Didn't LBJ change the trajectory of the country by signing the Civil Rights Bill? He did it knowing full well that the south would be lost to the democrats for decades. Johnson also declared a war on poverty...he actually noticed that there are poor people in the good ole USA, and he tried to do something about it. I'll take those excesses over Reagan's war on non-existent "welfare queens" any day. Nixon resumed relations with China which has had a tremendous impact on this country and its politics. Why couldn't Obama have chosen FDR as an example of a trajectory changing leader? Instead he chose Reagan whose policies have caused so much pain to so many in this country. Dubya is the ultimate practitioner of what Reagan wrought...the country will be living for decades with the damage Reagan/Bush/Buch have inflicted with the judges they have elevated to the courts and the damage their "trickle down" economic policies have caused.

I just don't trust Obama. If I want a republican I'll vote for a real one not another democratic wannabe.

Editorial wirters in major newspapers are no longer as important as they used to be. There was a time when almost everyone in a certain area read the same paper each day. This made editorial writers very influencial in their communities.

The internet is now allowing people to read newspapers from anywhere in the world. Our news is no longer dominated by the style, substance, and slant of a single publisher.

We still have a long way to go. While the internet is opening the discussion, most of what we see and read on a daily basis is owned by the five largest media corporations. Their goal is to make a profit. It is not to provide an open source of accurate information for making democratic decisions.

I could stomach Edwards and will vote for him unless I get a chance to vote for Dennis Kucinich. I feel strongly that the entire Corporate world is actively taking care to ignore the best man in this race, the only one who has a platform that lines up with what the real people in this country want and deserve. After all...it is our country.

Veteran '66-68

I'll line right up with John Freeman. Kucinich is the man! Too bad he's the victim of corporate media assassination. Edwards is talking the talk but doesn't have much of a record to back it up. I'd hold my nose and vote for him. But I'm tired of settling for the shit that tastes the best. If it's not one of these two, I'm going Green and I don't really care which Republocrat wins. Maybe it'll take 4 years of Romney to finally awaken a sleeping Amerika. Cynthia McKinney will likely be the Green candidate and we can put this race or gender crap to bed.

George Wanker Bush, the so-called "president", has been a catastrophic, disastrous failure, as has been his entire life. However, "Bushism", the political philosophy of turning this nation into a strutting, swaggering, trash talking punk, has been an overwhelming success. It makes no difference whatsoever which of the electable Blues or Reds becomes the next president; the United States will continue the strutting, the swaggering, the trash talking to the rest of the world. An empire in decline, as this one most certainly is, cannot do anything different. History has shown this over and over and over again. If this were not so, the people of this country would have burned down the Republicans and the Democrats and gotten something better, nobler and vastly more intelligent to lead us into the future. Insanity has famously been described as repeatedly doing something the same way, hoping it will turn out differently. Obama, Clinton, Romney, McCain - all this shit's the same.

Post about the real Mr. COrporation Owelljust bomb'em on the corporate media websites of the big daily newspapers and/or the entire world is doomed.

I cannot believe that any sentient being thinks that obmeb'em is """""""""""PROGRESSIVE""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" whatever that means now. It indicates that we are 813% more brainwashed than the USSR.

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

What Senator Obama said is absolutely true. The change brought about by the Reagan Revolution is a historical fact and Barack Obama's assessment of why Reagan was elected is logical.

"When you think about what Ronald Reagan did to the American people, to the middle class to the working people," said John Edwards. "He was openly — openly– intolerant of unions and the right to organize. He openly fought against the union and the organized labor movement in this country… He openly did extraordinary damage to the middle class and working people, created a tax structure that favored the very wealthiest Americans and caused the middle class and working people to struggle every single day. The destruction of the environment, you know, eliminating regulation of companies that were polluting and doing extraordinary damage to the environment."

What ex-Senator Edwards is absolutely true. As a matter of fact, if anything, John Edwards understated the harm that Ronnie Raygun brought upon the American middle-class. The student loan debacle and attack on unionized teachers come to mind.

I am proud of both Edwards and Obama; along with Senator Clinton, they are all viable candidates and whoever is nominated will get my vote.

Nichol's quotes of Edwards here are brilliant and very accurately summarize the vile and contemptible Reagan, who indeed was blatantly and openly hostile to middle class Americans and minorities. I wish it weren't so, but Obama is beginning to remind me more and more of Condoleeza Rice, or worse yet Clarence Thomas: sadly, in every way except skin color, they all are neo-con whitebread establishment corporate facsimiles. I don't think Martin Luther King would be all that impressed with any of them. On another note, the Las Vegas Review-Journal is quoted here. But why? Everybody knows Nevada and Arizona are vast holding pens for red-state neo con filth, so the comments from this paper are comical at best. Kind of like reading the Houston Chronicle...these publications are better used for utilitarian purposes...like lining the kitty litter :D

Peace Coup,
I think we all need to stop reiterating the myth that the goal of the "Media" is to make a profit. This can't be true...if it were, they wouldn't turn down advertising from political entities they disagreed with, and they wouldn't go around saying that newspapers are an unprofitable business (which they are not...Most major newspapers make a respectable consistent profit...) And they wouldn't all run the same stupid stories from the AP and Rueters...they'd actually try to compete from a content standpoint...they don't. The owners/publishers have an agenda and are using their moneyed power to advance it...

Thank you, DenverCurmudgeon (1:04pm above). You have brought a good post and good sense to CD.

As for the Las Vegas Review-Journal, it is hopelessly right-wing and probably racist enough to think that Obama is most "beatable" in the general election --which is their real goal, of course.
A growing portion of Las Vegas (its workers), however, are neither right-wing nor racist.
Nevada could very well go blue this time around.

name a president that hasn't been held to economic power. start your query with washington (one of the largest landowners in the colonies) finish w/ bush2 (a man who comfortably socializes with kings and their children as demonstrated by his recent visit to the middle east). the reason reagan was so successful was that americans were tired of watching a dysfunctional congress trying to work with a populist president during economic hard times(carter was elected as a response to the atrocities committed in vietnam and the criminal behavior of the burglars/the cover up that followed). clinton also was elected in this pendulous fashion as a response to reagan/bush. why wade through this boring simplification of history. because that's what obama was referring to in the conversation when he made the comments about reagan. reagan won by only 7-8% of the popular vote (where did the other 7-8% of the vote go? to a populist liberal/conservtive anderson who drew votes from carter)anyway reagan had a percieved mandate and that adminidstration reinforced it's power in 84. i think obama, with the unity theme (young/old, right/left, reformist/est. elites, white/black), is saying 'if i win the nomination it will be a mandate like reagans'. in other words i will craft legislation and move it through the congress. it's a value neutral thought (the legislation could be progressive it could be corporate etc..) republicans sense their going to loose. i mean loose in big way (2006 was a precurser). this is why so many republican congressman have opted to not run for reelection. it also opens up the oppurtunity for independants like cindy sheehan and ralph nader to be elected to national seats in congress (please run ralph) where their voices will be heard. Some republicans recognize the mistake they made in supporting a puppet (failed businessman w/ connections). when i talk with republicans (i am not a republican but you know occasionaly it's important, as a progressive, to talk to other people; or should we only talk amongst the converted) i sense a willingness to work with obama, an acceptance of an obama presidency. this is because obama hasn't overtly offended them. complaining about capitalism in populist terms to elites is like screaming it's a lie in church during communion. it won't fly and it will re entrench the right and they will respond accordingly (through the MSM). obama is in a tough spot he is rightfully critisized by folks on the left, and he will be criticized by the right, in the general, as being too left. he has to appeal to both or he will loose and we'll have a dem congress reinforced w/ more numbers (and hopefully independants -please run ralph) working with romney or mccain (who also are running to the center to save those rep seats) Remember Hoover, a failed republican president who commandeered the craft as the stock market collapsed and the country was pummeled into the depression. Roosevelt, not considered a populist when elected, saved the institution (american capitalism)by instituting populist ideas that had been proposed by unions and lesser parties over the previous 50 years. Whether the next president is obama, edwards or a dynastic figure like clinton, the sooner progressives send them letters, stand outside their offices, inform their local representatives of their positions in the name of peace, the sooner they'll understand and be converted (as a participant and witness in these struggles). the political process in this country is not changing soon. a 3rd party candidate has never won a general election and came in 2nd only once, in 1912.

Thanks to John Nichols who brought Edwards' comments.

For those who think the D Party is still salvageable or Edwards needs to stay in the fight, you can help by going to DailyKos and participate in their one day Netland fundraiser for Edwards today.

The right-wing pundits are shocked, SHOCKED by the recent campaign at DailyKos to encourage Dems to in Michigan to cross over and vote for Mitt in their open primary.

DailyKos gleefully pointed out that Romney himself did the same thing in 1988, casting a tactical vote for Paul Tsongas to diminish Michael Dukakis' chances.

Hard to say if the Las Vegas Review-Journal was issuing a "tactical" endorsement, or if they simply believe that Obama is the best choice among the Democratic candidates... a lot of Democrats do.

The LVRJ also recommended Mitt Romney to Republican voters.

I normally just glance at my local paper's editorials, But I do pay attention to editorial board when they offer endorsements at election time.

I compare them with endorsement from other sources, but I suspect that many many voters rely solely on their local paper's recomendation.

Publishers since William Randoph Hearst have used newpapers to advance or protect their other business interests. Editors may have a political axe to grind, but their bosses are watching the bottom line.

What Obama said about Reagan's impact upon the long term trajectory or direction in which American society moved was of course historically correct.

Nixon and Clinton (and Jimmy Carter too, for that matter) were pragmatists who generally tried to triangulate the divisive issues of their times. In contrast, Reagan often embraced the ideologically pure, extreme sentiments of the right wing of the GOP's base and/or the popular prejudices of the greater redneck grassroots, serving to consistently shift the "mainstream center" of public dialogue in a conservative direction, if only incrementally.

It wasn't so much that the country was ready to move to the right, as it was that there were so few countervailing voices being raised against the Gipper from the center or from the left.

What is more unsettling about Barack's observation is his reference to how "the excesses of the 60's and 70's" somehow implicitly caused the federal government to grow and grow and become unaccountable to the will of the common people. If Obama wants to genuinely move beyond re-hashing the old battles of the Vietnam era, he better learn to stop blaming progressives for the backlash their efforts provoked. The mismanagement of federal public services was brought on far more by letting the foxes guard the henhouse than by the irresponsibility of hippie youth.

Bill from Saginaw

Edwards gets my vote in the CA primary and any of the democratic top 3 tier candidates will be my choice over ANY republican in the general.

I agree with iowablackbird's inference that as soon as we get Obama, Edwards or Clinton elected, that progressives THEN bombard all the Dem politicians with demands for the progressive agenda. Elect first, though, so you aren't sending your heartfelt letters straight into the Republicans' trash cans.

The American people are realizing that only an Obama presidency can change America's bleak future into one that is genuinely hopeful and positive. Barack Obama's unique combination of strengths and abilities make him the only candidate:

1. Who can take the Democratic nomination from insider/"incumbent" Hillary Clinton and her political machine;
2. Who can appeal to Democrats, independents, and centrists of all stripes sufficiently to win a general election;
3. Who can pack Congress with Democratic legislators supportive of his agenda in '08 and in following elections;
4. Who can inspire competing interests to find workable legislative solutions to our huge problems;
5. Who can inspire grassroots citizens to get behind and pass such legislation; and
6. Who has the honesty, integrity, courage, intellectual bandwidth, global perspective, vision, character, judgment, and Presidential leadership skills necessary to simultaneously and successfully handle breaking crises as they arise, while healing and transforming national and international relations and shepherding huge domestic policy changes through Congress.

It's impossible to summarize all these crucial "qualifications" in a soundbite, a speech, a website, a campaign ad, and certainly not a button or bumper sticker. But they are what the public feels when they listen to and learn more about Barack Obama, and they are why Obama's popularity will continue to grow exponentially.

(Nancy Pace blogs at the intersection of peace, politics, culture and spirituality at www.epharmony.com.)

I see Obama's comments as highlighting what was positive in Reagan's appeal. Not as endorsing 'Reaganomics.' Why did so many white middle and working class people support Reagan?

The tone and spirit of quite a few comments on Common Dreams regularly seem pretty similar to the tone and spirit of the right. Not what is said but how something is said. I think this helps to keep the 'progressive agenda' marginalized, in addition to all the corporate suppression flying in from all directions.

While Kucinich represents my views the best, I really thank Sen. Obama for trying to campaign in a different way. Even if an electable candidate doesn't take the 'correct' positions on every issue, or doesn't even take positions on certain issues, if they can actually draw many new people into the election process and help build wide support for change across current divisions, I think that could be a big, positive step.

I don't need any Review-Journal to tell me who's good and who's bad. The MSM itself is run buy a bunch of crooks that may praise one crook in preference to another crook. I have lost trust in the system itself.

Obama is a careful speaker. Notice he didn't say he agreed with Reagan, only that Reagan changed things.
I hated Reagan, and under Reagan, things changed a lot - for the worse. I like Obama's intelligence. Clinton and Edwards are reaching for straws, to try to make Obama "look like" he "supported" Reagan. A careful speaker, he's out to get votes in territory that supported that disgusting old man. Central America still suffers from the Reagan wars; the killing, torture, dislocations, fear - and we, here in the US, are still suffering from the narcotics business he used to help finance those wars.

GOOD BYE, Reagan democrats, don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out!

Let's see now; the right excoriates Hillary Clinton, the left excoriates Hillary Clinton as well, but for very different reasons. Frankly, the more this bashing continues the more attractive her candidacy becomes to me.

In an election cycle wherein the voter is facing a Hobson's choice of candidates I am in a quandry as to where my vote will land. Even the front runner among the Green Party candidates, Cynthia McKinney, carries much baggage, thus my choice in the last two Presidential elections, the Green in the race, is not a sure bet.

I do know that when a far right wing paper endorses Barak Obama warning bells galore , a veritable cacophony thereof , ring out. I accept that Obama represents what most on the left desire, real change. But change for the sake of change is no way to select a President and where in his career is the beef? I am not a registered Democrat, thus will play no part in the selection process of that party's candidate. Of that I am very, very glad. Even Kucinich, with whom I agree much of the time, has feet of clay....I do not envy you democrats, not one little bit.

pick your poison but choose it fast or we'll experience 32 consecutive years of bush/clinton.

RichM January 18th, 2008 2:20 pm

thanks for the reference earlier to the article on the world wide socialist page.

evilcrat 2 (obama) was reflecting on reagan's successful appeal to the others (in reagans case dissatisfied white southern voters) its absurd to think reagan was unsuccessful, politically his success is reflected in the map that outlines his victory (perhaps some of us are living in caves). its interesting to examine how effective reagan's strategy actually was, if you look at the map of the general in 2004 (notice where the republican base is). the clintons also capitalized on this strategy of the south using bill's down home charm to persuade the voters in these states (where federalism is a big issue, clinton being a governor with experience). it's true reagan's policies were a set back in every way to women, gays/lesbians, minorities, the working poor, the rest of the world. but the iconic image of a 'communicator', even if fabricated by the media, resonated and reagan won. obama is re-approaching the southern strategy, from the perspective of registering new voters, activating the voters of the dem base, and allaying the fears of moderate republicans (as reagan appealed to 'conservative' democrats) by praising reagan's political success (please put that 'moderate' in context there's as significant difference between say trent lott and lincoln chafee).

suggesting that all democrats and republicans are identical is laughable (please refer to the CD sidebar article about waxman questioning white house emails,).

it's politics.

i like chavez, i admire castro but i don't see revolutionary changes here in america. 20% of americans are functionally illiterate, 95% of americans are consumed with television. i don't see tables and organizers for the CPUSA approaching me at the safeway encouraging me to vote communist or green. 3rd party candidates are outside of the realm of the average american. try an experiment the next time your in the line at the grocery store, say around 5:20 in the afternoon, turn to the person behind you in line, and ask them their opinion of a cynthia mckinney or the platform of the green party. try this experiment 20 different times on 20 different occasions and you will experience the same response. you will experience a blank stare (is that b/c the MSM has brainwashed us or is that just a sorry excuse for poor organizing over the past 20 years?).

what did you expect ?, and where's the alternative? you are dreaming, and we all of the right to dream, to imagine a world where our ideals are manifested. I'd like to see a benevolent world government where the people from india and china have the same voice as americans and europeans. is it going to happen in my lifetime?

please vote your conscience in the primaries, but if your candidate is not the candadate with the most delegates at the convention (kucinich/Edwards) please contact them now and urge them to pledge their delegates to obama.

How the HELL can you all call yourselves Progressives or Liberals or whatever the fuck you think you are when you support
this bullshit from OBAMA who's entire foreign policy crew includes a wonderful collection of neo-cons and other far-right fascists? at least Edwards can stand up to the fallout of the "ronny raygun's revolution"
Frankly I am disgusted and repulsed by those who claim to be other fully indoctrinated sheep by the
Blatantly false propaganda state that we live in.
How can you realistically support Obama in anyway after this comment that reveals his true colors?
What fucking planet are you living on? The one engulfed by war, global warming, torture, destruction of any remnants of civil society?
OR YOUR PROGESSIVE HAPPY LAND WHERE EVERY DEMOCRT WEARS A BIG HAPPY SMILEY FACE AND IS A DEMOCRAT AND EVERYONE TAKES PROZAC AND WATCHES OPHRA AND EVERYTHING IS OK?
Wake the hell up, or just give up on the political process, or just vote republican- at least you know what you are getting!!!

"Obama, on the other hand, is championed as "a good politician" who "knows how to speak to individual Americans and give them the feeling he cares about their concerns."

sorry I'm going to puke

Cut the bullshit.

Obama did more than say he agreed with Reagan, he reiterated Reagan's pro-business, anti-worker worldview as a statement of categorical fact!

His characterizaton of the 60's and 70's as times of "excess" and "big government" are completely without qualifcations - no "so called" or "they believed" in fact in a video of his remarks he makes an big "inflating baloon" gesture wit hhis hands as he talks about bigger and bigger government - then his stated as sky-is-blue fact, that Reagan brought "dynamism" and 'entrepeneurship".

PLEASE people, you know this this is all classic right-wing codespeak! We all know what excesses he is talking about - excesses like free or very cheap university education (yes kiddies - annual state U tuition used to be tuition free, or only a few hundred dollars ina lot of states in the 1970's.) Livable minimum wage. Vigorous prosecution of discrimination cases. A declining poverty rate. Adequately funded public schools, an abhorrence to war. Excesses of energy conservation and environmental awareness. etc..etc..

While Kucinich represents my views the best, I really thank Sen. Obama for trying to campaign in a different way. Even if an electable candidate doesn't take the 'correct' positions on every issue, or doesn't even take positions on certain issues, if they can actually draw many new people into the election process and help build wide support for change across current divisions, I think that could be a big, positive step.

To J Anthony and others who are willing to overlook ommissions and commissions, I would say:
I for one need to know the views of a candidate before I will give them my endorsement.

I cannot imagine why any Democrat would even utter the name Reagan....Oh wait, yes I can...

Reagan himself was once a Democrat. The Dixiecrats probably adored the guy. Hillary supported Nixon in her early days. The corporate parties are just clubs, don't expect much in the way of ideological coherence/consistency.

The mythology that the Democrats are this progressive party would not exist if it were not for the Corporate Media. The Dems, ultimately, owe the CBS/NBC/ABC's, Murdochs, and Limbaughs a favor. If they didn't continually re-paint the Dems as "leftists", they'd have no room for their own agenda at the extreme "right".

mahadeva,

Exactly!

HEADS UP! We don't want to trip over one another while we're herded into the corral ... again! Weeeee! Isn't this fun? to be jerked around, deceived, and spat upon?

Obama is doing the two-headed monster a big favor. He understands full well that it's Hillary's turn. She paid her dues. Has Obama paid his dues? Not in full ...yet. But he makes a beautiful stalking horse.

Obama will begin to dissolve soon, according to plan. He'll get a pay raise and probably a promotion out of his efforts. The machines may have to be adjusted but, in the end, it'll be Hillary. Unless the monster decides Obama is more "trust worthy." they let Edwards stay on to absorb some of the anti-corporatists. He's disappearing already.

This is not a real Democracy, folks. We don't get to choose. We just watch, listen, and discuss. Our consent is "manufactured" (as Noam Chomsky so aptly put it).

Any real agent of change will get publicly maligned (like Nader, Cindy Shehan), or assassinated. The Empire will not let go. Everyone of us knows this, right?

Could We The People actually form a real opposition? Sure, if we choose to do it and if we REFUSE to back down. But it won't happen in this theater of the status quo. Sadly, the anti-war, progressive left in this country is weaker than ever.

DenverCurmudgeon (above) thinks that in his remarks about Reagan Obama was simply describing a "historical fact:" Reagan represented a change, which came about because people thought that there had been excesses, etc. Someone could give this explanation without endorsing the thoughts or attitudes that those people had. But if you read Obama's remarks carefully, he clearly crosses the line separating mere description and causal explanation from agreement. He could have distanced himself from these ideas if he wanted to; instead he uses glowing terms to describe the perception of Reagan that clearly amount to endorsement of the stated attitudes toward him and to the "excesses". I therefore agree with PJD: regrettably, this is right-wing code. Consider this as clarification of what Obama means when he says he is going to "bring us together." This is the language of compromise, and there shouldn't be any remaining doubt that that's what Obama has in mind. In the Obama worldview, the Republicans have been right about a lot of things over the past thirty years (they've even been the "party of ideas.") Those of us who find this insane need to find another candidate.

Nice job, John.

This article should be required reading for Russ Feingold who has left out some of the requirements of understanding voting behavior.

Well Obama,I guess that the anti war activests,the civil rights activests, the unionists and other excesses of the 60s had to be remedied,by the dynamic Reagan so why don't you go back to picking cotton instead of running for the presidency !!!!!

Obama may have just been talking smart politics. He was vague enough that he may have meant that he was going to use this moment in much the way Reagan used his, which was to swing the pendulum sharply right.

But if you agree with Kucinich on the issues, please vote for him in the California primary. If you check your ballot, there are no "tiers," there are people who are listed. You can vote for any of them and your vote counts the same, one vote.

So give your vote to the candidate you agree with. We are not at the track. We are voting, not betting.

Clinton and Edwards did not vote for more inspectors. They voted for war. In fact, the resolution that Clinton and Edwards voted for has no conditions attached to it. It is a resolution for war to invade and occupy Iraq for any reason Bush determines.

What H.J. Resolution 114 "To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq" actually says:

"Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution."

[Section 8(a)(1): SEC. 8. (a) Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred–(1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution." http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/warpower.htm]

"The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to—(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/october02/houseres_10-10-02.pdf

"Some seek to rewrite history. They argue that they weren't really voting for war, they were voting for inspectors, or for diplomacy. But the Congress, the Administration, the media, and the American people all understood what we were debating in the fall of 2002. This was a vote about whether or not to go to war. That's the truth as we all understood it then, and as we need to understand it now. And we need to ask those who voted for the war: how can you give the President a blank check and then act surprised when he cashes it?…

We thought we learned this lesson. After Vietnam, Congress swore it would never again be duped into war, and even wrote a new law — the War Powers Act — to ensure it would not repeat its mistakes. But no law can force a Congress to stand up to the President. No law can make Senators read the intelligence that showed the President was overstating the case for war. No law can give Congress a backbone if it refuses to stand up as the co-equal branch the Constitution made it.

That is why it is not enough to change parties. It is time to change our politics. We don't need another President who puts politics and loyalty over candor. We don't need another President who thinks big but doesn't feel the need to tell the American people what they think. We don't need another President who shuts the door on the American people when they make policy. The American people are not the problem in this country - they are the answer. And it's time we had a President who acted like that."- Barack Obama, probably the next President of the United States

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/02/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_27.php

"Of the 22 senators who reported reading the full NIE, eight are Republicans and 14 are Democrats. All but one Democrat on the 17-person Intelligence Committee in 2002 recalled reading the NIE: Former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) told a campaign-trail audience earlier this month that he had, but later recanted. Edwards voted to authorize war."

"Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy, one of the senators who read the report and a staunch critic of the war, said the findings were "enough to have me vote against going to war in Iraq."

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/few-senators-read-iraq-nie-report-2007-06-19.html

'What I knew before the invasion' by Senator Bob Graham D-Florida

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111802397.html

Obama is running a national campaign. Look at his record. He opposed the Iraq War when Edwards and Hillary voted for it. He called for disclosure of bundlers when the Democratic Party opposed it. His focus on government reform is (a) necessary (b) refreshing and (c) does not require partisanship as much as it does bipartisanship. The Progressive Agenda that does not believe in full disclosure and making sure every vote counts (single transferable voting) is not the Progressive Agenda.

"Judge Him By His Laws"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html

"On Right and Left, a Push for Government Openness"

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/03/washington/03cyber.html

Obama on Single Transferable Voting

http://fairvote.org/?page=1755

"Congress Backs Tighter Rules on Lobbying"

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/03/washington/03lobby.html

I have thought at times that some of us are being unfair to Obama by criticizing him for not sounding more like John Edwards. If he did, however, he would be labeled an angry black militant.

But this quote about Reagan.........Wow. If I'm a big CEO, I would be very happy that a Democrat is talking this way. Finally, a Democratic presidential candidate will stand with me in further reducing OSHA regulations and fair labor standards.

Alas, I'm not a CEO, so "excesses" means OSHA scrutiny that saved lives, or other measures that protected fair hiring and lack of discrimination in promotions.

Every class-conscious trade unionist I've ever spoken with talks about Reagan firing the Air Traffic Controllers as a pivotal moment in the decline of organized labor.

They will be confused and/or angry to hear a leading Democratic contender seemingly praising Reagan. Perception is reality.

Obama may think that he's like Time Magazine, dispassionately discussing the "greatness" of Ronald Reagan, without regard to who he hurt.

But Obama is not writing history, he's waging a campaign to lead this country and he's opening himself and the Democrats up to attack. I can see the political attack ads from the Republicans now---"Barack Obama Praises Ronald Reagan.........Would Ronald Reagan Praise Barack Obama?"
Hell No.

Clinton/Obama/Romney/McCain/Giuliani = four more years of Bush. It does not matter which one of them wins.

A progressive news digest site is being infiltrated by anti-progressives and sloppy thinkers.

To call Obama progressive is (pick one) risible, delusional, a silly lie, dishonest. This Lieberman protegé who has voted to fund the Iraq war relies on vague platitudes and appeals to unity with the far right.

To argue that Hillary Clinton's candidacy is attractive because she is attacked from both the left and the right is moronic. Such a position assumes (of course without examining the merits of the claims) an equality of legitimacy between left and right critiques. Further, it assumes a "split the difference" approach to discovering the truth.

To call Edwards progressive is to reveal oneself as suggestible and prone to wishful thinking. His recent rhetoric is, of course, welcome, but his voting record is atrocious.

Why is Edwards now the leftmost permissible boundary? Nichols knows better than that.

seriousprofessor,

I believe you hit the nail on the head.

I took a two week hiatus from the computer and after the holidays, resumed reading and blogging on CD as well as other sites, but I noticed, and especially after the Iowa caucus, that the Kucinich supporters jumped ship and were now engaged in what candidate is better? You've got to hand it to MSM. They know how to control public opinion.

You have touched on some fine points.

Daniel David wrote

I agree with iowablackbird's inference that as soon as we get Obama, Edwards or Clinton elected, that progressives THEN bombard all the Dem politicians with demands for the progressive agenda. Elect first, though, so you aren't sending your heartfelt letters straight into the Republicans' trash cans.

THIS WILL NOT WORK WITH OBOMB'EM AND HILLARY.

It has been tried for the last 30 years and always the Corporate Dems move right. You dont seem to get it that the dems will only listen when we have shown them that we can IMPOSE A COST ON THEIR EVER RIGHTWARD MOVEMENT. And even then, it might be more profitable for them to lose elections!

Serious Professor I favored Kucinich until i Heard him recommend obomb'em in Iowa. At that moment it hit me that he was probably just playing a lightningrod function for the DLC which really is the DNC by now.

"Editorial wirters in major newspapers are no longer as important as they used to be."

True that. I started to laugh out loud when I read the name of the paper (Las Vegas Review-Journal )that the author refers to.

Alas, I too prefer Kuchinich's position on most of the issues, but due to the political sensibilities (insensibilities?) of our nation's electorate, he appears to be unelectable at present, so I call myself a pragmatist and am looking for a workable compromise and so far I come up with Obama as being the best hope for America right now which has a shot of steering us away from the madness of the past 8 years at least.

If you can tell already by my style of prose, I have a mild distrust and cynicism for the presidential election process itself - black box voting machines, two party duoply, etc. etc. And so I do not spend hours and hours dissecting policy positions amongst each of the major Democratic candidates. Perhaps in that regard, I am a little like the average voter in America...except that I do often scan articles on the Common Dreams website.

I've learned to be very suspicious of the media circus which feeds on politics in general, and the four year election cycle in particular. Okay, maybe Obama said something not very brilliant from a tactical point of view. I didn't read in his comments that he said he would follow Reagan's legacy and slash OSHA's budget for example. In any case, the mainstream media has a vested interested in keeping the mud flying and controversies boiling.

And to venture just slightly off topic, I have to ask am I the only one who notices, or has anyone else seen the difference in photo editing decisions made by big online newspaper outlets - AP, or New York Times, for example Hillary always seems to get a close up which shows her face well. Mr. Obama is always shown from a distance, lost a bit in the crowd, or showing the back of his head. Could this just be my imagination?

Rich M and a few others on this site are exactly correct.
Obama is a sleeper Republican and Hillary is a DLC/DNC corporate Democrat. In other words a Republican.
Kucinich is the only one worth a damn and he hasn't a snowball's chance.
So I'm going with Edwards, warts and all.
But you wanna know what else?
I just got a new passport and have put money down on property outside of the US.
I'm getting the hell outta here no matter who wins.

in 1976 rwr scared the piss out of me; my comment at the time was "who's he gonna pick for vp, some ex spook?"
so who does he pick ghw.
will obama be any better? would hillary?
me, i want al gore: voted for him last time, and would do so now!

One aspect I find compelling is how certain parts of the populace find solace in Obama's praise for Reagan.
Not because Obama mentions how Reagan delivered an optimistic, storybook image of the good-old-Cowboy
-America that John Wayne fans could sink their teeth into, but because Obama's message gives supporters
a license to attack the "excesses" they attribute to the democratic party. Ironically, blame falls on the democratic
party's shoulders. Of all the hellish policy decisions that have resulted since Ronald Reagan, we are told by
supporters, it is not because the democratic party became the DLC, thus, driving the party into conservative
framework. We are told America is where it is today because of the bedwetting-pinko-commie-hippy-limp-wristed
-liberals attack on everything wholesome. Last decade it was generation X and the "slacker's" multiculturalism
that was driving America into the brink.

I've heard the message before, just never from individual's claiming to support liberalism.
---------------
Nonetheless,

During his most conservative moments, Barack Obama presents himself as an American traditionalist
and a civic conservative. Americans, mas y menos , are much the same. Barack Obama argues in The Audacity
of Hope, America is ready to move on past the guilt of white burden. He offers America the chance to once again
embrace the image of American Exceptionalism but without the associations of the nasty bits multiculturalists
and post-colonial theorists attribute to the exploitation of Others. Instead, one can gloss over these issues and
move forward. Several have mused, is this simply a tactic to secure the disenchanted conservative?

One of the great triumphs of Mandela's election in South Africa was his ability to bring those guilty of racism and
bigotry, guilty of the exploitation of Others, to confess their guilt. The price for this confession was
no system of retribution. There would be no sentences or mass exploitation of an apologetic bigot.
Mandela transcended the system of retribution, a power structure long used to arrest African's progress.
Obama, on the other hand, appears to suggest a get out of jail card with no strings attached. American's can just pick up
where we left off in the chapter covering "Mainstreet, Anytown USA. Mr Smith goes to Washington" with its assortment
of exceptional imagery, and begin once again down the path of feel-good American foreign policy involving all the
youthful exuberance of the recent college graduate marched off to proclaim America's genuine interest to our third
world neighbors.

I think this is a risky problem progressives must face. Obama took center stage from John Kerry's 2004 platform.
Obama referred to Paul Wellstone as a gadfly. Obama went up against former Black Panther, Bobby Rush stating,
"part of what we are talking about is a transition from politics of protest to politics of progress...." Obama lost
2 to 1 against Rush.

"I would find myself in the curious position of defending aspects of Reagan's world view., ...I couldn't be persuaded
that U.S. multinationals and international terms of trade were single-handedly responsible for poverty around the world;
nobody forced corrupt leaders in Third World countries to steal from their people."
passage from, The Audacity of Hope.

The message about Reagan isn't all just about tactics, he believes what he says. He means what he does,
and one would be wise to understand his disciplines. A question for the progressive voter, will you accept the
results of concession with the historical fact progress never comes without conflict?

Militarism, materialism, racism are issues that must be addressed by opening up the floor, not by briskly moving past the issues
as if the exploitation of Others is something foreign, third world despots manufacture. This country is strong enough to do this
without executing vengeance against those who are guilty. Nor do we need to lambaste those who refuse to address white privilege
greatly defines the social foundations of the American myth of American Individualism. Today, non white men and women are more
equally represented than ever before in the US, however, in the Middle East, in Africa, the American myth falls on deaf ears.
Our country calls upon its leaders to end the conflict in the Middle East, the war in Iraq. But, how does one honestly do this when
one does not wish to broach the subject of racism, materialism and militarism? Perhaps the answer will never come from a
US presidential candidate, perhaps the answer will come from "third worlders" kicking American's out of their countries
regardless if Americans come as civilians instead of soldiers, and regardless if American's pitch grants instead of loans.

Too much! Sorry....

Later,
Rob

I intend to vote for the candidate who gives his/her full support to consitutional rights, impeachment, and ending the wars in Irag and Afganistan. It's either Kucinich, Edwards or Green. Gore's decision not to run has been a real disappointment.