It's a carnival ride this ReaganObamaRama! Bill Clinton needs to explain? FIRST Obama needs to explain his regressive backslapping of Reagan and the Republican/Neocon Dream Team!!!!

Obama talks alot about "change". But with his recent Reagan comments, Obama has now clouded all his previous campaign statements about the importance of change in 2008.

Reagan's brand of change was BACKWARD, REGRESSIVE, REACTIONARY change. And it has been continued by neocons and the Bush Gang has conducted its theivery undercover of regressive change. Just because it is "change" doesn't make it good for us citizens. It's lazy language to fail to clarify the type of change.

Obama clarifies no differential between what "Obama Change" is compared to what "Reagan Change" is. Just because they are both change, is not good enough, Barak. Because we need it to be clear that the change that results from the 2008 election will be PROGRESSIVE CHANGE.

Reagan as governor of California instituted one BACKWARD change after another:
o Reagan removed public support for higher education
o Reagan said 'if you've seen one redwood tree, you've seen them all" and proceeded to breakdown conservation measures
o Reagan ended public participation for mental health care and put mental patients on the street -- starting the homeless epidemic!

And in the White House, Reagan practiced the same REACTIONARY change exponentially against the entire nation.

It's called the Reagan Revolution, but it was the OPPOSITE of the American Revolution because the Reagan Revolution was a regressive revolution and the American Revolution of Independence was a PROGRESSIVE REVOLUTION!

The American Revolution following 1776 broke away from Royalty/servitude to tyranny/corporate dominance.
The American Revolution fought for representative and participatory government/power in and from the people/equality as applicable
principle/government open to scrutiny.

The Reagan Revolution turned back toward sovereignty of monied class over citizenry at large/power through secrecy/rule by an elite. The Reagan Revolution turned a 180 degrees away from the American Revolution. Change like this Reagan change -- who needs it? Not a Republic of freepersons! Because when the Reagan Revolution is a total success, there is no guarantee of freedom. The continuation of the Reagan Revolution shows clearly in the systematic destruction of our Bill of Rights perpetrated by the Bushies!

Obama claimed that the Reagan Revolution was justified by the "excesses of the 60s and 70s". Obama needs to define what he considers "excesses of the 60s and 70s"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Which of THESE progressive accomplishments of the 60s and 70s does Obama consider "excesses"?: Headstart programs? War on Poverty? Creation of an environmental protection agency to address environmental problems? Superfund program to clean up environmental pollution? Women's right to choose/right to privacy/reproductive choices of contraception? Stopping the unjust Vietnam War? Putting a man on the moon? Civil Rights Act? Gay rights movement? Women's rights movement? Consumer safety (including auto safety like seatbelts)(thank you Ralph and Nader Raiders)? Jimmy Carter energy conservation goals? Cracking down on the mobs? Standing up to a president's impeachable acts? (Please add to this list, fellow bloggers, okay? I'd like to see a more complete list of Progressive Accomplishments!)

Obama has to clarify, because I'm not going to accept anybody but Obama himself to try to explain away the Obama Reagan Love Fest Comments. Obama has to speak for himself and embrace the progressive stance 100 percent or get out of the way so the real progressives like Edwards and Kucinich can serve as the voices of us progressives who make up the bulk of the Democratic Party!

First point, please read or watch the entire video/transcript to see what Obama actually said. Point number one is that he talked about Reagan being the only recent president to "change the tragectory of the country.." That is true, and recognition of it does not imply approval. Point number two, the comment about the "excesses of the 60's and 70's " was the campaign mantra of Reagan, not just something that Obama made up--this was the backbone of the philosophical underpinnings of his campaign. Obama noted how Reagan made the tragectory change as a model by which change can now be undertaken in this country to get us back on track to being the country that we once were and need to be again. None of this has anything to do with "slapping Reagan's back", it has to do with understanding history and how political change of large magnitude can be done by using the Reagan model of change, not the elements that he chose to change.

I am very familiar with Ronald Reagan, as I played in a band that used to entertain at Reagan fundraisers at Bill Clarke's ranch in central California. I do not support and did not support him, but when you are a starving college student and you got $100 and a fabulous all you can eat steak dinner, that was not something that you could turn down.

Nora -- I believe that you are making a mountain out of a molehill. (You're not working for Hillary now, are you? ) I've seen the entire interview, and this was only a small part. And as Obama explained, he was using Reagan's presidency as an example of a big change in direction. HE DID NOT EVEN MENTION THE TYPE OF CHANGE, NOR ENDORSE HIS POLICIES. You are putting words in Obama's mouth, by hand picking accomplishments of that era and accusing him of considering them "excesses". It's ridiculous! Look at his platform and listen to his words and you will see that he is NOT a Reagan nor a neocon. If anything, Obama was stupid and naive to think that he could intellectualize like that, speak openly and objectively about trends and change, without his opponents falling all over themselves to see who could twist and distort his message more to make him look bad...

For Hillary to twist this so horribly - in order to stymie Obama...
is despicable.

She should be keeping her powder dry, if she really thinks she can get to the general as the nominee.

When she was ahead, it was all about keeping the faith & not messing up the home team.
When she is being seriously challenged & even overtaken, she plays dirty & accuse him, as though she is retaliating fairly: ROVIAN & classic GEORGIE BUSH already exemplified on the right.

They've already done with... What's the spoiled mean child character on MAD TV?
Like a Republican slapping first then playing whiney victim?

There are RW SwiftBoats already in the water.
It doesn't help her future credibility if she employs Bush & Rove bastard tactics against the good guys now! If she gets there, it will be with a diminished reputation & if not -- she will have placed her personal goals ahead of the country's.

In other words, she will be on par with McCain's remaking himself several times & Chameleon Man Romney.
SHE LOSES THE HIGH GROUND.

She's better than any Republican on the right. But this is tarnish.
It sounds like her version of "McCain desperation" -- because the same structure remains if any Republican wins. Even if you trust McCain to be the person he was before he started courting the right with wet kisses & hugging the Bush anchor, what happens in office??

So she is better than NeoCON Repubs, but she's not the candidate for BIG VISIONARY change as much as Obama & Edwards. She can be better than this.

McCain.
Once of the "McCain-Feingold" alliance now promises the rich PERMANENT tax cuts?
THAT worm has turned.

She isn't going to be able to call McCain for what he has become, if she goes there with her own side: She helps elect more Bushies: The guys who put in on OUR credit card - and our kid's future credit cards!

HOW MANY CHANCES DO WE GET TO DO SOMETHING GOOD & PIVOTAL???

Nora - you aren't actually HILLARY, are you?
That's the same nonsensical line her campaign is putting out.

GO FOR THE FACTS, not the spin! That's basically a LIE. She embellished beyond mere "embellishment!" on that one. It was gone too far. Simply not what he said.

I don't think Obama was stupid or naive in those comments at all~!! If anything it is Clinton and Edwards who looked ridiculous "falling all over themselves" trying to as you say 'distort" and spin what he said.....It wasn't even the Reagan comment that made the Clintons hyperventilate....it was the fact that Obama mentioned Bill Clinton in the same sentence as Nixon not being as much an instrument of changing the tragectory as Reagan....and for Hillary to go on and on about "Republican ideas being good ideas over the last 15 years".....is purely a misleading political statement of distortion. Edwards' not wanting to even bring up Reagan's name in a Democratic primary is just a stump speech...and is meaningless at this point...since there were many Democrats who crossed party lines to vote for Reagan, which is one of the things Obama does talk about........that he (Obama) can get folks from all persuasions, black, white, men. women, Republican, Democratic and Independent, ect.......to vote for him.....which has already been proven. It is not Barack Obama's fault that the other candidates and their surrogates are in denial about historical fact.

I agree 100%. I was being cynical when I said "if anything Obama was stupid and naive...". But there is something to be said about choosing one's words wisely, especially when the sharks are waiting to tear them apart and use them against you. It was risky for him to point to the Reagan presidency as an example of change. It was riskier to do that AND disregard the presidency of the husband of your biggest opponent. But that's part of the Obama "freshness" factor! He speaks unguardedly -- and I love that. He is paying the price for his unfortunate Reagan and Clinton statements. So are the Clintons for their lies about that interview. But I believe this is just a "bump in the road" and we will get past it very soon, and hopefully Obama will be able to get back on message...

Oh so do I....and that also includes Hillary and Bill...........because right now the only message that the Clinton's are sending is one of misrepresentations, devisiveness;however calculating, and shere dirty politics of the worst kind.....many Democrats in my circles....including both my 85 yr old dad and 76 yr old mother...who simply adored the Clintons back in the 90's are simply shocked at what they are seeing happening.......As a matter of fact I did ask my dad about what he thought of the Obama comment about Reagan....and he said "Obama was absolutely right about that, and anyone who was alive and remembers the Reagan years will know and understand that, while we might not have liked many of the Reagan policies, he did bring the country together...so it was nothing but a "cheap-shot" for the Clintons to say what they did.....and continue to do.....I don't think much about "cheap-shots" or dirty politics, nor the ones who engage in it!" I hope this will backfire on the Clintons...and you know what if and when it does...it will be of their own making........Oh yeah...my dad now says he is voting for Edwards....my mom is in complete turmoil, cause her female buddies are all on her case about Hillary...since she now says she probably won't be voting for her.....she doesn't know what she's gonna do.......

Obama had to go and take a shot at Bill Clinton by tossing a compliment to Reagan and he's getting smacked around for it. Oh poor Obama, he's having to go up against Bill AND Hillary. Boohoo! Obama made a rookie mistake and he's getting his ass handed to him for it. It's just proof that the guy needs a little more work before he's ready for the big chair. Next time, maybe Barack should consider whether or not tossing a fellow Dem under the bus is worth it. Now all of a sudden it's, "stop the back biting" but Mr. Obama is the one that really started it all.

Hill will be the Democratic nominee. McCain will be the Republican nominee. All of this isn't going to matter very much in the next few weeks.

Rodney the caller just prior to 1:30 this afternoon took Ed to the shed, and he called it perfectly. Ed if you want civility restored WHY NOT LET IT START WITH YOU? Why did you have to go out there and stir the pot and run on at the mouth and give Matt Drudge fodder for his site? It seems that the attention is serving you well old man... but please can the holier than thou deal... it didn't work for Obama and it ain't working for you.

[font=Tahoma]Nora -- Have you seen this quote - a recent quote Hillary made in Tom Brokaw's new book "BOOM" p404 - "Reagan was a child of the depression so he understood the economic pressures on the working and middle class. When he had those big tax cuts and then he went to far, he oversaw the largest tax increase. He could call the Soviet Union the evil empire and the negotiate arms-control agreements. He played the balance and the music beautifully" Don't you think Hillary is more than a bit disingenuous to attack Obama for saying Reagon had transformative ideas and then praising Reagan somewhere else for being sympathetic to the middle class and being very sensitive to budget deficits by increasing taxes. She also praises him for his foriegn policy accumen as well as being a master politician. In fact she is far more effusive in her admiration of Reagan than Barack ever has been. Maybe he offended Bill for saying he wasn't transformative.