Comments on: Running For President, Not Party Chairman

By: Who Are We? » Oliver Willis

Who Are We? » Oliver Willis — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 05:57:38 +0000

[...] few months ago I wrote about how I really really want the president of the United States to be someone who is the national [...]

By: C.S.Strowbridge

C.S.Strowbridge — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 12:14:27 +0000

I don’t have a problem with mentioning Regan, but I do have a problem when Democrats bringing up disproved Republican talking points, whether its Obama and Social Security or Clinton on the Iranian threat. It hurts progressive causes when they do that.

By: bill l.

bill l. — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 22:38:34 +0000

I agree that Obama is probably smart to bring up Reagan as a bit of a dog whistle to the right-leaning members of the Democratic party (and left leaning, if it can be called that, Republicans)who worship at the foot of Saint Ronnie who otherwise might have issues with a liberal black candidate. It also, however, serves to promote the idea that Clinton was just a decent steward of the country and nothing remarkable (so why have a Clinton part Deux), thereby feeding into the idea that we all need “change.” Unfortunately, by undercutting Clinton Obama choose to bolster Reagan’s already hugely inflated myth. Forget whether Obama actually supports any of the policies of the Gipper, his invocation of him as an agent of change(Just like Obama! Yea! Not like Clinton! Boo!) is implicitly supportive. That type of almost sub-conscious alignment and support contributes to future Bush-esque candidates who promise to be the next Reagan (as is happening now) and keeps a significant percentage of voters only nominally aligned with the Left but ready in a heartbeat to go for a Reagan or McCain. Meanwhile, we chip away at our last successful President as nothing special. I have to think that right now the GOP is working on how they can twist this to their advantage, knowing full well that the vast majority of the idiocracy won’t dig for the deeper meaning and will only take away the simple message, “Obama supports Reagan.”

It’s unfortunate that while I relish the idea of either a minority or a woman taking the Presidency, I agree more with the policy positions of John Edwards, the traditional white guy, over both of them, despite his stupid vote for the war (which he has acknowledged as stupid, unlike Hillary). Obama may be playing good politics to get elected, but I can’t say I disagree with those people venting on dKos and the like over his invocation of Reagan. At any rate, I hardly think any debate over this issue on left leaning blogs is going to bring Obama down so much as a tenth of a percentage point. Everybody on the Left knows they will vote for “anybody but a Republican” in the Fall.

By: Media Glutton

Media Glutton — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 22:11:11 +0000

I totally agree, Oliver. I’m pretty partisan, too, but I’m getting so sick of these diarists on Kos or MyDD calling Obama “Reagan.” HE WASN’T SUPPORTING RONALD REAGAN, YA GOOFBALLS! Man, sometimes I worry about left blogistan.

Obama is seen by the right as being moderate, but in actuality he’s very, very progressive. This is a GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY for Democrats to have a well-liked liberal in the White House. He’s ONE OF US! He was against the war when it started! Clinton and Edwards weren’t! Sheesh, he’s been on the progressives’ side of this war since 2002!! Give the man a gol-dang BREAK, people!

By: skeeters

skeeters — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 21:28:38 +0000

Thank God for Oliver Willis.

NO ONE in the blogosphere could have put it better.

I would like to add something, you said it all.