Comments on: Obama criticized for Reagan reference

By: Annabelle

Annabelle — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 05:31:58 +0000

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!

By: Davidc

Davidc — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 20:08:37 +0000

Abama is a divider rather than an uniter!!

By: Pat

Pat — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 18:56:09 +0000

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?

By: Thomas - Reno, NV

Thomas - Reno, NV — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 21:03:00 +0000

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.

By: anne

anne — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 04:03:06 +0000

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.

By: Rexus

Rexus — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 21:22:39 +0000

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"

By: Joe

Joe — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 19:50:10 +0000

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.

By: Dave

Dave — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 19:11:36 +0000

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.

By: W.A. Davis

W.A. Davis — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 18:50:27 +0000

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.

By: Joe

Joe — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 18:45:34 +0000

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.

By: keep the peace

keep the peace — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 18:37:18 +0000

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!

By: Prosperous in 80's

Prosperous in 80's — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 18:35:19 +0000

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.

By: Robb, New York

Robb, New York — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 17:51:51 +0000

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?

By: EE

EE — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 17:43:50 +0000

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

By: Christian, Tampa FL

Christian, Tampa FL — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 17:26:25 +0000

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.

By: Renee

Renee — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 17:19:18 +0000

All Together now , All Together Obama

By: Gil - California

Gil - California — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 17:13:51 +0000

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.

By: v.cifaldi&paul

v.cifaldi&paul — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 17:12:57 +0000

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!

By: Chris, Orlando FL

Chris, Orlando FL — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 17:04:36 +0000

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.

By: Sam

Sam — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 17:02:56 +0000

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.

By: Fed Up

Fed Up — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 15:21:40 +0000

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

By: Danny

Danny — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 15:06:38 +0000

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

By: tomw

tomw — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 14:23:26 +0000

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

By: share

share — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 14:08:31 +0000

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.

By: DR

DR — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 14:07:59 +0000

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!

By: old wizened voter

old wizened voter — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 13:40:49 +0000

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................

By: Larry Buchas, New Britain, CT

Larry Buchas, New Britain, CT — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 13:36:26 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 13:14:23 +0000

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

By: E. Elliott, Orlando, FL

E. Elliott, Orlando, FL — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 13:08:17 +0000

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.

By: charlotte

charlotte — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 12:36:21 +0000

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..

By: Shane Australia

Shane Australia — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 11:33:07 +0000

this statement from both Clintons on Reagan's death:

By: pete

pete — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 11:05:56 +0000

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.

By: mark wilkes barre pa

mark wilkes barre pa — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 10:56:02 +0000

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

By: pete

pete — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 10:50:12 +0000

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.

By: Citizen

Citizen — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 10:27:49 +0000

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.

By: Karla

Karla — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 08:56:19 +0000

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?

By: Will

Will — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 08:22:01 +0000

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.

By: DJ

DJ — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 08:21:56 +0000

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.

By: melissa

melissa — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 08:00:41 +0000

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

By: victor

victor — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 07:24:31 +0000

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.

By: Jess

Jess — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 06:52:12 +0000

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.

By: K, Florida

K, Florida — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 06:28:20 +0000

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.

By: Marj,Paso Robles, Cal

Marj,Paso Robles, Cal — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 06:26:31 +0000

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

By: Greg OH

Greg OH — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 05:59:42 +0000

AtlantaVoter,

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

By: Just me

Just me — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 05:57:01 +0000

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.

By: Jen Cedar Falls, IA

Jen Cedar Falls, IA — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 05:45:59 +0000

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!

By: Kathleen McCook

Kathleen McCook — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 05:40:44 +0000

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.

By: montez

montez — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 05:38:31 +0000

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.

By: Azar

Azar — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 05:32:09 +0000

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.

By: ees

ees — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 05:30:28 +0000

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.