Reply #86: context indeed

[beezlebum]

I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what's different are the times...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. 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.- barack obama http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/17/obamas_reagan_comparison_spark_1.html?nav=rss_email/components

ideal? perhaps not. near ideal? maybe. praise? yeah. probably a little more opportunistic and politickery on his part. the post on DU regarding the reagan administration a week or so ago was more eloquent than i could be in criticism of that statement. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2715254

that said, i still choose obama over clinton- though with a grimace and a pinched nose, as, while he is labeled more progressive than hillary, i still see him as right of center, especially after his iran remarks which i posted on another moveon vs clinton thread (moveon whitewashes clinton's iran posturing http://www.antiwar.com/solomon/?articleid=10808).

i will pass on the pony, since "ideal" is not exactly the same as "praise."