Political Punch

After reading a totally incorrect parsing of Obama's comments about Reagan, I started searching for the original quote and it's context. About an hour later, I finally found your blog. Congratulations for being the ONLY person who actually gave the source and context for the remarks, enabling me to come to an informed opinion! Almost everything else I have read, on both sides of politics, is simply reacting to second or third hand versions. So, THANK YOU!

DIVIDEAND posted January 20 is very revealing and I believe it. Before I wasn,t saying much but this piece you wrote stopptd me in my tracks!

Listen, I caught the soundbite of this, specifically him talking about Reagan, and I said, "What's the big deal?" As if he's the only Democrat to EVER praise Ronald Reagan. And he wasn't even PRAISING Reagan; he just said that Reagan "Changed the country's trajectory." That doesn't mean he thought it was good. As far as the "party of ideas" comment, he was talking about how the Republicans painted themselves from Reagan through Bush Jr. I'm so sick of Hillary Clinton's attacks, and then her cries of, "Oh, all the men are picking on me because I'm a woman!" Look, no one is attacking Hillary because she's a woman. The people who've attacked Hillary Clinton attacked her because they don't think she should be president. Simple as that. I don't see how this could be called "Pulling the race card." That never entered into the statement he gave. At all. Are those radio ads wrong? Yes. But Obama doesn't have control over them. They aren't his ads, not paid for with his money, and he has no real affiliation with them whatsoever. What, because the people who made it support him? So what? There are wingnuts who support every candidate. There was a huge anti-Obama mailing in New Hampshire and no one said a thing. Don't get me started on that mess. Obama's got the cleanest hands of any candidate, and even if they aren't immaculate, they're not half as filthy as Hillary Clinton's.

DIVISIVE…DIVISIVE Hill and Slick Willy have done it again only this time they have managed to do UNREPARAGEABLE DAMAGE TO THEIR OWN PARTY. Lets start with the states: when HRC thought she was about to loose in NH, she played the gender card poured on the tear- and split the women against the men… on to SC; she divides the Blacks against the Whites. Coming out of the Nevada she wants YOU ALL to be aware it was the White Females and Latino vote that carried her this time. SO what might I ask are you to say if you are Asian, or if you are an Indian American, oops I am sorry your vote doesn't matter because it is time to DIVIDE OVER RACE, AND GENDER PRIDE!! Instead of recognize that ALL Americans are suffering, and care about the economy, healthcare and education. How pathetic, I would like to serve notice on those you pulling for her BEFORE her campaign began 40% of Americans said they would not vote for her after what I have seen if HILLARY CLINTON IS THE CHOICE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY I TOO AM VOTING McCain. At least I know I would get someone who lust for the white house wouldn't pit the whole county against each other.

If the ad is true, and Obama didn't sponsor it, why should he denounce it, because it hurt Hillary's feelings and may make her cry? Give me a break. She and her husband have acted SHAMELESSLY in this campaign, and the DID try to disenfranchise the casion workers, and the DID stack the deck in favor or the casino workers because the ASSUMED they would get the endorsement. Your reap what you sow. Senator Obama has nothing to apologize for.

Hawaii used to have an open primary. You would walk into the precinct and they would hand you a packet with ballots for each party. You would then go into a booth and select the ballot that you wanted. You placed the desired ballot in one folder and all of the others in another clearly marked folder. Then you would exit that booth and drop the folder with the discarded ballots in a locked container; and then stand in line until a voting booth opened up.

I personally prefer closed primaries. Why should members of other parties be involved in the nomination selection process of another party? That would be like shareholders of Pepsi being allowed to vote when the shareholders of Coca-Cola elect their Board of Directors.

i hope someone from 'nev ah da' clarifies this first hand for us. thanks james

Lori, it is my understanding that in Michigan, like in some other states, you didn't have to re-register in order to crossover. You could remain with your declared party but still vote in another party's primary or caucus. But when we have so many different rules for not only the different states but even for the different parties within the same state is can be extremely confusing. As for Nevada, it is even more confusing for the voters because this is their first caucus after having only primaries.

james d, here we are again. i believe the person can choose either ballot for nevada on that day. there was no problem with it in michigan(tho' i didnt cross over)it would have been easy to do..

Tom, I read the sentence differently. "If you are not on the list (of registered Democrats) AND are NOT registered, then you can register..." To me that means if you are not on the list but ARE registered (thus with another party) then you cannot register. Only if you are NOT registered (with another party). IF this sentence was supposed to be consistent with the other statement, they could have -- and should have -- written it plain and simple. Such as:

"If you are not a registered Democrat and want to participate in the Democratic Caucus, whether you are registered with another party or not registered, but are eligible to vote, you may complete a registration form and participate on the day of the caucus. If you will be 18 by November 4, 2008 and are otherwise eligible to vote, you may participate in the caucus."

To me that is a very precise and clear statement. But the information that is on the Democratic Party's website is confusing. But worse yet, the information on the Nevada Secretary of State's website, as you pointed out, is incomplete. But without the other statement saying that Republicans and Independents can change registration to become a Democrat, I don't see how anyone can come up with a different conclusion than the one I drew.

democratic or republican, if you can't see that what Obama was saying was real, you are kidding yourself.Kennedy did change the political mindset. Reagan did change the political mindset. Admitting that Michael Jordan changed basketball doesn't mean you like the way he plays. It means you can see reality. I'm tired of the divisiveness, being able to unite people is an incredible gift to a country that has grown increasingly divided since the inception of talk radio. Obama and Huckabee have messages of unity. I'm glad they are here.

I find it disgusting that everything Obama says, Clinton said nearly the same thing earlier but she twists it around to make him into the bad guy. She even praised Reagan, she advocated talking to our enemies. She even stole part of his economic policy. But the biased public LOOKING for a reason not to vote for Obama will eat this up as Gospel. It is NOT heresy to admire qualities in your adversary. Factually, Obama was correct. In 1979-80 America was feeling really crappy. Vietnam haze, Nixon scandals, inflation, gas rices, Shah and Iranian hostages, military and government falling apart. So
yeah, Reagan helped fix these things. Whether you like him or not, that record stands. Some of his domestic policies were ridiculous. And I don't think Obama was agreeing with that. I think he is REALLY overestimating the intelligence of the American people. He should have a disclaimer with all his remarks for the slow and willful spinmasters.

And as for the Spanish Ads. He can't FORCE a 3rd party to do anything. He can say its bad, blah, blah. But its their money. That's like Hillary actually telling Bob Johnson to shut up. Which we know didn't happen. Did she feel so noble when those false mailers went out in NH that helped her?

Reagan didn't "tap in to what [I was] feeling" and give me the "clarity" and "optimism" that I "wanted" and give me the "sense of dynamic ... entrepreneurship that had been missing." Reagan, amongst other things, allowed for the AIDS epidemic in America to explode because he didn't care about gay men and poor african americans. But I guess it's nothing that a little sunny "optimism" and "hope" can't cure.

Obama can change which foot is in his mouth all by himself.

He voted for full funding of Bushes War even though he verbalized otherwise.

His Eloquence were not his actions.

I do not believe that Obama should - or can - "call off" the UNITE ads. That is a union speaking for itself, and it seems to be furious that Clinton backers would try, at the nth hour, to disenfranchise them because they backed Obama. Let them vent, I say. There is nothing in their ads that is factually inaccurate or misleading one bit. That is a huge difference between them and the abortion flyers that the Clinton campaign spread in NH.
And, tonewise, if they want to call her shameless and disrespectful, well, they do have a point. And it's their money. They are not an Obama PAC; they have their own agenda and they existed before Obama came along. Part of their agenda is not being prevented from caucusing because of who they endorsed.

It's hard to mute Hillary's constant refrain about her 35 years of experience. Well, that would give her about the same experience as George Bush--and look what we had to endure since he took office since day one!!!

Join Obama to restore the image of the US.

If Americans can't pay attention to what a candidate says and THINK, then we deserve to get the status-quo and all of the fallout that comes with it.

OBAMA 08!

Who are the defenders of the status quo ? Is that you ?
Reagan did spawn a 'sea change' in American politics.
Obama hopes to spawn a new 'sea change'. Change based on the ideals of unity - not division (and certainly not modeled after Reagan's ideas)
How can anyone look at the state of modern politics and the outlook for our country guided by our current stautus quo - how can this 'sea change' of unified working government not make sense.
Anyone who has paid any attention knows what Obama is speaking of about the Republican Party being guided by 'ideas' for the past 15 years... you don't have to subscribe to those ideas but they are, none the less, ideas. The same could be said of the Democratic party of the late 50's and into the 60's - Kennedy Idealism. Both of these movements ran their course and were watered down by time. That explains the state of the Democratic Party in the 70's and 80's. It also explains the 'washed out' state of the Republican Party today.
--- Why do 'we' resent being talked to as if we had the capacity for knowledge. That is how Barack Obama is speaking to America... as if 'we can' understand. Why would we sell ourselves short and believe that we are past our zenith... that we are a declining people. Come on people... Now is the time to show some strength of character.

Barack Obama for President of the UNITED States of America.

James,
Yes, it is the case that anyone of any party CAN vote in the Democratic caucuses.

Do NOT spread misinformtion here when you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

"Republicans, nonpartisans and others can change registration to become a Democrat that day."

Tom, that is actually NOT the case. The Nevada Secretary of State's website states:

(Regarding the Democratic Caucus) "Open to all registered Democrats. If you are not already registered but eligible to vote, you may complete a registration form and participate on the day of the caucus. If you will be 18 by November 4, 2008 and are otherwise eligible to vote, you may participate in the caucus."

(Regarding the Republican Caucus) "Open to all Republicans who are registered as a Republican at least 30 days prior to the caucus. If you will be 18 by November 4, 2008 and are otherwise registered and eligible to vote, you may participate in the caucus."

So according to this information registered Republicans and registered Independents cannot re-register in order to vote in the Democratic Caucus.

I'm starting to wonder if Obama might not get more support because of his comments. Let's not forget that anyone can vote in the Nevada caucuses regardless of their party affiliation entering the site.

i sure want our country to get on a different path, but crediting ronald reagan in a speech re this issue, is that the kind of candidate i want? no way, i have no clue what he was thinking in bringing up reagan years, i voted for carter and never regretted it. go edwards-- clear mind, vision and values--
media, don't be afraid of him-really, edwards will help us ALL. are the big media generals ruling the foot soldiers on what they can report? why so much fear of reporting on edwards--

So Stephanie, if your arguement is weak, is your theory just to post it three times in hopes it will gain credibility? Anyone notice that Obama is the only one on either side of the aisle who says maybe the other party isn't the devil? Maybe it's time for that in America. Maybe Obama actually deserves a fair shake...

Obama said Reagan changed the trajectory of the country. He didn't say he agreed with Regans policy.

Obama plans to change the trajectory of the country, but not in same directions as Reagan.

He already has changed the trajectory of other political candidates to the point were they mimicking things he said months ago.

If you read what he SAID , he's talking about the ATTITUDE of those days, the OPITMSIM, not the POLOCIES!

This is ALL more Clinton SPIN. Get ready your going to be DIZZY for 4 years if Hillary wins! But she won't win in a General. Watch.

Seems pretty obvious he was talking about the years from Reagan 1 to Clinton. Yes, he said ten to fifteen instead of twelve, and could've been more explicit to avoid confusion, but to an objective observer (I'm pretty indifferent about Obama), there's nothing here to cause alarm. Course, most of us remember the Reagan era quite differently and Obama's obviously trying to appeal to the other side of the aisle, but that's to be expected.

Not that Hilary needs justification to attack of course. And then complain how she's the only one who gets attacked. But that's a separate issue...

Barack Obama just doesn't get it! His public praising of the Reagan Revolution has made me feel ill! The Reagan legacy on America's social structure was appalling!

Anti-union, anti-minorities, anti-women's rights, anti-environment, anti-working, middle and lower class. I am happy to say that five work colleagues today have told me that they have switched from Obama to Clinton because this man is scary!

Thanks for your points, Asianmalesmoker. I was born in 1980 and remember only parts of that time, but the poverty was a big one (growing up in Appalachia, I was suprised when people in cities were poorer than the already broke people I knew at home). I wish that Clinton (who has the experience) would be less of a left-wing and controversial figure, though. It maybe hard to get her in office.

Senator Clinton just one month ago was praising President Reagan as one of her favorite presidents in a meeting with a NH newspaper editorial board. In their endorsement they mentioned it and her campaign post it on their website.

Very poignant Mr. Tapper. I agree 100%. I think Obama's words were dynamic and surprisingly apolitcal, in the sense that he would not ignore historical fact because of partisan pressure.

However, I also wish he would speak against the negative ads UNITE Here has launched. I must say though, in the race of negativity Obama is on step 2, Clinton step 100 and Edwards step 150 for riding Obama's coat after Iowa.

I am about Senator Obama age and remember the Reagan era well. By all account, I should worship Reagan. I was a Communist Refugee. However, I can't say that is how I remembered about the 80. The economy was in bad shape, ordinary people feel discouraged, especially the poor and the union. In my opinion, the 80' was a darker time than any recent time. I remembered, I just graduate from University.I was lucky to get a job, most my classmate didn't.
I agree with the senator that Reagan change the course of our country much more drastic then Clinton, but change can be tough, there are winner and loser. There are change to make thing better but also change to make big mistakes. Reagan build up the defend, in retrospect, a waste of resource, since the communist were bankrupted themselve sooner or later.
That is why we need leader which have extensive experiences to guide the country through tumulus time of drastic change.
The Chinese have a curse. " May you live an interesting time". They understood the uncertainty of change. Good deed may still bring some unintended consequences.
May I ask the senator one question. What make you think you have the ability to make the big change in our country without making unintended mistakes ? Goo d intention is not enough. It required experiences, skill too.

I agree with all your points here. Hillary is obviously completely twisting his words around.
And Obama really should be calling off the union ads. I'm surprised he hasn't. Maybe he doesn't want to offend them, but I think it would be worth it.