I wonder how the ObamaNation will bring people together without compromise ... or as the right wingers like to say "triangulation".

NCSteve wrote on January 18, 2008 10:54 PM:

If I wanted to vote for someone Republicans like, I would vote for a Republican. I want to vote for someone who cares more about getting my solid Democratic vote than about going to the right for Republican and Indie votes.

Shorter version: I don't want to vote for someone who might get a majority of the votes. I want to vote for a clear loser.

foreigner wrote on January 18, 2008 11:51 PM:

So after reading this long list of posts I go away with....
-anything Hillary says is a lie
-anything Obama says is the truth
-Hillary can do no right
-Obama can do no wrong
-Obama can bring up Reagan with no backlash
-Hillary and the rest of the world were supposed to keep quiet during the time of Reagan's funeral when nary one negative word was uttered for the whole long week of coverage
-Hilary is blamed for not denouncing enough the Teacher's union lawsuit even thought they hadn't formally endorsed her
-Obama is not taken to task for not denouncing a union that has officially supported him from running a blatant racist radio ad
and once again-
-Hillary can do no right
-Obama can do no wrong

Is this a race for the Presidency of the most powerful country in the world or a popularity contest between a black man and a white woman?

Jeremy Goldberg wrote on January 19, 2008 12:12 AM:

Was a against it before I voted to fund it" Obambi

Oh cut the crap. The troops were in the fucking field already. It was TOO LATE to vote against funding the goddamn war - thanks to the Experienced One and those who voted like her!

Martin Edwin Andersen wrote on January 19, 2008 12:19 AM:

The "new" Hillary seems about as authentic as the "new Nixon" circa 1968.

Caveat emptor!

HarpoMarxist wrote on January 19, 2008 12:35 AM:

"...any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction."

-- Hillary Clinton, October 10th, 2002

"That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics."

-- Barack Obama, October 2, 2002

Hillary AND HER SUPPORTERS have blood on their hands.

Hey you, masters of war, "even Jesus would never forgive what you do"!

Ian Tepoot wrote on January 19, 2008 12:50 AM:

One flawed assumption I see in this thread when dismissing Obama's "unified" approach is that working with Republicans means moving the position toward them or watering down progressive values to do so. That is triangulation, yes.



This goes to a point that incorporates points both Gabriel and Anna made: that liberals have been in reactionary mode to the Reagan Agenda and have come to feel battered to the point where we never even consider the possibility of a situation in which progressive can frame the agenda and force conservatives to react.



The fact that we are still running-scared from the Reagan Agenda testifies to his nefarious efficacy. We should want someone who is transformational in this way, but for the progressive agenda. Frame the debate from the left and invite them to work with you. Most politicians move with the wind, so you need someone who can "change the wind".



Whether you believe Obama can do this, is another issue. I believe he can. His record in the Illinois Senate does indicate someone who can build a coalition that is more toward his progressive policy than vice versa.



I also think his Senate record is not perfect. But in many progressive bona-fides his record stands above that of Senator Clinton. Edwards' rhetoric is pure, but his voting record is significantly less consistent than Obama's if you really look. I suggest project votesmart (http://www.votesmart.org)



If it comes down to it, I will hold my nose and vote Hillary, vote satisfactorily for Edwards... and vote enthusiastically for Obama.

ARR wrote on January 19, 2008 1:45 AM:

Ian Tepoot,

Thanks for bringing some sanity back to this discussion.

Obama is not only the most electable, but also he has the opportunity to bring a large coalition along with him.

Hillary might be able to get elected using the same slash and burn tactics she is currently employing (although probably not against John McCain), but if that happens it will be 50 plus 1 for the next four or eight years.

radlib1 wrote on January 19, 2008 2:24 AM:

All of this Hillary-Obama stuff and not one word about JOHN EDWARDS, the Democrat with the best chance of beating any Republican in '08.

While Hillary unabashedly voted to give Bush the power to declare War on Iraq (and has never apologized for her vote, as John Edwards had the courage to do), Obama has been the consummate get-along, go-along Democrat (agreeing that it was bad, but voting every time to continue funding for it.) We have enough cowards in the Democratic ranks.

Vote for John Edwards. He's the only one who truly cares about the American working people.

radlib1 wrote on January 19, 2008 2:30 AM:

All of this Hillary-Obama stuff and not one word about JOHN EDWARDS, the Democrat with the best chance of beating any Republican in '08.

While Hillary unabashedly voted to give Bush the power to declare War on Iraq (and has never apologized for her vote, as John Edwards had the courage to do), Obama has been the consummate get-along, go-along Democrat (agreeing that it was bad, but voting every time to continue funding for it.) We have enough cowards in the Democratic ranks.

Vote for John Edwards. He's the only one who truly cares about the American working people.

anniesmiles wrote on January 19, 2008 3:00 AM:

Well....I am a product of the 60's and 70's. I remember protesting the Viet Nam War. I remember marching for Civil Rights. I remember supporting the Environmental Issues. I remember the lives lost in those causes. Senator Obama would not be where he is today...if we hadnt done what we did. I am getting sick and tired of him dissing my efforts. He continues to bash a whole generation that brought huge changes to this fine country. He continues to bash us "hippies".... He calls us excessive.
Ronald Reagan was the backlash to the Civil Rights movement. He made it alright to hate..."welfare queens". He made it alright to hate street people...who were turned out from mental health facilities ...because they were " lazy". He made it alright to break unions because they were "too hard" on big business. I wish you youngsters would learn some history. The way Ronald Reagan won his election was through fear..economic greed...and hate of the lower classes. In someway...I see that with Obama. Everytime I hear him speak...in some way...he diminishes us old folks.

barb wrote on January 19, 2008 3:18 AM:

Tapper,

Obama did not vote for the Patriot Act. He wasn't in the Senate in 2001 when it was passed. He jumped in to revise it during its reauthorization which just about all the dems voted for. Here's a link:

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/01/clinton-slams-o.html

Davidson wrote on January 19, 2008 3:55 AM:

Please. Obama is no better than Hillary Clinton when it comes to Iraq: their voting records are identical. What's the point of speaking out against the war, if you don't actually lead against the war in the Senate? He didn't vote against funding until 2007--just like Clinton. And his 2002 speech was not courageous since his liberal district was anti-war to begin with. There were no immediate political setbacks. In fact, there was immediate political advantage.

Clinton was wrong to vote for that damn war. Obama was wrong to joining Clinton in the senate and giving the Bush administration blank checks for years.

barb,

That does count as voting for the Patriot Act. If you revise shit, it's still shit.

yesterday gone wrote on January 19, 2008 4:28 AM:

And his 2002 speech was not courageous since his liberal district was anti-war to begin with.

a senate run means you have to appeal to the entire state, not just one district. when he was in the state senate, his party was in minority. that gives you an indication how red this state was at the time.

facta non verba wrote on January 19, 2008 4:47 AM:

Apparently TPM is Obama Central. Pity.

I have to tell you that as an Edwards supporter you are wrong to presume that most Edwards supporters would gravitate to Obama. Unlike perhaps others, we actually look at the candidates' proposals and their records.

I may not like Mrs. Clinton much but I abhor Mr. Obama. Anyone who believes that they can work with Republicans is not to be trusted. He is either naive or a dangerous tool. The Manchurian Candidate comes to mind.

Mr. Obama's all-too-frequent Present votes or worse yet his absences from the Senate at critical junctures speak of either cowardice or cold political calculations. Where was/is on the FISA bill? Dodd came back to filibuster, Obama didn't. Mrs. Clinton, while she did not return, stated that she would support Dodd's filibuster. Mr. Obama is on the wrong side.

On energy, Paul Krugman wrote that Obama's energy proposals were more like the Bush/Cheney plans than those of either Clinton or Edwards. Amazingly, he has no alternative energy proposals. Could be because two of the biggest contributors to his campaign are the coal and nuclear industries.

On healthcare, his proposals sound like Mitt Romney's proposals. It is neither universal nor mandated nor funded. Compare that to Clinton or Edwards.
On the war, we all know that he was against it but do you know that he has sided with Lieberman on every vote to increase funding.

On foreign policy, he sounds more like Bush with an unilateralist foreign policy when he suggests that he would strike at Bin-Laden in Pakistan without informing the Pakistanis.

And now I am told that he believes that the GOP has been the party of ideas since the Reagan era. Really? Universal healthcare was tried under Bill Clinton and torn asunder by the very people he is now proposing we reach out to.

The face of Republican Party includes people like William Kristol, John Bolton and Jonah Goldberg. Kristol thinks the Democrats "dangerous". Bolton's book is entitled "Surrender is not an Option." And Goldberg recently equated liberalism with fascism adding that organic farming was a fascist enterprise.Please tell me how one works with people like this?

FDR was a successful President not because he reached out to the GOP but because he was partisan with no apologies. If you are going to pick Presidents to emulate you may want to pick one of ours, not one of theirs and especially one is largely responsible for the dismantling of the social safety net.

It seems to me that Obama supporters all tout his charisma and his style. Geez where have I heard that before? But I am not electing someone with whom I want to have a beer, I am electing a leader.

Obama's supporters also have another thing in common, a strong dislike for the Clintons. Well Mrs. Clinton is dislikeable enough to paraphrase the Senator but she accumulated such hatred by putting herself on the line for quite some time and she has endured it with grace. Since New Hampshire, when I hear Mrs. Clinton sometimes I have to ask myself if I am hearing John Edwards. Her new tone has a distinct North Carolinian drawl of populism.

When you examine Mr. Obama's record, there is little there and what is there is not exactly something to write home about. His stance on the FISA bill alone should disqualifying from the nomination.
I have to wonder if he'll pick Dianne Feinstein as his VP. There are Democrats who are not progressive liberals and Mr. Obama is clearly not a progressive liberal. He may talk Democratic but his walk is a Republican gallop.

Caveat emptor is my advice to Obama supporters. Look carefully because you may have buyer's remorse soon enough.

michael dittamore wrote on January 19, 2008 5:01 AM:

Oblapa cant come up with any original policies, Edwards has clammed up.

Or rather he's gone to (Edwards) great lengths to make sure any ideas written down on paper are shredded before dumping.

the night watchman has reported seeing a black shadow hanging out by the dumpster when ever the janitor goes to dump the garbage.

Jesse Jackson wrote on January 19, 2008 7:17 AM:

Obama once again pulls the race card. His staff started all that race stuff about MLK last week then he denied it. Obama finally admitted it but did not fire the staff who started the race card issue.

Obama is privately high-fiving his staff for starting the race card issue just before south carolina and nevada

LongTom wrote on January 19, 2008 8:09 AM:

Hey facta non verba;
You may not be electing someone to have a beer with, but everybody else is. Fact is, the more likeable candidate always wins a presidential election, going back at least as far as '76, when Carter was probably equally likeable to Ford.

Hillary has very little chance of being elected. Only her ever-popular husband could conceivably rescue her. The only Rep candidate she's arguably more likeable than is crusty ol' McCain, and she can't possibly beat him, partly because, based on her own campaign theme, she'll probably vote for him herself, since he has so much more EXPERIENCE than she does!

As for Hillary "putting herself on the line", this is rhetorical crap. The right wing hated her just because she was Clinton's wife. How did she ever "put herself on the line?" She's been triangulating her stands on issues for years. And just because the right wing hates you isn't enough to make you the nominee. She's shown no ability to counteract the right wing hate machine; her unfavorable ratings are plenty proof of that!

Marcola wrote on January 19, 2008 8:19 AM:

Appreciate the pro-Hillary memo "Wow, how dare you attack me, I am against the war from the beginning! Disgusting! Does this man have anything else to throw out?"

The Hillary camp would LOVE for that issue to go away, so she can stop triangulating herself into the corner.

RP wrote on January 19, 2008 8:32 AM:

The difference between H. Clinton and Obama is clear. Clinton is very focused on a narrow and tactical approach to politcs. Basically, she still thinks it is 1993 and, with a few tweeks, there will be a dot.com boom and everything will be fine. That approach, combined with her fear of the vast right wing conspiracy, will lead her to focus on small bore initiatives. Obama, on the other hand, thinks the country is ready for a transformation in a progressive direction. He thinks we are ready for universal health care, to deal with global warming, a return to constitutional government, and for an approach to foreign policy that is based on something other than fear and the blunt and inept use of military force. What is needed is a President who will have the trust of the American people and can talk to the vast majority of middle Americans about progressive values in a way they will understand and support. While people respect Hilary, they don't like and trust her. Hence, her Presiency, by the nature of her political skills and persona, is limited to narrow tactical advances. Obama, by contrast, becasue he has the vision, as well as a persona that Ame