Whatever his intentions, Obama's statement that the GOP was the "party of ideas" was deeply offensive. It underscored that he has no progressive credentials and fails to understand the struggle that liberalism has had to make to defend the gains of the New Deal, Civil Rights and the Great Society.

As a party member since 1984, I can attest that liberalism offered many ideas during this period. However, Americans bought into unadorned Freidmanism. And yet we have continue to plug away. From men like Paul Simon to Paul Tsongas to Tom Harkin, the ideas have been there. Universal healthcare, a human rights construct to our foreign policy, and alternative energy development. These ideas are not new. But the Republicans have and will continue to shout them down.

The progressive liberal wing of the Democratic wing may not have won today in Nevada but it also did not lose. We lose if Obama wins.

I personally think it started with slick dick nick(son) but I am just trying to show the absolutely insane concept of falling head over heels in love with only 2 families capabable of running(really ruinning) this country. I try to give Eisenhower(sp) credit because when he left the white house he publicly warned america about the military industrial issue that was really beginning to manifest itself. But I guess in the late 1800s is when big business really started putting its big fat smelly ass in our govenment which is what I believe our founding fathers created the checks and balances and the bill of rights to protect the core of our new nation that we stole from the native americans.(And before someone jumps on me about that comment, how real is it to think we would give this land back to the original owners? About the same as everyone giving up their vehicles to stop using oil to stop the oil companies.)
And JAYHOME, guess who signed the NAFTA into law? You know, the agreement that has allowed some many of our middles class jobs to go overseas because some real bright conserative motherfucker decided those jobs were an obstacle to higher profits so just jerk the financial rug out from the middle class because the corporations are protected now from not coming in with 50% profit year after year.

Here is an idea : Why did the democrats put two prejudice gathering people into this race? They had it, and the country needs their leadership, but they are gambling instead. Do they actually care about winning? Are they trying to send the country a message?

Why bring up reagan. why bring up republicans. If he think their were any good things about reagan he hasn't been paying attention. It was all bull. Race relation got worse under him. Heck, dawn near everything got worse. This was a dumb and uninformed move by the Obama camp.

.

Obama also said:

"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," Obama said. "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? Obama has again shown a lack of understanding of the 1980's. Regan is merely a modern-day myth who accomplished nothing but failure for America. The only changes the Regan administration made to government where ones that restricted government regulatory oversight, leading to a PUTTING MORE WEALTH INTO THE HANDS OF FEWER PEOPLE. The Laffer Curve is better called the "Laughter" curve because it was likely based on what Nancy Regan"s astrologer thought.

Regan clearly committed impeachable offenses, most notably during the Iran-contra scandal.

Poor judgment lauding Ronnie, Barack.

Better start sticking to your writer's script.

.

How will Obama reply when they GOP Slime machine runs ads that say,
"Hussein Obama wasn't even willing to defend America when we were attacked."
They can't say that about Hillary which might one reason why she voted that way.

They don't need Willie Horton this time because they'll make Obama their Willie Horton.
We're betting the future of the world that the voter is smart enough to know better.
That scares me.

What is really funny is the fact that some small comment can get all the candidates to go off message. He baited her with that one, and then responded to her by saying she had supported the most dangerous GOP idea of the last 10-15 years.

I don't see what's so reprehensible about the "idea" claim. On every issue from welfare reform to minimum wage to this war, the GOP has been either retarding or completely reversing it what would have been 15 yrs of progress. That is undeniable. Look at where we are. Obama is the only candidate who realizes fighting hasn't worked. It just sets up a polarizing "culture war." Not fighting hasn't worked either, as democrats, Clintons included have been complicit in our regression. Drawing people in and reshaping their opinions is the only way to win. the only way to win and get things done. The GOP has gotten people to vote against common sense and personal interest by making appeals to their "values" and "culture" - abortions, same sex marriage, guns, stem cells, flag burning. we've been on the defensive the whole time.

Can't the shrew just shut up? Her ugly husband out to be gagged as well. If the country wants these two liars back, we are really in trouble. (and I have always voted for the Democratic ticket, but not this time if its H.Clinton) Who in their right mind would want to be her VP, with the sneaky Bill always looking over that person's shoulder??)

If Clinton and Obama are going to take shots at each other for their Republican ass-kissing efforts........this fight will never end.

Two corporate whores, living in glass houses, throwing stones at one an other. Lame.

Here is a true voice of democracy and honesty. If you only read on article ever, on Dennis Kucinich, make this the one....

http://www.alternet.org/story/74268/

Peace.

If I had said, in a televised interview, that Osama bin Laden's terrorist group is the terrorist group of ideas over the past 10 - 15 years, would I be viewed as praising one of the vilest terrorist organizations in the world? Mind you, I did not say the group had GOOD ideas.

In addition, what if I said Osama bin Laden was "transformative in the way he challenged conventional wisdom," would I be viewed as holding him in admiration? Mind you, I never said it was a POSITIVE transformation.

The point is that one has to avoid showing admiration for certain people or movements, least he or she is viewed as admiring that person or movement. After making those comments about Osama bin Laden, would you want me to lead your party, your committee, you book club.


Obama seems to admire Reagan and the republican ideas. Left-leaning democrats should be angry and concerned. They have endured seven years of Bush; and now, their potential presidential nominee seems to admire the those on the other side of the aisle a litter too much.


I have never heard a republican candidate say the Democratic Party is the party of ideas during any period--even when Clinton balanced the budget, created a surplus, avoided a long, deadly war, and allowed the middle class to breath a little. Many people seemed happy, then, and now they hate the person who gave them one of the best economic periods in America's history.

Tough crowd.

hahahaha

Ron Paul is taking second in Nevada

You know, if the Obama supporters had the integrity to admit this was a poor choice for Obama to engage in with his alluding to Republican ideas and Ronald Regan himself, and defend him on the good attributes of his campaign, you would have so much more credibility in discussion. When you defend everything and anything, even when it isn't good, it no different than the blue wall of silence mentality when you defend right or wrong at all costs, taking away all credibility in the process.

How does Obama look at the same old reactionary, anti-government stance--the same string Republicans have been harping on since before Roosevelt was president--and call it "ideas"? The act of calling governance in a democracy a waste of time and the cause of all problems is, I guess, a kind of idea--but why the hell would a Democratic candidate discuss such a position in even neutral, let alone positive, terms? I don't know about these allegations of former drug use, but that's sure some confused thinking.

When I heard Obama talking about reagan, and in a positive light, I almost puked. Reagan was another republican law breaker. Iran/Contra? I guess Obama never heard about that.
He claims that Reagan, "confronted the excesses of the 60s and the 70s. You mean like drug use, Obama?
This guy is all glitter and not much more. Obama started losing me when he started that man of faith crap. Then he goes on tour with a rabid homophobe. Now he talks up Reagan as someone who brought positive change???? You blew it Obama. Big Time.

.

Obama"s speech writer is a racist:

For his inspiration, Mr. Favreau said, "I actually read a lot of Bobby" Kennedy.

"I see shades of J.F.K., R.F.K.," he said, and then added, "King."

----------

Ok, this man is obviously a racist.

He says he sees "shades" of JFK, RFK, and then added King.

This code for "I like people with the whitest shade of skin first".

History tells us that despite looking tan from all that sailing he did, the rest of the time JFK"s skin was actually much more white than Bobby"s, and history also tells us that King"s skin was darker than RFK"s, so this Favreau is showing preference to them in order of their whiteness.

King is literally riding in the back of the bus of this man"s mind.


-posted by nihilon_x


.