In my recent observance of MSNBC coverage of the presidential race, the economy is being touted as an important overall factor in determining how people are planning on voting.  Would someone tell me which candidate has been talking about economics, jobs, middle class diminishment, all of those real economic worries that are concerning to most of my assoicates.  I faintly remember John Edwards speaking about 'Two Americas' back in 2004.  Maybe it is time to remind people of those facts.

Obama was right about Reagan!  Reagan's why I'm a Republican.  Reagan was the best thing to ever happen to America.  Shame on Edwards!

I was wondering when Edwards or Clinton would jump on the "Reagan" was a change agent statement from Obama.  Reagan set this country back years.  

Oh Edwards, I love you but don't take the Bait

Will Obama go down to Philidelphia, Mississippi like his hero Ronnie Reagan did, and give a speech on "states rights," complete with the buzz words and the winks and the nods?

Will Obama steal a page from his hero, the Gipper's, playbook and harp on the abuses of "welfare queens"?

I wonder.  

One of the few candidates to come from working people background. He knows what the middle class is going through. For all of us, I hope he wins.

it is amazing how what a person says is misconstrued. for those of you who listened to obama's statement, he was making reference to historical time periods in political history that big political change occured and the hope that this would be a time and period that such change would occur again on his behalf.

if we do a minimal amount of research we will find these statements to be true. ronald reagan won by getting a large independent vote and democratic crossover vote.

obama is right to want to attempt to do the same in getting a large independent vote and republican crossover vote.

we doubt if john edwards has viewed the interview. he probaly is going on news reports. be careful john. don't speak before knowing. be as smart as you have always been.

You know, it is a sure sign of how deep the divisions are in our country that just mentioning the name Ronald Reagan is so taboo in the Democratic Party! lol

I think that Senator Obama is merely acknowledging the fact that President Reagan was able to govern effectively based on the mandate he had from the voters, not that he agrees with all of his policies.

The point Senator Obama is making is that if he has  an overwheming mandate to change Washington from the voters, he could then use that to get the people's business done for a change.

"The former North Carolina senator criticized Obama specifically for referring to Ronald Reagan as an agent of change in a newspaper interview. “I would never use Ronald Reagan as an example of change,” Edwards said."

--Except that R. Reagan was an agent of change in many respects, particularly that of the economy and international standing.  It would be one thing to disagree with Reagan's changes, but to completely exclude him is ludicrous.  A good leader would learn from the successes and mistakes of past leaders--whether they agree with them or not.  G.W. Bush acts like he is President only for the 50% who voted for him, and Mr. Edwards comments sound very much similar--only for the other 50%.  That's not change and Edwards just sounds angry.



“Here’s what I think: I think what we need in the next president of the United States is somebody with some guts and fight and determination.”
--See Washington.  They bicker and fight daily, and get no where.  B.H. Obama has a better strategy to get things done.

Reagan is the anti-Christ to liberals. It confuses liberals that most people don't need the government to take of them 24/7/365. Anyone that believes otherwise must be the devil.

Edwards pulls off a victory in Nevada, You will see a sharp rise in the nation polls. I'd like to see a poll of people who aren't voting for him because they think he dosen't have a chance, but would if they thought he did.

“I could promise you this,” Edwards said. “This president will never use Ronald Reagan as an example.”

And that is why Edwards will never be president.  He cares more for the unions than the people - we don't need more socialists.

Edwards should watch the entire video before commenting. Barack Obama speaks about tranformational presidents like Reagan and JFK. Reagan won 49 states against Mondale/Ferraro in 1980(a mandate that including a big chunk of Dems). JFK inspired Americans to dream(man on the moon) and serve. Many people still refer to how JFK inspired them to join such orgs as the Peace Corp. Nixon and to a certain extent, B Clinton(missed opportunity), ended up being divisive figures.

Here it is:

http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080115/VIDEO/80115026&oaso=news.rgj.com/breakingnews

Dear Friends:
Well! Well!   Well!   Clean water?  MSN is mudding up the waters of Freedom of Speech perhaps CNN will give equality and mean it.  Freedom!!!  Freedom!!! Freedom not drones, two men with no procreation?   What next in stem cell pharmacuticle mix and selection of race, gender, creed, age, color?   Genecide,  body parts,
sex,   no none except selected.  

Which candidate supports or believes in creationism and no evolution taught in schools?  Are private schools allowed to teach creationism?  
Thalidamide babies little teeny tiny or no limbs perhaps this is next.  Babies with webbed hands and feet is this for science to try and prove evolution?
Your ancestors

Obama probably likes Reagan because they have similar views of the Presidency.  Reagan slept during meetings.   Obama doesn't think the President has to do anything except show up either.

Do people not understand Obama?  Despite differences, Obama sees the good in everyone and expounds on them.  He even used some of Bill Clinton's summations.  It's easy to criticize, but what do we have in common.  A good leader uses the past to consumate the future.  If it didn't work before, why use it?  He evaluates each person and regardless of what happens, he brings people together and find common ground.  That's why the soil under his feet is fertile.  That's why he is able to reach across party lines to make things happen.  
In the Transportation Corp of the Army, we would say, "Nothing Happens, Until Something Moves."  You get that sense that something is moving and going in a great direction with the person he is and how he runs his campaign and how he...despite all odds in his past becomes a person many would support.  
Until the others realize that and stop looking down on past leaders, despite differences, they will remain on hollow ground.  

Thank you John Edwards! When I heard Obama's comment about Reagan this morning I almost choked on my corn flakes. To openly praise a man who tripled the national debt on an unnecessary arms race (and at a time when Putin is threatening a new Cold War) does not instill confidence that Obama is right for the future of this party. If he wants to appeal to moderate Republicans, do it in the general election, not the primary season.

My greatest fear with Obama is that when push comes to shove he would compromise Democratic ideals "in the spirit of compromise" and "unity". I, as a treehugging liberal middle-class Democrat, have no interest in compromise. It's about time the left had a try at running the country. The right sent it to hell in a handbasket in seven years. That's why I support Edwards--I know what he stands for and I'm convinced he won't sell out to the Republicans (or special interests) for the sake of a cheap win on a bill.

Love him or hate him, Reagan left a lasting mark on the country and on the presidency and was able to advance his agenda effectively. Obama's embrace of him is another example of his maturity and willingness to cross the aisle for support. Edwards is being very short-sighted by falling into the familiar red/blue divide on this.

DAMN STRAIGHT, GO, John, GO!!

I like MSNBC for cheary picking Obamas comments, where is the link..... where is the link............ where is the link obama interview

Edwards must be smart enough to graduate from law school, but isn't smart enough to figure out that every example given in a conversation doesn't necessarily imply identification or endorsement of  the particulars of that example. Obama is correct within the context of the conversation; Reagan WAS a game changer. He created a new constituency that included lots of cross-over members from the other party. FDR was another game changer. Kennedy changed the overall vision of the country from one that was overly conservative to one that allowed for a greater range of styles and individuals.

Edwards would be none of those things. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad he's hanging around, and I hope that in the end, he comes around and gives Obama a boost with an endorsement. But his argument here is weak and literal; you'd expect that from Clinton, but not necessarily from him.

The challenge to the media to look at more than fundraising and celebrity is spot-on. It is absolutely accurate to describe media coverage of the Democratic candidates from very early on as completely biased towards "who's raised the most money" or "celebrity." Both are a disservice to the public considering that most of the money raised by Clinton and Obama come from corporate interests and both of those candidates have a track record of giving those interests what they want (Tort reform, opposition to limits on predatory lending, support for nuclear power, etc.). Meanwhile Edwards campaign, a clear threat to monied interests control over government, gets measurably less press coverage despite a clearly resonating message.

C'mon MSNBC. This is an important election. Start informing the public about all that's at stake besides the potential to elect the first woman or minority to the White House. Its about much more than that.

Democratic Nevada Caucus - Prediction Time!

The road to the White House now goes through Nevada because Saturday's statewide caucuses

will help to clarify presidential nomination races in both major parties.

Who do you predict will win the Democratic Nevada Presidential Caucus?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1551

.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Republican Nevada Caucus - Prediction Time!

Who do you predict will win the Republican Nevada Presidential Caucus?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1552


.

That's the truth about Barack Hussein Obama.
It's all about being flashy and inspiring. And then people retreat to the privacy of their homes to deal with everyday mundane problems.

Okay okay Edwards we get it you want to be VP

You know Dickie, this is America and that means everyone has a vote, even stupid people like you. I'm confident that they'll be several people who will make up for your idiocy and ensure your vote is meaningless. Hats off to stupidity Dickie.

Edwards is the biggest idiot in American politics.

So, Obama's "Ronald Reagan" now, huh?
Would that be the same Ronald Reagan who spent most of the 1980's busting up labor unions in this country?...and is this the same Barrack Obama who got the endorsement of the Culinary Services Workers Union out there in 'Vegas?
Kinda' hypocritical isn't it? I wonder how Reagan would have reacted to a union getting special voting priviledges in a casino.
I also wonder what special interest group Obama is trying to attract wih that assertion.
Lord knows he wants everyone, except Democrats, to vote for him.

I suppose I can't blame Edwards for the sound bite.  But I'm sure he knows that Obama only admires Reagan's ability to have brought people to together and get something done, not what he actually did.

True about Reagan busted airport controllers union. He definately was against unions. See how culnary union workers feel about his statement. He stated in his book thou he was totally against Reagan. I guess trying to get independents changes your perspective. I think Edwards can beat Obama in Neveda. See how many culnary workers actual participate. I also heard union leaders were trying to intimadate the culinary workers. If that is true someone should step in.

Dear Friends:
Well! Well!   Well!   Clean water?  MSN is mudding up the waters of Freedom of Speech perhaps CNN will give equality and mean it.  Freedom!!!  Freedom!!! Freedom not drones, two men with no procreation?   What next in stem cell pharmacuticle mix and selection of race, gender, creed, age, color?   Genecide,  body parts,
sex,   no none except selected.  

Which candidate supports or believes in creationism and no evolution taught in schools?  Are private schools allowed to teach creationism?  
Thalidamide babies little teeny tiny or no limbs perhaps this is next.  Babies with webbed hands and feet is this for science to try and prove evolution?
Your ancestors
sharon walker Folsom, CA (Sent Thursday, January 17, 2008 4:32 PM)

What are you talking about?  You must be hanging out on the Huffington Post or one of these other sites that twist/misrepresent the facts.  I think the only crazy is you.

Debra-
You call Dickie 'stupid' because he alluded to the fact that Obama voted 'present' rather than yay or nay...why does this make him 'stupid'? Wow, lets keep the debate about the candidates and the issues...after all, that is what is important. Our voices, as voters and citizens, are supposed to be heard through our elected officials - thankfully not just those of us who exercise our freedom of speech.

Liberals think Ronald Reagan was the anti-Christ. Conservatives think John F. Kennedy was wimp.

And then comes a candidate with superior intelligence who sees the best in both Reagan and JFK - Barack Obama is that candidate.

Picture Edwards saying America needs a president with guts - just picture his twisted mouth. These are the kinds of statements that make me lose respect for Edwards. He didn't show guts, he didn't fight when the time came. He left the senate a worse place than he met it.

Sue, Obama isn't Ghandi and he isn't saint.  He is a southside Chicago pol trying to win an election.

Jeffim,

What is your reason for spelling out Senator Obama's middle name?  Do you feel that's relevant?

Reagan was terrible for this country. He yanked the rug out from under the unions leading up to where we are today. CEO s making 400 Times what the company worker on the floor makes. People who build reagan into something mythical have a foggy memory, or they had a silver spoon in their mouth at the time. I was laid of for over 5 years from ALCOA, courtesy of reagan stabbing the unions. Give all the money to the big corporations and the big wigs that run them, and let the rest of us catch the crumbs that fall off their tables. That's trickle down economics reality!!

I don't really understand the criticism of Edwards here.  Clearly Edwards didn't call Obama out on this because he's too dumb to realize people might take exception to it.  He's doing it because he's genuinely frightened by the idea of having another RR or RR sympathizer in office.  I would tend to agree that it's not the politically expedient move on Edwards' part, but I applaud him from speaking from his gut as he always does, whatever I may think about his remarks.

people on these blogs just make up history to go with their feelings.  For example, If they liked Reagan, now he's a GOD who shall not be criticized.  They are so sensitive about this grave idol they can't even handle a relatively gentle fictionalized drama about him on TV that presented a view.  

I'm old enough to remember a saying from Woodstock:  "Ronald Ray-gun Zap!" Pretty appropriate. Again, though, why is it wrong for Edwards to give his opinion about Reagen but it's okay for Obama to give his?  Come on folks, Obama can't sit in a glass house forever.

Reagan was able to rope a bunch of dopes who were middle class whites and Democrats to vote for him. The wool was pulled over their eyes.  He was one of the worst Presidents we ever had for most Democrats, therefore nothing he did was good in my opinion. Iran, Contra, giving poor people process cheese and ketchup and calling it meat and vegatables, pulling once self up by their bootstraps and they had no boots.Union busting by firing the air traffic controllers, putting people in danger.  Obama thinks he is slick and this will get him republican votes, by putting Bill Clinton down, that in fact he is putting down his own party.  Why doesn't he go run as an separate candidate, like Lieberman did, I don't want him in the Democratic party.  He is a traitor.  

Tucker, should shut his big fat mouth with his stupid
comment, get rid of him MSNBC, he stinks.

Please everyone....this is not a debate on the virtues or missteps of Ronald Reagan.  What Barack Obama was doing was giving an analysis of when the US made a major political shift and he was correct.  The last one was led by Ronald Reagan and the conservative sweep of 1980.

It was a major shift in the direction of the country and the mood at that time was for a major shift.  His political analysis was correct.

He has been on the record as stating he disagreed with many of Reagan's policies.

But this is the change Obama is talking about in his campaign.  Can't a Democrat say something nice about a Republican or vice versa without having to also list something negative?  Can Republicans and Democrats disagree in a civil manner?  Can't they also praise each other?

To quote Bobby Kennedy "I dream things that never were and say 'Why not?'".

Here is one Democrat who finds it refreshing.

He is right,  we got in alot of debt, he tried to set back all of the civil rights legislation,  interest rates were at 10%, the tax system went to the rich,  the unions were busted up, crime and drugs were through the roof, and the countrys inner cities crumbled.  

Oh yea Reagan started a war on drugs and against wellfare mothers which every one knows is code word for minorities which are both of Obama's parents.  

Obama needs to come with policy not conservitive plays. He is a Democrate right?

Jameel, you are right on one point rates did fall from 18% with CArter to 10% with Reagan. For anyone to say the Reagan years were not a success is to prove you go through life with blinders of hate. At least be honest!! This is a good move for Obama to partially embrace a hero from the right. He can not be ellected by far left activists only, he needs the middle!!!

Apparently, many of those criticizing Obama were in diapers when Reagan ran and won. During the Carter administration, those of us who were working and paying taxes endured the worst economic climate since the great depression. The 20%+ annual inflation and mortgage interest rates, 7%+ unemployment rates and 50%+ income tax rates on middle class incomes prevailed for years in the late 70s and came to be referred to as "stagflation". Carter and the Congressional Democrats simply continued to wring their hands at the "plight of the poor" and to extol the virtues of taxing the "rich" as a route to economic recovery. Reagan's message that stagflation (and the cold war) could be ended resonated with fed-up Democratic voters tired of feeding bloated and apparently incompetent state and federal governments. Reagan accomplished both promised goals, setting the stage for low inflation, low taxes, and low interest rates, propelling the technological advances of the 80's forward through the 90's, and thereby enabling the greatest economic expansion in U.S. history. Most of you were apparently born during that time and were oblivious to the changes. The short "end of the cold war" recession that plagued Bush 1 let Clinton win (with Perot's help) with about 44% of the popular vote. To their credit, Clinton and Robert Reich were smart enough to avoid seriously messing with the economy during Clinton's two terms (other than a tax increase that fortunately was small enough to avoid crimping economic growth). At worst, they failed to recognize and take steps to soften the collapse of the .com bubble that began in Clinton's final year. Those of us who lived through and were working from the 60's to the present understand and appreciate the monumental positive economic and psychological changes that were wrought in Reagan's first term, and are able to contrast those changes with the lack of any similar changes in Clinton's two terms. Obama is simply reflecting on the facts that Americans wanted a change in the economy in the late 70's, that Reagan convinced the voters that he could do it, that Reagan did do it, and that Clinton simply rode the wave. Obama is hinting that his (as opposed to Hillary's) unspecified changes will similarly resonate with voters, and that he will be able to carry them out and reinvigorate the economy and our spirits as dramatically as Reagan did. Too bad we cannot figure out exactly what those changes might be and how they might be successful. Giving today's "progressives" the benefit of the doubt, they apparently were not there to know how devastating stagflation was on households in the 70's and how it affected us workers. Many of them prefer to live in a fantasy world positing that Reagan won because racist Democrats voted him in, and Clinton won because the forces of racism were somehow overcome (by Perot taking about 20% of the vote away from Bush 1?). Progressives, get a grip on reality.  The best thing that could happen would be that Obama could accomplish as much as Reagan did in resurrecting this country. At least Obama is able to show that he is not wearing the blinders that progressives impose on themselves.

Does anyone really care what this class warfare socialist scumbag thinks?

Edwards campaign is already over and after 2008 he will fade into historical political obscurity.

That's right Johnny boy.  You're never going to be president so take your $400 haircut and your commie schtick and go home!

Let's not forget Reagan's de-regulation and privatization. Look at the mess of the US airline industries and praise him during your next wonderful flying experience.

While I do agree that Reagan effected great change in America, I think it was the beginning of the decline of our democracy. Any candidate that expects to get my vote better make clear similar feelings if praising him. If doing so in a calculated ploy to sway independants or Californians, don't bother coming to my state.

When I heard that Obama was dropping Regan's name I stopped in my step.  What?! What did I hear? When I heard the bashing of Hillary for daring to mention MLK; I was upset.  I am not a Hillary fan, but I know that she and her husband were very popular with the black community and that Bill was the "First Black President" and now they have thrown them both under the bus so to speak.  Where is the dedication, honor, respect?

How is it that Obama invokes Regan?  Is he crossing party lines once again to please Libermann and his ilk?  I am furious that Obama would dare to disrespect his constituents in this fashion.  We have a vast pool of great former leaders; great talkers; great doers.  Instead he picks a fricking republican to "quote".  Humanity comes to mind let's see which democrat is a Humanitarian? Oh yes, Jimmy Carter, creator of HABITAT FOR HUMANITY and he is still alive.  Jimmy is a great ex-president; he is a great advocate of the under privileged.  He could not embrace Jimmy the Nobel Prize winner?  LOL this is scary stuff; how could anyone back Obama when Regan can so easily just roll off of his well polished mouth.  

Obama has:

* backed Libermann over Ned Lemont in the last election cycle.  Obama literally gave the finger to his party to CROSS party lines to back FRICKING LIBERMANN.  Obama is guilty in part for this trauma that we are experiencing in this country.  

Harris Poll results are in, Oprah's rating has dropped.  Elleen is the leader now.  I knew this would happen; so many different skin colors and types backed the black people back in the day.  It appears that it has little to no meaning to the children of today.  We fought, I am a native American, I appreciate those that try to understand and embrace the few who are brave to stand up to the ugly Americans.  Hillary and Bill deserves the respect for their honor; I am upset.  I am upset that Hillary is now being put down by the very people she embraced and fought for.  I am upset.  I do not like unappreciative people.  Period.  No place in my life; there is the door, don't let it slam you on the way out.  

Edwards said: I think what we need in the next president of the United States is somebody with some guts and fight and determination.”
My response: Then why didn't you show some guts, fight and determination and appear on the Democrat debate to be shown on Fox, instead of skipping it? Why are you afraid of the tough questions?

It never ceases to amaze me how dishonest we can get in this country. I viewed the Obama interview and he is 100% right in his analysis. Ronald Reagan did change the trajectory of America. But the core argument is that it was possible because there was an underlying current that wanted change. Margaret Thatcher did it in Great Britain.  

Nowhere did he imply that he agreed with the direction this change took us in.

To not understand or to misconstrue what Obama is saying, is to display a total lack of objectivity, a quality you should not want in your next president.

The truth is, like him or not, Obama brings a level of freshness to politics and public discourse America has not seen in decades, and the country seems to be ready for this. This is a great example of how the man thinks and the type of leadership he would offer.

For people to be expressing shock that Obama is “praising” Reagan is just absurd and is part of the problem with a large part of the American electorate. We fall too easily for second hand news and analysis, too lazy to do our own research. The video of the interview is out there for anyone to view and listen to. If you come away with the notion that Obama is praising Reagan for the direction he took the country in, you are either a fool or just lack plain understanding.

What you should come away with is the realization that you have someone running for the presidency who has insight and great judgment, a firm grasp of where this country needs to go, demonstrated time and time again.

The real question is not whether Obama is ready to be president, the real question is whether the American people are willing to follow what is stirring in their souls - a desire for profound and meaningful change that will rebuild the middle class, restore our can-do attitude and have a political system that is geared towards solving huge problems rather than nitpicking about a small number of our differences.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):