"If I hear my own supporters engaging in talk that I think is ungenerous or misleading or in some way is unfair, then I will speak out forcefully against them, and I hope the other campaigns take the same approach," he said.

That is sort of what we are experiencing in this campaign.  People keep ridiculing our candidate or demanding things from him that are not consistent with where he is coming from.

We keep saying I believe, among other things, of course.

I believe in hope.  That is what it is all about.  The notion from Dr. King that "the moral arc of the universe is long but bends towards justice" is essentially an expression of faith in the ultimate goodwill of people and in the future.

The gender v. race controversy only serves the Republicans.  Thus far, we're in much better shape as a Party and we should keep it that way.

People keep ridiculing our candidate or demanding things from him that are not consistent with where he is coming from.

That's a good way to put it -- but I think that a lot of them will come around.

Maybe those skeptics out there will see this olive branch he extended to the Clintons, and the conclusion of a painful part of the campaign, as some evidence that he's a man of principle and really, truly wants to bring people together.

Thank you, Scripple, for your contribution.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

 And as for Clinton, too many people hate her (fairly or unfairly).  In addition, she seems to consistently test the winds before taking a stand on any major issue.  Can we hear the GOP "flip-flop" machine starting up?  In addition, she fairs the worst against the GOP candidates in all mahor polls.  (Clinton for incumbent Senator!)  

 I think Obama would do far better if he were to end up as VP for a term or two, or o stay in the Senate.

Don't believe me?  Take a look.

http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

I'm astonished that people actually believe that Hillary is the most electable candidate, especially considering the polls.  But that's only a testament to how persuasive the Clinton Machine can be.

What explains this change, do you think?

Barack is not the kumbaya candidate.  Presidential campaigns at their very best are Movements.  Barack is about the business of building a movement so that he can go to Washington with a Mandate for his Agenda which is basically the Democratic agenda shared by virtually all the Democratic candidates.  And by the way, there is so much more Unity in the Democratic Party than in the Republican Party right now that a neutral person would have to feel sorry for the Republicans.

I am glad you feel passionate about your candidate.  I really wish I were so sure.  But I sure as hell won't be persuaded by the manner you dissed my honest concern. See my other comment (on Diane's article on the Recommended list).  

He needs to age a little and spend some time actually governing.

But then I am not worried, We have John Edwards.

As a very wise and experienced political expert I know once said:

Barack is not the kumbaya candidate.  Presidential campaigns at their very best are Movements.  Barack is about the business of building a movement so that he can go to Washington with a Mandate for his Agenda which is basically the Democratic agenda shared by virtually all the Democratic candidates.  And by the way, there is so much more Unity in the Democratic Party than in the Republican Party right now that a neutral person would have to feel sorry for the Republicans.

This is an immensely perceptive and overwhelmingly important observation.

In order to get to that mandate, Obama has to do something very difficult.  He has to win the respect and confidence of many who may be predisposed to oppose him.  You'll note that his tone is uplifting, enervating, inspiring.  When facing conflict with political opponents, Obama's considered words never detract from his overall message of strength, unity, and the greatness of the American spirit.

There are many here who support Obama, and there are many here who support other candidates.  If we are going to be part of a movement that brings overwhelming change to America, we must be the change we wish to see.

To all I have offended with my passionate and angry certitude, I apologize.  I am not a fundamentalist about anything except Barack Obama.

In my defense, there has been some dirty pool in this campaign and I took the Senate floor to defend the honor of a great American.  Thank you and good night.

HENDERSON, NEV. -- John Edwards ripped Barack Obama for praising the way Ronald Reagan brought about change when he was President of the United States.

"When you think about what Ronald Reagan did to the American people, to the middle class to the working people," said Edwards.

"He was openly - openly - intolerant of unions and the right to organize. He openly fought against the union and the organized labor movement in this country. He openly did extraordinary damage to the middle class and working people, created a tax structure that favored the very wealthiest Americans and caused the middle class and working people to struggle every single day. The destruction of the environment, you know, eliminating regulation of companies that were polluting and doing extraordinary damage to the environment."

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

Edwards was addressing comments made by Obama during a sit-down interview with the Reno Gazette-Journal. According to the Edwards spokesman Mark Kornblau, Edwards was addressing these specific remarks from the interview:

"I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what's different are the times. I do think that for example the 1980 was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."

Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of the America.  Reagan, the union-buster?

You like to accusse us of picking on Hillary, Dianne.  But the fact is we don't say anything worse than what you post.  If it's fair for you to post a comment like this, it is fair for us to post Bill Clinton's temper tantrums.

Look I'm a liberal and hope that Obama, being a 100% ACLU liberal, will win!  And I hope that he will, as a former union organizer, stick up for the unions and protect them.  I think he could have avoided referencing Reagan, which many Democrats will see as pandering to the conservatives.  Like it or not, they will.  But it is his choice and his race.  

In my opinion, he was doing just fine associating himself with JFK and MLK.  

I know that many people like Reagan. It just happens that many  liberals dislike him. A lot.

Oh, well. I hope that this will soon be forgotten. Next time, If Obama wants to talk about returning to optimism, someone will have to remind him that Democrats use FDR for that.  

"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."

I have always despised Ronald Reagan and everything he stood for.  I do, however, understand why he was so successful.  Obama, being a great thinker and leader himself, was trying to come to terms with that period and also extract lessons from it.

BTW, attacking Reagan too much is politically unwise for a politician.  He was popular.  Anyway, he is the past.  OTOH, Reagan can be quite useful to us.  Since he is the past, the only voters who are going to be moved by the lame Republican appeals are hard core Republicans.  We can certainly point that out and score a lot of points with Independent voters and disillusioned Republicans.

Just look at Jim Webb.  He is representative of the fact that the country has moved on.  The Republicans are living in the past.  And now, it is time for an advertisement.........

Onward with Obama!

Fired Up!

Ready To Go!

However, I'd like to say that I agree with some discussion elsewhere on RK that Reagan was not really an optimist, but one who occasionally played one on TV (for the masses).

I plead guilty to voting for two Republicans in my life (Regan as governor and a cross over in a GOP primary in 1988 to stop GHWB from more Iran Contra and October Surprise dirty tricks and bad government).  Does voting for John Warner when he was unopposed count?  I only voted for Reagan in Calif gubernatorial the first time he ran.  It was a stupid overreaction to some really dirty campaigning by Edmond G. Pat Brown (Sr., not Jerry).  Though I first registered as a Republican, I favored Democrat Brown until nearly the end of the campaign.  I was young (in my twenties) and it taught me a lifetime lesson to not overreact to minor things in the final weeks).  

But the truth is Reagan was pissed all the time.  He was red in the face angry a good deal of his public speaking time.  His mantra was "I'm sick and tired..)

He continued his "sick and tired" rants well into his presidency.  But he waxed "optimistic" as need arose.  The man was a B-movie actor, but the public bought it, hook, line and sinker.

Basically, he made up stuff to be angry about: In Calif., he blamed universities for the sixties, so fired 1,000 professors from the UC system), and closed the positions.  Vengeance accomplished.

He blamed welfare recipients for "fraud" though his "welfare queen driving a Cadillac was entirely made up.  He frequently invented stories to stand-in as replicas for real life.

He was mad a people in general, welfare recipients in particular.  He drove up the homeless population so severely that one or two of his own children were ashamed at the time.  And he felt absolutely no remorse. He used a purported contempt for "big government" to expand government further.  Despite railing against fiscal responsibility, he engaged in massive deficit spending.

The man's legacy was purportedly ending the cold war.  But what he really did is conduct the greatest wealth transfer (from our pockets to military contractors, not necessarily for things the military even wanted) in history--up until now/Bush. This was all at a time when evidence clearly showed the former USSR in terrible shape and decreasing threat.  He just didn't tell us and kept up his spendthrift ways.

I continue to be at a loss as to how people, especially dems, find so much good to say about Reagan.  They need to go back and reread Independent Prosecutor Lawrence Walsh's book Firewall.

Pop Quiz: Who stonewalled/halted any action on Walsh's investigation?  

ANSWER: Bill Clinton  and that is why I shall not be supporting HRC.  I really hope either Edwards or Obama wins.

You are right about the historical point on Reagan. To me, it seemed that he wanted to created a connection with Reagan optimism and himself.

After talking with my wife about this issue, I realized that I didn't make myself clear.

I am not upset with Obama praising Reagan because he is committing apostasy.

It upsets me that Obama made it from a tactical viewpoint. It would be like seing a person make a mistake when they are playing chess.

The timing is wrong. Obama is still running in the primaries. These statements can hurt him, not with active supporters, but with undecided democrats.

And we have seen how Clinton have used these statements to attack Obama.

God forbid someone is honest in this campaign. This is just like his answer to his weakness. He was the only one who gave a real answer.  

Scripple is right.  His blog is consistent with what you were  calling for in your general entry about the dialogue here at RK.

Obama was looking at Reagan's election and that general period in terms of trying to understand what was going on then.  He was not defending or approving of what happened to the air traffic controllers.  He was looking at the big picture.

Obama may be too gentle for this world.  Maybe our system is going to eat him up alive.  I hope not.

He has run a great campaign, but I fear will have to come to terms with the fact that it is about more than what you do.  It is also about what the other candidate tries to do to you.

I remember him as sleeping a lot in office, his humor as well as his seeming neglect of many issues, his trashing and his mocking Jimmy Carter's word about being willing to get on his knees to free the hostages while planning and carrying out the selling of arms to the hostage-taker, Iran, a criminal offence, worthy of impeachment, to free the hostages.  Would that Carter's knee bending worked and Reagan's arms deal through the great Ollie North had not been needed;  a lot of dead priests and nuns and poor peasants and their kids would be alive today instead of mouldering in the ground.  But what the hell, collateral damage, that's all.  As I recall, Reagan was not a runaway winner against Jimmy Carter either, and I also seem to recall that Carter either led or was neck and neck with Ron shortly before election day, but I need to Google on this.

As for Reagan, he was beatified after he left office and the propoganda machine went to work, a weekly naming of SOMETHING after Reagan, pushed by Bob Barr, the great Constitution  lover, who only after he had also pushed for Clinton's impeachment and Bush's election later suddenly had a Maalox Moment and realized that Bush was a Fascist schmuck and our Constitution was in peril.

But what was Reagan's transformational effect?  He proselytised for smaller Federal government and then increased it.  He quadrupled the nat'l debt in short shrift.  We had a stock market rally after a crash because we were living on borrowing that raised the debt alarmingly--hell, I can buy a huge boat if you'll loan me 85K and screw my kids and grandkids by making THEM, not me, pay the money back.  He made great speeches with Obamalike phrases, in an actor-like manner, for he WAS an actor, speeches which Peggy Noonan endlessly and expertly wrote for him.   He was the paragon for family while never talking to his own, a cold fish by his own family's words.  He was a moral influence who fooled around and got divorced.  And while in California he made right-wing Liberty Lobby taped talks which were broadcast nationally, in one of which (I heard it) he solemnly promised that if he ever got to DC he would put an end to Social Security.

True, he united the Republicans, so if that's transformation, you can have it.  The Reagan Democrats, people didn't like Carter's misery index and especially the huge interest rates, particularly the 18% mortgages, so some voted Reagan.  But I'm not for killing priests, nor will I ever be, and that's why I'd rather see a weaker Carter than a stronger Reagan.  I can live with a temporary high mortgage; I can't get out of my mind the souls of dead priests, tortured and shot and hacked to death peasants, raped and murdered nuns, those whose deaths are on Reagan's, North's and their compadres bloody hands.

So Please, Barack, don't give me Reagan as an exemplar.  Rather, give me Bill.  Give me the Bill who was vilified, and still is, for supposedly letting his biggest donors use the Lincoln Bedroom, that bedroom that Lincoln never slept in, EVEN THOUGH THE WASHINGTON POST PRINTED A LISTING OF ALL THOSE WHO BILL ALLOWED TO SLEEP IN THAT ROOM, AND SHOWED THAT LESS THAN HALF OF THEM WERE CLINTON DONORS.  Was he going to let his enemies have the honor of sleeping in that mythical room?  Of course not, and of course some of them were contributors--they are FRIENDS, not enemies, and friends contribute.  So let us finally, Finally, put that BS to rest--or sue the Post for trickery and lying.

So I'll take Bill, not Ronnie.  Bill left office with a huge approval rating and we ought to listen to his words, not slant his statements.  HE was a uniter, his approval ratings show it.

I really, truly, honestly believe that most of the men who attacked Bill C after he left office did so because they were jealous of Bill's success with women, and the more I look at their physical makeup, the more I am convinced.  Look at the tiny Reich, the short George Stephanopolous, the crippled and hateful Krauthammer, the obese and disgusting Henry Hyde, the effeminate Lindsey Graham, and the remaining cast of Bill C wannabes (in the sexual conquest sense)--the Bob Barrs, Nicklesons, etc., all with unsavory lives of their own.  And for accepting his sexual transgressions  we got, in return, a man who knew what he was doing when it came to government and unlike Reagan and the Chimp was willing to put the long hard hours into his job for 8 years.

So please, Barack and supporters, forget the Reagan Revolution/transformation crap and let's get real so we can vote for you with a clear conscience, if you beat Hillary.  We've heard the uplift from Mario Cuomo, the uniter not a divider BS from Bush, the new morning in America BS from Ronnie (while the S and L scandal resulting from  his deregulation allowed this to happen), as well as the Gov. Moonbeam sweet Zen talk from Jerry Brown. All pol-speak.  Let's get on with truth.  

Jim Webb has never attacked Ronald Reagan. He has, however, Moved On.  He is a Democrat because it is the Democratic Party that is doing a better job addressing the needs of our country.

I think we can afford to open it up a little and stop obsessing over our desire to score points.  If you do not have an argument, then please do not bs us.  Thanks very much.

I'm saying that I don't see a trajectory change in the 1980 elections beyond the greater unification of the right.  Rather, I see the confluence of an actor who could get off better lines than a dull Carter, with an economy that people were unhappy with.  The trajectory: The Republicans hung together.  The Reagan Democrats?  Not THAT many, I would state.  The trajectory toward Republican presidents continued only because of a succession of really poor candidates--want to argue how poor they were?

What was going on in the 1980 election that I don't want to address?  I remember it very well, because I'm not senile and at my age I even remember the Truman-Dewey election very well, and the Roosevelt-Wilkie race very well.  What is there to address?  If you tell me what I want to "distort" and what I am "obsessing" over, please do.  If I want to talk about how great a Republican  president was, I might as well join hands with Joe Lieberman--Lee Atwater and Newt taught me that THAT is not a successful MO.  

As for taking potshots and scoring points, this is what's called "argument."  When I argue, whether you like it or not, I am trying to score points because I believe that my argument is right and yours wrong, and being right on the history and logic IS scoring points..

Obama saying that a trajectory was changed by Reagan but not by Cinton?  I'd say you might as well include Bill Clinton there as well, which Obama refused to do.  Bill C. interrupted a chain of Republican presidents because he set a trajectory of hope, open government, thoughtfulness and brains in a leader.  He did not have blood on his hands (except, of course, Vince Foster's).  He gave us a good feeling as seen by his approval rating despite his sexual wanderings and 8 years of attacks by the dogs of war, the Republicans.

Now, we're still trying to get a President that's bright, like Bill, that believes in evolution and peaceful solutions, that looks strong and decisive and gives off hope.  That might be Barack Obama, but that's because of a trajectory that Clinton started and THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN CONTINUED/FULFILLED IF GORE AND KERRY HAD BEEN A SHADE FASTER ON THEIR FEET!  Argue that!  Gore got the popular vote despite being branded and not responding.  Kerry barely lost (Oh, Ohio!)  Had they both won, you'd now be talking about the Clinton trajectory, wouldn't you?

Also, how about the Falwell National Cathedral?  Renaming is so much fun and so compassionately conservative!

In fact, Obama isn't saying anything that couldn't come straight out of Crashing the Gate -- that the GOP build a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy that used its think tanks to create ideas, a media machine to sell those ideas, and a modernized campaign operation to win elections on those ideas. Yes, the GOP was the party of ideas. They were crappy ideas. But they were "ideas".

That's not controversial, so I'm not sure why the Clinton campaign is making such a big deal out of it.

Especially "welfare reform" Bill Clinton.

Looming perhaps largest of all was Ronald Reagan, whose clarity about communism seemed matched by his blindness regarding other sources of misery in the world....

...like many Democrats in those days I bemoaned the effects of Reagans policies towards the third world.

And there is more, much more.

I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure.  I think part of what's different are the times.  I do think that for example the 1980s was different.  I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not.  He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it.  I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating.  I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.

I'll give Obama a pass on accomplishing what he thinks he wanted to accomplish by saying this; but my reaction -- it was a weak, politically poor choice during the primary season when you're looking for votes, especially potential ones from the Clinton camp.  

Someone else asked...why didn't he cite FDR?  True, he was THE trajectory President of that century whose reference would have possibly brought over the Clinton Democrats.  

In reading the reactions to this over the Internet, it seems to have hurt him because his supporters are having to defend it, which is always a bad thing (politically, guys).  I think it would help if he or his campaign provided a clarification on the Reagan reference (vs someone like FDR) that will get him out of the doghouse.   But comparing a Republican President's accomplishments unfavorably to a Democratic President's accomplishments, whose approval ratings were in the high 60s when he left office, is a BIG pill for Democrats to swallow.  This is a political analysis...nothing else.  Good political statements don't leave such a wide gap for interpretation or understanding.  

By citing a Republican President's accomplishments as being better than a Democratic President's accomplishments, whose approval ratings were in the high 60s when he left office, is a BIG pill for Democrats to swallow.  

I appreciate your clarification.

The GOP does everything it can to keep the right (wrong) end of its party voting.  But Dems, it sometimes seems, just won't cut any concessions at all.  Dems just say good riddance and goodby to millions of votes.  The problem with this is that then we are scrapping for so-called "independents" (I don't buy that there are all that many, but rather those who think they are better than partisans, but mostly skew Republican and won't admit it.  And by spending all our eggs on trying for them and for declared Republican crossover, while ignoring our natural constituency, we are working against the odds.  It just doesn't add up.

We can't win elections with disgruntled liberals staying home, or worse,  voting Green.

It sometimes seems to me that we'd be better off with a referee because too many of us don't know how to behave like adults.  For the record, I am not referring to anyone blogging here.

That presupposes, of course, that we get a majority of more than 1 in the Senate (because of Joe Lieberman) and a larger majority in the House.  After all, we would not then have to worry about a veto for good bills like the SCHIP, and a filibuster can be taken care of by pressure from the majority Congress and President, and the promise of goodies.  Certainly there are Republicans that would go along with Democratic social issues in this situation, and the reason they do not now is the fear of retribution from Bush and Hunter and the like.

My dislike of Reagan being brought up in a good light by a Democratic presidential candidate irks me because I believe that Obama did not mean to make the point that Lowell did, that the trajectory was the point, not whether goodness was attached to it.  If he had phrased it differently, I might have the view that Lowell has, but because he was negative on Clinton I see that remark differently.  But, as you've noticed, I'm a little (OK, a lot) spooked by the subject of Reagan and I don't see him as great in ANY light, and it really burns me when he's given credit for ending the cold war, despite the protests of respected historians of any stripe, as well as phony accomplishments in other areas.

So, I hope that clears that up.  I don't see Obama as some of you do because I'm old and have seen many terrific speakers with looming potential rither disappear or become very ordinary when faceing, finally, what politics really is--the art of compromise.  I like Obama just as I like any hopeful person, but I REALLY liked Governor Howard Dean, and HE is the one I wish could have been the roll up your sleeves and take no prisoners next president.  Call me nuts!

I said I would leave off further commenting, but as I passed my computer some drops of bile shot from the screen and burned my mohair smoking jacket, spurring me to write this quick and short comment of appreciation.  Old soldier, may you not fade away too soon.