You know. I like Edwards but he's really milking something that isn't actually controversial.

It's one thing for an underling to overzealously pounce on MLK/LBJ remarks or drug use but it's another one to ignore history...But that's what Edwards has to do to stay in the race.

If he loses Nevada and SC then he's a third wheel in the democratic nomination process.

Oh come on! John Edwards is being a buffoon. Reagan DID change the country. Obama wasn't evaluating whether it was a good or bad change. He was just admiring Reagan's ability to make it happen. Can one not be opposed to one's opponent or opposing party and not still show admiration for their ability to succeed? I hate what the Republican Party stands for, but saying that I think they've done a better of job of framing their messages than the inept Democrats does not mean I would vote GOP. It just means, they're good at what they do.

If Edwards is going to win it isn't by coming up with these straw man issues or continuing to dredge up his cleft-palate boy and liver transplant girl stories. They're not working.

I really don't see anything wrong with this either. In your words Norm I understand what Barack was trying to say . . so what's the big deal.

I'd never support Reagan, and we know that he hurt the environment and helped out big business. But I think Reagan really boosted the image and morale of our country significantly and that's obviously what Obama is talking about.

Also what trivi said. Edwards is making desperate attempts to get somewhere with his campaign, and it's hard to trust someone like that.

Reagan boosted the image of America, but in largely a fake and shallow way, rooted in military spending and adventures.

He was a big part of the ongoing process of dumbing down of America, and of the rise of the flag-waving, happy-faced pseudo-patriots (who had their proudest moments during Shrub's 2003 invasion of the wrong country.

However, Obama was talking about the other side of the Reagan legacy, which was a corrective to the slack attitude in Washington about taxes and spending in the '70's, when Democrats dug their own hole and then jumped in.

Unfortunately in this sound bite Obama didn't differentiate, and we all know that the next 11 months are all about sound bites, unfortunately.

It was a soundbite, exactly Viajero. This is barely even a compliment . . . Obama says Reagan took America in a different direction because "the country was ready" and that "he tapped into what Americans were already feeling." . . . . I guess I missed the part where he was parading around with a "I LOVE REAGAN" t-shirt and handing out pink slips.

I think Keith takes this a little far . . he points out one thing about the guy and suddenly he worships Reagan?

To rephrase what Obama basically said: "Reagan had the chance right in front of his nose and he took it. . . uhuh." . . it was pretty much that dull, and then of course he threw in Clinton to make himself appear bipartisan.

It was a bad choice on Obama's part and he'll pay for it. There are plenty of heroes to praise. Ronald Reagan was no hero, he was a union buster, he delayed the fight against aids that costs thousands of Americans their lives. Iran-Contra, the list is endless. Ronald Reagan is not a good example of what is right about America and a Democrat running for President of the United States ought to have more respect for his own party and not use it.

Obama voted to renew the PATRIOT act. nuff said.

I see the Obama Personality Cult is represented here.

Trying to play nice with bullies is not going to work and sadly the only thing of merit Obama has going for him is that he's a "uniter" and he's going to bring "change." He might be aiming to win over some moderate conservative voters with that kind of praise for Reagan but he's showing once again that in his quest to make friends with the other side of the aisle he's more than willing to throw us progressives under the bus.

Both he and Hillary are moderates which in the heavily tilted scale of politics in this country means they are socially liberal but Reagan-esque supporters of the "free market" and letting it continue on it's path of obliterating our planet, it's people and anything else that gets in the way of sustained profit. Some of you may feel Edwards is getting desperate of being a baffoon but at least he actually talks about the issues we rant about on these comment boards every day and says he's going to do something about it. I can't think of one time when a poster here said they really wish progressives would make friends with Christian fundamentalists or big business, but if that's what you want go right ahead and vote for the "change" Obama wants to bring, vote for the "change" Clinton wants to bring. I'm hoping to see the change Edwards is talking about though.

I see a bold, risky move to court the South.

I see a strategy. In Nevada, he's preparing for the campaign in the South—South Carolina to be specific.

If the South see him as sympathetic to the right-wing icon, whom the they loved, he may just win some more votes. Or not and simply alienate his base. I'm sure when he's in, say, New York, he use some liberal demonstrative rhetoric assuage liberal fear. He'll say plenty to retract many of the bad images he's placed in the heads of the more liberal party members.

Norm,

You said:

"Ronald Reagan is not a good example of what is right about America."

Agreed. However, Senator Obama never said that. He merely stated the obvious truth that Reagan represented a fundamental shift in politics. Clinton and Nixon were both two-term presidents who failed to create a majority coalition. Reagan created a majority coalition, and the voting population changed.

Obama is the best chance for a new DEMOCRATIC majority. He will fundamentally shift our political landscape - neither Edwards nor Clinton can achieve the same results.

The first rule of public speaking is...

By the way Rickler, you remember that Hillary also voted to renew the Patriot Act, right? Or are you still going with the premise this isn't essentially a two-horse race yet?

Kucinich did vote against it both times, but he is all kinds of buried.

As long as we don't get Mitt or one of the other Republicans, I don't really care. I don't think Edwards or Obama would be able to make big changes in our country. I think Hillary could but won't.

If only Kucinich were electable... but he would be even less able to make changes than Edwards or Obama.

Have you seen Obama's voting record? It seems to be mostly non-votes...

Still it would be cool to see a Hillary/Edwards ticket or any combination of two of the three front-runners. or Hillary/Gore!

Well, using I have to agree with Edwards here. Obama's words of praise for Reagan are incredibly stupid. In trying to minimize the impact of Bill Clinton (husband of his rival), he uses the icon of the Republican party. He is buying into what all the Republicans keep saying…that the country was better off while Reagan was in power. Well, as I remember the 80's I can't help but think of all the great things he did:

• The explosion in homelessness • The beginning of "God Bless America" in every speech. • The path to the rise of the "Moral" majority • The hypocrisy of family values • Trickle down economy (millions of people are still waiting) • The beginning of us against them • Cover ups • A national debt that increased at a historic pace • The enormous increase of the deficit. • The Military industry's glorious years • The poor grade in education • Ignoring Aids • The rise in drug consumption • The rise in health care costs • The wide spread between rich and poor • The air traffic controller's strike

By the way Obama, during Reagan's years the federal government became bigger and more bureaucratic.

I can go on and on. Reagan, unlike Bush, was a better actor. He seemed like a likable person but he is NOT one of the great leaders in history. Unfortunately, history is written by victors and the Republicans have done a good job of elevating him to almost godly status. Again, for Obama to used him as an example was not only a poor choice but it might have cost him my vote.

It's just another example of what I've written about (and been lambasted for) at the blog: Obama's political immaturity. He was probably smoking pot and skipping classes when Reagan was prez (I was, too!); but that's no excuse now. If Obama dreams that kowtowing to neocon kings of the past or present will win him centrist Dems and swing voters, he's got a rude awakening ahead, especially here in the big blue states of the Northeast.

So, if you are a liberal, you can't talk about Regan? Even say his name in passing?

The fact is that Regan is the second coming of Jesus for 95% of all "conservatives". He's been promoted to god like status, infallable and worshipworthy, due to the number of "changes" he made to the country (that destroyed unions and hurt the middle class).

To deny Regan's influence on the country is to not understand the Conservative mindset, and will only hurt you in the longrun. You must understand the "enemy" to work with your "enemy".

I don't disagree with you TMEC. What Obama did in my opinion is that he put a very positive spin on what Regan did. Regan is in my opinion one of the worst Presidents we ever had but you cannot denied he was an opportunist who changed the political landscape. I will take 8 years of slow but positive and long lasting change than Regan's legacy any time.

I will take 8 years of slow but positive and long lasting change than Regan's legacy any time.

Ditto. Yeah, you changed my mind. obama needs to not equate change with "any change, good or bad".

I'd like to see the entire clip; perhaps there's a transcript on line somewhere. I agree that Reagan was a lightening rod for a change in the political landscape, moreso than Bill Clinton, a moderate who turned out to be generally effective - but definitely NOT liberal.

I also agree that Obama should've chosen someone else. Gawd! Reagan? It's a sad statement for the GOP that he's been lionized over the past years.(well, DUH, anyone is better that W).

Eureka: http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080115/VIDEO/80115026&oaso=news.rgj.com/breakingnews Here's the full 49 minute Afternoon with Obama.

Quick run-down: 15'30" Obama hints at his somewhat later discussion by saying that not only does a pres. need a mandate for change, but have the people behind you.

The clip that Olbermann uses starts at 18:50. The question or discussion that prompted this response is edited out.

19'50": Obama includes Kennedy as a president who was able to take the country in a completely different direction. He doesn't discuss it as much, but there you have it. So, we have Kennedy and Reagan Airports; where would the Obama airport be?? ;~)

From the webpage cited, there are also videos of the other candidates.

Thanks gypsy sister. Good job.

I have to say that I'm disappointed with Obama. I agree with what he is trying to do but I think he is not using the right wording to get his message across. Statements like the one with Regan and "I think it’s fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last ten, fifteen years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom" were very surprising. Also, about how he will manage the government which sounded like what we have right now. This interview left me with more questions than answers.

Barack Obama really was talking about being the candidate of change here. His not going to become more right-wing after this. In fact, he's saying that his more liberal point of view will not be altered the way that Clinton's was. He's going to do for the Democrats what Regan did for the republican party. To think that he's taken on a more right-wing position after this comment takes a stretch of imagination.

Regardless of his personification of the right-wing blow hard, Obama is more liberal than Hillary. In fact, Dennis Kucinich has purposed that, should he drop out of the race, people who would have voted for him should vote for Barack. And he's trying—perhaps unsuccessfully—to let people know he's not going to alter his policies to appease a potentially more conservative congress the way Clinton did (who, for example, really fucked things up on the immigration issue when he kowtowed to the right wing congress).

While I liked Clinton, this kind of tough leadership is what this party needs. This comment makes me like him all the more.

Actually I'm surprised and disappointed to see how many people fall for such a poorly framed tautology (anyone who speaks of Regan must be like Regan). Especially since this Web site prides itself on avoiding such things.

Exactly, Marco. Reacting to a soundbite as if that sums up the man is sad to see, esp. among fellow travelers.

Over-parsing of statements, or a rigid code of correct terms for all expressions is a disturbing orthodoxy wherever you find it.

"Over-parsing of statements, or a rigid code of correct terms for all expressions is a disturbing orthodoxy wherever you find it."

Get a candidate who speaks in clear, substantive terms, and maybe those of us who aren't members of his personality cult wouldn't have to spend all this time trying to figure out what he's "really" saying.

If Obama wants my vote, it's easy enough to get. All he has to do is clearly explain that he is, in fact, pro-worker, anti-corporatist, pro-civil liberties and due process, pro-social safety net, and in favor of holding the Bush criminals accountable for their crimes. For whatever reason, he refuses to do this . . .

I noticed that he didn't say he approved of the changes effected by Ronald Reagan, only that Reagan was successful in making changes because he played to the crowd.

What's worse? Mis-speaking about Reagan, or mis-voting to give a psychopathic president the authority to attack a nation which had not attacked us?

Come on -- a little perspective, please.