Obama is brilliant

[Onlooker]

I support Obama primarily because I think he can beat any Republican and his record is reasonably liberal. While I detest Reagan as much as anyone, Obama is demonstrating an ability fight tough that Democrats haven't shown in years. Responding to the aggressive Clinton campaign by saying that Reagan is more significant than Bill Clinton and running ads that say Hillary Clinton doesn't respect Hispanics is low politics, but it's the type of politics that's needed to defeat Swiftboaters, Fox News, Drudge, and other sleazy right-wingers. Obama has demonstrated he's not afraid to enter the fray, and is prepared to fight fire with fire. For too long, Democratic campaigns have been modeled on winning close elections, but it only worked for Bill Clinton, and jut barely. Obama is bringing something fresh and new to political campaigns. It's not pretty, but if I was a Republican, I'd be pretty scared.

[sunonmars]

1. Your thinking is flawed

because the ammunition he's giving them now is very dangerous. Its a 2 way street. What is said will be turned around and used against you.

Thats why you need to be very careful what you say in primaries. The republican RW attack machine is a formidable force, don't dare underestimate it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. Are You Saying

Are you saying the "politics of hope" is really camouflage for "politics as usual" and if that is the case doesn't that undermine the moral imperative for his candidacy?

If not why not?

[sunonmars]

3. yup it is what he's saying

He's just basically said, the guy is a dirty fighter politician.

[Onlooker]

7. "Politics of hope" is just a campaign slogan

Obama isn't naive. He understands the only way to implement his ideas is to get elected, so he has to play ball. The "politics of hope" is just a meaningless catchphrase like Kerry's "A stronger America begins at home." Yes, his campaign is in the tradition of past politics, but his vision of bringing people together seems genuine. The first moral imperative is to get elected.

[sunonmars]

10. so lying to get elected WTF?????

Thats the worst type of politician, so his whole campaign is a complete fabrication.

[Onlooker]

15. The goal is to get elected

Obama may alienate some people along the way, but it's a strategic calculation. He knows he can't implement his vision unless he gets elected. His comments on Reagan really annoy me, and if keeps doing that kind of thing, eventually I'll switch my vote. But, so far, I understand what he's trying to do is to win the nomination, then the presidency, and then he can implement his ideas. By the way, Saul Alinksy (who both Hillary and Obama admire) wrote in his Rules for Radicals something along the lines that you may need to play along in order to get into a position of power where you can effect change.

[sunonmars]

18. problem with that theory, you have no idea what you are electing

and that my dear is so dangerous.

[Onlooker]

20. That's true

You can only judge person by their specific stands on issues and their past voting record, but campaigns are and have always been about manipulation. Even Edwards sought to capitlize on Hillary's tears by questioning whether she had the strength to be CiC. And Clinton certainly plays the same game as Obama, but right now he seems to be playing tougher.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. The End Doesn't Justify The Means

There comes a time when all of us must say what we mean and mean what we say...

[Samantha]

4. I totally agree

Obama's statement that he admired the way Reagan reached out and seized the direction of the campaign, capitalizing on the overwhelming desire of the people to be optimistic and look forward to the new day, is the essence of what he said about his desire for his own campaign from the beginning. It was also a pitch toward the voters in California. His innovative approach, by comparison to the pitch of the Clinton machine, seems fresh and inviting. I do not know what today will bring in the Nevada vote; but it is clear the voters have a clear-cut choice in candidates with very different messages and very different approaches. And that's a really good thing.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. What's Novel

What's novel about saying Reaganism was good for the country and Clintonism was bad for the country if you want to appeal to Republicans and Clinton hating independents?

That was the raison d'etre of George Bush*'s 2000 candidacy...

[Samantha]

9. Obama did not sanction Reagan's issues

He applauded his taking control over the campaign. If you listen carefully to his words, and I watched the video twice inasmuch as I despised Reagan, he makes that distinction clear. What is regrettable is the way those words were deliberately distorted to infer he admired Reagan the man and his issues.

Clinton did not seize the campaign in 1992. He needed the presence of Al Gore on the ticket to offset his (Clinton's) sleaze factor and the criticism of his (Clinton's) lack of foreign affairs experience. So there you have a stark contrast in the way these two men approached winning the Oval Office. Obama prefers to win, what was it, 49 states out of 50, as Reagan did, as opposed to barely squeaking by with less than a fifty-percent capture of the popular vote (as Bill Clinton did).

[sunonmars]

11. What rubbish, I saw the video twice to make sure i heard right

He stuck his foot down his throat, admit it.

I for one cannot trust someone who panders to whatever he's in front off.

First he was FDR, then JFK, then MLK, then Reagan, has he got multiple personality disorder.

[Samantha]

17. You must have watched a different video

And he never compared himself to FDR, JFK and MLK. Another baseless example of how his words were distorted.

I am not an Obama supporter. But it is pretty obvious he is an extremely intelligent man, a true thinker. It would take a moron with nothing but hubris to come out and infer he is in the same category as MLK, JFK and FDR.

It's truly disgusting how the words of this man have been twisted in an effort to make him look like something he is not.

I pay attention to the literal campaign and form my own opinion on these issues rather than rely on others to translate and distort.

[sb5697]

32. Ever heard of critical thinking and reading?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. He Said That Reagan Ridded The Government Of The Excesses Of The Sixties And Seventies?

Was he referring to Medicare? Medicaid? The Fair Housing Act? The Voting Rights Acts, The Civil Rights Act, Food Stamps, Affirmative Action, Reproductive Rights, Gay Rights?

[Samantha]

21. I repeat -- Obama said in the video he did not necessarily

agree with Reagan on the issues, but he discussed the campaign. You are attempting to distort the discussion in the video.

Which of the items you list did Reagan eviscerate? As far as I know they are all under attack today, but still visible.

[robbedvoter]

26. The campaign was predicated on inflamming racist & nationalist feelings

Ronnie ran for POTUS before - and LOST. The South didn't pay attention to a Hollywood man. Until he went to Philadelphia, Mi - a small town where KKK had assassinated civil rights activists in the 60s - and talked about the "excesses' and states rights - giving the dixiecrats the coded signal that he'll back them in the extreme. That was his "campaign"
Can't divorce it from ideology.

[Samantha]

28. As I clearly said I despised Reagan

so I am not going to defend anything he did during his administration. I thought he was despicable and his goals reprehensible.

But the issue Obama touched upon, clearly saying in the video he did not necessarily agree with Reagan's issues, commented on how Reagan took and changed direction of that campaign, and that, and that alone, is what Obama admired. I do not know how many times I can keep saying the same thing.

Obama simply wants to capture the dreams of the voters in uniting to become the United States of America, eliminating the divisiveness we have now. He seeks to do this on a positive note. What is so wrong with that? Clinton captured about 42 percent of the vote, if I remember correctly and Obama's goal is to win with a clear majority.

I do not know why you say the ideology cannot be separated from the literal campaign. Think about Lyndon Johnson who campaigned on ending the war in Vietnam. Once in office, he immediately increased the troop levels. What a betrayal. Better yet, look at the man occupying the Oval Office now who ran under the slogan of compassionate conservatism, and ask the Katrina survivors if the Bush campaign differed from his governance. Historically, it happens all the time.

My issue here is simply the unequivocal words Obama uttered in that video pertaining to the campaign, not the governance, and how those words have been distorted to disparage the man.

[sb5697]

33. You guys are such a joke....if he weren't swinging back

(as he wasn't) when Clinton accused him of labeling her a racist, you all would say he didn't have the balls to fight and therefore could never endure the right wing attacks if he won the primary. You must know the mindless responses you all give to attack Obama and any others fall of deaf ears because you have no objectivity. Obama is brilliant and you all don't even have the balls to admit so. People see right through the smoke and mirrors you Obama-haters put up.

[NoBorders]

13. There's a logical leap

"What's novel about saying Reaganism was good for the country and Clintonism was bad for the country"

This is an obvious distortion of Obama's and the OP's statement. Can we please stop doing this? What purpose does it serve? Is there not something to be gained from having an honest discussion about the best way to win back the white house?

[Fredda Weinberg]

6. Pandering is not a good thing. If all you remember is "morning in America"

you've got a rude awakening. I, for one, do not want to follow that road again. When I voted against Raygun, trudging through 5 foot snow in Rochester, NY, I was part of a pitiful minority that knew what would come ahead - but was powerless to stop it.

I ain't that kid no more. Obama is my age and should know better. He has unleashed a whirlwind and will suffer the consequences of his hubris. Mark my words.

[sunonmars]

8. Exactly, promising and then not delivering can produce Hell

Its the worse thing you can do.

[NoBorders]

14. I don't buy the 'pandering' theory

I think he was, like Clinton did, commenting on Reagan's skills as a politician. Why are people having such a hard time making the distinction between a politician's abilities, and the politician's ideology?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. The Electorate Is 40% Conservative 20% Liberal And 40% Moderate

So, it's easier for a conservative to win a "mandate" for his policies than it is for a liberal...He has to convince less people...

When it comes to raw political skills I would call it a push between Clinton and Reagan...

[NoBorders]

22. Yes, but that doesn't mean he was pandering

By mentioning the name 'Reagan'. I don't know, maybe he was, but I just thought he was looking back at a presidency that marked a significant shift in American politics.

As for political skills, by 'raw' do you mean the ability to control a party apparatus, call-in political chits, and so forth? Other than that, I would have to disagree on this point.

[Fredda Weinberg]

29. Raygun's skill as a politician was pandering ... and he was ruthless

You may not have seen his glee turning the state police on students - but it helped prolong the Vietnam war. He mellowed in his later years, but the damage is done.

You may not remember he reversed his tax cuts ... but my generation was sacrificed financially and many of us will never recover.

This has nothing to do with ideology, child ... Raygun was playing to the audience. So does Obama. It's wrong ... and I will not remain silent when I was there.

[indimuse]

23. foolish...

4 the foolish!

[robbedvoter]

24. Not so sure it's tough as much as is dirty - he had to apologize a few times

for crossing the line. Not very reassuring to me: the racism memo, campaigning in Michigan (Conyers phone calls), the "Democrat for a Day" flyer...
Just by curiosity, and I am in no way comparing Obama to him, but do you consider Rove "tough"?

[rucky]

25. If you really want to understand what Obama's doing...

you can't think in terms of D or R.

He's anti-partisan. It doesn't mean he's turning his back on the D's, or trying to pander to the R's. He's not even really addressing us political types at all. There's some strategy behind it, but there's also sincerity and a mission to change minds.

I think it comes down to the philosophical question: Do you think people are basically good? It's our cynicism - fueled by politics and the media - that's getting in the way of progress. You may call that naive, but a little idealism - and a political paradigm shift - just may be what America needs.

[AndyA]

27. The only thing "brilliant" about Obama is he's fooled a lot of people

into thinking he'll bring real change.

And the media has done much to bolster this image of him.

But when you take a good, long, hard look at the facts, you'll see where the big money comes from, and Barack will have to deal with that if he gets in office. That money will come with a price tag attached to it, and the American people will pay the price, just as we have for the last 7 years under Bush.

Barack will owe the same entities George Bush owed. It's a new face, but business as usual.

The fact that Barack has fooled so many into believing anything will be different is the only brilliance here.

Follow the money trail...where does it lead?

And why does corporate America ignore Edwards? It's because they FEAR an Edwards Presidency. Do you want change or more of the same? If you want change, Barack is not going to bring it.

[sb5697]

34. I suppose you think Edwards will? His track record says

something totally different. I guess some people can't see the forest for the trees and sadly there are many of them on this board. Thankfully, not so in the country as suggested by the primaries. Yes Edwards can talk a decent game but he can't hide from his record and it's not that good. FYI, keep fooling yourself into thinking someone is afraid of Edwards because they aren't. No one man can get anything done in this country without the support of others. In the POTUS' case it would be with the support of Congress. You don't get support by alienating people which is pretty much what Edwards has done and is doing.

Yes Barack is brilliant but then for you to admit that would be shameful in your eyes. Proof, the man wouldn't be where he is if he wasn't brilliant. He upset a candidate that should have been a shoo-in for the Democratic nomination and at this point has cause this nation to seriously consider a black candidate for the Democratic nomination and possible Presidency--in-spite of this country's racist past and presence. You want to denigrate Barack based upon what you THINK will happen (no evidence) but won't admit what you KNOW happened in regards to Edward's voting records. If you did pay attention to Edward's voting record you wouldn't be so quick to denigrate others. I must say this applies to many others on this board with respect to not only Edwards but Clinton also. To each his own. Peace.

[applegrove]

30. I agree Obama is showing a little bit of ruthlessness. And perhaps

that is why he is doing better in the polls. For most of the race people thought Hillary was the only tough one. So she has company now. Boy does she ever!

[sandnsea]

31. Except you've got your facts completely wrong

He didn't say Reagan was more significant than Clinton, he said Reagan had changed the political discourse in a way Clinton hadn't. And he is not running the culinary worker ads, the unionis. Your post is ridiculous.