Two Other Thoughts About The Reagan Attack

I suggest that there is something that all Americans who are fed up with the "politics as usual" can do. We can start a “Grassroots Movement”.

We can e-mail the Democratic National Committee and let them know what we think of the tactics of the Clintons’ in this campaign.

We can also email the Democratic Super Delegates and let them know that the Clintons' candidacy will NOT get our vote.

I do NOT work for any Presidential candidate. I am a lifelong Democrat who is fed up with MORE of what we have just had for the last 8 years.

I disagree with your article. Yes, historically, politics has been dirty. But, guess what, it does not HAVE to be that way and the younger generation are TIRED of it being that way! We have sat through 8 years of a pathetic presidential administration that has done nothing but run America and our reputation into the ground. We are in several wars...wars on this...wars on that....

We want something different, something new. Who cares if HRC has withstood the republican attack machine. That is not the point. The point is that WE are the future. We recognize Obama's skills and natural talent to unify our country, use substance and candor to discuss the issues, as well as include everyone.

This idea that he cannot withstand attacks is ridiculous. What you SHOULD be writing about is how HRC cannot rely on her phantom "35 years" of experience, but looks to Bill and attacks on Obama to sell herself.

Same ol paradigm...same ol story.

HRC can take on the republican attack machine on her own time.

I am looking for a president that will take America into the future and bring us together.

Obama is the one and his time is now!

Kennedy Says Democrats Can Learn From Reagan

Senator Edward M. Kennedy today sharply criticized his party's 1988 Presidential campaign as being devoid of ideas and urged the Democrats to emulate former President Ronald Reagan's consistent sense of political purpose.
Kennedy Says Democrats Can Learn From Reagan

Senator Edward M. Kennedy today sharply criticized his party's 1988 Presidential campaign as being devoid of ideas and urged the Democrats to emulate former President Ronald Reagan's consistent sense of political purpose....

I think the Clintons have made their message perfectly clear: If they can't have the presidency, then nobody (Decmocratic) can.

They're perfectly willing to destroy the Democratic Party. Look at how they're calling these attacks "the fun part".

The Clintons have a dsyfunctional relationship with the American people, and we have to stop being enablers!

I have no idea who I would/will vote for at this stage. I viewed the Obama interview and saw and heard his Reagan remarks. I was floored and heard the same from associates. We agreed that he tried to back pedal, we agree that the general term used by Sen Clinton "better" was not inappropriate with the positive manner and terms used by Sen Obama in his sharing his opinion of Reagan - "willing to push . . . conventional wisdom". Sen O was and is trying to have it both ways. We feel he said what he did to garner Republican and Independent voters. His has a stratedgy but he got caught. At the time he said his words in no way did we see that he was complaining or saying anything negative about Reagan programs or policies or ideas. This and Obama's comment that vote for him now because he won't run a second time - things are mounting up in negative column for many of us re Obama.

Bill Clinton was the guy who did what Reagan only talked about -- he turned a huge deficit into a surplus, he took a stand against big government and shrunk the bureaucracy and signed welfare reform. What Obama said was a blatantly pandering attempt to woo Republicans in the Nevada Caucus. Hillary has actually worked with and earned the respect of Republicans like John McCain - she doesn't have to talk about working with the other party. She's done it.

Anyone who looks at Obama's interview with the Reno paper understands that he was talking about the way Reagan had mobilized the imagination and hope (and votes!) of a large part of the populace - going beyond party lines -- and that he is hoping for something similar to happen - in the progressive direction! - this year. --- THIS is the message for which the Clintons are trying to crucify him???!!!!!

Either 1) they are so unintelligent and unimaginative that they truly don't "get it" - can't think that deeply or 2) they understand full well but think the voters are so stupid that they can feed a totally false 30 second sound and the voters won't check it out for themselves. Sadly, they may be right. After all, Karl Rove and George Bush used that same assumption and it sure worked for them...

However, I assure you that there are many, many Democrats want a "less harsh, less partisan era in Washington" more than anyone. So much so that we are contacting the DNC to let them know that we will be voting Republican (or not voting) if Hillary Clinton becomes the nominee. And some of us are also letting them know that we will be changing our registration and leaving the party if she is the nominee. Obviously DNC can't do much about how the voters vote in primaries (although they do have pull with super-delegates perhaps), but they should know why the party will be shrinking and losing in Nov. In fact, if the Republican nominee should be John McCain, I suspect he will have a whole host of new volunteers as well as voters.

Enough of this "swiftboat" nonsense. Telling the truth or at the very least bringing up something a candidate is tying to hide is now called "swiftboating".

". . . Because this is ugly, but it's nothing compared to what the general election will look like" -- JT

Yeah, but, a candidate should not have to deal with swiftboat-style, Total War tactics in an intra party primary!

By all means, let the candidates hammer each other on each other's records and on points of substance until the last Democrat is standing . But that is not what the Clintons are interested in doing.

Instead, they are willfully misrepresenting Obama's positions (Reagan, Health Care, etc.) to the point of straight-out LYING. LYING.

They are playing games spreading the nonsense around about Obama's being a "Muslim", and spending "some time in a Madrassa."

And most disgustingly, they are trying to ruin Obama's national political career by ghettoizing him through endless race baiting tactics designed to put white voters off him for good.

It is repugnant. The Clinton strategy comprises three tactics: exploiting the racial prejudice, religious intolerance and general ignorance of less educated white/Hispanic voters.

This is the best the Democratic party has to offer? I won't vote for the Clintons.

Nice post.

I've been frustrated reading the series of posts regarding Obama's comments because you haven't (until now) acknowledged that many democrats find the True Meaning of Obama's Remarks - whatever that elusive thing is - to be objectionable. You suggest that anyone who would find his remarks objectionable is stubbornly partison, but aren't you being elitist? Like you know Reagonomics better than the rank and file democrats that recoil at the mere mention of his name?

oh, and you're just now realizing that Obama can't take a punch? If there were ever an indication of bias, that's it. The man gets beat up at every debate.

Geevill, read my entry once again where I referred to their positions, not their experience: "Ideologically, despite whatever the candidates claim,...." Do you really want to argue that their political positions are as different as those of Dick Cheney and Dennis Kucinich?

Chuck.
Wrong son.
Obama -untested, unchalleneged, and unscutinized.Policies unknown. voted present instead of taking a position. Would be sliced and diced by the GOP if nominated. His corruption and lurid past will be revealed to the public.

Clinton-16 years of scrutiny. voted for or against bills. High negatives, but known by the public. Will have a tough race if nominated, but tough enough to win.

Big difference.

Thanks for your article, JT - well done.

But don't be so fast to say the people won't change - some of us are tired of all the work that goes into planning, debating, and then legislation ends up getting vetoed in the end ... back to square one. Although I'm a Democrat, I'd say even Republicans would be willing to gamble on Obama - because he's the one reaching out to all people, no matter what party you represent. He's the one who's serious about getting things done on Day One.

All very good points, Jake, and points which bear repeating! Ideologically, despite whatever the candidates claim, the difference between both senators is minute, if not indistinguishable. Were Arthur Miller still alive, perhaps he could rewrite "The Crucible" with characters, instances, and ideas from these Dem primary skirmishes!

More shameless Obama propaganda... hey, still waiting on you ABC Puppets to put that PA Govenor Ed Rendell endorsed Clinton.. yeah, that's right, a huge endorsement.. if Obama had gotten this nod.. it would be front page news.. but it's noticeably absent, and you tools are still yapping about the Reagan remark. Shameless.

Garette - Give me a break! Do me a favor, get your facts together. You couldn't me more wrong about Obama.. but hell facts don't seem to matter in the election.. smear does. Shame on you.

This is America where marketing really does count. Obama's campaign needs to brand the political style of slander and divisiveness when done by a fellow Democrat as "Clinton Politics". Then whenever one of the Clinton team tries it Barack can just shrug it off as just another example of Clinton Politics.

I must have missed the memo or something, Lately everything coming from Tapper seems to be pro conservative. When did this turn into a Republican blog? If I wanted a one sided view on things , I'd go to Fox.

Wake up WOMEN! Hillary isn't the RIGHT candidate, nor does she represent you well. The CLINTON's are bad news and deep down, you all know it.

Jake, you read into so much about what Obama said based on yout imagination. Are you trying to explain what Obama really meant? Why not let him to explain. I hope that you are not trying to be his spokeperson.

By the way, there will be no Obama in the general election.