CNN

First off – Let me say that I was not a Reagan supporter or admirer. I almost starved to death while he was president! Nor am I an Obama supporter yet. However I must say that I watched the tape of his comment and Obama was merely pointing out what I have already read many times before – a view held by many political pundits, and legitimate journalists, that Ronald Reagan did change the landscape of America (and not necessarily for the better) as so many people at that time were fed up with our direction – because of the 60's and it's permissiveness, etc. Many credit Reagan with the beginning of the ultra far-right conservatism – which is not a good thing – but it was what happened – just as many credit JFK with the youthful, progressive movement. Reagan brought about this change as many in the country were looking for that – and so you have the results of him in the far right wing to this day. Obama was merely pointing that out – that Reagan brought change – and apparently he is hoping to bring about a different kind of change – and do the same – change the "landscape of America" by being the first black president, etc. He did not say that the Reagan change was good – or that he even admired Reagan. Good grief – lets be fair here – can we not even make an observation without being torn apart for it. As I said I do not support Obama – yet – but right is right! Give me a break!

Abama is a divider rather than an uniter!!

Obama and his voodoo campaign is much like the voodoo economics of the past.

It's silly for him to attempt to channel the figures of JFK, MLK, and Reagan as an attempt to establish himself as a valid and legitimate candidate, playing upon the nostalgia of the past. Who's he kidding?

It's looking more like a fairy tale everyday – this campaign.

Not very bright for a guy who is claimed to be smart enough to be President of Harvard's Law Review.

It's turning out to be more of an historic ghostbuster tour than an election by his incessant search for a dead ally that he can use to validate the identity he doesn't have. If that isn't a voodoo campaign, what is?

Lisa from New York... I'm happy to see that you are posting the lies that HRC blasts out to her underlings. You should really do some more research before you post this information, since all of it has been proved false by factcheck.org.

It's nice to see that American people are voting, but I would like to see more free thinkers, and less of the idiots who consistently run this negative BS that just isn't true.

by the way... your HRC faithfuls consistently broke the rules in Nevada caucuses statewide, but we still prevailed. Almost every precinct in a predominantly republican Northern Nevada voted in Obama's favor because they are sick of your lies and your attacks.

Grow a brain and think for yourself.

Barak Obama is as much a politician as anyone running for office. He positions himself as an agent of change, but his campaign is as slickly run as any. He has given no substantive answers on major issues and, frankly, his resume is weak.
My vote goes to Hillary. We need intelligence and experience in the White House. No doubt that Obama has the brains. But his lack of experience at a time when we need it just doesn't cut it.

Barack Obama is a brilliant statesman! He will be the next president. Obama's strength is that he is a uniter not a divider. The only other candidate about whom that could be said is Ron Paul, who unfortunately is not a likely nominee, though he may end up in second or third place in Nevada!

Hillary is a polarizing divisive figure. Obama is a clever statesman who appeals to both sides of the aisle, here by praising Ronald Reagan.

Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich are excellent candidates in my opinion, and they appear to be genuinely nice individuals, but they are a little too far to the left, not to mention have neither the funds nor the exposure to secure the nomination. The American population is too reactionary for a Kucinich-Gravel ticket. Either one would probably fare better in Canada or Europe as of now.

Most of the other Democrats either quit (Joe Biden, Chris Dodd) or are sticking in with virtually no chance for the nomination, but nevertheless a high probability of being selected VP (Bill Richardson). Personally, I would love to see an Obama-Biden ticket! Joe Biden seems to have the only real long-term plan for Iraq (Partition it!) besides Ron Paul. The neocon candidates are happy to keep Iraq as a client of the great American Empire, most of all McCain. As such, the Democrats ought to select Biden for VP.

Out of the three top contenders: Clinton, Edwards, and Obama; Obama is the best person for the job.

None of the Republicans should be taken seriously. Just as Hillary Clinton is a divisive and polarizing figure, so too are Mike Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani. Huckabee seems like a nice guy, but it would be embarassing to elect him president. On the other hand, it would be amusing if he won because that would be the first time in over a century that a Christian socialist ran for president on a major party ticket (since William Jennings Bryan ran for president on the Democratic ticket). The problem is that nobody would vote for Huckabee except for Evangelicals. Other than being extremely socially conservative, there is nothing conservative about him. Rudy Giuliani, on the other hand, would drive away many social conservatives. Then again, a few right-wing reactionaries might vote for Rudy if Hillary is nominated. Giuliani would alienate the "so-cons" and Huckabee would alienate everyone but the "so-cons".

Mitt Romney stands the best chance of winning the nomination, but he will not be president. Mitt the Mormon has enough problems running on a socially conservative platform trying to secure the Evangelical vote, but all "religious bigotry" aside, Romney's notorious flip-flopping will undermine his support. In a general election, one only need to remind voters of Mitt's record and his constant "changes of heart" to reflect the popular concensus. Including not just his socially moderate governatorial record constrasted with his socially conservative presidential platform, but his flip-flops on the campaign, from being the guy who hired illegal aliens to all of a sudden being the choice for those opposed to illegal immigration. Finally, remember the John Kerry factor. Like Mitt Romney, John Kerry flip-flopped on several issues (most notably the Iraq War), Kerry's flip-flopping was neither as severe nor as compulsive and frequent as Romney's. Like Mitt Romney, John Kerry was a New England billionaire. Likewise, John Kerry won (bought) his party's nomination and Mitt Romney seems to be doing the same. But like Kerry, Romney will lose the election. John Kerry could not win the election as a Democrat in 2004. What makes anyone think he will win as a Mormon Republican in 2008? The only real difference between Mitt Romney and John Kerry is that Kerry was a Catholic running against a somewhat unpopular president. Romney, a member of a non-mainstream religion, will be running in an unpopular party.

John McCain seems to have the best chance at winning the nomination AND the election, apparently in second place to Romney in terms of chances to get nominated, but he would fair better in a general election. McCain is the only Republican, besides Giuliani or Paul, who can expect to get cross-over votes from liberals and moderates, and could probably get more of the conservative Republican base than either Mayor 9-11 or Tax-Hike Mike, but he is despised by the GOP base. Not to mention that in reality, John McCain is an imperialist loon who would actually lose votes rather than gain them by compromising.

Fred Thompson is not presidential material. He is so boring it is depressing! Literally! While he seems to be somewhat liked by core conservatives, he has nothing to bring to the table and has no energy. Ron Paul seems to be the best choice, and with his message of freedom, constitutionalism, federalism, diversity, and liberty he should appeal to most of America. Unfortunately, the neoconned GOP base have been conditioned to hate him. Ron Paul is the only Republican who can beat Hillary, and maybe Obama. Unfortunately, Ron Paul has a long road. I think it is safe to say that he is beating Mayor 9-11 and Frankenberry Thompson, but Ron Paul has an uphill battle against McCain and Huckabee, not to mention the Stormin' Mormon.

As such, the choice for Republicans is to nominate Ron Paul or to face four years of a Democrat in the White House.

The choice for Democrats is Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama is the only Democrat who can appeal to conservatives. Hillary Clinton might be despised and feared by the Christian Right, neocon mouthpieces (such as National Review, Human Events (whose motto should be "at war with modernity since 1944"), Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, etc.), and much of the socially reactionary base of the GOP, but Hillary Clinton is loved by the LEADERS of the neoconservative cabal. The brains of the neocon movement love Hillary even if the mouths and base do not.

"Hillary Clinton: the Neocons' Democrat"

The Salmon Press endorsement editorial follows:

Sen. Hillary Clinton

Those that don’t think experience counts in politics haven’t been listening to Sen. Hillary Clinton. The combination of her proven track record and positive vision for America make her our choice in the Democratic primary.

Sen. Clinton earned our admiration as the First Lady and respect as a U.S. senator from New York. Today she’s an engaging personality able to unite people behind a common cause regardless of their political affiliations. She hit the Senate floor on the run and she can do the same thing in the White House.

She is sincere and passionate about restoring fiscal responsibility, providing health care to all Americans, protecting the environment, keeping the tax burden off the middle class and earning the faith and trust of the American people.

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.

The media and much of the Country are so numb to the Clinton's continual lying that they don't even pay attention any more.

Exactly right, "keep the peace"! I think there are definitely some ignorant people posting here that need to do their homework - Obama has definite ideas and has laid them out - please educate yourselves on EVERY Candidates' stands on the issues and their proposed ideas on how they intend to follow up on these ideas.

statement from both Clintons on Reagan's death:

Hillary and I will always remember President Ronald Reagan for the way he personified the indomitable optimism of the American people, and for keeping America at the forefront of the fight for freedom for people everywhere. It is fitting that a piece of the Berlin Wall adorns the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington.

President Reagan demonstrated his strength and resolve after leaving office when he shared his struggle with Alzheimer’s Disease with the world. We will always remember his tremendous capacity to inspire and comfort us in times of tragedy, as he did after the loss of the space shuttle Challenger. Now he, too, has “slipped the surly bonds of Earth to touch the face of God,” and we can rest assured that, as joyous a place as Heaven is, his wit and sunny disposition are making it an even brighter place to be.

Google for Government: Americans have the right to know how their tax dollars are spent, but that information has been hidden from public view for too long. That's why Barack Obama and Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) passed a law to create a Google-like search engine to allow regular people to approximately track federal grants, contracts, earmarks, and loans online. The Chicago Sun-Times wrote, "It would enable the public to see where federal money goes and how it is spent. It's a brilliant idea."

Things that matter to us!

We were lower middle class in the 80's – Reagan politics allowed my Dad to make money in the stock market and that helped me pay for college – I praise Reagan! and I praise Obama for saying Republican's had good ideas – THere is no need to throw dirt – His job is to emphasize that his ideas are better... His point is that the Dems had few good ideas then... Shall we remind everyone that it was Clinton economics that caused the Tech collapse.

Everybody needs to calm the hell down. It's amazing how bent out of shape they became for Obama, a Democrat, going out of his way to praise Republicans. Let's be clear– Obama didn't say that he endorsed the entire Republican agenda, nor did he endorse the privatization of Social Security or the disbanding of unions. Obama praised Reagan for using optimism to turn the nation around, and the Republicans for thinking outside of the box and carrying the mantle as a party of ideas (even though they've been wrong much of the time).

What is it about Washington, D.C. that turns adults into whining little babies? What's next for these politicians– Republicans have cooties? Are we above praising anyone who has an R next to their name and title for anything? Grow up, Hillary and John. You and I both know that Barack didn't openly praise and embrace the Republican agenda. If anything, what he said was a plus because it shows his maturity and his willing not necessarily to chastise the Republican Party, but to work with them. More than we can say for you two, who from your bombastic rhetoric would doom your prospects of working with Republicans upon taking the oath.

I don't know about supporters of Hillary and Edwards, but I believe that the majority of us Americans want our government to work for us again, and are absolutely sick and tired of Democrats and Republicans having their little tinkle contests in the sandbox that is Washington, D.C. America needs an adult in the White House, not these Baby Boomers that have driven this nation right into the toilet over the last 16 years with their lying, their deception and their derision of progress and compromise.

We need an adult, and I don't care if their black or white, male or female, what faith they believe in, or how messy their desk is. I don't care– I want an adult in the White House come January 20, 2009.

I don't want another dummy with his finger on the button.
I don't want a philanderer who can't keep it in his pants.
I don't want a condescending elitist who'll force her agenda on everyone.
I don't want a flip-flopper who can't decide between being liberal or conservative.
I don't want a former trial lawyer who talks about ending poverty one minute while getting a $400 haircut the next.
I don't want an ogre whose politicizes 9/11 and tries to scare people to vote for him.

I want an adult for President– a rational, thinking, intelligent human being with a determination for bringing people together to get things done and make this world a better place not only for us who are here but for those who have yet to come here.

I want an adult for President– someone who is cognizant of the fact that they have a job to do because the people put them there and will waste no time in doing it.

I want an adult for President– someone who we can all respect, at the very least, if we disagree with them philosophically and politically.

I want an adult for President– someone who can speak to us honestly without talking down to us as idiots.

I want an adult for President– someone who won't place undue burdens on my children and my children's children for the sake of a better life today.

I want an adult for President– someone who won't belittle the opposition or force things upon them if they don't agree.

I want an adult for President– someone who will take responsibility for what they do and will reinforce the credo that the buck stops with them.

I want an adult for President– someone who wants to do the job for America, not someone who wants to do the job for the history books.

I want an adult for President– someone who will take this country forward, not backward; someone who will wax poetic about the future, not wax poetic about the past.

I want an adult for President– someone not named Hillary Clinton or John Edwards, Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney, George W. Bush or Bill Clinton.

I want an adult for President– Barack Obama, Mike Huckabee and John McCain are three names that come to mind. Each one has strengths, each one has flaws. But they all have something in common– they want to work with the opposition to fix this country, and they are open to compromise.

I want an adult for President– is that too much to ask?

Hello guys.Hillary is a calculated politician. She condemns Obama and here is what she says on her website about Reagan:

"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."

Obama is honest and sincere and I see this an an honest view of Reagan.Hillary does it and takes on Barack. Obama is class and honest guys

Oh for Pete's sake! First of all, Reagan is fairly non-controversial among NORMAL Americans, and Obama didn't say a word of praise for his policies. If you read his book, you'd see that Obama is definitely not Reagan's biggest fan. But he is right that Reagan DID change the course of the country and gave us our current political era, for better or worse.

All Together now , All Together Obama

Reporting due to non moderation-

Edwards is a fool to mock Reagan. I voted for Reagan back when I was a Republican and am still proud of that vote. The fact that I've migrated to the Democrat party in the mean time does not lesson the respect I have for Reagan, flaws and all. Voting for Reagan was the last time I felt good voting for someone instead of voting against someone…..until now. Now I'm proudly voting for Obama and pray I'm not forced into voting against someone in the General election.

As for Hillary…..sorry old gal, it bed time for Bonzo.

DID BARRY OBAMA FORGET THAT THE MIDDLE CLASS BEGAN ITS DECLINE UNDER REAGAN? DID HE FORGET THAT HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF MENTALLY ILL PEOPLE WERE FORCED TO LEAVE STATE INSTITUTIONS WHO WERE TAKING CARE OF THEM AND SUBSEQUENTLY RAISED THE HOMELESS POPULATION BY THE TENS OF THOUSANDS? DID HE FORGET IRAN-CONTRA? DID HE FORGET THE WHITE COLLAR SCAMS WHERE PEOPLE LOST MILLIONS? DID HE FORGET THAT HE IS SUPPOSED TO BE A DEMOCRAT?! I DON'T THINK SO. I THINK HE IS A CONSERVATIVE AT HEART WHO WILL CONTINUE TO DIMINISH THE MIDDLE CLASS. GO HILLARY!

eat it obama... you're gonna lose in nevada. the people see through your thinly veiled "change" moniker. you're a phony with a good speech writer.

cnn... i would appreciate you posting this, as the last 1/2 dozen of my comments have not appeared on the ticker. yes, they're blatantly pro-hillary, but there's nothing obscene about them... please adhere to fair posting practices.

Nobody should think that Hillary Clinton or John Edwards would govern this country in a bi-partisan manner. If elected, they would bring more of the same Democrat vs. Republican stalled government that we have now.

I actually think it’s a bit funny with these Obama voters who are yelling: we want change" like Obama just invented a new word or something.
What would be even better if these Obama-voters actually had a clue as to what his plans are LMFAO lol

LETS LOOK BACK A FEW YEARS AT OUR PRESEDENTS 8 YEARS OF BUSH 8 YEARS OF CLINTON 8 YEARS OF BUSH AND NOW A CHANCE OF 8 YEARS OF CLINTON ACTUALLY 2 CLINTONS SOMETIMES I GET CONFUSED ABOUT WHO IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT BILL OR HILLARY. I PERSONALLY HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF BILL CLINTON AND ALL HIS LIES AND CHEATING. DO WE REALLY WANT HIM BACK IN THE WHITE HOUSE I THINK NOT. IF WE VOTE HILLARY INTO OFFICE WERE IS THE CHANGE WE ALL WANT? SHE IS ANOTHER CLINTON I AM SURE BILL IS GOING TO BE LOOKING OVER EVERYTHING SHE DOES. THIS IS NOT CHANGE ITS THE SAME OLD SAME OLD AGAIN.I ALSO WANT CHANGE CLINTON IS NOT THE ANSWER IF SHE CRIES DURING AND INTERVIEW WHAT IS SHE GOING TO DO WHEN THINGS GET TOUGH IN THE WHITE HOUSE

most of u need to listen closely to what obama said he didnt say anything glowing about reagan he just said he changed the direction of this nation and i hated reagan but reagan did change the way this nation was going some good some bad but he did change this nation thats all obama said

OBAMA OPTIMISM WOULD RUN OUT OF STEAM STARTING TODAY. WAKE UP AMERICA THIS HOLLOW DRUM WITH NO SUBSTANCE IS WHO YOU WANT TO BE PRESIDENT. NO ORGANIZATIONAL SKILLS, FAKE LAUGH, FRAUD TO THE DEMOCRATS, AND SAYS WHAT YOU WANT TO HEAR IN A JOKE LIKE OUR PRESIDENT TO BE LIKEABLE.

John Edwards isn't worthy enough to carry Ronald Reagan's boots! He should keep his mouth shut and move back to his 20,000-square foot house!

Reagan was one of the greatest presidents we have ever had!

Fortunately, I can remember when political candidates could offer opinions, say controversial things about their opponents, speak to crowds with words more than just pap, and not be picked apart by the media. The media is a HUGELY negative influence on young voters. Don't have to think for themselves, just watch and read................

To all you Obama bashers out there:

Obviously, you didn't listen or read the quote. What part of English don't you understand? Edwards makes a desperate plea taking words out of context.

Read the quote:

"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," Obama said. "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.

The country is indeed ready again for a drastic change from "do nothing" politics.

QUICK QUESTION ABOUT HILLARY. SHE ALWAYS TALKS ABOUT PRESIDENTAL EXPERIENCE. JUST HOW MUCH EXPERIENCE DOES SHE HAVE BEING PRESIDENT OF AMERICA?????????????????

Reagan took the greatest economy in the world and crushed it into the largest debtor in the world. That made him the worst President in history, until now. Reagan started unconstitutional mini-wars in the Granada and Panama invasions. That paved the way for the current Bush war of aggression in Iraq. Reagan was asleep at the switch for 8 years and many of the cronies that run George Bush ran his administration as well. One difference is that Reagan dishonered his oath of office by failure to enforce laws he disagreed with, while Bush dishonered his by actively violating the law. While he spent the country bankrupt, Reagan did a professional bait and switch with a big lie. He claimed the end of the Soviet emipe was in reaction to his arms race. There was a touch of truth in that to hide behind, but in fact the communist system is unworkable except through terror and doomed to fail under it's own dead weight.

When you hear another more current burnt out old man preaching a big military build up and no taxes to pay for it, will you be fooled again? Thompson is betting on it. Reagan started with a surplus. The next President will have a 7 trillion $ debt to work against.

I honestly do not think Obama is uneducated enough to believe any of these ideas are commendable, but regreatably many repugs still do.

I was wrong on the number of hits this would get...Seems Race and Sex are the most heated. Hucks gay stance is taking some heat. May be why Bills' no-no are constantly being brought up. We are into juicy topics..

this statement from both Clintons on Reagan's death:

Hillary and I will always remember President Ronald Reagan for the way he personified the indomitable optimism of the American people, and for keeping America at the forefront of the fight for freedom for people everywhere. It is fitting that a piece of the Berlin Wall adorns the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington.

President Reagan demonstrated his strength and resolve after leaving office when he shared his struggle with Alzheimer’s Disease with the world. We will always remember his tremendous capacity to inspire and comfort us in times of tragedy, as he did after the loss of the space shuttle Challenger. Now he, too, has “slipped the surly bonds of Earth to touch the face of God,” and we can rest assured that, as joyous a place as Heaven is, his wit and sunny disposition are making it an even brighter place to be.

obama is not saying he agrees with reagans or the republican ideas or plans for running the country, he is merely pointing out the issue of ideas and change that is important to make progress in this country.

think about it. if you really want to unite america and get republican on your side to solve problems together, you must at least acknowledge their good points!!! what is wrong with saying some good points about your opponent. that does not mean, hilary clinton, that obama agrees with every policy issue of the reagons or republicans. desperate hilary will jump on ANY thing she can to make obama look bad.

she is the one with the devisive attitude that WONT GET REPUBLICAN SUPPORT TO SOLVE THE ISSUES FACING AMERICA!!!

the difference between obama and clinton is this DO YOU WANT A FRESH NEW APPROACH TO WASHINTON POLITICS OR DO YOU WANT THE SAME DEVISIVNESS THAT HAS PLAQUED WASHINGTON FOR SO LONG?

the reason america keeps getting leaders like bush is because we keep getting fooled by politicians like hilary clinton who is one of the most crafty POLITICIANS to come to washinton in a long time.

Anonymous,,,,,,,,,,, I was wondering why your first comment was shorter than uaual,, then you posted your second comment and I realized why,,,,,,,,Your college posting points had not been e-mailed to you on time right ? If A person with hopes of running for president one day wanted to learn from the positive points of great leaders of the past and use there recorded legacy as a tool to measure there own progress or help keep them on tract as they go foward in there own political career, I find " that" a positive . I can imagine its very easy for a politician to get caught up in moments of power greed and money while learning who THEY are in politics. keeping the positive points or message of great leaders close in your thoughts as you deal with some of the worst politics have to offer may be helpful. with the exception of chaves and how clintons days ended and how he is acting now at election time,,, emulating MLK Jr, Kennedy, Lincoln and now Reagan sounds pretty well rounded for a young politician. I really dont think Obama will have a chance once we get through the primaries in this election , but if he is for real and keeps on tract to his own message and his own ideas , He will be president some day,, and after all the negative things your saying about him now,, you will adore him then won't you anonymous, mike from birmingham , graduate student , or what ever allias you post mass comments under as to "emulate " a political Ideal ,,, HOW SAD FOR YOU

you know, obam really shows how he IS TRULY A UNITER!!

he can give credit where credit is due, even if the person is a fomous republican!!

that is an example of the NO BLUE OR RED STATES BUT THE UNITED STATES!!!

would it be wrong for a repbulican to say something positive about kennedy if it was true in their opinion?

obama practices what he preaches, good ideas can come form the other side and that KIND OF ATTITUDE IS WHAT IS GOING TO UNITE AMERICA AND PULL PEOPLE TOGETHER FROM ALL PARTIES TO SOLVE AMERICAS PROBLEMS.

dont be so petty to think if you make a good point of a republican your not a democratic, that is THE ATTITUDE OF DEVISIVNESS OBAMA IS TRYING TO FIX.

I don't know which America OBAMA (O...MAMA) was in for last 30 years. Reagan and first Bush left us in a mess...then came a democrate who bailed us out and we all enjoyed the turn-around...enjoyed prosperity...enjoyed surplus etc and then came the charmer republican (Bush W) to Oval office to mess it up... largest debt, loss of international reputation, mortgage crisis, loss of jobs, lies, etc.

And now this idiot O...Mama who tells us republicans had great ideas in last 15 years...he must still be on drugs to come to this conclusion.

I was really excited about the "second charmer" Obama until New Hampshire primary result when I saw him in his true colors. I will vote for the ugliest donkey but not Obama.

Why people admire Ronald Reagan? Can you say Jimmy Carter???? Remember him, I do...thank God for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and thank God Obama has the good sense to recognize how the man changed the path Carter was leading this nation down. Democrats say George W. Bush is the worst president EVER, we Republicans who were adults in the late 70s and remember this country under Carter's so-called leadership tend to think he deserves that moniker. Don't see Obama touting Carter or Clinton's change do you?

Two things I love:

First is the ongoing insistence by people pushing an agenda and people who don't know any better that Ronald Reagan single-handedly caused the fall of the Soviet Union. Anybody who has studied Soviet history for more than half an hour can tell you that the Soviet system was rotting from the inside long before Reagan took office. Its collapse was inevitable. And for those who say "but it happened on St. Ronnie's watch!" well, hate to tell you, but technically it happened on Papa Bush's watch. Why doesn't he ever get any credit from you folks.

Second is the cry from Republican voters for progressives/Democratic voters to show tolerance and stop being so gosh darn partisan about everything. My answer to that is simple: you first. You and yours got the ball rolling when you decided it was fair game to accuse liberals of treason on a routine basis. When you roll all that back, then we can talk about playing nice together.

With less than 10 hours to go before the Nevada caucus. I have this great vision. I might be wrong but I see this happening. Obama is going to win Nevada, it’s not going to be because of the powerful union, although that will help. It’s going to be a win because Independents and republicans’ are going to cross party lines which will tilt this in Osama’s favor. It is same day registration and too many people dislike here than like her. I know Hilary might be winning among old school democrats, but the independent factor and the republications might give Obama the edge he needs. I feel this is my heart. I might be wrong but I give it a 99.9% chance. I being study politics here lately and I think I might got this one right. Let's hope and pray I'm Right.

This message is being posted at 3.11 am Est. Jan 19,2008

Also Note, most polls only focus likely democrat votes, not the other parties.

Obama comes across as a nice guy who can give a good speech but not as the type of leader who can do the nuts and bolts of the job! In the debates he admitted he was disorganized and bad with paperwork, give me a break!

Go EDWARDS

this just gos to show you how narrow minded some people are.... you cant even admire someones good quality... who cares.... dem.. rep...i like some democrats and i like some republicans. cant sen. obama like whomever he wants? reagan did some good things and some bad things right? like it or not history has already judged former president reagan and has been very favorable to him. dont we want a president who can see that it doesnt matter what party you belong to, as long as your the best at what you do then you should be on the "team"
im sooo sick of the last 8 years of fighting with people.."your a liberal..your a conservative.. now you have to hate each other" WHO CARES!!!
we all share the same plot of land..lets put our heads together and get stuff done for a change that would benefit all of us.

im only 21 and a world history and political science major in school and i for one can not wait till this current generation is long gone from office.

I honestly cannot see what is so hard to understand about his comment. If you do not think that Reagan changed politics in American, a sea change moment, then you really need to re-learn history. Sorry to be so blunt, but it is true. I don't agree with most of what Reagan did. Either does Obama. He was just saying that there is a movement that has the same potential to make a sea change in this country. Why are the Clinton loyalists so afraid of that? Why do they want another family regime like the Bush's? I bet most of them complained about that when Bush was elected. It really, really boggles my mind.

WOW! Invoke the name of Reagan and ALL the Republican's come out to play!!! Unfortunately, in your zeal for defending the man, you forgot to change some of your aliases. Pushing for folks to vote for Obama so that you can shred him in the general election smells to high heaven. Hillary or John scare you, don't they? Get the rookie nominated and we'll show our real prowess!!! You see, by my thinking, gridlock will not be a problem because even as I type this, the republican party is losing ground state by state. They will be voted out of office and there will be a much bigger majority for the democrats. House cleaning is in order. Obama may win but how much he can accomplish remains to be seen. Can we really afford to go with the unknown right now? Honestly, are we better off now than we were, say, 10 years ago? Do we really want to elect our president as if we were electing the next American Idol? Do we really want to listen to the media to make decisions for us? Or most of the Republicans on this comment section? Something to think about.

Edwards, criticizing President Reagan? Who is john edwards? This ambulance chaser is the biggest loser since carter. Edwards is such an IDIOT! Please, CNN-never use 'President Reagan' and johnny edwards in the same article-edwards is a total ZERO.

Thank You,
Marj

AtlantaVoter,

That doesn't post all of mine either and I am for Obama. It is not biased against Clinton

I have been reading blog posts since the Iowa caucuses and I must say, I am continually amazed by the ignorance of the American people. They hear one word, or read one word – stop – and post their message. They don't think, the don't process – they just post.

For a brief moment after 9/11 America was united. Did you feel it then? We would have done anything for our country that had been attacked and wounded. Bush had the most golden opportunity laid out at his feet and what did he do? He told us to go to the mall.

When the 2008 campaigns began, I was excited to have such a strong field of Democrats from which to choose. I watched, I listened, I read. I went to events to hear the candidates speak. At that point I could have chosen among the three who are now the top contenders. And then a funny thing happened. Mr. Barack Obama struck a chord with me, a chord that was familiar, a chord from that moment just after 9/11.

I believe this country wants and needs to be united once more. We've been divided for far too long and look where it's gotten us.

Stop the hateful comments and promote the candidate of your choice because you believe they can bring back our standing in the world and our pride in our country.

I agree with Obama, a good man:

Just look at how exciting it is for us to see Obama being so successful against the machine of Hillary and Bill Clinton!

I am Republican, too. I'm amazed at this man Obama and how he stands strong, convicting, firm, unapologetic and undaunted by the ever powerful and now angry finger-pointing Clintons.

All I can say is WOW! That takes character, Integrity and passion for his mission to unite this country. That, my friends is a leader who can unite!

Romney/Obama'08 for the USA!

Grover Norquist would be proud of Senator Obama, but no good union member could stand Reagan. Obama needs a history lesson.. Getting on the Reagan bandwagon shows Obama's disregard for working people.

Yes if Obama wants to be like Regan I feel sorry for our vetrans because Regan voted and pass bill that stopped a veterans wife from drawing a check unless it was service connected. My day was a vet. and drawing a check when he passed away. When I took my mother to VA in Mphs.TN to have it changed over to her she was told she couldn't draw the check and to thank Regan for that. Way to go Obama . and we really need a muslim to run this country one that wouldn't put his hand over his heart they said he only done it on time well one time is all it takes.Only in America can we have a X drug dealer ( Bush) and now we have a muslim running for prez.

Obama simply stated what has been recorded in our history.

I was never a Ronald Reagan fan and nor did I support his policies, but he drastically changed the direction of America and was instrumental in the downfall of the Soviet Union. In fact, I was a strong supporter of Bill Clinton and voted for him twice.

Now, if one really looks at Bill Clinton's record, one will notice that it was during his administration, that the Democratic Party lost the majority in the Senate and the Congress. Further, Clinton encouraged outsourcing of American jobs overseas, globalization policy, and Nafta. Also, the division between Clinton administration and the Republicans grew wider.

Finally, Bill Clinton unlike Ronald Reagan, dishonored the office of the Presidency of the United States. These are the facts and one cannot erase them from the pages of our history.

By the way, many of my Democratic friends and business associates voted for Ronald Reagan twice. They still have high opinion of him.

Mr. Obama is now praising President Reagan. Slick...slick...slick. Looks like this is another one of his tactic to garner the support and votes of those Republicans who are undecided about their candidates and Mr. Obama can then say that he can bring people together! I agree with whoever said that Obama is like a chameleon. That he wears the mask of another person inorder to define himself. So it seems hard to figure out who is he really? Is he being honest about himself to the voters? Many still question his faith before he said he became a christian 15 years ago. What was he before then? Somehow he evades this question when asked. Can we really trust him? It's Hillary for '08....all the way.

Obama is a team player, others say they are bipartisan, but Obama is bipartisan.

shane of down under writes:

"I do have some questions about Obama is he going to end this kiss ass thing you guys do with the saudi's, Isreal and the like ? Is he going to end this support of nation like Pakastain ? Will he take America back to suporting real Democratic nations ? Will he end the death penalty which Australia NZ and all of the EU find absoultey deplorable ? I want to know if he think a President ever the right to lie to the American people ?"

good questions. we've been asking same and other questions all along. you know what? we are as clueless as you are when it comes to what Obama's answers are to important questions. but he's charming, for sure.

Interesting! I made a post (twice) pointing out that Reagan was a union president and pro-union. My first post at around 3PM was never posted. I just reread the article, and the last sentence now mentions Reagan's union ties, and the date stamp on the article is after my original post. CNN is staffed by lazy reporters who get their facts from posters. I never knew!

The comment I posted @ 3:24PM is still awaiting moderation after 8 hours! What's up? Should I have not ended with "Hillary Clinton '08!!" ??

C'mon CNN - your viewers and readers deserve better.

What do Barak Obama and George Bush have in common?

1. Both called themselve uniters.

My post of about seven hours ago never made it through whomever is moderating this, so I am going to try again.

Above Edwards is quoted as saying, "[Reagan] was openly — openly — intolerant of unions and the right to organize. He openly fought against the union and the organized labor movement in this country."

Reagan was the president of the screen actors guild for seven one-year terms, an achievement for which he said he was most proud, even after achieving the highest office in our land. He was definitely pro-union. Edwards is simply ahistorical on this point.

It is interesting to me that only one person commenting on this article mentioned Reagan's union presidency.

Edwards must be referring to the strike and subsequent firing of many members of the air traffic controllers union early in his presidency. As government employees, they are not allowed to strike. Reagan gave them 48 hours to report back to work, then fired the lot of them that refused. For anyone who remembers the aftermath of September 11, you can see why he would be so intolerant of a union that was in effect holding the whole nation hostage, not just their employers. The air transportation system is vital to the health of our economy and disruption has a disproportionate effect on the whole system. If Edwards disagrees with Reagan's actions, he should really come out in favor of repealing the legislation that made their strike illegal. Maybe it took a pro-union guy like Reagan to see that particular unions and their memberships can be wrong in certain situations.

Oh, and the Reagan Democrats were largely the union folks.

It is so entertaining to read all the opinions of the Hillary Clinton supporters.
Almost every post made is either bashing Obama or bashing Obama.
No real solid ground to bash him on, but still do it.
They can't come up with anything real to support their reasons, just create reasons.
Yet, the majority of Obama supporters give actual facts to support their opinions.
The reality is, Senator Clinton CONSISTANTLY votes FOR something, but then is AGAINST it. Check her voting record.
And of course, she attempts to say Obama is the same way (her example, he voted against the war, then voted to fund the war).
The reality is, Obama DID vote AGAINST the war, and has stood by his vote.
He DID later vote to fund the war, obviously because he WILL NOT deprive our brave men and women of the tools and supplies they need.
Hillary Clinton started her campaign as the "tough", "automatic choice" for the nomination. THEN SHE LOST IOWA!
So, she then changes tactics and runs on the "friendly, loveable, real person" routine.
Now, AFTER losing the endorsement of the Culinary Union in Nevada, her supporters turn around and file a lawsuit because they will be able to vote (of course, she had nothing to do with that!!).
All of her changing personalities, voting for something, then claim to be against it, sneeky political games will not fly as the leader of this country.
The leader of this country CAN NOT make decisions, then change their mind.
We need someone with good judgement THE FIRST TIME!
Look at the voting records, compare them, then bring the comments!

Not sure why my post was deleted since it didn't flame anyone, but I'll try again, CNN.

Obviously Reagan created a sea change, or it wouldn't have sparked such a debate! I think that's all that Obama is saying–Reagan sensed the desire for change, and he created it. Whether or not you agree with the change is immaterial.

Also, aren't you tired of typical politicians with their canned answers? Not even a moment to pause before they spew whatever it is they think you want to hear? I'll take Obama over that any day.

Lastly, I'm a Jets fan (I know–spare the comments, but I married a Jets fan so hush up,) but I think that Peyton Manning is an extraordinary quarterback. Does that make me a Colts fan?

Learn some critical thinking, people. Seriously–take a course or something.

Barack the vote! Obama 08.

Ross, you are clueless and apparently a very poor judge of character. Much can be determined by a person's actions and body english...perhaps more than what can be determined from one's words alone. Clinton has "disingenuine" written all over him. For some a biting of the lip portrayed empathy....but many Americans saw it for what it really is. The man is a complete utter fraud. Clinton brought nothing but shame to the office of President. He was a panderer, a poll reader without conviction. He had no moral compass. He showed weakness to our enemies. He was more concerned with popularity than he was to respect....there is an enormous difference. What Reagan was, Clinton was not.

“…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."

Wake up Obama drones; this is praise of Ronald Regan. They said it didn’t matter that George W. Bush was inexperienced and now we see what he’s done. Do you really want to repeat that mistake? Get real!

Edwards is a fool to mock Reagan. I voted for Reagan back when I was a Republican and am still proud of that vote. The fact that I've migrated to the Democrat party in the mean time does not lesson the respect I have for Reagan, flaws and all. Voting for Reagan was the last time I felt good voting for someone instead of voting against someone.....until now. Now I'm proudly voting for Obama and pray I'm not forced into voting against someone in the General election.

As for Hillary.....sorry old gal, it bed time for Bonzo.

Greg- it seems like Obama can talk and give prepared speeches. His true self comes out when he is caught off guard. He usually messes up. Then he goes back to his camp then they train him with better answer.
______________________________________________
January 18, 2008 8:55 pm ET

ross,

Please read his site and listen to him talk. He explains it during his campaign stops and he has a 65 page plan for change on his website. It is not hard to find and they are good ideas

I think the Clintons are in panic mode , they thought this thing was going to be cake walk.

Obama made a valid point , people just see what they want.

In the end Obama is the right man for the job.

honestly, how can anyone truly evaluate a candidate's polices without being simultaneously an economist, wide-ranging social and political historian, and judicial expert? combine that with the fact that all politicians tell you what they think you want to hear, you might as well not listen to anything they say. people have always been swayed by good rhetoric.

my personal solution is to pay attention to their characters, as much as can be gleaned from their writings, speeches, and personal histories. of course, you need to develop a good bs meter and also learn to interpret things in their contexts.

along those lines, although i was initially appalled at obama's remarks about reagan, in the context of the thought process, it made sense. clinton's remarks about mlk and johnson also made sense, but definitely could have been worded better. something like: they couldn't have made civil rights a reality without each other. however, i disagree with her statement that the civil rights movement was completely fulfilled in 1968: it's not over until all people are treated with fairness. and that might be a fool's task, but i don't mind being a fool for a greater cause.

The parrot will sing the right tune once in a while. This guy got guts or is stupid? After the present admin. can we afford to pick another green horn ?

Drip drip drip,how many drops of prosperity fell on the YOU under Trickle Down Economics?

Golden rule

whatever Obama does is GREAT .

Even cherishing a REPUBLICAN who did VERY LITTLE for unions or the poor or in general much for everything democrats stand for.

SPIN IT YOU OBAMA LOVERS, SPIN IT !!!!!

SPIN THAT REAGAN TO CON VOTES OUT OF CALIFORNIA.

SPIN SPIN SPIN.

Yeppers, obama sure is a honest guy. Sold out his party to SPIN votes in california .

Obama just shot himself in the foot! Wait long enough and most of them will. Ah, to be a fly on the wall now, would be very interesting! What a major mistake, Regan who did major damage to the Air Traffic Controlers, and any other union who dared to ask for workers rights. He, like Obama, was very good with words. He was indeed a great talker and was able to fool a lot of the people, myself included. Maybe that is why I'm not as quick as young people to be enthrailed with a good speech

To those who says Obama talks about change and still can spell out how he will get it done, most have been mis guilded and not listening to him. I have listen to him over and over again, including other candidate, and there is no comperising between him and others. he is a man of due season, with the will and comitment to make the change. we most give him our vote. he will be the president of the united states not that of the dem or rep.

I know this is hard to accept but how about this idea:

Do you know a U.S. president is the president of the whole country, not just half of it? The Republicans and Democrats don't have to be enemies, we are all Americans.

As a republican on this page, I have to respect this man if I do not vote for him. Obama has a lot of class, integrity, and commitment to his vision as a leader. He does not look for a party to lead him. He looks to greatness in himself and how others have brought about change. I believe all of us should support the fact that he does not hide behind the shadows of the likes of Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson, but continues to lead from his heart and stand on his own two feet instead of having a spouse or racial leader be at his side. This is historic.

When Clinton demonstrates how MLK and Johnson came together to pass the Civil Rights Act, she crusified and called a racist. When Obama makes reference to Regan, he's uniting the people. Unfortunately, Obama supporters seem "inspired" to "unite" and attack rather than research. Senator Obama failed to show up and cast a vote 160 times out of 260 issues that were critical to our nation when he had an obligation to implement the "change" he preaches. When he did bother to show, he voted "PRESENT" rather than YES or NO.

Lonestarkaty,

You wanted to know what folk in other countries think…. I'm an Aussie and I think that Obama is exactly what your country needs now.

He can speak in a full sentence for a start ! How you guys voted Bush in is truly questionable ? But then we had Howard for 10 years and he was just as disgraceful. But we got rid of him and his party here!

I do have some questions about Obama is he going to end this kiss ass thing you guys do with the saudi's, Isreal and the like ? Is he going to end this support of nation like Pakastain ? Will he take America back to suporting real Democratic nations ? Will he end the death penalty which Australia NZ and all of the EU find absoultey deplorable ? I want to know if he think a President ever the right to lie to the American people ?

Those questions aside I think he is smart and very human and the best person for now. Not in four or eight years time now!

I think he would be the best person to rebuild the worlds trust in America's through words and actions and thats going to be a big hard job! Huge!

I travel alot and most of the world hates you guys I mean really hates you all.

Google "biggest threat to world peace" America comes up number one in every poll even in alied countries like my own!

Ive been to the US and seen its soul…… I know that most people in America are good people! You have your problems like the rest of the world… The one that most struck me, is your problems with race!

So if you can vote in a smart and capable guy who is also a black man then you guys are taking a giant (very long overdue) leap forward!

I have to say before this primary thing started I liked the Clinton's but now I cant say that ! I think the way they have acted with all the lies and all the stunts….its really turned me off them.

All the republicians are so much like Bush I hope no one votes republician this time but the Clinton's now seems just as bad ! The same old same old !

When did Bill turn into such an angry grumpy old man ?

The Clinton's need to realise that Obama is the competion not the enemy. I guess that what happen when your in politics for to long!

I think there is something wrong if you guys vote in another Clinton !

Im all for you guys having a woman leader I just think Hillary is the wrong one. You should have had several Females already by now and so should we ! We do have our first woman deputy PM (like your vice president) now I think she's is really good so much so, she should be our PM.

Bush,Clinton,Bush,Clinton is no change at all ! The clinton have had there time and now its time for a new.

While i liked Hillary and Bill before i think you all should thank Hillary for her 35 years (lol) of service and send her and Bill off as abasadors to Iraq she was part of the problem let her clean it up ! I also think you should send Bush and co to one of those CIA prisons for a few years and then see if they think its fair !

While your asking can I say that it really is offensive to the rest of the world when you folk say…… the leader of the free world ! That thing was wrong from the start and stoped being anything near true when the wall came down!

We dont vote your leaders they are not our leaders we vote our own! For a nation that believes in democarcy its really wierd that you guys say that ! We in other countries are free people!

Peace

ps Regan did change the course of your country no arguement with that…… it was just he took you on a course in the wrong direction just like Thatcher did in the Uk !
and Howard did with my country!

he hasn't uttered a word about in what direction his change will go. what a fraud, or idiot.

Why is everyone getting all nuts over Obama saying something about Reagan. He wasn't promoting all of Reagan's policies. As the Smirking Chimp points out, Hillary's website has an article posted which states the following list of her favorite Presidents and Reagan is included.

"12/12/2007
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."

ross,

Please read his site and listen to him talk. He explains it during his campaign stops and he has a 65 page plan for change on his website. It is not hard to find and they are good ideas

I've read a few too many posts on this thread that basically read "how dare Obama criticize Bill Clinton?". First of all, Bill Clinton is acting as an active hit agent against Obama in this campaign. Yet, basically, he is such a sanctified figure that Barack Obama should not dare criticize him?

Also, the misuse of the Reagan quote seems heavily to rely on the fact that most people did not watch, nor read a transcript, of the interview. Mr. Obama was making an observation that did NOT serve as an endorsement of Reagan's policies. Basic reading, not parsing, will inform you that he said:

a) Reagan harnessed popular discontent to begin a movement that resulted in a landslide, and also a sea-change in the direction of the country.

Whether or not you like this direction, this is a fact. However, his interview clearly states that he has:

b) An intention of harnessing a similar mood in this year, a hunger, to try to move the country in a new direction. He DID NOT say the SAME direction, I would argue that he is, in fact, trying to create something of a counter-Reagan revolution.

Whether you believe he can do so is another matter. But misreading and misrepresenting what he said does no one any favors.

Speaking of his progressive bona-fides - he DID effect change in Ilinois by often getting Republicans to come to HIS side of the issue. His record of support of progressive causes is better than Clinton's. After law school, who went in to a corporate-friendly law firm and was board member for Wal-Mart, and who became a civil rights attorney, union rep and community organizer?

Do you honestly believe that a person who has received 100% marks on his pro-choice stance etc. is going to suddenly become a Reaganite?

Snagged from another site -
~~~~~~~~~~~

Here's the full context of what Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, told the editorial board of the Reno Gazette-Journal, in which he had the temerity to assert that Republicans don't necessarily have cloven hooves.

Asked how his being the nominee might help down-ballot candidates, such as Senators and Congressmen, get elected, he said: "If I'm the nominee, one thing I'm convinced about, I will have a better chance of bringing in people of like mind. One of the things I'm very proud of in this campaign is I think we've already changed the political dialogue. I mean, you think about it, you know, when Mitt Romney starts talking like me. Right? Which wasn't the case when he started off. But suddenly everyone's ...'Change.' And you have someone like a Huckabee who is doing very well, basically taking a similar tone of, 'Well, we can disagree without being disagreeable.'

"I think that we're shifting the political paradigm here. And if I'm the nominee, I think I can bring a lot of folks along on my coattails. You know, there's a reason why in 2006, I made the most appearances for members of Congress. I was the most requested surrogate to come in and campaign for people in districts that were swing districts, Republican districts where they wouldn't have any other Democrat.

"That was based on their read of the fact that, you know what, this is somebody who can reach out to independents and Republicans in a way that doesn't offend people…I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what's different are the times.

"I do think that, for example, the 1980 election was different. I mean, I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that, you know, 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. They felt like, you know, with all the excesses of the 60's and the 70's and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating and he tapped into what people were already feeling. Which is, people wanted clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamic and entrepreneurship that had been missing, alright? I think Kennedy, twenty years earlier, moved the country in a fundamentally different direction. So I think a lot of it just has to do with the times.

"I think we're in one of those times right now. Where people feel like things as they are going aren't working. We're bogged down in the same arguments that we've been having, and they're not useful. And, you know, the Republican approach, I think, has played itself out. 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. Now, you've heard it all before. You look at the economic policies when they're being debated among the Presidential candidates and it's all tax cuts. Well, you know, we've done that, we tried it. That's not really going to solve our energy problems, for example. So, some of it's the times. And some of it's, I think, there's maybe a generation element to this, partly. In the sense that there's a, I didn't did come of age in the battles of the 60's. I'm not as invested in them.

"And so I think I talk differently about issues. And I think I talk differently about values. And that's why, I think we've been resonating with the American people."

Senator Clinton's Response

"I have to say, you know, my leading opponent the other day said that he thought the Republicans had better ideas than Democrats the last ten to fifteen years," she said. "That's not the way I remember the last ten to fifteen years."

Here's a toast to the very few American Hero's running in this race for the Presidency...the very few who BELIEVE in America...who inspire, who are positive, and give us hope for a bright future.. .. as oposed to all the vile, dispicable, underhanded partisanship and backstabbing propaganda torrents spewed from the left and the right's "establishment", "insider" candidates..

Here's to those very few candidates who, LIKE RONALD REAGAN... can UNITE the UNITED STATES of AMERICA again!!!! Who can put the broken pieces back together and heal us as a nation...ROMNEY and OBAMA!!!

I SO desperately hope that America gets one or the other of these two fine candidates as our next President. We desperately need them right now.

The entrenched bitterness, and devisiveness of the Clinton/McCain old stuffy wealthy privileged elitist Washington insiders who care more for their own bank accounts and sense of entitlement to eternal power and control over US, the PEOPLE (and our money/lives) needs to be stopped DEAD...and NOW!!!

OBAMA/ROMNEY in 2008!!! WOOO HOOO!!!!

obama is cool and popular , but where are his ideas , his passion is for change. we have not yet heard how he wil change the usa. hillary is constient and a valuable resource, she is americas future. obama would make a good vice president. hillary like bill has gotton results and implemented change. it really hurts to see a talented woman like hillary been butchered in a public way. americans vote with their heart as oppossed to their head, this is evident with G Bush being elected and reelected.

Heaven forbid someone try to be cordial and diplomatic with the other party. The reaction from the partisan scumbags in Obama's own party shows what happens when you try to be a uniter and not a divider.

I swear, for all the talk about the Sunni vs. Shiite warfare going on in Iraq, everyone seems to be overlooking the fact that we're on the verge of the very same thing here, only over political rather than religious difference. The idiots on both far ends of the political spectrum have gotten so extreme with their divisiveness that now we can't simply disagree with each other on some issues but agree on others. It's gotten to where if someone doesn't buy a party's rhetoric hook, line, and sinker, the acolytes of that party must hate that person and try to do everything in their power to run them down and destroy them.

And so much of the stuff is so petty. God, when Huckabee's son was in a car wreck a few weeks ago, seeing all the juvenile jerks here in the political ticker posting the vilest ill-wishes for that family was so disgusting. And there's a history of that sort of trash from extremists in both parties. Why do you have to hate those who disagree with you?

Hillary Clinton is the worst. Every time she talks, every word that comes out of her mouth is divisive and venomous. She does everything she can to destroy those who come between her and power. Of course, she does this through surrogates and then denies any involvement, but such tactics don't fool anyone. As a moderate conservative, I disagree with both her and Obama on numerous policy issues, but the reason why I could vote for Obama but never for her is that when Obama talks, I don't feel like he personally hates those such as myself who don't happen to agree with him on every specific issue.

That's why I hope it's Obama vs. McCain in November. Either one would be a win for a America, and a step away from all this hateful partisan divisiveness that threatens to tear this country in half.

Right on, John!! NO MORE CLINTONS - STOP THIS TREND!!! This country has so many more of us middle-class citizens and we are the ones that need to speak up and get involved this year if WE want change!!

Go America! Go Obama!

HOW MANY DEAD PEOPLES' NAMES WILL OBAMA DIG OUT TO DEFINE HIMSELF IN THEIR SHADOW??? FIRST IT'S MLK, JR., THEN KENNEDY, LINCOLN, CHAVEZ, AND NOW REAGAN? THE ONLY PERSON ONE HE’S TRIED EMULATING IS BILL CLINTON. WOW, THIS GUY IS LIKE A CHAMELEON!!! CHANGING MASKS AS IT SUITS HIM. HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT 2008!!!!

Barack,You said it right!Certainly Reagan was a popular president who accomplished many things, BUT he wasn't without fault.I think many people think of Reagon romatically. . .he was a decent fellow, handsome and with a vision. But HE didn't accomplish his goals.BUT YOU WILL! For many of the people are behind this. We ARE ready for a change! You are our hope!

Is that why he's embracing Reagan... who tried to kill the dept of education along with early childhood programs, repeal affimative action, created the largest deficit in history (until Bush), etc, etc. Obama platitudes, empty platitudes... 'We're the United States of America'... 'things are broke – we -gotta fix 'em'... 'they have cynical experience, we got hope for change'... 'If you have Washington experience (e.g., institutionalizing democratic ideals), you are part of the problem'... Pull-eeese! Do yourself a favor and get beyond his rehtoric and look at the specifics of their plans!

I see what Edwards is trying to do...but Obama is absolutely right. Ronald Reagan, while misguided on many, many issues, DID fundamentally change the trajectory of the nation. Furthermore, he was able to rally a good majority of the country behind him. You don't win two landslide elections without getting the people behind you. Reagan won his second election with 49 STATES, and 58% OF THE POPULAR VOTE.

Can you imagine that happening today?

I often think Obama has the ability to do this because of his pragmatic approach to issues and his charismatic appeal. A Democrat is not going to rally the country behind him/her using the politics of fear or needless personal attacks. Obama is not a polarizing figure the way Hillary Clinton is, and that's simply not going to change by November. We've known Hillary for 16 years and we know where we stand on her. I have seen no evidence to suggest she can bring this country together to rally behind her.

Most presidents are an "agent of change" in some way or another...especially when the pendulum swings and the party in the White House changes. George W. Bush has changed the function of the presidency more than any other president in modern history. Unfortunately for us, it's been in the absolute worst ways possible.

You guys dont get it.

We americans are IDIOTS.

We throw away our vote for STUPID reasons. We dont look at the issues. We look at the SPIN.

SPIN SPIN SPIN

To all those who THINK the issues matter.

How much has it mattered in the SLIGHTEST since this began?

SPIN SPIN SPIN

You screwed up Barack!!!!!! You declared yourself to be another GRADE B MOVIE STAR. this guy Reagan who dismissed 40 yrs of millions of american military fighting the cold war to try and get credit for TAKE DOWN THIS WALL comment. I myself was one of those millions who chased russian planes ,subs secret espionge attempts, visiting communist countries to show the american flag. these were just miniscule events that was done to break the Russian bank so that this Reagan guy would steal the credit, the disaster of air controllers union that he broke is still today causing problems in this country and now you want to associate yourself as a Reaganesq clone. this is beginning to show your lack of experience to lead this country.I could have voted for you if you became the candidate but i have a different thought now. as a 78 year old 22yr military veteran who seldom ever missed an election and always voted democrat am having second thoughts about you as a candidate and will probably sit this one out if you become the ressurection of REAGAN. GOD HELP AMERICA!!!!!!

Reporters ponder why the citizens of the US do not make platform an important issue. I ask, "Why wound anyone worry about issues, when you cannot believe a word that is uttered? Lack of trust worthiness, dedication to pork and self interests is primary. We cannot worry about issues, just which person is less likely to steal away our lands and freedoms. My son lives in the "Romney manditory insurance state". The bill gives full power to the Insurance Companies to decide that his family of four policy must cost him $1000 per month because "THEY" decide he can afford it.
There is no choice? Where is the logic?
How can anyone afford that assessment on top of house payments, mtg taxes, fuel costs. I think Edwards made a great point in the NV debates when he asked Hillary and Obama what they thought the Insurance companies expected for thier contributions. It shows in Massachusetts and it will be everyones problem is they do not realize what power our representatives are granting to the Insurance companies.
Here in WV they assess road tolls to upkeep the highway. But misappropriation of those funds made it priority for the Dems to increase fuel taxes for road repair the first week they were in power. Why don't they demand repayment of misappropriated funds?
We all know the answer. The only issue on our minds is how do we survive, despite the corruption in our capitals? It seems to me that someone would realize we have just about reached our saturation point for corruption. We are a sinking ship and we are soon going down if someone does not step up to the plate and "DEMAND" accountablility.
When Democrates can look into the camera with a straight face and say, the Billions of dollars in pork attached to a bill is nothing, then complain Social Security is failing, we need a reality check.
And while I am at it! Why does no one ask the Clintons about their Camen Is accounts or their investments in the Domican Republic?

This affirms what Obama has been saying since the beginning. There is not a Republican and Democratic America, there is the United States of America. Obama is not running to be a 'Democratic' President. He is running to be an American President and Gob Bless him for it.

P.S. I have been a Democrat my entire life.

Ronald Regan was a drug-addled Alzheimers victim during his presidential term. I used to wonder why the Republicans held him in such high regard, but after having a fool like Bush, I realized that the conservative hate machine prefers to have druggies, alcoholics and low-IQ candidates that are easy to control.

Bill said this of Reagan after this death:

“Hillary and I will always remember President Ronald Reagan for the way he personified the indomitable optimism of the American people, and for keeping America at the forefront of the fight for freedom for people everywhere…

“We will always remember his tremendous capacity to inspire and comfort us in times of tragedy, …and we can rest assured that, as joyous a place as Heaven is, his wit and sunny disposition are making it an even brighter place to be.” President Bill Clinton and Sen. Hillary Clinton.

so its okay for Billary but not Obama. its only to say things like this shortly after their death?

Ya know, everyone is so quick to bash President Reagan for his misgivings, which he admittedly had plenty of. But you can't overlook the fact that the biggest change in geopolitics of our time; the fall of the Soviet Empire, was under his direct guidance. He had plenty of problems, but he also had his positive attributes.

When you look back on Presidents, it should be with pride in what we have achieved to make us such a great nation to this day. If you want to dwell on every President's negative short-comings, don't forget to mention the sexual misconduct of a President who then lied under oath to the nation, while trying to redefine words in the english dictionary. I am, by no means, an ardent supporter of the Republican party. But fairness is fairness. We can either choose to dwell on the negative or learn from them and move on. Most of us agree, President Bush has given us PLENTY to learn from, but we also can't overlook the fact that a hideous dictator was removed from power during his tenure.

The real question is where the candidates stand on the issues, NOT who they are able to show some admiration for. Obama did also at one time say he admired Clinton. She said she admired him. If politics weren't so negative, perhaps we'd have a better opportunity to learn where they stand, so we know what to believe. I guarantee if people had known how radical GW's beliefs were, we wouldn't be in this pickle we found ourselves in today. Dwell on the issues, not on the past!

I've read some comments above and simultanously wonder what planet some of you are on, and are you taking any medication for, say, AADD?

Edwards is a old-school demo who kisses union butt among others and equates anything Republican as evil and elitist. "I was swepping floors in factories as a kid and I feel your pain..." Blah, blah, blah...

What we love about Obama is he sees past this old way of thinking about politics and just pointed out that Pres Reagan was a change agent in the right place at the right time.

Tom
There is an enormous difference between Hillary and Barack! They are both democrats and that is were the similarity ends. Obama is honest, fresh, hopeful, and inspirational. HRC is the same, lame, corrupt, bought and paid for politician. She is yesterday news and yesterdays views. I want honesty and hope for a better world from my President.
Obama/Edwards 08

do you see why the democratic party was missing the whole time the Iraq war was raging? the dems had no disagreement with the GOP on Bush's foreign policy, and they still offer no meaningful alternative, except criticizing Bush for "mismanaging the war" nott for "waging a criminal war". the democratic president could have bombed the hell out of Iraq quick and efficient, i suppose, and really broken their spirit for resistance and brought them on their knees. that would have been wonderful and called success, tax dollars well spent, body bags justified, iraqui collateral damage an acceptable price, right, you strong democrats?

from all indications, this nation is going down the historical toilet.

I am a Democrat, but I like what he said about Reagan. I mean come on has party bickering so divided this country that you can't say, yea Reagan was an important President. Reagan was vital to the growth of this country I love Democrats, but Republicans are not always wrong and we needed a man like Reagan at the time when the country was slipping away under Democratic Presidents like Carter, who was a great man but not so great a President.

As Rachel and Ross put it on their comments correctly, I have to add that Obama atleast should have shown some decency in acknowledging the fact that Bill Clinton was a better president for average middle class and african-americans. Was it phony that african-americans consider Bill as one of the black presidents? Or, is it Obama's recent actions to get more republican votes for general election? He has already pocketed all black votes and now is going for big fish.

This is exactly why this country will never be able to move forward, because a person from one party can’t make reference about a person from another party. How are we to get anything done if we can’t talk about views from another political party? Maybe that’s why there are so many Independents voting, because we can see the good in either party. I do not see perfection in any one party’s views, but a combination of views that will make our country what it should be, “America”. Government by the people for the people, all of the people Democrat or Republican- black or white-male or female. Until we are able to work as equals in this country will never be able to lead anything.
This is why Obama will unite our government leaders, because he will listen to everyone regardless of their political affiliation.

Barack Obama is more than a candidate. Barack Obama is a movement. He appeals to those who are so desperate for a change; he appeals to those who want to be proud to be Americans again; he appeals to those who are hungry for a positive force in leadership. These are the same things that people were searching for when Reagan took office.

you only see america from a national perspective , over here in the UK we get a very detailed look. the CLintons are respected and admired. Just because Hillary isnt always smiley or "happy clappy" doesnt mean that she cold and frosty. she take her job seriously and comands alot of respect from herself, a role model on a worldwide scale. she doesnt rely on the her campaign resembling a rock concert, euphoria is short lived and anti climatic, obama is not delivering and its only a matter of time before the euphoric atmosphere he has created wheres off.
look at Maggie Thatcher a cold Iron lady who tamed the troublemakers and got the job done!!!!!!!!!!!!

John, you're right on the money! No more Bushes, and no more Clintons. The country are sick of all of them.

Bush
clinton
Clinton
Bush
Bush
Clinton?

Hell no, not with my vote when I have an alternative!

It was nice of CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney to remind us that Ronald Reagan was himself the "president of the Screen Actors Guild from 1947-52 and again in 1959." Can you say "Black List"?

Ross, your so misguided.

America looks for character in a president, not clintonesque deception. Countries hated america when he was president too. Just remember the song. Its easy as ABC (Anyone But Clinton)

And guess what America still rocks.

Presidents in list of Character and Vision. Lets hope our next president (again, anyone but Clinton) can get to at least the Bush Leagues (pun very much intended)

Kennedy
Reagan
Bush (43)
Bush (41)
Carter
Ford
Nixon
Clinton

Here we go!

This has been what we have been waiting for!

We all know Obama is the most honest candidate. When he speaks the truth forcefully, the hogwash and calculated political rhetoric of the sinking ship that is the USSClinton, doesn’t stand a chance

I'm starting to wonder about CNN. First CNN plays up the incident involving Bill Clinton being confronted by a reporter regarding a lawsuit in Nevada by the Teachers union against caucuses in Nevada casino's saying it gives members of the Culinary Workers Union, which has endorsed Obama, an unfair advantage. Then we have this story by a CNN poll on the politics page that says Poll: Majority of black Democrats support Obama. and underneath * Clintons play good cop/bad cop on trail, which is about the same incident I mention above. A few more CNN topics on the politics page, Obama takes the gloves off...
Watch Obama talk tough, and try comedy in Las Vegas. (CNN) – Democrat Barack Obama launched sharp...
* Clinton frets over possible union pressure in... ( which is about the same incident I mentioned above)
* Michelle Obama flubs 'Nevada' pronunciation (lol a fluff piece)

Then I go to a John Edwards story:
"John Edwards said Friday that Barack Obama needs to “speak up, if he really means what he says” about ending divisive politics and denounce a Nevada ad funded by an independent group that supports the Illinois senator’s presidential bid. The spot, running on Spanish-language radio in the state, criticizes Hillary Clinton for a lawsuit filed by some of her Nevada supporters that had sought new restrictions workplace caucus sites this Saturday. The buy is funded by the Unite Here Campaign Committee on behalf of the Culinary Workers Union, which has endorsed Obama." –Edwards hits Obama on independent ads Posted: 12:39 PM ET

But this isn't mentioned anywhere else. CNN seems to be posting everything that the Clinton camp does with a negative slant, and Obama is always shown in a positive light.

Majority of black Democrats support Obama.
Clintons play good cop/bad cop on trail,
Obama takes the gloves off...
Watch Obama talk tough,
Democrat Barack Obama launched sharp...
Clinton frets over possible union pressure in...

Very interesting....

All Obama is saying back in the Reagan era the country was ready for change and alot of Democrates voted for Reagan in the 1980s which this country is ready for change now. He's telling the truth even the news commentaries are saying the same.

OBAMBA AND REAGAN,JFK MARTIN LUTHER KING JR THOMAS JEFFERSON AND WHO ELSE SHOULD HE BE COMPARED TO? I GOT JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF. WOW AND HE COULD BE PRESIDENT AREN'T WE LUCKY!!!!!

A democrat running on a platform for change and the promise of improving life for blacks, Hispanics, the poor and middle class who likens himself to the uniter Ronald Reagen, is scaring me. I was undecided, but quickly leaning towards Clinton. Ronald Reagan supported the rich and stomped on the poor. He did nothing for the future of women, poor and minorities. Why do you think the majority of his support comes from wealthy Americans?

Wake up America. Obama is speaking out of both dises of his mouth.

All presidents, for better or worse, change the political landscape.

If you don´t agree with Reagan, why use him as an example?

You can use Hitler, he also changed the political environment.

Obama is really trying to have it both ways. Let's not forget what a corrupt administration Reagan headed. Iran-contra just to name one. His worst crime is that he delivered Washington DC into the hands of the American Taliban. If his vision is seen to its fruition, the argument over a national language will be moot, because we will all be speaking in "tongues" !

Let's face it. Edwards is the only candidate with half a chance in a general election.

Now, go back to your televisions! Wonder who will lose the most weight this week? Can't wait to see who they vote off next! Blaaaggghhh!

Heck....if Obama can reach across the aisle like Reagan could and create a fan base in the other party (Reagan Democrats), more power to him!

"Obama Republicans" – I like the ring to that!

I think Obama lives in la-la land, and his supporters are too self-righteous. Its annoying. I can't believe he stands around and compares himself to people like JFK and MLK.

A man is a man is a man...however, a WOMAN may shake things up.

OK... all of you Obama supporters, followers, whatever you want to call yourselves. PLEASE post here what he has said that will help this country other then the same thing, "I will change." Give me some facts, let me know how you are going to change this country. Sorry I will NEVER support this man until I see what is plans are. He may be a good speaker, but I see him speaking in circles, the same thing over and over. It amazes me how wrapped up people can get by a snownball effect of media attention. I have listened to him speak, lord how could I not with all of his media coverage. Sorry all but I have to agree to disagree on why Obama is liked so much. I have heard nothing to sway my thinking, and to be honest there is something just not right and bothersom to me about Obama, however at this point I can't put my finger on it, but in time I am sure it will come to light.

As the months go by, I keep analyzing all the candidates and I keep asking myself how ANYONE in their right MIND can still support Hillary Clinton?
I mean are you people BLIND? or do you just not want to see the truth?
Don't you see her little game, this is what she always wanted, this is the only reason why she forgave Bill for cheating on her numerous times, it was because she's always been POWERHUNGRY. I mean come on people do your reasearch, her HEALTH care plan is to make it mandatory for every American to buy health insurance with only a SMALL percentage of discount! Trust me she cares more about money than about the American people.
I will NOT risk my son's life, or any other American's life in her hands!
That is why I am NOT voting for Hillary Clinton!

GO BARACK OBAMA!!!

you guys in the USA never had it any better than when a Clinton was running the show so to speak. a booming economy , world respect , civil rights that were working and got results. an american that was united!!!

CNN,
I don't know if there is a blindfolded person throwing darts at a board as to which comments to allow on here. But those with rampant, rambling, diatribes outnumber thoughtful, rational posts.

SPIN SPIN SPIN.

ALL HAIL OBAMA. CNN wont ALLOW anything else.

I'm not an Obama supporter. I will vote for Hillary. But I'm willing to cut him some slack on this, because I think he's trying to make a point - however muddled - about what tactics bring people together to make change. Barack strikes me as an extemely intelligent and visionary man, but the fact that he flubs this point and has not distinguished himself in the debates suggests that he's not quite seasoned for leadership. Still, I hope that if Hillary gets the nomination, she will run with him. They complement each other in tremendous ways. And with the influence of vice presidents growing with each administration, Barack could make extraordinary contributions in that role.

I still visualise Hillary smokin Bills cigar as he likes her to.

Its a no brainer OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA!

To the "awakened" its OBAMA to the "sleepers" its whoever!

What bothers me most about Obama's statement was NOT his remarks about Reagan, but his remarks about Bill Clinton. If any president in the past 50 years put our country on a positive "projectory," it was Bill Clinton, who built our economy, upheld civil rights, and improved our status in the world. I feel that Obama has no respect for Clinton's legacy. It was a careless and insulting comment.

Hillary for president. vision , style , experience , objectives , and a no nonsense attitude the epithets of a true leader

You know what this campaign has done? It has soured me on all 3 candidates. All the attacks and back-biting – I'm tired of it.
I agree Obama's comments were taken out of context, but I think Hillary's were as well. I like Edwards' crusade for the middle class but he, too, has taken a swipe or two when expedient. In this particular case, I think it's a matter of making political hay and I'm willing to allow that he may not have heard the full context of Obama's comments.
I do agree with Edwards that Reagan is NOT a good example for our next president to follow when it comes to economics, unions, big business, ecology, deal-making with corrupt governments or a number of other issues.

Nalla –
Please come back to earth. We all want the chance to say "Hi!"

It is profoundly sad and outragious to watch how the media especially CNN is creating a MEGA PHENOMENON out of Barack HUSEIN Osama who claimed to have learned his "FOREIGN EXPERTISM" in an islamic school at the age of
5 – 10 years in INDONESIA, a country with the largest muslim population including terrorists. Does anyone try to find out what he learned there and what kind of impact it will have, if at all the worst nigtmare becomes real and he happens to be the next tenant of the famous WHITE HOUSE? Why in the world CNN allows the senile anti woman CAFFERTY to consume a good part of time in Situation Room with his disgusting CRAP and pathetic praise about Husein Obama? Consequently, you have lost substantial number of viewers in your neighboring Canada.
We watch the developments alarmingly, because a brainless W.B became the darling of the media in 2000 and got elected that led to creation of a breeding ground for terrorists in Iraq and the whole world is suffering.
DO YOU EVER LEARN FROM YOUR MISTAKES????
Jennie
Canada

Whoever wrote that Reagan's changes were the largest this country has ever made, thanks for that. It's been a long day and I needed a good laugh.

Yes, St. Ronnie's giveaways to the rich, quadrupling of the debt, and legwork for the intolerant Christian Taliban could and should be looked at on par with the changes wrought by men like Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, et al. Wait, not "on par" with them! Superior to them!

And can I ask all you folks who don't want somebody so "partisan" in office, who like Obama because he's all compromise and ponies: what's the compromise position on torture? Habeas corpus? Rendition? Warrantless wiretapping? The deplorable treatment of active duty and veteran armed forces personnel? Outing an undercover CIA agent? Politicizing the DOJ? War crimes? How is Obama planning to undo the damage that the current criminal cabal in power has wrought on this country when his firmest stance is that we should all get together and sing "Kumbaya" around a giant campfire?

Edwards = Hope; a worthy president with emotion and devotion.

Clinton = Corruption; easy, she and Bill had their chance.
Obama = Poser; talk the talk, but lacks the walk.

Nalla- just for record I can't stand Obama.

___________________________________
More people HATE Hillary than those who like her

No one hates Obama and those who support him, love him, admire and adore him for what he is.

He is truly inspirational to the masses and will get more done and will use the collective experience of the millions, instead of the slick willie and his old cronies.

Go figure, Go Obama

I'm with you Molly, do comments that are forever in moderation just get bypassed or what? I think that is why we sometimes see the same comments twice. Mine is in limbo also.

"Does Edwards realize that the majority of Americans are sick of unions gouging this country?? "

Uh, as a currently underemployed computer professional, I can say with certainty that if the IT industry had a union, we wouldn't have seen our industry go to crap from outsourcing and H-1. A real union would never have allowed any of that. But since IT professionals would rather fight amongst themselves than organize, we've lost millions of jobs and will continue to lose millions more.

Unions have a place, there was a reason they were formed in the first place. Give up your unions, and you can join the unemployment line when your company replaces you with an illegal immigrant of a foreign visa worker.

Reagan may have created change, but the "change" he created hurt the middle, working, and lower class. Even though Obama is correct about the fact that Reagan created change, I wouldn't want to use a leader that created negative change in my argument to get people behind me if I'm talking about creating change. Not a smart comparison to link to Obama. I wonder who advised him on this one... that person needs to be fired from the campaign.

Obama wants the unions to back him...but I wonder if he actually knows what Reagan thought about unions and how he tried to do away with them....and Reagan used to be a democrat in charge of a big UNION!!!....Obama will not get the union vote in Nevada tomorrow.....especially the union members that won't caucus at work fearing the union bosses will not let them vote the way their hearts are telling them to vote..................I predict that Obama will not win the Nevada Caucus....

Obama Rocks!

I certainly don't support JE, but he's absolutely correct about President Bonzo. I am continually baffled when people heap praise on Reagan. What's next Obama, praise for GW and his economic policies?

And, while Reagan was President of the Screen Actors Guild, he was an informant for the F.B.I. He and his then-wife, Jane Wyman, were special agents who secretly sent his fellows' names to J.Edgar Hoover when their politics didn't suit him.

Molly above – I am having the same problem with one of my posts. Interesting that they only post strident tirades.

Ronald Reagan was a GREAT man. I know that history will show Ronald Reagan among the greatest presidents of the 20th century. Anybody who is comparing themselves to him has some B-I-G shoes to fill. Good Luck.

It is hard to like the Clintons after trying to intimidate voters. I am ashamed someone would do something like this.
I am now supporting sen. Obama!

Obama lately reminds me of something I read in a book about Beagles: they love the sound of their own voices.

(does that make me a doggist?)

This Reagan thing alongside his "democrat for a day" campaigns makes me think that the democratic party is being highjacked.

Edwards has now exposed his acceptance of being – out – so wishes to crank up his upcoming "spoiler" status so he can keep playing longer, garner attention, and push the two front-runners into a competition for his endorsement. I mean, get serious, Edwards... that Reagan was a Republican should be meaningless. That Reagan was a wanker just as much as he was an effective agent of change is obvious. Praising his high-points does not imply anything more than simply – that.

hiya guys , i am from birmingham UK and following all of the election. i love the usa and american people. Over here Hillary Clinton is well liked and seen as an advocate for the people. with a failing US economy and basically a loss of world respect America isnt the nation it was in the 90's. Hillary along with Bill are the only people who can restore America to its former glory. With all the race debate goin on fueled by the media, its tearing apart the democrats and making life easier for the republicans. Clinton is a strong leader in Blacl / hispanic and asian people being treated equal to whites and having the same oppurtunites.
As good as Obama may appear he lacks knowledge of the system and really has no ideas for health care, often in his debates all he repeats is the word "change" and never backs it up with his plans.

my only concern if obama was to be nominated is that he wouldnt get in over a republican , mainly because AMerica is viewed by the world as a racist country still.May be in 5 or 10 years obama would be matured enough to take the presidency.

I'll bet this gets as many hits as Hillarys' MLK's blog got. What ya think?

Bill Clinto a hero?

ouch!

Edwards is so desperate for some attention and votes he should drop out of the race and stop wasting money. Like Slick Willie and Slick Hillary Edawrds is a huckster.

As for Obama, I do think he has that special quality that excites an electorate like Kennedy and Reagan did. I think the Clintons are damaged goods and people will not give them another chance. I think Obama would atleast get a fair chance by the american people. With the Clintons they are one scandal away from making american voters look like fools. They pardoned Rich, a fugitive from justice. I can't believe the american people would let them have another chance to pull that stunt again. You can bet the republicans mention that a lot in the general elections. I'm shocked that Obama and Edwards has not brought that subject up in the debate. Since Hillary is claiming her husbsnds political career as her experience, Her and her husbands scandals are now fair game.

"The fact is, regardless of what he (Reagan) actually did, the vast majority of Americans loved Ronald Reagan"

Not True. Only Republicans loved R R.

Most Independents (like me) and most Dems hated him for what he did to the PATCO members, Iran-Contra scandal, our humongous Debt situation as a Borrow and Spend supply sider etc.

Obama as well change the Party and become a Republican, for a Change he wants!

Shame on you Barack Hussein Obama! You will NOT get the nomination of the Democrats.

Real heroes are FDR and Bill Clinton.

Ron Paul for President!

President Ronald Reagan was admired by many. Whether you diagreed with his policies their was one thing for certain, he brought the word PRIDE back to our country. That's something our current politicians just don't get. If we really want to change the landscape of Washington, the public needs to vote out those "career politicians", they have been in there way too long. When our forefathers established this constitition of the greatest land on the planet, I'm sure they didn't invision politicians making their lively hoods as a career politician. VOTE THEM OUT!!!!

Obama is PRAISING REAGAN from CALIFORNIA.......HIS NEXT RUN after Nevada.

It is for the VOTES.

Wake Up people...Politics is a game, and Obama DOES NOT know the rules! Which means he will get nothing done if elected...even Reagan knew that. We don't have a few years for him to learn on the job.

Hillary '08
Obama '16

I'm going to try again, as my original post made at 1:25 p.m. was not posted.

Obama is courting the "Reagan Republicans" with this statement. It's a shrewd move designed to represent Obama to be all things to all people wthout actually saying anything.

To paraphrase Shakespeare, Obama's campaign is “is a tale … full of sound and fury; signifying nothing.” He is an empty suit who will put a sheen of "hope" on the policies that his financial backers proffer.

Edwards has the spine to be the voice crying in the wilderness. He is the lone candidate who is not beholden to anyone else except the American people. He has my financial support and my vote.

To offer Reagan as a figure who changed the political landscape is a slippery way to imply that the trajectory subsequent to his adminstration was a good one. Does anyone else remember that the '80s were the "Me Generation?" It was a decade that brought us Wall Street and Gecko's "Greed is Good" credo. Look where greed has brought us: a nation pitted against itself and hell-bent on voting against its best interests. Pogo was right.

As a combo deal, I'll include a distillation of my second post: "sea change" is a term which originated with Shakespeare's "The Tempest" and has been used to indicate a change in the dynamic/current/discourse.

Obama is admiring Reagan, the Supply-Sider. This means Borrow and Spend – He is principally responsible for the nearly 10 trillion dollar Debt. He gave massively to the corporate welfare and welfare for the wealthy and spent on star war projects, so much so the Debt shot up astronomically.

Reagan had broken the Bollen Amendment Law – he got involved in the Iran Contra Debacle; but for the timely death of Bill Casey, his CIA Chief, Reagan would have been impeached and convicted for Iran Contra money laundering crime to help the Contras against the Sandanistas in Nicaragua.

Obama just talks the talk, but because he does NOT have the right judgment, intuition and experience he cannot walk the talk. His words are empty. Talk is cheap.

We need a person who can Deliver the Change that we need.

Vote Hillary to WH for the Better America.

Obama/Ed are NOT Electable.

Economy and Electability, Stupid.

By reading all of this non-sense of opinionated gigs, no wonder this country is spiralling out of control. You people don't want change, you just want to keep getting screwed by our government officials. You are not ready for a change. Obama is too big of a change for this nation. I fear that if he gets elected, he would not last, before a white supremacist or our own goverments kills him. Just like Lincoln, like Kennedy, like Reagan (who survived), this nation is not ready for someone with Obama's caliber to bring down the few riches that exploit this nation in favor of the majority of us blue collar workers that really make this nation tick.

Do you think is about being Democrat or Republican? It is about having a leader to work for the people of this nation. The party is not important, you Gumbos!
If Hillary gets elected, who do think will be calling the shots in the White House. Oh whatever you say Dear Billy!!!
You all make me sick with your commentary.

Fine, Clintonites and Edwardians:
You don't want people to reach across aisles and work together for the good of the country?
Too bad for you,
The rest of us in this great country do.

Therefore, we should support Romney or Obama. I wish like heck we could have them both together. They could actually talk and LISTEN to leaders of other countries and get something constructive done in this world by means of Intelligence, Integrity, Humility and Hard Work.

We need to listen to each other and get
off the hate train of Bush/Clinton politics.

This isn't about a woman president, or making the history books, it's about the uniting of our country and the healing of our world.

More people HATE Hillary than those who like her

No one hates Obama and those who support him, love him, admire and adore him for what he is.

He is truly inspirational to the masses and will get more done and will use the collective experience of the millions, instead of the slick willie and his old cronies.

Go figure, Go Obama

Reagan was one of this country's greatest presidents. George Bush, Bill Clinton, and GWB had trouble following Reagan's accomplishments. He new exactly what he wanted to do and he did it. The economic growth of the country over the last 28 years and the fall of the Soviet Union changed the course of the country for the better. Reagan won every state except Minnesota in 1984. He demonstrared strong leadership both home and abroad. None of the presidents after him have been even close to what Reagan accomplished.

The Democratic Party has been out of touch with this country for 40 years. They have won just 3 elections since 1964. 1976, 1992, and 1996. Both democrats elected were moderate former southern governors who were able to win their own state and a couple others in the south. Hillary Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are not moderate or governors of a southern state. They better stop wasting their time bashing Bush and the Republicans and tell the country what THEY are gonna do to fix the problems. We all know the problems.......Who is gonna fix those problems will be the next president. Until they can solve problems without raising taxes, the country will take the safe pick for their wallets and that is a conservative republican with executive branch experience. Its still the economy and who can grow it.

NObama has referenced his admiration for Reagan before. How can anyone suppor this man as a DEMOCRATIC presidential candidate. And CNN I don't understand why you don't allow commenting on the other two articles about NObama. Are you trying to throw the race in his direction? I'll be surprised if you even let this comment go up, considering anything else I've posted that appears anti-Obama or "race" sensitive in the least bit isn't allowed to post.

I accept Obama's explanation, that he simply meant Reagan changed the political landscape by tapping into America's desire for change at the time. It doesn't have to be read as praise for Ronald Reagan (though Obama could have avoided the controversy by making that cleare at the time).

Mr. Mooney thought he could get away with tacking on an exculpatory line for the "Great Communicator" at the end of this article. Sure, Reagan was once a union official–but, his legacy is as an "Union Buster", from his days at General Electric onward. He was possibly the must destructive to the welfare of working people of any American President, ever.

He also, during his stint as governor, damaged California beyond repair by emptying the mental hospitals, turning serious ill people out on the streets, initiating the pathetic spectacle that now blights most U.S. city's downtown thoroughfares. He started the gutting of the state's excellent higher educational system by putting people in charge of it who thought it was turning out to many "liberals." He was guilty of monumental crimes against Latin American nations and he was the granddaddy of the criminal conspiracy, Contra Gate. That he is the best that the conservatives can come up as a political hero shows you how morally bankrupt they are.

Open Letter to Mr. Edwards.

Please, oh please, just drop out of the race now. You are embarrasing yourself and the Democratic party. You have no chance, none, nada, nyet, of winning. You're not half the man Obama is. You're even less of a man then Hillary is.

You don't a plan, all yo do is attack and use buzz words.

Say good nice Gracie...

I'm happy to see Obama trying to unify the country with comments that cross the left-right political gridlock of today. Sadly, the usual Clintonian politics of divide and counqer will probably prevail only to lose the general election.

So Obama has made great strides in the black population of America since the race card was thrown out? hmmnnnnn GO figure
JUST another example of a country being divided, first by Bush and now this.
The Democratic BS that is going on in the media is ludicrous! They bash Clinton but heap praise on a man who didn't take time to show up and vote in the Senate, who has no real experience as a leader, but let him say something about Clintons MLK comment that was completely taken out of context B Y THE MEDIA and used as a weapon to undermine her.
THIS IS WHY THE REPUBLICANS will retain the White House..you fools are so taken in by his BS and the medias BS that it will divide the Democratic Party even more. As I will NOT vote for Obama ! I will switch to McCain just to keep him out.

The Golden Child is NOT Obama! He is quickly becoming a tool to divide , yet again!

I just cant believe what I am hearing about obama statements concerning Ronald Reagan.If I remember right it was Reagan who started taxing unemployment and to make his administrations unemployement numbers look better made the armed forces part of the working public. Also decided not to count people who are off unemplyement and still have no job its like they dropped off the earth.I was thinking about voting for Obama but not now no way!!!! He is just not ready yet

I think what Senator Obama forgot to add when he said Ronald Regan was an agent of change, that it was a horrible, horrible change.

Ronald Reagan ran as an agent of change and he nearly broke our country in two. George W. Bush ran as an outsider to the political world, with little to no political experaince. Sound familar?

Senator Obama openly embraces and embodies both of these "qualities". The question becomes what kind of change would he bring? How can a man with little to no experaince in politics make a positive change for our country?

If you want the answer look at what our current President has done to our country through ignorance and inexperaince.

Don't allow yourselves to be taken over by his engaing, charismatic personality. Look at his voting record or rather the complete lack thereof,. His entire political career is one of standing in the middle afraid of taking a stand and voting one way or the other, because he terrified of offending someone.

He is not ready for this yet. Clinton 08, Obama 16

Tom, Boston MA said: "NO CHANGE WILL NOT COME UNLESS THE PEOPLE"S HEART AND MINDS CHANGE"

Well, is this not the type of change that Obama has been calling for even BEFORE Hillary FOUND her own voice as a person?

As a strong democrat, I credit Regan for some of the changes he brought about in the World. The U.S. held great respect, the Soviet Union gave in etc., all these - thanks to Reagn as much as I disagreed with several of his domestic POLICIES.

The U.S. started to lose her respect internally and externally due to the Clinton era. In fact, the democtic party has been losing to the republicans for quite some time now because of the Clinton era. No one will ever convince me that Hillary will REPLICATE some of Bill's economic policies; we must be daydreaming if we think that she will actually do so.

Now, history teaches us well that Hiilary will continue to divide this nation, and Bill will continue his sense of marital problems. Let us wait until the republicans start to call for the opening of the Clinton ARCHIVES!!!!!! Then, the nation and the democrats will be, again, sorry for NOT learning from their MISTAKES of the past scandals!!!!!!! Only Obama can heal the sins of the past that we have suffered; this would be real change.

I am a Obama supporter, but I agree in this with you tom:

...no change will come unless the people's heart and mind change

Brasil te ama Obama

One question with reference to this Obama-Reagan business. Suppose some asks you if Hitler changed Germany and Lenin changed Russia. If you answer yes (if you say no then we have another even more serious problem), does that mean that I should conclude you favor/admire or whatever Hitler or Stalin. Of course not–that would be ridiculous on my part. So did Reagan change America? Of course he did and not in a good way. But all Obama said is he changed America, nothing more.

Obama's praising Reagan will attract Independents like myself.

This comment came from his honesty, which should be bipartisan.

Obviously Reagan created a sea change, or it wouldn't have sparked such a debate! I think that's all that Obama is saying–Reagan sensed the desire for change, and he created it. Whether or not you agree with the change is immaterial.

Also, aren't you tired of typical politicians with their canned answers? Not even a moment to pause before they spew whatever it is they think you want to hear? I'll take Obama over that any day.

Lastly, I'm a Jets fan (I know–spare the comments, but I married a Jets fan so hush up,) but I think that Peyton Manning is an extraordinary quarterback. Does that make me a Colts fan?

Learn some critical thinking, people. Seriously–take a course or something.

Barack the vote! Obama 08.

I believe Reagan was president of the Screen Actors Guild at one time so he had more union experience than John Edwards.

He said that Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America.

It is a true statement.

Geesh.

Okay Mr. Obama just lost a lot of my support when he said Regan was such a change agent.......yes he was only for the very wealthy. So I guess if you're wealthy then Regan was a fine President. I agree w/ what John Edwards said about Regan. I could not have said it better Mr. Edwards – “He was openly — openly — intolerant of unions and the right to organize. He openly fought against the union and the organized labor movement in this country," Edwards said during a campaign event in Henderson, Nevada. "He openly did extraordinary damage to the middle class and working people, created a tax structure that favored the very wealthiest Americans and caused the middle class and working people to struggle every single day. The destruction of the environment, you know, eliminating regulation of companies that were polluting and doing extraordinary damage to the environment.”

There was a comment that Sen. Clinton was just discussing history about MLK and Johnson. Her comment was a response to Sen. Obama's comment about similar types of political leadership to bring to the table TODAY, as in RIGHT NOW. Blacks are no longer disenfranchised. They can wield the emancipation pen without the aid of a white liberal. It is absolutely impossible to conclude that she was doing anything other than stoking the flames of the black population's skepticism about the electability of a black candidate to the presidency. That doesn't mean she hasn't done alot for the black community. She clearly has. But seriously, that's not the same thing as throwing incendiary comments out there for the purpose of getting elected. Many americans saw through this as her national poll numbers were hurt more than any other candidate in the aftermath of the bickering.

Mr. Obama is showing himself to be like every other politician out there with his wistful alignment to the late ex-president. He shows he can be rather adept as talking out of both sides of his mouth. What the hell, he's a politician.

This is why we need to improve the state of our education. So many people lacking critical reading and critical thinking skills. To think that 'Reagan changed the political landscape' implies 'I luv Regan' is simply irrational.

For a candidate running for the Democratic nomination to mention a former Republican president in any positive fashion is a slap in my face. In my opinion, this is done in General Election to gain crossover voters-not in the nomination process. I would say this regardless of who it is-not just Obama.

I'm still not sure about Obama, but this was a cheap shot by Edwards. There is little doubt that Ronald Reagan had the pulse on the American citizens. That doesn't mean that Obama shares the same view on policies, but rather than Obama believes that he also has a sensitivity to the concerns of the bulk of Americans. I am more concerned by Edward's distortion of the facts than Obama's reference to an event that depicted the importance of listening to the American people.

You all are missing the point. If Obama has a case of FOOT IN MOUTH DISEASE, the voters need to know about this now. The Republicans will "eat him alive" in the general election.

2 good examples this week of political inexperience.

1. Obama's Reagan comment
2. Obama's debate answer of "unorganized/messy desk"-the other 2 candidates were smart enough to not say anything that could be used against them.

How do you think Obama is going to do in a general election debate? When he grows up then he can be President.

Edwards 08

Praising Reagan without mentioning that the philosophical differences seems careless and a bit strange; you don't hear Republicans using Bill Clinton as an example to follow. I think Obama walked into this one much as Hillary walked into a mess with the Rev. King statement.
Edwards was right to note Obama's folly. He is the only candidate in either party to stick to the topic of what is hurting America and what he plans to do about it. The other candidates overreach with lengthy analysis of suble points, ultimately sticking their foot in their collective mouths.
None of the candidates should expect the Republican attack machine to give a pass on gaffes in the general election.

Reagan did change things, and he was a jerk- what did Obama say that was contradictory to that?

These Obama hits are ticky tack. Bring some real stuff please.

If you're undecided on Obama or Clinton, ask yourself if you would rather have a great talker, or someone with proven experience for leadership. IF you're tired of just great talk or inspirational promises, vote for Hillary!
It is so clear to me its painful!!!!

I don't want someone who can just talk. When it gets down to business here or abroad, talk is NOT what this country needs...

it is time for ACTION.

allan January 18, 2008 3:13 pm ET

The biggest problem is that the Obama supporters do not like other to comment on Obama's past, speech, etc. Obama only want to draw a pizza, no matter the pizza taste is. What his direction he will be changed, is right direction or bad direction? The country needs a practical president not idealist president. Vote some solve realistic problems.

allan, your point please. And in complete sentences if possible.

These arguments are so elementary and meaningless. The next president of the U.S.A. is going to have a serious job to assume when s/he takes office. The current issues at hand (foreclosures, jobs and unemployment, energy, and every U.S. domestic issue that you can imagine), which have been ignored over the past nearly 8 years, will have a direct impact on us all if attention is not given to these matters. So to argue about meaningless, insignificant issues, about what s/he said should not be in the headlines—but what each of these individuals are proposing to do if (when) they become president should be in the discussions. I would suggest that people who do not know who to vote for, or why some of you are voting for who you are voting for, to visit each of the candidate’s websites to gather information about what their respective proposal(s) on how they plan to address the issues of the U.S. Woman, Black Man—everyone knows that already…. And quite frankly, that is not going to matter when the dust settles. Who ever it is, they will not be doing this alone. Are they going to bring the right people together at the table to fix the problems that the U.S. is facing? Is it going to be an inclusive process or top secret? Is the process going to affect a select few, or the whole nation? If we can not get past the elementary arguments, biases, and fantasies that we all thrive on, then on Jan 2009, we will be dumbfounded after we awaken out of our dreams and realized the decision I made was illogical. We are living in very serious times, and if people don’t grasp that concept, and realize who’s dealing the cards on your behalf, then you really shouldn’t be voting anyway. Think!!!

Obama's so-called "grass-root movement" is movement toward the middle, the mainstream of the reagan democrats and the clinton conservatives, those who put Bush in the WH twice, those who have supported the crimes against humanity for a few more bucks in their pockets and then cry "i'm an innocent civilian" when caught.

google "Democracy Now" and get real information and alternative persepctive!!!

Obama, Clinton, what's the difference? no change will come unless the people's heart and mind change.

Obama does NOT want to be like Reagan. Otherwise, he would have been running in the Republican Party. Folks, WAKE UP and do not swallow what Ewards and Hilary tell you hook, nail and sinker. Remember the Nevada debate? What are the weaknesses of Edwards and Hillary? Were you happy with those answers compared to the truth as told by Obama?

Obama was referring to how Reagan in 1980 united the country. He won that election by appealing to Independents and even some Democrats because they saw that he was a Uniter. If you are too young to know, that is the FACT. Mind you, Obama was referring to the 1980 ELECTIONS, not the 1984 elections. Obama was not referring to Reagan's policies, neither did he say his change would be like Reagan's policies. Hillary and Edwards are playing catch up to Obama, and they are twisting his words along the way to fool those who don't understand English or are lazy to pay attention. Hilary is a divider, and so is Edwards. The Republicans are praying for Hillary to win and they will unite and make sure she does not go back to the WH. Wake up America!!!!

so, if Obama is for Reagan type change that has become the mainstream, where is the change he's talking about?

don't even try to tell us that his website has his plans. it's full of truncated empty rhetoric. i have a friend who is in love with Obama, and he admitted Obama's website doesn't relally give much specifics of what kind of change and how to get there.

Wow, I'm amazed that so many fellow democrats are so out of touch with reality!
What is wrong with saying that Ronald Reagan's presidency marked a turning point of history? Remember the Soviet Union fell due to his policies, which really changed the world from 2 war-prone power blocks to a move towards democracy in most countries.

Are we so politically correct that one can not even pronounce his name? (btw Obama did not even say he liked some of his policies. Heaven would have fallen down on earth if he did, of course... .

How can we expect even the slightest bit of honesty from these candidates, when even something absolutely obvious like this cannot be said in public? I must say, Edwards is just as bit as bad as Clinton in partisan, fractional politics and mud-slinging.

Really incredible. I'm curious, is Abe Lincoln OK cite in this campaign, or is that also "sensitive" for the spin doctors? (he was republican, I believe...)

Tyler & Pam,Long Beach Cal one example of Obama's work in Illinois he got Dem and Rep together and passed an ethic bill, and Pam I believe Sentor Durbin of Illinoia was a mentor to Obama. I find it very interesting how many of you can not read or is comphensation that is the problem ?

Go Edwards! Reagan was bad news for working people. Edwards understands that. While I would like to see our country united, we need to realize that there is a difference between the two parties. The republicans have become a party all about the wealthy and powerful – the haves. Reagan was all about the haves. I want a president who cares about the have nots and the have less also. Admiration of Reagan by a preidential contender makes me very nervous. Edwards is my man for president.

ra ra ra.................Obama .He will run out of gas in the end just like the Dallas Cowboys did in football this year.Politics is a tough game and only the Best will be around for the big Game.

To the person who said labor unions are corrupt. I am a union member along with millions of other Americans, and I find your remarks uninformed and insulting. To categorize all unions as corrupt is just stupid. Unions are the backbone of the American workforce. Without unions you would not have decent wages or benefits or job security. Unions were important at one time because of slave wages and terrible working conditions. They are equally important now for other reasons. Reagan was anti union and anti worker, unless you forgot about when he fired the air traffic controllers?

Members of my union (Vermont State Employees) still have a pension that is fully funded by the way, instead of a 'defined contribution' plan like many places. We have decent health and dental insurance and prescription coverage. We pay our fair share and yes our premiums have been going up by double digits just like everyone else, so don't reply with some whining about government workers getting a free ride. Most of us are already doing the work of two or three people. Without our union to protect our rights our current Republican Governor Jim Douglas would slash our benefits and lay off workers because Vermont is a "hire and fire" state like some others I'm sure; meaning employees have virtually no rights at all. Douglas like Reagan is basically anti government. He will stop at almost nothing to find new ways to eliminate government programs and workers regardless of any cost benefit, or care about the consequences.

I would never characterize Reagan as anything but the last worst President before the current one!

Edwards was right to criticize Obama for his remarks. No Democrat should be holding up Reagan as an example of anything. If for no other reason than George W. Bush thinks he is the heir to Reaganomics.

The misinterpretations of obama's statement is testiment of how shallow American political discourse has become. May here are attacking him because he said Reagan... not even bothering to examine the meaning of what he said. He did not say Reagon's policies were good. He did not praise his legacy but simply stated he changed the course of American Politics. I would have been just as accurate had he said: FDR changed the trajectory of American politics. This was an academic accessment. People.... after GW Bush aren't we ready to drop anti-intellectuallism and respect a true thinker?

John Edwards isn't fooling anyone. I am the CHIEF STEWARD at my worksite, a UNION MAN to my core, and I see his pandering for what it is. Senator Obama merely stated an accepted fact – Ronald Reagan unified the Republican Party in 1980. Obama did not say he agreed with Reagan's politics, he said that the country was ready for his brand of change at the time.

So, Johnny Boy, as much as wanted you to get the nomination in 2004, I am extremely disappointed that you would stand in the way of progress.

I love it how Obama has the audacity to talk about the legacy of Bill Clinton. Someone who led this country for 8 years. I'm sorry Barack, you can and never will be Bill Clinton. Get over it. I believe your words are empty. At least Bill backed it up – the only actions your words have led to:

is that Politicians can take lobbyists bribes standing up rather than sitting down.

Wow, inspirational, great work.

Your voting record in the Senate is even better as you have missed more than 75% of your votes –

"Hi, I'm Barack Obama, and I have twice as many indifferent and non-present votes because I'm a pansy that doesn't take stances on issues. But, I will say, change, change, change to death but will never give you specifics. Please, this man is a used car salesman and I've seen it all.

Oh yes, I am black. And simply because you vote for Hillary does not mean you are racist in the democratic party.

This was a great post by ace so here it goes again. This is the kind of change we need; obama is the type of person that will unite this country

ACE, Denver January 18, 2008 12:29 pm ET

I'm an Obama supporter and Ronald Reagan wasn't one of my favorite presidents either, however, this is just another example of how party lines don't blind Barack Obama. If he sees an admirable quality in someone that's of another party, why can't he acknowledge that positive element? Oh, I forgot, because republicans are horrible people and not one republican president has ever offered anything positive to our nation…RIGHT…That's ridiculous and that just goes to show how divided our country is, so that a democrat can NEVER draw ANY comparisons to a republican or else he is completely out of line and out of touch with our party. It's us versus them, right?

Please, Senator Obama, gain the nomination and win the presidency so the American people can begin to heal and break down the barriers that seem to prevent us from making any progress.

Mr. Obama was making an historical observation of the 1980 Election and the mood of the country back then. If you were old enough to remember that election or voted in that election, you will remember how tired the country was of Jimmy Carter, the Iran hostage crisis, the high oil and gas prices, double digit inflation, double digit mortgage rates, high unemployment rates,how to fund Social Security, and low esteem for national defense and around the world. Sounds a little familiar doesn't it? The country was in the mood for change, but toward conservative values, smaller government, tax cuts, increased defense spending, "Voodoo Economics" it was called by George Bush Sr., the future Reagan vice-president and competitor for the Republican nomination in 1980. There was also support for something other than the Republican and Democratic parties.Independent candidate John Anderson gave voters a third party choice and received about 13 percent of the popular vote. President Reagan won the election in a landslide.
Mr. Obama's point is that the during the 1980 election, the country was ready for big changes and new ideas and that the status quo was not going to move the country forward. He was not endorsing the legacy of President Reagan or the conservative movement. Every few years the country tires of the party in power and the political pendulum swings back and forth between the Republicans and Democrats. Political rivals like to twist the words of their opponents and use them to their advantage. Mr. Obama's problem is that sometimes he is too honest and opens up opportunities for his opponents to twist his intended meaning. Of course, he does the same to his opponents and all politicians do this. It's called Politics.

Obama is just simply jealous of Ronald Reagan. He cannot even begin to draw the faintest of parallels to a man as strong as President Reagan was. In fact, Obama will be just the opposite...he will allow any third world country walk all over us in an effort to "improve our standing in the world community". We will once again be the laughing stock of the world as we were during the Clinton years, and rogue countries such as Iran will be praising Allah left and right if they see a Democrat in the White House. Countries like Iran will know they can and will literally get away with murder and know that the US will simply stick our heads in the sand and hope the United Nations can overcome its impotence. God help the US if a democrat takes over as commander in chief.

So what if President Reagan didn't go along with the Unions? Those Unions are worthless and I know a lot of people who say they are being forced to be in a Union and hate it.

When is Edwards going to hang it up? Nobody wants the guy! At least John Kerry got the message loud and clear! Wake up Edwards!

Obama should not compaire himself to any, he is all talk. Hes going to loose in Nevada.

Edwards is totally right. People need to wake up here and vote this man in office.

Obama just shot himself in the foot! Wait long enough and most of them will. Ah, to be a fly on the wall now, would be very interesting! What a major mistake, Regan who did major damage to the Air Traffic Controlers, and any other union who dared to ask for workers rights. He, like Obama, was very good with words. He was indeed a great talker and was able to fool a lot of the people, myself included. Maybe that is why I'm not as quick as young people to be enthrailed with a good speech.

Obama needs to apologize to Clinton. After all, he did help Obama get elected, and if it wasn't for the changes Clinton brought about during his presidency,
Obama wouldn't be in the position he's in today. Obama is very typical of
members of his generation. He has an arrogance that presupposes he got to
where he is today by himself, and that he owes nothing to those who blazed the trail before him. The Clintons helped him get elected AFTER they spent 8 years improving the lives of African-Americans. Hillary even mentored him when he first came into the Senate. And THIS is how he repays them and the country? If he is that self-serving, how can you believe anything that he's saying? Look at his actions. They speak a lot louder than his hollow words do. I, for one, think he is a scumbag based on his actions and how he treats those who helped him get to where he is. For that reason, I have no respect for the man, nor for his power-hungry wife. He is low-class, and not because of the color of his skin, but because of the (lack of) content of his character.

So... in all this wasted political rhetoric and bickering, any solutions to real problems or should we just continue this nonsense?

Why don't voters actually take advantage of the writer's strike and do something intelligent for a change, like, perhaps read an intelligently written book or two by Obama or anybody else that is not obviously derogatory and blatantly biased. Then you will be able to make an informed decision, and be able to keep all these mud-slinging tactics in perspective.

Otherwise, you are basically telling Big Media that you are fine with the negativity, keep it coming, this is what the people want.....and inadvertently helping the other side win by turning off voters. Intelligent discourse is good, negativity and inflammatory rhetoric is bad....the powers that be came to power on ignorance, ie. swiftboat b.s.....etc....if we forget history, we are doomed to repeat it.......

Go Edwards.
Ronald Reagan cared nothing for the ordinary Joe. Though I did'nt hear Obama gush all over Reagan, I felt that as a Democrat, he should know better than to lionize a man in the Republican Party. There were far many more great Democrat leaders that he could have used. I felt that he was pandering to independents and unhappy Republicans. He should go fishing somewhere else

Reagan did, indeed, change America – but entirely for the worse. We are still struggling against the consequences of that administration. And most Democrats are looking for someone who will continue that fight. The only Democrats who will respond positively to remarks like Obama's are those who aren't old enough to know better. To the rest of us, he sounds like an appeaser.

Ann Coulter was right on, John Edwards is a WUSSY, his wife has all the BALLS in their family – he's scum of the earth, making his $ suing OBGYN's for malpractice – now malpractice is so high women have to drive hours to get prenatal treatment.

Edwards, you couldn't fill half of Reagan's jockstrap, you LOSER. Running for president since you don't have a JOB anymore! LOL

Well, it''s obvious you're running to be Obama's Veep now anyway, since Obama will be the Veep if HRC wins the Socialist Party nomination.

Barack Obama is too intelligent for the average voter or candidate it appears. This entire campaign has been spent analyzing trivial, superficial things with the tough questions not being asked.

"Obama's campaign has said the Illinois senator disagrees with much of what Reagan did, and he was merely pointing out that the former president changed the political landscape."

Did anyone read that part?

I am sorely disappointed in Edwards who knows better.

Reagan DID change the world, good or bad depends on your partisan status. He ran up the deficit and ran the USSR out of business. He favored the rich and in the long run made things previously available to only the elite available to the poor. (Trickle down worked better then) He was the candidate of change when an embarressing Democrat (Carter) left the nation in a despairing mess. Again, like JFK, your party affiliation determines your love or hate of the man.

Obama is having an identity crisis, he doesn't know who he wants to be.

Barack Obama's point was the CHANGE can happen. Not that what Regan did was good...but it was change. If people want change they can make it happen. John Edwards, behave yourself and you have a great shot at being VP.

Good for Obama. Regan certainly changed the trajectory of America. Reagan certanly impacted American confidence, the economy and spread of democracies in the World. The criticism should be on Edwards, who is pandering to the left for a boost now when his campaign is failing. We need candidates who can reach out to the other side of the aisle. Edwards clearly can not do that. And Hillary is a lighting rod. Obama at least speaks of a willingness to reach out and listen to all Americans. This country is made up of more than just liberal democrats, and a good leader tries to bring people together, not push them apart. Reagan was such a leader, and I for one am glad to hear a democrat speak highly of him.

I'm neither for nor against Mr. Obama. My only question is.....whatever happened to free speech?? People should be able to say whatever they wish, if you don't like what he/she says, just don't vote for them. So much drama over simple words.

So Obama wants to violate Pakistan's sovereignty, doesn't favor health care mandates, and praises Ronald Reagan. He should be the nominee. The Republican nominee that is.

I do not know why my previous posting did not show up. I found nothing wrong with Obama's statement. Only a person with confidence can make such a statement. We should be loyal to truth not a particular party. There have been good presidents from both parties. Reagan is one (he was loved). Bill Clintion is not (he was impreached).

People are so simple minded. You have to be dim witted to not see that Obama was talking about the positive parts of Reagan. Obviously Obama and Reagan don't agree idealogically. Hope you can see that.

Some people are intelligent enough to seperate the positive from the negative and have enough courage to openly admire qualities in a person without overlooking what was not so great about them.

I guess only us people who are capable of higher thought and who are courageous are capable of this.

Another reason Obama has my vote.

He is on another level than the other candidates. They dont compare to him intellectually, morally, courage wise and more importantly he just has more common sense than the rest of them combined.

in short.... he is a real person...with great character.

by the way... I don't like Reagan at all, but everything Obama said was TRUE.

It just dawned on me.....
OBAMA = Reagonomics. Return to the Cold War. Wow, and people were afraid of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. We could have Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush-Reagan.

It shows his freshman politics when he starts pandering for Republican votes when the Democratic primaries haven't even really started.

OBAMA WAS TALKING ABOUT A DYNAMIC, NOT ACTUAL CONTENT VALUE

One can tell instinctively that Obama is the real deal. You don't have to be a brilliant political scientist. There's an organic quality that comes from truthful speech, it tells you in your gut when someone's being straight with you. Lord knows we need more of this in our political discourse. When he speaks, you hear reason. Remember reason? We need more of that too.

These are things that Edwards does not possess. You can hear that his rhetoric is typical political posturing, without the bedrock of sincerity underneath. You can hear that he probably wouldn't walk the walk.

As for Hillary, yes, the Clinton's were once great for the economy, and a sight better overall than the terrible Reagan/Bush Sr years. But with the rose-colored glasses off, Clinton was never better than mediocre. He got in because he was corporate friendly, and willing to take up the reigns of NAFTA. Corporate powers groomed us for Clinton. Clinton was the "good cop" to Bush Sr's "bad cop", both were owned wholesale by corporate power. Don't let them buffalo you again. Vote Obama/Edwards in 08.

Why have both of my posts not been put online after an hour of "moderation"?

Nothing in either of them is profane or in any way offensive. One of the posts answers a question regarding the correct usage of "sea change."

As someone with a journalism degree, I find the selective use of "free speech" disconcerting to say the least. What gives, CNN?

Remember the song "Out of Touch" by Hall and Oates? It describes Edwards and Clinton in a nutshell.

The media is antagonistic. You notice the item here is about JOHN EDWRDS criticizing Obama, but cnn makes it seem as if the WHOLE NATION is piling on Obama, which of course is not the case.

Obama is coming under criticism from ONE PERSON, John Edwards !

Nice try to spin Obama's bizzare attempt to explain why the President does not really have to manage the government or economy by aligning himself with Reagan. Mr. Progressive Obama is clearly not progressive at all. He is right of center.

CNN is one of the most biased news sources in this election I have ever seen. In fact, when I want to know how Obama's campaign hopes to spin things, I check out CNN. You are a bunch of dishonest propaganda pushers.

Here is the formula

We white folks need to make sure we treat Obama fairly, and judge him on his character . We need to see if he is the better candidate based on issues.

We black folks need to vote for Obama cause he is black.

Aint life grand ?

So many have made comments that I agree with but none but than Mark C. Eades. All I can add to his comments is "amen. Wish I had said that."

Edwards' criticism suggests to me that his mind is too small to be the leader of the free world. I'll vote for Hillary if she is the Democrat nominee because she is far better than anybody on the Republican side, whereas Obama's comments cement in my mind the fact that he is the right person for the presidency.

Vote Obama '08!!!

I look for for vison, character and direction from a President. Which is why Reagan and Bush both still appeal to me. And why Clinton (Bill) didnt and Clinton (Hillary) wont. Obama or McCain in 08. Its easy as ABC (Anyone But Clinton). (even Edwards would do)

Reagan– bringing accountability to government? Please! Does Obama remember Oliver North and the Iran-Contra affair? Does Obama remember Reagan's confessional on national TV about that unseemly example of underlings running amok? I certainly do...

Reagan did bring changes, some were positive; many were not. I cringe when any candidate glorifies his legacy of conservative cronism.

ITS NOT ABOUT YOU HILLARY/EDWARDS SUPPORTERS READING THE COMMENTS WRONG IT JUST ABOUT YOU GUYS BEING SO ANTI-OBAMA THAT YOU WILL TWIST ANYTHING THAT MAN SAYS TO MAKE HIM, HIS WIFE AND US SUPPORTERS OF HIM LOOK BAD. YOU HAVE ALL BE HAD BY THE ELEMENTRY SCHOOL SMEAR CAMPAIGN GAME.

OBAMA 08

INSANITY- Trying to solve problems, expecting different results, using the exact same methods. I.E. BUSH /CLINTON/BUSH/CLINTON

DONT GET ME WRONG BILL WAS A GREAT PRESIDENT THOUGH

Seriously – Edwards is and always has been a sue-happy greedy attorney. Don't we have enough of those without our President being one?

As a life-long conservative, I appreciate that I have a difference of opinion than many of my democratic friends. That said, Edwards is an idiot. Obama at least has the sense to recognize reality.

I believe if you examine Reagan's economic effect, his only real mistake was to allow congress to outspend the massive income tax increases (revenue folks, not tax rate) he accomplished while in office.

He did not harm the middle class, but he did help bust a union. And for the most part, unions are out-dated relics of a bygone era. Stand on your own two feet. If you don't like your job, replace it. If you still don't like it, stand up on your own two feet and start your own business. I've done it 3x, twice with no capital, no college education, just hard work, good ideas and effort.

God Bless Ronald Reagan and God Bless the USA.

L-Mani, Vinay,
When you as an Obama supporter can't see the pandering to republicans by his statement, why then Obama camp were so furious when Hillary commented on MLK? She did not rate MLK lower than LBJ. Obama by crtisizing Hillary achieved their objective-got all the african-american votes. And now in the same process he is not recognising Bill Clinton's 8 years of record surplus, 12 million new jobs, and economic prosperity. Is it because of the fear that he will loose republican and independent votes? Don't go by the sweet talk and poetry.

CNN: Do not delete my 3rd message. Have some decency!

John Edwards doesn't get it. Obama is not saying that he agreed with Reagan's far right ideology. I persoanlly think Reagan's view of government was loony, but that doesn't matter. He's saying that Reagan was EFFECTIVE because he had the ability to reach across the aisle and bypass the media to get things done. He's saying that he himself is the only one running with that kind of potential. Most of the Reagan people seem to agree. Again, it's not about ideology but persona. Reagan's persona was what brought the Republican coalition of social and fiscal conservatives together and then added "Reagan Democrats" as a cherry on top that would bring him a landslide victory in '84. There is every indication that we will someday be talking about "Obama Republicans" and the coalition that he built. Reagan didn't have to moderate his views in order to bring that coalition together. He did it by being Ronald Reagan and making people feel good about themselves and the country. Rhetoric does matter, which is why Hillary Clinton will never, ever get more than around 50% of the country behind anything. She simply does not tend to inspire and no TACTIC can mitigage her basic problem of not having a personality.

Karen P

I am with you 100% on ALL counts. The Clinton reputation is grossly overstated. Besides Carter, I cannot think of a more do nothing Administration than that of Clinton, especially in light of the fact that this moron had the benefit of the Peace Dividend. EXACTLY what did he accomplish? I too cannot think of a more despicable couple than the Clintons. Though I am admittedly a Republican, I have long said to friends and associates that I would gladly promise to vote for Obama in the general election for an assurance that Hillary will not be the Democrat nominee....I mean it. The thought of having those low-lifes in the WH for 4 years offering nothing more than the same partisan bickering and perpetual scandal in Washington sickens me. Hillary supporters who believe her agenda will be enacted are dreaming....not just because of resistance by the opposition to her liberal Socialist agenda, but because she is a Clinton. The Bush/Clinton (Hatfield/McCoy) feud has got to come to an end. No more of EITHER FAMILY PLEASE!!!!!!!!!

This is not the first time Obama mentioned Ronald Reagan. At one of the debates back in the fall he mentioned Regan. At that time I thought something was wrong with his "message of hope." As a democrat and an African American I am offended that one of our potential nominees compares himself or even mentions the word Reagan in a positive light. While Regan was in office he ignored all blacks, is that what an Obama presidency would be like?

GO HILLARY OR GO JOHN.

All the Obama cheerleaders that jump on the comments sections of these sites sound almost exactly like the Bush cheerleaders we saw do the same thing back in 2000. It's actually pretty scary.

Bush and Obama are SO similar in so many respects, including their false invocation of Reagan and commentary about unification and change. They're also both woefully inexperienced. We see the disastrous results of selecting Bush. I pray we don't have to endure the same failures again by electing his Democratic protege, Obama.

I am and have always been a Democrat. However, if Obama wins the Democratic nomination for president. I WILL VOTE REPUBLICAN. The ability to woo a crowd with public speaking and the knowledge to run a country in crisis are two totally different things. I silently wonder if the African Americans are voting for Obama because they believe in his ability to run our country or because he would be the first African American president. I wonder the same about Hillary, is she getting the Womens votes because she would be the first Woman president. People, wake up and vote for the person who can make changes. And I don't mean Edwards, his whining turns me completely against him. Poor , Poor pitifull me. yuk

Gee, all Obama was doing was explaining that change in Washington is possible. Citing Reagan as an example, was factual. Reagan did change the direction of America with conservative politics that favored big business and corporate America. Obama was just stating a fact that change in Washington and in America is possible. Obama continues to display class and the ability to unite all Americans by his reference to Ronnie. Edwards is understandably desperate and grabbing at straws because it appears as though he may come in third again, only this time in his own home state. That may be a pretty bitter pill to swallow, ergo the criticism of Obama's remark. Wasn't it Edwards who said that attacks against Obama were increasing as he, (Obama), becomes more and more like the candidate to beat? I like Edwards and think an Obama/Edwards ticket would be great. Edward's sudden attack against Obama doesn't serve Edwards well.

BTW, great post Mark C. Eades!!!

Obama has yet to stop the rhetoric and tell us how he's going to deliver this country out of all it's troubles. Does he think he can walk into Washington and wave a staff and part the sea of politics like Moses did the red sea? I'm sorry but anyone trying to say that this guy is honest can't see past the surface of their TV screens.

He can't do anything he's promising you and you fall for it anyway. Sad…. Just sad.

Obama is just as slimy as any other politician. He's pandering in every forum he's given and the media is actually letting him!!!???!!!

When is someone going to stand up and ask him REAL questions? After he's got the nomination and is going up against the republicans?

Ever hear of the saying "Too little, Too late"? This guy can’t do the job he's applying for pure and simple.

Huh? Is Obama serious. I am one of the few undecided people left as far as who I would like to see come from the Democratic Party. As an independent I do not get to vote until the general election. I will be voting democratic, no matter who wins from that party. I will say this though. Obama's comment was ignorance at it's best. When people say he doesn't have enough experience he proves it with comments like this. First of all, this is America. Sound bites rule. All the other campaigns have to do is play that one small clip "I want to be like Reagan" and his political career is done Nationally and maybe even in his own home state. Now with that said, for a Democrat to praise Reagan for anything in the same sentence as putting down Bill Clinton, he doesn't stand a chance. There are way too much Clilnton supporters with the money to back Obama, if he was to win, who will look at that comment and not help him. Clinton didn't change the country? Clinton changed this country so much, that we are still a partisan country. Republicans cannot stand him because of all he did for the poor. Reagan helped to bring down the wall in Germany. He helped end the Cold War? Which of these two helped you put food on your table? Clinton balanced the budget, stock market sky-rocketed. Every economic class, from rich to poor advanced under Clinton. if Obama only deems change as a foreign policy thing then he needs to join the Republican Party.

Radha,

Your "THOU SHALT NIT PRAISE REGAN AND CRITICIZE CLINTON IN THE SAME BREATH" shows why America hasn't elected but 2 democrats since the 60's!

Ignorant, ignorant DEMOCRAT is what you are!

After reading the comments hear I now finally understand why politicians never speak openly and honestly during an election, because people can't handle it.

I agree , Reagan was a great president – NOT corrupt like Clinton – people PLEASE research "The Clinton Body Count" – I cannot understand why noone is talking about this !

Oh, yeah.....the Ol' Lawyer Standby.....innuendo.

Prior to George W. Bush, Regan was arguably the worst President America has ever had to endure. Now, Mr. Obama sings his praises. If America elects Obama as President of this Country, we will deserve what we will get. Can we afford two idiots in a row ruining this Country?

It does not suprise me to find another article written by a CNN employee supporting old Ronny Reagan. Why should they be nonbiased about this wonderful country that that old man and his beloved Republican Party and the news media gave us. They also came to power in the same years. Ronny and his Republican croonies changed the equal time laws for companies like CNN.
Be honest with yourself ! you know what Fascism is, it is what the Republicans have given us in America.
There is no reason CNN should be denying their complicity in abridging our freedoms. Hell!!!! They were a large part of bringing the message behind Reagan's so called liberal press, if you remember CNN fired all their Liberal and Democratic employees after Reagans election,, Fantasy? No! Just another CNN reporter trying to continue pushing the Conservative Right Wing agenda.
I hope this CNN reporter is looking for work after this next election!
Give it up CNN and tell the truth!
Shame on you Barack!

I see the context of Obama's remark. I also see why it warrants Edward's remarks. Let's not forget that Reagan's 'sea of change' left a lot of crap on the beach when it finally subsided.

Hillary Clinton '08!!

Obama praised Reagan's oratory and ability to inspire the crowds ... but behind all that oratory and inspiration was a flawed president who supported corporate America at the expense of the middle class. And Obama may go the same route.

This is why Obama can win the national election and the others cannot.
The fact is, regardless of what he (Reagan) actually did, the vast
majority of Americans loved Ronald Reagan – which is why he was re-
elected twice SO convincingly (I'm talking landslides... only 2 states
didn't vote for him in 1984) Now, I know I'm definitely no Reagan
fan, but what Obama said is true nonetheless, and I think that his statements can really reach some Purple people in the middle who are tired of divisive politics. I think
the fact that Edwards is making a big deal out of it is really short
sighted, and exemplifies perfectly why the democrats keep losing national elections.

I just love the fact that all of you love Obama. We will have our first black president!

I like Obama and may vote for him, but sometimes he seems naive. I'm old enough to remember that Reagan Democrats, particularly in the South, went to Reagan in 1980 largely because of his sly implied promise to roll back Affirmative Action. There was great resentment against the expansion of AA under Nixon and Carter. By promising to "get government off the backs" of the people, many who never worshiped at the altar of entrepreneurship saw an opportunity in Reagan to return to the status quo ante, where jobs went to the white guy who was deemed most qualified. Reagan perfected Nixon's Southern Strategy of dividing the south along racial lines, and it has remained the same ever since. Someone from the civil rights movement should take Barack to the woodshed and teach him the facts of life in America. Would he be where he is today without Affirmative Action?

Mark Eades, thank you for pointing out that partisanship still trumps all else.

"If the candidate I like doesn't get the nod, I'll vote for the one I don't like just because they're in the right party."

As a republican, I can say that there are two of the three deomcratic frontrunners I could vote for, and several GOP candidates I could not.

does anyone remember the term 'reaganomics'? what democrat would say such things? Obama is a fraud.

Edwards is 100% right. After WW2 the GI bill brought education which with newly created jobs and together with unions led to the greatest wealth this country knew.Then the oil crisis threw the world into recession.Since 1980 CEO and other top white collar pay has multiplied many times while the average worker has stayed the same, if not fallen behind.Reagan heaped huge deficits, something Republicans wouldn't allow Democrats to do without complaint, the old tax and spend rally cry.The Savings and Loan debacle cost 1.4 trillion and how many S&L's were led by Dem's/Libs. Few. Reagan brought prosperity back but at a cost. "Conservatives" wouldn't have allowed a Democrat the same choices of running up huge deficits.At least Reagan could work with the other party.
GOP have sold the working class down the river ignoring corporate theft of unearned bonuses and pay compensation .Yes the Democrats have done little to stop it .Edwards at least addresses it.

Lack of proper education is the biggest challenge/danger facing this country. Look at the comments posted on this board. It appears as if some of these people can't read.

Edward who by all means is out of this election, should know better.

-I agree with some of the above comments. How we can go from "Regan changed the political landscape" to "obama compares himself to regan" or "I love regan" is beyond me. Look at your grade-school textbooks. This isn't about arrogance or idealism or anything like that, it's just a fact. Regan won two landslide elections. Nobody voted for Carter, and there were negative votes for Mondale. Obama was making an "observation" about political history, something he does quite a lot because he has a brain: he actually passed the bar the first time he took it, unlike some other candidates.

This is why Obama is dangerous to the democrat establishment. He has had a very nasty, very deadly idea – "Obama Republicans," just like we had "Regan democrats" in the eighties. We certainly can't have that. The political process must be designed to exclude, occlude, eliminate and negate everyone who doesn't agree with my views. My issues, my ideas, my beliefs, mine, mine, mine.

If the democratic party stands for collective values, the middle class (i.e. most Americans), the healthy, fair distribution of wealth, and the concomitant rights of humans and nonhumans, then the democratic establishment needs to get off of this subjective kick. Count how many times Hillary and Edwards say "I" in a speech. Then count how many times Obama does so. This is THE fundamental difference between the candidates, not issues, not policy, not experience, but rhetoric. Politics is all rhetoric in a campaign. When Edwards says "My father worked in a miiiilllll" or Hillary screams in an anaphoric crescendo which begins every clause with "I" and then closes with, "I've been fighting for change for 35 years," or when Obama says "yes we can," citing Chavez, it's all, all rhetoric. Analyzing the rhetoric will get you the answers to who these people are to how they will lead.

Will anybody really listen or read what Obama has to say! My Gosh-Mr. John Edwards need to listen too. Barack did speak in English!

Don't worry John, you will never be confused with Ronald Reagan. You aren't fit to pick up the excrement from Ronald Reagan's horse. Although you do resemble where the excrement comes from.

"John Edwards does not connect with the Democratic Party’s base."

HUH?? AND Barack Obama does?!

Since when did the Democratic BASE become the more upscale, college-educated, upwardly mobile, affluent wine-drinkers? Oh that's right since they fielded John Kerry in 2004. And guess what, Kerry throws his endorsement to Obama in 2008.

Poor Kerry is still trying to vindicate his Swift boat sinking. Maybe he sees his lost hope in Obama?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swift_Boat_challenge

"Nevada’s biggest newspaper endorses (barely) Obama
Posted: 11:47 AM ET

LAS VEGAS, Nevada (CNN) – The conservative-leaning editorial board Nevada’s biggest newspaper, the Las Vegas Review-Journal, has endorsed Republican Mitt Romney and Democrat Barack Obama, but the latter very half-heartedly.

WASHINGTON (CNN) — When is an endorsement not quite an endorsement? When it reads anything like yesterday’s tepid backing of Obama in the conservative-leaning Las Vegas Review-Journal:

“Is Barack Obama, then, the ideal Democratic candidate for president? Hardly,” it began, The editorial criticizes his lack of experience and dismisses his message of change. “His policy recommendations — when he can be convinced to get any more specific than "I represent change" — are the opposite of "change." They're old-line, welfare-state solutions that haven't spent enough time in the microwave to appear even superficially appetizing. (OUCH given that the Culinary Worker's Union supports him?) And in a reprise of recent primary-season attacks on Obama’s bid, it dubbed the candidate himself “a relatively young man with relatively little of the kind of real-world experience that prepares a candidate” for major crises.

But, they concluded, “Barack Obama is, at least, likeable.”

The Democrats will field their "MOST PALATABLE (pun intended) CANDIDATE" and then wonder why they lost to the GOP yet again?!

sorry we just can't help ourselves John January 18, 2008 1:28 pm He (Obama) does have great plans, I saw him speak here in Iowa personally. I heard his plans on health care, and others, I also read his book. Plus I read not only the media out put, but BLOGS = BLOGS now that's an awfully smart place to learn all there is to know about the candidates?!

You all act as though Reaganomics is not alive and well in Washington, how many times have you heard that this economy is strong, and went without everyone is worried about the economy, but no one seems to see what fundamental change started this long-term trend. Clue ....the changes that Ronald Reagan was able to create during his term, to do that we need the same level of change but the opposite direction of change. Everyone else is too invested to stand for that change and step away from business as usual in D.C.

WAKE UP WAKE UP LISTEN RESEARCH LISTEN READ RESEARCH WAKE UP

Reagan "changed" America everyone on this post knows that. Republicans love him for it many Democrats (excluding Reagan Democrats) hated him for it, but never the less those "changes" are very likely the largest "changes" this country has ever made. Does anyone ever remember hearing the term "Reagan Democrat" these were democrats like yourselves who identified with Reagan's vision and chose to vote for him instead of the Democratic candidate.(this is why he won people) Does anyone out their have any issue with an Obama Republican voting for Sen. Obama in the general election, in my opinion that in and of itself would represent change, of all the candidates Sen. Obama is the only candidate running for the Presidency not a party nomination, commend him for it, don't bash him he sees the larger picture. Reagan's economic policies have failed the American people while making Corporate elites and CEO wealthier than ever, hence the reasoning behind the idea that the American people can do fundamentally bad economically while we are within a growing economy. Reagan's change was that shift in focus to Businesses away from people, Sen. Obama's change will be a shift in focus back to middle class Americans and IN PART away from the Business which have been posting huge profits and increasing production efficiency figures. By making America's middle class strong again, Government can stimulate substantial economic growth in consumer spending which represents 70% of our economic strength. This is the "change" we need people, lest you're doing exceptionally well with your citizen's sponsored corporate tax breaks, and would like to continue along down the path of Reaganomics as usual. Sen. Obama's comment just went over many of your heads, but playing down his intelligence was never a part of his playbook.
Anyone who hates Sen. Obama for making that Reagan comment is most likely a republican who was offended by the fact that while the GOP candidates have been trying to position themselves as the resurrection of Reagan back onto the political landscape, they have failed to realize how Reagan won the Presidency and put himself in a position to make those drastic "changes" , by looking beyond his base for votes on the other side of the aisle. By, showing some respect for Ronald Reagan Sen. Obama is not stating his agreement with his policies, but rather he is admitting to the Country/ World what he has always been willing to say "I as well as us all have short-comings as well as strengths, but it is how we work beyond or short-comings that determines what we as Nation can do for this Nation using our strengths. This is how you win in November the fact that Sen. Obama has decided this early to do what any democratic nominee winner would have to do later just shows his leadership qualities and integrity in even a better light. Sen. Clinton would do the same thing and address the sensibilities of those outside her base as well if she wins the nomination, as will Edwards

This has only assured him my vote, America is ready for change, and I think Sen. Obama has stated what fundamental change needs to be made with that statement. He has said all alone get the lobbyist / special interest out of their position of power, focus the Gov back on the American middle class, cut Government spending (i.e. end this war) those three actions would put this country back on track within a few years.

Many of you have nothing to contribute to this process, unintelligible psycho babble and tasteless undemocratic hatred.

The biggest problem is that the Obama supporters do not like other to comment on Obama's past, speech, etc. Obama only want to draw a pizza, no matter the pizza taste is. What his direction he will be changed, is right direction or bad direction? The country needs a practical president not idealist president. Vote some solve realistic problems.

Please are we going to over analyze everything the candidates say? I read nothing into this more than Obama noting how Reagan changed an era of politics....and he did. Like it or hate it, 28 years later you still have people invoking Reagan economics. Listen to the Republican debates, they'd all wish to be him. If certain elitist democrats are mad, so be it. Isn't true nobody has wanted emulate Nixon in a long time? Bill has his strong supporters – his wife, but a significant people want to break away for a new era.

Obama is a candidate who gives me hope that we can break away from the politcs of Reagan and Clinton and can set the country going forward in the 21st century. The Obama campaign is in a difficult spot because they know a lot people weren't happy with the Clinton years and would love to have them called out, but a great majority and the esblishment look at the those 8 years with rose colored classes and any slap at those years makes him a bad candidate.

As someone mentioned, Reagan won in landslides – carrying many democrat votes. This makes me respect Obama more, not less. If our candidates cannot find positive elements from the opposite party even while campaigning, what hope do we have that they will find common ground after elected? If John Edwards' bio is true, then he benefited greatly because of Reagan's policies – from poor boy to mega-wealthy lawyer. Edwards is obviously desperate and is increasingly irrelevant to the race.

Why can't Obama praise Reagan. Are we so stuck in our partisan politics that we can't acknowledge the good things in our political rivals? And I say rivals, not enemies. I admit it, I'm a conservative Republican, but I still respect FDR for the his spirit and leadership during WWII. Politically and economically, I think his New Deal was the beginning of the nanny state we are headed for if a Democrat wins. I think JFK was an inspirational leader to a certain extent. I love how he made us reach for the stars, but I disagree with many of his decisions. I think Jimmy Carter has a good heart and is to be commended for his efforts with Habitat for Humanity, but you can probably guess what I think of his presidency, not good. I think Obama was refering to how Reagan changed the overall attitude of the country. There is no doubt that the country was in bad shape when Reagan took over. For those of you who think Reagan "distroyed" the middle class, I'm sure the middle class was better off under Reagan than Carter. I don't remember waiting for hours in line to get gas under Reagan. I don't remember record breaking inflation under Reagan. I don't remember seeing the malaise index in the paper under Reagan. In fact, that is the exact thing Obama was refering to, Reagan brought about a change in attitude. SO many of you preach "change, change, change...." and for the most part I have no idea what change you or the Democrat candidates are talking about. But Obama actually did do something different, he praised an icon of the other party, a man that a large majority of Americans see as an inspirational leader, and most of you rip him apart for it. Grow up.

Obama is all fluff and NO substance. He is also as arrogant as our present
President.

Mr. Obama, Mr. Edwards, I know Ronald Reagan. You, sir(s), are no Ronald Reagan.

Reagan was the best President we ever had, plan and simple. This is why voting for the liberal democrats that are running is wrong. Its not American. As Reagan would do, we lower taxes, fix our boarders, win the war, and ship back the illegals. Obama is nothing like Reagan, and should regret for saying different. Go Mike Huckabee!

Reagan was the leader who brought the US military back from the despairing morass of Vietnam and Carterism and just in time to confront the Soviets who were starting to dominate the global chessboard. As a military officer during the Carter and Reagan terms I found the difference in military morale startling. Reagan gave the military the tools to improve. Obama was highlighting that the electorate wants optimism so as to feel good about their lives, and Reagan brought out the best in America. Edwards and Clinton give nothing but complaints and negativism.

After reading Obama's quote...I think Obama's trying to do that which Hillary and Edwards can't...reach and appeal across party boundries to get Republican converts to vote "Obama".

...Edwards is just trying to muster up controversy to gain media attention before his campaign comes to an end (again). And he's not even doing a good job of that.

And for Jim's comment above...can anyone tell me what the cold war did with Cuba
after the Cold War ended? So what exactly has the US embargo of everything Cuban accomplished???

Reagan...You mean that president who completely IGNORED the building epidemic of AIDS/HIV until the last year of his presidency, where he mentioned it in ONE speech?

7 years of thousands of people dropping dead...7 years that would could have made a HUGE difference in the research, treatment, prevention and spread of this disease...but, this president of CHANGE, refused to do anything about it.

Obama made a crap call...again
Trying to turn a red state blue by referencing one of their republican heros.
Can we say DUHHHHHHH!

John Edwards just lost my vote.
He had it, too.
I was not an Obama supporter, but he's getting my vote. As a former trial lawyer of some success, I can not believe that Sen. Edwards misinterpretted Sen. Obama's statements to the degree to which it seems. He's either playing the dirtiest of politics, or is as complete a moron as they say.

Say what you want, you weasles for Democrats. Ronald Reagan was the MAN! John Edwards can never ever fit his clumsy feet in THE GIPPER'S shoes!

For all his flaws, Reagan was responsible for leading America in its victory over the Soviet Union in the race for world dominance, and that is why we still have freedom in America and other countries.

Had the Soviet Union beaten American, we won't be a free people any longer!

Reagan did change the political landscape of America for Americans and the rest of the free world. But he first had to beat a weak and weary Jimmy Carter on whose watch America's superpower and leader of the free world status and was threatened as socialist and communist governments began springing up all over the place.

I'll always remember Reagan's Star Wars (Strategic Defense Initiative) that discombobulated the Soviets because they did not have the finaces to back up their version of our SDI. And that's when we knew we had the Soviets cornered. A few years later, on George H. W. Bush's watch, the Soviet Union collapsed.

America is still standing, thanks be to God for a man named Ronald Wilson Reagan!

Under the Clinton administration gas was $ 1.06 at the end , 401Ks' were flourishing , the country was at peace , jobs had increased three fold and real wages had risen 8 years in a row. The shame is that rather than view facts many use personalities to judge results. Those who elect oil men deserve neither low prices , nor sympathy. It's like making a chicken hawk the head of your chicken farm. Now we have choices on the democratic side that none of which can be worse than what we have had for the last eight years , or under ANY previous Repukelican administartion since Ford.

I'm with Karen P above. If you want to see a Democrat in the White House, make Obama the nominee. If Hillary wins the nomination, I'll be voting Republican, as much as it will pain me. I am tired of the Clintons and their pandering. Hillary is the most manufactured person ever in the public eye. Has anyone been paying attention to the many faces she's put on lately? We've had 20 years of Bush and Clinton. Time for change. Time for new ideas.

I wish ALL of those running for President of the United States would just grow up and start addressing the issues!

John Edwards won't have to worry about keeping his promise ("I can promise you this: this president will never use Ronald Reagan as an example for change").

John Edwards will never be President.

Might I add that Republicans try to mirror themselves after Reagan. See Arnold Schwarzeneggar, Mitt Romney, George W. Bush. They all try to look Reaganesque. And many Republicans, even John McCain, promote tax cuts similar to Reaganomics. How did Reagan not change the course of history?

That said, if you read the Audacity of Hope by Barack Obama, he clearly talks about his disapproval for Ronald Reagan's policies in the 1980's. He was politically active against them in the hay day of Reagan's years. C'mon, Mr. Edwards, you know better than to equate Senator Obama with a Reagan Republican.

I love all the comments posted here. It's great to see the debate and conversation taking place that we have not been allowed to have in the past. I would like to also show my appreciation to Mr. Edwards for allowing me to make my decision on who to support. With all of his education, I refuse to believe such dumb analogy. What the hack what was Edwards thinking? To now realize that Reagan was a CHANGE (with attention to his misfortunes), I would have to agree that we need CHANGE again. So I must vote for the candidate who see this CHANGE happening and willing to sacrifice his life to a cause to unite all of us. We're hated around the world, hating each other, and hating ourselves. Please people, let's get over it for the sake of our future and our generations to come. So I must be apart of this history making experience. I was first born during the Reagan years, so I'm looking forward to my rebirth during the Obama years.

**Its' so great to know I can now sleep at night. No longer an UNDECIDED!***

Thanks, John Edwards. Obama would be a HUGE mistake for America. Hillary is the ONLY WAY TO GO.

Clinton/Edwards '08

As usual, CNN fails to mention the true story here... not that Obama compares himself to Reagan, but rather, because Obama undermines the many great things that Bill Clinton did in his presidency. Now that's revisionist history at it's best. Ronald Reagon=transformer, Bill Clinton= not so much. This again demonstrates Obama's lack of experience and knowledge– even of his OWN party!

Jim January 18, 2008 2:40 pm ET

I didn't vote for Reagan in 1980 nor in 1984. But as an Obama supporter, I see one positive similarity between the two. Obama has been criticized by Hillary Clinton for saying he will talk to the Iranian leaders if and when he is the president. Clinton called Obama "naive" for stating that intention. I can unequivocably say I would rather have the American and Iranian presidents talking to each other than bombing each other. Look at what Reagan did to break down the Cold War, he began having dialogue with the Soviets

Jim, Obama was criticized because he thinks he can become president one day, get on a plane the next, and go talk to everybody like they are just sitting there waiting (in Iran or elsewhere) for him to hypnotize them into a peace process just like he has hypnotized the younger Americans on MTV. Rapport has to be built up, respect, and trust. I DO NOT think that Obama with his background and ethnicity can pull it off.

The N.Y. Times published an article at the end of Reagan's first term, talking about how the doctors came within a heartbeat of putting Reagan in a mental institution because he was so 'out of it'. Reagan was a brain-dead idiot during his second term. Nancy Reagan ran this country using a ouija board.
Talk to the people who were there.

yeah he was in a union. He was an actor, all major actors have to be in one

I personally hope Obama and Edwards run together on the same ticket they both would be a great benifit to this country

He has to be careful what he said Reagan talk brings about controversy...many Democrats don't like him so again it will hurt him to invoke his name while campagning...especially among unions...ouch!

Bill Clinton didn't change the direction of this country! How about eliminating the national deficit? How about an economic surge for the middle class?

Is Obama stupid? Or is he just rewriting history because a Clinton is his rival? To praise Reagan as a reformer... I like this guy less and less every day.

Why, oh why, did Mr. Obama have to bring up Ronald Reagan.

This man is responsible for the mainstream acceptance of suppy-side economic philosophy which is having a negative effect on policy decisions to this day, he openly promoted the destruction of the New Deal, which was integral in creating a middle-class and raising the standard of living for millions of Americans, and was undeniably racist.

His ludicrous remarks on welfare-recipients living like kings played directly into the long-held stereotypes among many caucasians that african-americans are lazy and looking for handouts.

Ronald Reagan won the cold war... yup, a war that was based on fear and not much else. He was a great actor though; he managed to deceive many Americans.

Mr. Edwards is correct about so many things... it's a shame that he's perceived as a nut-case and has no shot at winning the nomination.

TO: Jim P. – Chicago

You should be taxed on all the money you make and not have a cut-off point so you can keep it over a certain amount. Geez. Republicans.

Hillary gets blasted because all she does is boo-hoo. She started all the messes and Obama just answered them. If other countries are laughing at us over Bush...just wait until a Hillary administration...we really WILL be the laughing stock of the world! She doesn't have "experience" except for trying to squelch the first amendment.

John Edwards so gets it. Ronald Reagan was everything he said and more. Reagan glamorized selfishness, crushed working people and drove women into the work force. He was the first truly evil president we have had (a close second in evil is Mr. cheney but he is de facto president, VP in name only).

Mr. Obama's remarks show us that he doesn't get it. All change is not good. The kind of change Mr. Reagan brought us has changed this nation into a bunch of whining selfish phobes who cannot tolerate the existence of anyone else and all of whom think they are going to be rich some day so that can be like Mr. Reagan.

If he believed in hell I hope Ronnie is enjoying the heat.

Obama just shot himself in the foot! Wait long enough and most of them will. Ah, to be a fly on the wall now, would be very interesting! What a major mistake, Regan who did major damage to the Air Traffic Controlers, and any other union who dared to ask for workers rights. He, like Obama, was very good with words. He was indeed a great talker and was able to fool a lot of the people, myself included. Maybe that is why I'm not as quick as young people to be enthrailed with a good speech.

GO HILLARY

She is the one candidate that will bring the American people together. In fact I can see it now. After just a few months ALL the American people, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Women, Men, Blacks, White and Latinos will be together calling for her remove. Hillary Clinton if elected president will setback the cause of women in power positions back 200 years.

By the way, what do Hillary Clinton and Barry Goldwater have in common? Hillary as a head of the Young Republicans for Goldwater in 1964 against LBJ supported him and also like he opposed the 1965 Civil Rights Act.

Go Hillary!!!!! Bring us all together!

Jim–You fail to see the difference between what Obama has stated and what Reagan did. Obama will meet with terorristic leaders and meet with dictators with NO preconditions and within his first year. Reagan worked as President towards the meeting and ensured that the Soviets would not be the ones who could use meetings as a PR ploy.

So by pointing out that Reagan changed politics, which he did, but not saying he agreed with Reagan.... that makes Obama wrong? Edwards is reading waaaay more into what Obama said and trying to spin it into a negative. Reagan did make the country feel better about itself after years of recession. Now, did he go about it the way Obama would, no. But he did tap into what the country was feeling. Which is what Obama is doing, but with a different message and approach.

Edwards is desperate and needs to read what Obama said about the obvious history of presidential politics.

True , Reagan wrote good stuff about abortion ,but gave a blank check to the right-wing generals to wage their wars in Central America.

"He was openly — openly — intolerant of unions and the right to organize. He openly fought against the union and the organized labor movement in this country," Edwards said . . .

Interesting. I guess everyone forgets that he was elected to seven one-year terms as president of the Screen Actors Guild. In fact, I think he said after his presidency that he was most proud of this accomplishment . Whether you agree or not with his politics, he was undeniably pro-union.

What I find most interesting is that none of the comments on this page brought up this fact about Reagan.

Edwards is probably referring to the showdown between Reagan and the air traffic controllers. Striking was not allowed by this particular union because they were government workers and this was the law. Everyone who was around after September 11 can see the effect shutting down the air transportation sector of our economy can do to the entire nation. It is one thing hurting your employer, and it is quite another to hold the whole economy of the US hostage. They were in the wrong, and only a pro-union Reagan could hold them to their commitments by firing those that refused to go back to work. Saying that one union is wrong does not make him anti-union. It is possible for a union to be wrong, isn't it?

TO JIM P CHICAGO

AMEN BROTHER............I COULDNT HAVE SAID IT ANY BETTER. IF YOU VOTE FOR HILLARY YOU MAY BE PAYING YOUR NEIGHBORS MORTAGE BECAUSE HE BOUGHT MORE HOUSE THEN HE COULD AFFORD. YOU REALLY GOT TO LOVE THE LIBERALS.

Barack did not say that the change that resulted in the Reagan years, was for the better, he simply said that America changed-and it did, in a way that it did not during Clinton's years. Having lived through the Reagan years it is my opinion that the change was bad in many ways but people need to get off Barack's back. Can they not see a brilliant strategic move when it is right in front of them?

i thought i was gonna vote for obama or hillary but now its hillary or edwards ,noooooooo obama . his preacher is like his family and i heard his comments .and obama playing ads in spanish when he was against 3rd party ads in iowa ,he with young age drug use admittance even though he admitted it but what kind of example is that for other young african americans,that oh yeah its ok to try ,its easy to come off of it u be president one day too ,and they talk about race ,they think african americans will only vote for him because he is black .i dont think so african americans r smarter than that .some support him and some support hillary .and edwards he is been victim of media .so who i m gonna vote for ,i dont know but i do know nooooooooooo obamaaaaaaaa

I hope that CNN is keeping a copy of all the articles and Comments to include in the Barack Obama Presidential Library.

Reagan is the one who ended the Cold War between US and Ex.URSS. Since then US is the most powerful contry in the World. He was a strong president even if he wasn't perfect and had taken some bad decisions in internal policies. Let's not be partisan without thinking. Let's get out beyod the obvious. Any great American President- could be a democrate or republican -should be considered by all of us as such. Next, please!

Why does everyone always talk about how great Reagan was. How come no one talks about George W. Bush ??

Come on people now
Smile on one another
Everybody get together
Try to love one another right now

Life is too short The planet too small
Obama 2008

Americans will NEVER come together because all Repulicans are suppose to hate Democrates and visa-versa because they are in different parties. I think we as Americans should continue to only see good in the people that are in our party.

As an empty nester and single person, I am finding it very hard to try to get a handle on who I should vote for. I am reallly getting tired of all this crap back and forth, i would like to see more about the candidate's policy both here and abroad.
All I can say is that not a darn one of those running (either party) have enough sense to get in out of the rain. Is this the best America has?????

If we're so smart, why can't people see the comment for what a was? An observation of how Reagan changed the trajectory of our country and only because the people were ready for it.
If a history teacher were to say the exact thing, will we say that he's comparing himself to Reagan? Obama never said he agreed with Reagan's policies. And I think the point he was making is that the country was ready for that change.
People are ready for a new change now. The emphasis should be on the word change, not Reagan. He was a President of the United States. Whether you like him or not, he did change the trajectory of this country in ways other Presidents did not. They changed it in other ways. This political bashing is turning people off from the electoral process. It takes Republicans and Democrats and Independents to make this country work. We have to put aside partisan politics and learn to work for the common good. That is what has to change and that is why I support Barack Obama for President.

I am glad to see that some of you see what I see when I am looking at the candidates. Like it or not all that Mrs. Clinton has done in her "Six" years (not 35) of "experience" in the Senate is perpetuate divisive politics. I like many of you have friends and family members that are Republicans, even though we differ greatly on many issues, I still respect their opinion. Barak Obama understands that he does not have all the answers (and yes WE Dems don’t have all the answers either) but he is willing to listen and evaluate others ideas and opinions and come up with the best SOLUTION. This concept is the essence of LEADERSHIP. We all have seen what the inability to listen to others has done to OUR country over the last eight years. I, like Sen. Obama, believe that we as a country need a new course. We have far too long been divided by politics and idea logs. Was President Reagan ALL bad? NO! Did he have some policies that were controversial and hurtful? Yes! (Amnesty for illegal aliens amongst the Republicans and Iran/Contra for the Democrats) Yet and still, President Regan did lay the ground work for the fall of the Iron Curtain (and we all know that was a good thing). Bottom line, we truly need a UNITER and not a DIVIDER during these perilous times. Believe it or not we are all in this thing together!!

Reagan was by far one of the best presidents in the last 50 years. How do ya like me now?!! Clinton and Carter.......the worst!
Have a nice day democrats.... ; }

Edward you schmuck!

You have the audacity to criticize the man who saved this country from the cold war. Who united the Republican and the Democrats in a way no one has ever been able to do.

You and Hillary should ride off into the sunset together.

Unions have done a lot of good, but I think they generally handicap US industries in their current form. Reagan gets a lot of credit for turning around our country, but it was Fed chairman Paul Volcker that pushed short term rates to 20% to adequately price in inflation and allowed our economy to properly rebalance capital investment. I support Obama, but I don't envy the road ahead of him if elected.

I am dreading the moment when Obama starts calling himself, "a uniter not a divider." He wants to be like Bush and now he's comparing himself to Ronald Reagan.

Smooth move Obama! Smooth move!

Oh John Edwards, buy a life. Ronald Reagan, while a Republican, did change the US. To deny it because you don't like his economics, is to be petty and partisan in the extreme. Obama seems to actually get that you don't need to jump on every remark made by your opponents (Bill Clinton's assertions not withstanding.....)

how dare he speak good of a republican!!!

Terry from El Paso wrote:
"The growth of the middle class was made possible by the Roosevelt and Truman administrations via a REDISTRIBUTION OF INCOME through taxation from the upper to the middle class..."

Exactly who in the hell thinks it is right and good and decent to steal from one group and give to another? Robin Hood is a terrible myth and it has apparantly polluted and infected many American's brains.

Redistribute? You have no idea who I am or what I've had to do to get ahead in life. Were you there when I was poor growing up, yet still made the honor roll? Were you there when I put myself through college, still on the dean's list? Were you there when I joined the military? Were you there and did you feel my sacrifices when I worked 60-80 hours a week and went to grad school two or three nights a week, again graduating Cum Laude? I paid for all of this myself. I made a hell of a lot of sacrifices. Were you there and did you feel the pain of my sacrifices along with me? You have no clue. I got ahead and I did it myself and I'm doing very well for myself.

Now again I ask you, who in the hell are you to steal from me and give to others whom YOU deem more worthy of my money than my very own family?

FDR, Truman and Johnson are hardly people I would call role models, unless perpetual (yet "equally distrubuted") poverty and misery are your goals.

Regan was president of USA for God's sake.

Hating Regan because he was a republican is plain stupid, that just shows the division between americans. Obama wants to unite USA and he's on the right track, recognizing qualities of different politicians regardless of their political affiliation.

Obama may have just won my support. I am independent who voted for Bush and looking for a candidate with the leadership skill and principles to be nail-hard on terror even more than Bush. By invoking Reagan whose leadership I admire (and yes whose policies unfortunately hurt the middle class) amid heated battles in primaries, show the courage and resolve to change America's trajectory at home and abroad ...just what we need right now.... I believe Obama will strengthen the middle class
Astonf

Regan was president of USA for God's sake.

Hating Regan because he was a republican is plain stupid, that just shows the division between americans. Obama wants to unite USA and he's on the right track, recognizing qualities of different politicians regardless of their political affiliation.

Lol, LOL LOL LOL LOL

i am pretty sure ol' Hillary speaks the mind of her husband and of his administration.. oh those were fun times, weren't they!?

It's about tiem for Edwards to realize that nobody is interested in his thoughts or run for president. His ongoing tirades and attempts to gain some miniscule amount of recognition are almost tragic. The "never say die attitude" of an ambulance chasing trial attorney is obvious. This cantidate was out before he started. Like always, he'll be the last to realize it...

Obama is a ROOKIE.
And this shows it.

Barack Obama is an uniter not a divider. Cheers to him for being able to see history with open eyes. While learn much from our friends, we can learn even more from our foes. Obama is the kind of diplomatic leader we need, one that will build bridges, not walls.

I didn't vote for Reagan in 1980 nor in 1984. But as an Obama supporter, I see one positive similarity between the two. Obama has been criticized by Hillary Clinton for saying he will talk to the Iranian leaders if and when he is the president. Clinton called Obama "naive" for stating that intention. I can unequivocably say I would rather have the American and Iranian presidents talking to each other than bombing each other. Look at what Reagan did to break down the Cold War, he began having dialogue with the Soviets. It wasn't easy, and it didn't happen overnight. But when political leaders of different nations meet in person, it gives an excellent opportunity to understand each other's nations better. Reagan did it, and I hope Barack Obama gets elected and can do it as well. Sitting in the White House calling someone part of an "Axis of Evil" but following with no action is a sorry excuse for leadership.

Amen Dee!!

Ronald Reagan contribution to this country is on the same level as Bush and OPEC. Remember the Air Traffic Controllers fiasco. Remember when you could claim the interest on credit cards on your income taxes. Remember the trickle down effect, much of what you hear today. Can you hear the cry for help. If not, you should not be voting at all.

GO CLINTON

Before criticizing (or even defending) Obama's Reagan reference, one would be wise to read or view it in full and in the context of the interview. Or one could just rely on his political opponents to objectively characterize it.

All he said was Reagan was an agent of change... he didn't say that he liked or agreed with the changes. He simply called a ball a ball and a strike a strike.

We need an agent of change ( like Reagan) to appear again.. but this "agent " needs to spur change in the opposite direction which would be a direction that places power back into the hands of the people and not corporate lobbyists.

Obama was right, it was what it was.... It would behoove Edwards and Hillary to not try and make this something its not.

Obama 08!!!

Now that we have witnessed Obama's total knowledge of political history, perhaps he shall become history.

I think that Obama was right in trying to make his point on how Reagan was a part of that main change in the political landscape, Reagan and his years weren't so good to the US, but he did have his times to where he was effective, and during all his presidency he wasn't bad, but then agaian he wasn't the model of good morale values, as you saw the "gap" between the rich and the nameless. Obama was right is his own to make that call, Edwards is trying to put himself in a better standings becuase he hasn't succedded in any of the caucus'. This should get interesting down the line before the convention is held.

Looks like Obabm doesn't remember how bad things really were when Regan was in power. No one under 40 will remember either so this issue is not going to change any minds. Move on to the next thing.

I have read many of your comments and realize that this country is divided. You all call yourselves Americans with human values but what I hear is hatre for your friends and family who may be either REP, DEM, or IND. You are reading into Obama's comments what fits your hatre needs. Continue your efforts to divide this country and we will be no better than the terrorists.

Ol' Alzheimer's Reagan, sitting as a President with Alzheimer's. No wonder he did not remember any of the IRAN-CONTRA stuff, he was mentally unstable at that point!
REAGAN WAS MENTALLY UNSTABLE!!!! Just like all the reTHUGlicans who resurect his name every chance they get!
Export the farmers and keep the grain!!!!

Good god if people can’t understand what he (Obama) is saying I understand why we (America) is 18th in the world in education.. Clinton and Edwards supporters need to try Hooked on Phonics.

so let me get this straight.

Obama thinks he is MLK, JKF, and now Reagan?
...someone needs a reality check.

Hillary 08!

First of all I think John Edwards is the only electable candidate for the democrats despite his lower popularity among the democratic party. I think to many people are getting caught up in the "popularity contest" instead of looking at what each candidate stands for and what the propose for the next 4 years. Honestly I dont think this country is ready for a woman or a minority president so hoe can we expect Hillary or Obama to win the presidency? especially since there are so many people even within the democratic party that hates Hillary. How can someone like that win?

This is so stupid!! Reagan WAS an agent of change and Obama acknowledged that. He never said he agreed with Reagan's policies, but only a fool would say that Reaganism did not usher in a change in the country toward Conservativism. That is what Obama meant. At no point did he praise Reagan or his policies.

Umm Obama is right. Regan was a hero to some but he didn't do s*@! for me. He was the devil to everyone that was not rich, white, and straight....

Dont be blind... Thank you Obama for speaking up. YOU BETTER NOT RETRACT.

I am stunned that Hillary and Edwards are still in this thing. In their most private moments, even they know Barack Obama is the right man for the job.

As a Canadian that has no due influence on the American political landscape, all I want to say is that having followed American politics for as many years as I have, I really do hope that all of you can make the right decision for your future in your up coming elections. If by chance it should mean that you should be willing to go with the tried and true style of back room dealings ( this would be in reference to the Clintons; yes you will be voting both of them in I am afraid) or attempt to give someone new the chance to either prove or disprove himself (totally wish that we could have someone with the hope and vision for our future like you have in Barack Obama), then you only have to realize that whatever the results are can be corrected in another 4 years if you are dissatisfied by them. I would say that you should maybe give the "new kid on the block" the chance to try to unite your nation! This is after all what you apparently need more than anything else these days.
To all those that see this as a race between a man of color and a woman, do not let your decision be decided by how you will be making history by voting for one or the other. Look beyond, as well as inside the person when you vote!

OBAMA is a FRAUD!

Anyone who supports Obama is delusional!!!

Mess = more Mess if Obama takes office.

God help us all!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reagan told Gorbachev , "tear down this wall" while here at home he was busy tearing down the unions along with the middle class.

One didn't dare mention Jelly Beans in Daddy's house. He belonged to the carpenders union all his life.

Just curious, Did the union busting maybe have something to do with union pension plans not being there for the members.

Mr Edwards is already leading us in a new direction and 'thel' be no going back.

I'll post this in Daddy's memory.

CNN....this is NOT newsworthy and definitely is an indication of gross negligence in the headlines department.

Any idiot who heard or read Obama's comments concerning Reagan would have agreed about what he was trying to say. Edward's is waaay off base. And CNN has created yet another false media circus based inaccurate claims.

Reagan, MLK, JFK.... who else does this guy think he resembles...... hahahaha

Preach about issues not about popular people... this is not a popularity contest.. it is a Presidential race.

If all you do is read headlines and other people's commentaries how on earth can you make an even remotely informed decision? I wonder if the people who are complaining that Obama shouldn't have used the "R" word even know what he actually said? It doesn't seem like it. If this is you, then you deserve what you get out of politics, which is manipulation and a dieing middle class. I wish we could require not an ID to vote but some proof that the voter in question has been paying any kind of attention. Or perhaps there could be some kind of reading comprehension test. You could be given the few sentences Obama said about Reagan and then asked "what did Senator Obama mean by this?" If you answer anything close to "Obama said that Reagan was good" or "Obama said he agrees with Reagan's policies" or "Obama compared himself to Reagan" then you fail and don't get to vote.

Wow, A lot of explaining by you Obama supporters here. Reagan is not the president we Dem’s like to compare ourselves too.
He will need to apologize for his comments soon. Edwards and Hillary will not let this one go.

Obama is clueless but correct here.

Edwards is a bad person, a hypocrite, a failure and dangerous to the country. Anyone who likes him needs to get their head examined. When he drops out, he'll be doing America a favor.

ok, so obama does stand up about hilary in his vegas show, draws on the names of the past and his supporter's love him. nothing new there. we've had stand up comedians since the beginning of time and anyone can draw on a name from the past. it is beginning to seem that bill is right that the media and people don't use the same measure between the candidates. When hillary answers a question about MLK that is not diminishing at all but shows how to men came together to get the job done she's crusified, but when obama makes statements about a republican then he uniting the people. I'm really starting to believe it is a fairy tale. He takes shots at hilary as the D-Sen from Punjab and little is said but if anyone is critical of him his supporters, staff, go wild. What's up with that? if anyone has the guts to speak what' s on their mind hillary is blasted more than any candidate that's ever run for speaking her mind! Guts for obama ? maybe after he loses he can start a career in stand up!

I don't trust Obama anyone who actually listens to Edwards' speeches understand that he's the only one who can fix this great nation. Don't be sucked in to Obama's cult of personality.

Every person who agrees with John Edwards must have difficulity with comprehension, or dificulity with procesing what they hear or are just have low IQ's. Obama said the Regan's administration bought about a speedy, quick, long reaching CHANGE for America that took us in a different path. The senator did not say it was FOR THE BEST. He also went on to say the change Regan made was different from NIXON'S AND CLINTON'S. As these two president's terms were viewed as a change in the direction for America as well. Get it now? It was a comparison statement, NOT AN ENDORCEMENT. Trust me Edward's campaign has explained it to him as well and he is scratching his head as well.

HITTLER January 18, 2008 2:04 pm ET "HOW CAN EDWARDS SLANDER ONE OF MY TWO STEP CHILDREN, LITTLE RONNEY REGAN AND RICHIE NIXSON."

HITTLER,
Do you think that all Americans were hoping someone like you would insert yet another cheap shot to this struggling conversation? The purpose of conversing with our fellow citizens is to understand how they feel and think. For you and your type to holler obscenities over the fence at each other.

Hey Lemons from Arkansas, you're on here again spouting the same garbage about Obama being a junior senator (Um...so is Hillary). Oh, and of course you bring up, yet again, your opinion that Obama doesn't have a plan. Wow, we're heading into the Nevada primary and you still haven't read up on Obama. I guess you haven't visited his website because his agenda, proposals and plans for America are all spelled out for you. Obama's website is not much different from Clintons, Edwards, McCain, Romney, etc. It clearly draws out his plans for change. You simply assume that anyone supporting Obama must be naive which is a rather sad generalization. I feel sorry for you, I really do. You are the type of person that needs his news spoon fed to him in soundbytes so that he can regurgitate them on a blog or comment board making a feable attempt to sound informed. Look, I don't care who you support, but at least have your facts straight before you attempt to make generalizations.

You all must read what Senator Obama
said, Reagan changed the course of the country.
He didn't say it was good or bad, but yes Reagan did change the course, he broke the unions, closed the mental health institutions all under the watchful eye of the democrats in Congress. This is why we need someone like Obama in the oval office, he will actually tell the truth. Please, no more Clintons in the White House

In his response, John Edwards simply elucidated precisely why we should pray he never gets elected. Just what we need, another left leaning, pro plaintiff, litigation monger.

Hear that sound? It's the sound of votes falling away from Obama for making his comments in praise for Reagan!

This shows a politician that is not blindly tied to party lines. A uniter. Folks get your heads out of a pure party mind-set. That is how that idiot Bush was elected.. Hillary is not electable, plain and simple. If she is nominated the GOP base will be energized like never before to ensure another Clinton is NEVER in the White House again. Edwards is a whiny has been.

Now im starting to see why we rank so low in education for first world countries.
Those of you criticizing Obama's comments please tell me exactly what he said and then tell me why he was wrong.

I feel bad for Obama because I honestly think that he believes all Americans are intelligent and that Americans can handle an in-depth and thought provoking discussion. Unfortunately, it looks like we are proving him wrong. That all we are are individuals that comfort ourselves in the superificial pandering that got our country into the problems we're in in the first place.

So to all my Clinton's and Edwards and whomever else. I challenge you to use your brain and tell me exactly HOW Obama Praised Regan. What did he say specifically about Regan? Tell me in full details and be sure to include quotes.

if you can't do that, then please just be quiet

L-Mani S. Viney

Lefties can bash Reagan all they want, but just make sure you don't do it with your mouth full.

Did you enjoy "Clinton's economy" of the mid 1990s? If so, you can thank Reagan and those awful tax cuts that allowed tax payers to actually keep a little more of what they (not the government) earned.

You see folks, taxes are not the government's money. Taxes are YOUR money, MY money and the next guy's money. The government just takes it upon itself to insert their greedy little fingers into what YOU have earned.

Was the government away from it's kids 8, 10, or 12 hours a day while earning that money? No. But you were.

It's your money folks. If you choose to be a slave and work to feed the ever-growing Washington Tax Monster, by all means, be my guest. I however think that I and I alone should say how I spend my money, or even if I spend my money at all. This is what Reagan believed, too.

Obama's desire to reinstate anything resembling the obscene and near criminal tax rates of Jimmy Carter's era is another example, proving he is not in any way, shape or form like Ronald Reagan.

Kim, Sacramento, CA, I did the same deal except I joined the Navy.

After the Carter diplomacy and foreign relations fiascos we INDEED needed a leader and not some pantywaste liberal in office in 1980.

Reagan for all his faults made it good to be a "proud American" again.

I consider Mr Reagan a great President for those times and I was proud to say I served under him while he was commander and chief.

-------------–

BamaMAMA January 18, 2008 1:10 pm ET

It's funny how all you whites are so for Obama. You will now be the minority now.

-------------–

Not sure how you can tell how people are white or black on a blog, but if it means that we don't want business as usual and can write coherent sentences, yeah, I am white and I RESPECT Obama, so WHAT.

To John,

Comments like yours only make the support for Obama stronger. Thanks, keep a postin' away.

Oh yeah before I forget, I would guess that you're a Hillary supporter so I am calling you out. I would like you to factually detail her 35 years of experience.

If you can do this, I will cast my support and vote for her. Please respond. I'm watching.

 Obama's what this country needs. He was only pointing to the changes Reagan made politically and maybe even wordly... after all Reagan did help end the Cold War. He did lots of damage to the economy... Obama was only focusing on the good and the change that Reagan created though. Honestly the guy continues to impress me. I really hope the majority of Democrats can see the huge potential he has to be a really, REALLY good president. If for some reason Clinton wins this primary though, I'll be voting Republican for the first time ever. I may be a Democrat. But, I aint ready to se Hillary Clinton running this country. No way. I'd vote for Huckabee, Mcain, or Romney before I'd vote for her... If for some reason Giuliani won the republican side and she won the democratic, I'd just not vote... I'd vote for whoever runs as independant. They're both awful.

I wish the press would start reporting whole stores instead of sound bites, excerpts from speeches taken out of context and then provide their comments, which are filled with bias. I watch CNN, FOX, and MSNBC and read the New York Times. All the media are doing a terrible job of reporting. There is bias all over the place. If it's not Chris Matthews, it's Shawn Hannity or Carl Bernstein. Just let the candidates run and let the people make up their own minds; stop sensationalizing everything; blowing it out of proportion. There is nothing more infuriating then having the media tell the voter what they think and where things are headed as if everything's been decided.

This proves Democrats do not want to unite the country i dont see the problem for obama to use reagan after all reagan was great and he got lots of votes from democrats.From today i do not like anymore edward he is divider

I have had enough of old white men from affluent families running the country and doing what is best for their country club buddies. I don't think our country could be in any worse shape. Wake up people. Before you dismiss candidates check out selectsmart.com orontheissues.org, How about reading the entire transcript the select sound byte comes from... Wait there's idea!! Here is another, do away with the Electoral College and the Caucus, I am sure Bill Gates can make a program to count EVERY vote.

I remember Reagan as a B actor , host of Death Valley Days ( which he led us into undauntingly) a very very wealthy capitalist , that though he once helped form , and headed the Actors Union , destroyed the Air Traffic Controllers Union , not over money but safety regulations. He de-regulated everything . Turned one job into two by cutting the work hours and benefits. Took away every tax write-off the middleclass had , including the cost of using your car to go to work when public transportation was not available ( which today with the gas prices would be a blessing for the workers) , and interest debt due to crediot cards. He raised the taxes for the middle class while giving he wealthiest and corporations lower brackets. He immediately through hoards of deserving people off Soc Sec disability ,of which all were re-stated later by Judges. He gave tons of money to the Armament makers . Was treasonous to Congress and the Constitution by giving money to the Sandinistas in defiance of federal Law. Gave weapons to the enemy –said no – then said oops sorry. Lied to the people. Lied to Congress. Shamed the real Gipper!!!! Knute Rochne would have despised him . All of this and he started the Medical mess of today , again , not for the wealthy , only for the workers. He was a totalitarian , elitist fascist with a lot of slick charm. Enough to put Slick Willy under the table. Feigned not being able to hear and being a leader.

I left the G.O.P. and became a Democrat, the day after Ronald Reagan announced his candidacy for President.
I saw that he would change our country, and not for the better, and I wanted no part of it., or the party he represented.
Shame on anyone who will vote for Obama because he promises to make Reaganesque changes.
Maybe he is running on the wrong ticket.
He sure compares himself to others, but this takes the cake.
I know about JFK, and Martin Luther King, and Bill Clinton, and Ronald Reagan. What the did. What he can't tell me is who he genuinely is.

I'm a lifetime Democrat - Obama is exactly right about Reagan. "It's NOT the economy stupid - it's about HOPE." The economy is just part of a much larger public depression. Further, it's not about Democrats or Republicans - it's about our country. Obama / Bloomberg '08 as Independents?

It's dismaying to see (Ostensibly) Democrats calling each other names, and suggesting as one did that I'm a racist if I don't vote for Obama. I like Barack's inclusiveness and vision for a different America, and his impressive charisma and eloquence in articulating his plans for leadership. As another said, I will vote for the nominee, whomever it may be, as vastly superior to any choice on the Republican side. But while I agree with many that it doesn't necessarily imply endorsement of Reagan's ideals or policies, I nevertheless think the remarks are – as Edwards says – misplaced; especially made in a state with so many union members, whom Reagan regarded as expendable serfs. It troubles me that Obama would make what to me is a bad judgement call in making these remarks which seem to praise Reagan, since after all it is his decision-making and choice of things to talk about, that tend to define his candidacy in the absence of long legislative or executive experience. There are lots of things he could say to advance his cause, without implicitly giving credit to Reagan, someone who to me had no redeeming qualities; whether he was an agent of change or not.

A really stupid move by Obama!

That sleeze Edwards could never be HALF the man that Ronnie was.

John Edwards made a mistake by trampling on Ronald Reagan.
Does he not remember the first day Regan was in the White house? The Iranians returned captured Americans that day. Compared to the damage done by Pres. Carter the years before , it is obvious John Edwards has on blinders.
Obama should use Reagan as an example of change and in doing so makes undecided Republicans look his way.
Grow up Edwrads, your ranting has just cost you the presidency.

obama promised us change in Illinois when we sent him to Washington......he owes it to his constituants to do the job that we sent him to do first before he jumps on to something much bigger as the presidency....I am amazed at the arguments coming from shallow Obama supporters......what a goof up on his part to even mention Regan's name in a democtratic primary.....I think that just about dooms him or any chance he had before for the nomination......Go hillary

Obama stated a fact: that Reagan changed the trajectory of America.

Obama gave neither an analysis nor an opinion on this fact.

Did anyone ask him why he brought this up? We need to hear Obama's explanation before we thump him for merely stating the truth.

There's lots to admire about John Edwards and his voice is significant in this campaign. He just got a bit carried away in this instance. He's human and campaigns are grueling.

Obama is comfortable looking at people, policies and issues from many different angles; how refreshing.

John,

Won't you actually listen to the whole 49 minute, instead of just blindly say what others tell you. Please research first.

How about reading Obama's 65 page plan for change. He does have a plan, you just won't listen to it.

Reagan was a great president who not only believed in, but promoted American "exceptionalism". This is a form of patriotism which allows free humans to be proud of their country, responsible for themselves and their families, and contribute to solutions which benefit everyone. (Too bad nobody is promoting this today!)

From a historical viewpoint, BHO was essentially correct.

Its not like the mentality of the left – "The government will solve all your problems". The left are chomping at the bit to establish generations of dependent, non-thinking dolts who can't do anything on their own and run around with their hands out (and always vote democrat).

It seems like all the candidates (except a couple) believe in bigger government, more entitlements, and socialism in general. If allowed, this will lead to the demise of America as we know it – higher interest rates, more taxes, a substantial loss of liberties, and a loss of credibility in the global market place.

What i do find amusing is the dirty politics between the dem front runners. I hope they take each other out – or at least expose themselves for the power-hungry phony Americans they really are!

PRESERVE LIBERTY – CAN A LIBERAL!

Fred for the White House
(take Bam Bam with you!!!)

Um, people, Reagan unseated a sitting incumbant, then won in a landslide 4 years later. If that's not a sign of where the country wanted to go, I don' t know what is.

Further, Obama never made a value judgment, just an observation.

Frankly, I don't see this as much different than the LBJ/MLK flare up.

Chill out.

I don't believe that all Republicans are terrible people, but I strongly believe that, for the average American, Reagan was a terrible president. While uniting the country is, at its core, a good idea it takes people from all groups to want to be united. Have any of you Obama supporters noticed that most Republicans don't want to be united? Also, you should consider that the only way you keep a huge united group together is through centrist compromises. Do you liberals and progressives really want to elect a president who's more interested in compromise than pushing a progressive agenda? It's time to move our country in a progressive direction–not to slowly crawl there through the window of a small centrist policies.

You spelled Hitler, Reagan, and Nixon wrong genius.. Besides Hitler was a leftist/liberal. Nazi was the shortend name for the National Socialists. They were communists that did not want to answer to Moscow, rather they wanted to answer to themselves, hence the National part of the name.

REAGAN FIRED ALL THE AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS... OBAMA MUST HAVE BEEN SMOKING REEFER THAT DAY.

What bothers me most about Obama's statement was NOT his remarks about Reagan, but his remarks about Bill Clinton. If any president in the past 50 years put our country on a positive "projectory," it was Bill Clinton, who built our economy, upheld civil rights, and improved our status in the world. I feel that Obama has no respect for Clinton's legacy. It was a careless and insulting comment.

i totally agree with edwards!

John seems angry?? I guess I'm delusional

Mr Edward, fomer president Regan did change a lot thing in his time. maybe want to it frist. How can a person compare themself to some one that was president to someone that is running for president haven't sever a day in office

I love the posters that explain (in their own version) what Obama meant by what he said. "Obama simply meant...", "Obama was not....." No! The truth is that Obama put Reagan and change in the same sentence. Yes, Reagan did bring change, but it was a negative change. Does Obama want to do the same thing? The truth is that Obama does not know what he wants, what kind of change he wants. He is like a small child that has learned a new word and uses it without relevance. Change! Change! Change! Ok, Mr. Obama, we get that, you want change, now why don't you tell us what kind of change, and how you are going to achieve this change. Please be specific, and try to keep the twitching to a minimum. America has proven again and again that it is a superpower, a world leader... why would you want to change that? Mr. Obama, what we need to do is go back and reclaim those superpower, and leadership qualities. S

It's clear to most that Reagan was a horrible, horrible advocate for ecological devastation and childishly naive about the plight of the poor (remember when he was confused why they just didn't move out to the suburbs?)

It's also clear that Reagan did fundamentally change the course of the country. He got a bloated government under control and played a key roll in ending the cold war without a single shot fired.

For me, this comment turns me off to Edwards. He clearly cannot see beyond one worldview. He clearly cannot see nuance and is simply angry and negative.

Obama, ever the open-minded ,once again invoked unity and saw across division. He also has a strong agenda for HOW to carry out the change he speaks of. He's winning me over.

GO Mitt!!

I probably won't vote for a Democrat, but if I would, Obama just left a good impression on me.

I'm for bipartisanship and this is, at least in words, a step in that direction.

I typically vote Republican because of my beliefs, but I do like what I see so far from Obama.

Poor, poor Breck Boy Edwards.

Just because you don't like it, Breck Boy, doesn't make it go away.

John you say:

OBAMA IS A FRAUD?

I ask " How so is it his 35 years experience ?"

hmm....... John whos delusional ?

Mark my words, Obama will be the disaster that Carter was, effecting no only the country but as the Democratic Party was, resulting with 12 consecutive years of Republican's in the White House. Not only will the Republicans fight his agenda every step of the way, but even the Democrats in congress as they break up into their seperate cliques each with their hands out for their pot of the pie.
Obama is too inexperiance at this time to be President.

Besides Edwards being an absolute fool there isn't anyone from either side that is what this country needs. Please, don't say Hillary or Rudi for America's sake take off the blinders and actually listen to them- Geeeesh.
Kind a of like Don Rickles Tuesday night- "Is that your wife there ?" Geeeeeeeshhh!

The highly intelligent and highly educated President Obama MUST enact policies that will ensure that every American child travel his path to better education.

A more educated populace will be LESS VULNERABLE to ignorance, rabble rousing and political spin.

Having dummies like John Edwards with the narrow thinking as US Senator is shameful and problematic.

Reagan did bring a sea change to America when there was much self-doubt following the Vietnam War defeat!

Like Edwards, many wise minds did not care for the Reagan methods; because change for a nation can and should be more positive. However, there can be no denying that Reagan did represented change to the national psyche.

Senator Obama is RUNNING AS AN AMERICAN first and foremost!

And as an American, WE MUST ENDEAVOR TO SEE THE GOOD IN OTHER AMERICANS, even as we reject the bad in them.
In many respects, Reagan was the devil incarnate, that was the reason he existed in limbo for a long time, not alive not dead!

You folks who defend him because he didn't embrace Reagan, how do you interpret

"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."

as anything other than praise for the man? Would it have been so difficult for Obama to have actually said, "Hey, Reagan, I think he really changed things, even though I don't agree with most of his changes," instead of leaving it to his cult followers to divine that interpretation from his statement?

Predictions for 2008 presidential elections:

If Hiliary nominee, she will loose general election.
Republican win will probably be with McCain. Hiliary is unelectable. The women's movement is putting way to much push for an unelectable candidate.

This will set up Obama to win in 2012. This is a sure thing. As the republicans will continue to drive the country into the gutter.

If Obama wins nomination, he will win the general elections in November and serve for eight years.

The republicans really want Hilliary to win nomination because they no she has no chance to win. But the pundits and talking head predict it's a sure thing, when it is in no way possible for her to win. To unlikeable. To much baggage.

Ronald Reagan was a drug-addled Alzheimer's victim during his presidential term. I'm always amused that the conservatives hold him in such high regard, but now that we've had Bush, I'm realizing that the Republicans have a good strategy by running drug addicts, alcoholics and low-IQ candidates, because they're easy to control.

Democrats don't have to hate all republicans and vice-versa....what happened to judging people as INDIVIDUALS.

Also with that said all Republicans are not bad politicians or evil people and vice versa.

America....I'm shaking my head at a lot of you.

Edwards the ambulance chaser doesn't know what he's talking about. Edwards is so darn power hungry, it is pathetic. He's pandering to the middle class when in actuality he is a mult-millionaire who made his fortune chasing ambulances. I am a lifelong democrat but would never vote for him.

Does Obama forget how hard the Reagan years were on black people? I hope we (black people) wake up and realize that Obama won't be doing us any favors if elected. He is disappointing me more and more as the campaign goes on and we find out more about him.

John January 18, 2008 2:03 pm ET

OBAMA IS A FRAUD!!!!!!!!!

everyone who supports obama is delusional

hey john the font of your post screams DELUSIONAL! jeez get a life!

The thing about Reagan is that he "believed" in everything he spoke about. That's what made him the "Great Communicator", and a beloved President.

Hillary believes in nothing, it just depends on which way the wind is blowing.

Obama believes in some things, but honestly, "naive" is a pretty good term to describe him.

Edwards is a pathetic, hypocritical, disgusting twerp, who's only rhetoric is class warfare.

I seriously think that the Democrats have no shot at all in the election. All 3 are absolutely flawed candidates with little or no experience leading anything. America is not going to hike the terrorism/nuclear football to these wannabe's.

The fact some of you will be voting in this upcoming election is frightening.

Reading comprehension + common sense = informed decision.

There was no praising of Reagan, merely a pointing out of a policy of change which Obama is also campaigning on. Obama will bring about positive change and does not share the same policies/ideals as Reagan.

Plus anyone who votes along party lines for the sake of voting party lines is an idiot. These Republican candidates are atrocious and only Obama and Kusinich are legitimate leaders....

Go Obama! (Republican voter)

So, as a Republican, I am supposed to think that no Democrat president did a good job ? Are the partisan horse blinders so large and restrictive that it is only Democrats "good" and Republicans "bad". Thank God Obama is not bringing those blinders with him if elected. And frankly, this all just makes Edwards look more stupid and more desperate. Go back to being a repo man John.

Lonestarkaty,

You wanted to know what folk in other countries think.... I'm an Aussie and I think that Obama is exactly what your country needs now.

He can speak in a full sentence for a start ! How you guys voted Bush in is truly questionable ? But then we had Howard for 10 years and he was just as disgraceful. But we got rid of him and his party here!

I do have some questions about Obama is he going to end this kiss ass thing you guys do with the saudi's, Isreal and the like ? Is he going to end this support of nation like Pakastain ? Will he take America back to suporting real Democratic nations ? Will he end the death penalty which Australia NZ and all of the EU find absoultey deplorable ? I want to know if he think a President ever the right to lie to the American people ?

Those questions aside I think he is smart and very human and the best person for now. Not in four or eight years time now!

I think he would be the best person to rebuild the worlds trust in America's through words and actions and thats going to be a big hard job! Huge!

I travel alot and most of the world hates you guys I mean really hates you all.

Google "biggest threat to world peace" America comes up number one in every poll even in alied countries like my own!

Ive been to the US and seen its soul...... I know that most people in America are good people! You have your problems like the rest of the world… The one that most struck me, is your problems with race!

So if you can vote in a smart and capable guy who is also a black man then you guys are taking a giant (very long overdue) leap forward!

I have to say before this primary thing started I liked the Clinton's but now I cant say that ! I think the way they have acted with all the lies and all the stunts....its really turned me off them.

All the republicians are so much like Bush I hope no one votes republician this time but the Clinton's now seems just as bad ! The same old same old !

When did Bill turn into such an angry grumpy old man ?

The Clinton's need to realise that Obama is the competion not the enemy. I guess that what happen when your in politics for to long!

I think there is something wrong if you guys vote in another Clinton !

Im all for you guys having a woman leader I just think Hillary is the wrong one. You should have had several Females already by now and so should we ! We do have our first woman deputy PM (like your vice president) now I think she's is really good so much so, she should be our PM.

Bush,Clinton,Bush,Clinton is no change at all ! The clinton have had there time and now its time for a new.

While i liked Hillary and Bill before i think you all should thank Hillary for her 35 years (lol) of service and send her and Bill off as abasadors to Iraq she was part of the problem let her clean it up ! I also think you should send Bush and co to one of those CIA prisons for a few years and then see if they think its fair !

While your asking can I say that it really is offensive to the rest of the world when you folk say...... the leader of the free world ! That thing was wrong from the start and stoped being anything near true when the wall came down!

We dont vote your leaders they are not our leaders we vote our own! For a nation that believes in democarcy its really wierd that you guys say that ! We in other countries are free people!

Peace

ps Regan did change the course of your country no arguement with that...... it was just he took you on a course in the wrong direction just like Thatcher did in the Uk !
and Howard did with my country!

In addition to being too inexperienced to be President, Mr. Obama also needs to go back to History 101...nice guy, but not ready...

HOW CAN EDWARDS SLANDER ONE OF MY TWO STEP CHILDREN, LITTLE RONNEY REGAN AND RICHIE NIXSON.

I agree with what another person just said, Obama does have the guts to say what he believes and everyone else just responds...

OBAMA IS A FRAUD!!!!!!!!!

everyone who supports obama is delusional

Listen, I disliked Reagan as much as the next lefty, but Obama was talking about his and Reagan's ability to make the Country feel good about itself again. No matter what your views of Reagan's political positions you can not deny his ability to unite a good majority of the Country behind him to create a movement. With Obama we have the chance to do the same thing except this time with a progressive agenda as oppsed to Reagan's conservative one.

10 years from now we could be talking about "Obama Republican's' instead of 'Reagan Democrats' as the swing constituancy in American politics. Edwards or Clinton could both possibly win the election but neither has the ability to unite this Country behind a movement like Obama. 'Edwards Republican's' or 'Clinton Republican's'? I don't think so.

I have voted for a republician. But, the choice was Regan. Remember all of us cross over democrates? In retrospect I wish I hadn't. Remember when we could deduct the interest we paid on credit cards ,automobiles, etc. off our taxes? Guess which president got that taken away. Don't forget the 19% interest rate on a home loan. The president who taxed us the most, was none other than Ronnie. Not to mention Iran Contra, Regan probable didn"t recall this or that, but you can bet Bush Sr. did. Talk about lies,shredded documents, Oliver North and others.

Obama is right about Reagan. Many people heeded Reagans call to get involved with AMerica again and as a Democrat, I was one of those who listened. Do I disagree with most of what he said and his policies? Yes, but I will give the President his due for what he did do right.

Obama supporters, get on the Obama web site and get involved in the campaign. You can make a difference by participating in recruiting efforts.

My husband and I watched and heard Obama's comments last night. I fully agreed with the comments because prior to Reagan, the Republicans had been a minority party for a very long time, even though they won some presidential elections during that time. Like it or not (and I hated it), Reagan created a new Republican majority that drew a lot of new people to the party.

We then saw the comments from Edwards, and heard Keith Olbermann blasting Obama. At that point my husband said, "I think Obama is too intelligent and thoughtful for a lot of people to keep up with and understand him."

I kind of think that's right. I initially flinched when I saw the story yesterday about Obama "praising" Reagan. But then I heard the actual comments and I fully agreed because history supports exactly what Obama said. Unfortunately, too many people will listen to what Edwards is saying or see stories headlined "Obama Praises Reagan," and either won't take the times to look into it themselves or won't understand even when they see it. It's really a shame. A guy like Obama comes along so rarely. I hate that his thoughtful comments are immediately turned into negative sound bites that are used to hurt him.

My one vote for a GOP Presidential Candidate (since eligible in 1964) was for Ronnie versus four more years of that nice guy Jimmy Carter–who did not have the foggiest idea of what he was doing.

Reagan made a lot of folks feel good about this country and that we were capable once again of great things. Didn't agree with him on most things but he and Tip O'Neill always seem to come to some sort of an compromise on the issues. That was a monumental change like the one now offered by Barack and has been missing as we reverted to the good old ways. We need change again.

Obama seems to offer that same hope while Mr. & Mrs. Clinton want to maintain the status quo. Time for a new era not unlike Reagan's Revolution which offered the Republicans and those of us on the other side willing to give him the benefit of any doubt a real reason for hope.

Thanks Ronnie. Go Barack. Shake up the Party Establishment. And then shake us up by challenging us all to do things we never dreamed of!

Well, this shows that Obama is open to a wide range of ideas. He is not trapped by democratic ideology only. He can respect a past president even if that president was a republican. Edwards remark is not called for, he is putting his foot in his own mouth. I vote democratic for right now. However, every Amercian realizes that Reagan did have an impact politically in America in comparison to many of this century. So Edwards, you bringing up a dumb argument......

John Edwards and Hillary Clinton sound like they are really running for Chairman of the Democratic Party.

Meanwhile, Barack Obama is running for president of the UNITED States of America.

Barack doesn't see things in "red" or "blue." He sees things in "red, white and blue."

Oh Holy Obama...save us from those people who are really listening to what you say!!....

I'm a big Obama supporter... and even I was left dazed, confused, perplexed... and somewhat upset by Obama's reference to Ronald Reagan. How on EARTH does he expect to win a majority of the Black vote in SC comparing himself to Ronald Reagan?

I mean... good grief... it says something when ALL races of people across the working & middle class hate you, and even coin a term (Reaganomics) for the horrible financial position you've put people in.

I understand what he was trying to say (I guess)... but it was a dumb comment nonetheless.

I highly reccomend people who are so inclined to read Obama's book "Audacity of Hope" if you want to see how he feels about policy, republicans vs democrats, and how he takes examples not only from his own party but from the other one as to how to make changes in government.

When republicans and democrats take "ownership" of issues and make a point of taking opposing stances on ALL issues, just for the sake of the argument, then progress halts.

Obama is a breath of fresh air, and may get the wheels of Washington moving once again.

Don't worry about what Obama says, worry about Hitlery and her ideas of running a huge tax raised government that will be out of control and will have no accoutability that she already shows she has, she has no experience at all and she will tax the crap out of this country, hurt big business, hurt little business that depends some on big business, and destroy this country from within!

Her and her goon squad can't wait to do this to this country, screw the people, let the illegals come in here to this country, reward them by making us pay for there every need, and screw this country to He–!

Go Obama!
Greg, your a loose cannon, edwards, indeed, you make me laugh you moron.

Obama is bringing back the momories of Reagan to lure the republican voters to vote for him on a general election. By playing MLK and LBJ stakes, he has already captured black votes and lots of endorsements. And now republicans are going to have soft corner for him as they hate Clintons the day Bill assumed presidency in 92. Smart move by Obama, but will it work in Nov?

Reagan was a seven-time re-elected President of the Screen Actors' Guild (SAG). He was a friggin UNION BOSS, for pete's sake. Reagan as the President of the United States was the best ally unions have ever had in the Oval Office.

The fact is (listen up Senator Edwards): the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) union decided to strike even though it was ILLEGAL for them to do so.

Under the Taft Hartley Act of 1947 {5 U.S.C. (Supp. III 1956) 118p.} , it is illegal for Government Unions to stike, and the executive branch of the federal government can intervene and obtain legal strikebreaking injunctions if an impending or current strike "imperiled the national health or safety." If you have no air traffic controllers, national security is at stake. You cannot launch AWACS planes (Airborne Warning and Control System or AWACS). And the network of American bombers ready to head for the Soviet Union at the hint of a nuclear attack depended on those controllers, too.

The national security aspect of this is why critical federal employees like air-traffic controllers are not allowed to strike. In fact, every PATCO member had signed a sworn affidavit agreeing not to strike.

Reagan recognized this for what it was and even offered to allow striking workers to return to their jobs no questions asked. When PATCO continued to break the law with their illegal strike, Reagan did what was necessary: he fired all 11,000 striking air traffic controllers and replaced them.

Reagan did not break the PATCO union: PATCO broke itself.

Obama has no business even comparing himself with Reagan. And Edwards rewriting history in order to bash Obama is even worse. Edwards needs to go back to chasing ambulances and putting decent healthcare professionals out of business. That, or shoot hoops in his 35,000 sq foot palacial mansion.

If you read the quote Obama wasn't praising Reagan, but still should have avoided the reference. That name will not conjure up any new democratic votes, let alone African American votes. The African American community referred to Reagan as the devil for many years and to think that Obama has forgotten that is troubling. Reagan wrecked the middle class and minority communities during his term. I still believe in Obama, and pray his speech writer is fired.

Obama is correct in saying that Reagan represented a change from what the country was engrossed in during the 60's and 70's. The Great Society did its damage, Nixon's wage and price controls made things worse, and Carter was a disaster with his Carter Doctrine and ineptitude in domestic affairs.

Edwards is nothing more than a Henry A. Wallace progressive. The only difference is that Wallace was able to admit he'd been led down the garden path by "progressive" policies.

Edwards isn't so smart.

Hallelujah Mr. Edwards. Your insight into the destructive nature of Reagan era politics and economics is why you are the absolute best candidate for the job of leading our nation. Americans, wake up and realize that we need a leader with the courage to lead. Anyone is better than what we have now, but Edwards offers the best options for the average American.

Mark C. Eades, I completely agree with you comment, except for the fact that I am a Clinton supporter. As much as I want her to win the nomination, if the nominee is Barack Obama, I will stand by him 100% Getting any Democrat in the White House is what's really important.

How dare either of these candidate compare themselves to Ronald Reagan. Neither of them hold a even a flicker from a candle to him.

I am a life long DEM. I think people are being stupid over this.

I think it is OK for me to say that I think John McCain was a hero for his military service, despite the fact I don't want him President. I don't agree with all his politics that drive people away from the process, but it is OK to praise things you feel are done right. There is no harm in it.

At the time, I agree with Obama that Regan had the right views over government size at the time. The government was not handling itself properly and it was getting too big too fast and it was not accountable. Regan handled that issue correctly at the time to stop that over-expansion. Obama was not out of line to praise that aspect. He never said he wanted to be like Regan which is just a comment that a deperate candidate like Edwards would try to speak for him. I am not sure where Regan's union views came from which is not even the context of what Obama said. Shame on Edwards for putting words in his mouth and encouraging this partisanship within the party.

This is why we will never get anything done in Washington because people get all squirrelly over stupid things and they create issues out of nothing. It shows Obama is above the curve and willing to handle poltics more like a professional.

This kind of comment is EXACTLY what I admire about Obama – the ability to see and note the best anywhere, everywhere, to not be blinded by polarizing influences, to speak complex truth even if others will pull out sound bites to smear him.

This is the mark of a leader, not of a politician. In everything he says and does, he is preparing this nation for a time of very different leadership than we have experienced for many, many years.

tyler and sunnyday– thanks, why use reagan for any example -
edwards has to get his name out there somehow, anyway, the media won't report anything he says if he sticks to straight business.. he is the best and the brightest candidate, i wish folks would go for less 'groundbreaking, history making' and stick to common sense. it isnt about race or gender, it is about who really can make a difference for us. edwards can do it! he can draw votes from the 'other side' and win in november. that is the bottom line fact.

I'm so sick of hearing "change" as the buzz word. What do you mean by change? Change isn't always good...Do you want to change the flag from red, white and blue to orange, green and purple? Because that's change, but it's not good. Why not talk about progress instead of always invoking the word change? It's become meaningless.

John you are pandering and distorting Obama's remark's and it's gross. Let's talk about all the votes you are now appologizing for; Yucca Mountain, the 2001 BKY bill, the 2002 Iraq vote. And now we are hearing that you voted against abortion rights for military members twice?

Do you have really bad judgment or are you just pandering to the Democratic base?

Reagan gave us supply-side baloney that resulted in massive deficits. Clinton restored the economy to sanity and presided over the longest era of peacetime economic growth in history. Obama seems to care more about looking like change rather than being change. I'll take another Clinton term over another Reagan term ANY DAY.

"For Democrats, Obama is the Candidate of Confidence, Clinton the Candidate of Fear"

What crap. Obama praising the addled tenure of Reagan has just ruled himself out of the presidency.

I felt hope during Clinton's two terms that I've NEVER felt with any anti-citizen Republican.

Give Reagan some little credit. He dismantled the Soviet tyrany without taking America to War with Russia.
Maybe that was nothing!

I agree with Tim. Obama is dreamer and a wanna be analyst. He's not qualified to run the country. Every time he talks in detail about something other than "change" (whatever that means anymore) he outs himself as naive and immature. Ya think the R's are not paying attention to these weaknesses? It's one thing to support the trendy candidate. It's another thing to support a guy who will lose the election. Clinton '08!

i don't know if its me, but it just seems that CNN is always trying to find stories to place against B. Obama.
just because a politician was from an opposing party, doesn't mean that individual did not contribute to this country. its completely insane to even suggest such a thing. if you follow Edwards logic, then no republican has ever or can ever be a good president. this is of course, rediculous.
CNN (Clinton News Network) please don't be bias. – thanks in advance.

OBAMA '08. -its time to bring democrates, independ., oh yeah and even REPULICANS together.

Invoking Ronald Reagan is ridiculous, hands down. Obama is playing to conservative Republicans. Whether one reads that as an "I love Ronald Reagan" moment or as a marker of deeper policy issues, Obama is identifying himself with a political figure that no progressively thinking individual could possibly admire. Only if John Edwards wins could we have a president with the tenacity to stop playing bipartisan bridgebuilding games and just get something done.

Obama, you're no Reagan and never will be. Keep Dreaming.

Wow, the comments in this thread are a great example of why we need someone lik Barack Obama at the helm. He never, at any point, said what Reagan did was good for the country, just that he capitalized on a groundswell change in the nation. Can you, really, say that things didn't change under Reagan? You can't. I hated Reagan's policies, except for his dealings with the Soviet Union, but I have the intelligence and hindsight to be able to say that he tapped into something that changed the course of American politics. Obama's statement is a testament to his deep understanding of what drives American politics, and the fact that he's able to look beyond party lines to see it.
Anyone, and I mean anyone, in this thread that takes his comments as praising Reagan, or responds by talking about him being a "traitor" to the Democratic party, congratulations: You're part of the problem.

I'm so sick and tired of hearing people bash Hillary for no reason. She didn't even say anything, has nothing to do with this and still we see the Clintons being brought into it. For people who are trying to unite the country, the Obama supporters are the ones I see who are most vehemently trying to divide us. All these anti-Hillary rants and rage is not going to bring anyone together. Try looking in the mirror before you start talking about the Clintons.

I dont give a damm about what BO Says. He is a Rabble Touser and belongs on a street corner. Talk, Talk, Talk and he know nothing behind the talk. Obama is a Stoehouse of useless information.

My big surprise was that Senator Patrick Leahy was taken in by BO and his nothing remarks.

Too,too bad

you clinton supporters are really starting to get pathetic

Obama is courting moderate Republican votes. A shrewd political move, at the least.

Unions are what is killing this country's competitiveness in the global economy.

I never saw what twas all the hype about Reagan. All I remember was Reaganomics.
Anyway, we should all have a right to an opinion. It's as if we are waiting for a slip of the tongue to any of the candidates to we can start complaining or bashing.

Let's remember that President Reagan inherited the following from his predecessor, Democratic President Jimmy Carter:

- double digit inflation;
- double digit unemployment;
- double digit mortgage rates;
- 53 Americans held hostage by Iran for 444 days;
- Spiraling energy prices;
- Threats, both real and imagined, by the Soviet Union.

FACT:

- President Reagan left America far more respected and prosperous than the one he inherited from President Carter.

- President Reagan is one of the most beloved chief executives in American history.

- When Reagan's age was an issue during his reelection campaign in 1984, he threw it back at his opponents by saying (at the beginning of a debate with Democrat Walter Mondale), "I'm not going to take advantage of my opponent's youth and inexperience". Everyone laughed uncontrollably at Reagan's wonderful sense of humor.

- While watching the 1985 movied "Back to the Future", during the scene where Doc asks Marty, "Who is president of the United States in 1985, future boy?" then Marty replies, "Ronald Reagan", and Doc says, "Ronald Reagan? The actor? Who's vice president; Jerry Lewis?"; once again, instead of being "offended" by "insensitivity" (as hypersensitive liberals would), Reagan laughed uncontrollably.

Obama nor Edwards couldn't shine Reagan's shoes.

The sage from San Antonio known as Brendan said "Ronald Reagan did for unions what joe Hazelwood did for inland waterway navigatgion skills!!!"

And what a great thing that was! Show me an industry in the US where having unionized labor has made it more productive and competitive, and hence provides a brighter future for its employees? Almost always these industries are bloated and on the brink of implosion, if they have not been lost already.

Harken back into yesteryear when the disastrous liberal policies of the linguini-spined Jimmy Carter gave us unprecidented unemployment, hyper-inflation and REAL dispair and misery (not the perception of malaise manufactured by today's Democrats). These were the salad days of the unions!

Then Reagan rode a white stalion confidently into the White House and cleaned house. Sorry unions, but your gravy train was knocked off the track, and America was off and running in an economic boom that has lasted until today. We have the richest "poverty class" on earth that have cars, home ownership, conveniences of modern appliances, education, general safety and security, and an unlimited future if they want it. They pay NO income tax. (We somehow do this by also carrying the burden of about 20 million illegals who also pay no taxes, but still get all of our benefits).

We also have the wealthiest middle class on earth, which also has the highest standard of living. We have some of the cleanest air and water in the world, despite the whinging of those who would try to lead you to believe otherwise.

Republicans also led the civil rights reforms against attacks from the old guard Democrats, and they also created the environmental protections that we have today.

Sorry, but I DO NOT want to return to John Edwards' fuzzy vision of America – the one that has the stench of Jimmy Carter.

What is the big deal for what Edwards said? He has referred to Teddy Roosevelt on many occasions. So he is not singling out all republicans. Lets get real here; he just doesnt agree with Obama about Reagan.

It shows on both Edwards and Clinton that if they need to grovel and pick at little quotes like these to win the presidency, then they are desperate and running thin. There is nothing legitimate to fault Obama on in this comment. He was making an analogy on the change he wants to make, not that he was in love with his policies. All people need to do is read Obama's website to see that he does not support the policies that Reagan implemented

As to Fred in Reston, Va, while your zeal for Obama is refreshing, I do not think this is about race, this is about everyone, about whites/blacks/reds/blues, and Obama is looking to bring eveyrone together, and we need to start thinking about that as a country to get over race....

OBAMA 08!!!!

I don't think bringing up Ronald Reagan is a good idea when you're trying to win Democratic primaries! RR is NOT popular with Democrats and with good reason. Looks like a not very subtle approach to win Republican votes, which Obama will not get..
Obama will also not get my vote.

Obama just lost my vote.
As a democrat "THOU SHALT NIT PRAISE REAGAN AND CRITICIZE CLINTON IN THE SAME BREATH"

He is now no more than a rebublican in disguise – taking advantage of the political climate that is favor of the democrats.

LOSER!

The Obama Cult is out in full force today. WOW. Next when he compare's himself to Hitler, you will spin that in a positive way also!

Sorry for the 2nd post, But CNN seems to only post pro Obama comment's on her and I thought I would try again.

OBAMA'S NO REAGAN - that's the first thing that needs to be said.

Also, maybe Obama's point is that the Republicans(ie Reagan) are as capable of change as he thinks he is? I think they're more capable of change. After all fighting over black-white race issues is OLD SCHOOL, as in Chicago 1968, hippies and flower power. I'm sick, sick, sick of it. I thought this crap went away with Humphrey and the demise of the auto unions.

Obama has only one thing he's running on–he's black. Period. Oh, and he keeps yelling "change," but never says what he wants to change. Maybe he doesn't know.

News media–you want something to print?? Print his history. Print that he has a Muslim family and a Muslim upbringing. Print that he has illegal real estate deals in his past. Print all the stuff you're avoiding as you give him a free ride.

Are you saving this stuff for later, in case he gets the nomination, or what???

Reagan will be noted for the 2 Trillion or more debt he created....He had no idea how to run the government. The only thing he knew is how to get elected by buying off the special interests and the voters who could care less about health care coverage..

He was a smooth talker, granted, and a swell guy...but running the government he only looked upon it in knee jerk fashion...and contricted spincter attitude. Also he mouthed off about a balanced budget how important that was, and small government. Did it turn out that way?

THANK YOU BRENNEN-SEATTLE:

YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT IN YOUR UNDERSTANDING ABOUT THE
MEANING OF OBAMA'S STATEMENT. YOU LISTEN AND ARE NOT A NEGATIVE THINKING PERSON.
THAT IS ONE OF OBAMA'S GREAT QUALITIES AS A LEADER. HIS JUDGEMENT IS NOT CLOUDY BY FEAR. HE IS ABLE TO LISTEN TO THE WHOLE AND DRAW FROM THE WHOLE WHAT IS IN HIS JUDGEMENT IS GOOD VERSUS WHAT IS NOT SO GOOD AND GIVES CREDIT TO THE AUTHOR FOR THAT ACCOMPLISHMENT. A LEADER OF ANYTHING(LARGE OR SMALL) WITHOUT
WISDOM, KNOWLEDGE, COURAGE, AND MOST OF ALL "COMMON SENSE" WHICH I CONSIDER TO BE "UNDERSTANDING" IS LIKE A BLIND MAN LEADING THE BLIND INTO A DITCH.

Boy oh boy...You Obama Kool-Aid drinkers accept anything this guy says. I suppose the fact that his mentor was that traitor to Democrats, Joe Leiberman, is perfectly acceptable too. He's a jerk.

I don't trust him, I don't like him and I think he's a hypocrit He actually should run as a republican. He's about as progressive as Reagan was too...not at all!

Every President brings about change in America. Now the question you have to ask yourself is it good or bad? In Ronald Reagans case it is not very good if your beliefs lie with the mainstream of the democratic party.

Comments like Edward's is why he can not do any better than third place.

Obama wasn't talking about Reagan's political views.

Obama was speaking of the movement, the energy, the passion, the change in Washington and our country that we desperately needed.

Edwards must just be hoping and praying that you all aren't smart enough to know the difference between what Obama said and what Edwards is trying to get you to think Obama said (including the press).

Get a clue, wake up your brain, take a fresh look again, Obama was NOT agreeing with Reagan's policies!

Good Grief people!

All you Edwards' supporters need to learn about your candidate as well as listen to his stump speech. Edwards' need to stop wasting taxpayer money (public financing) and drop out. MORE TO COME....

Hey E in Germany:

Checked out the info- He looks like a SOCIALIST. That must be why you Europeans like him so much. As a middle class America I DO NOT want any more of MY money going to the lazy bums flipping burgers in this country. You were a lazy turd in high school and now you are paying the price. I will however pay you money if you stop reproducing

Wasn't Reagan head of the Screen Actors Guild when he was a Hollywood-type?

If Bill Clinton was not an agent of change, why does Barack have some many of former Clinton aides on his campaign. His statement, as best doesn't make sense; at worse, is hypocritical.

Ah the karma of political spin. Obama twists Clinton's words beyond recognition. Edwards twists Obama's words beyond recognition. I guess it's Clinton's turn.

Goodbye John Edwards. Take your old tired ideas and just run away. You offer no solutions and no answers. Ronald Reagan did change this country and for the better in a lot of instances. It is obvious you truly are like 7UP – never had it -never will.

It is obvioust that Barack Obama is idolizing Ronald Reagan. We don't need to regress to the Ronald Reagan area to exemplify change. What is the matter with Obama, why does he have to use Ronald Reagan as an example to justify the change he is trying to bring to America.

Ronald Reagan did not do well for the voters that Obama is trying to court. It is one thing to be partisan, but I just believe John Edwards is sticking to his democratic roots. Some things have to be said, and approving of the type of change that Ronald Reagan brought to this country is not the right thing to mirror.

John Edwards 2008! The only candidate who is not deep in the pocket books of special interests and lobbyists. Lets vote for real progressive change!

That was tacky that he brought Bill Clinton into his argument. Very obvious that it was a hit against Hillary. What happened to ending the fight between the democrats? I like him less an less after every story I read. Hillary '08!!!!!!

Do these politicians really think I'm that dumb?!

Regardless, to me there shouldn't be an R word for democrats and D word for republicans. To see Obama say this really points forward to change.

This is just one more reason why I would support Obama over Clinton or Edwards any day! Edwards just wants to stir it up as controversial so he can get his name back in everyone's mind.

Who is Obama to speak down upon Reagan or Clinton? At least they were real leaders and had experience. Obama doesn't have room to speak about anything.

Sorry John "You are no Ronald Reagan"..............

Obama's comment is correct, Reagan did put the country on a different path. His presidency marks a watershed, regardless what you think of the changes he made. Edwards lost a lot of points with me for jumping on this remark. It may be uncomfortable for a partisan Democrat to acknowledge, but the essence is true.

It's amusing to see how quickly his opponents put Mr. Obama down. They STILL don't see that what a lot of us like about him is his refreshing, non-political, non-partisan agenda. Keep bringing change, Mr. Obama, it is sorely needed in this country.

Just imagine folks, a candidate who actually has the nerve to admire someone outside of his own party. How refreshing!

Obama '08!

After those republican votes is he....he claims to be the JFK, the RFK and FDR gee it just had to lead to Reagan.

Bet cha he goes with George Washington and Thomas Jefferson next. This guy is is Saint all rolled up in one. That is if you are a gullibile American Idol type. He surely doesn't want you to know that his best buddy was a gangster, til he had to keep it quiet. And how about those forced votes in Las VEgas. Where the members of the union, that is reported to be ruled by the mob, are being forced to vote for Obama....gee that's the kind of guy you want for a president isn't it. Just a continuation of the crap that we have in there now.

Obama has the right to make any reference that he wishes, but he should have expected that a reference to Regan by a democratic presidential candidate would draw criticism. Regan did have some strong qualities, such as being a powerful public speaker and he did enact change, but what kind of change was is? And what kind of path did he set America on? One that led to a huge deficit, the blurring of the line between church and state, decimation of the laws protecting the common-wealth of our natural resources. . . That is not a legacy that I would want the next president to be associating with, especially since there are so many other former president’s that would be better role models for positive change.

In my opinion, Edwards is the best choice for the next President of the United States. He exhibits the qualities of a truly great American President—honesty, passion, conviction, intelligence, and stamina. He is not running a negative campaign, he’s pointing out the differences between himself and the other candidates—and isn’t that the sole function of any campaign? Edwards is the only person running that is willing to take on the corporatism that has a stranglehold on America. Edwards is absolutely correct in taking a strong position against corporations. In an address to Congress on April 29th, 1938, Franklin D. Roosevelt warned against corporatism by stating, "The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism–ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power."

Americans are in danger of losing their beloved democracy, unless someone steps up to the plate. So far, John Edwards is the only person running for the presidency that has been willing to take a stand for democracy and who has the ethical integrity to refuse funding from corporations, so that he is not beholden to the will of those corporations when it comes time to make the decisions that effect the health and welfare of Americans.

Sen. Obama is invoking Reagan's name to attract conservative voters as if he has already won the primary.
Oh the sense of entitlement.
Why do we need two parties anyway? Not if both Democrats and Republicans want to be like Reagan. The Democratic party exists to counter what was wrong during Reagan's terms. Obama is misleading conservatives into thinking that he will act like Reagan, not like a Democrat.
Is this what Obama means by his ability to unite? There is no such thing. Both parties have different ideals. They only act together if massive compromises are made. Obama will not be able to convince conservatives to share his vision with rhetoric.
Maybe the Reagan era was full of optimism. But what about the people on the lower end of the economic gap? I am not sure if they were as optimistic.
Obama may think he can bring optimism, but only to the segments of population that are already well-off anyway. As long as the rich and well-educated feel optimistic, it's okay to ignore the less well off, because they are the ones who have no voice anyway.

Well, big surprise!

The Clinton cocktail drinkers are already putting to practice what Hill and Bill have been so adept at for years:

The I'm right and you're wrong politics.

You are with us or against us politics. (Sound all too familiar?)

If you utter one syllable, I will take it out of context and visciously spin it to my advantage even if it means sacrificing my soul and self-respect politics.

I will never admit when I'm wrong politics. (Bill-I-did-not-have-sex-with-that-woman and Hill I-did-not authorize-the Iraq-war-or-march-in-lockstep-with-the-Bush-administration-on-Iraq-and-Iran-before-I-was-running-for-president politics).

I am not flawed, I'm perfect and everyone who states differently is picking on "wittle old me" politics.

I am indignant about my policies and beliefs even when I'm lying and pandering on moment's notice politics.

I will reinvent myself to get out of any corner I've painted myself into poiltics.

If you don't agree with me, I will seek to personally destroy you either overtly or covertly with my sleazy, slimey operatives politics.

And the list is endless politics ....

Obama should be criticized – Ronald Reagan brought down the communist empire that Obama would certainly try and resurrect!

Mark, Anyone but Clinton is the only real answer. Stop being devisive like the Clintons are. Im a republican, but can see a vote for Obama coming. That is, if he continues to be inclusive.

Reagan was a NOT joke, that distinction belongs to Clinton
enough said

To Mark C. Eades- Out of curiosity, were you born stupid or did you have to take pills? Your comment about the repubs is totally off base. There is a reason that there has only been 2 dem administrations snce the '60s. In what should be a dem landslide this November is far from that. Why? The pathetic losers at the front of the dem charge. Half the country HATES hillary clinton. Nothing she can say or do or even what the repubs do will change that. Obama HUSSEIN Barack is not electable. When in the election booth, when it's time to pull the lever it will not be for Oprah's darling and like in the last election the dim dems will be wondering around saying – What happend? John Edwards is simply the weakest dem candidate since George McGovern. Inspite of Bushes ineptitude, the USA on the average is political just right of center. Unitl the dem party booses recognize that histroy will contiue to repeat itself.

Obama is right as far as Reagan being an icon of change. Reagan's popular speech in Berlin – "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall..." goes to cement the fact and those words have literally changed the lives of millions of people living in repression.

The amazing thing is that, Mr. Gorbachev ACTUALLY complied! Amazing leadership – with results on the part of Reagan!

Which of our presidential candidates today can say, " Mr Maḥmūd Aḥmadinejād, dissmantle your nuclear weapons program..." and actually have compliance from Iran? I can see Obama saying that and getting results. As for Clinton, she is likely to just breakdown in tears during tet-a-tet talks, as she did in NH. We need emotinoal resilence as well as good leadership skills. The White House is not for the weak in constitution!

Obama communicates with people in a unique way, if you can't see beyond words and letters (kindergarten level) you'll probably miss a lot of what he's communicating. Look deeper – my suggestion!

If anyone respected Pres. Regan, Edwards shot himself in the foot with his comment.

Instead of going against Obama for his comment, some might go against Edwards now. Not real smart if you ask me!

As much as one might agree with a lot of Obamas campaign for change, John Edwards is correct in regards to the presidency of Reagan. However, Obama's clarification of what he meant is understandable he needs to be understood clearly whenever he speaks.

"Although I entirely disagree with what Reagan did to "change" America there is not doubt that he certainly did change it when American needed a change. I felt that what Reagan did to change America caused irreperable damage and laid the foundation for the unspoken class war that exist in America today. "

Obama was also critical of the big government of the 60's and 70's. What was the big government growth of the 60's and 70's. Carter created the energy department and Department of Education. We created the Clean Water Act the Clean Air Act, CERCLA and just about any major environmental protection law you can think of. We preserved national parks and Open Space passed the civil rights act and went to the moon.

Now if he was referring to big military policy. Reagan was a return to the covert operations style of the 60's. A return to mass military industrial complex spending etc...Carter was the diverger from that.

The big government of the 60's and 70's is alot of what democrats like. The big government of reagan alot of what they hate. Hard to run as a champion of energy reform and climate change when you seem to believe reagan was necessary to correct these excesses of democratic idealism.

Neither...it's Seabass and he'll meet you here at 0130, w/ Obama and Edwards standing guard outside the stall singing praises to Reagan, Bush, Kucinich and Clinton!
Yo, Lemons in Arkansas...is your name reflective of the fact you're so sour? Actually, you might want to change your name to Mr. Merlot since all you do is "wine!"
BTW, read all of Obama's comments before taking just a portion of it out of context and passing it along.

If I had any doubt regarding voting for Obama in the past, this definitely seals it in his favor...Mr. Obama you have my vote (without reservation).

Republicans may worship at the altar of Reagan, but I think hisory will not be very kind to Reagan.

Reagan was the beggining of what we are experiencing now, its during this time that major coroporate theft schemes began, and they are perfected now...

..but guess what...

Corporate theft is LEGAL now, thank you supreme court (on the decision few days ago), check into it people.

...and you thought that it was about Roe vs Wade, hahahahahahahahahah,

Roe vs Wade is still here, and corporate theft is now legal...

Thank you very much Ronald Reagan, you began it all.

He only speaks the truth !!! Regan was not a great president he just did his best acting performance ! He converted all of the southern dixicrats to the republican party and started a more peaceful division between Blacks and Whites; but a divide all the same.He borrowed from social security to funds minimal tax cut checks for middle and low income people.

Ronald Reagan finally became a great actor ! We were the Chimps !

Cheers to Obama on this one! Jeers to Edwards!

Edwards should bow out of the race. It's obvious he's never going to catch up to Obama and Clinton, and if he really is so anti-Clinton and anti-status quo, he should drop out, since the vast majority of his supporters would then vote for Obama, who has a more realistic chance of beating Clinton. Edwards, take one for the team.

What was the meaning of this article? And when ever has a comment from John Edwards been considered a BLAST?! It's almost as if this came out to lessen the strength of the huge endorsement Obama received from the Culinary Union.

The point of this story is not that Obama is a horrible person, but that he is a politician; and like anyone running a very competitive political race he's trying to gain an advantage.

What's telling about this statement about Reagan is it shows that Obama is very willing to pander. So to those who say they are voting for Obama because he represents a new style of politics and is all about change, I'd question their blind fervor.

The fact is that Senator Obama has much to account for, including his more than 120 "present" votes while in the State Legislature on a variety of issues and not just for political strategy on abortion votes as his campaign has said.

He also faces some questions on consistency. He has disavowed lobbyist money in this campaign, but as evidenced by his vote for the 2005 Energy Bill, it showed his role in a legislative effort that capped years of work by lobbyists and Vice President Dick Cheney.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Obama has received significant funds from Exelon (EXC – Cramer's Take – Stockpickr). Exelon is based in Obama's home state and has pushed hard for new subsidies for nuclear power plants. They got their wish in the 2005 Energy Bill with 29 new plants planned. Companies like Exelon would require the Yucca Mountain repository to dispose of waste.

He outright denied that his New Hampshire Chairman was a lobbyist, when in fact it was found to be true.

After loudly condemning labor unions for independently praising Hillary in Iowa ads, Sen. Obama has said nothing about the vicious Labor Union Unite Ad, which has basically said that Hillary Clinton is against the Hispanic community. This ad has been roundly condemended as "the harshest ad of the cycle on the democratic side."

And it the list goes on. The point is not that Obama is a sinner, but that he is not a Saint, anymore than Hillary Clinton is the demon that the media and others have tried to portray.

Jeez, all Obama did was make a historically astute observation about different US presidents and their impact on the country. He no more said he wanted to follow in the "Gippers" footsteps than he said he wanted to follow in "Tricky Dick's" footsteps. Come on Edwards, quit the old-school 60's populist style whining and actually read what Obama said. Perhaps if you took that kind of intellectual honesty you would not be a distant third and soon to be out candidate...

its a sick addiction to keep reading these posts and seeing people comment on something they don't fully understand. he was commenting on the change regan did with the country. that was it. one could say this current bush has done the samething. good or bad, its your decision, but you can't deny that bush has changed this country with the same gusto obama is showing.

For Goodness sakes! Barack was referring to the fundamental shift that this country underwent when Reagan was voted in. He wasn't defending Reagan's policies nor was he glamourizing them! He wasn't praising Reagan and what he did, he simply pointed out that as an agent of change, good or bad, Reagan was the figure head and arbiter of that political shift.
Obama now stands as the only candidate in this field who represents what Reagan represented in 1980. The candidate who can reshape the political landscape.

Do the presidential candidates notice that every time they take a shot at obama, it backfires.

"[Reagan] 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.”

Didn’t the government grow bigger under Reagan, in fact the largest in history until the Bushes came along? Didn’t Reagan borrow the most money of any president in history until the Bushes came along? Didn’t it take 20 years to pay off Reagan’s deficit? Wasn’t there zero accountability under Reagan? (On the latter, think Iran-Contra if you are so confused.)

I like Obama, but what the hell is he referring to?

I like what Obama said and I agree. Reagan started a monumental change in this country. If you want another monumental change elect Obama this November. If you want more of the same old same old elect Hillary, McCain, Guliani, whoever... sheesh...

I really like Barack and thought about voting for him. No more. I guess he was too young to remember the Reagan we called "ray-gun" for his radical opposition and uncaring attitude toward the working classes and unions. I think this was a HUGE mistake, and if he's playing to conservative Democrats in some way.....this won't do it. Reagan's Presidency was not a popular Presidency except with the conservative Republicans. He did more to undo what we citizens and the middle-class had worked so hard for in more than twenty years of activism. His was the second Administration to help bring down the tolerance, unions, and economy we had worked so hard for. Nixon had started down that road with the secrecy and unconstiutional activities he was impeached for. (later pardoned).
I guess young people not involved in politics per se would not remember the great RECESSION under Reagan. In his second term, he had started giving us even more of the "well, in the old days....this, that and the other" didn't play well during press conferences when he was asked what he would do about the mess we were in. Gas prices rose over 50%....but that was huge then. Reagan also started the process of undoing unions by breaking and overriding every union strike. His firing of the FAA controllers was the final straw. Unions have never been the same nor had the power they had pre-Reagan ever since. He could have cared less about education, the working middle and lower classes, and every stance he took....was a blow to the hard work of the 60's and 70's for progress in America. I consider him second to the worst President we've had, George W. Bush being the worst. I don' t know what O'Bama was trying to do or why he said such things, but it won't endear him to Democrats who know about Reagan's real legacy. I'm surprised at the lack of knowledge and that his managers let him say what he said. Big mistake!! Oh, and if I forgot to mention this, Reagan started a covert war in Nicaragua and other places...remember the Ollie North hearings? He also had the American hostages held in Iran extra weeks so that Jimmy Carter would not be able to take credit for bargaining their release and that he would. Oh, and the way his "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" is attributed to the fall of the Soviet Union....hah, if anything, Reagan's policies contributed nothing to the inner collapse of the Soviets....it had already taken place. No kudos to Reagan for anything I'm afraid.

Fred is right. Lay off man–now you are the racist Garry. Go back with SpongeBob

Obama was not comparing himself to Reagan. He was'nt praising him either. He was highlighting the fact how Reagan was able to impact and change the national policy. Simplicity of approach and clarity of thought are very vital for a leader. I believe Obama has those characteristics. He will be a great President.

I am not sure who I am voting for yet....Clinton or Obama but I now know that Edwards does not fit in the mix after the comments he just made about Obama...pay attention to what someone says and try to stop making it sound like something its not to try and make yourself look better.

Hey, CNN if you have a problem with my posts, please email me. I am certain I am meeting your standards and am perplexed on how you pick and chose comments.

I don't even need to read the article. Just skip to the comments section for a good belly laugh at Obama supporters trying to defend their candidate and praise Reagan at the same time. It is more foot and mouth troubles for Obama. Defending each comment he makes just makes you look silly. More silly, is Obama trying to convince us that Bill Clinton somehow was wrong on the economy and things were rosy under Reagan. Obama thinks to himself, "How can we get back to talking about Iraq because these economic questions are killer?"

Como se llama
Obama Oh Ate It Again

I am very disappointed about Obama now.

I am pro-division let the bush supporters wallow in despair while we fix what they and bush did over the last 8 years.

By WE I mean John Edwards and the rest of the citizens that are ready for REAL progress.

He (Obama) does have great plans, I saw him speak here in Iowa personally. I heard his plans on health care, and others, I also read his book. Plus I read not only the media out put, but blogs and papers. We aren't niave for beliving that Barack can bridge the divide that has been counted on in politics in this country for as long as I can remeber. We belive that We the People can change this country, and the way our system of government works. Its not only do we belive Barack can achieve this. But We belive We the people have a right to chose for our selves, not Billary and Bushes, scare tactic down and dirty, in the mud politics. We are so sick of it. We want Barack and the truth even if its not what we want to hear, we need the truth. Unbiased, unspun. Truth, the real deal, that is what Barack is about. Obama Iowa loves you, can't wait for 09'

The audicity of hope
the urgency of now
change
wave (brief commercial sales pitch)
change
yes, we can

I am MLK
I am JFK
I am Ronald Reagan

Want to get a view of how some in South Carolina will vote? Go to abcnews.go.com/video/playerindex?id=4150648.

If my husband sat across the table and expressed these views about women, he would be wearing his meal not eating it.

"In order for an African American liberal Democrat who the vast majority of voters KNOW NOTHING ABOUT, and will never read his books, and many of whom will be inclined to believe the libelous e-mails about him, he needs to reach out to independent and "enlightened" Republicans."

Correction -

In order for an African American liberal Democrat – about whom the vast majority of voters still KNOW NOTHING ABOUT, aren't likely to read his books, and may be inclined to believe aspects of the libelous e-mails about him – to win, he needs to reach out to independent and "enlightened" Republicans.

Folks, now do you see the difference between a leader who understands what it is to have vision and the power of connecting with the flow of progressive intuition that the people already have and the other politicians who are just in the way !

Barack Obama is a man who's time has come !

Barack has that rare gift like Reagan to reflect the inner almost subconscious
yearnings of a people ready for a quantum leap in a positive and new direction
while representing all that is good about our unique American spirit.

I know that this may seem subtle but Barack Obama's genius is that he
can communicate these ideas and motivate us to be better than we are.

Right or wrong you knew where Reagan stood – Barack is like him in that way
and that is why Barack and Michelle have such contagious excitement and
electricity in there campaign and that is why they are going to win, and return
prestige to this great nation that is a beacon of hope and freedom to a hurting
World.

Yeah, it's terrible that Obama actually ANSWERS questions, isn't it? I mean, we'd much rather have somebody in office like Clinton, where every statement is poll-tested and filtered through a Karl Rove playbook. We'd much rather have someobdy in office who, when asked what their greatest weakness is, says "I'm just too impatient for change." Or Edwards, who answers the same question with "I'm just too passionate about helping poor people."

Let's choose honesty and frankness for once, folks. Clinton would bring Republicans to the polls in droves, and even if she did manage to sqeak out a win in November, it'd be another four years of divisive politics. Obama can help create a movement to expand the democratic base - which is all that he really meant when he was talking about Reagan. Bill Clinton may have won two terms, but he nearly destroyed the Democratic party in the process. And do we really want a return to the Clinton melodrama?

Let's turn the page on the politics of the past.

Reagan an unions ... wasn't he in a union? Actually he was the head of the Screen Actor's Guild union before getting into "politics".

I won't start an argument about whether his decisions about unions as US president were right or wrong, but he did have the background to look at the issues from both sides.

I do believe it is "see change!" There is "change" coming with a vote for Obama! hm! Destroying the fragile economy with his "lack of understanding of the processes involved," devastating the social security system with "mindless directional changes" and "having an electorate substantially divided into ARMED CAMPS!" With his rhetoric, we can actually develop 3 or 4 Americas!

Obama's reference to Ronald Reagan in such glowing terms when his policies did just what Edwards contends is mind blowing. Obviously, Obama is desperately reaching out to anybody who will vote for him...by pumping up a myth about Reagan which denies his destructive influence. This simply shows me that Obama will vacillate, play it cool, pander to everybody should he become president. This turns me off completely!!

A little too soon for Obama to be pandering to Republicans :^)

Hey Wallace, I am boarding Hill Force One, and I suggest you join me in my First Class Seats, or read Obummers article again. I'm not going to degrade Obummer, he's a super smart guy – alot smarter than me, but he has no punch to back up his dreams. You absolutely do need experience and maybe in a few years he will have that having run this tough battle but not now. We're taking off now so fasten you seatbelts!!

Obama is courting the "Reagan Republicans" with this statement. It's a shrewd move designed to represent Obama to be all things to all people wthout actually saying anything.

To paraphrase Shakespeare, Obama's campaign is “is a tale … full of sound and fury; signifying nothing.” He is an empty suit who will put a sheen of "hope" on the policies that his financial backers proffer.

Edwards has the spine to be the voice crying in the wilderness. He is the lone candidate who is not beholden to anyone else except the American people. He has my financial support and my vote.

To offer Reagan as a figure who changed the political landscape is a slippery way to imply that the trajectory subsequent to his adminstration was a good one. Does anyone else remember that the '80s were the "Me Generation?" It was a decade that brought us Wall Street and Gecko's "Greed is Good" credo. Look where greed has brought us: a nation pitted against itself and hell-bent on voting against its best interests. Pogo was right.

Clintonites and Edwardites give it a rest! Obama was simply explaining how Reagan's administration and leadership changed the political trajectory of this nation. That's it!

And why can't I comment on Giulani's September 11, 2001 ad? Isn't everyone tired of him pimping tragedy?

Obama is lightweight... don't need to say more.

I'd really love to see CNN run something that is Pro-Obama on it's home page. If you'll notice most of the articles relating to Hillary are showing her caring side or how Presidential she appears and when the articles are written on Obama, he's always attempting to look Presidential...never full credit for any accomplishments. Although it is getting close to the Nevada caucus and God forbid if it really appears that Obama might be chosen the winner...have to thwart any appearance of a projected winner. Let's see the for the New Hampshire Primary, leave the Clinton 'fairy tale' soundbite on the home page all day. What are you planning for Saturday? And finally Edwards to getting some coverage, but once again it's anti-Obama.

Hey Clinton supporters: if you think HIllary will repudiate Obama for the Reagan comments, think again!

She was on the Barry Goldwater documentary reminiscing about her days as a "Goldwater Girl", and without regret.

She is not about to alienate Reagan Democrats. Those moderate conservative swing voters are her base.

So sit back down and be quiet.

Let's see, let us count the number of prominent people that Obama has invoked in his campaign: MLK, JFK, RFK(?), FDR(?), Reagan!! Any missing? Talk about a mix bag. My, he certainly is overreaching for votes, any votes.

Reagan, the president that took the United States of American from a creditor nation to a debtor nation. The president that allowed Hezbollah to murdered over 250 marines in an unarmed mission and not take out their camp in the Bekaa Valley. the president whose supply-side economics did not improve the lot of the working class. The president whose wife bought $1000 per plate dinnerware for the White House dinners.

Thank you Edwards. Keep unmasking the masked.

Obama should be criticized for the Reagan comment … during the Reagan years the "gap" between the rich and the middle class and poor became greater than any other time in history … does he think we have forgotten this?
****************************************

Helen,

That is a misconception. As I recall, the disparity between poor and rich, as a percentage, increased while Clinton was president. Right now, we need a president that is strong on defense, terrorism, and instills some fear within the eyes of our enemies. Invoking Reagan took some kiwis on his part, but.............. "Obama, you are no Reagan". The last thing we need is another Carter presidency from the Dems. Edwards is a moron as well, and is out of touch with reality. (or just pandering as usual) Unions are only about power, greed, and feeding from the trough. Representing "the working man" is a joke.

I just marvel as the way people think he just made a comparison to reagans change of the political scope. America is divided because of people like John Edward Does the statement mean he represents reagan or does the statement means he endorses his polcies. I was sick of clinton now i am getting sick of edwards. I want to ask a Question Is ronald reagan not american so if you are republican you shouldnt appeal to the democrats or swing voters. I just dont know what is wrong with the democratic party they are just self destructing in all circumstances. Another problem i see is people just read the headlines and post a comment they never read deep enough. HIllary is simply jealous of obama and she just cant stand him because he is young passionate likable and very humorous, Adding to that he has great speeches and very very Nice Handsome. Hilary please why dont you become governor of new york or arkansas that will be better we dont want you as our president. Edwards please go back to law school when you dont understand simple English. Obama just go to the white house we need You there.

I don't know what scares me more: the thought that some of you believe the comments you're making or the thought that you so easily twist the truth to fit your needs. Look people, I did not like Reagan. In fact, in my neighborhood, the parents were happy when he got shot. The truth of the matter is, though, Reagan did usher in a new era. Many people liked him. When he was re-elected in 1984, he won 49 of 50 states. In the one state he lost, which was his opponent's home state, he still got 49.5% of the vote. Barack did not praise Reagan's policies. He merely pointed out a historical fact: Reagan ushered in change. He lowered taxes, cut social programs, and significantly increased defense spending. It was the era of trickle-down economics, where the poor got poorer and the rich got richer. While it may have been safer to point to a democratic president, Obama defied conventional thinking and pointed out a real example of change who happened to play for the other team. Kudos to Barack for telling people the truth.

Reagan as most people was complex. He vision of the US as a city on a hill and a beacon of light for the rest of the world was compelling.

He also attracted many democrats to his vision making him a successfull politician.

While he become very polirizng towards the end of his second term was not what we want to become.

Cheers,

How truly refreshing for a candidate from the democratic party pay attention to history and give credit where credit is due. All Mr. Obama did was make a declaritory statement regarding the mood of the country and Mr. Reagan's ability to read that mood. I'm quite impressed. As a republican I may choose to vote for Mr. Obama because, at this moment in time, he is certainly reading my mood.

Now that's a misleading headline if I ever saw one...I guess since Edwards called out the media for ignoring him, now they have to buddy up to him?

This is another example of Obama overdoing it. I respect Obama but this latest event shows he has a lot of political maturing to do.

If you count an out-of-orbit deficit, arms for hostages, which incidentally is part of the reason Bin Laden, and Al Qaeda & Company maintained such a robust weapon supply, the enhancement of the status quo, and countless other deficiencies as transforming America, then Obama is right. Ironically, even while Reagan blasted big government and unions, his economic policies actually increased the size of the welfare state, due in part to him driving many workers to the brink of insolvency.

No one but the most close-minded Republicans long for Reagan. He represented ole boy networking and big business. Where's the nostalgia in that?

This comment from Obama is nothing less than a shameless, self-serving attack on a beloved Democratic president who transformed the welfare state into a working state, eliminated the deficit, increased civil rights, and kept America safe from terrorists. Clearly, this is an extension of Obama's continued purpose of trying to discredit the Clintons, and seems to also be an attempt at pandering to Republicans. I am deeply disappointed in Obama over this.

If you want to win, Obama, instead of distorting the issues with non-important, irrelevant references and pointless, verbose speeches lacking genuine substance, then talk about issues-for a change! Tell us where you stand, not what you hope and think. I thought Obama claimed he was above this type of political shenanigenry. Obviously that wasn't true. Fortunately this Reagan thing is coming back to haunt him.

My fellow liberals forget that we don't control America.

We liberals are, at best, about a third of voters on the national scene.

Bill Clinton NEVER won more than 49% of the national vote. Not in either term.

In order for an African American liberal Democrat who the vast majority of voters KNOW NOTHING ABOUT, and will never read his books, and many of whom will be inclined to believe the libelous e-mails about him, he needs to reach out to independent and "enlightened" Republicans.

We liberals consider Ronald Reagan one of the worst presidents on domestic issues and on human rights in Central America. He sold arms for hostages in Iran to fund an illegal war in Central America. He sold out future generations on the environment and broke the air traffic controllers' union, which illegally went on strike.

As for the Soviet Union, even though many liberals felt that the Soviet Union was coming apart from the inside and Ronald Reagan was in the right place at the right time to get credit for its collapse, he may have sped that process up by his increased military spending and direct comments and actions challenging the Soviets.

Is it a crime to make that observation? I hope not.

Republicans have, for years, complimented John F. Kennedy and tried to steal his legacy for them. If Barack Obama wants to connect with Ronald Reagan's ability to communicate and claim that he might have the capacity to be as transformative a figure for this generation as both those candidates were for their generations, that is just good politics.

The truth is that JFK and RWR were great communicators and so is Barack. Few people would disagree that Barack is in their company on that score.

Now, imagine what it would mean for America if we elected a liberal African American with a bi-racial background because liberals, independents and some Republicans supported him.

We might actually get quality, liberal, legislation passed in Congress. We might actually leave Iraq and help our veterans at home. We might pass health care legislation that covers all children and nearly all adults. We might decide to fund pre-K education and pay teachers enough to give them respect and make it a profession people want to join. We might make real progress on global warming.

Most importantly, we would send a message to every disaffected minority young person that this is a nation where anything can happen, where discrimination, bias and bigotry is truly looked down upon and is being pushed completely into history.

Let's make the dream come true. Let's vote Obama!!

Reagan was an American. In fact an American President. I'm no lover of Reagan but my God have we gotten to the point to where we hate people on the other political team. This message is consistant with Obamas message, we need to end the politics of devision. Reagan as far as I recall pissed of a bunch of people but he was not devisive, controversial yes but devisive, I'm not sure. Correct me if I am wrong.

As for Edwards, I like Edwards but this is a cheap shot. He has done enough to split the vote, with comments like that he only lends support to the establishment candidate.

America tends to be pulled in two different directions. The conservatives want to run the country the way it was designed to run with free market capitalism and limited government. The liberals want to see an American where everyone gets a piece of the pie. The problem is that the conservative way leaves a lot of us out of the equation. The liberal way breaks the country's pockets. Reagan put an end to the extremely liberal spending from the 70's. He took a hardline conservative stance no doubt, but the alternative would have left us in a economic black hole similar to where we are headed now. We need moderation. I would love to see a country where everyone is living well, but where does this money for universal health care come from. John Edwards will break our country. When he decides to play hardball with corporate America, he will drive away corporations and jobs and he will scare the life out of the stock market. We need a little Reaganesque fiscal conservatism right now.

Everything that Obama said was true. I was worried that Hillary was going to have to read everything to the staff that she appoints if she wins, since no one in her current staff was able to read the rules of the Nevada caucuses in the last year, but now I see she is going to have to read all of the press releases to her supporters as well. Barack Obama is able to see "we the people of the United States" as exactly that, not just the people of the Democratic party or people of the Republican party.

Obama will do anything to win the nominee. First he compares himself to MLK, Now he compares himself to Reagan. Wonder who's next, Bush? Maybe Obama should are will become a Rebublican candidate. When will the lies stop? Obama is only a dreamer.

Anyone who votes for Obama is an idiot, Fred. You want another Jimy Carter?
This election, with what's going on in the Middle East NEEDS an insider.

Obama is clearly playing doulble standards. When Hillary made comments about MLK , she was criticized by Obama and his camp by derating him with LBJ. This was clearly to instigate african-americans for snatching their votes which otherwise had gone to Hillary. And how can he idolize Reagan as a "Change" who transformed america? At the same time he is not ready to give Bill Clinton any credit for record surplus, 12 million new jobs, prospred middle class, and improving the standards of african-american people who considered Clinton as a "Black President". Reagan not only destroyed unions, but created a right wing society of republicans who divided this country as REd and Blue states. Its a shame that the same union leaders are now supporting Obama and forcing their members to vote for him. This big talks of hope and change are good when you listen this extraordinary oratory, but it requires leaders like Clinton to make it a reality.

The Obama Cult is out in full force today. WOW. Next when he compare's himself to Hitler, you will spin that in a positive way also!

Obama should have a check up immediately for alzheimer's. I'm guessing Obama thinks ketchup is a vegetable. How dumb can one be?!

At least during the Clinton's presidency the middle class and poor actually got ahead, the same can't be said of Reagan's trickle down or piss down on the poor theories. I can't believe Obama thinks this is the right person to praise. Not only did he put down Clinton (nice message of hope he also criticized the other Democratic president. Who's next to criticize on his list, President Franklyn Roosevelt?

I love Barrack Obama, and I am truly afraid for him. I've often been called on my "charming honesty" myself and have been warned never to run for any public office because of it. I admire a man who speaks the truth intelligently without any fear of the polls.

I've been making similar comments about Ronald Regan for YEARS, and I am as liberal as they come. Ronald Regan knew how to package and push the prveelent sentiments of Americans and drive us together around his candidacy. In fact, I have always despised Regan for making the Bush era possible. Obama never said he LIKED the direction that Regan chose; he just admired his campaign's ability to pull the country together as he is clearly trying to do.

I think it also plays to the democrat/independent/republican coalition message. obama wants to use Republicans as a limited inspiration too when they did indeed have strengths or his coming together campaign would be all talk.

I fear for Obama because people twist honesty to play the game. It has been going on for years, and the Clintons are Rove league when it comes to this skill. edwards is a bit more blunt and self-serving, but he too has found anopening here. I hope with my whole heart that America is ready for a President ready to speak the truth without reading cue cards or talking points or watching opinion polls and I fear we are not.

Please America, see this for what it is and dispell the illusion that we are a country of morons for allowing 8 years of George W. Bush.

Go Obama!

Obama seems to have gotten lost in his own rhetoric. That's all there is to all his words. His concept of change still resides in the abstract that's why even the change the reagan brought to this country would fit his definition.

I admit he can deliver wonderful speeches, the guy is very charismatic. but look behind his rhetoric and you will see the emptiness of his promise for change. As for the Bluebook for change in his website, I don't see any concrete ideas for implementation that is needed. Full of ideals that we all must aspire for but definitely lacking in practicality which defines the real world.

Mr. Edwards – if you ever had my vote you 100% don't now. No one, from either side should ever talk bad about a previous president, especially one that led us througha difficult time in our history. Was he perfect – no. Name one president that didn't make mistqakes or have flaws. What a disgrace you are to the American population for lashing back at another politician, even from your own party, that finds something good in a previous president – one who one the electoral and popular vote!!

The Clintons will do everything feasible to get the votes – including lying and once they are in the office at WH, if they don't loose the national elections in November, they will do the same 8 years we saw with Clinton- it will be a remake – no much change – no greats expectations there. I hope Obama will win if he doesn't, I suggest him to never – never accept to work with the Clintons – For now I wish him the best in Nevada, SC and elsewhere.

Why my comments have not been posted yet, when other comments posted after mine have already been posted?

Someone explain to me why the first comment for this story was posted by CNN. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE STORY. Not only that, but it supplies an image opposite of what I've seen on all posts. Most Obama supporters in their comments are vile and attack oriented, so I don't know where he even gets his ideas. Most Clinton supporters are articulate and provide real arguements in their posts. There is a difference between confident and arrogant, with the latter being the impression I get from Obama supporters on these pages. CNN, if you are screening these posts, then take the time to see if the post has anything to do with the story it's being posted for. The comments begin with a blatant attack on the Clinton campaign, and the article is about Obama and Edwards!! I wonder if Obama supporters just saturate ever comment section with anti-Clinton propaganda...what a "just cause".

REAGAN HAS SPOKEN FROM THE GRAVE! And he did say this and boy are you people proving him right. The Democrat's were, and still are so jealous of his enormous success in the 80's they can't help put keep bringing it up.

RR – "However, our task is far from over. Our friends in the other party will never forgive us for our success, and are doing everything in their power to rewrite history. Listening to the liberals, you'd think that the 1980's were the worst period since the Great Depression, filled with suffering and despair. I don't know about you, but I'm getting awfully tired of the whining voices from the White House these days. They're claiming there was a decade of greed and neglect, but you and I know better than that. We were there. "

Indeed we were there. The 80's were a time of optimism and prosperity in the USA, no matter how hard the bitter leftys try to deny it.....

Does he know how to talk about himself and what his true beliefs are ? why does he have to use every person in the worlds statements! I question this every time he says something its either MLK, JFK , Cesar Chavez which i do not appreciate since Im a mexican and now ronald regan which messed up the whole state of california with his stuff!!!!!

So Obama had praise for Reagan, I would never vote for a scum ambulance chaser... But I might vote for Obama now... Time to build bridges...

Edwards is putting a negative spin on Obama's words just like Bill Clinton did last week. There's a lot of that going around these days. This is the type of dirt that Obama is running against. What's funny is that less than two weeks ago the Clintons and Edwards were trying to jump on the change bandwagon.

I agree 100% with E from KY above.

It disturbs me that some of you are allowed to vote when you can make the jump from Obama saying "Reagan changed the politcal landscape" to "I love Reagan."

Obama has no vision, and does not know how to change. It is a solid fact undisputable and verified by Obama himself in his book called “Audacity of Hope”.

A very extraordinary illustration from Obama himself that glaringly shows hypocrisy of spectacular proportions. From the beginning in his Prologue Obama admits to serious, flaws that contradict the very foundation of his basic platform for “Change to believe in”.

Obama said in his book: “The topics of his book how we might begin the process of changing our politics and civic life. This isn’t to say that I know exactly how to do it. I don’t”. America he doesn’t know how to change!! Incredible!!

America do you read this statement the way I do? Obama said he does not know how to change yet parades around with the theme of “Change to believe in”. Very extraordinary to write about change one way and parade around the country telling the electorate another. It’s absolutely insane.

Worse, Obama said a few lines later “I offer no unifying theory of American government”. America, for a man who taught Law and the Constitution at the University of Chicago for eight to ten years to make a statement like that is pure stupidity. Good God, The very Constitution is the most unifying document ever produced in modern history that created America and the most powerful government in history.

For those who support Obama they should ask him about his change and detail what the heck it is. If Obama has no unifying theory and completely disregards the Constitution, what does he believe in, an Islamic theory? Please when you vote think about what you’re doing this man needs to answer those questions. America has no ideal what Obama believes in, yet thousands follow him around like brain dead followers that never question his believe. Obama’s change is likely worse than chump change in my opinion.

I was 18 years old in 1980 and joined the US Army. There was still a lot of negativity expressed by the general population towards members of the military. After Reagan was in office for a short period of time that attitude started to change because, while I disagree with a lot of things that Reagan did and his ideals, he gave people a sense of pride in their country again. This is what Barack was referring to – all you have to do is look at Barack's policies and you will know that in no way does he agree or will he support Reagan type policies.

When Reagan took office it was at a time when the country needed a
certain type of leader. We are again at a time in our history when we need a certain type of leader – one that is not politics as usual, one that can work across party lines and one that can unity this country – - – that is Barack Obama.

This article is a good example why Mr. O is not ready to be president., he is not aware of the facts. Mr, Regan started the downward spiral of ours governments moral responsibility. I am not an Edwards supporter, but he has the facts straight. We cannot afford another president who is an idealist, we need a leader who knows how to work the system and fix it.

I will never forget how effective the "Trickle Down Theory of Economics" was and still is today under George Bush .Daddy called it Voodoo,but Jr thinks its just great.

Bravo John Edwards. Reagan's legacy is our current selfishness. He made it OK to think of yourself, not your community, first. If he was an agent of change, it was a change from the United States as one nation into a division of the haves and have nots, which we have today.

to obama supporter he can do no wrong. It is almost cult like following.

CNN- it is interesting quite a few people are complaining that you are baised and you don't post anti-obama post even it is not as bad as the one for hillary. Just remember how voters kicked your gut in NH. You may have authority in selecting Obama favoring post. However people who are reading here are also writing and we all know what yu are upto. Pretty shameful. Having said that in the end it our vote and we will use in the right manner.

Is it 'sea change' or "see change"?

Hey Fred in Raston- Are you REALLY that STUPID!??? Your comment is off the deepend to say the least.
I WILL NOT vote for someone who has used charisma and the ability to put two sentences together as to make himn sound like he knows how to make this country rebound from the MESS the Republicans and that moron in the white house has gotten it into.

Personally dead-head Fred, Obama doesn't have the experience as a JUNIOR Senator to take this country in the direction it needs to go in.

It is gonna be a real shame if he actually gets elected and then you guys who keep pouting how wonderful he is realize just what a BIGGER mess your naivity about a candidate who "talks of change" and a candidate with a WITH a plan make when voting for President.

Obama is not the savior you guys think he is...go ahead and elect him without using your brain and in 2 years when we are still at war, the economy still sucks and the job growth is zilch..call him, thank him and draw your un-employment check!

Edwards just made himself no better than the media. Taking things out of context to support their own agenda.

Take the time to read Obama's full comment.

EVERYONE, please read SCOTT, MADISON, WI above. Thanks in advance CNN for posting this.

How can you as a democratic president hopeful flounder fish over to praise what a republican president did for this country, where is your loyalty? If you want to taunt the Clintons at least use a democrat. Yuh!

Edwards and Clinton are one in the same. Democrates and STATUS QUO, cant handle change, cant handle a look at the other side and cant be professional at all. I place Mr. Edwards in the same class as Bill and Hillary, people who openly target others on what they may say to change the country and if they reference something they dont like they use negative comments to down play something good. I'm not rich, but as for the Reagan years, they were better than what we have now and what we ever had with a democrate in office. All I ever hear from the democratic side is how bad it is, not progress and lets raise taxes in one way or the other, the goverment must control......remember the government is the people, its time for a CHANGE, Vote For Change, Not The Status Quo......

go edwards! thanks for keeping it real. my first vote was for jimmy carter and i never regretted it. reagan democrat, i am not, and proud of it.

I must say that reading these comments are great. So many of us are finally starting to understand and belive. Barack, what brilliance send the unbelivers on a wild goose chase, all the while, for those that can actually read, bringing us all together. Brilliant. Sure is funny reading comments from the hillary supporters, the 90's weren't that great either. I am most dissappointed in Edwards now. He, I thought was smart enough not to fall for the Cintonistas bait statements. Maybe he shouldn't be vice president. Obama/ Richardson I think is the way to go now. John Edward you were this close to being vice president.

The 70's and Jim Bob Carter were a disaster that Reagan pulled us out from. I know for most liberals history started about 10 minutes after GWB was elected but there was a world before. Reagan was a great President, Clinton was not, these are the simple facts and they are without dispute.

Well, I for one almost went broke under Reagan...I'm still trying to find out what made him so great to some people....I was just a breath away from filling for bankruptcy under that man....

Reagan is the PAST, we need a whole new FUTURE and fast...

Edwards yelling about how he would be as President is only trying to knock Obama down so he can win in Nevada and South Carolina. Come on Mr. Edwards. Calm down, focus on the issues. Attacking Obama only makes you look like an idiot. Act Presidential if you want to win votes.

Time and again, Obama reaches out to all Americans. The reference to Regan was benign, and yet one more way he demonstrates his strong desire to overcome partisanship and work with the entire political spectrum. John Edwards might be feeling pressure over the distance that polls show between him and Obama. I would not hold this comment against Edwards, it was purely campaign politics to illustrate a difference.

Praising Reagan, the guy who crushed the middle class, does not go well with many democrats

To Fred in Reston, VA

I'm an African American Female who is not voting for Obama I am not racist, I just simply prefer another candidate better. Leave race/gender out of the debate because that is STUPID and irresponsible.

Not FDR.Not JFK.Not Clinton.Ronald Reagan Obama cites as an agent for change.As a democrat Ronald Reagan should be an anathema to a Democrat running for President.Does he mean he wants to continue Reagan's anti union stances.Continue the deficit spending that ballooned under Reagan.Continue the rhetoric of "Welfare Queens".Contiue the upward moving of money to the very richest people in America.This is the change that Democrats are committed to stopping and reversing.Leave it to the democrats to try and appeal to the type of people who would not vote for them if they were the only ones on the ballot.Looks like the next picture I will see is Obama in a ridiculous hunting outfit trying to woo the NRA.

Obama cant make change...if he cant create any change in his home state of Illinois then how can he change the entire country?

obama shows respect for all, this country is way too divisive when a member of one party cant even reference what a member of another party did in positve retrospect, he was speaking of change in our time 2008, and reminding folks of change that occured in reagans time 1980, and just hinting that our country may be on the brink of real change for the better, this type of divisive politics is what obama is trying to end, thats why i trust that he is the real candidate of hope and change, and that he will reach out to everybody, republicans and independents, to heal our nation so we can move ahead as one, remember only a nation united can stand, obama 08!

Obama made a nice comment about Reagan and its unfortunate that his campaign adversaries (Sen. Edwards) took it out of context. I'm not a politician or some one with a 200 IQ, but I totally understood what he meant. Whomever misunderstood his commentary should be sent back to elementary school.

Politics in this country are so twisted and the media confuses our voters in such as manner that as a result mediocre incompetent politicians keep getting elected.

It's funny how all you whites are so for Obama. You will now be the minority now.

"What does Reagan changing the political landscape have to do with our nation today and the grave challenges we face?"

When Reagan was elected in 1980, the country was ready to move-on and was hunger for change. Regardless of what you think of Reagan, you cannot deny that the country was ready and hungrey for something new and he tapped into what the country was feeling at the time and Obama feels we're at that place, yet again, in history. This has nothing to do with Reagan and his policies but everything to do with the sea change that swept Reagan into the White House.

I am now more convinced than ever that the ONLY Democrat candidate who can unite the whole nation is Senator Obama.

Obama will say ANYTHING to gain voters. Every politician is like that. Obama is NO DIFFERENT. He can make stuff up because he has no experience or voting history to base on. He's running on a clean slate.

Policies of the Reagan Administration started the long slide of the American middle class into oblivion. Most people now alive don't realize that America was not a middle class nation until the middle of the 20th century. The growth of the middle class was made possible by the Roosevelt and Truman administrations via a redistribution of income through taxation from the upper to the middle class, veterans' benefits, education grants, job training, etc. The Great Society did a lot for those in lower income brackets.

Reagan was a decent guy and a smooth talker, but he really didn't understand the policies that his subordinates implemented as if in response to his rhetoric. Neither do most Conservatives understand what actually happened as a result of Reagan/Bush/Bush policies. Incomes of the bottom 75% of the country are declining while income of the top 25% is growing. Income of the top 3% is going up like a rocket.

Conservatism is making America into the most productive third world country: a large lower class ruled by a tiny wealthy elite.

Conservatives are determined to lead us down the garden path, my fellow citizens, and Democrats do not have the guts to stand up to them.

Edwards is playing classic politics here. Take a narrow comment about Reagan's abilty to motivate and unite and parlay that into "Obama is anti-union". With our sound-bite media, I fear this will work, even though Edwards is wrong.

I wish I had more faith that we Americans could sort this type of political "hit" out from the truth. But I don't and comments in this forum reinforce that. "Reagan was a uniter" and "I hate unions just like Reagan" are not equivalent statements.

Edwards needs to get out of this race; a big loss for him in his home state of SC will ensure that.

Finally a presidential candidate with the courage to pop the misguided bubble of Reagan-worship that's been far too rampant in this country of late.

I too am glad to see Obama can say something positive about Republicans. I am socially liberal and a little fiscally conservative, but vote strictly Democrat because of I think freedom issues should be liberal–money issues just need intelligence, not ideology. So despite my dislike of Republicans, I will admit that I agree with a few Republican economic principals. I think too many times both parties are against whatever the other parties wants...regardless of what it is.

Listen to the whole 49 minute interview, he also said he wants a "FULL AUDIT of the ENTIRIE FEDERAL government", which hasn't been done, but needed. He wants to find out where all the money is going and to route out the missing money

Why is it that everyone needs to take comments out of context or read something into it that wasn't there? I like Edwards and will vote for him if he gets the nomination but he was wrong to read something into Obamas statement that wasn't there. Reagan did change the direction of the country, not necessarily for the better but he did change the direction. I think that's all that Obama was saying. It's kind of like Time magazines "person of the year " It doesn't mean it was a good person but someone who had a major impact for good or bad.

Reagan broke the back of the air-traffic controllers union in 1981 – this really marked a huge turning point for unions – and it's been a downward spiral ever since. The environmental destruction, weakening animal and bird protections – all for the betterment of big business – that was Ronald Reagan too. His biggest and saddest legacy, however, was completely ignoring the AIDS threat in its early years – for years, he never mentioned the word or acknowledged it as any sort of health threat. As we know today, the death toll is in the tens of millions. How much of a difference would it have made had he spoken out and acted as the most powerful leader of the free-world should have? We'll never know, will we? Obama was way off base to bring Reagan up a "change agent."

I am white, a republican, and earn a lot of money. And I don't feel I should be obligated to give any more of it away to dead-beats who would rather live a parasitic life than earn an honest living. Of course I will be called a racist, but tell me – What does this Obama guy stand for that I should admire? He is a socialist, hipster who has no real agenda other than to dazzle the progressive liberal idealists who are basically out of touch with reality. I have not heard of such sensationalism over a politician since 1933 Germany. Watch out!!!

To Joe

"OBAMA IS SHOWING HIS TRUE COLORS….SHAME ON YOUR OBAMA…SAYING A REPUBLICAN REAGAN WAS BETTER THAN OUR OWN DEMORCAT…WHO IS PLAYING DIRTY POLITICS NOW?
OBAMA AND REAGAN…NO"

People like you are the reason America is divided..... Should we never cross party lines and think one on the other side did a good job. Reagan was a far superior President then Clinton ever was. I know you are going to talk about the economy, come to the table with something different. Lets, talk about how awful Clinton was on Defense allmost non existant in regards to stopping terror attcacks. Why dont you tells us about that (Hint 5 + Somalia). How about personal integrity with Clinton non exsistant.

I am a Republican and if a Democratic President did a good job I will come out and say it and I would expect the same from most people. The problem in America is people like you that no matter what good someone from the other party does you will have a problem with it.

Hopefully some day you will get the education that you need to better understand Politics. PLEASE DONT VOTE YOU ARE A MORON

Glad to see that cooler heads have prevailed toward the end of these comments. The fundamental question wasn't whether or not he agreed with what Reagn did but did he bring about change. Answer is yes, Regan did and it fundamentally shifted the poliltical landscape.

As for all the Regan bashing if you remember correctly America wasn't enjoying the best of times after the "masterful" job Carter did during his four years. What Regan did, like it or not, is tap into a centerist feeling, or the "big tent" theory that allowed those on the far right to join with those in the middle. This is what I feel Obama is trying to do and if he's able he should be able to get meaningful legislation passed.

This is in direct contrast to Hillary is has taken a devisive approach and is further entrentching conseratives to oppose anything she tries to do. You may like Hillary and that's fine but realize that she's to polarizing and we'll only end up with 4 years of gridlock.

Obama is a Republican. Obama does not care about the American people as much as he cares about his ballooning ego.

Hillary Clinton is the most qualified candidate, the most experienced candidate and she's READY TO LEAD ON DAY ONE.

Once again we see NObama's inexperience. How could anyone who hopes to call himself a serious democratic candidate even think about Reagan? Among all the things mentioned in the article, he also gutted the education system in this country so badly to pay for his military build up (remember Star Wars?) that we are still reeling from the after effects.

I hadn't been paying much attention to Edwards, but I think I will from now on. We agree on Reagan, at any rate.

The truth keeps coming out about Obama. This is the second time this week that he has shown the country contradictory ideas and personal shortcomings straight from his own mouth!

He told journalists the other day that he needs help around him all the time because he's not well organized (this is not a presidential quality!).

Now he's praising a Republican president being sure to slip in an unflattering pass at Bill Clinton's presidency! Does this mean that he would have prefered a Republican in the 90's rather than Bill Clinton? Who's side is he on in this campaign? Repbulican or Democrat? Has he forgotten that he's a Democrat and he's supposed to be campaigning for that party's nomination?!

Furthermore, who wants to vote for someone who says in so many words "this whole thing is just too much for me to handle. If I don't get help I'm lost !

Ronald Reagan was president when steel and manufacturing jobs left the country and the pay of a blue-collar worker was cut in half. It was also a time when neighbors became intolerant of their neighbors and the media played crisis-of-the-week to get us to hate and distrust each other. The name Ronald Reagan has nothing but negative connotations for me.

Senator Obama did not say he supported President Reagan's policies or its impact on union or middle class. He also did not say Reagan did a better job compared to Bill Clinton. However, the notion that just because Reagan is a republican, a democrat can not admire him is kind of narrow politics.

What Senator Obama said, if you are interested to know instead of spinning, is that the election on 1980 was a change election. People were looking for something different. People were looking for clarity from their leaders, a sense of dynamist, innovation and entreprenureship. He said Reagan was able to capture the feelings of people and won a landslide (won 49 states) because people were desperately looking for change. Now Reagan ran on a 100% red state policy positions and people have given him a mandate by a landslide supporting his 100% red state policies, and he was able to make some significant change in the way the country was going. 2008 is similar time where people are looking for a big change. And a candidate who can capture the aspiration of people this time also might get a mandate from people to bring bold changes in the direction of the country.

He did not say he agreed with Reagan's policies or he wanted be like him. Again he said 1980 was a change election and Reagan made significant changes as opposed to what Bill CLinton or Nixon did.

Don't try to parse people's word and use every single word to decieve voters.

Obama's sensationalist rhetoric is exciting for the young and politically naive, but there is little substance. I think it is too bad for Edwards he has received limited press coverage because he has been speaking well to the health care issues that concern many of us average working folks that have experienced problems getting and keeping insurance.

Obama made a nice comment about Reagan and its unfortunate that his campaign adversaries (Sen. Edwards) took it out of context. I'm not a politician or some one with a 200 IQ, but I totally understood what he meant. Whomever misunderstood his commentary should be sent back to elementary school. Politics in this country are so misleading and the media confuses our voters in such as manner that as a result mediocre politicians such as our beloved president keep getting elected. Sorry to say but its true...Its a waste of time.

This is the exact reason this country needs Obama. He makes a statement about changing the political landscape and its is used against him as complete praise of Reagan. There is a reason there were Reagan Democrats, Reagan changed the political landscape. I am so sick of Democrats acting like you can never have anything good to say about a Republican without somehow committing treason. Obama unfortunately may be a better candidate for a general election, but may lose in the primary because the Democratic base is seperatist and won't be able to see the big picture. I didnt agree with the Reagan policies, but I would be silly not to see what a paradigm shift his presidency created.

Obama has always been a traitor to the democratic party.
He ignores party loyalists by auctioning party values to so-called independants and republicans.
He seemed to have forgotton that this is democratic primary.
This is about selecting a candidate who represent party values.
He can appeal to the middle in a general election.
Before that he needs get the nomination.
He's so full of it, and thinks he's better than rest of the democrats.
He insults democrats saying they are dividers.
No one better divides party than Obama.
How can he unite the country by dividing his own on party?

Is Obama referring to the Iran-Contra Reagan? Or the Regan who began our economic slippery slide?

If Obama keeps this up he will have no chance at being the Vice President!! Go Hillary!! Love Ya Bill!

This really seems like a non-issue.

However, change can be good and change can be bad.

In relation to Dem vs. Rep and Reagan ...Iranian hostages came home during Reagan's time, not Carter's.

I think that was an important change.

President Reagan set in motion a series of events that led to the downfall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. On that front, he will be remembered as a great President. When it came to domestic matters, in particular labor, as evidenced by his handling of the Air Traffic Controller strike, he will not be remembered by so many people as a great President. I think it ill advised for any Democrat to compare him or herself to this very popular Republican icon who every candidate in the oppopsition party holds in great esteem on every issue; both foreign and domestic.

I think Edwards missed or simply ignored the underlying point of what Obama said. He didn't praise Reagan he simply pointed out that Reagan changed the direction of politics in America which he did. Prior to Reagan there was no real social conservative movement in the Republican party and say what you will but during his first election Reagan did manage to win the support of many dissatisfied Democrats because they wanted change.

One needs only to let Obama be Obama! His mouth gets him into many, many positions that are indefensible. The more he talks his empty rhetoric, the more his inexperience as a politician are revealed. He is either STUPID, or he doesn't listen to his aides!

His comments demonstrate clearly how inexperienced, politically naive, and full of himself he is! Want to have your vote count for NOTHING? – Want to vote for empty promises? – Vote for Obama!

OBAMA WANTS TO BE LIKE REAGAN?? What a joke...

Iran Contra

AIDS Indifference

Voodoo Economics

I respected Mr. Reagan as a person, but he was an extremist behind and actors mask...and Barry Obama is certainly trying to mask his bizarre campaign behind "Hope"....

WE NEED A PRESIDENT WHO IS NOT DISILLUSIONED – HRC 08!

Wow. I'm a supporter of Edwards....and his comments truly disappoint me.

Obama's consistent message is that he is a genuine uniter of people around problems...and cares less about their ideology or political affiliation.

The notion that Reagan changed the "trajectory of America" cannot be denied...regardless of how much you happened to agree with him. Obama was not praising Reagan...he simply said that he wants to change America (albeit in a different direction) as well.

I'm disappointed that Edwards would resort to such a strategy in order to misguide working people.

So funny....Obama backers can't find enough excuses to portrait their candidate holier than tho...the can't do wrong candidate, LOL. Any comment he makess has a positive purpose, any comment Hillary or Edwards made are bad! For them Obama is the reincarnation of the "ONE."

Obama followers=- desperate cult people..easy to buy with empty slogans!

stick a fork in Obama...he's done.

You replaced "Obama Mocks Clinton" from direct facts with this out of context complaint. hmmm...Dosen't bill seem a bit angry these days. Maybe somethings blocking his way back to the white house

Ronald Reagan ran up the deficit by tripling government spending and the military industrial complex

how that is "fiscally conservative" is beyond me

Mark C. Eades

Hear, hear Mark! I agreed with you completely...up until the part where you said you'll vote for Hillary in November if she's the nominee......I won't. I will change my party to Independant. I just couldn't associate with a party of non-thinkers.

Everything Mr. Edwards says seems to somehow or another involve the words: "working people, unions, middle class, families" in some way or another. I think he just saw an opening and thought it might give him a last minute push among hard core dems that hate The Gipper and might swing their vote.
As supporter or Mr. Obama I did kind of wince at his comments though, not because I don't neccessarily agree with the point he was trying to make, but because I knew it would cause the same kind of hoopla as every other little barb-trade in this whole Democratic race.
I just hope the coverage stops here on this message board and doesn't become a "national sensation" story that would bring further blows to the Democratic party's campaign .

Obama is the brightest inspiration in politics today. As a democrat, I must say, Regan had his good sides. I differed a great deal with most of his politics. But when it came to changing the country's economic course, after the mess the previous adminstrations left the country in, Regan was a master. Additionally, anyone who really studies or lived the Regan error can not honestly deny that Regan gave American's and our Nation confidence and credibility again.

Go OBAMA! I am with you all the way! Mr. President!

Clinton didn't change America, he just showed how the governement can be run with surplusses instead of debt and putting 23 million jobs into the economy. I guess we can call Bush a change agent, because he turned around and did the opposite.

I understand what Obama was saying, but even if you believe that, you don't praise Ronald Reagan if your a Democrat running for the nomination without expecting some backlash. Of, course people are going to take it the wrong way.

I would just like to say, how's it feel when the media takes something you said and twisted it to make you look bad. Ask Hillary, she's been dealing with it since the campaign started.

For the people who say, you don't have to hate all republicans. I don't hate Reagan as a man, I didn't know him. I hate his policies and everything he stood for. If you don't speak out against the policies that destroyed unions, bankrupted the middle class, did nothing for the poor, and sent this country into recession, then what kind of Democrat would I be. I hope, if Obama does get the nomination, he doesn't just give in to these kinds of policies so he can just say he is working with Republicans. He better stand up for Democratic principles.

Hillary 08!

As an observer, I think Obama is fair, and that is where the Reagan comment came into the text. I have noticed on t.v., that he has amazing recall, if someone is commenting on that he had said, he just stops and recites per betem the speech or comment being referenced. I have also noticed that HRC will ask an opponet a question and the next day the oppondet's answer is used against them slightly out of content.. Listen to HRC re: what she is going to do for you/us, but listen more closely and it is really what we are going to do for her.,,,,,,, I am starting to believe that Obama is the more honest candidate, and Rommey when he says, if they have been in wash. and nothing has changed, why will moving into a new seat in wash. change things. HRC constantly tells us she has been in wash. 35 years-long enough, no,no, too long.

listen folks ,obama is the best thing that can happen to America now! PLS STOP misquoting him. Just join the wagon for change for a better future of our kids and the world

Obama is right!

I am not a Republican, but I do appreciate and admire Reagan's ability to coalesce the mood of the nation into strategic change. At this time in our nation's history I believe the public mood is ready for another dramatic change.

That said–I'm still unclear on who will be the best choice to lead that dramatic change in direction. None of them have real executive leadership resume's(except Richards and he's out of the race).

Frankly, Obama and Edwards tend to inspire me with their independent spirit and commitment to running their campaigns in a grassroots fashion–with no significant PAC money–I like that.

How about a reality check? what he said was 100% right. Regan was full of hope and yes he did change the way people viewed governement. Go head Obama speak your mind and unite your country. This comment may have gained you a lot of vote from republicans, and democrats are smart and they will see that you are trying to unite the country.

Wake up people.

Obama was speaking of the 'sea change' that was the 1980 Reagan election.
and that the...
2008 election will be another 'sea change'.

Not in a way that Reagan might have appreciated ; )

What's part of this is hard to understand ?
Did you listen to the comment ?
Are we moving to fast for you ?

Anyone who does not vote for Obama is a RACIST pure and simple!!!!!!!!

THOU SHALT NOT TAKE THE NAME RONALD REAGAN IN VAIN!

We would have been better off if Anderson won in 1980 anyway.

He compared his ability to change the direction of the country to Reagan, not his policy decisions. I think Regan at the time represented a massive shift in our country and Barack believes that he can bring on a similar, in scope only, shift in this country. Whether you agree with Reagan's policies or not doesn't matter because Obama does not stand for Reagan policies he just stands for change. A massive change is needed in this country and Obama is the only one in the Democratic party who represents that.

This is only a first step in Edwards' final attempt to grasp legitimacy. I expect to see more of the same in the coming months.

This is why I'm supporting Sen. Obama. He can see the big picture. John Edwards has been using the same, big fish, little fish speeches now for almost 7 years. He has been running for President since he and John Kerry lost and he is no further towards that goal now than he was then. There was absolutely nothing wrong with Mr. Obama's reference to Pres. Reagan. We need someone who can build a bridge in this country. Sen. Obama knows what it is going take to do that. This was brillant!

For someone who thinks he is so smart, Edwards can't read or his hearing is messed up.

Obama was simply making the point that Reagan did indeed change the way our country thought, he didn't praise his policies or say he was the greatest guy in the world, just made a factual point.

Go brush your hair, there has to be an ambulance that needs chasing.

Ronald Reagan is loved by many in this country. So why John, would you go and alienate yourself from those people? This election is too much about "democrats vs. republicans" when honestly we should just try to find someone to unite us! Granted, I'm a republican, and would never vote for Edwards in the first place, but he makes too many strong, stubborn minded statements that simply alienate half of this country.

While I also disagree with Obama on several of his positions, I admire him for his ability, and DESIRE to bring this country together. Should certian repubs get the nomination, I might vote democrat for the first time ever.

Obama should be criticized for the Reagan comment ... during the Reagan years the "gap" between the rich and the middle class and poor became greater than any other time in history ... does he think we have forgotten this?

1981 January: Ronald Reagan becomes the first U.S. President opposed to a constitutional amendment, which provides equal rights for women.

I didn't like Reagan and I am not voting for Obama. As a woman, I am voting for a woman who can help women finally pass the 28th Amendment first proposed in 1923.

Let's see Regan legacy of change and uniting and hope, NAFTA, his experience former Gov of Cal! Obama talk of change and uniting and hope, none, his experience, running for higher office without serving terms fully in any position elected, always campaigning for higher office! Regan record of change proven he went into the Presidency at least having made changes when in office, Obama record of change, well his work for change was solely in changing his position of power!

Does Edwards realize that the majority of Americans are sick of unions gouging this country?? Does he understand that the teachers union (who contributes heavily to the Democrats) fights education reform – and because they won't allow merit based pay...the only way to shine a light on the bad ones was No Child Left Behind??

Who is for unions? Detroit? thank UAW for emptying that city while gouging the companies into bankruptcy....I think America wants to end unions...