If you actually listen to Obama when he gives a speech or when he talks in these fake debates, all you hear is rhetoric. There is absolutely no substance. Positively a more accurate measure of his promises would be to look at what he's already done. Look at his votes, consider how he spends his time in Congress - and especially question his not being present for important votes. Obama is a shill and Hillary is a... well, let's just say I would rather not go there.

I want a President who values his responsibilities, is courageous, determined, is real, is his own man, has integrity, fortitude, and the voting record to prove his stand on all the important issues. I've already marked my ballot, and it is for putting America back on track under the leadership of a workhorse: Dennis Kucinich.

For a guy who's usually so eloquent, Barack can be stunningly clueless. The first thing Reagan did was destroy the air traffic controllers' union PATCO (I guess their complaints about understaffing at the airports would be one of the "excesses" Barack refers to?).

Just another reason why I'm voting for Edwards.

I'm waiting for everybody here to point out how this "excesses" quote exposes Obama's conservative dark side, but I think he was more commenting on a sentiment felt by a majority of the American public at the time than he was praising Reagan's policies. If you watch the entire 50-minute video, you'll see that he lauds Reagan for his ability to build a bipartisan alliance and get all parties on board for his transitional fiscal policies. Obama ties it into his campaign not to expose their similarities in policy (he never explicitly says that he supported Reagan's policies, even if their is a question of whether he implies it). Instead, he wants to point out their similarities in their supposed ability bring the country in a different direction when the electorate needed it.

We can criticize Obama for this particular soundbite (and I would like to know which "excesses" he refers to, because surely programs for welfare, drug rehabilitation and alternative energy sustainability were far from what I call an "excess"). However, I feel like we would be jumping into the mainstream media trap of having us care about purely soundbites and he said, she said sensationalism, when we should look deeper and more thoroughly into his stated policies, Congressional record, questionable campaign donations, etc.

Completely shocking, appalling and nauseating! My respect for Obama has now gone down the toilet. He's actually re-writing history with this gem of politicospeak. I lived through the Reagan 80's and I'll tell you this much: we sure as hell weren't pining for the ugly, divisive, "war on everything" mandate that Reagan brought the country. Bush 1 and 2 are basically a continuation of what Reagan started. In fact you have many of the same people working through all these administrations, for example war criminal Cheney. Sadly, as we can see, Obama will pander and brown-nose the same political establishment which has been running the country into the ground since 1980. How discouraging it is to watch him say these words on YouTube. Just ruined my day :(

"I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path, because the country was ready for it."

What is Obama saying here? That the country was ready for the corporate fascism that Reagan ushered in, and that Bill Clinton manifested? That Reagan's abuse of power (in the Contra affair, at least) was superior to Tricky Dick's? Well, Reagan got away with it, after all.

And what "excesses" is he referring to? I am a babyboomer who grew up in the 60's and 70's, in the deep south. The "excesses" were seen at the time as primarily the civil rights and anti-war movements. Oh, sure, many people claim to have been appalled at the "excesses" of the so-called hippies. I just thought those people were too scared to try and were thus jealous that some of us danced to the tambourine man "with one hand waving free," smoked some weed or tried other things to expand our minds, and, yes, tried to have a lot of sex with others so inclined. (And by the way, still hold these "excesses" as core values!)

I listen to Obama and want to hear RFK or Dr. King. But I find it sort of like listening to The Archies and hoping to hear Dylan or The Beatles. The trappings are there, but no substance is. And this is true because Obama is, as are all the candidates, a focus-group, corporate created facsimile, leading nothing or no one.

But..."i am constantly awaiting a rebirth of wonder..."

Nice going Obama, I really hope that you didn't mean that you like and respect Reagan.
Although Reagan is gone, his cabal continue today.
The activities of Reagan and his cronies in South and Central America are a disgrace. His racist views are well known. His anti-union stance helped big business get where they are today. He shut down many social programs that helped mentally ill, shoving them, ready or not, on the street, which in turn became a police problem. reagan's administration was worse than Bush's. At least we can blame Bush as an incompetent. Reagan did it with deliberate knowledge of the conseguences.

Aphex,

Good try...

But even if you are correct in your assessment, you are still praising a disgusting viewpoint that takes style over substance and ideas. So, by your argument, Obama should be really praising Adolf Hitler - he rose on a popular clamor for change too, and very also effective at moving an agenda.

This isn't a figging football game here - it is human lives - and Reagan certainly has enough Central American, African and even American worker's lives on his soul to have a place beside Hitler down in hell.

My observation of excesses during the 1960's included some expensive social programs, and the Viet Nam War (the Viet Nam War was a tremendous success if you count the number of new millionaires it created...war mongering pays.
Corporations paid 29% of US income taxes in the 1960's.

My observation of excesses in the 1980's and beyond include military programs and corporate welfare programs that exceeded the cost of the social programs tenfold or more.
Corporations currently pay 6% of the US income tax burden and that percentage continues to fall.

"My observation of excesses during the 1960's included some expensive social programs..."

Which "expensive social progreams"? Compare US poverty and crime rates before, and after, the end of these "expensive social programs".

Contrast these "expensive social programs" with the even more expensive ones in places like Norway or Sweden, where they enjoy the most broadly uniform prosperity in the world.

"all parties on board for his transitional fiscal policies"?

You mean attacking the unions, throwing people out of work, the "trickle-down" theory of enriching the already rich, in the hopes that the homeless sitting on the sidewalks could be trickled on? The massive transfer of wealth from the working class to the rich?

We didn't have homeless sitting on the sidewalks until Ronald Reagan came into office.

He also supported terrorism in Central American and in Afghanistan. Terrorism was funded by drug and gun running, and the prison population exploded under Reagan. We had 500,000 people in prison in 1980 and now we have over 2,000,000 people imprisoned.

We had James Watts as Interior Sec., who announced that he didn't have to protect the environment, because Christ was returning soon.

We had Oliver North running a terrorist operation out of the White House basement. I remember reading about his taking his terrorist Afghan buddies to Columbia to teach them how to grow poppies. That went down the memory hole, and the scum bucket North is a talking head now.

I hated Reagan as much as I hate Bush, and his death did nothing to lessen my hatred. Obama lauding him is so disgusting that I have no words for it.

What do you expect from a guy whose mentor is Joe Lieberman and who is a cousin of Dick Cheney. He's a right-winger. I wouldn't waste my vote on him or Hillary Republican Clinton.

Obama is a closet neocon. All I ask for is MERCY from my fellow American in November. If they vote like idiots yet again (assuming voting even matters), kiss the country good-bye.

But you see, folks, this is why Obama and Clinton were picked by the Corporate Media (CM). They are the most reprehensible candidates to the anti-Bush people and, therefore, most likely to LOSE.

I don't like anyone in the running, but you probably wouldn't see this sort of horse shit coming from an Edwards/Kucinich ticket.

Reagan was a monster. Like from a story book. Putting any praise at his feet is like complimenting the wicked witch.

Are you listening Dennis? This kid you endorsed thinks the excesses were committed by the progressive faction in the sixties and seventies instead of by Hoover's COINTELPRO and Reagan's fascists. Even if we give Obama credit for not having been there, we don't need more ignoramuses in the highest office, nor do we need any more sell out politicians.

Obama/Quayle, '08.

You posters are the greatest. And zimmie is the coolest.

Aphex,

Good try…

But even if you are correct in your assessment, you are still praising a disgusting viewpoint that takes style over substance and ideas. So, by your argument, Obama should be really praising Adolf Hitler - he rose on a popular clamor for change too, and very also effective at moving an agenda.

This isn't a figging football game here - it is human lives - and Reagan certainly has enough Central American, African and even American worker's lives on his soul to have a place beside Hitler down in hell.

I believe you are just looking for an argument where there really isn't one, so let me make myself clear. First off, where or what I am praising here? If "praise" is somehow associated with a neutral assessment of Obama's comments, then I'll be damned, but I believe you're missing the point of my post.

We can lambast Reagan and his policies here, (Reagan was one of the worst disasters to ever happen to this country, but I'm not here to remind you about what is already known), but instead of viewing this particular comment as a "slam-dunk" to prove that Obama isn't really all that he says he is, we should be looking beyond these soundbites which appear to lesser minds on the Drudge Report and really DIG DEEP into what Obama is all about. I believe Obama should make himself clear on what he meant by "excesses", so we can really see how much he may be in line with Reagan's ideology, but it's safe to assume that he won't make himself clear. Thus, we should look elsewhere to expose Obama's own political beliefs.

Yes, by my logic, he can technically allude to Hitler to make his point. But that is besides the point, considering that the person YOU want as president can, by default, be compared to any political leader, past and present.

I'll probably be flamed for this, but I hope I've least made myself clear.

Everyone should take a deep breathe and re-read what he actually said:

"I think THEY felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown, but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people — HE JUST TAPPED INTO WHAT PEOPLE WERE ALREADY FEELING, which was we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."

He's not saying he AGREES with what Reagan did - he's just pointing out that Ronnie and friends did what the GOP has always done - figure out what sells best then offer it up in buckets (which all turn out to have holes later.) IOW - the people were duped into believing a giant pack of lies (which many still cling to.)

God forbid BO is caught sneezing - within five minutes he'll be accused of spreading Ebola...

Ever wonder why politicians talk in simple, meaningless soundbites? The reaction to Obama's statements about Reagan provide an explanation. He's not praising Reagan's policies, but making an accurate historical comment about why Reagan was elected. Reagan DID campaign on a blatantly reactionary platform, and he must have tapped into some zietgiest of the times, because he won. Whether, in the long run, Reagan's idealogy was good for this country is another matter.
Clinton faced the same problem when she pointed out how LBJ contributed to the advancement of the civil rights agenda. Johnson took a big risk in pushing the civil rights legislation through, particularly with the more-segregationist elements of his own Democratic Party. That risk became apparent with Nixon's "Southern Strategy" in the late '60s, which used race-baiting to lure southerners away from their traditional support of the Democratic Party and into the arms of the Republicans. Not to slight MLK, but while he was a major player obviously, he wasn't the only significant figure in our national drama of that decade.
People complain that politicians simplify their messsage and talk down to them, but then go ballistic if they say something intelligent that they don't agree with. You can't have it both ways.

This is why I still unequivocally support Kucinich. Reagan began what Bush finished, the undoing of our country, the gradual dismantling of the social safety net and our needless march into imperial wars of aggression and conquest.

While I've always respected Obama, now that really changes my view of him. I'll vote for Kucinich with even greater enthusiasm and if he bows out, then it will be Edwards instead.

Anyone who endorses what Reagan did is not deserving of my respect, no matter what. Period. End of story.

I see little point in ballots any more, but much more opportunity to vote with my voice, creative works, pocketbook and (if necessary) feet. I think those will be the best ways to organize change for the foreseeable future.

greenerthanthou - "We had Oliver North running a terrorist operation out of the White House basement. I remember reading about his taking his terrorist Afghan buddies to Columbia to teach them how to grow poppies."

Opium poppies are native to Afganistan and not to Columbia. Why would North bring Afgans to Columbia to learn about the crops they have grown in Afganistan for centuries? I buy the rest, but not that "fact".

Also, I live in San Francisco and we certainly did have homeless sitting on the streets here before Reagan was president. I don't even thin it got that much worse with him than it was in 78 and 79. I was in Washington from 81-88 and the streets were filled with homeless and the advocates there, like Mitch Snyder had been homeless since before the Reagan admin with the Community for Creative Non-Violence. They did an amazing job of publicizing the plight of the homeless right from the beginning of the Reagan Admin.

FWIW, Reagan did a lot of things that are worth remembering as bad, but he did NOT start the homeless crisis or do anything to stop it for that matter.

"I see little point in ballots any more, but much more opportunity to vote with my voice, creative works, pocketbook and (if necessary) feet. I think those will be the best ways to organize change for the foreseeable future."

I think this is a perfect response to this article. And that's an amazing thought for me, because I've been a political junkie and active both in and outside of government, all my life. Real change will only come through cultural change, through the people. Someday, hopefully before I die, maybe it can percolate into our political system.

In the meantime, I'll vote for Edwards in 2008. (I can't not vote; old habits die hard.)

this is one of things that definitely worries me about Obama - that he bends over backwards to woo conservatives. it's strategic communications...at it's worst. it will haunt him in the primary, but help him in general...if he makes it. i don't think he really believes it - which makes the rest of his message hollow.

Hi Goose2. He took the Afghanis to Colombia to teach them-the Columbians now-how to grow opium in the Andes, similiar to the mountains of Afghanistan in temp & alt. A trick they did not know until then. They grew cocaine. What is illogical here?

And SF in the 80's? Homeless on the sidewalks b4 rayguns? yes, but not severely demented and acutely ill like after he emptied Atascadero, Napa etc.. Do you remember that change?

It was quite sad. Especially down in the Tenderloin near Glide Memorial Church, where a black Reverand fed these mostly white sick people after that scum reagan threw them out of their hospital beds.
You remember that? 'i don't even thin it got that much worse' Guess that depends on your p.o.v.

Please, it should be obvious what Obama is talking about reagarding the "excesses of the 60's" - it meant the first steps to move to a society like most europeans enjoy.

But, even if it were a atatement of political analysis, it is historical-revisionist nonsense. "Accountable government" my ass. The issue never came up in his campaign. Frank, Aphex, how old were you in 1980? How old was Obama?

Reagan won because Carter failed to get the Iran hostages released, while Reagan tapped into the basest reactionary instincts of the US populace, including their fears and anger (the Russians are coming/nuke Tehran), then there were the Carter votes siphoned away by Anderson. And, of course, the embassy hostages weren't released because the Reagan campaign, in an act of high treason (daddy bush to be specific) cut a secret arms/aid deal with Iran (Khomeni naiively thought Reagan would be less an imperialist) to keep them there to assure Carters defeat. This led Carter to attempt the abortive and tragic hostage rescue mission, leading to lost US lives.

If Carter had succeeded to get the hostages rescued or released in 1980, he would have been re-elected, Period.

I just hope to hell no future Democratic candidate (after this cycle) will be so generous to the "Boy Caesar" (as Chalmers Johnson has dubbed Dubya) as Barack Obama was to Reagan during this interview. What the hell does it take for people to wise up?

Reagan also lied about the welfare queen when he hired a black actress to portray a woman on welfare who drove around in a limosine. This made many white demcrats crossed to the republican side. Also, the CIA made deal with the Iranians to hold hostages and to release them after the elections. This made Carter look week. Obama forgat to mention these pounts that actually divided the country.

Obama will lose progressive votes based on this comment. Who will he get support from for this comment?

I am soooooo frustrated with the mindset of the general public. How much more proof do we need to see how aligned BOTH parties are???? Is everyone DENSE or just in DENILE completely?? Our entire election system is corrupt and designed for disfranchisement. PLEASE GET A CLUE AND WAKE UP.....both parties are corporate parties and our justice system is unjust! Nothing is gonna change until WE (masses of people) change it. It is time to take to the streets not the polling booth.

peace

Obama and Clinton are DINOS. Plain and simple. Both of 'em have strong neo-con tendencies, and I hope neither gets the nomination.

I personally support Gravel, but I may have to switch my primary vote to Edwards, since Gravel is toast. I'm afraid Kucinich is too, but if Edwards would take him as VP...

Thank you, mikepeters. I too was in California while Reagan was destroying the social infrastructure of the state while governor. And when he was reelected, I thought, My god, this man could become president. I realized that the public did not understand what this man was doing to the state. And then he would then turn around and do it to the whole country. And he did.

He and Obama are sending out the same message of optimism and the public is yearning for that. But I read an ominous report that only 13% of white Democrats in Georgia support Obama. Black Democrats were holding back from him because they feared he couldn't get elected in White America. But Iowa has them thinking otherwise. Iowa allows crossing over, and there were very few voters in the Republican caucuses, but an astonishing turnout in the Democratic caucuses. Doesn't anyone think that maybe a lot of Republicans voted in the Democratic caucuses for Obama, knowing that White America is too racist to vote for a Black man? I've suspected that all along.

Lord Trigo, when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he said "There goes the South", meaning they would all become Republicans. I've lived in California, Minnesota, New York (Long Island), and Oregon. They are all as racist as the South, but more covert. Southerners have accused the sanctimonious Northerners of being as racist and they are right.

Hillary, although a devious sneaky liar, is actually more progressive than Obama. Go to www://glassbooth.org/ and check out their litle test. It's fun and informative, covers all the candidates and how they stack up with your views. That doesn't mean I don't think she's a corporate whore, she is, and so is Obama. Edwards isn't acting like one, and I for one will take a chance on him. What do I have to lose? The economy is already tanking and Bush has already shredded that G-Damned piece of paper. McCain has already shown himself to be completely without principle and Ron Paul, the only other principled candidate besides Kucinich is still in the single digits. I don't agree with the Libertarian view, but now am just about ready to vote for principle over policy.

Amen to Paul Obama is a closet neocon. All I ask for is MERCY from my fellow American in November. If they vote like idiots yet again (assuming voting even matters), kiss the country good-bye.

But you see, folks, this is why Obama and Clinton were picked by the Corporate Media (CM). They are the most reprehensible candidates to the anti-Bush people and, therefore, most likely to LOSE.

I don't like anyone in the running, but you probably wouldn't see this sort of horse shit coming from an Edwards/Kucinich ticket

Barack Obama is the ultimate shape shifter.

He is the tabla raza on which everyone can project their hopes and dreams. Obama is the invisible man. He speaks of hope but does not say hope for what or how. He trumpets change but deflects from defining where we as a people are and where we want to be. Obama is very trendy with the elite liberal white demographic, precisely because he is so obscure. He is whatever we want him to be. He can channel JFK in a wink. Also Martin Luther King…and reluctantly, Stokely Carmichael.

I have to say that I am thoroughly confused now. First, it has seemed like for quite a while now, Democracy Now - a source I have utilized for more than a decade - has taken a decidedly anti-Obama angle, only in that they seem to be constantly looking for the holes in his logic. On this account, I think the attach on what he said was not very journalistic. However, I agree that he has a hell of a lot of explaining to do. For example, I can totally understand why he would compare himself to Reagan, from a purely natural historical perspective, as being the guy in the right place at the right time. But what I cannot understand is why he didn't make a very strong statement condeming the direction Reagan took the country when he did win the Presidency; and how different the direction would be under an Obama Presidency. Is that because it really wouldn't be that different?

To be frank, I think this is Obama over-thinking things and getting himself in trouble, and it is showing his un-readiness to be the President of the United States.

One last thought though: I just can't see how it is possibly that someone as smart, articulate, grassroots by nature, and passionate about change can have anything but disagreement with every policy decision Reagan made! That's why I am still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and let him explain this one.

Otherwise, my vote goes to Edwards. Might go to Edwards anyway, but if it becomes clear that Obama has the nomination in the bag at any point, he will get my vote, because I can live him - as long as he explains this one, dig? Clinton? Sorry, I'll never be able to live with that one.

PS: Edwards/Kucinich would be absolutely the best ticket ever!

Am I allowed to "double post"? I didn't see this article printed in the headline section,
and originally posted a comment in response to someone posting Obama's praise of Reagan
in the comments for the EdOp, "Will Obama have to spend more than his White rivals?", Lester JS.
(which is a good essay to read, if anyone is interested...)
-------------
anyway, previously posted.,

Praise for the great entertainer… or communicator….
or the public appeal of celebrity….

I'm not stunned by Obama's praise for Ronald Raygun. I've feared it all along. I also expect this statement
will get no traction. People aren't interested in what's behind the curtain. Just like Ronald Reagan "landslide"
reelection after the mining of Nicaraguan Harbors, people will overlook the obvious for the fantasy.
I also see it as a compelling admission by Obama. As if he realizes American's loved Raygun for the image
he painted, the optimism, the can-do-it -ness., even if it is all cowboy and get-tty-up, and hi-ho Silver… and a way.
And by god or gun, Obama is going to give that image back to the American public(?)

But I also think one needs to look to some of the speeches of Michelle Obama (because she is on the campaign trail too)
and see for yourself what you think about her, "pull yourself up" rhetoric, and how that plays into the larger presidential picture.
Pretty conservative social message from my point of view. The pull yourself up rhetoric hardly broaches the subject of why
there continues to be such economic inequality in this world even after people try to play by these golden rules and go to work
everyday and work hard and don't tell lies and go to church and help our neighbor only to die poor
and disempowered.

anyway….

Later,
Rob
casual_jabber@ yahoo(dot)com

EDWARDS!!

For example, I can totally understand why he would compare himself to Reagan, from a purely natural historical perspective, as being the guy in the right place at the right time....

AAARRRRGH!

HOW in the world was Reagans naked, fascist power-grab, in any way, to be likened to being "in the right place in the right time!

Maybe it's a generational-age thing, but as a 52 year old, I find this dualistic divorcing of Reagan's ideology from his political tactics to be bizarre.

Is Obama in favor of more Trickle dowN?
Heck my socksggot yellow from Reagans brand that is about it.
Flash Obama attacks a Caribean island?
Flash Several hundred Marines bombs in Israeli hotel?
Flash Obama say its the trees that causes pollution?
Obama jelly beans can hardly wait>
Who will Obama have too read the stars for him?
Flash Michele Obama will redo the White House.
going to use Chicago Decorators .
Yes we are all ready for Obama Right? Wait a minute Reagan also came from THE RIGHT.
Could It Be ? OBAMA A Trojan REPUBLICAN.
What A change Huh ?
genaman

And this is a bit off-topic, but Hilary's LBJ remark is also more historical revisionist, nonsense. Like Obama's Reagan remark, it belies a profoudly eliteist attitude that all human progress is benevolently bestowed upon us fucking peons by the rich political corporate elites.

The elites in Congress wrote, and LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act because if he hadn't the black people in the streets - along with plenty of antiwar whites, would have escalated and burned until ultimately the republic itself was threatened. That's how "change" happens - from the people, not the elites. As Fredrick Douglas said; "power concedes nothing without a demand!"

Yes, and that Civil Rights Act was only possible because of Democrats in Congress acting together with LBJ, a Democratic president willing to sign it.

Obama is not trashing Reagan, because he is inviting some disenchanted Republicans to switch sides. And we'll be luck if they do. And get back to the LBJ environment of Dems all over the place.

Obama is also pointing out that Reagan captured the national psyche because some believed then the country had gone too far left. Obama knows the opposite is true today, we need a leftward shift, and he intends to be that shift by not going off the left cliff and scaring centrist voters away.

This "Obama likes Reagan policies" flap is a load of
____________ (fill in your favorite word for junk.)

Look at Obama's voting record. He says he's against the war but he doesn't show up for key votes. The Kyl-Lieberman Iran amendment -- which ratchets up the confrontation with Iran by calling for the designation of its Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization responsible for killing U.S. troops passed overwhelmingly, 76-22. Of the Dem Presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton voted for the measure, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd opposed it, and Barack Obama missed the vote. Recently, Senator Obama said he would favor "surgical" missile strikes against Iran. Just a few examples of his inconsistency.

In contrast, Congressmember Kucinich put his campaign in Nevada on hold and took the redeye back to Washington yesterday to challenge the democratic (sic) party's stealth vote to authorize a defense bill on the floor under a suspension of rule (which means that it is considered to be noncontroversial!) DK is determined to hold the dims feet to the fire by calling for a vote so that we will know where each elected official stands. Oh, and by the way, he just took on NBC AKA GE AKA Raytheon so he could have a seat at the debate. Please see:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3246
for a detailed account of the debate debacle where one of the biggest defense contractors and nuclear players pulled out all the stops to prevent an independent nonconforming voice from being heard.

As a life long Republican whose father was a delegate to the GOP convention that nominated Reagan, his nomination and Presidency marked the end of my support for the Republican Party.
As a loyal supporter of Obama, I hope he makes it clear that he was recognising the method by which Reagan gained support rather than any admiration for the way in which he and his administration systematically destroyed unions and took out the Equal Right's Amendment from the parties platform.

I love it. Would all these brainless Obama supporters have made excuses for this quote, where he engages in an incredible betrayal of progressive goals, if it had been made by Hillary? Of course not. You'd be fuming and demanding she be shot. Has it occured to you, that there may be more damning quotes, as yet, hidden from view? Am I obliged to support every Black, simply because he's Black? Is Condoleeza Rice Black? She's frightening! I think Oprah is a narrow-minded fool. Hasn't she proudly proclaimed that she's supported as many republicans as democrats? Huh!? Is Alan Keyes Black? The man is a lunatic. This kneejerk glorification of anyone that's Black, conceals a certain nervousness about race, quite aside from the fact, that not only should "race" be set aside when we consider candidates for office, but the whole notion of race, is an archaic and scientifically empty piece of nonsense.

The country doesn't want what we want. The country as a whole, wants a conservative democrat, or a moderate republican. Bill Clinton was perfect, and his popularity, a source of Rumplestiltskinian frustration and anger among Leftwingers and Rightwingers alike, demonstrates it, and should help us through this period.

If we're lucky, we might get a conservative dem pres., and a liberal dem VP. We will not get a Progressive Pres. Stop deluding yourselves. Obama is a good politician; he's not presidential material. He's a closet republican.
It won't surprise me at all, if he wins the nomination. Chris Matthews likes Obama, and hates Hillary. What else do I need to know? Being liked by Chris Matthews, is like being endorsed by Adolf Hitler.

Clinton/Edwards

May RWR rot in hell and all those who support him (Obama,for one and of course the entire MSM that lauded his presidency when he died)

Uh-oh! Refreshing take on perhaps why Andrew Sullivan supports Obama?
And why Obama isn't being run through the mud by conservative talk shows
while all other democratic candidates are covered from head to toe.

Maybe Youth voters of America need to take a moment and ask their parents
if they voted for Reagan.

What excesses is he talking about in the 60s and 70s? As I recall there was a recession around 72-74- with the same kind of ignored indicators of today.
All of the problems started when Nixon visited china and introduced globalization.
Unless you are a wealthy person, people have experienced job losses and diminished living.
The only excesses in this era were of drugs and such-Mr. Obama appears to have enjoyed them also.
I do not believe the people who were in a stupor had much to do about the state of affairs now. Most are even dead.
More blame game and a delivery of 0 results already.

Maybe Obama's analogy is politically illuminating. Maybe, on the other hand, he's just pandering to conservatives. In any case, Obama is no progressive on the verge of launching a progressive trajectory for our deconstructed republic for the next 20 years. So, what's he talking about? Somebody needs to ask.

I guess Obama really meant what he said when he called himself part of that "Joshua Generation" last winter in AL. Wonder why he didn't compliment Reagan to a church full of people commemorating the March on Selma?

Didn't Reagan fight the MKL holiday kicking and screaming, reluctantly signing it into law?

Maybe it was during the Reagan years Obama was smoking something that he references in his book!

I was going to vote for Obama in the California primary because I absolutely LOATHE Hillary Clinton - but after reading this I should just stick with the candidate I actually trust and I'll vote for John Edwards or Dennis Kucnich. If Obama is going to be a sell out praising Regan for reversing all the progress we made in the 1960's and 1970's then Obama is probably just another "Corporate Democrat" just like Hillary?

Shit - aren't there ANY Democrats who have a conscience? It looks like Obama is trying to appear more "centrist" and conservative to suck up to voters instead of defending civil rights - for crying out loud, he was a Civil Rights lawyer - I hope he was not misquoted.

Well I'm sure I was able to take advantages of the tail end of those "excesses" of teh 70's and complete my degree at Virginia Tech for only about $950 per year - paying as I went with a co-op job.

Thanks to Reaganomics, it's now about $8000 per year and college is now only for the rich and white.