Jane!

Jane!!

Rats, thought for a minute I had firsties! These AZ folks are too speedy!

So true, Jane. I agree completely with the premise.

Ann, I seem to remember this 0ne-Two combination not very long ago. *g*

Hi Jane!

How is Katie?

Boy, I so totally agree with you on this.

Jane’s still in transit, gang, but she wanted to get this message out. She put it in the queue for publication while she had access on the road.

Obama’s idolizing of Reagan really burns me.

Hi, Jane! Great post!

I hope your dog is feeling better.

Wow – participation as behavioral modification, rather than a bit part in a the hagiography choral group.

I like it.

Obama’s idolizing of Reagan really burns me.

Amen. It reeks of triangulation.
More of which we do not need.

Lahoma and I will support the nominee of our party to become the next Democratic president of the United States.

What’s wrong with Kobe?

And we are not pleased with Senator Obama’s comments on Ronald Reagan.

lahoma

I have heard it said that Obama’s Reagan remarks were made with the California primary in mind, as it is said that Californians by and large think more highly of Reagan than other parts of the country. One, I would question whether that is true, and two, if that was his motivation, it disgusts me as the worst kind of pandering without regard to its impact on the Democratic Party or the progressive movement. He could talk about Roosevelt, Truman, JFK, RFK, Carter, Bill Clinton, even LBJ without giving a boost to Reaganism. Why isn’t he?

So if Edwards is acting as a progressive modifier to the H & O RR, is it because he has more popular appeal than Kucinich, or is Kucinich marginalized as a modifier because of the press that ignores him?

Was it…yesterday? How ya doin’, Matt?

Not the Californians of my aquaintance. ‘Course, I used to live in the Bay Area, so YMMV — especially if you live in Southern CA.

The most important thing would be to get Matt Stoller onto Olbermann tomorrow night to explain what happened to Obama in Nevada. Better yet, get him onto Hardball. The word has to get out to the campaigns that Obama blew by praising Reagan, and that cost him Nevada.

Trying to stay warm up here in the north. It must of been up in the 40’s today which felt warm after last week.

I’m fascinated with the intense focus on Obama’s Reagan comment but the lack of concern for Hillary’s DLC foundations and Edwards really horrid comments to A*P*C.

We have problems with all of them but it does seem that one is currently drawing progressive ire while the other two get a pass.

Let’s be equal opportunity critics and cheerleaders …

Jane, you’re absolutely right. I support a particular candidate, but I don’t get my knickers in a knot if he’s criticized. If feet stray from the path we would like to see them tread those feet need to be held to the fire, no matter whose ankles they’re attached to.

especially if you live in Southern CA

Yep. Southern Californians love Reagan.

Well I think Jane’s comment tied with Julia’s question (EPU’d) and Glenn’s response.. make for a very worthwhile approach.

GlennHurowitz

Sorry to have missed this. Re: getting past the media gatekeepers. I’ve actually had some success with this with our PAC. Basically, the media is looking to sell advertising, and conflict sells advertising. Talking about issues, not so much. So if we frame our arguments for a progressive future or a progressive candidate not in terms of delivering justice, but in terms of how saying something about a person’s character, they’ll cover it. In our ad that was critical of Clinton, we actually talked about a relatively obscure issue – her Baby Bonds proposal – but used it to argue that she gave in too easily to Republicans; it’s subtle, but the media lapped it up and gave it way more exposure than it would have had we done a purely issue based as even on an explosive issue like the war.

Hmmm. Obama was born on August 4, 1961. He was 19 when Reagan was elected and 27 when Reagan left office. Certainly old enough to have “gotten it” about the damage the reaganites did to our country. He should know better.

RR won the Cold War, proved the Laffer Curve works, invented the Internet and cured cancer.
Smart Democrats will praise him.

I sometimes wonder whether the entire American political process is
a game that Karl Rove plays for his own amusement.

That’s one interpretation.

I would argue that by causing such a stink about essentially nothing, the media and a lot of bloggers helped the least progressive candidate win, and is unhelpful in our attempt to shift the frame in the direction we would like it to go.

It’s a proven tactic. the Pukes have been doing it for years.
Peer pressure, behavior modification, coercion,bullying, whatever you want to call it, to a certain degree it can be quite effective.
One of the first things toddlers learn is not to touch things that are hot.

My peeved attitude for each come in waves. However I do harbor a continous steaming pit of contempt for George W. Bush continues unabated.

I know that there are fewer Democrats in So. Cal., but is your statement true of Democrats and independents there as well as of Rethugs?

Would love to see someone take down Reagan- maybe a movie that gets the truth out- but it should not be a dem presidential candidate who does it.

My lady is absolutely incensed about the recent Obama comments about Reagan. Whew!

Yup!

Many of us who support Barack Obama object to the way his comments about Ronald Reagan have been deliberately used to insinuate that he was praising the Repubican ideas generated during the Reagan Era. What he was affirming is that the Reaganites generated IDEAS…nowhere does he suggest that any of these ideas were GOOD ideas. Unfortunately a lot of people don’t seem capable of comprehending what he was saying…or they choose to deliberatley misconstrue what he said for their own sinister purposes.

I’ve been meaning to mention this for days, so while I’m thinking about it, and since it seems to be on topic: remember that situation where Obama was first to answer what are his biggest faults. So he talked about losing paper if they give it to him any substantial length of time before he needs it. Granted he made it thru law school, etc., so he can’t be that bad. But I gotta say, anyone who has ever been thru a course where they teach you how to interview, specifically, for a job (and that is essentially what they’re doing, after all) knows that they teach you to take a negative and make it a positive. Exactly what both Edwards and Hillary did, yet they’ve been criticized for it, and Obama has been given credit for telling the truth.

Yet if he were interviewing with a professional headhunter, his answer would have shown a certain unpreparedness. It’s not that I think he’s bad, but I think his staff should be preparing him better and not playing up the fact that he’s essentially “not ready for prime time.”

No point in having knicker-knots. It is frustrating to watch them whack each other when it is pointless. There are some differences but you don’t need to go after the other person with a straight razor. I rather they each play to the strenghts they have. And whack the Rethugs for all they are worth.

The love for Saint Ronnie is primarily a gooper pastime I believe- they love to name things after the silly bastard.

Read How to Rig an Election. People play to win.

-G

Amen. It reeks of triangulation.
More of which we do not need.

I think it was just plain a stupid mistake!

Uhhhh….

In Arcadia (solid Rethug) – maybe

In Santa Monica….not so much.

With 10.25 million in LA County alone – not to mention the spread of media markets from Santa Barbara through LA and (via OC or the “Inland Empire”) to San Diego County (Ocean Beach vs say, Fallbook) – I’m quite daunted by the diversity and complexity of So Cal poltical opinion.

Is there any emprical data on the presence of absence of So Cal voters’ current affinity for someone who left office in 1988?

What about HRC and the AUMF? It seems to me that should be a little more troubling than any comments that Obama has made about a dead president from 20 years ago.

It’s not Kobe, it’s Katie, one of her others (she has 3 standard bred poodles). she just mentioned early on Pach’s Reagan/Obama thread that Katie had an upset tummy and was in doggie hospital.

He apparently didn’t say it well at all, but he could have talked about lots of Dems who have generated ideas. It was a foolish and naive thing to do and I hope he won’t make the same error again. It makes me think he is a DLC Dem inside and out.

The problem is that what he said has been so easily misconstrued, and he should have recognized that.

Richard Nixon (Watergate, etc.). Ronald Reagan (Iran-Contra, etc.). George W. Bush (war crimes, etc.). Now there’s a line-up.

Yes! And, as I noted a while ago, unless we elect someone who is going to be able to speak to the population in a broad way, we are going to end up in the same impossible situation that we were in during the Clinton era, when the opposition was able to clobber him at every turn. This, plus to get elected, we need to have someone who can attract numbers of independents.

btw I have no sinister purposes.

eddevy, I understand what Obama was saying but it would have been sooo much better if he used FDR as an example of a pres who changed the nation’s thinking. The goal is to change repubs into dems, not to validate repub thinking.

Yep. That too… ;0)

“presence or absence”

(sorry – “presence of absence” refers to Reagun’s cognition, not his poll numbers…)

What he was affirming is that the Reaganites generated IDEAS…nowhere does he suggest that any of these ideas were GOOD ideas.

He couldn’t think of a Democrat who “generated ideas?” He couldn’t even have thought of a less odious Republican? Cripes — doesn’t he realize that the mere name “Ronald Reagan” is like a red rag to a bull to any minimally progressive Democrat who’s old enough to remember him? Puhleeze.

I went out in my jammies for about a half hour or so with my kitties this morning. Not sure of the temperature, but it couldn’t have been that bad.

Alas, if he (or Hillary) were to bring in FDR at this point, it would cue in all the pundits to say, big government democrats. At this point, sadly FDR has been very vilified by the right.

Don’t forget that he was idolized by TV for several days surrounding his funeral. That may be all some younger voters know about him.

Sounds like a Bill Clinton did it too argument.

-G

I voted for Obama, I read his comments and they sickened me.

Also, I didn’t vote for Hillary largely because of that vote, but it doesn’t innoculate Obama from saying stupid things.

You realize of course, that the Clintons have also praised Reagan. I like what Siun said earlier, if one is going to go after one, you ought to go after the other.

If you don’t care for Obama. And you smile less than favorably on Senator Clinton, but will vote to oust the Republicans next November, then I see we are on the same page.

Which is what I’ve been saying since yesterday morning, and it seems a lot of people can’t or won’t accept the validity of it.

Why anyone who claims to be progressive would prefer Clinton over Obama is beyond me.

Agree in principle. At the same time, it is incumbent upon us in the blogosphere to vet what has been said by a candidate or politician before jumping the gun. Obama’s Reagan comment was taped, so there was never any question as to the exact words he used. However, at an earlier moment, a number of blogosphere writers jumped on John Edwards because of the way a particular reporter had described a reaction. Once the reports of some other journalists were examined, it was clear that the blogosphere had jumped the gun

My suggestion is that, before we leap to criticize a candidate or politician, we do two things:

1) Ask ourselves if the report we’re hearing/reading squares with what we know about prior actions or positions of the candidate/politician; and

2) Be extra alert to adjectives and modifiers used by the reporter, especially when there is no audio or video of the comment for verification. Too many media types are trying to create a story rather than report a story, and when we fall into this trap we do ourselves and our politicians a disservice.

Hillary hasn’t done it in the heat of a Democratic primary.

-G

Maybe so, Richmond, but I fear very shortly, we’re going to need someone with FDR-like ideas.

Siun, I’ve already taken more than my share of swats at all three. But, what’re ya gonna do? Can’t live with ‘em, can’t shoot ‘em. One way or the other we need to choose a candidate and we’re limited by those who are running voluntarily.

The Clintons have been cozy with George Bush Sr. and Rupert Murdoch too. And they love them some DLC.

Thank you.

Link?

If Sen. Clinton said anything on par with what Obama said about Reagan, then my criticism applies to her equally.

Sadly (because people are/will be suffering because of this Rethug-caused mess) – you are very right.

Jane says;
“From that standpoint, if one candidate sees another receiving negative feedback for something they are less likely to engage in it themselves. The likelihood that Clinton or Edwards is going to step in it now and start praising St. Ronnie in the next few days is remote. We win.”

Jane since you believe the blogs have so much power over the candidates rhetoric.”

How about a post about BigDog’s lies and telling him to STFU?

This is what the nation thirsts for. ;0)

He could talk about Roosevelt, Truman, JFK, RFK, Carter, Bill Clinton, even LBJ without giving a boost to Reaganism. Why isn’t he?

He wants someone to believe he will emulate Ronald Reagan. Well, if that’s what he wants me to believe…

Yet? She is VERY careful, you know. Pink suits in some states, blue in others, green and rust in N.H. (Her hairdo changes subtly too!)

Swatting with equal attention seems right to me … and acknowledging who each is and what they have shown us with their actions. It’s not a pretty picture and I have a feeling everyone is trying to find a way to swallow one or the other … but that’s not supposed to be what we’re fighting for.

Alas, if he (or Hillary) were to bring in FDR at this point, it would cue in all the pundits to say, big government democrats. At this point, sadly FDR has been very vilified by the right.

And, isn’t it a sad fact that repubs villify him, dems are afraid to mention him but NOBODY speaks harshly of Reagan.

You should have heard me cursing when Bill said he’d yank Poppy Bush out of his adirondack chair to run around the world on a goodwill tour to fix his Chimp like sons disastrous results.

I was livid……..Bill, leave the old coot to blubber in Kennebunkport with his Quaker Oats Guy wife. Take Jimmy Carter and rebuild our reputation.

-G

Kiddo and lahoma are wise folks. Our house agrees with their house. Off to tend things on the stove, and I’ll check back later.

Apparently Obama has essentially said to Big Dog STFU (per Drudge/Kos). About time!

What he was affirming is that the Reaganites generated IDEAS…nowhere does he suggest that any of these ideas were GOOD ideas. Unfortunately a lot of people don’t seem capable of comprehending what he was saying…or they choose to deliberatley misconstrue what he said for their own sinister purposes.

By this logic an appeal to Speer’s visionary architecture and Rand’s enthusiasm for social chang will be part of Obama’s stump speech.

Was Obama this tone-deaf as a law professor, or was he just saving the incompetence til it would do the greatest possible damage?

Even swathed in Armani, Chicag machine tool Obama shows less aptitude for self-preservation than do many of my suicidal patients.

Of course, he does excel in his cosmetic dentistry.

Just for the record, here are Haaretz’s Israel Factor ratings of U.S. presidential candidates:
8.37 Guiliani
7.62 Clinton
7.25 Bloomberg
7.12 McCain
6.50 Romney
6.00 Huckabee
5.87 Edwards
5.00 Obama
They have also rated all other current and former candidates, except Ron Paul, see http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/p…..Page.jhtml

Regarding Clinton, one of her top fund raisers is Haim Saban, an Israeli billionaire who founded the Saban Center for Mideast Policy. Per Saban, “I’m a one-issue guy and my issue is Israel.” Among Clinton’s foreign policy advisors are Martin Indyk, Director of the Saban Center and Michael O’Hanlon, an affiliate of the Saban
Center.

IMHO, I don’t see daylight between Clinton and the neocons of the Bush administration on matters of foreign policy, especially in the middle east. Israel and her A*P*C supporters will insist on long-term U.S. presence in that region. And, I must note, our mideast policy was much more even handed under George H. W. Bush than under William Jefferson Clinton.

Great point, Jane! We need some air in here.

Let’s throw open some (Overton) windows — after we’ve shoved them as far to the left as we can, natch!

Didn’t have time to read earlier threads today, so knowing Pups as I do, y’all probably have heard about Obama’s speech today at Ebeneezer Baptist Church.

On the off chance you missed it, here’s a link to a full copy of the speech:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…..343/440020

It’s an amazing speech. I admit to looking at Obama with a somewhat wary eye, fearing that what he means by “unity” will amount to compromising with the GOP gangsters and thugs.

OTOH, if what he means by “unity” is what he talks about in the afore-linked-to speech, then a progressive approach to problem-solving would look to be in the works on his watch.

For those who have read this speech (or seen it on C-Span — I first heard feedback that someone who saw it there today, a far more hardened, cynical type, burst into tears upon seeing/hearing Obama deliver these words; would love to know if it will be rebroadcast…) —

— what do you all think about it? Does he mean what he says here?

If this is the type of “unity” he means, which he defines, among other things, as being our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers, and hence morally responsible to help the least amongst us in material, concrete ways, then that’s a type of “unity” I can sign up for.

I like the idea mentioned above about someone putting out a Reagan film. I think “his time will come.”

Perhaps Michael Moore?

While I will vote for the nominee of my party for president, I just don’t think that Obama and Clinton “get it”. If either of these are the nominee, my lady will be dragging me kicking and yelling to the polls come next November. ;0)

“Quaker Oats Guy wife.”

Too funny. All she needs is the hat.

It’s a filthy job, but somebody’s got to do it. ;)

Hi MsK8! Great to see yuo here.

He can’t be all things to everyone. I detested Ronnie when he was governor of California and even more when he was prez. His policies are still ahve a negativeimpact on this country and it citizens. Obama needs to wake up and smell the coffee.

Angry, much? I think your comment is way off base. Did you see his speech this morning in Atlanta. I think he has real courage (he addressed anti-semitism and homophobia speaking in a black church). Frankly, I find refreshing someone who speaks with candor – and intelligence, rather than push polling every phrase to see if it will “work” as a concept.

People are so ready for another FDR right now.
We won’t get one, but that is what to aim for, dear candidates. Not “it’s morning in America!”
It’s a cold gray dawn and milk is five dollars a gallon, the kids are sick, you don’t have insurance, and no one seems to care.
No one can spare some time to listen, either.

I hope it’s better than “Nixon”.

We are keeping our eyes on the prize. The White House.

Hmmmm. Yes, YES!!!!

The Californians I hang out with don’t think too highly of Ronald Reagan. We wonder how long he had Alzhiemers before it was reported. First he screwed up California, then went on to ruin the USA.

completely OT: the editor for la times was just fired for refusing to institute deep budget cuts. this is the second editor fired in 15 months for refusing to institute cuts dictated by the publisher.

http://www.latimes.com/busines…..ome-center

This whole Reagan thing reminds me of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s admiration of Hitler (for being a little guy and coming into power and for his public speaking skills.)

Looks as if it’s either Obama or Clinton on the dem side and either Romney or McCain for the goops. Clinton/McCain most likely in my opinion- although many are sayin that Romney will take it for the goops cause he’s got more money. If goops start dropping out- it could change things. If Edwards drops- I don’t know where his support will go.

Justice Stevens deserves to retire with a clear conscience.

-G

We badly need a dem prez to replace the aging “liberal” wing of the supreme court- and a conservative if the possibility arises. A lot can happen in eight years.

Oh no!

Sending a prayer/good thoughts for Jane’s sweet pup!

Oh, Please… enough with the Karl as bogeyman meme.
The only time I want to hear that name again is when he’s doing the perp walk or dying of brain cancer like Bush Sr’s shill (what was his name?) who ginned-up the Willie Horton story.

I’ve watched the video of Obama’s comments about Reagan at least a half dozen times. What I object to is reference to “the excesses of the 60’s and 70’s” that caused people to vote for Reagan.

I was 27 yo in 1980. The hot-button issues that motivated suckers to vote for Ronald Reagan in 1980 included the civil rights movement, the War on Poverty, the anti-war movement, women’s liberation, gay rights, and environmental regulation.

Perhaps Mr. Obama can explain why he would categorize these things as “the excesses of the ’60’s and 70’s.” And go back and watch the video before telling me that he was just referring to how the Reagan crowd saw it. This is how He referred to it.

I am glad you brought this up, and I would love to have it as the subject of a whole blog. The fact that this small group of neo-cons would have Guillani up as their number one pro-Israel guy is beyond the pale (pail?). Their list seems to be all about red blood ME war yelling, not thoughtful engagement by any means. It reminds me of something I read a while back that the ueber right wing of all the major religions (Jews, Christians, Moslems) actually have more in common with each other than with the more liberal sects of their own religion. I was really heartened the other day both with the Jewish leaders who came out against the Obama email – and then the Jewish Senate leaders. Just because there are a signifiant number of the more nutsy neo-cons (Addington, Wolfowitz, Perle, Kristol, Lieberman) who are red blood ME war mongers, doesn’t mean that this is the view of all or even a majority of Jews. Alas, those more middle of the road types are often clobbered for speaking out in a more reasoned way.

Many of us who support Barack Obama object to the way his comments about Ronald Reagan have been deliberately used to insinuate that he was praising the Repubican ideas generated during the Reagan Era. What he was affirming is that the Reaganites generated IDEAS…nowhere does he suggest that any of these ideas were GOOD ideas.

Even after being universally “misunderstood,” he has yet to say that he was talking about BAD ideas.

*waving to Mrs. K8*

By this logic an appeal to Speer’s visionary architecture and Rand’s enthusiasm for social chang will be part of Obama’s stump speech.

By your logic Armstrong and Moulitsas wrote “Crashing the Gate” in praise of the Republican Machine.

Oh yeah….now I remember….yeah:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..38;search=

Sorry, but you can’t put Hitler and Reagan in the same basket. Even though I hate what Reagan did, I would not go that far.

So true.

Given Obama’s record, that should be self-evident.

I was thinking about Orange County, which is overwhelmingly Republican.

The Californians I hang out with don’t think too highly of Ronald Reagan. We wonder how long he had Alzhiemers before it was reported. First he screwed up California, then went on to ruin the USA.

Which kinda (once again) puts the lie to Lawrence O’Donnell’s assertion that Edwards needs to get out of the race because the Cali folks don’t want to hear bad things about Reagan and most voters are too young to remember him as a union buster/anti-labor president (after he busted one of the few unions to actually endorse him in ‘80).

You know what the problem is when you pressure candidates to act a certain way to your liking?? —You don’t really change the candidate, you just push them to become more manipulative and hide the way they really feel. (And you wonder why it’s hard to get a straight answer out of them.) When a politician, or anyone for that matter, says something politically incorrect, and we pounce on them for it—rest assured, we didn’t change their true feelings, their morals, or their minds. We just made them hide it better. It reminds me of a man who is telling his girlfriend everything she wants to hear—but is cheating on her the entire time.

As I’m sure you all know I loathe Barack Obama.

And if you want more details as to why, HERE The more he talks up Ronnie Ray-Gun, the clearer it becomes that what he wants are white “conservatives.” As for the African-Americans he supposedly has in his pocket, forget it. Talking Ray-Gun is a big “FUCK YOU!” to them all (which of course includes me.)

Is there any emprical data on the presence of absence of So Cal voters’ current affinity for someone who left office in 1988?

Nah. I was talking out my ass. You caught me!

That’s my page.

I am not sure why you would watch them a half dozen times. That is simply weird in my view, but…. What I remember about the Reagan election was the image of a peaceful happy future (sun rise meme) – this after the heated (but critical!) wars for civil rights, women’s rights etc. There were (sadly) many who were turned off by the notable achievements made by both blacks and women – remember the whole Phyllis Schlafly thing about meeting your man when he comes home – naked to show him you love him (I think it was her).

Hey Kirk! Hey Suzanne! So good to see you both, and all beloved Pupsters.

My guy has to get on the ‘puter now, we’re trying to set up a calendaring software system on our home network, so we can share/update our to-do lists. In other words, we’re in desperate need of organization and our aging brains aren’t helping, we need software assist to keep all our tasks and projects properly juggled.

Unfortunately, setting this up on the network is a bear. Mr. K8 takes over the keyboard now, but I’ll be back later….

Smooches!!!

I’m still pissed at Reagan for dying at the same time as Ray Charles, and getting all the press.

Actually, I should say I’m mad at the press for neglecting Ray Charles.

That’s certainly a point. Probably the best way to pressure a politician is to vote for someone else–someone who says the things you want to hear. Unfortunately, that’s not always an option.

We keep hearing this from his apologists. Why haven’t we heard it from him. He’s the misunderstood candidate.

Reagan’s funeral was very overdone, but I think they were letting it drag on and on to keep us busy.

gosh wigwam … isn’t that encouraging … sheesh!

Whatever happened to old fashioned focus on Senate votes and candidate positions instead of exponentially stretching a verbal reference or lol or trying to construe a land purchase into a money-laundered loan, or horror of horrors concern over poker games that happened over ten years ago?

My friends on the high school debate team shared their strategy of shifting the topic to their opponents’ putative emotional state right after they were spanked on the facts.

“If you can’t argue the facts, pound the table”.

Of course, I’m a science nerd – just kept sticking with the facts.

So – we’re asked to accept the assertion:

[Obama’s] affirming is that the Reaganites generated IDEAS…nowhere does he suggest that any of these ideas were GOOD ideas. Unfortunately a lot of people don’t seem capable of comprehending what he was saying…or they choose to deliberatley misconstrue what he said for their own sinister purposes.

When will Sen Machine Tool share his admiration for the Japanese Empire’s creative answers to colonialism? Or Torquemada’s contibutions to religious life?

After all, the Japanese Empire and Torquemada generated IDEAS, did they not?

WHy should we not embrace Sen Machine Tools enthusiasm for ideas, regardless of their consequnces?

Newtie is famous for his font of ideas – as is Lieberman?

Will Obama’s fearless intellectualism lead him to choose these sages as VP?

Hey – why not Grover Norquist? He’s full of ideas, too.

Might it be that point of seeking political power is to advance a subset of ideas, rather than fawn over anyone reputed to have had one?

(and how did Obama remain so ignorant as not to know Reagun was spoon-fed “ideas” by his “kitchen cabinet” as CA Gov and by the same group of ex ad-men/car dealers as president? heck, maybe he just didn’t time to stay current, what with the late nite poker games bribery opportunities with lobbyists and all?)

And, I refuse to call National Airport anything but National Airport.

What are you cooking?

Rut ro!

Speaking for myself I can say that our allegiance is to a counternarrative which we hope will create the possibility of progressive change no matter who gets elected.

Amen to that!

Topics about which the wingnuts have zero credibility, and can’t present a coherent paragraph:
– the value of a ‘green economy’,
– a world made safer by enhanced social and economic justice,
– truly ‘rational’ pricing in our capitalist economy: if you want to drive a big Chevy pickup, the price of gas will include the ‘hidden costs’ of subsidizing Blackwater, subsidizing the corrupt Iraqi’s, subsidizing no-bid contracts for Halliburton, et al, subsidizing reasonable medical care for returned vets, subsidizing better research into alternative fuels…

Now there’s a narrative I’d love to hear!

As for that ‘Reagan was such a sweetie,’ meme — let’s just call it: “How Obama Let Himself Get Punk’d By Wingnut Revisionism” and hope it doesn’t happen ever again (!).

The Dems can’t afford to be that stoopid anymore.

That’s a powerful and courageous speech to give … good for him!

Actually, this tactic (pounding fist on the table) seems to me to be what the Clintons (esp Bill) have taken up in spades.

Glad to be of service. ;-)

Really nice save, sweetie.
Glad to see you on your toes. :)

Got “narrative” and “meme” in, can Kabuki be fare behind? :)

Decent observation. There are really two prizes up for next November. The WH and the SCOTUS. ;0)

What should he do? Post all of of “Dreams From My Father” and “The Audacity of Hope” online for free download?

Actually, that would be a really good idea.

Richmond…”Yet? She is VERY careful, you know. Pink suits in some states, blue in others, green and rust in N.H. (Her hairdo changes subtly too!)”

Interestingly, I don’t wear the same color every day, and sometimes I change my hair too. What are you saying?

Now, about that voice!

Yes – and the speech took balls to do – in the same way that the Jewish leaders’ (and Senate Jewish leaders’) leaders letters took balls. This is why I feel a bit more optimistic about the future.

By this logic an appeal to Speer’s visionary architecture and Rand’s enthusiasm for social chang will be part of Obama’s stump speech.

By your logic Armstrong and Moulitsas wrote “Crashing the Gate” in praise of the Republican Machine.

Only if “Crashing the Gate” is as devoid of crticism of the results of the Rethug machine’s policies as Obama’s speech was devoid of criticism of the results of Reagan’s disastrous policies.

So: where in that speech did the Armani’d one take out after the substance of Reagans policies?

She seems to be wearing different colors/styles in diffrent regions of the country. Very different from, say Eliz Edwards OR McCain’s wife.

A really good idea!

So long as “unity” does not mean compromise.

It would suffice for him to say: “I neglected to mention that I think that Reagan’s changes hurt America and those Republican ideas were bad ones.” Would that inconvenience him too much?

I’ve had way too much of my party compromising with the Republicans over the last seven years. I’m fed up with that.

Here are Obama’s comments from the Ebenezer Baptist church earlier today, for those interested:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…..343/440020

Sort of implicit isn’t it?

That’s right.

Frankly (and personally) I would rather he waited to say that until after he is elected. And, even more frankly, I would love to have Roger Moore do that for him. :-)

It was exactly that part of his comments that really caused me to shiver. He sounded like Limbaugh and Gingrich.

What about the excesses of the 80’s and 2000’s Mr. O?

-G

The only thing that may turn this Titanic around is the failing economy that is hitting “Wal-Mart” shoppers in the pocket. They won’t be able to hide inside the IPods they can’t afford or live in their houses they can’t afford, and won’t be able to afford to eat….and when the “silent ex-Bush supporters, get rid of all the illegal aliens types” realize that because of the policies of the Republican-controlled Congress and the last 7 years of Bushco…the furriners are buying up the roads, the ports, their cities, etc., and have already stolen their jobs and the future jobs of their kids…without even crossing the borders….and without even firing a shot…and that they have bought “The Homeland”…

Well….they might go to their sheds in their yards and pull out the pitchforks….Just sayin’.

Are you channeling Chris Matthews tonight?

-G

What? He’s embarrassed to say that Reagan and the Republicans are full of shit. He’s too important to be bothered. What the fuck kind of candidate runs for a party’s nomination and can’t be bothered to announce his criticism of the opponents’ icon? This is unheard of.

Of course “unity” means compromise.

In that “brave” speech he made ONE reference to “embracing” gays. Obviously after one has put on the rubber gloves.

He said the clown changed things. . .and he did. What’s the big deal, Big Dog said the same goddamn thing?

Greg – neither Obama nor Hillary sound anything like Limbaugh or Gingrich. And, yes, let’s address the excesses of the 80s and 2000 – but to do that we also need to take back Congress from the Rahm Emmanual branch of Congress, and those Dems who are beneficiaries of the same largesse.

LOL – no I have said it before. But, good one!

PANDERING? YOU WANT PANDERING?

neurophius at 16:

I have heard it said that Obama’s Reagan remarks were made with the California primary in mind, as it is said that Californians by and large think more highly of Reagan than other parts of the country. One, I would question whether that is true, …

Good on you for your skepticism, neurophius, cuz only someone who has not lived in California for many moons thinks Duncan Hunter is “a viable candidate” and think highly of Ronald Alzheimer’s Reagan. Orange County just ain’t the right-wing-nut bubble it was during Ronnie’s Bedtime for Bonzo daze.

And neuophius con’t:

…and two, if that was his motivation, it disgusts me as the worst kind of pandering without regard to its impact on the Democratic Party or the progressive movement. He could talk about Roosevelt, Truman, JFK, RFK, Carter, Bill Clinton, even LBJ without giving a boost to Reaganism. Why isn’t he?

You want Barack Obama Pandering??? Ask BlackAgendaReport.com who have watched Obama since the early 1990s –

Black Agenda Report knows the story very well, after more than four years of observing Obama’s descent from vaguely progressive rhetoric to shameless pandering (to whites) and vapid “Change!” mantra nonsense. Only the rich can win this game.

from “Barack, Hillary, and the Sinister Nothingness of ‘Change’”
Glen Ford, Black Agenda Report
January 11, 2008
http://www.BlackAgendaReport.com

If one equates “pandering” with “triangulation,” then Hillary wins hands down. Also from Black Agenda Report –

The scam of this still-new century enthralls and envelopes the nation, a narrowly-packaged farce in which political twins Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama pretend they are not joined at the hip on every public policy issue that has been allowed to enter the corporate media-vetted discourse: health care, Iraq, trade. Even these points of (non)contention disappear in the din of purely commercial marketing mantras with infinitely malleable meanings: “Change,” “Hope,” “Reform.”

So Barack eulogizes the euthanized Class Warfare/Union Busting Ronnie Alzheimer’s Reagan for what Obama thinks California wants.

Hillary is right now stomping around Harlem with unknown hubby Bill talking about how she really really cares about the New Yorkers she has abandoned in her pander-bluss to the White House.

Pandering Triangulators Separated at Birth, but Back Together Again! Barack and Hillary. Pander on …

(and how did Obama remain so ignorant as not to know Reagun was spoon-fed “ideas” by his “kitchen cabinet” as CA Gov and by the same group of ex ad-men/car dealers as president? heck, maybe he just didn’t time to stay current, what with the late nite poker games bribery opportunities with lobbyists and all?)

Great point. Poker is evil, and it is carcinogenic. Right?

And of course intimations of bribery are light years from the actual proof of any bribery(you’re into science you said right Doc?–haven’t been a lot of nuanced advances in neurileptics in 50 years since Solomon Snyder helped nail opiod receptors in ‘72, but.. )

No Evidence of Bribery or Illegal Loans to Obama But the Broken Records Persist

And that Clinton list of contributors–not bribery–just Citicorp and Rubin lookin’ for good government?

Clinton Multibillionaire Corporate Contributors Bribery or Just Good Government?

Implicit? Just having a bit of fun. ;0)

implicit:

John Dewey a mathematical function : defined by an expression in which the dependent variable and the one or more independent variables are not separated on opposite sides of an equation

implicit differentiation:

the process of finding the derivative of a dependent variable in an implicit function by differentiating each term separately, by expressing the derivative of the dependent variable as a symbol, and by solving the resulting expression for the symbol

Well we will have to disagree, unless you also agree that Hillary (who had on her website a letter indicating that Reagan was one of her favorite presidents) and Bill -who has spoken of Reagan in similar terms – are called out on this too, and required to condemn Reagan in equal measure. Goose and Gander, as Jane was implying.

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

As previously stated, it should be self evident that Obama did not intend to to endorse Reagan. Anyone, including yourself and all the other regulars at this site, who follows politics as closely as we do here, knows that Barack Obama does not endorse the policies pursued by Ronald Reagan. For anyone in this room to suggest otherwise is being disingenuous.

I have to say that this demand that candidates (or should I say, this particular candidate) adhere so closely to this group’s orthodoxy that he can’t make the simple statement that Reagan changed the direction of US politics without basically being called a tool of the Republican establishment really freaks me out.

Barack Obama is the last, best hope we have of nominating an even halfway progressive candidate for president, and all people want to do is tear him down.

I’m disappointed. Really I am.

I’m qual guy!

Jeez. Amen. –and of course “spare me!”

I will vote for Obama if he is the candidate of the Democratic Party in November 2008.

I pray to doG that you are correct in your belief that he is willing to govern as a progressive.

I have seen no evidence to support that belief at this point.

People say we need Hillary in the White House to select Supremes.

Based on family history, this premise is an oxymoron.

Get me a bucket.

-G

Well… George W. Bush is the unitary prez. On a more serious note, if “unity” has to do with compromise does that not imply that each of the parties involved in the compromise realizes some benefit(s) from the compromise? If so, show where my party (Dems) have realizrd any benefits from their many compromises with George W. Bush and Karl Rove.

Not tear him down. He must learn to say exactly what he means. Otherwise people have to search for his meaning and he should try to be clear. I want my prez to be very clear when negotiating with the Chinese or the North Koreans. It’s important and the prez can’t just throw things out and expect others to understand what he “means.”

I am trying to catch up with this thread, but am afraid of getting EPU’d, so I will ask now.

I saw the link above to the Kos transcript of Obama’s speech today.

Does anybody have a link to a video of it?

Anyone know why Jeralyn etc at Talkleft has gone so Clinton-ueber-alles?

Well, it looks like it’s him or Mrs AUMF.

The choice is yours.

Check cspan.. They have been running it over and over on television all afternoon.

Hey Mrs. K8!

LS, great YouTube at 95.

I have to say that this demand that candidates (or should I say, this particular candidate) adhere so closely to this group’s orthodoxy that he can’t make the simple statement that Reagan changed the direction of US politics without basically being called a tool of the Republican establishment really freaks me out.

Bullshit! He made a statement that his adherents say was misinterpreted. Matt Stoller makes a good case that that (mis)interpretation cost him Nevada. It would be ever so easy for him to clear this up by announcing his negative value judgement regarding Reagan’s “changes” and the Republican Party’s “ideas.”

If this is a misunderstanding, let the candidate clear it up.

C-Span also has Duncan Hunter giving a concession speech and addressing his follower.

-G

Obama’s dog-whistle appeal to Reagan Dems came across quite clear – and this electoral strategy is quite logical for an ambitious pol who votes “present” on crucial, divisive issues in order to maintain his (or her) electability.

Whatever words come out of Obama’s impeccable dentition fail to refute the fact that the ambitious pol runs away from votes on core progressive issues.

His behavior – his choices – is far more self-evident than his verbiage.

His behavior screams ambition, and demonstrates Obama’s eagerness to advnce his career at the cost of progressive objectives.

Reagan has done more to damage progressive goals/values than any Rethug (up ’til Junior).

If demanding that an aspirant to “Dem Pres Candiate” explicitly reject the Reagan/GOP destruction of progressive goals is “orthodoxy”, I’ll have to quit shaving and start keeping a Kosher kitchen.

And if Senator Clinton is the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party in November 2008, I will vote for her.

And I will pray to doG that she is willing to govern as a progressive.

Quite frankly I’m not interested in compromise with the Republicans or so called bi-partisanship. You may deem that to be a somewhat revolutionary idea. And in so far as the “Democratic Leadership” is concerned, it is.

I liked Martha Reeves and the Vandella’s better.

Same with Taylor Marsh. Used to like both of them, but stopped visiting each because of the one-sided criticism of Obama. There’s plenty to critique Obama about and that is healthy, but to then turn a blind eye to Clinton’s problems is very frustrating to me. Perhaps they’ve done some critique of Clinton, but I haven’t seen any.

Precisely. ;0)

Did he call out Reagan for dog-whistling in Philadelphia?

I thought Duke Cunningham was in jail.

Sorry Kirk but on choices (Hilly & Billy heart Lieberman) the Clintons have it all over Obama

And on ambition – that is Hill to the hilt (based on the Nevada caucus and others, it seems as if she/they are willing to lie, cheat, do anything to get elected.

When you run for anything, even the PTA, it is normal for people to look over your past and make their points pro or con, but a Presidential Election and some Congressional ones really bring out the penchant to try to get milage out of things that are really tangential (I borrowed one of the terms from Kirk’s trade) to how they are going to really perform when relationships and decisions are prime when they get in office.)

I think with all the good brains here, there needs to be focus on the main issues and how you see them dealing with them if they get into the WH.

Given the actions of the Rs in 1980/1988/1992/1996/2000/2004, I’m getting to the point where maybe having someone that is a bit ruthless when dealing with them just MIGHT be a good thing.

As previously stated, it should be self evident that Obama did not intend to to endorse Reagan.

Straw man #1: no one here said he did.

Anyone, including yourself and all the other regulars at this site, who follows politics as closely as we do here, knows that Barack Obama does not endorse the policies pursued by Ronald Reagan. For anyone in this room to suggest otherwise is being disingenuous.

Straw man #2: no one here wrote that he endorsed Reagan’s policies with his statement. You want to say we’re being dishonest? I’ll tell you you can’t fracking read.

I have to say that this demand that candidates (or should I say, this particular candidate) adhere so closely to this group’s orthodoxy that he can’t make the simple statement that Reagan changed the direction of US politics without basically being called a tool of the Republican establishment really freaks me out.

Straw man #3 I’d like to see you quote where anyone said his, too.

Barack Obama is the last, best hope we have of nominating an even halfway progressive candidate for president, and all people want to do is tear him down.

Well, if that’s your religion, then of course no criticism of his actions can ever be merited. That would explain your lack of reading comprehension, and underline Jane’s point above about candidate partisans being unable to get it.

I’m disappointed. Really I am.

Alrighty then. But we’re not candidate partisans, we’re movement activists who see the candidates as working for us. If you want a candidate partisan site for the primaries, then this won’t be it. Adjusting your expectations will save you from future disappointment.

How do Obama’s recent comments on Reagan facilitate unity within the Democratic Party?

Yes, strange. This is one of many things I thank Jane for – she allows/encourages discussion across the candidates.

The war in Iraq was a nice bi-partisan adventure.

It is ridiculous argument that bi-partisanship is a virtue in and of itself.

-G

We’re not going to do that by idolozing Reagan.

Bill Clinton has gradually become the story in the Democratic race. Is this a good thing? Hillary still has to win the general.

Good point, Kiddo (except to get many in the Dem party united against him :-) — But, as I said earlier, I think this was more about pushing his viability as a candidate who would appeal to independents- and those Republcans furious with Bush.

Speaking of bipartisanship, have I posted the “Official PhysioProf Policy on Bipartisanship” lately? Oh, yes, I already did today. Well, anyone who hasn’t seen it can easily find it.

Right-O!

I agree.

Fabulous:

“I’m talking about a moral deficit. I’m talking about an empathy deficit. I’m taking about an inability to recognize ourselves in one another; to understand that we are our brother’s keeper; we are our sister’s keeper; that, in the words of Dr. King, we are all tied together in a single garment of destiny.

We have an empathy deficit when we’re still sending our children down corridors of shame – schools in the forgotten corners of America where the color of your skin still affects the content of your education.

We have a deficit when CEOs are making more in ten minutes than some workers make in ten months; when families lose their homes so that lenders make a profit; when mothers can’t afford a doctor when their children get sick.

We have a deficit in this country when there is Scooter Libby justice for some and Jena justice for others; when our children see nooses hanging from a schoolyard tree today, in the present, in the twenty-first century.

We have a deficit when homeless veterans sleep on the streets of our cities; when innocents are slaughtered in the deserts of Darfur; when young Americans serve tour after tour of duty in a war that should’ve never been authorized and never been waged.

And we have a deficit when it takes a breach in our levees to reveal a breach in our compassion; when it takes a terrible storm to reveal the hungry that God calls on us to feed; the sick He calls on us to care for; the least of these He commands that we treat as our own.

So we have a deficit to close. We have walls – barriers to justice and equality – that must come down. And to do this, we know that unity is the great need of this hour….” Barack Obama 1/20/08

Hillary still has to win the general.

When did she South Carolina and SuperTuesday?

I appreciate your remarks.

Richmond, FWIW I despise Hillary for her opportunism every bit as much as I depsise Obama for his.

As she has had greater access to power – and caused far more misery (by her catastrohic triangulation on health care) than Obama has yet had the opportunity to do – I despise the consequences of Hillary’s political career far more than I do Obama’s.

In other words…I don’t think I’m gonna have the chance to vote for anyone I have any confidence will fight for progressive goals.

So – is there anyone on here who can point me to a Canadian matchmaker? :)

Alrighty then. But we’re not candidate partisans, we’re movement activists who see the candidates are working for us. If you want a candidate partisan site for the primaries, then this won’t be it. Adjusting your expectations will save you from future disappointment.

Hallefuckinglulah!

Brings tears. Thanks for sharing this!

As I have mentioned we (Lahoma and i) will vote for the nominee of our party. But we don’t have to like doing it, if that nominee happens to be Obama or Clinton. And if there are those that disagree with what’s being said here, that’s fine. We can live with it.

despicable

Kirk – stay, we can help shape the party from within – and get active locally (plus with all the global warming, Canada will soon be sliding down this way :-P

Hey, talk is cheap. He’s a republican-lite cuz he said something positive about Raygun.

/s

Damn, that’s good. Scooter Libby…What did he do again?

You both are wonderful people. And, I love each of your comments.

Some serious stuff over at Kos in response to Hillary’s Internet Director coming out with a “fact check” attempting to counter Obama’s critique.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/…..141/440238

what Pach said

Hillary’s Internet Director?

Isn’t that Al Gore?

[ducks]

I don’t know if you’re being sarcastic. All I know is it’s totally ludicrous to give any significance whatsoever to what politicians say on the occasion of another politicians death. What politicians say about an opposing party’s shining icon during a primary election campaign, not so much.

BTW, I think the infuriating thing for many progressives about the Obama-Reagan dust-up isn’t what Obama did or didn’t imply about Reagan or his policies. It was the fact that he even mentioned him in any context other than avowed repudiation of his pernicious political strategies and governmental policies. This is why Obama partisans who keep complaining that people are “misinterpreting” the meaning of what he said are whistling in the wind. It doesn’t matter what he meant.

Lahoma asks me to say thankyou (she reads all this stuff). And I agree with her request. ;0)

Dear god, who is dunkin’ going with? Lou Dobbs?

The Giants Score!!!!!

I agree with you on the context import.

Prof,

I was not being sarcastic. What they said offends me.

I thought about asking whether the Clintons’ remarks were made in close proximity to Reagan’s death and funeral, but as I looked at the actual words I was not sure how much difference that would really make.

But if that is when they were made, it would temper my critique somewhat.

btw Obama’s remarks, of course, were not made in such a context.

And each time the two of you go out riding, or fishing, or cook up your catch I follow with my mind. Gives me a bit of calm peace knowing you are living so wonderfully.

One day Obama screws up. The next day Hillary (or Bill, or both) messes up. Can’t these people get it together? The only one so far that seems to have “it together” is Edwards.

If demanding that an aspirant to “Dem Pres Candiate” explicitly reject the Reagan/GOP destruction of progressive goals is “orthodoxy”, I’ll have to quit shaving and start keeping a Kosher kitchen.

Exactly! And all it would take would be a few words from this eloquent candidate to clear all of this up, if it is indeed a misunderstanding. But they’d have to be explicit words, words that repudiate Reagan’s changes and GOP ideas, not Senator Obama’s usual lack of specificity.

Exactly so. Time and place are key here.

I feel the same way. I really appreciate hearing about fishing, horses, rivers, etc.

Just back from munching baked pork chops, sweet potatoes and lima beans. Yum!

DING! DING!! DING!!!

Hey Kiddo, you two should write a book, few words but poignant, with pictures.

Any leftovers?

Damn, that sounds good! Were the pork chops dredged in Italian bread crumbs before you baked them!?

Preacher or presidential candidate?

Dayam: I’m hungry, pups.

Oh crap – that means I have to clean the kitchen….

A great speech.

I think we need to do more than push the candidates on their discourse. We need to push to them to show their leadership. For Clinton and Obama this means standing up in the Senate against the Intel version of FISA, calling for Harry Reid to force the Republicans to conduct real filibusters when they obstruct, and leading the opposition against the Iraq war.

“So we have a deficit to close. We have walls – barriers to justice and equality – that must come down. And to do this, we know that unity is the great need of this hour….” Barack Obama 1/20/08

Barack blithers another sequence of nonsequiturs. Yes, there are barriers to justice and equality. No, the problem is not a “lack of unity.” In fact, the problem is too much unity. The loyal opposition is too long on loyalty and way short on opposition. JMHO.

Oh yes. I luv pork chops. And as to sweet potatoes (lots of sweeet cream butter for me). And lima beans. Does it get any better? Pass the fried corn bread please. ;0)

We’ve got two rib-eyes marinatin’ to cook on our new “used” grill outside…mmmmm…baked taters with the works….the last time we cooked outside on our old grill/smoker…the brisket caught on fire and turned into a leather shoe that we fed to the doggettes..that was New Year’s Day.

Lightin’ up the coals…right now!!

It will be a book noteworthy for it’s brevity. ;0)

To me, he’s trying to build power by numbers…not necessarily partisan, but pointing out that it is going to take a lot of people standing together to tear down the opposition and the mess we are all in…Just my impression.

Hillary’s Internet Director?

Isn’t that Al Gore?

[ducks]

Good one. I have to say that Peter Daou has managed to transform himself from an interesting voice on the internet to a great facsimile of a Minister of Propaganda.

Just enough for my lunch tomorrow!

We’ve got two rib-eyes marinatin’ to cook on our new “used” grill outside…mmmmm…baked taters with the works

Damn. I just ate a shitty takeout burrito.

I’d rather have a demonstration of leadership then a nice speech. Show me you have the guts to take a tough problem head on and demonstrate some resolve in providing a solution. That’s what leaders do.

Rib eyes. That’ll work! Right now I am hearing this faint Indian love call from upstairs, inquiring if I have given any thought lately to the concept of hot Swissmiss with marsmellows? Well… the truth of the matter is I haven’t. But I am now.

Bread crumbs, yes. My own seasonings, though. Mostly herbs from last summer’s garden.

LOL mmmmmmmmmmm

Siun has a nice new post upstairs about the Air Surge in Iraq!

Hey Kirk … I’m heading to Vancouver, wanna come along?

(carefully lining up clients in Canada … advance planning, eh?)

Effective leaders also inspire others to do things for the better – even in the face of opposition; in some ways this is what the most effective leaders do (FDR for example).

Very tempting, Siun….

I’d rather have a demonstration of leadership then a nice speech. Show me you have the guts to take a tough problem head on and demonstrate some resolve in providing a solution. That’s what leaders do.

YES!

The Clintons, and their friends and fundraisers Roger “The Hut” Ailes, Ruturd Murdoch, etc. have been trying to make this primary race about the sex and race cards, and other distractions. Just as they always do and have always done. It’s just “how Warshington works,” right?

I’m beginning to think this Obama/Clinton match-up is much more about generational differences, rather than skin color and testosterone content. The Clintons resent having some young whippersnapper coming in saying that it doesn’t have to work this way. The Clintons are perhaps feeling jealous that this guy literally comes out of nowhere, and has been able to mount a substantial threat to their entire life plan.

I’m not close to being a Baby Boomer. I’ve spent my entire adult life being told by Boomers that, “negative campaigning sucks, but it works,” and “they’re all corrupt so just pick the lesser of two evils and vote for any Democrat that wins the nomination.” All this time, things have gotten worse and worse. I’ve been asking for years now why don’t people demand something different…something better. Then things might actually get better. Obama seems to feel the same and has been speaking to people like me. Now, I still have concerns that he’s just talk and will be another DLCer, but his actions now and his life’s work give me confidence that he is quite Liberal.

As far as the general public, it’s very difficult to get people to change their opinions, especially as one gets older. I was surprised at the lukewarm reception Obama got in the Netroots before he even declared. Could it be a case of a collective age group being sort of “set in their ways” in terms of how politics work, and they might actually be resisting a new message from a younger person?

The old ways been working so far for those that don’t want things to change. How much energy and space, even around here, has been spent on these “dog whistle” issues compared to discussion about Obama’s Technology Plan to make government more transparent than ever, or the differences between Obama’s, Clinton’s, or Edwards’ health care plan. I have some knowledge about these, but much, much less than than I know about the he said/she said stuff.

We have to demand a different type of politics if we’re ever going to see it. I will not accept voting for the lesser of two evils anymore. We’re doing it with Blue America and More and Better, but that attitude hasn’t seemed to carry over to Presidential politics yet.

The reason no candidates say much about FDR is pretty simple, most people who have any memory of him at all are in their 70’s, and one would need to be 85 or so to have voted for him. (Unless you did it my way — my mom let me mark the x on her ballot in 1944. Since I was just learning to read, I first had to find Roosevelt and Truman.)

There is however a marvelous new biography just out recently, “FDR”: by Jean Edward Smith. Random House, 2007. There are other biographies obviously, some running five or seven volumes, but Smith’s is interesting in that he takes the Framework of FDR’s Foreign Policy right up into the Iraq War.

But the problem is too few Americans can discuss any details of exactly what FDR did — other than have polio and hide the fact that he used a wheel chair. How did he rescue the Banking and Finance System in 1933? and in the face of something very similar to our sub-prime mortgage crisis today, back in 1933-34, what actions did he take — what did he send to Congress? No one really has that information at hand. Unless it was recently on TV — it isn’t in most folks bag of historical reference.

The one thing no candidate will tell you, but you should know about FDR, is that when he ran for President in 1932, his platform was very simple, he wanted to balance the budget. He only used the term “New Deal” once in the campaign, in his acceptance speech, and it really was a neat little reference to his cousin Teddy’s platform of a “Fair Deal” which some people in the early 1930’s would have understood, given the Roosevelt Name, which was what we nominated in 1932. The actual content of the New Deal was a collection of ideas that had been around for years, and after he was in office, he collected, stamped with his own brand, and sent off to congress. He actually opposed some of the signature New Deal programs initially — Social Security, and Bank Regulation (Glass Steagall), Protection of Labor’s Rights to Organize, and he had to be brought around by his Cabinet Secretaries. To know the New Deal one must know Harold Ickes and Francis Perkins and others. FDR really did not have ideas, but he surrounded himself with people who did, and he was a wizard in timing when to go to congress, with what words, and how to get as much as possible out of the process, take a compromise, and then go back for more. Did you know that the price for Social Security in 1935 was no coverage for Agricultural Workers or Household Help? No Southern Senator would even let a bill into committee that would have benefited Blacks in those days. The ommision of the labor catagories where most blacks were located in the mid-30’s didn’t get corrected till 1956 — Ike and LBJ agreed to fix the problem. Had he lived, I think FDR would have done it before 1948 — but who knows.

I don’t mean to downplay FDR — I think him the best of the modern Presidents — I simply want to make the point — he ran in 1932 on a platform that was simplistic, Balancing the Budget was not exactly what he did or intended to do, and most of the content of the New Deal had been around for some years, and he borrowed it, refashioned it, put his stamp on it — and just “did something.” Not all campaigns are about spelling out exactly what will be attempted.

I’m envious!! I’ve always wanted to go there.

I agree!

Thanks for that.

I’m envious!! I’ve always wanted to go there.

I agree!

Generational viewpoints are an important point … my daughter (21 and loyal voter) told me the other day that she was tired of boomer women supporting Clinton … I quickly noted that I was not in that camp (not in any camp as well)

It’s become very clear today that you have a problem with me for some reason; I have no idea why.

“we’re movement activists who see the candidates as working for us. If you want a candidate partisan site for the primaries, then this won’t be it. Adjusting your expectations will save you from future disappointment.”

You don’t do your movement any favours by insulting those who are on the same side as you, and you don’t do your movement any favours by insisting on rigid ideological orthodoxy to the exclusion of all except those who agree with you.

Enjoy President Clinton.

Oh, and I still think a lot of the stuff that Obama’s does and says that troubles me is a result of the very difficult tightrope walk he has to walk, given his skin color and youth. I could be naive, but I think he’s just doing what he has had to do whole whole life to even get into this position, and not “scare” too much of the establishment.

I’ve had to do a lot of this in my own life, and I find it quite subversive. You can get into positions where you have influence, and then you can really shake shit up. I hope this is what Obama’s doing at least, and that he won’t appoint people like LieberME! and Schwartzenegger to his cabinet. He’s got to get elected first.

It’s all cool man. Hope you stick around. I’ve understood a lot of what you’ve been saying.

I have a problem with your obtuse arguments; I don’t know you.

You say we’re lying and then you play the victim about being insulted. And you don’t see the contradictions.

How Lieberman is that?

I’m fascinated with the intense focus on Obama’s Reagan comment but the lack of concern for Hillary’s DLC foundations and Edwards really horrid comments to A*P*C.

We have problems with all of them but it does seem that one is currently drawing progressive ire while the other two get a pass.

Let’s be equal opportunity critics and cheerleaders …

Just felt this needs repeating. As usual, Siun, you said it so well. Thanks for all your efforts!

If only our leading candidates held some kind of position of responsibility already, through which to exercise leadership.

What if they were, oh, I don’t know. . . senators?

Oh, and I still think a lot of the stuff that Obama’s does and says that troubles me is a result of the very difficult tightrope walk he has to walk, given his skin color and youth. I could be naive, but I think he’s just doing what he has had to do whole whole life to even get into this position, and not “scare” too much of the establishment.

Perhaps he’s trying to stealth past The Establishment without making waves. To me he looks like another Pelosi, Reid, Hoyer, Emanuel, Clinton centrist. I see no daylight between him and them, except for his age. He has tended to duck out on controversial votes where he could establish his leadership as a progressive.

So, I’m likely to be left choosing, yet again, between the lesser of two evils, someone who admires Reagan and find the GOP to be the party of ideas and a known commodity from the DLC.

I’m slightly favoring the Devil we know.

Thanks for clearing this up. My issue isn’t the perception that you’re supporting someone other than Obama. It’s the more basic point that you don’t understand what he said. The fault for that must first fall on Obama. You don’t say something in the middle of an intense campaign that the average person won’t understand. But, for the record, Obama wasn’t praising Reagan other than saying that he was more effective in causing change than Bill Clinton was. That point should be beyond dispute. Totally apart from how destructive his policies were, the political wind was at Reagan’s back and he knew how to get the American people behind his policies. Clinton, OTOH, faced a political head-wind and decided the best he could do was triangulate. He admitted at one point that he was governing like an Eisenhower Republican. Obama’s point: if you know how to lead, you build popular support for progressive policies and you aren’t forced to triangulate. His point was to emphasize the power of leadership — not to praise Ronald Reagan.

It’s the more basic point that you don’t understand what he said.

For progressives who are angry about Obama’s comments about Reagan, it doesn’t matter what he said, how it was intended, or how it should have been interpreted. What matters is the undeniable fact that he mentioned Reagan–the most beloved haloed icon of the opposition party–in a context other than one of avowed repudiation of his pernicious political strategies and governmental policies. We don’t care what he meant; it is irrelevant to our anger. And frankly, it is also irrelevant to the assessment of the wisdom of his statements vis a vis advancing a progressive agenda.

Weird, plenty of other people don’t seem to have any problem understanding what I’m saying. Maybe you don’t want to. What I also don’t get is that a number of other people are making the same arguments, but they are not being subjected to the same insulting & discourteous attacks that you have subjected me to twice today. This from a writer in a community that prides itself on courtesy and inclusiveness. I’ve been coming here for over two years now, and I’ve never experienced anything like this. I expect this kind of shit from the comment sections of Huffpo, not FDL.

What is your problem?

In case nobody said it (and I’m certain it’s been said dozens of times here), what kind of brain-donor does Obama have to be to go anywhere this topic?
Brought this house down on himself.
And Reagan is praiseworthy for exactly NOTHING. NOTHING.

And that includes for supposedly “stopping the excesses of the ’60s & ’70s.” You know, stopping the march to Civil Rights, Equality for women, the Environmental movement, the anti-war movement and all those other actions that made so many of the folks in the Republican Party long for the days of Father Knows Best and Leave It to Beaver.

Yessir, Reagan sure brought about change.

If only our leading candidates held some kind of position of responsibility already, through which to exercise leadership.

What if they were, oh, I don’t know. . . senators?

are thinking of Senator Dodd and the FISA fight, and perhaps the late and always-to-be lamented Senator Wellstone?

I don’t disagree with you in general. As I said, Obama should have understood that there are people such as yourself who are incapable of rational thought in the middle of a hard-fought political campaign. For you, even mentioning Reagan — regardless of the context — triggers a blinding rage. I will, however, disagree on your point re advancing a progressive agenda. I fought Reagan’s pernicious policies tooth and nail as a Congressional staffer for all eight years of his presidency. I know how hard he was to beat because he could get the American people behind policies that were contrary to their interests. I also know from personal experience that Bill Clinton was no match for the Republican Congress after 1994. That’s why he was constantly triangulating. You don’t push change from a position of extreme weakness. Obama understands that we need a leader who can inspire the American people to get behind a progressive agenda for change.

In case nobody said it (and I’m certain it’s been said dozens of times here), what kind of brain-donor does Obama have to be to go anywhere this topic?
Brought this house down on himself.
And Reagan is praiseworthy for exactly NOTHING. NOTHING.

and NOTHING.

As I said, Obama should have understood that there are people such as yourself who are incapable of rational thought in the middle of a hard-fought political campaign.

Yeah, that’s an effective rhetorical strategy. With supporters like you trolling progressive blogs, Obama doesn’t need enemies.

Don’t say that, people will accuse you of being a republican 5th columnist, incapable of comprehending English, and generally an irritating little kid whose opinions are worthless. Look at the invective that’s been hurled at me lately.

It’s not fucking cool, though, is it?

I detest everything that Reagan did and stood for and fought him as well, although not from the aspect of a Congressional staffer. So why does Obama praise him as a change agent? Reagan came in and made folks feel good about their hates and prejudices. His “change agenda” was to attempt roll back everything that had been achieved in the ’60s and ’70s. He stroked the egos of the folks who didn’t understand the progress made for ALL and not just some through the two decades. He facilitated the idea of the “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party, it left me” meme and the “Southern Strategy.” He could deliver a line well and looked good playing “aw shucks” characters. I see nothing there to honor in any way shape or form.

“Yeah, that’s an effective rhetorical strategy. With supporters like you trolling progressive blogs, Obama doesn’t need enemies.”

I apologize if I have offended you. I thought I was only repeating your own description of your state of mind.

You got one or two people arguing with you about one point, at one particular point in time. Keep in mind about 99% of the people that read FDL don’t leave comments, so you might have a lot of people agreeing with you. Getting your ideas out there has value.

Seems like it’s time for some deep breathing before fingers hit keyboard.

The goal is to change repubs into dems, not to validate repub thinking.

Bingo!

Are you continuing to whip the inter-generational horse? Last night it was the baby boomers were to blame for the Nation’s ills. I would suggest that it is somewhat impolitic to continue claiming that everyone over fifty something is fucked up, simply because they are not onboard with your personal choice of candidates. If that is not what you are saying, it certainly is what I keep hearing. I would further submit that the politics of age are every bit as “negative” as any other type of divisive campaigning.

As was recently pointed out here Obama had the 43rd most progressive voting record in the Senate. Clinton was actually quite a bit higher, over 30 spots. But I am not a Clintonista by any means. I just hate seeing serial rants about years of liberal political activism only serving to make people set in their ways and determined to put you smart young people into your place. Not all of us are your local PTA.

Give it a rest. Your incivility is doing neither yourself nor Obama any favors.

Obama’s idolizing of Reagan really burns me. Maybe that is because he wants more people to support him. But I think Obama’s campaign seems very impressive. If you have ever been in the thick of a Presidential campaign, and you were to hitch a ride with the candidate on his plane, there is something that becomes very clear, very quickly. It’s a question as to whether the candidate is competent or not. But I see Obama is very ambitious! Once I have read a book — “The Audacity of Hope” by Obama, it seems that his analysis of the world situation, from the US, to Indonesia, to Africa, to Iraq shows a much deeper understanding than would be evident from the debates: http://dealstudio.com/searchde…..038;ru=279 , I still think his ambition will make him big chance.

You realize of course, that the Clintons have also praised Reagan. I like what Siun said earlier, if one is going to go after one, you ought to go after the other.

The next time either Clinton praises Reagan for anything Republican, have at!

I don’t have a problem with people disagreeing with me. I have a huge problem with being patronised, especially by one of the leading lights of this blog.

Richmond is talking about a statement the Clintons issued on the occasion of Reagan’s death. Everyone accepts that what one politician says about another on the occasion of his death is utterly meaningless happy talk. Complaining about that is exactly analogous to complaining because at the combined Repub/Dem debate, Obama shook Romney’s hand.

It’s about the hypocrisy and the free-ride many people around the Netroots give Hillary.

Hillary does have an article on her site that clearly says Reagan is one of the Presidents she most admires. The supposed “bebunking” by Taylor Marsh makes the distinction that Hillary was talking about his communication skills. However, her campaign ITSELF put the article up without that clarification, and even with the clarification, how is that any different from what Obama said? This is all a distraction.

Now this really troubles me. Maybe Taylor Marsh and Jeralyn can get to the bottom of this one for me:

“I find he [Newt Gingrich] and I have a lot in common in the way we see the problems that we’re going to have to deal with in order to have a 21st-century health care system,” Clinton said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..01846.html

Can you imagine the uproar in the pro-Clinton ranks if Obama said this? Notice all these things have started with attacks directly from Hillary and Bill themselves. The BigMedia dutifully follows along. Same old politics…

Once again, we’re still talking about this. What do you think of Obama’s Technology Plan that’ll open up government in unprecedented ways. Basically the complete opposite of Raygun.
http://venturebeat.com/2007/11…..y-officer/

Hey, I appreciate your support, and I agree with your points about generational shift. I think that has more to do with some people’s reactions in this argument than they are perhaps prepared to admit, even to themselves.

“I detest everything that Reagan did and stood for and fought him as well, although not from the aspect of a Congressional staffer. So why does Obama praise him as a change agent? Reagan came in and made folks feel good about their hates and prejudices. His “change agenda” was to attempt roll back everything that had been achieved in the ’60s and ’70s. He stroked the egos of the folks who didn’t understand the progress made for ALL and not just some through the two decades. He facilitated the idea of the “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party, it left me” meme and the “Southern Strategy.” He could deliver a line well and looked good playing “aw shucks” characters. I see nothing there to honor in any way shape or form.”

Obama was not in any way endorsing the content of the change that Reagan championed. Reagan’s agenda was totally contrary to everything that we, as progressives, stand for. What Obama was saying was that if we want to be effective in pushing through sweeping change — not the incremental change of the Clinton years — we must (1) understand the mood of the American people; (2) offer policy ideas that can excite the imagination of the American people; and (3) provide presidential leadership that will create such a strong swell of support from the American people that the entrenched status quo in Washington will be forced to accept change. I’ve been doing progressive policy advocacy in DC for 30 years and Obama is right. The entrenched interests in the Congress, in the bureaucracy and among K St. lobbyists is so strong that we will only get progressive change if we make the American people a major part of the equation. I’ll vote for her if she’s the nominee, but Hillary Clinton just isn’t capable of the magnitude of change that Obama is envisioning. He has the capacity to totally change the game.

No matter what, it’s the Repugs, stupid!

Dude, you’re wasting your breath. I’ve been on this since yesterday morning. Nobody’s changing anybody’s minds.

My fingers don’t need to breathe. :)

Dude, you’re wasting your breath. I’ve been on this since yesterday morning. Nobody’s changing anybody’s minds.

We have a winner!

My heart belongs to John Edwards at this point, but in all fairness to Barack Obama, he has some interesting and progressive people on his team.

My fear is that the bickering and name calling of each other and our candidates that is evident on this thread are truly counter-productive. It poisons and degrades the discussion.

Wouldn’t it be grand if we could tailor make our leaders. Alas…

We have a winner!

Ha!

Take a bow for a final, lighthearted comment in a very contentious thread. What’s the opposite of a zed?

This link was meant to be included in my 294

Ouch, I guess I can’t include the link. It’s Ari Berman writing in the Nationsaying this:

It’s true that a number of Obama’s key advisers–like former National Security Adviser Tony Lake, former Assistant Secretary of State Susan Rice and former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig–held prominent positions under Bill Clinton. At the same time, Obama’s team includes some of the most forward-thinking members of the Democratic foreign policy establishment–like Joseph Cirincione and Lawrence Korb of the Center for American Progress, the party’s leading experts on nonproliferation and defense issues, respectively, along with former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke and Carter Administration National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. Added to the mix are fresh faces who were at times critical of the Clinton Administration, like Harvard professor Samantha Power, author of “A Problem From Hell”, a widely acclaimed history of US responses to genocide. These names suggest that Obama may be more open to challenging old Washington assumptions and crafting new approaches.

For context: The news of the day – 5 June 2004 – was the death of Ronald Reagan.

I would suggest that it is somewhat impolitic to continue claiming that everyone over fifty something is fucked up, simply because they are not onboard with your personal choice of candidates. If that is not what you are saying, it certainly is what I keep hearing.

Interesting that that’s what you’re “hearing.” I made it abundantly clear when I last left a comment exploring this notion that for the sake of argument and understanding, I was making a generalization and in no way meant to imply that anyone here would fall into that generalization. In fact, someone responded making that distinction and I thanked those that have “kept fighting the good fight” for inspiring myself and those younger to do the same.

Siun responded to the comment you replied to, and added an interesting point into the mix. I expressed some of my own experiences and frustrations with this issue, and how maybe it relates to what’s happening on a massive scale with the Obama campaign (who is not now and never has been “my candidate,” although I would pick him over Clinton).

Seems to me this is an issue worth exploring. FDL has an amazing amount of collective insight, and I thought I’d get some constructive criticism of this idea. There’s been a little bit, but how many thousands of comments are there about he said/she said tit-for-tats instead? By talking about trivial issues an overwhleming amount of the time, I’ll suggest we’re falling right into the traps the Clintons, Tim Russert, Matthews, Andrea Greenspan, etc. want us to fall into. As usual, the public discourse includes very little about “the real issues.”

So directly to your comment…no, that is not even close to what I’m saying.

“More and Better” is what I’m saying.

You won’t like the Canadian political scene any better than the USA. PM Stephen Harper is a control freak, Liberal leader Stephane Dion wants NATO intervention in Pakistan, and Jack Layton is photogenic but sounds like a yappy dog.

Last I was in Canada, my friends were campaigning for Layton, and he had an official campaign flyer that had his face and a large marijuana leaf on it. Man, I love Canada.

Obama was not in any way endorsing the content of the change that Reagan championed.

If the candidate was misunderstood, and in a way that allegedly cost him Nevada, he should say so himself in unequivocal terms. And, unless he does so, his silence on the matter increases my suspicion that he has not been misinterpreted.

If the candidate was misunderstood, and in a way that allegedly cost him Nevada, he should say so himself in unequivocal terms. And, unless he does so, his silence on the matter increases my suspicion that he has not been misinterpreted.

He has in fact done that, and he did it in his book, and I’ve posted several links above, and on a thread yesterday with direct quotes displayed from pages in his book. It didn’t cost him Nevada, and he has an excellent chance to take all the delegates in Nevada.

Here’s the skinny in Nevada:

The votes in the District No. 5 caucus split 26-26 between Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama.

Following state Democratic Party rules, caucus chair Nancy Downey shuffled a deck of cards. A Clinton backer drew a five. An Obama supporter pulled out a king. The crowd whooped. Obama earned two delegates; Clinton got one.

Clinton won the popular vote by about 6 percentage points–but it really doesn’t matter unless you think that gives her momentum.

Zero delegates have actually been pledged, officially althouth the Obama campaign claims they now have 13-12 pledged for April 19.

If, by the Obama campaign’s own definition, the winner of Nevada ought to be determined by delegates, we’ll have to wait until April 19 to see how the national convention delegates are apportioned. If Obama and Clinton are still in the race at that point, then those delegates are pledged to Obama.

The delegates will probably go to whomever has won the most delegates before April 19 according to the Democratic party chairman there.

Unless we’re headed to a brokered convention, Nevada’s delegates will probably not matter.

Alas, if he (or Hillary) were to bring in FDR at this point, it would cue in all the pundits to say, big government democrats. At this point, sadly FDR has been very vilified by the right.

And so, instead they change their tune to suit the media and show conclusively they have no standards, no values, no good judgement of Right and Wrong.

What’s wrong with a Democrat saying what he or she thinks is right and sticking to that, regardless of what some moroonic media people think?

If we as a People stray from the Truth for much longer we will be doomed.

The more I see of Clinton & Obama the less I care whether Edwards is a phony. I really don’t. He’s the guy speaking the Truth and asserting Progressive policies to solve our problems. That’s good enough and I hope he has a chance to follow-through on them.

John Edwards — Leadership that may be completely hypocritical fake phony and yet Truthful and Necessary for America!

Even after being universally “misunderstood,” he has yet to say that he was talking about BAD ideas.

And, even after all the discussion about race and who raised that in the campaign he has yet to disavow what the ‘Obama supporters’ were saying on blogs.

So long as “unity” does not mean compromise.

Some people say the Republicans consider ‘unity’ to mean rape and they aren’t going to take it laying down.

Anyone, including yourself and all the other regulars at this site, who follows politics as closely as we do here, knows that Barack Obama does not endorse the policies pursued by Ronald Reagan.

Once a candidate has said he’s for this that and the other, so that he has positions all over the political map, then what is one supposed to think that candidate stands for? Am I supposed to be gaga because he says things I like, and leave it at that? Should I wonder when he also says things Republicans like?

People seem to think John Edwards is a phony and hypocrite. But, I wonder, just what does Obama stand for. What does he value aside from a nice suit?

I prefer Edwards any day.

“So we have a deficit to close. We have walls – barriers to justice and equality – that must come down. And to do this, we know that unity is the great need of this hour….” Barack Obama 1/20/08

Barack blithers another sequence of nonsequiturs. Yes, there are barriers to justice and equality. No, the problem is not a “lack of unity.” In fact, the problem is too much unity. The loyal opposition is too long on loyalty and way short on opposition. JMHO.

I agree. It’s as though he wants to unite Right and Wrong, Democrats and Republicans. That’s idiotic. Why isn’t he leading the political fight to say the Republicans are terribly terribly wrong and they’ve royally ruined things and we have to be rid of their philosophy and their leaders and their policies, so we can replace them?

Doesn’t Obama recognize the utter failure of the Republicans?

Doesn’t Obama recognize the utter failure of the Republicans?

And the utter futility of deal-making with them. Obama sets himself and the nation up for a fools errand.
There is no deal to be made, and he will not fight them, leaving us few options.

Clinton just isn’t capable of the magnitude of change that Obama is envisioning. He has the capacity to totally change the game.

Talk about delusions of grandeur. The Republicans aren’t much in the mood to ‘totally change the game’ except in ways they want.

Great post, as per usual.

The Audacity of Smoke

Is Ari Berman on crack, or just on Obama’s PR team?

And WTF is wrong with The Nation – are they hiring Patrick Henry grads from NPR’s reject pool for their fact-checkers?

I researched the names behind Berman’s list of “forward-thinking” Obama advisers (below) in 90 minutes with half a pizza, a glass of elderly nouveau beaujolais, SourceWatch, and a few neurons that listened to news in the late 70’s and survive to recall it.

Jeebus, I don’t know what’s sadder: The Nation paying someone to write such crap, or their subscribers actually believing it.

Berman:

Obama’s team includes some of the most forward-thinking members of the Democratic foreign policy establishment–Joseph Cirincione and Lawrence Korb of the Center for American Progress, the party’s leading experts on nonproliferation and defense issues, respectively, along with former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke and Carter Administration National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. Added to the mix are fresh faces who were at times critical of the Clinton Administration, like Harvard professor Samantha Power, author of “A Problem From Hell”, a widely acclaimed history of US responses to genocide. These names suggest that Obama may be more open to challenging old Washington assumptions and crafting new approaches.

More open than what? Darth’s coronary arteries?

Like Clinton, Obama has more than 200 foreign policy advisers. The campaigns have been dueling over who has the best bench. (Many people who have been linked with Obama are actually advising Clinton, her advisers say.) Obama’s advisers tend to be younger, more progressive–having opposed the war from the start–and more likely to stress “soft power” issues like human rights, global development and the dangers of failed states.

The word Obama advisers use most often to describe Clinton is “conventional.”

Uhh…Ari…

Let’s look at these indications that Sen. Suited Smile is “challenging old Washington assumptions and crafting new approaches.”

Cirencione:

“He is a frequent commentator on proliferation and security issues in the media, and teaches at the Georgetown University Graduate School of Foreign Service.

“Mr. Cirincione worked for nine years in the U.S. House of Representatives: six years on the professional staff of the Committee on Armed Services and three and one-half years on the Committee on Government Operations, and served as staff director of the Military Reform Caucus under Congressmen Tom Ridge and Charles Bennett. He is the author of numerous articles on proliferation and nuclear weapons issues, the editor of Repairing the Regime (Routledge, 2000), the producer of the DVD, The Proliferation Threat, and the publisher and editor of the Internet site, ProliferationNews.org. He has held positions at the Henry L. Stimson Center, the U.S. Information Agency, the Center for Strategic and International Studies and previously at the Carnegie Endowment.

“He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the International Institute for Strategic Studies. He is an honors graduate of Boston College and holds a Masters of Science with highest honors from the Georgetown School of Foreign Service.” [1]

I can hear the Establishment quaking…

oh…wait..it’s the tinkle of ice in cocktail glasses

Now onto that grizzled Trotskyite Lawrence Korb:

Lawrence J. Korb, born July 9, 1939, in New York City, is a member of the Intellibridge Expert Network and Vice President and Maurice R. Greenberg Chair, and Director of National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. He is also a Senior Fellow of the Center for American Progress.

In 1981, Korb was Director of Defense Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute and had served as an adjunct scholar for Federal budget analysis at the Institute since 1972. He was an adviser to the Reagan-Bush committee in 1980 and served as a member of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency transition team. In 1981, Korb was appointed as Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower, Reserve Affairs, Installations and Logistics) by Ronald Reagan and continued in that capacity until 1985. “In that position, he administered about seventy percent of the defense budget. His responsibilities included: recruiting and training the five million active duty reserve and civilian employees of the Department of Defense; maintaining the U.S. worldwide military base structure; and establishing supply, maintenance, and transportation policies for the land, sea, and air forces of the United States. For his service in that position, he was awarded the Department of Defense’s medal for Distinguished Public Service … In the past he has served as a Consultant to the Office of the Secretary of Defense and to the Office of Education. He was a member of the Defense Advisory Committee for President-Elect Reagan (1980), and a member of the Defense Issues Group for President-Elect George Herbert Walker Bush (1988). “[1][2]

Meet the new cold warrior. Same as the old cold warrior.

Now on for a look at that Hero of the Revolution Samantha Power.

(gotta love the name)

Samantha Power “is a professor of practice at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. Her recent book, A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide, was awarded the 2003 Pulitzer Prize for general non-fiction, the 2003 National Book Critics Circle Award for general non-fiction, and the Council on Foreign Relations’ Arthur Ross Prize for the best book in US foreign policy.

“Prof. Power was the founding executive director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy (1998-2002). From 1993-1996, she covered the wars in the former Yugoslavia as a reporter for the US News and World Report, the Boston Globe, and the Economist. She currently contributes to the New Yorker and The New York Review of Books. Prof. Power is the editor, with Graham Allison, of Realizing Human Rights: Moving from Inspiration to Impact (St. Martin’s, 2000). A graduate of Yale University and Harvard Law School, she moved to the United States from Ireland at the age of nine. She is currently working on a book on the United Nations.” [1]

[snip]

“In 1996 she worked for the International Crisis Group (ICG) as a political analyst.”

* U.S. Committee for Human Rights in North Korea – Board of directors

Lordy, lordy, lordy.

Now who got together to make that nice ‘ol ICG?

From 1993-98 Lynne A. Davidson as Senior Associate for Human Rights and Special Assistant to Ambassador Morton I. Abramowitz, … she helped to shape the original proposal for the International Crisis Group“. [1]

More on Abramowitz, the US Ambassador of Armaments – to the Taliban:

Presidents come and go but the continuity of U.S. policy is ensured by a small elite of policy-makers who remain outside party politics – and often outside public view. An influential member of this foreign policy establishment is Morton Abramowitz, whose career has involved him with both the Afghan mujahidin and Kosovo Albanian rebels. In 1986, as assistant secretary of state for intelligence and research in the Reagan administration, Abramowitz helped arrange delivery of the Stinger missiles. The collapse of the Soviet Union obliged U.S. policy-makers to redefine the “threat” justifying foreign intervention. The “war on terrorism”, launched by President Reagan in the early 1980s, was suffering by the end of the decade from a dearth of active terrorists. As president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in the early 1990s, Abramowitz headed a project to develop a new U.S. foreign policy for the post-Cold War era. Rather than simply identifying “threats”, especially at a time when few threats could be seen, a successful new policy needed to combine promotion of U.S. interests with proclamation of American “ideals”.

From Diana Johnstone’s Fool’s Crusade, Pluto Press, 2002, p. 9:

Abramowitz continued to act from behind the scenes as an eminence grise for [US Secretary of State] Albright. He helped found the high-level International Crisis Group, a chief policy designer fro Bosnia and Kosovo. He was omnipresent behind the scenes of the Kosovo drama, both in making policy and in shaping elite business, government, and media opinion. He acted as an advisor to the Kosovo Albanian delegation at the Rambouillet talks, whose programmed breakdown provided the pretext for NATO bombing.

Nice blowback ya got there, Mr Ambassador.

“Ms. Davidson received the State Department’s Superior Honor Award in 1993, 2002 and 2005, Exceptional Performance Awards from the Central Intelligence Agency in 1998, 1999 and 2000, and the Director of Central Intelligence’s Director’s Award in 2001. She was educated at Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service.” [1]

Job well done in Langley’s eyes.

Looks like Prof. Power found her policy soul-mates.

And the Chicago Machine Tool had his chosen for him.

The Audacity of Smoke.

PS Edward S. Herman dissects Power in Z

Samantha Power can identify with Holbrooke because they both follow the U.S. party line on worthy and unworthy genocides. As the United States was directly involved in the great Vietnam genocide, as its leaders were part of the “joint criminal enterprise” with Indonesia in East Timor, and as they were mainly responsible for the “sanctions of mass destruction” and those 500,000 dead children whose deaths were “worth it” for Albright, Samantha Power evades these cases. Thus the Vietnam war, in which millions were directly killed by U.S. forces, does not show up in Power’s index or text. Guatemala, where there was a mass killing of as many as 100,000 Mayan Indians between 1978 and 1985, in what Amnesty International called “A Government Program of Political Murder,” but by a government installed and supported by the United States, also does not show up in Power’s index. Cambodia is of course included, but only for the second phase of the genocide—the first phase, from 1969-1975, in which the United States dropped some 500,000 tons of bombs on the Cambodian countryside and killed vast numbers, she fails to mention.

[snip]

A major U.S.-encouraged and supported genocide occurred in Indonesia in 1965-66 in which over 700,000 people were murdered. This genocide is not mentioned by Samantha Power and the names Indonesia and Suharto do not appear in her book’s index. She also fails to mention West Papua, where Indonesia’s 40 years of murderous occupation would constitute genocide under her criteria, if carried out under different auspices. Power does refer to East Timor, with extreme brevity, saying that “In 1975, when its ally, the oil-producing, anti-Communist Indonesia, invaded East Timor, killing between 100,000 and 200,000 civilians, the United States looked away.” [17] That exhausts her treatment of the subject, although the killings in East Timor involved a larger fraction of the population than in Cambodia, and the numbers killed were far larger than the grand total for Bosnia and Kosovo, to which she devotes almost a third of her book

She also misrepresents the U.S. role in East Timor—it did not “look away,” it gave its approval, protected the aggression from any effective UN response (in his autobiography, then U.S. Ambassador to the UN Daniel Patrick Moynihan bragged about his effectiveness in protecting Indonesia from any UN action), [18] and greatly increased its arms aid to Indonesia, thereby facilitating the genocide. And her pal Richard Holbrooke was also on the front line in servicing this genocide.

Power engages in a similar suppression and failure to recognize the U.S. role in her treatment of genocide in Iraq. She attends carefully and at length to Saddam Hussein’s use of chemical warfare and killing of Kurds at Halabja and elsewhere, and she does discuss the U.S. failure to oppose and take any action against Saddam Hussein at this juncture. But she does not mention the diplomatic rapproachement with Saddam in the midst of his war with Iran in 1983, the active U.S. logistical support of Saddam during that war, and the U.S. approval of sales and transfers of chemical and biological weapons during the period in which he was using chemical weapons against the Kurds. She also doesn’t mention the active efforts by the United States and Britain to block UN actions that might have obstructed Saddam’s killings.

The killing of over a million Iraqis via the “sanctions of mass destruction” is unmentioned by Samantha Power. Again, the correlation between exclusion, U.S. responsibility, and the view that such killings were “worth it” from the standpoint of U.S. interests, is clear. There is a similar political basis for Power’s failure to include Israel’s low-intensity genocide of the Palestinians and South Africa’s “destructive engagement” with the frontline states in the 1980s, the latter with a death toll greatly exceeding all the deaths in the Balkan wars of the 1990s. [19] Neither Israel nor South Africa, both “constructively engaged” by the United States, show up in Power’s index.

Power is concerned about genocide in Iraq today and wrote recently on how to bring it to a halt (“How to stop genocide in Iraq,” Los Angeles Times, March 5, 2007). But nowhere does she mention that the mass killing that has taken place in Iraq traces back to the U.S. invasion in violation of the UN Charter; nowhere does she mention that the killing has grown in parallel with the occupation and occupation policies; nowhere does she mention Fallujah and other cases of mass killing for which her leaders are responsible; and nowhere does she hint at the possibility that the United States has stimulated ethnic conflict as part of a divide and rule strategy. When Bush claims to be “surging” in the interest of stability and to reduce conflict, Power never contests this or suggests some alternative explanation. Somebody better informed on Iraq like the exile Sami Ramadani writes that “It is hard not to presume that what he [Bush] means by an exit strategy is to install a client regime in Baghdad, backed by US bases. The Iraqi people will not accept this, and the west should be alerted to the fact that US policy objectives will only lead to wider regional conflicts, rather than to full withdrawal.” [20] Samantha Power cannot formulate or admit such a critical analysis.

When Power talks about “atrocities” it is always indigenous forces that engage in them, not the U.S. occupation.

Many thanks for the effort. A great example of why the netroots are so valuable.

Even though I’m not an Obama backer at the moment, I’ve been defending Obama around here because a lot of the criticism of him has been unfair and hypocritical IMHO, but can’t find much to defend in that roster of advisers.

Berman makes a statement that many of the other advisers were opposed to the Iraq Invasion from the start. I wonder why he didn’t name any of those people. Perhaps Berman was trying to counter the “inexperienced” critique of Obama?

Although, I would suspect Clinton’s adviser roster would make Obama’s look like a bunch of Cindy Sheehans. Since I probably won’t be able to spend time looking into that, I’ll probably have to assume Clinton’s staff would be much worse, which seems a safe bet, and on this issue, if the choice is between Clinton and Obama, Obama likely wins.

Strange to me how there’s been a sort of collective amnesia in much of the Netroots about Obama’s very clear and direct opposition to the Iraq Invasion since before it even happened. Thinking back to that time, it was quite unpopular to express that opinion as I found out many times just in social settings, let alone on TV as a politician. Regardless of who his staff is, I do get some comfort in knowing Obama had this opinion, and his ability to make decisions in the future without campaign considerations influencing what he says.

Yes, haven’t been thrilled with his wishy-washyness about it recently, but he sure seemed to have good decision-making at the outset all on his own. Can’t say that about our other “leading” candidate choices.

Holy Kirk Murphy!

Bonkers at 287 –

Once again, we’re still talking about this. What do you think of Obama’s Technology Plan that’ll open up government in unprecedented ways. Basically the complete opposite of Raygun.
http://venturebeat.com/2007/11…..y-officer/

I’d say you’re about 20-plus years OFF on the election cycle. What does “complete opposite of Raygun” — who last did his Mindless Big Boy Burger ‘Morning in America’ drivel for a political campaign in 1984 — have to do with Barack Obama’s Technology Plan in 2008. ??

Besides, you don’t want to cite Raygun’s “technology plan” – even in the negative – cuz he never had one. When his domestic advisors shook him awake and started talking to Raygun about the post-manufacturing, service-based economy, Ronnie Alzheimer’s said: “Service jobs? You mean like florists and hairdressers??” (change Depends)

Lotsa prickly feelings on the comments here after the 250-275 mark. But bringing up 100 percent IRRELEVANT stuff — just to make your chosen candidate look good — is how one gets blowback here. (Happens to me, too.) So don’t get mad. Just stay on point, wouldja?