Obama and the Reagan Wing of the Democratic Party

I would take issue with the notion that JFK was a transformative leader and LBJ was not. Kennedy spent much of his time encouraging the assassination of foreign leaders...Castro and Diem were two examples. There was the failed Bay of Pigs fiasco and we came frighteningly close to World War III over the Cuban missile crises. JFK was only in office for approximately 3 years and had a minimal legislative record. JFK was mainly style. LBJ, for all of his faults and the Gulf of Tonkin was a doozy, waged a real war on poverty and pushed through the Civil Rights Bill that Kennedy was only lukewarm about. The loss of the solid south to the democrats for decades has been a major transformative event.

My point on Obama's statenment about Reagan is that there are Democratic presidents who were transformative. If he wanted to mention a Republican who was positively transformative why not Theodore Roosevelt? It was his choice of Reagan without any comment about the terrible damage he did that was inexcusable and a little too cute for my taste. I do think that RFK had the potential to be a transformative leader and his murder was a terrible tragedy.

"Is it not monstrous?" – we wrote in March 1932. "The country can not get out of a famine of goods. There is a stoppage of supplies at every step. Children lack milk. But the official oracles announce: 'The country has entered into the period of socialism!' Would it be possible more viciously to compromise the name of socialism?" Karl Radek, now a prominent publicist [1] of the ruling Soviet circles, parried these remarks in the German liberal paper, Berliner Tageblatt, in a special issue devoted to the Soviet Union (May 1932), in the following words which deserve to be immortal:

"Milk is a product of cows and not of socialism, and you would have actually to confuse socialism with the image of a country where rivers flow milk, in order not to understand that a country can rise for a time to a higher level of development without any considerable rise in the material situation of the popular masses."

These lines were written when a horrible famine was raging in the country.

Socialism is a structure of planned to the end of the best satisfaction of human needs; otherwise it does not deserve the name of socialism. If cows are socialized, but there are too few of them, or they have too meagre udders, then conflicts arise out of the inadequate supply of milk – conflicts between city and country, between collectives and individual peasants, between different state of the proletariat, between the whole toiling mass and bureaucracy. It was in fact the socialization of the cows which led to their mass extermination by the peasants. Social conflicts created by want can in their turn lead to a resurrection of "all the old crap." Such was, in essence, our answer.

The 7th Congress of the Communist International, in a resolution of August 29, 1935, solemnly affirmed that in the sum total of the successes of the nationalized industries, the achievement of collectivization, the crowding out of capitalist elements and the liquidation of the kulaks as a class, "the final and irrevocable triumph of socialism and the all-sided reinforcement of the state of the proletarian dictatorship, is achieved in the Soviet Union." With all its categorical tone, this testimony of the Communist International is wholly self-contradictory. If socialism has "finally and irrevocably" triumphed, not as a principle but as a living social regime, then a renewed "reinforcement" of the dictatorship is obvious nonsense. And on the contrary, if the reinforcement of the dictatorship is evoked by the real demands of the regime, that means that the triumph of socialism is still remote. Not only a Marxist, but any realistic political thinker, ought to understand that the very necessity of "reinforcing" the dictatorship – that is, governmental repression – testifies not to the triumph of a classless harmony, but to the growth of new social antagonisms. What lies at the bottom of all this? Lack of the means of subsistence from the low productivity of labor."- Leon Trotsky, Chapter 3, Section 5

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch03.htm

Obama's position is not fundamentally different than even Leon Trotsky's opposition to the Stalinist version of the USSR that even amidst 'perestroika' was the version of the really-existing USSR.

"The so-called friends of the Soviet Union (left democrats, pacifists, Brandlerites, and the like) repeat the argument of the Comintern functionaries that the struggle against the Stalinist bureaucracy, i.e., first of all criticism of its false policies, "helps the counter-revolution." This is the standpoint of the political lackeys of the bureaucracy, but never that of revolutionists. The Soviet Union both internally and externally can be defended only by means of a correct policy. All other considerations are either secondary or simply lying phrases.

The present CPSU is not a party but an apparatus of domination in the hands of an uncontrolled bureaucracy. Within the framework of the CPSU and outside of it takes place the grouping of the scattered elements of the two basic parties: the proletarian and the Thermidorean-Bonapartist. Rising above both of them, the centrist bureaucracy wages a war of annihilation against the Bolshevik-Leninists. While coming into sharp clashes from time to time with their Thermidorean half-allies, the Stalinists, nevertheless, clear the road for the latter by crushing, strangling, and corrupting the Bolshevik Party."

"Only the creation of the Marxist International, completely independent of the Stalinist bureaucracy and counterposed politically to it, can save the USSR from collapse by binding its destiny with the destiny of the world proletarian revolution."- Leon Trotsky

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/germany/1933/330715.htm

Obama didn't say LBJ was a transformative leader, he said JFK was a transformative leader.

Why? Maybe because LBJ invented the Gulf of Tonkin incident? Maybe because LBJ used the Gulf of Tonkin incident as an excuse to 'go big' in Vietnam?

"If we allow Vietnam to fall, tomorrow we'll be fighting in Hawaii, and next week in San Francisco."- LBJ

What Obama said was that "Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not, and a way that Bill Clinton did not."

"Obama-Reagan Context You Have Not Read"

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/18/172928/040/265/439089

"I don't want to present myself as some kind of singular figure…I think what is different is the times…I think we're in one of those times right now. I think that we're bogged down in one of those times right now…I think Kennedy moved the country in a fundamentally different direction…I think the Republican approach has played itself out…What I'm saying is is that I think the average baby boomer has moved beyond the issues of the 60s, but our politicians haven't…Even when we discuss war our frame of reference is all Vietnam….Well that's not my frame of reference…My frame of reference is is what works...I thought strategically it was a mistake for us to go into Iraq."-Barack Obama

http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080115/VIDEO/80115026&o...

18 minutes in

bligh, my apology extended. Got carried away

KUCINICH SUPPORTER January 20th, 2008 1:09 am
Wow! What a beautifully written letter! A+++ Wish I could write like that!

What more does anyone need to know about Obama. Reagan was an irresponsible, aggressive and inept President. It isn't rocket science to borrow money to pay your bills and go on vacations. The difficulty comes in trying to manage the debt. That difficulty is visible now. Reagan started the decline of America. Perhaps that is a good thing and we can THANK HIM FOR IT.

There are good people out here. We deserve a president and vice president and a cabinet who will place the well-being of the people above that of the corporations. It's dubious that we can have that with the Clintons occupying the White House. It is doubtful that Hillary Clinton will be any different from Bill and listen to the people.
We have hope that Obama can do this, but we are not convinced. Edwards was sounding like us, but we are the poor masses, and he needed $$$$$$$$ to win in the primaries. Kucinich, a die hard Demorat, according to him, could really rock this country, if he loved it more than the party that betrays him. What's a Democrat anyway, but a name? The people who are dying or being incapacitated by war and homelessness and debt, and illnesses are real and deserve Kucinich's loyalty, not the party. And the media, the horrible, pitiful media --- what to say about them, when there are so many talking heads talking nonsense. We need a law passed that each and everyone of them are to be put on rationed airtime.

I just love the way Obama keeps shoveling how great Reagan was BS. Sorry to rain on your parade Obama, but here's some of the great things that Ronnie did:

He ratcheted up a civil war in El Salvador costing over 75,000 lives, creating hundreds of thousand of refugees, and blowback like the Mara Salvatruchas. Heck of job!

He financed and trained goons and thugs to overthrow the legitimate Sandinista government in Nicaragua. Lives lost, refugees fleeing Nicaragua, hyperinflation, and a broken economy resulted. But what the hey? Regan defeated the Soviets, eh? Hardeeharhar.

On the homeless: Reagan insinuated that the homeless are homeless because they want to be. Yeah right, I want to sleep under a bridge, and get the bums rush from thug police officers.

On the economy: Regan doubled the National Debt.

On the Drug War: mandatory minimums were ramped up, resulting in an exploding Prison Industrial Complex. Inner city youth were subjected to draconian sentences for possession of just a couple of rocks, while rich young white suburnanites get more leniency just because they take it in powder form.

Obama, I want to love you and support your candidacy, but every freakin' day you make that impossible! I'm voting third party. Democrats, Republicans and Obama can jump off a cliff! And Reagan can rest in piss for all I care!

If Obama should get the nomination he will lose in Novemeber. Then all the smart pundits can go around saying:

"Given the choice between a Republican and a Democrat who talks like a Republican the American peole will choose the republican every time".

Duh!

Damn- why do we alwyas forget about that? Damn Damn Damn.

cornelbox, You had better double up on the medication and lie down. calling everyone idiots is not the way to influence people.

"The pundits judged the political winds to be blowing in the direction of the President. Despite - or perhaps because of how much experience they had in Washington, too many politicians feared looking weak and failed to ask hard questions. Too many took the President at his word instead of reading the intelligence for themselves. Congress gave the President the authority to go to war. Our only opportunity to stop the war was lost.

I made a different judgment. I thought our priority had to be finishing the fight in Afghanistan. I spoke out against what I called "a rash war' in Iraq. I worried about, 'an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences.' The full accounting of those costs and consequences will only be known to history. But the picture is beginning to come into focus."- Barack Obama

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

http://icasualties.org/oif/

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

"All of us have heard this term 'preventative war' since the earliest days of Hitler. I recall that is about the first time I heard it. In this day and time… I don't believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower

"As Blair has said, in war there will be civilian was well as military casualties. There is, too, as both Britain and America agree, some risk of Saddam using or transferring his weapons to terrorists. There is as well the possibility that more angry young Muslims can be recruited to terrorism. But if we leave Iraq with chemical and biological weapons, after 12 years of defiance, there is a considerable risk that one day these weapons will fall into the wrong hands and put many more lives at risk than will be lost in overthrowing Saddam." -Bill Clinton, March 18, 2003

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,916233,00.html

"If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power."- Dwight D. Eisenhower

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower

"During a campaign swing for his wife, former President Bill Clinton said flatly yesterday that he opposed the war in Iraq "from the beginning" - a statement that is more absolute than his comments before the invasion in March 2003."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/us/politics/28clinton.html

"Bill Clinton's Own Fairy Tales on Obama's Views on Iraq"

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14219.html

"Hillary Clinton on Iraq"

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4802

iowablackbird January 18th, 2008 5:01 pm:
"pick your poison but choose it fast or we'll experience 32 consecutive years of bush/clinton."

32? How old is Chelsea?

You fools are crazy. You better support Hillary Clinton. What's at stake here are the selection of more Federal Judges, and perhaps Three Supreme Court Justices.
That's the only thing that matters at this point: Who controls the selection of the next round of judges.
Obama is ready, perhaps, in eight (8) more years when he becomes more politically savvy. Praising Ronald Reagan was foolish and reflected on his lack of historical political awareness.

FROM:
http://stormglass.blog.com/

A LETTER TO BARACK OBAMA - DO WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE

Dear Mr. Obama,

If you truly believe all of the things you profess to believe then I
feel that there is only once sensible course of action: throw your
full weight behind the candidacy of Dennis Kucinich and hope that he
will return the favor by asking you to be his running mate.

This is the truly revolutionary thing to do. Such an act would
convince the majority of Americans that you really do stand for hope
and change. It would also convince the vast majority of the world's
population, who are a good deal more savvy about such things than we
are, that we really are going to take our collective fingers off the
proverbial trigger.

Right now statistics show that the country is deeply disgusted with not
only the war but; the lies, the erosion of civil liberties, the so called war
on terror, the corruption of the media, the criminality in Washington, the
gangsterization of the private sector, the military complex and election
machinery. Many are demanding impeachment and we are all hungry
for a real democracy and an end to imperialistic doublespeak. We are all
pondering how those who kill, maim or torture millions around the world
over many decades through media manipulation and war could possibly
be held accountable. The answer escapes most because we are all ultimately
held accountable, through our actions. None are uninvolved.

With all due respect you do not appear to be on the path to providing us
with the complete legal and ethical overhaul this country, and even more
so the rest of the world, truly deserves. The song and dance the democratic
leadership is peddling is only mildly distinguishable from that which the neo-cons
are offering and everybody seems to knows it on one level or another.

If you remain on your current course your ability to change the system
from within will come up against the brick wall of the corporations who put
you in power in the first place. The only thing that might provide
you with the power to change the country for the better would be the
people themselves but they are not truly activated because you are cueing
them with a wink and a nod that you are not really about change in the
grand sense. Only enough change to be able to let some steam out of the
pot before spiraling down into a lame duck president mired in age old scandals.

The motivation of the people will be sapped significantly by our
bitter acceptance that you were just another politician who talked big
about change and hope but implemented and inspired very little of
either. We will have come to accept that hope does not come in the
form of handsome politicians who talk tough to get elected but
otherwise pretty much do what the ultra elite tell them to do.

You may score a few points with the people for normalizing relations
with the rest of the world and even more points from the elite for
helping to usher in their fabled new order but that certainly
isn't going to give you the kind of legacy historians will want to
write about fifty or a hundred years from now. At least not write
about kindly. History is of course a much more brutal adversary than
republicans and progressives. History may just look at this time in
America and see two types of people occupying all points of the
political spectrum. Those aiding and abetting fascism and those doing
everything in their power to reverse our decline into a culture of
death and imperialist destruction.

If as you read this letter you take a deep breath and look into the
depths of your being, the part where you ponder the world your
children and their children will be left with, if you dig deep enough
you may awaken to the merit of this suggestion. If when you search
down into that personal space you have a most important epiphany and
come to understand what is at stake and what is good, then you may actually
take this outlandish concept to heart. If you do, the very next day historians
will sharpen their pencils to write about the unfolding of one of the
most noteworthy events in modern history. Far bigger and broader and
earth shattering than simply becoming the first black president - and
that's saying a lot. That's how big such a move would be.

Your readjusting to such a clear position of integrity and courage
would be such a large scale act of humility and grace that it would
stand to eclipse all of the horrible events of the past few years.
Such a statement would show that you really are worlds apart from
Edwards and Hillary and give the American people the chance to step up
to the challenge and emulate your gesture by, themselves, doing what
needs to be done.

Your sudden act of clear, breathtaking leadership would encourage
people not only to support Kucinich's candidacy but also, even more
importantly to; start boycotting major corporations, start taking part
in the electoral process, start helping their neighbors get back on
their feet financially and otherwise transform themselves into better
people who are busy going about the business of creating a better world.

By singling out the one man who has been saying and doing the right
thing for the people of the world from the very beginning of this
national nightmare, you will be singling yourself out for the most
authentic form of political redemption. By embracing the man who has
implemented impeachment proceedings, and who accepts zero corporate
funding and who has the only truly not for profit universal healthcare
plan, you will be dramatically and unequivocally transforming your
words and positions into actions. Nothing would so boldly and
effortlessly place you among the truly heroic history makers of our time.

This is a time where we desperately need a new generation of founding
fathers and mothers to assume the reins in public life. So far, there
are only twenty-four signed on to Kucinich's impeachment bill. It is a
start. We could use a Senator! By placing your weight behind Kucinich,
who would institute a truly incorruptible, peace seeking, environment healing
administration you will be taking a much more profound position of leadership
than by seeking the presidency yourself.

By backing Kucinich you would instantly become part of a broad
tapestry of citizens who are leading America through perhaps the most
significant transformation in her entire history. A growing coalition
that will help the world move toward peace and cooperation. By
becoming part of this team of truth seeking advocates and protectors
of the greater global community you will allow history to smile upon
you. You will also be, after eight years of Kucinich, elected for two
terms as the person who people trust most to make sure we don't slide
backwards after all of our hard work.

It's a hard decision. We certainly know what your handlers would say. Good luck.

I read about half these comments before I couldn't take it anymore.

You're all missing the point. The impending financial collapse of our economy will dictate the characteristics of this society for decades to come.

And it ain't going to be pretty.

For those who just can't get your "head" around what is looming you will be shocked I guess. Try spending half your political blog reading time with financial/economic flavors and just maybe you'll start to grasp the gravity of what is just over the horizon.

Do you really think it matters who is President when unemployment grows to 20-30% and gangs of have-nots are roaming the land with their assault weapons, taking a piece of the pie they never had.

We're all fucked people and you better make yourselves spiritually focused for the catastrophe that will be visited upon this most unholy nation.

We are way beyond the point that either of these (or any imagined) criminal political parties matter anymore.

ubrew12, you are entirely incorrect.

It is not "attitudinal hardline" (which I take to mean having minimal standards) that resulted in Bush. It was also not voting Green. It was electoral fraud.

One more time: voting for a candidate whose policies and positions are diametrically opposed to yours makes a farce out of the electoral process.

ubrew- you been drikin too much of whatever. Ya don't get it. What's real is we get served up the same non-choice year after year, election after election. You want to do something about THAT?

Take the pledge - I'm NOT voting for Obama. I'm NOT voting for Clinton. Not now, not in November.

We ain't voting for no stinkin' Republicrats.

Join us -- get some petitions going. Make a difference.

Not in a box, not with a fox, not on a train, not in the rain...

John R. Hall said: "If it's not one of these two (Edwards or Kucinich), I'm going Green and I don't really care which Republocrat wins."
It's that attitude that gifted us GW Bush and all he's 'done' for America since. There are REAL stakes at play here, worthy of more than your attitudinal hardline. If a Republican does win next November, I believe the country will experience a REAL depression sometime in 2012 (i.e. like the Great Depression). Remember, most of the rich will, by that time, have the means to simply flee the nation should the nation come looking for some of their ill-gotten gains. Voting Green can make that happen. Sorry... its true.

There's only one candidate out of the top three that we can safely predict will do what they say they're going to do, and that's Hillary Clinton. We know her, and to know her is to fear her (at least she scares me).

Edwards says nice things but he conspired with Hillary to try to pull an NBC on Kucinich and Gravel, so we know he doesn't want us to hear what Kucinich has to say. What we don't know is why. He may be in on the fix, like Hillary obviously is, or he may want to eliminate Kucinich so he can be the "progressive" candidate. But what he does if and when elected, we just don't know.

Obama speaks well, but doesn't say anything when doing it. We don't know why. He could be doing what he has to do to get elected, which is avoid scaring the big corporations, with the plan being to pull and FDR on them once elected. Or he could be conning the little people into thinking he's on their side and, once elected, he could then pull a Reagan.

Basically, we're kind of driving blind, as far as I can tell, unless we vote for Hillary: then we'll at least know we're up a creek without a paddle.

Roll the dice, people.

Or we could vote for the invisible man. But that won't happen because most of us who can see him don't have the guts to vote for him, and the rest of us can't see him due to the mainstream media's super-duper, extra-special cloaking device.

Where is the justice? Where is the truth in advertising. Candidates and everyone else can say anything they think we want to hear, and there is no accountability. Yea, Reagan messed us up for a long, long time. He did make the biggest splash with the greatest reprecussions. That's true, but that he tapped into something that this country was ready for? Hogwash! What happened is that many just took the progressiveness of the day for granted, and Reagan snuck in on the fact that many didn't bother to vote at all. No more taking anything for granted.

You are right - He's JFK reincarnated. I won't vote for a reincarnated JFK.

dougnwagner
"We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people."
-John F. Kennedy

Okay in what way does Obama present us with with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values? Please enlighten me sir.

It's TIME to take the pledge - I will NOT vote for one more stinkin' Democrat who is jsut a Republican under a different name. There's not dime's worth of difference. There's no Ralph Nader who's gonna steal my vote away from these people. I will not vote for them period.

I will NOT vote for Obama. I will NOT vote for Clinton.
Period. I WILL NOT.

Sorry, I was hoping that was the case, Doug. But Nichols has a point.

"He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it."

It's not true, even if you go with a strict generic interpretation of the words. The country wasn't ready for Stockman and Friedman trickle down. It was ready for economic justice, not guns-for-drugs. Kids were born here to love and enjoy their parents, to hear about a job they could aspire to from their parents...not watch'em burn out at MickyDee's and chicken place. Good Lord, it's a travesty. Sacrifices still going under the heap'a stones, but this time it's a heap of debt. Nichols is right, and Reagan's way was way wrong.

He must have had the vision back in the day, but what happened? HE SHOULD BE IN CHARGE OF HIS CAMPAIGN, and my guess is he just went along with this Reagan shtick...rest'n on same as "true," like JAnthony & Bill from Sag, only in the most by-the-letter interpretation possible.

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.

what the good senator said is not absolutely true at all.

frank church and lt calley might have some light to shed on the excesses of the sicities and seventies and what reagan did was hijack despair, not tap into - or rather if reagan tapped into something then so did adolph hitler. if mr obama would like to make a point about the devastation that reagan's administration, the so called reagan revolution, brought to america he might have used more precise terms - instead he sounds like farrakhan trying to argue that hitler was "great" simply because he caused such a big splash.

all in all though very funny to see daniel david chime and offer the corporatist shill junk as usual - go democrats! woo hoo!

"Obama-Reagan Context You Have Not Read"

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/18/172928/040/265/439089

Since when did fighting for the working poor as a civil rights lawyer not count? Obama has been Progressive his entire life. And opposed the war when it mattered, 2002. Obama has more individual contributors to his campaign at this point in a campaign than any campaign in American political history. It's simply dishonest to suggest there is more popular support behind either Hillary or Edwards than Obama.

"Obama Forged Political Mettle In Illinois Capitol"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/08/AR200702...

"In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd" (Graphic of Illinois Legislation)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.htm

"Obama got start in civil rights practice"

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/02/20/obama_got_start_in...

The posts that follow Nichols' articles get better and better.

I said I'd put an end to my remarks re Obama-Campaign's stupid reaction to the Hillary remark [though I still don't know in what kind of larger conversation it was made--did she call the press and just say that?].

Yeah, the posts here say a lot...so much so that I am forced to respond having only reached RichM's 2:20.

It would be nice and kind of stealth-like to think Obama might do as iowablackbird hypothesized...once he got in PUSH THROUGH SOME DECENT LEGISLATION. But that would t-off all the Reagan buffs...and there'd be no solidartiy...back to that divided house Jim-Crow-in-Cyberspace finds so convenient.

I fully endorse RichM's point that one of the roles of the pres or future-pres should be to EDUCATE the people he is going to lead. There needs to be a fundamental breakdown of what is happenin. Nader was the best I've seen. He already had the issues broken down in his own mind extensively, and could spiel it forth. Bill understood'em but compromised and compromised and compromised (as a Dem though he got some things done, and maybe a Dem getting anythin done in that era was miracle enough [post Reagan zeitgeist]). So, all Bill's accomplishments were facilitated by a genius at wangling. And that can't do it this time. There are too many issues the radar's turnin up this time. Global warming doesn't even make these Dems' list for instance. Edwards' words were great, but IMO...when he's got the floor/camera...he's gotta let it rip faster and smoother with full-on broad stroke messages re the joined issues of the BROKEN SYSTEM (ok to pound it to get attention at outset sure). Solutions like giving everyone 300 bucks are so short term even Wall Street can see through'em. But candidates are not allowed to point this out?!?! Edwards needs to get up there and explain how reinstituting a CCC would boost the economy AND CREATE VALUE AT THE SAME TIME.

Of course, a guy like Kucinich could EDUCATE too, maybe even better than Nader (it would seem better cause the issues are heavier). However, it appears the Obama's handlers are resorting to tactics the likes of which Kucinich did not at all perceive. Lord have mercy, he could get it! And might have voted for him...before all this. Given the stakes one could say...ok they've used every trick, now we'll invoke Reagan. But the EDUCATION point is CRUCIAL, CRUCIAL, CRUCIAL! Huckleberry's talkin amendments that'll make everything simple'n better while I've got Palestine/Israel books on my shelf multiplying like rabbits. It's downright scary!

Obama may be trying to lure Republican like voters, but with his reference to Reagan, he will lose any liberal or common-sense voters who are blantantly aware of the harm Reagan caused. Edwards faced this balloney and political rhetoric with the truth and because he is willing to tell the Americans the truth as does Kucinich, then he will lose. I wish people would shut off the tube and read more and ignore all the hype and nonsense of this next Presidential election. And Obama needs to go back to school and major in Government.

lakiesel, you appear bright, but docile. Get more fire in you. These right wingers are vicious.

Just to clarify: Obama and Clinton did sign onto Boxers-Sanders at the last minute only after it was destined to fail. Try findind Obama's remarks on why he didn't sign on to them sooner...I found them interesting and disheartening....

I will start with a term: "liquefied coal." Heard of it? I have an issue that I am very concerned about, which is climate change and the environment. I am so concerned about the future of this planet, I seriously am considering not having children. And I admit myself to be bitter against the generations that preceded me and are still here, who refuse to look at the facts, including those in D.C. where I once lived and worked. That being said, on the issue of climate change, Edwards has been the most original and assertive in his platforms. By contrast, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton didn't sign onto aggressive legislation proposing the necessary 80% cuts by 2050 (on the Boxers-Sanders bill, formerly the the Boxers-Jeffords bill). Edwards did, months in advance, and came out with a climate platform months in advance, and was the first to commit to speaking at the Step It Up! rallies. Back to liquefied coal: Barack Obama sponsored legislation to begin widespread implementation of it into cars. Be not fooled, there's no clean way to do this. Why did he do this? Ask the coal lobby. In two weeks, Judy Bonds will be coming to our Focus the Nation event to speak about the horrors of mountain-top removal for coal extraction. Her town was destroyed as are many in the Appalachian region, where the kids normally have asthma and bronchitis (perhaps some of you have heard about the coal silos they have behind an elementary school in W.Va just waiting to rupture). My point here is Edwards is the only person to not support the liquefied coal bill of the main D frontrunners, likewise he is against nuclear expansion (And a phase-out to nuclear arms), AND when he was in Senate he was the only one to really work to get MTR out of the plans. That speaks volumes to me. It also says something that when he was in Iowa, he was the only one to come out in support of a moratorium of large CAFOs that were causing health problems among the local, rural poor.

I will not say I am not concerned by the contradictions in his voting record (but to be fair, please look at Obama's and Clinton's, as well as funding. Obama's is particularly hypocritical) but at least he broaches the topics I care about, which is certainly not winning him popularity points with the media and bettering his overall chances. Neither is his lack of corporate funding. That being said, I have to guess there is some sincerity there. Clinton and Obama have made no such aggressively detailed calls, and what I don't care for is people pointing out the contradictions of Edwards and then supporting Clinton or Obama, who not only have their own contradictions but still propose a conservative platform outright. Yes, Edwards supported the war, but he's the only one firm against it now when he is not indebted to the state. HE was the first one and the only one to really talk about domestic poverty and healthcare. Make no mistake, as long as healthcare is in the hands of the corporations, it will remain broken. He is the only one of the frontrunners who talks about taking it out of their hands. I look at his past and see he fought for people in lawsuits against companies that hurt them, pro bono unless the proceedings were fortuitous and see he has started a think tank against poverty. That doesn't seem like someone who is all hot air about these issues.

I grew up in an innerc-city neighborhood on welfare. My family is fraught with illnesses that they can't address because of paltry healthcare. It is my generation that will have to deal with the repercussions of global warming, so I don't have the fucking luxury to gamble on abstractions of "hope" and "change" without any substance. I will vote for the person who is broaching the topics I care for now and has at least a chance in hell at winning. We get the wrong person in on climate change, and all other issues will be moot, because we'll have written up humanity's collective death sentence (and taken a lot of other creatures with us).

Finally: Reagan? Christ, what next?

I am voting Edwards and if he loses I am going Green or Independent (Since it won't matter in my state).

I challenge any of these clowns writing these articles listed in Common Dreams to get on television and acknowledge the FACT that George W Bush was sued for rape and sexual harrassment on December 2, 2002, in Ft Bend County Texas.
They'll never do it. Because they're cowards

Make Americans feel good about themselves again!

Promise Change with a Capital C!

Deliver the STATUS QUO!

Did you idiots know that the Jews in Israel are not the Jews spoken of in the bible?
Do you imbeciles know anything?
Read the book by the GREAT WHITE JEWISH Historian, Arthur Koestler, THE THIRTEENTH TRIBE written in 1976.
There were NO WHITE JEWS until the 7th Century AD. White Jews are NOT SEMETIC People as CLEARLY outlined by Kostler in his book.
You fools know nothing. The original Jews are like the Ethiopian Falasha Jews airlifted out of Ethiopia in 1995 by the Israel Government. They know the Truth. They've even admitted that the Falasha Jews are older than any sect of White Jews. White Jews originated from the Khazar Empire and Turkey. That's a DOCUMENTED FACT.
Whites were not even MENTIONED in the bible until reference was made of the Roman Occupancy in the New Testament.

If Jesus Christ were running for King of the Jews as an Obama-style messianic meta-politician, the Gospels would be full of statements like, "I think that ordinary Jews responded to something about the Pharisees' commitment to the whitest sepulchres possible, and that we need to reach out and connect with the Pharisees instead of employing the broken plow of Negative and Adversarial Politics as Usual.

"It's time to get past the divisive politics cemented in place after the Slaughter of the Innocents-- I don't share or endorse certain specific solutions employed by Herod, but it's still possible to learn and be inspired by the courage and determination he showed in difficult times.

And while I don't necessarily endorse the execution of John the Baptizer, it's worth noting that a national leader must maintain the broadest possible appeal, and not allow Himself to be drawn into controversies generated by the extremist, uncompromising politics of fringe groups. For these reasons, I believe that I am uniquely qualified to be your Messiah."

The reason White Middle Class working people supported Reagan was for RACE REASONS! Reagan made white people feel comfortable about being bigots.
1) This asshole Reagan refused to meet with the Congressional Black Caucus
2) This asshole Reagan appointed only three Black Federal Judges to the bench in his eight years, in contrast to Jimmy Carter who appointed 35 Blacks to federal bench in 4 years.
3) Reagan said about Martin Luther King before signing his birthday bill into law: "One day, Americans will know the truth about this guy." (Reagan accused King of being a communist)
4) This asshole Reagan vetoed the Trade Sanctions Act against Apartheid South Africa in 1986.
5) Reagan built his political strength on Racism, telling crowds coded racist messages like "Welfare Cadillac mothers."
6) This asshole Reagan only appointed one Black to his cabinent, the HUD Secretary, who ended up getting indicted.
7) The KKK endorsed Reagan in 1980 and in 1984.

Nancy Reagan, his racist wife, was the step-daughter of Dr. Loyal Davis of Chicago, who hated Blacks.

Reagan may not have personally been a racist, but he was driven by a White Racist support base.

"What I think really ticks you off about Obama and Obama supporters is you now realize how much of this country doesn't care what old left gatekeepers like Bill Clinton, John Edwards, and LBJ really stood for."

Personally, what really ticks me off about Obama supporters is their tendency to avoid issues while attacking the motives of those who don't prefer a Lieberman protegé who has voted to fund the Iraq war.

The idiotic effort at generational divide-and-conquer politics is a secondary issue.

Have a bipartisan day.

What Obama said was that "Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not, and a way that Bill Clinton did not."

Is anyone making the case that Bill Clinton fundamentally altered America? Free trade shipped jobs overseas and was definitely to the right of Obama's core positions on fair trade. I think many Obama-haters simplify Obama's point to make a simple inference about what you think Obama is saying. Obama is talking about the failure of the culture war politiicans to solve anything.

"I don't want to present myself as some kind of singular figure…I think what is different is the times…I think we're in one of those times right now. I think that we're bogged down in one of those times right now…I think Kennedy moved the country in a fundamentally different direction…I think the Republican approach has played itself out…What I'm saying is is that I think the average baby boomer has moved beyond the issues of the 60s, but our politicians haven't…Even when we talk about war our frame of reference is the Vietnam War…Well that's not my frame of reference…My frame of reference is is what works."-Barack Obama

http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080115/VIDEO/80115026&o...

18 minutes in

In November of 2008, we are going to elect a President that could name the replacements for three liberal Supreme Court Justices:

John Paul Stevens b 1920
Ruth Bader Ginsberg b 1933
Anthony M Kennedy b 1936

The next President must be immune to manipulation by religious fruitcakes. No Repug candidate can claim immunity but All the Democrats are out of reach to Robertson, Dobson, LeHay, etal. The nominee of the Democratic Party HAS to be electable.

"Left gatekeepers"? Now that's a loaded statement if I ever read one. LBJ most probably had something to do with JFK's assassination since he had the power to conduct an honest investigation -- but did not. LBJ also knew about the fabrications of Tonkin. If that's "left" what's "right?"

So let's get back to objectivity here. Rich and poor, powerful and powerless, autocracy/plutocracy and democracy. How does Obama measure up there?

tailcap,

the truth hurts doesn't it? Edwards will say anything to win. Kucinich and Feingold are absolutely correct. IF you had a VALID argument for Edwards, it wouldn't be the simplistic sheepish nonsense that 'his rhetoric is tough' or that 'he was right about Ronald Reagan'.

If Edwards had any spine he would have stood up to Bush and voted against the war in 2002. I support Obama because he has a spine and opposed the war when opposing the war mattered, 2002. Edwards did not. Hillary did not. They voted for the Dick Cheney Energy Plan to invade Iraq and take the oil instead.

What I think really ticks you off about Obama and Obama supporters is you now realize how much of this country doesn't care what old left gatekeepers like Bill Clinton, John Edwards, and LBJ really stood for.

"We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people."
-John F. Kennedy

DP iberals squabbling over who is 'better' is so pathetically sordid. Let me see, Mr. Ed, Pillory, or Ronald Obama? Why not build a politically liberal movement tied to known of the above? It's late, better get going!

Paul Bramscher

The above post is outstanding! I remember the Reagan Era very well. They used to call me "the commie" where I worked, because I opposed Reagan's policies.

The super-rich spent millions of dollars creating think tanks (propaganda ministries) in order to mold American opinion toward the policies advantageous to them. These are the "black magicians" using subtle phrases for ideas they know the public will rally to, and unless people read between the lines, they will believe the deceptive information. The Corporate Media (CM) has fine-tuned the propaganda so well, that the public believes they are hearing honest news and commentary.

I am one person, one vote and will not prostitute my values. On February 5th, I'll be voting for Dennis Kucinich in the California Primary.

Tumbleweed, 10;19am

Perfect! Correct! A+

As a trade-unionist, I was so ashamed how labor voted for Ronnie after the Patco fiasco.
Ignorance is not bliss, it is unforgivable.

dougnwagner January 18th, 2008 7:48 pm
"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..."

dougnwagner January 18th, 2008 7:55 pm
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...."

Don't waste your time people. I just realized that dougnwagner isn't even real. He is actually a computer program written by Obama supporters that automatically responds to any mention of Obama's name with the same 3 or 4 arguments; for example, there's the one about he didn't vote for the war initially, Federalist #10, or the bundlers etc. If you scan around different posts you'll see what I mean. How clever!

The program called dougnwagner utilizes fuzzy logic which is embedded into the chip. Fuzzy logic enables it to come with variations of the same theme that appear to human-written and new but are actually the same computer- generated stuff you read last time.

George Orwell actually predicted the invention of fuzzy logic and you can read about it in the addendum to 1984. He foresaw that the job of the propagandists would some day be so overwhelming that an invention would be needed to enable them to efficiently complete their tasks and have enough time to spend with their families.

Considering my husband has been union for close to 50 years now. I think I know a little about what Reagan did for unions. He almost single-handedly destroyed them! And the blow he dealt the middle class should go down in the history books. I know he was good at saying he believed in unions so we would vote for him, but when it came down to the crux of it. He was typical Republican strictly for big business and anti labor. Because that was when it became more difficult for us to work. That's also when a lot of us who have to work for a living started voting our paychecks. We stopped slitting our own throats with Republican's and started going with Democrats. So I don't know where the statement came from that Reagan was a friend of unions because he wasn't. Reagan ranks right up their behind George W Bush in having done more to destroy the middle class than any other President. He might have a one time been friendly to unions but by the time he was in the White House he was out to get them. And when they went so did the decent wages and middle class. Because it was good wages that made the middle class.

Mijari,

Reagan's success was totally inseparable from the free ride he got from the corporate media (CM) -- a period of complete propaganda, worse than now (no internet back then). He was the media's darling, it was the death of investigative journalism. The "Great Communicator" who was hard of hearing. A goddamned joke really. Either Obama was out of the country in the 80's and missed all this, or he needs to read a copy of "Reagan's Reign of Error" ASAP. Though there's no doubt that Obama is simply onboard with this.

The reason the corporate media (CM) message stuck was its relentless propaganda, a generally politically illiterate populace (worse than now), and a peculiar problem of dualisms. Note that Hitler had his Arayans and his Jews, Bush had his "Coalition of the Willing" and the terra-ists. After McCarthyism, Reagan advanced the front-line to liberalism (into bourgois territory itself), and forged the illusion that the Democrats were ultra-"leftists" (rather than the authoritarian/center-"right" party they are).

So Reagan and the propaganda machine created two (wholly imaginery) worlds: conservatives and liberals. All the evil of the world was the result of imaginery liberalism. In this simple dualistic arrangement, many people then decided to commit suicide -- jump out of the frying pan and into the fire. In such an artificial/binary world, there is no room for Greens, Libertarians, Socialists, Progressive Populists, Communitarians, honest people, etc. The Boomers were the first -- and only -- generation wholly brainwashed on a narrow range of corporate TV networks. Today we've got cable, the internet, blogs, etc.

But the bottom-line was that "left" and "right" are whored out terms by this point. There remains just rich and poor, powerful and powerless and a useless and incoherrent mess in both of the corporate parties. They, and the Corporate Media, should be offshored ASAP before they run this country straight to the ground.

Andrea

Thank you for a display of honesty, common sense and integrity on your post. I stand with you and the others who haven't been manipulated by the corporate media prostitutes. The real progressive candidate, as you mentioned above, is Dennis Kucinich.

As you can see, the 'left' is best when it quarrels about who's better, who's worse, so on and so forth. And they continue to lose. I'm a trade-unionist and even the various unions are backing candidates which are not to enthusiastic in supporting labor issues.

Forty years of a dumbing down of American society truly has paid off for the ruling-class. We get what we deserve. A military budget out of sight, and a willfully ignorant public who cares less about universal health care, good retirement pensions, decent wages and working conditions, higher environmental standards, (Europe is way ahead of us) and a commitment to Peace in the world instead of threats of armed force by the D.C. war-mongers.

The public will sell out for "thirty pieces of silver."

Mijari January 19th, 2008 8:05 am
"Why did so many white middle and working class people support Reagan?"

Because Reagan convinced them that, one day, they'll be rich.

Very nicely put. My father (may he rest in peace) always used to say that.

Edwards left The Country Club, I mean the Senate, to start a non-profit/think tank to fight poverty. That's what he's been doing for the past four years. Not your typical plan to prime the pump for the 2008 election cycle.

I have had my doubts about Edwards. I don't like some of his voting record as much as I don't like the voting records of HRC and Obama. But when he left the Senate, started his campaign in ravaged New Orleans, followed the 1968 RFK campaign trail, and most importantly started to attack corporate greed, he got my attention.

Edwards 2008

"Why did so many white middle and working class people support Reagan?"

Because Reagan convinced them that, one day, they'll be rich. And they support tax cuts for the rich, because they think that one day they'll be rich. I guess that's the 'American Dream'... dream on.

Mike, be sure to thank your corporate sellout candidate for voting for the war that continues to devastate thousands of lives you pathetic Edwards voter.

Dennis Kucinich: "In answer to your questions about why I didn't support former Senator John Edwards on the second ballot in Iowa: I have serious concerns about his connections to a Wall Street hedge fund, Fortress Investment Group. While attacking others for accepting campaign money from Washington lobbyists, he is up to his ears in money from Wall Street special interests.

He made half a million dollars in a single year for attending a few meetings for Fortress and has invested a substantial part of his own personal wealth in the hedge fund whose portfolios are responsible for sub-prime predatory lending practices, Medicare privatization, and an entire range of corporate sharp dealings that are driving the middle class into poverty."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132×3969318

And Heidenheimer, you say Kucinich is DLC? You're so full of it. Kucinich endosred Obama in Iowa for a second choice because he sees through the DLC Edwards and Clinton's b.s. and like most Progressives he thinks it matters who voted for the Iraq War, and who voted against it.

Edwards is done. Get over it. Thank the good voters of Iowa and New Hampshire.

Top Contributors to Edwards Campaign
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00002283&cycle=2008

#2 Contributor

Fortress Investment Group

"The hedge fund that employed John Edwards markedly expanded its subprime lending business while he worked there, becoming a major player in the high-risk mortgage sector Edwards has pilloried in his presidential campaign."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/10/AR200705...

From John Edwards' Op Ed in September/October Foreign Affairs:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901faessay86502/john-edwards/reengagi...

"We need a new path, one that will lead to reengagement with the world and restoration of the United States' moral authority in the community of nations. President Harry Truman once said, "No one nation alone can bring peace. Together, nations can build a strong defense against aggression and combine the energy of free men everywhere in building a better future for all." For 50 years, presidents from Truman and Dwight Eisenhower to Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton built strong alliances and deepened the world's respect for us. We gained that respect by viewing our military strength not as an end in itself but as a means to protect a system of laws and institutions that gave hope to billions across the globe. In avoiding the temptation to rule as an empire, we hastened the fall of a corrupt and evil one in the Soviet Union. The lesson is that we cannot only be warriors; we must be thinkers and leaders as well."
.........

"Millions of people imprisoned behind the Iron Curtain silently cheered the day President Reagan declared, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" Even if these ordinary men and women did not always agree with our policies, they looked to our president and saw a person -- and a nation -- they could trust."

Why the hell did any of them bother trying to get their endorsement? What is wrong with them? Obama perpetuating the right-wing myths of Ronald Reagan, especially considering his open hostility of civil rights, was absolutely stunning.

The fact that Reagan is no longer considered even controversial by many today is the most disturbing fact.

Good Grief!! What is the matter with all of you? This is supposed to be a PROGRESSIVE site. KUCINICH is the only Progressive running for Our President.

Doesn't the fact that GE blocked him from debating on nbc with the three "faces" in Las Vegas say enough for all of you? Kucinich is the only one that would at least seriously try to do something for all of us!

Doesn't getting rid of the insurance companies, so all of us can afford health care, sound good?

Doesn't diplomacy instead of endless war sound good?

Doesn't fixing our crumbling infrastructure sound good?

Doesn't seriously working on renewable energy so we can finally not be dependent on dictators who torture their citizens sound good?

Hell, doesn't getting rid of torture as a policy of OUR OWN COUNTRY sound good?

I'm voting for Kucinich if I have to write him in!!! I'm campaigning for Kucinich with the first bumper sticker I have ever put on any car I've owned! I wear a big button on my coat every time I step out of the house! I'm phoning and talking and trying to get the dumbed-down electorate to listen! I don't expect to have to go through that here, too... good grief.

Wake up and quit writing to hear yourselves talk and vote for the only one who gives a shit about all of us! It is my vote and I will use it to vote for the one who agrees with my stands on the issues. I will not give my vote to anyone who doesn't. You only have one vote just like I do...use it for what YOU WANT!

I'm finished with Obama. Whenever anyone praises Reagan, I throw up my hands. Reagan is the greatest revisionist history fraud in the annuals of US Politics.
Reagan sold arms to terrorists behind the backs of American citizens in violation of all kinds of laws, including the 1979 US Arms Embargo against Iran, and also the US Arms Export Munitions Control Act
Also, in the channeling of funds to the Contras Reagan violated the Boland Amendments which he himself signed into law.
Right Wingers make absurd claims that Clinton should have captured Bin Laden, and Liberals never point back in the face of Right Wingers that their hero, Ronald Reagan, illegally sold weapons to the terrorist nation of Iran.

Same ol' defensive minded article. When will Dems learn that the best defense is an offense.
I debate right wingers all the time. When they bring up the Clinton sex crap, I say hey --- if a Democrat type Kenneth Starr was allocated $85 million to investigate George W Bush's private life --- what would they find?
First of all, the ONLY President in the history of this country to ever be SUED for Rape is George W Bush. He was SUED by Margie Schoedinger on Dec. 2, 2002, in Ft Bend County Texas. This is a FACT! 9 months later, Schoedinger committed suicide.
Why don't Dems ever mention this?
Tammy Phillips, an exotic dancer in Austin came out in 1999 and said she had a 9 month affair with George W Bush while he was Governor of Texas. Only the National Enquirer gave her an interview. Afterwards, she disappeared.
Why don't the Dems ever mention this?
Air America host, Randi Rhodes, told Bryan Lamb on CSPAN that Laura Bush had moved out of the Whithouse and into the Mayflower hotel because of a dispute with George.
Why don't the Dems ever mention this?
Selene Walters, a hollywood actress, was interviewed in the April 29, 1991, issue of People Magazine and said that in 1952 Ronald Reagan Raped her.
Why don't the Dems ever mention this?
Democrats are coward debaters. They just take punches and defend. They never go on offensive. They're too scared.

Here's another link to a similar article over at TruthOut -
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011808N.shtml
EDWARDS '08

Mahadeva and PJD are exactly right.
Dougnwagner - Put a sock in it!
This is not the first time Obama has done this, embracing right-wing talking points. He did the same thing talking about the need to keep Social Security from going bankrupt. Next thing you know, he'll be talking privatization!
EDWARDS '08

xntrk

You know your history!

To those who think a Democrat will be more responsive to the needs of the working people in this country, I suggest you spend some time studying the Clinton 1992 campaign and his record as President.

Our 'objective' press condemned him as a Liberal, while he was busy extending all the pro-business, anti worker program of the Reagan/Bush era. I think much of the apathy of the US voter is due to the Tweedle-Dee/Tweedle-Dum choices we are offered election after election.

It's almost fifty years since this so-called Democracy presented us with a choice [Goldwater/Johnson certainly appeared to be a choice] Truth is the last major Progressive, Liberal, Left-Wing Candidate for President was Henry Wallace in 1948.

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.

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 issu