to all of you Obama supporters , why not explain yourselves ?

[blues90]

I am not a supporter of any one of the three candidates and for different reasons .

I want to focus a bit of this Obama craze .

First how is it that When Obama referenced Reagan and many progressive talk show hosts were appalled by this at first yet over time it was spun and then swept under the run as in move on , nothing here to see people . Amazing how words and setting can be spun but far from surprising . Into the ether it went .

Go back a bit , Obama was in fact pandering and speaking to a republican group for their support , this is the reality of this matter no matter how time is allowed to make if fade into the ether .

Every time Obama was in the debates where all the candidates were there on TV when he was confronted or challenged he stuttered and paused and could not get his words together . The only time he comes out is in his speeches when he has a room of supporters and the mic and is not challenged .

Then there are these photo's all over the place with tears streaming down the faces of a FEW supporters . This happens all the time when people watch movies which are written in such a way to pull at ones heart strings . It means nothing specific to anyone other than the person shedding the tears, it is personal , but it is used in such as way as to advertise it and pull it into focus as if it represents millions .

Obama or any other candidate for that matter is backed by a rather large group of advisers who build a campaign which is designed completely around getting the vote and for NO other reason , they have speech writers and handlers and all other sorts of people in the mix but all for the same goal , the big win . If you desire change then more than anything else THIS is what needs to be changed before anything else will ever begin to change .

Now the is the issue of Wright . I don't disagree with what Wright said however I don't care who it was or what church they belong to or what color they are this sort of thing makes no one look good . I don't care if it's a friend or what . If I had a friend such as this who spoke this way and they were my friend for 20 years then I would have to agree far more than disagree to maintain this friendship .

Then there is the issue of Hillary bringing up MLK where she laid out the story that in the end it took a white president to make this into law . She was bashed to hell and back for this . Yet Obama was raised for the most part by his white grand parents so in the same sense he got the white privilege as well and uses it to his advantage . Obama brings into his speech and relate to his child hood experience , everyone has those , they are all nice stories with no proof required so they are stories and nothing more than this .

More than anything else what people who support Obama have bought into is a well put together add campaign from one end to the other this is what it has been , a highly funded add campaign which resulted in floods of avatars of Obama photo's and add banners from yes we can to the tear jerker song yes we can to the new change banner that looks like something out of the movie They Live , all you need are the special sun glasses to wonder what the true meaning really is .

More than this is the need to bash Hillary from all things possible to build up Obama including the relentless progressive radio shows who appear to have been given the talking points by their owners just like they always accused the right wing radio of doing . So now it's if you can't beat them , join them .

Obama supports have now placed Obama so very high in the sky he will never be allowed to make one mistake ever . If he does win he will be picked apart and torn to pieces .

Obama supporters come here and many other sites with posts for Obama supporters only or Hillary must drop out now and endless other rantings of no substance what so ever .

Obama supporters have built this fellow into a god without fault or flaw , he gets air time on every single TV show all because of Wright . We don't need a god , we need a human president .

This is like a snow ball effect that is without thought or reason that has grown completely out of the very thing many have always claimed was wrong which is media hype and hysteria and the relentless pounding and repetition of a mass add campaign .

What is just as bad is all the Obama defenders who do not follow the words of their own hero when they come here and reply to posts with childish and insulting remarks such as get a grip or get over it , you are just bitter , the list is as endless as it is defining of the hypocrisy and ignorance displayed .

I have voted in every election I was old enough to vote in but this time I do not have a candidate who represents me in any single form and the people who are voting are worse than their chosen candidates because most are crazed hypocrites who will stoop to anything for the purpose of being on the determined winning side .

[SoFlaJet]

1. too long of a question

we're a very stupid lot us Obama supporters you'll have to dumb it down a little

[Nitrogenica]

4. There are freepers on both sides name calling to get us to fight with each other.

First off, Don't you get that?

Second, I find your comment lacks dignity and respect for your fellow Democrats.

[SoFlaJet]

6. two things

1-it was a joke and
2-TBH jhuth long posts are a turn-off to most here

[ananda]

11. So I suppose that means..

.. that posts to Obama supporters need to be dumbed down
to one or two sentence sound bytes.

My my....

[Nitrogenica]

13. "a turn-off to most here" is a negative assumption.

Prove it.

[Traction311]

114. Do you know what TLDR means?

It's online talk, and acronym for Too Long, Didn't Read. For something to have its own acronym, it has to be a common term. Not causing any trouble (I'm not even an Obama supporter), but I got bored after the third sentence.

[blues90]

110. really , I have read many of your posts and responses

and you have the nerve to talk about dignity and respect ?

[JerseygirlCT]

75. LOL. I'm paraphrasing, but I had a professor once who told us

if you're going to make someone work that hard to read something, it had better be worth it!

[ecstatic]

2. Umm... here you go...?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5217627&mesg_id=5217627

Did you miss that?

[alcibiades_mystery]

3. Der...duuuh...I'm too crazed and frenzied to even understand der duhhhh

If you want honest dialogue, use honest language. I stopped reading at "craze," which is dishonest and stupid.

You should explain yourself.

[Faygo Kid]

5. Let It Sink

[SoFlaJet]

18. thanks Fay

the post was too long to read anyway and I will trust your judgement

[Buzz Clik]

60. Kick. I was ready to respond, but you're correct.

[stray cat]

7. Reagan democrats exist because Reagan convinced traditional dem voters

to vote for him and many of those voters now tend to vote republican. Therefore I do think along with Obama that Reagan changed the electoral landscape. In contrast, Bill Clinton did many good things but increasing the electoral base was certainly not one of them and actually he may have lost some of the base to republicans....

[Jersey Devil]

8. Sorry, no "craze" here, just an Edwards supporter who think's Obama is better than Hill

Bush, Clinton, Bush, then Clinton again? Not me, sorry.

Obama offers something fresh and new, and I believe change is something that is needed right now.

A simple answer to your rather convoluted question.

[MadBadger]

9. Let it sink

[Blue_In_AK]

10. Don't let them get you down, Blues

I understand what you're saying. People saying "let it sink" are attempting to stifle your right to be heard, and I DO think you have a right to be heard. Your post is not disrespectful, it asks honest questions, some of which have crossed my mind, too.

[blues90]

21. They will never get me down

It is clear to me what they are doing . Let it sink because they have no defense to offer and cannot even come close to try to see what is real or not . They choose to ignore any conflict or even attempt to be open minded .

We got where we are now with bush because of the very same way by being caught up in the hype such as they have WMD's and we will be attacked and people bought right into this . It's like yelling fire and people panic and step all over others just to save themselves yet no one ever looked to see if there actually was smoke or a flame .

[cornermouse]

12. kick

[AllentownJake]

24. The reason I support Obama

I support Obama and here are the reasons

1) The man has run an effective campaign. For a freshman Senator to be ahead of a party Scion like Hillary says alot. He hasn't wasted money. He hasn't had to loan any money to his campaign. He's made good choices and good investments with the resources that have been entrusted to him. I don't think the same can be said about his opponent.

2) Before it was politically popular he stood up against the Iraq war. The war could have went well and he would have looked like a fool. His political career would have been over. He had the courage to take a public stand on the issue.

3) He believes in building the party. He is trying to bring new voters into the process and he's trying to expand the people that vote for democrats. He's smart enough to realize that what we had in 2004 wasn't enough to win so he's trying something different. I don't believe the same could be said about his opponent.

4) Unlike many politicians, Obama has done stuff that's truly hard -- like trying to organize in South side Chicago.

5) I honestly believe he's the smarter of the two candidates. He was President of the Harvard Law Review. His opponent failed the bar exam in DC.

6) Personally I know several Republicans that plan to vote for him over McCain. I don't know a single republican that will vote for Hillary over McCain

7) His personal story inspires me. Hillary's doesn't. There are facts or anything behind that but the story on how he got to where he is makes me like him more than Hillary's.

8) I remember the 90s I think Bill Clinton did alot of good things but there was some sort of scandal every week. Some of it may have been a vast right wing conspiracy but some of it was the two of them doing things they shouldn't have been doing.

9)He's calm under pressure. I've never seen the guy raise his voice once in a debate or on the campaign trail. His opponent sounds out of control at times. That isn't because she's a woman. I think McCain sounds out of control at times too.

10) A bunch of "friends" of the Clintons have endorsed him. What do they know that I don't.

Hope that clears it up for you.

[cornermouse]

58. the deception involved in #5

"By then, Rodham was viewed as someone with a bright political future; Democratic political organizer and consultant Betsey Wright had moved from Texas to Washington the previous year to help guide her career;<57> Wright thought Rodham had the potential to one day become a senator or president.<58> Meanwhile, Clinton had repeatedly asked her to marry him, and she had continued to demur.<59> However, helped by her having passed the Arkansas bar exam but having failed the District of Columbia bar exam,<60> Rodham came to a key decision. As she later wrote, "I chose to follow my heart instead of my head."<61> She thus followed Bill Clinton to Arkansas, rather than staying in Washington where career prospects were best. Clinton was at the time teaching law and running for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in his home state. In August 1974, she moved to Fayetteville, Arkansas, and became one of two female faculty members in the School of Law at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville,<62> where Bill Clinton also taught. She still harbored doubts about marriage, concerned that her separate identity would be lost and her accomplishments would be viewed in the light of someone else's accomplishments.<63>"

Source - wikipedia.

#9 out of control woman memo/alert. That IS stereotyping.

[AllentownJake]

105. Out of Control

First the DC bar exam is harder than the Arkansas exam. They give exams by state. I believe NY is the hardest to pass.

Second A man can be out of control just as easily as a woman can. I think we diminish women by saying certain comments can't be attributed to them.

[KittyWampus]

14. If you don't think Reagan, the Religious Right & Far Right Media Buyouts Didn't Change America

from the 80's on, you need to learn some very basic history.

As far as I'm concerned you are:

1. very poorly informed because you have NO CLUE what Obama actually said about Reagan.
2. very poorly informed because you do know what Obama really said about Reagan but are ignorant about how the GOP ascended to power in the 80's
3. you do know all of the above but are intentionally stirring up shit.

[blues90]

23. #4 I do know all of the above and am asking to go back

and not let things be spun out of context . I have nothing to personally gain from stirring up shit for the reason I expressed , i have no candidate left here that represents me >

[40ozDonkey]

15. "Why do you ignorant, hypocritical, insulting children act so childish?"

And why won't you calmly and politely take abuse when we dish it?

IT'S NOT FAIR!

[lligrd]

16. IWR Vote, NAFTA, Dirty Politics, Enough Said nt

[Drachasor]

17. Point by point, as best I can

1. The Reagan thing was taken out of context by Hillary. Obama merely said Reagan was a transformative political figure, which is a fact (he changed the electorate and the Republican party). Obama also said he disagreed with Reagan's policies.

2. Obama does seem to stutter some when he doesn't have a prepared speech. It is possible he has a small stuttering problem (that is typically how such problems work). I don't see any reason to rake him over the coals for this, since what he does say when asked questions in such situations is still on spot. He did very well in the last two debates, for instance (if anything the debates show his very fast learning curve).

3. Obama plays a significant role in writing his own speeches. In fact he wrote his "More Perfect Union" speech, which almost everyone praised, by himself. Also, keeping your team together and on message requires a certain degree of leadership, and he's done a good job here. I personally think special interests are one of the biggest threats to our Democracy, and Obama is against their influence.

4. Wright's outrageous statements are the worst things he has said over a very long span of time. He hardly ever said such things, as many attendees of Trinity will attest.

5. If you think racism is only about the color of your parents, then you are quite mistaken. Though I will say he has experienced a bit of both sides, which gives him a unique perspective (that's an advantage).

6. Not sure why you are complaining about so many people being excited about Obama and actively supporting him (many on their own time). Isn't that a good thing?

7. Hillary has had a pretty dirty campaign. Many people complain on their own (pundits, by in large, are not controlled by Obama). What you are noticing is the general consensus on this.

8. Obama has admitted many times he isn't perfect. I admit he isn't perfect. Other supporters admit he isn't perfect. Some might think he is, but they are wrong and will realize it in time. If the past few weeks is any guide, it is that most of his supporters accept his imperfection.

9. Hillary can't win. She can't get the most pledged delegates or the most votes. That's a fact. She should drop out for the good of the party. That way Obama can start his GE campaign, and Hillary won't be providing McCain with more clips to use in commercials.

10. As I said before, we recognize Obama is an imperfect human.

11. Many Obama supporters are far from perfect. I wish some of them would behave better. That said, many of us do behave well, and you shouldn't confuse the actions of a few with those of the many. (A few Hillary supporters likewise have atrocious behavior).

[JerseygirlCT]

76. Wow. That was well done! nt

[NashVegas]

19. You're Asking For the Impossible

There is no logical explanation for their actions that people want to hear.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

"...that people want to hear."

:think:

Btw, look at the post above yours. It basically states what most supporters would argue.

[NashVegas]

63. I Went, I Looked

And I wouldn't say it disproves anything I've written. If anything, there are aspects that only enforced it. The cold logic of it can't be said on tv, or in the newspapers. The cold logic is there are two or more elite groups of people who pre-select the candidates, and then work like hell to shepherd the public by eliminating options. If you look at the campaign being waged against Hillary by beltway insiders and the so-called liberal and so-called independent press, that she has 49% of the votes and 47% of the delegates is a testament to her leadership ability.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

94. She has absolutely put a coalition together.

One that would win 9/10 times. This is that tenth time.

Good luck.

[dana_b]

20. I don't think I'm a crazed BO supporter

as a matter of fact, my original guy dropped out, (Kucinich), then Edwards dropped out, so now it's Obama for me. I don't think Hillary is the anti-christ (he's already in the Oval office), I just prefer Obama's stances on things and his openess. He is not a God, he's a man, a politician who is going to piss me off sometimes. To be completely honest, I should be backing Cynthis McKinney but I do feel that my vote will be wasted then and I can't tolerate another four years of McBush. There, happy?

[blues90]

32. I don't need to be happy

You supported the same people as I , I just happen to have a point where it ends .

I was open minded about both Hillary and Obama but do to the massive hype Obama is getting it became a turn off because I know hype when i see it . I can't dig through piles of hype and hysteria and then find reality hidden in there somewhere .

Things can and are taken to an extreme and this is one perfect example of one of those times .

You went from Kucinich to Edwards to Obama , I went from Kucinuch to Edwards to the a brick wall that I define as my stopping point . I won't go any further because what is left is the media pick from the begining . Which is in no way meant to offend you .

Yes people can say no vote is a vote for McCain but what is the same is a vote on diebold can become a vote for McCain .

[Radical Activist]

37. You have a perpetual losers mentality.

As soon as someone does what it takes to win an election you decide it means there's something wrong with them. There are a lot of progressives like you who would rather lose righteously than win. I bet you always like to listen to the cool counterculture bands than no one else knows about too. The sad thing is that Obama has a far more progressive record than Edwards but you'll turn your back on any progressive who builds up the kind of support it takes to become President.

[blues90]

55. First of all I am a liberal not a progressive

I choose to use critical thinking not talking points . I choose to use common sense rather than passion when it comes to any leader that claims to stand for me .

If one uses campaign tactics which involve painting a beautiful picture of a imagined future to win an election rather than point out a clear plan and realistic idea of how we can just begin to change just one simple issue then I choose to get out the Lennon album and listen to the song imagine .

[Radical Activist]

62. It sounds like you've fallen for talking points instead of thinking critically.

I know the zombie talking points about Obama lacking substance have been endlessly repeated. But Obama's policy proposals and speeches have just as much substance as anyone else. He's also the only candidate with a book explaining how he views the political situation in the world right now, which is more than other candidates can say.

I think you need to actually listen to Obama and look critically at his policy proposals instead of taking chat room talking points at face value. All positive change begins with a goal or in other words, a positive vision for the future.

[blues90]

82. for once and for all I don't follow or watch talking points

I have a mind of my own , i do not need anyone to fill my head with their paid position talking points , I avoid it at all costs , been there , done that , it does not work for me anymore .

I could not follow a chat room if my life depended on it , it tried once , it's not for me at all . Have you see how fast these things flow by?

I know how positive change takes place , this is not anything new , it's getting to that starting point that has never been done other than on a small scale personal experience .

I had this hope long ago in the 60's and it was crushed because the huge corporations did not want to allow it . Now things are much much worse and you are going to tell me something I don't know or have not lived . Obama has nothing to offer that I do not already know and so far to date I don't see people working together to make the sacrifice that is required to make the change , do you ? If you think it requires a vote to get started well then we have done that many years ago .

You know , I really do hope it turns out the way you hope it will but I will hold my skepticism real close and be wary and stern with my eyes wide open and my ear close the the ground .

[dansolo]

38. I could just as easily question your support of Edwards

His record doesn't really match his campaign rhetoric. His voting record as a Senator was very conservative, including his co-sponsoring of the IWR. That alone should make any Kucinich supporter wary. He also claims to speak for the impoverished, yet he consulted (and earned $500,000) for a large hedge fund company that was part of the sub-prime mess that preyed on the poor. Maybe you should look a little closer at the person you are supporting before questioning us on why we support Obama.

[dana_b]

51. fair enough. That's why I said that I thought about Cynthia.

and I like you, don't trust diebold. I have a standing mail in ballot so I'm sure it's on paper. No receipt though.
But back to the not voting thing, I do understand your reasoning, but for myself, I can't go there. McCain is so revolting to me, that I have to vote for the "next best" person.

[LWolf]

118. I followed that same path.

DK-Edwards-brick wall.

I don't think a no vote is a vote for McCain. A vote for McCain is a vote for McCain.

It's the Democratic nominee's job to earn the "yes" votes, and if he or she can't deliver, then the party is accountable.

[TwilightGardener]

22. Don't be dumb enough to buy the media hype. Most Obama supporters don't--

just think of him as a tough, skilled, charismatic politician and a very smart man, with perhaps more honesty and integrity than the average politician. He's not perfect, he sometimes makes misstatements and gaffes, there are things he screwed up on the way--but DAMN he learns fast, and adapts, and improves. And he inspires--very few can do that. Why be so suspicious?

[blues90]

25. He improves yes , but it is only in the campaign tactics

where this is evident . This in no way renders him honest or a great president . This you won't know until if and when he is president as it always is .

I have to be suspicious , if not then I am a fool . Who in life does not have to prove themselves before thay are trusted ? Only parents trust their child where it is natural .

[TwilightGardener]

30. Well, if you've already decided that he is dishonest and not to be trusted, then

there's very little anyone can do or say to convince you otherwise--that view will color and distort him in your eyes no matter what. Good campaigning is what it's all about, anyway--you can't get to the WH without it, you HAVE to be a crafty politician, and he is. He outsmarted Hillary in a lot of ways. He's earned his place as the frontrunner. Give him some credit, even if you don't love the guy or fully trust him.

[Radical Activist]

50. So you can't trust anyone to be President until they've already been President?

It doesn't sound like any candidate on earth can earn your support unless they're running for re-election. Catch 22.

[blues90]

86. No . I said proof is needed once they are in office

not a lot of promises before hand that maybe and most likely are reaching a bit to far . These are primaries and this is to be expected because it is they way we were taught to expect this . It is a political game . Say less and then get in there and do more and you win and look good and no one can come back a year of 5 years from now and toss it all back in your face like Pelosi and many others who rolled out the grand plan and failed .

[dansolo]

71. What reason do you have to trust Edwards any more than Obama?

[F.Gordon]

26. "The Big Tent" has been burned to the ground

I can't speak for Obama supporters and your very reasonable post will most likely go unanswered by anything other than very childish remarks.

What bothers me the most is this "fuck em'... we don't need em'" mindset. I don't think that all these "Talking Heads" on "progessive" radio and a large chunk of Obama supporters have a clue what they are doing when they perpetuate this ideology.

Thanks for your post.
:hi:

[dana_b]

28. go unanswered? have you read any of the responses?

like #17, for example?

[F.Gordon]

34. Appears to be just another attack Hillary post

:shrug:

A little piece of candy dipped in shit kinda' post.

[sandnsea]

27. The Reagan comment was spun by the Clintons

Your failure to comprehend plain English makes anything else you have to say irrelevant to me.

[blues90]

35. do you want to show me or anyone how the Reagan comment

was spun by Hillary ? I heard him say the entire thing many times and read the script over and over and Obamas defense was " I did not say they were good ideas " If he would have expressed that in the start then there would have been no issue ever yet he did not so then tell everyone why then ok ?

[Radical Activist]

40. It was very obvious from the first time Obama said it

including when he made the same point in his book, that his comments had nothing to do with Reagan's policies as President. Hillary is smart enough to know that but she decided to distort what Obama said for a cheap shot.
She got angry because it was really an attack against ineffective DLC Democrats like her husband whose legacy was unraveled after one year of Bush in office. That's what Obama was talking about. Go read what he really said again.

[otohara]

29. Republican's Like Susan Eisenhower & Lincoln Chaffee

don't feel like they were "pander" do. They see the same thing many of us see and are excited by his message. Chaffee who now works at Brown University says the excitement from the kids is so inspiring, he would be afraid a generation who just now got interested in politics because of Obama, would be lost forever if some back room deals by The Clinton's finagled the nomination from the people through super-delegates.


MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL.

Barack Obama frequently touts his support among crossover Republicans.

Let’s turn to two longtime Republicans who are now openly supporting Obama.

Susan Eisenhower—there’s a famous name—she’s the granddaughter of Ike, Dwight Eisenhower, the man who received the Nazi surrender and led this country for eight years. And she’s with the Eisenhower Institute. And former Republican U.S. Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, from Rhody. He’s an independent now.

I want to start with Susan.

What a famous name you have, Eisenhower. I remember Democrats for Ike in ‘52 on my Maternity BVM bus going to school. The Catholics started to move Democrat—Republican in those days for Ike. Why are you a Republican backing a Democrat, Barack Obama?

SUSAN EISENHOWER, CHAIRMAN, EISENHOWER INSTITUTE: Well, I think he’s the best candidate of the ones that are still remaining in the race. I think he’s a terrific guy. And, most of all, I think he represents the future.

MATTHEWS: OK. Let me go to Senator Chafee.

Why are you openly now endorsing a Democrat for president?

LINCOLN CHAFEE ®, FORMER U.S. SENATOR: Well, the war’s a big issue for me. And I was there, of course, for the vote on the war against Iraq. And it was built on such false premises. And we needed leadership at that time, and both Senator Clinton and Senator McCain just didn’t step up and use the good judgment to shift through what was presented, which turned out to be false evidence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

So, for me, that’s the major issue in this decision.

MATTHEWS: What are you going to do, Senator, if Obama doesn’t quite make it, and Hillary Clinton wins? Would you vote for McCain over Clinton? Or how would you decide that one? They were both for the war.

CHAFEE: That’s a good question.

MATTHEWS: They both supported the vote.

CHAFEE: That’s a good question.

I would probably write somebody in, to be honest. It’s such a big issue for me, the—the costs—now we’re arguing about whether it’s $2 trillion or $4 trillion—and almost 4,000 dead, and the countless numbers of veterans that are going to come back needing care, both mental and physical. And, so, it’s a big issue for me.

MATTHEWS: I’m with Susan.

You have obviously supported your grandpop, Ike. And you have—we had Kennedy. We had Reagan. We have had some great presidents. We had Roosevelt in both parties, great presidents.

EISENHOWER: Right.

MATTHEWS: Would Obama be a great president? How would he fit into that continuum?

EISENHOWER: I think he certainly has the potential. He has the potential to bring people together.

more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23745492/

[zulchzulu]

31. Admit it. You're a Hillary Clinton supporter. You don't get it.

Reading through your OP, you laid obvious clues you are for Hillary Clinton...but can't openly admit it. You brought up non-issues right out of Mark Penn's political ass and spewed them in your screed.

Who cares, really. You basically said the same tired blab that Hillary Clinton said in her speech where she was mocking Obama supporters for daring to have a positive message and wanting REAL change, not faux-nostalgia as some odd phony form of change.

I'd let your OP sink, but just wanted to call you on your little act.

If you want to vote for McCain over Obama, go ahead. There are many millions of Obama supporters newly excited about democracy that will make him the next President. If you don't get it, we don't need you.

[blues90]

39. No , I have not listened at all to Mark Penn

or anyone of the spin msters out these all across the media landscape . My focus has been strickly on what the candidates have said and done all on their own .

I do not watch TV or read posts about all the comments made by the media . all I have done is listen to a few progressive talk radio shows and even then you will find first their appall then their spin too .

If you listen to the media then you will be sucked in and I refuse to be steered by opinion of the media .

I cannot proove any of this and no I am not a Hillary supporter . I was not a Kerry supporter until he was the only one left standing nore was I a Gore supporter until he was the only one left standing .

I am not going to support any candidate who does not support my views again .

You think what you want , I could really care less , I am not here to prove anything other than to voice my own opinion just as you and many others have done while there is still free speech .

[zulchzulu]

90. If you just are listening to nearly ALL the progressive talk radio shows...

...you would see that the Wright story is nonsense. Name me a progressive talk radio host who has been railing on Wright and trying to link his cherry-picked sermons over the years and trying to pin it on Obama.

Likewise, there are other indications in your OP where you obviously don't have a "progressive talk radio host" diet. Trying to put down Obama supporters like they are in some cult or that they/we/I treat him as a "god" is not from what I've heard from the "progressive talk radio host" folks. Again, name me the show where they put down Obama supporters like Hillary Clinton and others like to do.

You're willing to speak your mind. Just don't lie or try to put people who support Obama down as cult followers without getting a smackdown. OK...

[Bensthename]

33. I was pissed off when we went into Iraq. Obama expresses my disgust for the war the best. Also..

That is how I got aboard the Obama bus. Then after watching his speaches and debates (where I think he has won the last handfull at least) I was sold.

He has my values with a darker tan.

[blues90]

43. In 2003 , tens of thousands expressed their disgust for the

Invasion and then occupation of Iraq and still do . Kucinich did so way before Obama came along . This is new ? This makes Obama original ?

[Radical Activist]

47. Actually, Obama and Kucinich stated their opposition at about the same time.

No, Kucinich didn't do it "way before" Obama. You just didn't know about Obama back then.
It may not make Obama original but it made him right and it made him a principled leader who took the right stand during a difficult time.

[Bensthename]

54. Agreed. I was first a Kucinich now an Obama supporter.

He called it right from the start.. They both did.

[Radical Activist]

57. I supported Kucinich in '04

and Obama this time. I want a principled progressive with a better shot at winning. I believe that's what Obama is.

[LWolf]

119. He was so principled

that he immediately began, repeatedly, funding the war in Iraq he said he didn't support, all the way until well into his primary campaign.

Kucinich, on the other hand, did not.

One walks the talk, the other doesn't.

Obama gets no credit for a speech he gave that had no substance, as evidenced by his support for the war in the Senate.

[dansolo]

73. Tell us again why you support Edwards?

It amazes me how many previously anti-war Kucinich supporters have switched their allegiance to John Edwards. Edwards was a co-sponsor of the IWR. I find his voting for the IWR even more egregious than Clinton's, because he was a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. He saw the same things that Dick Durbin and Bob Graham saw, and they knew that it was all bullshit.

[Radical Activist]

36. Sounds like you bought into every weak spin about Obama.

You need to read what Obama said about Reagan with an open mind instead of looking for words to condemn. Obama didn't praise Reagan's actions as President. It was really a criticism of Bill Clinton's DLC Presidency that made little lasting, transformative change after eight years in office. Obama wasn't pandering to a Republican audience. He made essentially the same argument in his book. The message is that he is going to change the electorate and make big change as President instead of the little piecemeal programs that can be easily undone like Clinton did. It was a liberal, anti-DLC argument but some people heard the name "Reagan" and shut down their brain.

Anyone who still believes the mindlessly repeated accusation that Obama lacks substance obviously hasn't listened to his speeches.

What you call hype and hysteria I call a leader who can finally mobilize the public and WIN.

[F.Gordon]

41. John Edwards apparently didn't have an open mind either

"I can promise you this: this president will never use Ronald Reagan as an example for change."

I haven't listened to any of the Obama serm....err.. speeches, but I have seen how he has handled Press Conferences. :D

[Radical Activist]

45. Edwards took the chance for a cheap shot too.

He knew better but it was a slick applause line.

[F.Gordon]

49. "slick"

:wtf:

Now where have I heard John Edwards and the word "slick" used together before?

[Radical Activist]

53. I don't know.

Probably from the many people who got that impression of him.

[blues90]

52. It is you who needs to go back and read it again .

then come here and explain to everyone what he said . Words do hold certain meanings that will never change . I don't give a damn about his book .

I am talking about the present and what he said in his own words and you know that . Not before this or after the fact in speeches he gave .

I was 32 when Reagan got his ass in there and I was well aware of the excesses in the 60's and 70's Obama made reference to without explaining what he was talking about .

The win you describe is an understandable desperation to get as far away from what bush has done as possible .

You can't have a leader without followers now can you ?

[Radical Activist]

56. Why don't you quote a sentence where Obama praises Reagan's policies as President.

Just one. One line. One sentence. It can come from the first time he said it or much later. I'll wait for you to find that because I know it doesn't exist.
What Obama did do is say that Reagan had the ability to mobilize public support in a way that allowed him to make major change (bad change in Reagan's case). Bill Clinton never did that, and Hillary shows no signs of it either. Do you want big change or not?

I'm not sure what your point is about leaders having followers. What I would really like is a leader who tells people that they are the source of change rather than one charismatic leader who will do things FOR them. Obama tells people that THEY can make change in almost every speech. Its part of his background as a community organizer when he focused on empowering poor communities. Its a huge contrast to Hillary's self-focused approach that SHE can make change because SHE has experience and her slogan of "Yes SHE can." That's another big reason I support Obama.

[blues90]

67. You will never understand it because you choose not to

You use the talking points put out there not me . He did not say they were bad ideas either and if he wanted to avoid being called out on this then he could have said he did not agree with reagans policy and he did not . I was not just me who saw this , it was liberal and progressive talk show hosts and many others .

Obama wants to be both the charismatic leader and hope that people will do the work because he see's himself as the source of the message .

Has he actually pulled out any poor community or empowered them where they are now better off . if so I can't find it anywhere as far as results of his efforts go .

[Radical Activist]

72. No quote huh?

That's because there isn't one. Just admit it. You can't provide a quote of Obama praising Reagan's policies because there isn't one and you're repeating misleading spin about what Obama said. He never praised Reagan's policies but he did criticize them...

"Keep in mind that back in the 1980s I was working as a community organizer on the streets of Chicago and seeing the consequences of some of the bad ideas that Ronald Reagan had promoted. But the broader point that I was making, George, and I don't think this is something that is subject to dispute, is that Ronald Reagan transformed American politics and set the agenda for a long time." - Barack Obama

You seem very misinformed for someone who self righteously claims to make decisions based on logical analysis. Your insistence to hold onto a false idea of what Obama said despite the real-world record showing otherwise isn't very logical at all.

[ConcernedCanuk]

42. Just answering the question, didn't read your post.

.
.
.

Obama is new

Clinton is old hat.

That's why.

The USA is in need of major change.

I see Obama as not a cure-all,

but as the USA's only chance to regain trust around the globe.

That's my Canuk view.

[SoCalDem]

44. We understand nuance.

It's just that simple.

[goletian]

46. doesnt sound like you really want an answer, youve already made up your mind.

dont waste peoples time.

[Radical Activist]

48. Yep. Just recycled repetition of the usual points

that have been debated here endlessly.

[better tomorrow]

59. Too long question....two word answer.....HOPE! and CHANGE!

[blues90]

70. every single soul on the planet who has troubles

in their life no matter what they are have said the words hope and change to themselves . I hope this works out or I hope someday this will change or I will change .

This is not some new concept it is as old as dirt itself not a revelation .

What Obama is relating to is the hope and change he will bring to the people when all along they have been there all along . Without his guidance and leadership they will not have a chance . This is his message in a bottle .

[better tomorrow]

95. gee, that kinda sounds like Glinda the good witch in OZ...

when she says to Dorothy she has always had the power to go home...

[Armstead]

61. I could answer.....But why bother?

If you don';t understand that many of us simply see Obama as a politician who is playing the game -- BUT TRYING TO ELEVATE THE LEVEL OF POLITICAL DISCOURSE -- then there's no reason to try and persuade you.

[Milo_Bloom]

64. I will try to address your questions...

"First how is it that When Obama referenced Reagan and many progressive talk show hosts were appalled by this at first yet over time it was spun and then swept under the run as in move on , nothing here to see people . Amazing how words and setting can be spun but far from surprising . Into the ether it went . "

In essence, he made a valid reference. Reagan, for better or worse, did represent change. He didn't advocate Reagan's policies, but his method of communication and ability to get a large coalition of voters on his side is part of history and should be recognized.

"Go back a bit , Obama was in fact pandering and speaking to a republican group for their support , this is the reality of this matter no matter how time is allowed to make if fade into the ether . "

See above. There are many MANY republicans who feel left out by the current administration. They don't support wire taping and invasions into personal freedoms... they don't like big government with big control. Obama represents a departure from that... shouldn't he court those voters? When my wife's boss declares that for the first time in her life she is planning to vote for a democrat in November should I tell her "Stick to your own kind"??


"Every time Obama was in the debates where all the candidates were there on TV when he was confronted or challenged he stuttered and paused and could not get his words together . The only time he comes out is in his speeches when he has a room of supporters and the mic and is not challenged ."

Guess we watched different debates. ALL candidates have their stuttering moments, but for the most part I saw a candidate who was calm, cool and collected, even when challenged.


"Then there are these photo's all over the place with tears streaming down the faces of a FEW supporters . This happens all the time when people watch movies which are written in such a way to pull at ones heart strings . It means nothing specific to anyone other than the person shedding the tears, it is personal , but it is used in such as way as to advertise it and pull it into focus as if it represents millions . "

So? Isn't that the idea of marketing and advertising?


"Obama or any other candidate for that matter is backed by a rather large group of advisers who build a campaign which is designed completely around getting the vote and for NO other reason , they have speech writers and handlers and all other sorts of people in the mix but all for the same goal , the big win . If you desire change then more than anything else THIS is what needs to be changed before anything else will ever begin to change . "

Why? As long as those advisor's, handlers etc are taking orders from the candidate and not the other way around, there is no problem with this.


"Now the is the issue of Wright . I don't disagree with what Wright said however I don't care who it was or what church they belong to or what color they are this sort of thing makes no one look good . I don't care if it's a friend or what . If I had a friend such as this who spoke this way and they were my friend for 20 years then I would have to agree far more than disagree to maintain this friendship ."

Do you parse every word that comes out of your friend's mouths and then focus exclusively on the few things they say you don't agree with???

There is a you tube page out there with 100's and 100's of his sermons and the overwhelming majority (like 99% of them) don't have these views in them. Most of his sermons are about brotherhood and love and all the good stuff that comes with Jesus.


"Then there is the issue of Hillary bringing up MLK where she laid out the story that in the end it took a white president to make this into law . She was bashed to hell and back for this . Yet Obama was raised for the most part by his white grand parents so in the same sense he got the white privilege as well and uses it to his advantage . Obama brings into his speech and relate to his child hood experience , everyone has those , they are all nice stories with no proof required so they are stories and nothing more than this . "


I don't even begin to get the point you are trying to make here. If you can put this in the form of a question, I will be happy to address it.

"More than anything else what people who support Obama have bought into is a well put together add campaign from one end to the other this is what it has been , a highly funded add campaign which resulted in floods of avatars of Obama photo's and add banners from yes we can to the tear jerker song yes we can to the new change banner that looks like something out of the movie They Live , all you need are the special sun glasses to wonder what the true meaning really is . "


I don't even begin to get the point you are trying to make here. If you can put this in the form of a question, I will be happy to address it.


These next two are just kinda funny next to each other...

"More than this is the need to bash Hillary from all things possible to build up Obama including the relentless progressive radio shows who appear to have been given the talking points by their owners just like they always accused the right wing radio of doing . So now it's if you can't beat them , join them

Obama supports have now placed Obama so very high in the sky he will never be allowed to make one mistake ever . If he does win he will be picked apart and torn to pieces . "


So you complain that Clinton is bashed too much and Obama too little? What is the right amount of bashing?

The reality is, as you pointed out above, Obama got bashed plenty when he dared to mention Reagan, the Wright silliness... the bashing is actually pretty equal.


But, let me just jump to the real answer you are looking for... why do some people defend Obama so much and rail on Clinton so much... well, here it is.

Obama is the lesser of 3 evils... And actually, as many of us see it, not only the lesser of 3 evils, but the one potential good out of the bunch.

An election between Clinton v McCain is an election between two fairly equal evils of which some of us simply will not bother to decide. They are both war mongers, they both seem to make decisions based on politics over principles... neither can be trusted. I would NEVER vote for McCain, but I would also NEVER vote for Clinton.

Obama is actually someone I can vote FOR... Not because I believe he is a god or without fault, but because he hasn't given me a reason not to believe he means what he says. I know McCain's words are hollow... I know Clinton's words are hollow. He might turn out to be as much of a sellout as the others... who knows...

BUt, at least with Obama there is a CHANCE that he will actually follow the set of principles upon which he has been campaigning, instead of making empty promises we all know he has no intention of keeping.

[LTR]

65. Why I support Obama

In the beginning, I was firmly behind Edwards. I thought he was an aggressive, articulate candidate who had very clearly defined positions and a strong message. Obama was my second choice, and Biden my third.

I liked Obama, but my only fear was whether he could stand up to the types of attacks that befell Kerry in '04. When Edwards dropped out, I drifted toward Obama, and eventually realized that he had what it takes to fight whatever came at him. He's run a very strong campaign and his fresh outlook, intelligence, charisma, aggressiveness and attitude convinced me that he had what it took.

I'm not concerned at all about the race issue. People said the same things about JFK back in 1960, when the idea of electing an Irish Catholic was a shocking notion (remember, long ago, the Irish were considered by many as a non-white race). He proved it didn't matter. And I don't think it matters with Obama either.

What about the name-dropping of Reagan and the pandering to Republicans? He's a politician - he's supposed to try to appeal to people. I'm tired of the divisive politics of the Bush years, and I'm tired of people being carved up into gangs. I'd like to see someone who can bring the tribes together, and I think crossing those lines is a good thing. I know quite a few people who are more likely to vote Republican that actually like Obama, and would even go so far as to vote for him. I was shocked to find this, and it helped me realize that perhaps Obama is the real deal.

As for Hillary, I have long had a problem with her. She has always seemed to me to be self-serving and detached, and too prone to pandering to whatever establishment entity or corporate interest deigns to kiss her ass. I'm tired of the same old boring faces who are too absorbed into the Beltway system. She could never be a true agent of change. She's all about the status quo. Obama seems to be the only one who can give our country the swift kick in the ass it sorely needs.

[TragedyandHope]

66. From the start of your post you've got it wrong

Calling this a "craze" is an insult to every active, thoughtful American voter who is concerned about this country and the issues and chooses to support a certain candidate after careful consideration.

"Obama supporters have built this fellow into a god without fault or flaw"

I'm sorry, but more than any of the slime-throwing that goes on here and elsewhere, this is really the most insulting accusation (and misconception). It's been repeated over and over by the anti-Obama crowd, but that doesn't make it true and it isn't the case. Ask any supporter an unslanted question about why they support Obama and you will get a list of specific issues, both national and of personal concern to the supporter.

I just made a post the other day about the fact that I see Obama as a real, fallible human being just like the rest of us. After 8 years of Bush, Obama will inherit a criminal war in Iraq and possibly the worst recession since the Great Depression. There is no magic solution to that. It's not going to be an easy job by any means and there are guaranteed to be bumps along the road. The Obama supporter who doesn't see a single flaw and can't imagine he will not have any problems during his Presidency is a FIGMENT of the imagination of the anti-Obama crowd. Really, it's just sheer condescension.

If you can digest this and start to move past this inherently slanted viewpoint, then maybe you can accept all the proud Americans who support Obama as thoughtful concerned opinions with just as much right to an opinion as yourself.


Regarding Obama's positive comments about Republicans, part of Obama's character is to make an effort to hear all viewpoints all sides of and issue and work across party lines to get things done. He also speaks to the public as adults, presenting his opinions in a more balanced and reasonable manner, rather than putting everything in short and simple, black and white terms. He looks for positives on both sides of a debate and tries to bring them together, rather than encouraging the division of gridlock and getting nothing done. It's a refreshing change from politics as usual.

Regarding your comment about his performance in debates or interviews, I suppose you are seeing what you want to see and have not seen many of his recent, full-length exchanges. Early on in the campaign, the media was nit-picking about his delivery, but almost everything I've seen in recent months had been far beyond competent with frequently stirring and inspirational moments. There is certainly a contrast with the other candidates who are stuck in their pattern of the old black and white, for-me or against-me, no compromise rhetoric/BS.

A good example would be the recent flap about Obama saying he would consult with commanders on the ground after he is elected to craft a realistic withdrawal policy. Common sense right? Wrong, Obama gets slammed for wanting to consult with commanders on the ground and asses the situation at the current moment. Why? Because he doesn't have a perfect 100% flawless plan right now and he admits it, unlike the other candidates. That's ridiculous. First, to imply their plans are flawless is just a lie. What plan in human history has been without its faults? This is an example of the black or white, I'm right/Anyone else is wrong, I have the perfect solution to everything fallacy of old politics. No one believes it, not the voters, not the candidate, but the declarative confidence just feels good. Secondly, of course, those very candidates who deride Obama for saying he will consult with commander on the ground will most definitely do it themselves, if elected. It would be sheer insanity not to (see GWB).

As for Rev. Wright. I loathe to respond to this blatant and despicable whispering smear campaign that somehow just magically bubbled up out of the ether. Obama has responded to it. All I can say to everyone on DU and everyone in the media is, go sit in that church for 20 years, then come back and tell me what you think. If you react to soundbites out of context, you're playing into the bigoted Rovian tactics. If you listen to the full breadth and width of the sermons in context and you still want to crucify the man, then fine. But don't fall into the trap of responding to the media trying to push your buttons and tell you exactly what to think and how to feel by a handful of strategically selected clips. Obama is not Rev. Wright. Nothing in is life or career shows that Obama is has anything to do with those statements in any way, shape or form. It's blatant misdirection to hit his poll numbers, plain and simple.

Finally, I'm not arguing that because I support Obama you should too. I'm arguing that you should re-examine all the factors that have led to you to your current opinion and then make up your mind for yourself.

[blues90]

68. this is the title of my post to all of you Obama supporters , why not explain yourselves ?

[TragedyandHope]

69. Did you read my post?

If so, please reply.

"this is the title of my post to all of you Obama supporters , why not explain yourselves ?"

I could be mistaken, but this indicates that you did not read my post. I did read your whole post and my reply is above.

[blues90]

77. Yes I read your post in it's entirety

"Finally, I'm not arguing that because I support Obama you should too. I'm arguing that you should re-examine all the factors that have led to you to your current opinion and then make up your mind for yourself."

I will point to this one comment and say as I said in my OP I have examined everything and I have heard all his speeches , hell they are easy to find , and i do know what exactly what led me to my current opinion .

It is this , I find that neither Hillary or Obama support my point of view enough for me to consider either of them the best choice to lead this country out of the mess it's in now .

I find both a part of the corporations which is the major roll player and the base of all of our problems . It is in the corporate interest we wage war to protect corporate interests .

If either Obama or Hillary were against the corporations then one would be my choice without doubt and always with some suspicion .

If they had been then they would have been tossed to the side as Kucinich and Edwards were , I have no doubt with this view point .

JFK for example and MLK and JFK dared to stand for the people against the corporations and their deaths are proof of this fact .

Now it will never get this far , they don't need to kill you they just need to ignore you .

If I were to go along with what you believe and what you say Obama stands for then I am left with this .

The people will fight against the corporations who have the people in their death grip which includes every facet society is plagued with . This means the people will have to have a national strike and band together black and white and sacrifice all they have in order to win . And you know what this involves , it was done before .

Reaching across the aisle will not solve racial or religious or class issues , it must come from the people and this has been a problem since time began .

You know the media and all else is corporate owned and controlled and as long as this is the case we can move no further than we are right now . This is the case and has always been the case other than a short time in the 60's and maybe the 70's when the corporate hold felt the people had too much voice and power and were a threat .

Tell me I'm wrong .

[TragedyandHope]

102. I appreciate your point of view

"If they had been then they would have been tossed to the side as Kucinich and Edwards were , I have no doubt with this view point."


Well, you're not far off the mark in my view. The system is designed to prevent that kind of candidate from being elected. So, you can accept that and go with someone in my opinion has a small chance to inch us forward in all the issues you mention or other candidates who will not. Or you can try to work outside the system to radically change it, which may or may not have the intended consequences.


"Reaching across the aisle will not solve racial or religious or class issues , it must come from the people and this has been a problem since time began."


If you read and listen to Obama, part of his campaign is about re-invigorating and energizing people to action on a local community level. That is a positive message with an effect which can carry on to various issues far beyond this campaign.

Since we are here on DU discussing the current candidates, I choose someone who has the potential to make incremental, but still historical changes within the limits of the system.

[Melinda]

74. Falsehood #1: "Obama was in fact pandering and speaking to a republican group..."

Factcheck.org: Obama's Reagan Remarks to Reno Gazette-Journal,
Jan. 14, 2008

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/clinton-obama_slugfest.html

here's the http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080115/VIDEO/80115026&oaso=news.rgj.com/breakingnews%3E">video.

Your attempt to present Obama as addressing a republican group, much less pandering to one, is disproven.

The majority of the rest of your post is nothing but your personal opinion to which you are entitled. But you are not entitled to post outright lies and expect to not be called on them.

On edit: Adding this snippet... pandering a bit?

The only thing that could make this day more special is if President Reagan could be here himself. But if you look at this atrium, I think we feel the essence of his presence: his unflagging optimism, his proud patriotism, his unabashed faith in the American people. I think every American who walks through this incredible space and lifts his or her eyes to the sky will feel that. - Bill Clinton (May 5, 1998)

[blues90]

79. Pointing out what Bill Clinton expressed

Which I am aware of does not exempt Obama from what he said .

I watched the Obama exchange because at the time it struck me as an odd thing to say . as I have said before , Obama could have avoided this if he had thought a bit and added he did not agree these were good ideas .

I understand the comparison in Obamas speech but not the leaving himself open for attack . Certainly , you must understand the outrage this brought out , and it was to gain repub support that he left this part out .

I am not in some surreal world of an un-conscious state that I don't understand what I hear being said and the setting it was said in .

[Melinda]

83. Attempting to change the subject doesn't make your assertion less false

The premise of your 'argument' is that Obama appeared before, and pandered too, to a gathering of republicans!

Flat out lie.

And when I know someone is being dishonest, my eyes glaze over when it comes to anyhting else that dishonest person may have posted.

And that means you; nothing else you can say here is worth perusing after the overt dishonesty you presented in the opening of your post.

I posted a direct quote, no taking jack shit out of context.

In summation, your post is disengenious and not deserving of synapsis firings.

Ciao.

[blues90]

91. I did not change the subject and you know it

and you call me dishonest . Next time try spell check it's easy .

[blues90]

92. you brought Clinton into it and I RESPONDED

Who changed the subject ? try spell check next time it's easy . You just can't make a point without bringing one or the other Clinton into it can you ?

[Melinda]

93. No, I showed your "falsehood", then I brought in truth, & you still failed to address the lie...

You're either a) unable to explain the falsehood or 2) easily distracted...


Oh, look!! Bright shiny color thingies!!!

[blues90]

99. A or 2 ? and shiney things .

You really are an insulting person with a sour attitude you know that ?

I will ignore it and show you what I see .

" I do think that, for example, the 1980 election was different. I mean, I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that, you know, Richard Nixon did not, and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path "

Yes Reagan did change the trajectory of america and this is the point where Obama should have said he did not agree with the way it was done .

Also he leaps from Nixon to Clinton , why is this , is it because these are the two presidents who were put up for impeachment ? Is this his message ?

" I think they felt like, you know, with all the excesses of the '60s and the '70s, you know government had grown and grown, "

What are the excesses he refers to here , he refers to government growing are these safety net excesses ? there is no explanation .


I have read this over and over again and Obama never completes one thought or idea .

"I think it’s fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10, 15 years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom."

The last 10 or 15 years , yet he refers to republicans . What is Obamas implication ? Which is it 10 or 15 years , it does make a difference . Obama generalizes far to much as to play it safe provided he thinks that far ahead .


Leave Hillary out of this and focus on Obamas statement . And show me where he was not pandering to a republican group .

[Melinda]

107. Sorry if I hurt your feelings, I didn't realize you're a tender one. Rebuttal as follows:

1) You said:

Yes Reagan did change the trajectory of america and this is the point where Obama should have said he did not agree with the way it was done .

Please cite where Obama said he did "agree with the way it was done". Direct quote, no paraphrasing, please.

2) The actual statement with context intact:

don’t want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what’s different are the times. I do think that, for example, the 1980 election was different. I mean, I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that, you know, Richard Nixon did not, and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He 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 '60s and the '70s, you know government had grown and grown, but there wasn’t much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating, and I think people just tapped into – he tapped into what people were already feeling, which is we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism, and, and, you know, entrepreneurship that had been missing.

I think Kennedy, 20 years earlier, moved the country in a fundamentally different direction. So I think a lot of it just has to do with the times. I think we’re in one of those times right now, where people feels like things as they are going right now aren’t working, that we’re bogged down in the same arguments that we’ve been having, and they’re not useful. And the Republican approach, I think, has played itself out. I think it’s fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10, 15 years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom.

Now, you’ve heard it all before. You look at the economic policies when they’re being debated among the presidential candidates, it’s all tax cuts. Well, we know, we’ve done that; we’ve tried it. That’s not really going to solve our energy problems, for example.

You ask:

"What are the excesses he refers to here , he refers to government growing are these safety net excesses ? there is no explanation."

In all sincerity, and with no snarkiness on my part -- I swear -- are you a relatively young person and/or new to politics?

"Excesses of the 60's and 70's.". Entitlements under Johnson. Costs of enforcing progressive legislation (Civil Rights) and SCOTUS decisions. Costs of War. Inflation. Iran hostages. Gas lines. Growth of the Executive Branch. You know, the era of BIG GOVERNMENT.

From Reagan's 1st inaugural speech:

It is my intention to curb the size and influence of the federal establishment and to demand recognition of the distinction between the powers granted to the federal government and those reserved to the states or to the people. All of us need to be reminded that the federal government did not create the states; the states created the federal government.

We hear much of special interest groups. Well, our concern must be for a special interest group that has been too long neglected. It knows no sectional boundaries or ethnic and racial divisions, and it crosses political party lines. It is made up of men and women who raise our food, patrol our streets, man our mines and factories, teach our children, keep our homes, and heal us when we're sick--professionals, industrialists, shopkeepers, clerks, cabbies, and truck drivers. They are, in short, "we the people," this breed called Americans.

Well, this administration's objective will be a healthy, vigorous, growing economy that provides equal opportunities for all Americans, with no barriers born of bigotry or discrimination. Putting America back to work means putting all Americans back to work. Ending inflation means freeing all Americans from the terror of runaway living costs. All must share in the productive work of this "new beginning," and all must share in the bounty of a revived economy. With the idealism and fair play which are the core of our system and our strength, we can have a strong and prosperous America, at peace with itself and the world.

So, as we begin, let us take inventory. We are a nation that has a government--not the other way around. And this makes us special among the nations of the Earth. Our government has no power except that granted it by the people. It is time to check and reverse the growth of government, which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed.

Now, so there will be no misunderstanding, it's not my intention to do away with government. It is rather to make it work--work with us, not over us; to stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it.

And that's how Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America, according to Obama. And change it he did.

You said:

The last 10 or 15 years , yet he refers to republicans . What is Obamas implication ? Which is it 10 or 15 years , it does make a difference . Obama generalizes far to much as to play it safe provided he thinks that far ahead.

What Obama said:

And the Republican approach, I think, has played itself out. I think it’s fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10, 15 years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom

Republicans are done, finis. over. Played out. As far as the time-line, one only need look back over the course of the last 10-15 years to find Republicans in charge of both Houses of Congress, State Governorships and Legislatures, and ownership of the 4th estate - the media.

America is, for the most part, done with the 90's and the RW policies of personal destruction. We rejected Gingrich and his "Contract with America". And now Hastert and his ilk are gone from Congress. Bush and the neo-cons will soon be out of power. PNAC will not happen under an Obama administration... no neo-liberals, no Straussian precepts. Republicans have proven, under the leadership of Bush*, that they haven't any type of wisdom when it comes to governing this country, much less conventional wisdom.

In a nutshell, what Obama was saying is this: There are ebb and flows of the political tide; the back and forth of the political pendulem if you will, and then there are tsunami's so powerful that all it takes is a perceived hero - as Reagan was perceived by the Republicans in life and remains yet after death - to change the path this country is on.

No pandering to republicans nor accolades for Reagan, just a simple recognition of political truth.

Happy Easter, I am off to dine with my family.

[blues90]

109. there is nothing to quote because as I have said Obama

never said they were good or bad ideas . Which leaves it open ended .

No I am far from young and watched many of my freinds return from Vietnam in closed boxes .

What i take from what Obama said is no more or less a reality than what you take from it . There were quite few people much more informed than you orI who took it the way i did and this was offensive in nature .

As the world becomes more complicated and connected through advances in technology and inter-connected economies called the global economy the more complicated the politics become and the more complicated the lies become and the shorter the memory becomes .

The longer the lies hang on the harder it is to trace them and many we will never know the truth about , ever .

If you enjoy primaries and feel the way they are run will change anything or let out some sort of truth in any respect then so be it .

I don't feel the way primaries are run especially as long as these are going on do anyone any good . Since they have gone on so long which in reality is no fault of Hillarys , in the end it will be two damn years , add one for the run up to 2006 and you have three . This creates tension and leads to mistakes .

All my focus has not been on this one single point with what Obama said . We can go back and forth forever on this one issue .

If you feel these candidates were not the chosen ones by and for corporate media then we will always be in opposition .

This is nothing new , Obama or Hillary are nothing new or original what is new is the condition of this world and the mindset of the people in it .

They stepped out of
the realm of two presidential candidates and entered the realm of a black man verses a white women and that's where I bow out .

This is not to say these issues should never be addressed but now is not the time , it only leads away from the death grip we are ALL in . These were some of those excesses Obama refered to in the 60's and 70's called civil rights and equal rights .

If I felt either one of these candidates could fix this I would not even be here posting at all but I don't . Look how long this horror has been going on and now it's just lets hope again maybe this time as if these freaks who put us here are going to just walk away and vanish , not a chance .

[CreekDog]

78. I support Obama, because I was left with two choices and he was the better one

The crazy thing to me is that Hillary ran against Obama on experience. What she has on him was a window to the presidency that most people don't.

Still, it would have been more effective against Obama had it been Dianne Feinstein, or Joe Biden, but not Hillary Clinton.

I remember the 1990's, I remember that after Health Care Reform failed that Hillary played the more traditional role of First Lady.

That said, by the time I voted it was Obama or Clinton and Obama certainly has the knowledge to do the job, he has the skill to use the bully pulpit aspect of it effectively and I appreciate that he is inspiring, that he seems to know better how to play the game of politics than she does.

It's really that simple.

Ironically, I think had it come down to Obama and some other candidate with more electoral experience, I think Obama would have lost, but it didn't.

[Barack_America]

80. Why should I have to explain myself to you?

Seriously.

My choice and my decision are my own.

[blues90]

84. You don't , you came here all on your own .

[JoFerret]

81. The comedown will be so "deflating"

let's fast forward to some imagined time in the future

[mmonk]

85. The cult crap is old. Think up something new.

[JoFerret]

87. oldie but goldie

.

[mkultra]

112. just like HRC

[blues90]

89. It's an old concept that never died .

I did not invent it , it happens .

Why do people take everything so damn personal and end up on the defense , it's for the very same reason we are we are where we are today .

You are told to believe in something and if you question it or ask why then you are the trouble maker .

I did not run for president or make all the promises i have heard every politican ever running for office make .

I do not speak for Hillary or Obama , they do this all on their own and they use what they know people want to hear at any given point in time .

I asked a few simple questions without insulting anyone in any direct or intended fashion , they are questions I do have which go with doubts I do have .

I you have no doubts than you are all far superior to me and Obama or Hillary or anyone else .

What I have got so far for the most part are responses telling me I don't understand or I should re-read things or I have somehow personally insulted someone , well that's impossible unless you are Obama or Hillary .

I am not hear to change anyone or in a race to defeat Obama . I am asking some questions and giving my personal opinions and that is all .

If people can't handle that then that is absolutely your problem . It's very simple , I made my statements and all have the full control not to reply . Ifanyone has then what does that say , they agree or they don't .

I see few replys with real debate or questions that apply , most are in defense so just who is insecure or uncertain .

To force your pick of a candidate will only create opposition more than there already exists .

The reality still stands , as many have expressed here their first choice was Kucinuch then Edwards and now Obama , not because Obama was their first choice but because the media forced out the first two and brought you Obama so why not ask yourselves why this is so , why not realize you fell for the media sell and did nothing to confront this and now suddenly Obama is it and all else,dust in the wind .

[mkultra]

113. whatever, you meant it as vield insult

What I have got so far for the most part are responses telling me I don't understand or I should re-read things or I have somehow personally insulted someone , well that's impossible unless you are Obama or Hillary .

You must have a short memory.

[Sparkly]

88. As I see it, if it's banners and songs and special sunglasses that get us a Democratic president....

then fine! This is the "retail" side of politics, and I think what you're saying is that a lot of it is shallow. I totally agree. (And the candidates I most like tend to be less strong at the retail part.) But it is what it is, and it's important because our candidate has to be better at it than the Republican candidate.

That's Job #1 to me: Get a Democratic president in the White House.

[better tomorrow]

96. just depends on who is wearing those sunglasses....

THIS guy will get us a Democratic President....

[Orsino]

97. Read the forum carefully, and you'll find that not all supporters are drooling fanboys/girls.

Not all supporters of candidate M openly insult supporters of candidate Q. Not all elevate their candidates beyond the sky, post only in favor of one candidate, or insist that their candidate is without flaw.

But you'll realize this after you study the forum for a while, just before you come back to ask your question in a less childish and insulting way.

[mattclearing]

98. Nice straw man. Regardless, I will answer your post, point by point.

Obama simulaneously reached out to Republican voters and baited Bill Clinton by saying his was a less consequential presidency than Reagan's, something that is undeniable...Reagan's was consequential in a bad way, the same way Bush's was. Bill's was fairly uneventful by comparison. This was a shrewd move, because it is a sort of Rorshach test...Reagan supporters see him saying something seemingly nice about Reagan, the Clintons see him as downplaying their accomplishments, pushing them to go as negative as they did, and everyone else sorta lets it slide because his comments didn't really seem like that big of a deal if your name wasn't Clinton.

Obama thinks about his answers before giving them...what you call stuttering some of us call spontaneity. It's nice when someone doesn't give you their pre-memorized soundbite to every single question in a debate. Obama is smart enough and knowledgeable enough to answer these questions off the top of his head, so the occasional uh or stutter isn't that bad of a thing, because at least you know he is actually going to answer the question, not respond with partially related jibberish.

Your tears argument is a media thing, and the Obama campaign doesn't control that. Besides, people have emotional reactions to good speeches, so what?

You can't change anything if you lose, so your attack on a winning strategy doesn't make any sense. Besides, Obama has proven with this Wright thing that he will not win at all costs. He won't throw the African American community or his friend under the bus. Compare that to the Clinton campaign and Richardson, which is despicable.

The Obama campaign didn't bash Hillary over the MLK/LBJ episode. Eventually, when pressed for comment, he said they were ill-advised remarks that seemed to downplay the role of the civil rights movement. Most of the bashing came from people who rightly saw that it was a stupid thing to say, like John Edwards, who immediately leaped on it as a Washington-centric attitude.

I don't even know what you are getting at with your avatar/They Live paragraph, so I can't really address it.

I see most of Hillary's wounds as self-inflicted. Pointing them out, especially when your patriotism, your religion, your allegiances, and your qualifications are called into question seems like fair play to me.

There are plenty of substance-less Hillary and other postings...are you attacking Obama or his supporters? Even so, there are plenty of substantial posts re: Obama and Hillary as well.

No one has built Obama into a God without fault or flaw. Even Obama remarks that he is an imperfect candidate in most of his speeches. He has clearly made mistakes, or Hillary would have quit by now.

I hope I have proven to you that not all Obama supporters respond with childish and insulting remarks.

You are going to have to figure out how to vote. I would ignore supporters and surrogates and actually focus on the candidates themselves. It helps to go to their websites and read their policy papers in their "Issues" tabs. If people haven't read these, they have no business supporting anyone.

[blues90]

101. I assure you , I have done the research to a point of

reaching the conclusion that not Obama or Hillary represent me and all for one reason . Both are not liberals and both are part of the corporate machine and both do lie and I am sick of lies most of all .

You can go to every source on the net and find different interpretations of what both have said . I have seen these things spun every way possible . When it reached the point of the progressive radio hosts all chanting the same talking points is where I truly realized what we have got is a controlled media in all areas of expression now .

The media chose these two candidates . I don't give a damn what supporters have to say , I only question their support and tactics as I do with the candidates .

I am left with where I started out . I don't have a candidate I respect and have not for years . I will not hold my nose for the sake of my one vote , this time I have drawn my line in the sand .

I do want to point out that in all of the replies given in this OP were not from people I want to work with even if I agreed with their candidate .

[mattclearing]

103. Enjoy obsolescence. I'm sure Nader will take your vote. n/t

[cornermouse]

108. I thought you made interesting points in your other post

but you sort of negated that with the snarl in this one.

[mattclearing]

115. My point is that it's never enough for some people.

If someone can't get behind either Barack or Hillary, then maybe national politics isn't for them. You can't nominate someone that doesn't appeal to a a broad cross-section of Americans.

It just irritates me that I run down this laundry list response and all I get is, "Heard it, don't care." Fuck that.

[YvonneCa]

106. Excellent response. n/t

[DawgHouse]

100. Nice post!

[bagimin]

104. Vote for McCain

your "question" is insulting.

[mkultra]

111. Just for john

At first i was going to ignore this post, but since your avatar is JL i must respect.

Ill do my best to answer point for point.

Regan: I want him to reach out to conservatives. I do not want another divisive president. solving problems takes people working together and we need them just like they need us. We cant catch many more flys with honey.

Conservatives: I personally consider my self a fiscal conservative/social progressive.
I want the government to stop racking up debt and ACTUALLY spend less. This can only be accomplished through reduced military. This is a stand that many progressives hold and its good to talk about what we have in common.

stuttering: He did do poorly, if you want to assume that the speeches are better because its a room full of supporters rather than having a chance to sit down and think it through, then its your mistake. Many people do better at letter writing than public speaking. This is the nature of a speech.

tearful support: It happened. If that somehow is a strike against him, then i fail to see your logic.

advisers: I feel a much greater sense of Obama in his speeches than i do of Clinton in hers. She feels highly contrived and polished. I agree with your point, but your eyeing the wrong horse.

Wright and friendship: I have many friends that are politically polar to my ideals. We argue all the time but i still love them and i think we agree on much more than we disagree. If you pick and chose your friends to this degree i feel sorry for you and your friends. I would respect him alot less if he threw wright under the bus. I'm proud of him for sticking with a friends he disagrees with.


Hillary and MLK: her statements on MLK undersold the massive effort put in my droves of civil rights workers and activists. Johnson just happened to be in office when the inevitable occurred. As for Obama's stories about relatives, your point is incomprehensible.

Ad campaign: if thats what you think, your not paying attention. Apple is an ad campaign. Obama is a man of peace.

Radio shows: cant answer for them, perhaps you should ask them.

well, there are many other insulting points in your post that i will leave to you. Maybe you shoudl rethink your avatar.

[blues90]

116. I'll tell you what .

I have my own mind and am quite able to think for myself .

Make no mistake ALL campaigns are add campaigns which are paid adds for air time .

Every single one of you Obama supporters with a few exceptions have done nothing other than mimic talking points that were not your own personal thought's but rather a compilation of news speak taken from parsed and over analyzed revamps spewed from the mouths of Obama damage control experts .

I read Obamas words and they are not in the form of biblical passages where it takes thousands of years to Analise . They are simple words tossed out there with one motive which is to gather support and votes and they are tailored to fit the mindset of the people of each district of each state and done purposely , who is kidding who ?

It took months for these people to twist the words of his Reagan comments and then hand them out as the deep meaning when the reality is words do have meanings which are simple to understand .

Not one of these responses in defense of Obama comments came from anyone here who repeated and quoted them , not one was in an Obama supporters own words and I know this because I have followed and seen all the spin and quotes posted in your responses here .

You people cannot express your own opinion but rather fire out quotes which are worn out crap .

You pile onto the wagon of hope and change with your banners and avatars and not one of you can defend Obama without bringing Hillary's name into your response .

I have Lennon in my avatar because he was a man who could see through bull shit and call it out for what it is .

All you have proven here is that all it takes is points repeated enough times by the media and they then become your truth which means you are a battalion of media brain washed fools . Who ever dares to point out reality is found not of your camp or cult and banished from your tribe .

You can't even question what Obama has said for fear of the possibility of being wrong so you repeat the handed out talking points .

You point to things such as to say Obama was against this invasion of Iraq yet you know damn well he was not in the position to vote on it nor was he under the pressure to vote on it so his position is no different than anyone out there who was against this invasion yet he puts it out there as a talking point without risk taken .

Then there are those of you who are complete fools and idiots who come along with lame replies such as vote for McCain , I have a cat that can do better than that .

[LWolf]

117. I can't disagree with anything you've written. n/t

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

120. .