Obama has the ability to pull together a coalition of Americans  that transcends previous party membership.  Under Webb, the "Reagan Democrats, began to come home.  Obama will inspire a new generation of "Obama Republicans", who are inspired to lead the country into a new era of universal opportunity, prosperity, and strength to face the challenges of the 21st Century.

Progressivism will continue to fight and lose the framing war as long as we leave it on the battlefield of the right.  I agree with that entirely, which is why Obama is so important to the progressive framing effort.  He takes the entire discourse off of the playing field of "you're on your own" conservatism, and puts it on the playing field of "yes, we can".  It's a profound change int the paradigm of American political discourse, the likes of which we haven't seen since REAGAN put us on the conservative battlefield.

I'm sick of fighting the right fight on the wrong field... I'd imagine you are too.

but, when all the talk is ended, how will Obama get the Republicans/conservatives to come to the table and agree with what we hold dear: a woman's right to choose, getting out of Iraq, universal healthcare, etc.

More and more commentators are questioning this "how" question now.  Obama is on the right side of the political spectrum by his excellent liberal voting, but I'm just worried that when the hard questions come to him....just HOW are you going to resolve these enormous differences in political ideology....there won't be a good enough answer.  

Has anyone heard anything on the HOW part. I'm not challenging the candidate.  I want to help him if we, who don't trust Repbulicans, can learn how he's going to win them over to our side.

I do not agree with all the Democratic "reframers," at least on some of their tactics (e.g., Lakoff's contrast between nurturing and paternalistic "father"), but they are at least on the right track in saying we need to step up the reframe effort.  

Hillary Clinton has fake-teared up while attacking Obama, talked about "false hope" while claiming to be the true progressive (false hope!), stumbled all over an analogy about Dr. King and LBJ, trotted out her husband (sans bimbos), to attack Obama as a "fairy tale," induced a billionaire to attack Obama as an Uncle Tom and a drug abuser, given a nausea-inducing interview about the most noted (but certainly not the most long-running) bimbo eruption in her marriage,and, most outrageous of all, attacked Obama as INSUFFICIENTLY ANTI-WAR.  And, as usual, adhered to the Clinton mantra: never apologize, never explain.

Hillary Clinton will never get my vote.  She will never get the vote of anyone in my family, whether in a primary or in a general election.  I am a life-long Democrat, and have voted Democratic in every presidential election since 1976.  And I think I speak for a lot of people when I ask just one thing of Hillary Clinton: please, please, please get out the way and stop pissing all over the Democrats' chances of taking back our country.

I know, I know, I'm not supposed to attack another Democrat.  Only the Clintons are allowed to do that.

While Obama's Presidency represents an unprecedented opportunity to move America forward, the Clinton Presidency will at least stop the bleeding.  It truly is "depressing" that  the Clintons are fighting this fight the way that they are, but at they know how to fight their opponents, that includes republicans. If the Kerry campaign fought like the Clinton's we'd have avoided Judge Roberts, Judge Alito, The Surge, Alberto Gonzalez, Katrina...  The list of Bush Admin crimes and disasters is nearly endless, but you get the idea.

My point is - Hillary will fight for the presidency because she knows what's at stake should America have another fit of masochism and put another Republican in the White House.

Bottom line, Hillary may not be the quantum leap forward that Obama would be, but she's light years ahead of any Republican.

"There is a column out that I thought summed this race up pretty nicely. Hillary thought she would cruise to the nomination. She feels she is entitled to it. The Clintons will do anything to get rid of anyone who dares to challenge them. I appreciate everything the Clintons have done and did like them but they have crossed the line several times during this campaign."

"There are two groups in the country that are heavily Democratic yet fairly disillusioned with the system. They are black and young voters. I have a prediction to make. If Hillary wins this thing with the tactics she is employing, namely distortion and defamation, the Democrats will have an even harder time trying to turn out these two groups for the general."

You said that Hillary Clinton is light years ahead of any Republican.  The bottom line is, I expect better of Democrats. I expected better of the Clintons, until they went out of their way to prove me wrong this week.  They are way, way over the line.  For me, personally, it's too late to go back.  (Not that they're even trying.)

And I should apologize for not doing a better job of recognizing the plethora of sensible and insightful comments you make throughout the postings here at RK.

If I said it every time I thought it, I'd never have time to post or comment, but please do know how very much I appreciate and value your work here.  In my book, you're tops.

I do not think in a nation of so many able people we should have to "hold our nose" when we vote.  There are probably countless people out there who would make excellent presidents but will never run because they fear people like Clinton will do to them what they are doing to Obama.  We cannot have double standards here.  If we denounce it when the Republicans do it we should denounce when the Democrats do it.  

Like Spotter and everyone else, I desperately want to see a different direction.  I do think Clinton may bring about some change but by voting for her in the general election I feel that I would be rewarding bad behavior in a sense.  If she goes on to win the nomination without any consequences for the tactics she has employed, what message does that send?

I cannot believe that I have found myself in this position.  Here we are, eight years of a Bush Presidency, and I am seriously considering whether or not I can actually vote for a Democratic nominee.  

I really hate that with this opportunity to put a fresh face in the White House and embark on a new direction we are about to fall back on nominating candidates who have been part of the Washington crowd for several years.

Like Hillary Clinton said, I just don't want to see my country fall backward.

no matter who the candidate is.  Our country's future is bigger than a dislike for a particular Democratic candidate.  

We need every vote to win and, as a Democrat, we sure need yours.  

Hold your nose if you have to while thinking of a 9-0 Scalia/Roberts/Alioto/Thomas Supreme Court if a Republican is President for the next 8 years.  

this was an unwise move on Obama's part.  It's early and, if he's lucky, it may be forgotten with time.  

Obama needs core Democrats to win the nomination and core Democrats, especially those of us who were adults during Reagan's administration, have very negative feelings about Reagan.  I don't know what might have been going through Obama's head or whom on his campaign team he was listening to but you don't get core Dems on your side by comparing Reagan to Clinton and Reagan is the "better".  

On the surface, it looks pandering to the right, which is fine.  You need every vote you can get.  But I think it was a gamble that was not politically wise for bringing in core Democrats.  Let's be honest among ourselves, most campaign talk isn't aimed at the intellectual, it's for appealing to the unthinking masses who want soundbites to convince them of something.  But many core Democrats are very bitter about Reagan's (talk about slick talker) ultra-conservative agenda and core Democrats know what Matt Stoller alleges about Reagan:

But if you think, as Obama does, that Reagan's rise to power was premised on a sunny optimism in contrast to an out of control government and a society rife with liberal excess, then you don't understand the conservative movement.  Reagan tapped into greed and fear and tribalism, and those are powerful forces.  Ignoring that isn't going to make them go away.
...
Reagan was a psychotic man who nearly blew up the world and used paranoia and fear to change our culture and government in horrible ways.  He also wasn't particularly popular, though as a politician, he's worth admiring for his raw political skill.  Conservative ideology is based on greed and fear.  There's no such thing as a good conservative leader, period.  It is a fundamentally bankrupt, corrupt, and fraudulent ideology, and there is nothing laudable about people like Reagan who tap into the worst of America.

Analysts say that Obama needs core Democrats to win and I think he made a mistake here in comparing Reagan (however you compare him) to Clinton and Clinton's the loser.  And as I said before, it's early in the race and maybe it will blow away.

I'd ask a question of RKers.  Were you an adult during the Reagan administration and old enough to know the absolute, conservative callousness of his administration...his ideology?  If so, do you agree that the Repbulicans and conservatives have completely rewritten history about this very manipulative, and uncaring President?

this?

But no president can do it alone. She must break recent tradition, cast cronyism aside and fill her cabinet with the best people, not only the best Democrats, but the best Republicans as well.. We're confident she will do that. Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan - demonstrates how she thinks. As expected, Bill Clinton was also included on the aforementioned list.

I just think, strategically, it was wrong to put Clinton and Reagan in the same sentence, with Clinton "losing"....when you're trying to go after the base votes.  

But yes she's pandering too.

 

Especially considering that Hillary was a "Goldwater girl?"

Then again, I thought Obama's positions on meeting world leaders and Pakastan were massive blunders, but they ended up reinforcing his foreign-policy beyond Iraq credibility and had a lot to do with his victory in Iowa.

I think that Obama and his team are approaching this race with an ear for America not the Dem base.   It's tough to run for the General during the Primary.  It may not work.  He may lose.  But if he wins he stands well positioned to have a very consistent General Election strategy.  

That's very different from the Clintons, with whom I have 2 major gripes.  

1.  Bill always "faked left and went right", which is to say that he used the language of liberalism to enact a conservative agenda.  We see Hillary supposedly standing as a champion of the Dems here in the primary, but she consciously built a center-right voting record, to minimize attacks after she wins the General.

2.  As a direct result of this headfaking, Bill left the party in tatters.  We're still rebuilding.

I see Obama as a consistent voice of unity that can attract Americans overwhelmingly into the Democratic party, while enacting the policies supported by the overwhelming majority of Americans, aka the Progressive agenda.

He says what he means, because in the post-rovian world, that's ok.  He lives there already, and America may get a chance to as well.  As Americans we have that choice.

He is already going to mobilize black and young voters, but to capture the nomination, he needs to show real strength among independents and even get those all-important Republicans.

If this works in the primary and he gets the nomination, the Republicans will go into the general running scared.

They're terrified of him, because, despite the fact that he is one of the most progressive Dems ever to have a shot at the White House, they like him. They REALLY like him.

So here's the thing core, primary-voting Dems need to remember, partisanship won't realize the Democratic agenda.  Partisanship is about building public awareness and support for the positions, and for holding the line on particular issues.  Partisanship wont
* Usher in a new era in American politics (as Reagan did)
* Allow BOLD ideas to become American policy
* Present a new face of a united America to the world

Essentially, there's big change afoot, and while I do admire THAT the clintons are fighting for the future, I believe that the WAY they are doing it is very dangerous.

Hillary could "lose by winning".

Unfortunately, I see some of the same type of shortsightedness that said "Jim Webb's a REPUBLICAN, I'll never vote for a REPUBLICAN!" back in the spring of 2006.  Luckily, enough people in Virginia were smart enough to realize that Jim Webb could beat George Allen and possibly bring back "Reagan Democrats" into the fold.  If some of the doctrinaire Democrats had had their way, that never would have happened, the Republicans would still control the US Senate, and George Allen would be well on his way to the Republican presidential nomination.  Brilliant!!!

Even when the nomination was gravely in doubt back in 2006, many of us here at RK vowed to support the nominee regardless of the outcome.

That's the party way.

We fight like hell during the primary, because we need to be ready to face the Republicans in the general.  Then we join together as Democrats.  And finally, we all come together as Americans when we need to work together to guide the legislative process.  

What I think is amazing about Obama is that he sees through to the end.  He is working NOW to lay the groundwork for a powerful governing coalition to lead a united nation.  Imagine that... we haven't seen anything like it in a generation.

That's the real difference:  It ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it.  

This is the primary part of the election process and dissing Clinton/praising Reagan (that's how it superficially looks) I believe, is dangerous.  Again, he's taken the risk but I think it would have been wiser to use this statement, after the primaries when you're going after Republican votes.  My point was that he may lose core Dems.  

is, in my opinion, a critique not of the MAN but of the idea -- ClintonISM, triangulation, "the era of big government is over," "end welfare as we know it," "free trade," all of that.  I see that as a healthy debate our party needs to have, not something insidious or harmful as you imply with the word "dissing."

I wish the electorate did so.  I agree with you by the way.  It's just that I don't trust the electorate to sort out things as well.  

But I think that with Reagan's Death, America etched that history in stone.  Any effort to undermine the legacy of
Reagan under the current conventional wisdom paradigm will be dismissed as partisan.

As long as we continue to fight politics on the battlefield of conservative world view, America will never question the aspects of the Reagan era that we Progressives see.  

In order for that to happen, we need to take the fight, change the nature of the discussion.  Obama does that, because he changes the discussion from "How much can I take?", to "How much can we give?"

Those aren't just different discussions, they're different world views.  Hillary may be the best fighter in the world, but she's competing on losing terrain.  The only place that her arguments make sense are inside cloistered Democratic circles.  When you engage America on this question, her position completely falls apart, and the broadest swath of the nation rallies to Obama's cause.  

from the Atlanta Journal Constitution:

For reasons largely outside her control, Clinton is also one of the more reviled figures in American politics. That sentiment is unfair and irrational, and she has done little to deserve it. But it exists nonetheless, and it would limit the amount of public support she would be able to rally as president.

Obama, on the other hand, has demonstrated an appeal across many of the lines that have divided America. That is a critically important attribute, because the scale of changes that must be made to correct America's course cannot be accomplished with majorities of 50 percent plus one.

Different moments in history require different types of leaders, and part of the art of picking a president is matching the person to the challenge and to the time. So while both Clinton and Obama would make very good presidents, Obama is the person; this is his time.

I couldn't agree more; this is the time to pull America together and achieve great things.  Barack Obama can accomplish that in ways that no other presidential candidate this year can do.  I strongly urge everyone to support Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination!

If we're going to criticize anyone for praising LBJ's contributions to civil rights, we ought to criticize people for praising Reagan for the things he accomplished.

Now, I don't I don't think we should be doing EITHER.  It's idiotic and distracts from a discussion of the challenges facing America today.  But I'm not going to join the others on the Obama bandwagon in the hypocricy of "oh em effing gee, how can you say we needed LBJ to help advance civil rights, wtf why are you criticizing someone for saying nice things about Reagan, waah waaah waaaah."  It's so sickeningly disingenuous.

So if you don't like Reagan and you're sick and tired of the Reagan glorification, and you object to Obama participating in it, go right ahead.  You're entitled to your opinion.

For the very same reason I wanted WEBB for Senate!!

This Grey Havens diary is Brilliant ... I'm not surprise given the author.

Hillary Clinton, rightly or wrongly is one of the polarizing figures in politics today. Personally I think the Clintons have earned (and recently been working at) that reputation .... I know John Edwards has not .... and I know that Barrack Obama has not.

I suspect these recent endorsements by John Kerry and Pat Leheay are in large part recognition of such.

We need a cross party generational leader who inspires and can unite ... that LEADER IS OBAMA

I think Obama's point was that people were ready for a change with Reagan. I don't think he meant to imply that he agreed with Reagan's policies.

I also realize that Republicans have used the term "excesses of the sixties" as code for the Feminist and Civil Rights mvoements. However, Bill Clinton has also used the term. The term can also be used to denote the excessive rebellion against convention morals and social values which we saw in the sixties and early seventies. This would include excessive drug use and promiscuity. I saw this up close with some friends. Some people just got to the point of "anything goes" and then later cried in their beer when they realized what a mess they had made of their lives and how many people they had hurt, not the least of which being themselves.

I think Obama's point is that excess can go in any direction and that we need to evaluate the difference between constructive change and change simply for the sake of change. In other words, change should not mean throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Opponents of Obama are twisting his words, taking them out of context, and pretending to be outraged (OUTRAGED, I SAY!) at his historical musings and analysis.  I strongly recommend ignoring the fake outrage, especially when it comes from a former "Goldwater Girl."  

Another point about Reagan is that he inspired people. I happen to think it was mostly an act, but it was what people wanted at the time. How much better off we would be with someone who inspired without acting, someone like Obama.

Another thing that cannot be denied is that Reagan was absolutely right when he said the Soviet Union was "The Evil Empire". We are so fortunate that the Berlin wall came down. I don't think Reagan was wholy responsible for that, but my tour guide in Berlin last fall said the German people were very appreciative that Reagan stood at the wall and said "tear this wall down" in public.

Of course they were also very appreciative when Kennedy said "I am a Berliner" even if the syntax he used actually meant that he was a donut. These things are never forgotten and are very important.

...this was Reagan at his best.

Also, this was awesome:

I said it. I still say it.  It is one point I do not agree with Webb on.  (But then no one is perfect.)  I don't agree with Obama on elevating Reagan either.  I think it was a foolish move.  He should be called on it.  (We all would have called Webb on it if a stronger candaite had run against him.  But then, there was Harris Miller?  Webb was by far better than him, so we went easy on Webb....we did not "chop off our noses to spite our faces."

Today Obama is not the only good choice for President and so Obama is called on his Reagan reference.

I lived through Reagan and didn't pay close attention, but all one needs to bring out the stench of his rule is IRAN/Contra and our involvement in the IRAN/IRAQ war.
Funnelling arms to both sides of a devastating war is disgusting to the extreme.   Perhaps we Americans like to breeze over that or forget that part of history, but you can be sure it resonates loaudly in the memories of people in that part of the world.

Yes Reagan stunk.

the political frame in this country in a significant way.  He also managed to inspire a lot of people, while alienating and angering many others (myself included).  No matter what, though, Reagan was a highly significant president, and one for whom millions of "Reagan DEMOCRATS" voted.  I believe that's mostly what Obama was getting at.  As far as Webb is concerned, I don't think he saw -- not sure why not -- how badly Reagan hurt the working people of this country, the labor movement, income inequality, etc.  Perhaps Sen. Webb has thought differently of Reagan since he wrote "Born Fighting" and decided to become a Democrat.

that he's one of (if the the) bright light(s) in the US Senate.  So I am not hilding that against him (just didn't understand it).  

And as I said on another thread, I say that as one who actually voting for Reagan once (as Gov of Calif) many years ago.  (Hang my head in shame.)  It's safe to say that Reagan dispelled in me any notion that I was an early Republican and I have been a Dem from six months into his first term of gov.   Except for that one crossover in a GOP primary I have always voted the Democrat on the ballot.  The error of my ways was that obvious.  The man was a one-person wrecking crew.  And he barely worked.  It was a joke in Calif.  But they kept voting for the guy anyway.  Just shows how not-liberal California was and is.

Whether or not he has rethought

I love Barack Obama.

Senator Webb is more aware than most of the danger of political smears in the heat of a close race.  Now, there's something he can do to help:  as one of the Superdelegates to the Democratic Convention, Sen. Webb can endorse Barack Obama and commit to supporting him for the nomination.

You can encourage Sen. Webb to take a stand and commit his support to Sen. Obama at http://Webb.senate.gov/contact/ .  

Alternatively, you could email Sen Webb and ask him to endorse Hillary Clinton.  Nevada and NH got it right---in times like these, we need a government that works.  Hillary has the experience, the work ethic, and the vision to make it so!

...something tells me he's going to do exactly what HE wants to do, but you all certainly have the right to try and persuade him.  Good luck! :)

Jim Webb does what he thinks is right.  If he thought endorsing Hillary was the right move, he already would've done it.  

Webb doesn't play politics.  Don't convicitions just suck? :)

Seriously, Webb's endorsement would actually swing a lot of voters, and not just in Virginia.  If he went one way or the other, it would carry a lot of military sway.

I'm sure that Lowell and Dan are absolutely right that Jim is "going to do exactly what HE wants to do because he "does what he thinks is right" ... I always like to combine thoughts about how we believe a great man and independent thinker makes his decisions.

I also THINK I understand why Tim Kaine decided NOT to remain neutral and I believe his reasons are more complex than most of his and Obama's supporters have been saying.

But I am also disappointed in my Governor for having not remained neutral. And my disappointment has nothing at all to do with the fact that he happened to decide on Obama. Most of you know that I've been a strong supporter of Edwards for a year and I would have been just as disappointed in Kaine if he'd endorsed and campaigned for Edwards rather than remain neutral.

It took me a long time to forgive the DPVA chair Dick Cranwell when he chose not to remain neutral before the 2006 primary. My feeling at that time was that Cranwell should have done the honorable thing and step down as DPVA chair when he decided to support Miller -- and I still feel that way today. I will never forget the day I went to the Unity Rally in Charlottesville after Webb had won the primary and heard not a word from Cranwell imploring all Miller supporters to join the Webb campaign. Hardly what I'd call "Unity" on the part of the DPVA chair. I was even more disappointed that Cranwell failed to immediately begin publicly campaigning for Webb. I heard that Cranwell did finally attend fundraisers and internal party functions where he asked attendees to do everything they could to help Jim Webb get elected, but I never heard of any public campaigning by Cranwell.

Granted Tim Kaine isn't the official head of the Democratic Party of Virginia but he is the Democrat who holds the highest elected office in Virginia and if Obama fails to win the nomination Kaine has an unnecessarily diminished his credibility just a little bit, at least with me, but more importantly with independents and moderate republicants when he has to campaign hard for the winning nominee.

For me, Kaine has further damaged his credibility just a little more by not saying if he would decline a request from Obama to be his VP running mate if Obama is nominated. That creates the appearance that the possibility of a VP slot might have influenced Kaine's decision not to remain neutral. Rather than directly answering the quesion of whether he would accept the VP slot if it were offered, he said that offer isn't possible. I know I'm being picky, but I think a better way to answer would have been either "no" or simply that -- like Webb said -- he and Obama have not discussed that at all (and I'm sure that is true). Personally I think Kaine would be a great Obama VP running mate, but that's really not the point. We all know it's at least a possiblity.

That's much too lengthly an explanation of my disappointment with any high ranking Democrat (even a county or CD chair) to fail to remain neutral before a nominee has been selected. Kaine's decision won't prevent me from working just as hard for any of the three Pres. candidates, but I do wnat to make it clear that I believe all of our party officials are honor-bound to remain neutral. My problem is with Governor Kaine, not with Obama.

                       T.C.