Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

What alternative reality did Cornell Belcher live in during the 1970's-80's? This is what Barack Obama's pollster says about Ronald Reagan, via TM:

"Now, it is blasphemy for Democrats," Obama pollster Cornell Belcher said of Reagan, "but that hope and optimism that was Ronald Reagan" allowed him to "transcend" ideological divisions within his own party and the general electorate.
I am not necessarily saying Reagan wasn't able to brand himself as such through the mainstream media, but Reagan was an extremist in both rhetoric and action; and during the run-up to his presidency, he was an rapid partisan Republican. In short, the myth of Reagan lives only in the aftermath of the Reagan's multiple candidacies and his Presidency. Besides the historical ignorance, how can Obama's pollster saying this help Obama win the Democratic nomination?

This is correct:

Obama's greatest challenge in winning South Carolina is wooing black women, who are swaying between him and Clinton. "When you talk about the broken politics of Washington, the people who are most affected by it are single women, working moms," Axelrod said.
From my limited perspective, Obama is doing well in South Carolina. He was the only one with a strong volunteer presence outside the SC YouTube debate. In talking with a few of his on-the-ground staffers there, I was impressed by their gains in the state. I went and watched a Clinton post-debate rally, and it was not that well-attended, with about 200 people, filling half the room. This being a early primary state, that's not a bad number, and the room was predominantly black women.

Obama's staff invoking Reagan as a model for his campaign is more than just "blasphemy for Democrats" is suicidal for Obama among older black Americans and white liberals. I'd suggest Belcher and Obama do a little historical reading and find out just how bad the 1980's were for the African-American community. Maybe Belcher can poll how many Reagan-Democrats are still around too.

Look, I'm not anti-Obama, but  praising Reagan as a model of hope for Obama? That's gotta rank up there with one of the most stupidest things I've ever heard a consultant be quoted on in a Democratic primary.

Tags: Barack Obama, Cornell Belcher (all tags)

Comments

259 Comments

Good Point

I did not like that comparision of Reagan.  I know many will jump about the "Bush-Lite" comment on Clinton.  But this is nothing new, and has been stated REPEATEDLY on many sites.  And I do believe that SC will end up in the Obama column, his presence and organization is better, from what I heard, than the other contenders.

by icebergslim 2007-07-27 12:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Good Point

I've always thought Obama has the potential to realign the electorate the way Reagan did for conservatives or FDR did for us, while at the same time pushing through a lot of good legislation (like health care and his poverty plan). I'm not sure that his pollster was necessarily praising Reagan directly here, but you've got to be careful to avoid any semblance of anything like that. The Reagan name is toxic to liberals, and most deservedly so.

by Max Fletcher 2007-07-27 01:03PM | 0 recs
By 1986

The Democrats had regained their strong postion in the Congress.

FDR realigned America.

Reagan did not. 4 years after he was out of office, Clinton won the Presidency.

Heck, you have a better argument that Newt Gingrich realigned America than that Reagan did.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-27 02:25PM | 0 recs
Re: By 1986

I would definitely say that, without a doubt, Gingrich was a realigning figure and 1994 was a realigning election. We lost a lot of Southern seats that year that likely won't be won back for a generation.

I think Reagan was a realigning figure in that he was the nail in the coffin of the Democratic "Soild South"

In 1976, Jimmy Carter won every single Southern state.

1n 1980, I believe he only won his home state of Georgia.

The Republicans have dominated the electoral college ever since.

But in terms of Congress, you're right: 1994 was the year we dropped off the cliff

by Max Fletcher 2007-07-27 03:16PM | 0 recs
False Equivalence

The notion that Reagan realigned the electorate in a manner similar to FDR is simply false.  The Democrat's embrace of civil rights--starting with Truman and Humphrey in 1948--is what realigned the electorate, turning the once Democratic "Solid South" first into a swing region, then into a Republican "Solid South."  Reagan came in at one point in that process, but did not have any sort of dramatic effect.  In fact, the Democrats made quite healthy gains in the House in 1982, and even won back the Senate in 1986.

What Reagan did do was help provide the umbrella for tranforming elite Washington opinion.  But he was hardly alone in this. The Washington Times was established in 1982, funding for rightwing think-tanks mushroomed during the 1980s, and progressive or merely independent investigative reporters were punished for breaking major stories that made Reagan look bad--such as Raymond Bonner at the NY Times and Robert Parry at AP.

At the same time, corporate America undertook a sharp change in its labor relations, adopting a broad policy of aggressively violating labor laws in order to destroy unions.  They were happy to live with the possibility of eventually paying some slap-on-the-wrist fine for the short-term gain of breaking a union and slashing labor costs by 30-50%.  This naturally had a tremendous impact on the relative political power of labor vs. corporations in DC at the same time that corporate campaign contributions were skyrocketing.

In short, Reagan was just one part of a complex toxic mix that still didn't produce a realignment of the electorate, even though it did produce a realignment in Washington DC.

It was the DC realignment that then propagated all manner of myths about Reagan, including his "mythic bond" with the American people, his realignment of the electorate, etc., etc., etc.

by Paul Rosenberg 2007-07-27 02:34PM | 0 recs
Re: False Equivalence

i don't disagree with anything you wrote. I just see 1980 as the year we once and for all lost the "solid south," though you could make a case for 1964/1968 as well. That was some serious electoral realignment that's been kicking our asses ever since

by Max Fletcher 2007-07-27 03:18PM | 0 recs
Re: False Equivalence

But we didn't lose the South due to Reagan. That was a product of the Southern Strategy and even before that civil rights era. I feel some of you, whether you mean to or not (and I dont think you do), gloss over some key history in understanding what type of leadership works and doesn't.

by bruh21 2007-07-27 03:32PM | 0 recs
Re: False Equivalence

And when we win back the West in the next election (or the one after that or the one after that), it won't be because Barack Obama or John Edwards is just so damn charming. It will be because we've implemented a 50-state strategy and really studied what works and what doesn't as far as pushing our message in those states. Obviously it isn't all about the guy who's running.

But a lot of it is: Reagan represented a tough, bad-ass cowboy figure in stark contrast to a weak, dithering Carter who had been brought to his knees by the Iranians. People saw a need for change, and the change Reagan represented resonated with the South in a way that would catapult the Republican Party to electoral dominance for decades to come. I don't claim Reagan was the sole reason, but he was certainly a part of it

There were no Southern states included in the "Dukakis Group" of 1988.

As strong as Bill Clinton was in 1996, he won only 5/12 Southern states.

I think Obama and Edwards can present a sharp contrast to the Bush Administration in a similar way Reagan presented a sharp contrast to the Carter Administration. As Obama often says, the Bush Administration style of government is one of "can't do, won't do, won't even try." If Obama or Edwards can redefine the middle with a new sensibility about what our responsibilities are too each other, and expose the greed and hypocrisy that is the Republican K-Street culture, than we could reap benefits in a lot of places (like the West) where people see that kind of ideology and say, "that's not who I want representing me. That's not what my country's about."

by Max Fletcher 2007-07-27 08:23PM | 0 recs
Re: False Equivalence

The last year of the Democratic "Solid South" was 1944.

Carter came close in 1976--he only lost Virginia.  But that was 2 years after Watergate, and Carter was the only Deep South candidate to win the Presidency since, well, forever, I guess.

by Paul Rosenberg 2007-07-27 03:39PM | 0 recs
2 years after Watergate

Yes, it was 2 years after Watergate, but Carter didn't perform particularly well outside of the Deep South. Ford took all of the West and a lot of the Northeast.

And Reagan in 1980 was the first Republican candidate (besides Nixon against McGovern in 1972, who won every state but Massachusetts) to sweep the entire South.

Look, I don't like Reagan one bit. I loathe the man and what he did to the country. But he created the image that is the brand that the Republicans have been selling for the past 30 years. The history of the Republican Party takes a sharp (rightward) turn when he wins the nomination in 1980, and the electoral map was similarly altered--I would say realigned

by Max Fletcher 2007-07-27 08:14PM | 0 recs
Carter Won Georgia In 1980.

You're confusing 1980 and 1984.

In 1976 Carter did okay outside the Deep South--he carried almost the entire South and Border States, as well as New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Massachusettes and Rhode Island.

And you're ignoring the fact that Clinton came back and won 4 of 11 states of the Old Confederacy in both 1992 and 1996, plus the Border States.

Not to mention the fact that the Dems took 9 GOP Senate seats in 1986, and lost just one, for a net pickup of 8.  Fully half their pickups were in the South--Alabama, Georgia, Florida and North Carolina--and they split the Border States, picking up Maryland, but losing Missouri.  That's the main reason why you can't credit Reagan with realigning the South.  He helped make it more Republican, to be sure.  But it was already moving that way, and he was unable to help his party hold the majority of its Deep South gains in the Senate from 1980.

by Paul Rosenberg 2007-07-27 11:36PM | 0 recs
Because Carter was from Georgia,

it would have been a complete disaster if he hadn't won.

I know Clinton won 4/11 states in 1992 and 1996, but as a true-blue Southerner running against a Southern import in 1992 and a Midwesterner in 1996, he could have done a lot better.

In my mind, 1968 was the year that the Democrats lost the South, but 1980 was the year the Republicans took it. And I don't think they could have done it with just any candidate: I think a lot of the language and imagery Reagan used (like "welfare queen" and Philadelphia, MS) was designed to deliver the final blow to the Democratic Party in the South. I know the sequence of events had been set in motion a long time before, but I still believe Reagan's campaign finished what the Republicans started in the post-Goldwater years. Consider him the Mariano Rivera of the realignment.

by Max Fletcher 2007-07-28 08:53PM | 0 recs
You Can Twist It However You Want

When you get close up to elections there are all sorts of things you can argue this way or that.  Which is why it's important to also stand back and look at the big picture.

When you do stand back and look at the grand sweep of political power and partisan alignments, the 1932 election stands out because it began a period of almost unbroken Democratic dominance that lasted until 1948 in the Solid South, 1968 in the presidency, 1980 in the Senate and 1994 in the House.

And yet...

Even when the Democrats lost the Solid South, they kept enough national power that they represented the dominant political power.

Even when Eisenhower won the presidency--and briefly, a GOP Congress, there was no thought of repealing the New Deal, as Taft-style conservatives wanted.

Even when Nixon won in 1968, Congressional Democrats continued to push a liberal domestic agenda--for which Nixon is falsely credited to this very day.

Even when Reagan won in 1980--and the GOP took the Senate as well--Democratic control of the House, and the overwhelming sentiments of the American people remained strongly supportive of the American welfare state, and the fundamental New Deal political order.

Even after the "Republican Revolution" of 1994, polls showed that support for the welfare state remained high, and that Clinton's policies were broadly favored over Gingrich's.  Gingrich and The Beltwar punditocracy didn't believe it, of course, which is why Gingrish made such a fool of himself trying to shut the government down later that year--and why Clinton coasted to re-election in 1996.  If Clinton had been a partisan fighter, the Dems could have and should have retaken the House at the same time.  But that wasn't Clinton's priority, and he paid dearly for his narrowly self-interested campaign strategy.

And, even after 9/11, when Bush had 90% approval ratings, the American people still hadn't signed onto the conservative domestic agenda, and though it took a while for the potency of Bush's terror-mongering to wear off, the 2006 elections represented a long-delayed return to reflecting where the American people's domestic priorities have always been since at least 1932.

At no point since 1932 have the Republicans been able to realign the electorate into majority support for their agenda.  They have been able to fast-talk themselves into positions of power, but either compromise (as in the case of Eisenhower) or deception (just about everyone else) has always been required to do that.

And so, yes, all those elections--1948, 1968, 1980, 1994--represented significant points of Republican gains.  But none of them--individually or collectively--rose to the level of what Roosevelt and the Democrats acheived in 1932.  None of them was a true realigning election, none produced a new governing majority.

by Paul Rosenberg 2007-07-28 10:08PM | 0 recs
Re: You Can Twist It However You Want

Absolutely, the Republicans have never won the American people over to their style of governing, but that's because their style of governing is horrendous to the vast majority of the American people. If everyone was voting their own interests, we'd be winning every national election 85%-15%.

But realignment of the electorate isn't about what policies the voters want in their head, or what government programs they support, it's about one thing:

who they vote for.

In 1980, Reagan was a realigning force in that he got a large portion of the electorate (middle and working-class white people) to switch from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party. He demonized urban minorities who, like the white "Reagan Democrats" who he peeled away from us, were the beneficiaries of New Deal and Great Society social programs. In doing so, he was able to convince the nation that government is the "problem" and not the "solution." This change in attitude may be his chief legacy, though "Reaganomics" introduced cutting taxes for the rich as acceptable actions. This new attitude has been dogging us since Reagan left office: the nation has been aligned, if not against our policies, against the word "liberal" and the amorphous evil of "big government." Bill Clinton couldn't (or, maybe, wouldn't) run or govern as a liberal, and we saw the rise of the DLC and the "New Democrat"/"Third Way" sensibility that we're still fighting against.

Remember, the Republican Party doesn't have ambitious policy goals: it's mostly about cutting taxes for its constituency groups, and Reagan and (the current President) Bush were both quite successful by this measure (they were also successful with federal court nominations, though each President appointed a bevy of social conservatives to the federal bench, Bush moreso than Reagan in the case of the Supreme Court).

Again, and especially for Republicans, realignment isn't necessarily about actually getting the American people behind your ideas--it's about getting them to vote for you, to endorse the vague concept that "government is the problem, not the solution" and allow them to dish out no-bid contracts and cut taxes for their cronies. At least that's all the Republican Party has been since I've been alive.

I don't see the Republicans ever having a 1932 of their own, because I honestly don't think their policy beliefs and style of governing is defensible to a large enough majority of the population for that to happen.

by Max Fletcher 2007-07-29 12:13AM | 0 recs
Re: False Equivalence

also see my comment above to bruh21, if you happen to check your hotlist to reply back

by Max Fletcher 2007-07-27 08:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Good Point

I am sure that Obama would realign the electoral map if he were the nominee. It would be a lot redder, generally. If Obama were nominated, he would be easily painted as a liberal pariah, and would lose very handily. His "politics of hope" scthick aside, his voting record in the Senate in the three years he has been there along with his otherwise flimsy resume would be an easy win for the GOP. I hate to see us squander an opportunity by nominating him.

by arkansasdemocrat 2007-07-27 03:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Good Point

His record is no better or worse than any Democrat running. In fact, it mirrors Hillary Clinton's record.

by bruh21 2007-07-27 03:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Good Point

Yes. Their records are similar (but not identical). Note what I posted above about the flimsiness of Obama's resume. Hillary has been in the arena for a lot longer than Obama. She is a known quantity, and though her national negatives are higher, people think that they know who she is. Plus, Barack Obama and others like him are doing her work for her in terms of framing her as sensible moderate. Perfect positioning for a general election. At the same time, Obama is framing himself as a fringe liberal. This is why I think Hillary wins the general, and Obama loses.

by arkansasdemocrat 2007-07-27 03:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Good Point

I disagree. Her record begins in 2000. Not that long. I don't count being first lady. I also don't think the favorables indicates she is seen as sensible. That may change, but as of right now- no one can claim she is liked by the general public enough not to be concerned at our prospect, especially down ticket.

by bruh21 2007-07-27 03:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Good Point

Generally, I would agree with your analysis. Here is why I don't in this instance: Hillary is better known than John Kerry was, the same if not better than Al Gore was, etc. etc. If she is nominated, the Republican filth machine doesn't have any room to fill in the gaps with her. They can certainly sling mud at her (as they have for fifteen years) but it will only entrench the views of those who already don't like her. None of the other Democrats have that advantage. As far as down-ticket races, I don't concede that Hillary would hurt those in this climate. I think that that is an unknown at this point. That is something that will have to play out as the general election unfolds.  What is also unknown is how Obama, as the Democratic nominee in 2008, would help / hurt House and Senate candidates, after he is engaged by the aforementioned Republican filth machine. If he is Swift Boated, he could depress turnout as well. Same is true for Edwards, Dodd, Richardson, etc.

by arkansasdemocrat 2007-07-27 05:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Good Point

Really?  Is that why the Republican banker friends of my in-laws in Lincoln, Nebraska said if Obama were the nominee, theyd have to vote for him.

by DTB in TN 2007-07-27 04:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Good Point

Or is it why my many of the people I know around the country that I correspond with are nervous about Obama? It might why a friend of mine in Boston who has voted for every Democrat since Dukakis says that she would vote for Nader if Obama was nominated.

by arkansasdemocrat 2007-07-27 05:16PM | 0 recs
Belcher was referring to Reagan's optimism

This has nothing to do with the Reagan administration's policies. Belcher was referring to Ronald Reagan's sunny disposition and pleasant personality. Like it or not, a lot of folks disliked Reagan but they still voted for him, and most experts agree it had to do largely with the way he  talked to people who even disagreed with him. We need a candidate who can realign the Democratic party and create a solid majority base for us.

by rosebowl 2007-07-27 01:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Belcher was referring to Reagan's optimism

It's irrelevant what he meant by the comparison- it really is a horrible choice of comparison. Just really really bad.

by bruh21 2007-07-27 01:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Belcher was referring to Reagan's optimism

why is there someone going through giving people 1 ratings for disagreement with their position. I mean this is the same day that they just posted about abusing the ratings system.

by bruh21 2007-07-27 01:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Belcher was referring to Reagan's optimism

Rating comments with whatever one wishes to is not banned in the User Rules.  Only trusted users can troll-rate any comment anyway.  So what exactly is your beef with rating comments according to what you think about them.

by DTB in TN 2007-07-27 01:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Belcher was referring to Reagan's optimism

Here are the guidelines for the MyDD community:

Do not troll rate another user's comment unless it is a comment that violates one of the guidelines. This will result in all your ratings being erased and/or getting a warning.

by DoIT 2007-07-27 02:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Belcher was referring to Reagan's optimism

Giving a 1 is not troll-rating, it's low-rating.  ONLY trusted users can troll-rate.

by DTB in TN 2007-07-27 02:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Belcher was referring to Reagan's optimism

its abusing the system. If you want to disagree with my points - make your point- to use the rating to rate me a one is clear abuse. So stop spininng bad behavior.

by bruh21 2007-07-27 02:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Belcher was referring to Reagan's optimism

You say abuse; I say it is expressing an opinion, a negative one.  If you'd like to go to the refs, please do.

by DTB in TN 2007-07-27 02:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Belcher was referring to Reagan's optimism

given how many of you are spinning bad strategies here as a good one, i am not really surprised anymore at your say anything approach. by the way, not that you will hear, but if you really supported your candidate here's a free piece of advice: the only thing that happens if no one tells the emperor that he doesn't have clothes on, is that you get a naked emperor- or in your case a failed presidential candidate run.

by bruh21 2007-07-27 02:23PM | 0 recs
You Use WORDS To Express An Opinion

Rating someone down because you disagree with them simply shows that you lack confidence in your own ability to communicate.

Perhaps with good reason.

by Paul Rosenberg 2007-07-27 02:37PM | 0 recs
Re: You Use WORDS To Express An Opinion

Really? Because I thought responding to his squawking about the rating was using words to support an opinion I hold.  Should I use different words perhaps?  Should I allow you to tell me what words to use?  Maybe I should just give up and let you tell me what my thoughts should be too?  Are there opinions I should not express?  

You just let me know the proper way to invoke my ideas, opinions, etc., if any should meet your lofty definitions for such.

by DTB in TN 2007-07-27 02:51PM | 0 recs
Re: You Use WORDS To Express An Opinion

some of you clearly need to be banned. you aren't interested in disagreement or argument. simply wasting time.

by bruh21 2007-07-27 03:36PM | 0 recs
Re: You Use WORDS To Express An Opinion

If MyDD banned everyone you said it should ban, there'd by no one left. This is at least the second time on this thread I've seen you essentially say "I hope you get banned" as a way to end an argument.

by This Machine Kills Fascists 2007-07-27 04:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Belcher was referring to Reagan's optimism

A 1 is a troll rating.

by clarkent 2007-07-27 02:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Belcher was referring to Reagan's optimism

So if a Republican candidate says he envies Bill Clinton's '92 run for the presidency, is that apostasy too? I mean, getting all wound up over the littlest of things is really crazy to me. So is Sen. Jim Webb an apostate for using Reagan in a tv ad? Any mention of Reagan is heresy, right? This has nothing to do with Reagan's policies, it has to do with his personality.

C'mon guys, we're better than this.

by rosebowl 2007-07-27 01:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Belcher was referring to Reagan's optimism

one of the things that's really starting to bother me here are posters such as yourself. You ask a faux question, then assume the answer and then chatise us for some perceived wrong. The point here as I have said is the perception of involking Reagan and its impact on the Democratic primaries. That many of you are defending this by seriously changing the argument made says that you aren't interested in discussing how to even make your candidate have a fighting chance. For the record, yes, it would be extremely dumb of a GOP candidate running in a Republican primary to use Clinton, for whatever reason, assuming that candidate wanted to win. If Obama is uninterested in winning, then yes you are right- symbolism and its impact isn't relevant

by bruh21 2007-07-27 02:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Belcher was referring to Reagan's optimism

I agree.  Why are people being so touchy?  I'm sure he drop this strategy and I doubt any harm will come of it.  

by bookgrl 2007-07-27 02:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Belcher was referring to Reagan's optimism

Actually, Obama is very interested in winning and this is why he is trying to reach out to disaffected partisans. This is the only way he can survive a general election campaign. Obama has to overcome the latent issue of racial prejudice at the polling box. He has to do everything within his campaign's power to expand his voting base in order to prevail. Oh, and Obama is not going to run Reagan images in his ads. Rest assured.

by rosebowl 2007-07-27 02:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Belcher was referring to Reagan's optimism

what is the make up of the Democratic primary vote in SC? Do you know? I doubt it because you keep saying things that demostrate don't. Trying to gain one set of voter by turning off the main source of your vote in the primary strikes me as beyond stupid- it's suicidal.

by bruh21 2007-07-27 02:25PM | 0 recs
How Reagan Talked?

Like he talked in Philadelphia Mississippi?

This is revisionst history at its worst.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-27 02:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome attacks Obama

What else is new? I've come to (at least) expect one or two weekly attacks on Obama by Jerome.

by AnthonyMason2k6 2007-07-28 05:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

Yes I have been making the point all day , why does he keep talking about Regan , Obama must have brought it up like 3 times in the youtube debate , I just don't get it , he is AA and he should know Regan is poison , what is he thinking.

He should actually have stuck to Regan's principle:
 Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow dem. Thats acceptable

by lori 2007-07-27 12:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

Stop with the negative SPIN, read the transcript, he is not comparing himself to Reagan at all.  And post a LINK with Obama comparing himself to REAGAN.  If you can not, then the next conclusion is you are stating a LIE.

by icebergslim 2007-07-27 01:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

This coming from someone who wants everyone banned that disagrees with their comments, attempts to turn you into someone named "bebe" and has the nerve to talk about negative spin. Give me a freaking break. Please take note MyDD of one of the biggest hypocrites on your blog.

Now let me enter the spin zone, when icebergslim is blogging, lovingj in no where to be found. Are they the same person? Please excuse my sarcasm.

by lonnette33 2007-07-27 03:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

Cornell Belcher was a black man in the 80s when Reagan was president, so he may actually know what happened to black people then, maybe even-you know-relatives of his.  But I'm sure if he has questions, you will be happy to answer them for him, maybe tell him what, as a black man, he should be thinking about Edwards or Clinton or the internet or the N-word/Imus.  I'm sure your expertise in this regard knows no end.

by DTB in TN 2007-07-27 12:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

Cornell is Black? OMG . I didn't even know that. Now, I really think this argument is obnoxious. I'm sorry but I have a serious problem with people telling Blacks how WE feel about the issues concerning us. It's starting to go from rude and arrogant to just plain offensive. My Black mother and father voted for Carter, Regan and Clinton BTW.

by BlueDiamond 2007-07-27 01:06PM | 0 recs
You are a Reagan Fan?

Fuckin A.

Just fucking incredible.

Are you telling me how African Americans felt about REAGAN?

Fuckin A.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-27 02:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

your  mother is in the extreme sizeable minority. you are arguing against historicl and actual voting fact.

by bruh21 2007-07-27 02:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

Well, if you reall want be accurate, NO PRESIDENT except Lincoln, Kennedy and Johnson , did jack smack for Blacks in this nation except pander and make promises they never kept. Not a single one of them derserve a single ounce of credit for anything.

by BlueDiamond 2007-07-27 03:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

I am african american. I am from the South- was there during the Reagan era. This comparison- regardless of what it is for- is just bad politics.

by bruh21 2007-07-27 01:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

Me too. Me too. And I think he meant to emphasize the Reagan frame of hope and strength.  I find trying to adopt the resonant frames of a 'successful' 2-term presidency good poliics.

by DTB in TN 2007-07-27 01:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

You think him mentioning Reagan will create symbols of hope and strength amongst African American voters down South? Sorry, but I instantly question whether you are even an Obama supporter to say this. No one in their right mind would ever think talking to African Americans about Reagan- regarlddless of why- is a good thing. The only thing people will hear when you bring up Reagan - is Reagan. Nothing else. THats per se bad for your candidate. It's really that simple. But please spin this in your own mind as much as you want. You make it easier for my candidate.

by bruh21 2007-07-27 02:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

First the Obama camp comes out and says it's legitimate to call Hillary Bush-Cheney Lite and now they are embracing the "idealism" of Reagan. Surely someone in their campaign realizes how divisive these two actions are.

by DoIT 2007-07-27 02:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

I think their strategist is an idiot, and the supporters here give me understanding of why. A legitimate argument that is actually meant to help their candidate is seen as attack and bias. It's truly odd to read how many people here totally misconscrue the nature of the diary, much less the actual substance of it. I can only conclude that some of these people simply have no idea how others perceive these actions.

by bruh21 2007-07-27 02:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

Reagan could only create visions of sunshine and hope in idiots, wingnuts and blue dogs.

by dkmich 2007-07-27 03:25PM | 0 recs
WTF?

Seriously, WTF????

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-27 02:27PM | 0 recs
Re: WTF?

Well, seriously...

It is generally not acceptable to disavow complex thought in other sentient people.  It is possible 1) to have been black in the 80s and to have been able to recognize Reagan's strengths and weaknesses with respect to your subclass and 2) to seek to use a gloss on those same strengths in a different key to help a current candidate.  

Yes, Reagan loosened to clock screws that the current Supreme Court has now started to vigorously turn back.  I was there too.   And unlike you, I was black and in the South.  But I also remember Congressional Democrats going along with his cutbacks and defense increases (yes, Sam Nunn, I mean you).  So, when you tell black people what they should think about Reagan, what the historical record shows, you are talking about the record from your vantage point.  You measure black support by votes, and he didn't get many.  That fails to acknowledge the collusion black Democrats felt many Congressional Dems offered Reagan and fails to grasp the rationale for Jackson's run in 1984 and 1988.  Jesse wasn't trying to convince Reagan Republicans of something but the establishment of the Democratic Party.

This endless need to point out everything wrong with Obama's nuancing and to front page it speaks to this intellectual disrespect.  What I was trying to get at is that disrespect.

by DTB in TN 2007-07-27 03:14PM | 0 recs
Re: WTF?

Excusde me, you just utterly contradicted yourself and also pulled an "oh by the way" by criticizing Southern Dems.

So explain to me again why you LIKED Reagan?

You comment simply makes no sense in the context of this thread.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-27 03:30PM | 0 recs
Re: WTF?

I never said I liked Reagan, and I never did.  What I said was Belcher is allowed to see qualities in Reagan that were helpful to him in gaining and keeping the presidency.  He wasn't talking about liking Reagan per se and neither am I.

by DTB in TN 2007-07-27 03:36PM | 0 recs
Re: WTF?

Excuse me, the political lessons for Reagan were the Southern Strategy, resentment politics and race baiting.

There is no bigger lie than the argument that Reagan was about hope and optimism.

His was a Paranoid Style politics. As complete an example of that since Barry Goldwater.

I honestly believe you folks really have no knowledge of how Reagan the politician worked.

It is mindboggling to me.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-27 03:45PM | 0 recs
Re: WTF?

Really?  The Southern Strategy was a Nixon undertaking; it did not start with Reagan.  It was, in fact, Nixon and his peeps who coined the term.  To give Reagan the credit is historically inaccurate; he was still governing California when it came into focus.  If you really think Reagan politics were more paranoid-style than Nixon's, well...I just can't help you see.  NO ONE ELSE who knows the history will agree with you.

I know how Reagan worked; I just think you don't.  I was living just outside Mississippi when he spoke in Philadelphia, MS.  My father had grown up in MS and so had my grandparents.  That night after the newscast my father said, "Reagan is talking about turning back the clock."  I think maybe you all want your dog whistle to work better. Sorry...

by DTB in TN 2007-07-27 03:58PM | 0 recs
Re: WTF?

How does the fact Nixon started Southern strategy take away from teh fact Reagan used it. I am begining to think you are a troll.

by bruh21 2007-07-27 04:05PM | 0 recs
Re: WTF?

A troll how?  Because I disagree with you and rate you according to the strength of that disagreement?  Honestly, this troll talk seems to be for the purpose of blotting out discontent with the status quo here.

by DTB in TN 2007-07-27 04:10PM | 0 recs
Re: WTF?

How about the factual point that Reagn DID USE the Southern Strategy?

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-27 04:14PM | 0 recs
Re: WTF?

He did indeed.  And so did Nixon before him.  And so did Bush and Lee Atwater afterward.  And so did Shrub.  This means what exactly?

by DTB in TN 2007-07-27 04:22PM | 0 recs
Re: WTF?

I suggest you ask Cornell Belcher who expressed admiration for Reagan's political methods.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-27 05:25PM | 0 recs
Re: WTF?

You are completely just making up arguments as you go with out any historical relationship to what actually happened or what AAs presently feel about Reagan down South. I can't believe that anyone is so naive as to believe things you are spouting who doesn't want ill intent for Obama. I just mentioned to this to a few conservative AA friends just to make sure I am not crazy on this. None of them agreed with you.

by bruh21 2007-07-27 04:20PM | 0 recs
Re: WTF?

AA conservatives? Now that is a rare species.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-27 04:23PM | 0 recs
Re: WTF?

yeah- they are a weird, but whatever they are still democratic if only barely that.

by bruh21 2007-07-27 04:27PM | 0 recs
Re: WTF?

i should say they have voted democratic, because they also vote republican too.

by bruh21 2007-07-27 04:28PM | 0 recs
Re: WTF?

I am an AA who lives in the South.  I know how I feel about Reagan.  I have about 500 first and second cousins just in this state.  With the exception of one Republican in-law, I think I know how they view Reagan.  I am convinced that his name, especially now that he's dead, is not the dog-whistle you want it to be.  In fact, I know it isn't.  You want to say that Belcher and by extension Obama is travelling into deep doo-doo here.  He is not.

by DTB in TN 2007-07-27 04:34PM | 0 recs
Re: WTF?

I think you are liar at this point, and I don't believe a word you type. Good luck becuase i am going to stop wasting my time with you.

by bruh21 2007-07-27 04:36PM | 0 recs
Re: WTF?

I rated you a 1 for the comment that called me liar.  Do you think that's fair?  I can prove what I say is true to anyone actually interested in the truth.  Can you?  My maternal grandfather had 20 siblings: eight whole siblings from his natural mother and 12 step-siblings from his step-mother.  Each sibling had between 7 and 14 children.  My maternal grandmother had 13 siblings, 9 of whom lived to adulthood who had between 5 and 9 children each.  And that's just the maternal side of my family.

You reputation for calling people trolls who have a divergent opinion is growing just on this thread.

Just for future reference, I do not lie.  You should be careful about throwing that charge around, especially when there is living, breathing proof for what I'm saying.

by DTB in TN 2007-07-27 05:01PM | 0 recs
Re: WTF?

Really? No kidding.

Who said Reagan inveneted it?

Guess what, Reagan did not invent Paranoid Politics.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-27 04:14PM | 0 recs
Re: WTF?

I don't know what thread you mean, since the parent comment to your original WTF? was mine, and it was about Cornell Belcher probably being well-acquainted with black Southerners' feelings about Reagan.

by DTB in TN 2007-07-27 03:39PM | 0 recs
Re: WTF?

This entire thread and the post which started it.

You just confirmed Jerome's point.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-27 03:45PM | 0 recs
Re: WTF?

Seriously- you are a troll against Obama? You have to be to have written that line.

by bruh21 2007-07-27 04:04PM | 0 recs
Re: WTF?

To what line do you refer?

by DTB in TN 2007-07-27 04:08PM | 0 recs
Jerome

Bail out, LOL. I'm waiting for more whinings on your bias.

by areyouready 2007-07-27 12:53PM | 0 recs
Obama (R) ?

Invoking Reagan is as stupid as promising to meet with Castro and Ahmadinejad.  

Tell me again the up-side for Democrats in pissing off the Jews and Cubans and handing Florida's electoral votes to the GOP on a silver-platter?

by BigBoyBlue 2007-07-27 12:54PM | 0 recs
To start with...

it's good policy.  It's kind of sad that Clinton supporters choose to make the argument over politics.

by Ramo 2007-07-27 01:01PM | 0 recs
I agree.

I like Obama (he's neck and neck with Edwards as far as my preference goes), but I cringe whenever he brings up Reagan.  He should stop.

by Ramo 2007-07-27 12:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

Seems like a comparison of the Reagan model for getting elected, not the Reagan model for governing. That's a very important distinction...I wouldn't in my wildest dreams believe that Obama would be Reaganesque in terms of his policies or methods.

A little too simple of a concept for Jerome to have devoted to it a front-page post.

by mihan 2007-07-27 12:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

I think he should model his campaign like JFk not Reagan.

by lori 2007-07-27 12:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

He has already chosen his model. As he himself said: There are No Do Overs.

by DoIT 2007-07-27 02:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

Yes there are.  He can easily drop the Reagan routine, and I hope he does.

by bookgrl 2007-07-27 02:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

I really hope you are right. I remember when Reagan came on National TV to state that AIDS was a gay disease. It was one of the worst statements I have ever heard from any President. Completely irresponsible and obviously dangerous. A preamble to and role model for Bush/Cheney.

by DoIT 2007-07-27 02:48PM | 0 recs
Oh, I know. He was so god awful. nt

by bookgrl 2007-07-27 03:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

You must havew no freaking conception of how Reagan politicked.

Racial code words and utter divisiveness.

IS every Obama supporter 10 years old?

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-27 02:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

I am begining to wonder that too. It's like they don't want him to win. These things aren't even close historical calls. And more to the point-they are depending on winning in states like SC with heavy AA votes- don't they know how to will hurt him?

by bruh21 2007-07-27 02:41PM | 0 recs
This supporter is grown and tired of the attacks

I am a supporter of Barack Obama, well past my childhood, and black and have no problem with the Reagan acknowledgment. To me this is no different than the countless republicans who despise Bill Clinton but are quick to admire his political skill. Yes, the very ones who impeached him, praise him for his political abilities. (Note Huckabee often refers to Clinton even now). This isn't rocket science for anyone who doesn't have an obvious bias.

by commoncents 2007-07-27 04:36PM | 0 recs
Re: This supporter

I don't know a single black person- highly educated to poor with 5th grade education who ever viewed Reagan in a postive life. My town voted republican 65 to 70 percent so its not by any stretch liberal. So when you people comin gon here making shit up- know that I know you are making shit up.

by bruh21 2007-07-27 04:38PM | 0 recs
Re: This supporter

I didn't say I support Reagan. I personally despised him. Hell, he is the reason I becam interested in politics. But as I said, just as republicans who despise Bill Clinton can praise his political skills, it is possible for a black person to respect Reagan's political skills. Geez, did I not say that simply enough.

by commoncents 2007-07-27 04:50PM | 0 recs
Re: This supporter

work on your reading skills and go back and read what said rather than what you think i said

by bruh21 2007-07-27 04:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

IS every Obama supporter 10 years old?

I sometimes wonder that very thing. Not meant as a put down, but as a serious question. They have no clue.

by DoIT 2007-07-27 02:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

Yes, you're very fair. "Do you have the brain capacity of a fourth grader? And I don't mean that as an insult, of course."

by This Machine Kills Fascists 2007-07-27 03:05PM | 0 recs
well, nineteen

To be technical, born just after Reagan, just old enough to vote. For them the history of the Democratic party began in 1994 and the history of progressivism began with Bush's Iraq war.

by souvarine 2007-07-27 03:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

Most of them are extremely young.  I can't count how many times I have read that one or the other of them is 19 or 21 years old.  Their first presidential election, it seems.  History is only as deep as what they read (or choose not to) instead of having lived it.  

by georgep 2007-07-27 04:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

Ah, and now we finally see the inner motivation for the famous georgep. It's so simple...you're just grumpy, aren't you?

by This Machine Kills Fascists 2007-07-27 04:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

no he makes a valid point about how experience matters as much as the ability to argue. many of you do sound like me during 1992 when I first got into politics.

by bruh21 2007-07-27 04:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

No, his point seems to be based on the idea that experience is the ONLY thing that matters. He goes as far to suggest that legal, voting adults at age 19 or 21 don't have the experience necessary to make informed decisions at the polling place. Sorry, I'm not buying this "age=wisdom" bullshit...just because you're experienced doesn't mean you've made good decisions.

by This Machine Kills Fascists 2007-07-27 04:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

I think the point being made is that people of that age range did not live through the Reagan times. They know about it from what they have read or heard from others. And the myth has grown. Therefore they have no real "experience" with the subject.

by DoIT 2007-07-27 04:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

Yes, I understand that point, but I'm not positive that it's valid. I mean, sure, people of one generation didn't live through the 80s, but the generation before them didn't live through the 60s and 70s, and the one before them didn't live through the 40s and 50s, and so on. My point is that every generation has experiences, and every generation knows things because they have only read or heard about them. That doesn't necessarily make them wrong about voicing an opinion.

by This Machine Kills Fascists 2007-07-27 11:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

Actually I lived through the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s and the last time I checked, I was still living through the 00s. I am not discounting a person's opinion only because they did not live through a certain time. The point I am making is that there is a difference between living something and reading about it. And many of the people that come out in support of Reagan have not an inkling of what he was truly like. If they knew he was a racist, a sexist, a classist, a corporatist and a homophobe, I doubt they would be championing his strategies.

He brought people together to tear them apart.

by DoIT 2007-07-28 06:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

So you've clearly got everyone beat in the experience department. But I still don't think Obama people in this thread were coming out in support of Reagan. I think they were trying to defend the idea the Obama could be "the Reagan of the left," meaning broad electoral support with Democratic ideas rather than Republican ones.

by This Machine Kills Fascists 2007-07-28 10:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

I did not equate experience with good judgement.  That is just the framing you choose to use to justify your bizarre response to me.    

It is just that if you LIVED it you have a more nuanced view of reality back then.  It is like the 60s.  If you have not lived through them, how can you REALLY know how people felt back then?  I was born in 61, so I would certainly not assume that I can really talk about the issues of that time with a true understanding.   The one-dimensional way Reagan is being invoked here by many of the younger Obama's supporters is an insult to most Democrats because we actually lived through the jerk's manipulative and dehumanized ways.   Thus, we have Obama posters act as if the posters here who would find what Obama's poster said offensive are just full of crap.  

by georgep 2007-07-27 06:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

So far, the talk from these "Obama supporters" you gripe about hasn't been about how great Reagan was or how people who "lived through" him just misunderstood what he was all about...it's been about how the post misconstrued Belcher's argument as praise of Reagan's policies rather than an example of his electoral popularity (which coming from a polling person makes sense).  I chose my "bizarre response" because you voiced a common complaint that Obama supporters are all young, therefore inexperienced, therefore ignorant of how the world really works - that pisses me off, I'm sorry. It's untrue, it's condescending, it's irritating.

by This Machine Kills Fascists 2007-07-27 11:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

  I merely voiced an opinion based on what I have observed from many here, as they tell us their ages.  It is of course not ALL supporters, but many.  More than with the other candidates, which makes sense, as we know that Obama has most of his support in the youth category.   With that comes the issue that many of his supporters simply have not lived through the Reagan years (politically conscious,) mostly read about them.    There is nothing wrong with what I said, and your violent response to my post appears way over the top, IMO.  

by georgep 2007-07-27 05:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

"Violent?" You wanna talk about over the top, I mean come on. I think you confuse "violent" with "snarky." And you're just being untrue (and condescending) when you say "Obama has most of his support in the youth category."

All I called you was "grumpy." If that's a troll-rate-able offense now, so be it. But can you understand how a comment that essentially said "Obama supporters are all young, they don't know anything about the politics of this country" could come across as maybe possibly a little bit grumpy? (Please don't 1-rate me again!)

by This Machine Kills Fascists 2007-07-27 11:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

Apparently you didn't even read my post before you responded. But is it really necessary to try and personally attack people with whom you disagree? I didn't attack you...only disagreed with what Jerome wrote.

Is that what this debate has come to? WTF are you thinking?

by mihan 2007-07-27 04:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

Excuse me, you wrote this:

Seems like a comparison of the Reagan model for getting elected, not the Reagan model for governing. That's a very important distinction...I wouldn't in my wildest dreams believe that Obama would be Reaganesque in terms of his policies or methods.

Do you realize  that Reagan's "model for getting elected" was PARTICULARLY DESPICABLE?!?

That that5 in fact, was Reagan's METHODS?!?

Your method, on the other hand, isd to remain ignorant of Reagan's history and to troll rate disagreement.

You got some fucking nerve to be complaining. You seem ignorant of what Jerome is actually talking about. I ask yopu an honest question. How old were you in 1980?

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-27 05:24PM | 0 recs
God forbid he choose a Democrat

The Obama/Axelrod fear of partisanship is disquieting.

by andgarden 2007-07-27 12:58PM | 0 recs
Re: God forbid he choose a Democrat

For example, I heard there was once this great president who saved the world from fascism, saved capitalism while building some semblance of social democracy in America, and remade American politics through a combination of righteous outrage and unbridled optimism - FDR.  And he was a Democrat.

by Peter from WI 2007-07-27 05:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

Reagan, I think the point is that while we may all of good reason to dislike everything about Reagan what is obvious is that most American's liked and voted for Ronald Reagan, and I think what Obama is trying to do is, to be a Reagan of the Left.  What Reagan did was ignore the Democratic base as hopeless but pound merciless at soft-Democratic support. Obama unlike Hillary could in theory win Reagan like margins, which I believe is Mr. Belcher only point.

by Democraticavenger 2007-07-27 12:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

I think part of the point though is that referencing Reagan (mulitple times) references the symbol that is Reagan - a conservative icon.

Why does he keep taking great pains to sidle up to the GOP?

by Peter from WI 2007-07-27 01:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

Reagan was a die-hard partisan.  It is just that the country had shifted to the right after Carter had a bad spell with the economy,  the long hostage crisis.   So, they thought he was weak and were looking for the opposite direction.   Only later did we find out that Reagan was a downright evil and criminal man (Iran-contra) and there are strong reasons to believe Reagan made a deal with the Ayatollah to release hostages only AFTER the election, not before.    

Nothing about Obama is die-hard partisan.  NOTHING.  If anything, he coddles the right way too much, considers himself somewhat "conservative" and has obvious disdain for the "radical left."    

by georgep 2007-07-27 04:31PM | 0 recs
Misinformation

[Obama] considers himself somewhat "conservative" and has obvious disdain for the "radical left."

You are referencing Obama's interview with George Stephanopoulos, in which Obama said:

I have the capacity to get people to recognize themselves in each other...I have the ability to make people get
beyond some of the divisions that plague our society and to focus on common sense and reason and that's been
in short supply over the last several years. I'm not an ideologue, never have been. Even during my younger days,
when I was tempted by, you know, sort of more radical or left wing politics, there was a part of me that always
was a little bit conservative in that sense; that believes that you make progress by sitting down listening to people,
recognizing everybody's concerns, seeing other people's points of views and then making decisions.

When you diaried this earlier today, you spun Obama's comment this way:

Obama actually equates "sitting down and listening to people, recognizing everybody's concerns, seeing other
people's points of view" with conservatism. And he considers that a good thing when compared to the "more
radical or left wing politics."

This is pure demagoguery. As I've already explained to you once today:

Obama was using "conservative" as a synonym for "non-ideological," and he was doing that to contrast
his approach with the approach that characterized the "more radical or left-wing politics" on offer during his
"younger days." When he said that "you make progress by sitting down and listening to people, recognizing
everybody's concerns, seeing other people's points of view and then making decisions," he wasn't necessarily
distancing himself from the content of those "more radical or left-wing politics." Nor was he equating his
preferred approach with capital-C Conservatism. He was equating it with leadership.

by horizonr 2007-07-27 07:07PM | 0 recs
Hello to Sen. Jim Webb

New day, same Obama bashing tripe. There are Republicans who envy Bill Clinton's '92 and '96 campaigns for president. Does that make them any less Republican?

And oh Jerome, Senator Jim Webb, used Reagan in his ad campaign. Is he anti- Democratic too?

Look for another Obama bashing diary to appear soon from the usual suspects.

by rosebowl 2007-07-27 12:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Hello to Sen. Jim Webb

And oh Jerome, Senator Jim Webb, used Reagan in his ad campaign. Is he anti- Democratic too?

Uh, he worked for the guy:

...During his four years with the Reagan administration, Webb served as the first Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, then as Secretary of the Navy...
He switched parties. Somehow, Webb was supposed to leave a significant hole in his resume when making his case to the voters?

I don't believe you're trying to tell us you think Obama switched parties, are you?

by Michael Bersin 2007-07-27 01:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Hello to Sen. Jim Webb

No. But the same people who are attacking Obama's pollster are the same people who attacked Webb for using Reagan in his TV ads.

Sen. Webb could have opted to not run Reagan in his TV ad. Afterall, he was running as a Democrat. Webb run Reagan in his ad because he knew that despite some misgivings among some in the Democratic party, as a whole Reagan was still respected by people of all political persuasions in terms of his personality.

This is what Cornell Belcher was referring -- i.e. Reagan's capacity to draw people of all political persuasions even if they disagreed with him on policy issues.

 

by rosebowl 2007-07-27 01:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Hello to Sen. Jim Webb
...as a whole Reagan was still respected by people of all political persuasions in terms of his personality...

Seriously, I'd like to see any data you might have on that.
by Michael Bersin 2007-07-27 01:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Hello to Sen. Jim Webb

Well, here's one:

1984 electoral college results:
Reagan: 525
Mondale: 13

You don't do that without appealing to people of all political persuasions - I don't specifically recall, but I doubt the Republicans the majority in 49 states back then.

by ThinkerT 2007-07-27 03:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Hello to Sen. Jim Webb

yeah - that had nothing to do with Mondale. And it certainly has nothing to do with winner take all electoral colleges. And it certainly proves that AAs in SC will be interested in hearing about Reagan

by bruh21 2007-07-27 03:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Hello to Sen. Jim Webb

provide links to people attaching Webb for his use of Reagan in the general. better yet link to where Webb used such language in the primary. Which is what we are in right now.

by bruh21 2007-07-27 02:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Hello to Sen. Jim Webb

His link to Reagan was in the general election and was going for GE votes including many conservatives. We are talking about primary votes amongst Democrats.

by bruh21 2007-07-27 01:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Hello to Sen. Jim Webb

True enough, but its not like Obama is invoking Reagan to win over Democrats, unless its in a clearly meta-sense of analyzing just what his appeal was, and using a similar tack to win over former Reagan Democrats as well as Independents and fed-up Republicans. He does that repeatedly in his book.

And here, its not Obama invoking it but his pollster-- and not before a group of Democratic voters, but in a political publication CLEARLY EXPLAINING their strategy.

by sip1983 2007-07-27 01:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Hello to Sen. Jim Webb

It doesn't matter what his motivation is. The fact he used this language can be used by HRC against him. Many of you see politically naive about how much you can control what things mean. The use of a symbol like this amongst AAs - not matter the reason will not go overwell.

by bruh21 2007-07-27 02:05PM | 0 recs
Obama on Reagan
The analogies to Reagan aren't about his policies about the desire to see a Democratic game-changer, a transformational figure in American politics.  Obama wrote about Reagan in The Audacity of Hope.  Some choice quotes:
[I was] disturbed ... by Ronald Reagan's election in 1980 ... unconvinced ... by his John Wayne, "Father Knows Best" pose, his policy by anecdote, and his gratuitous assaults on the poor.
He credits President Reagan's "clarity about communism" but regrets that it "seemed matched by his blindness regarding other sources of misery in the world."

I don't have the book with me, or I would quote the passage more fully.
by psericks 2007-07-27 12:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Reagan

Typo -- "but about the desire..."

by psericks 2007-07-27 01:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Reagan

While you are at it, find the passages in the book that discuss Cheney and Bush.  Surely he bashed those losers, right?   What is it you are saying?  He actually called Cheney and Bush "normal and nice people" in an effort to defend them?   Alrighty then.  

BTW, I would like you to explain this passage of an interview in which Obama stated the difference between what it means to be a "conservative" and part of the "radical left."   I would like to get your read on that:

""I think that I have the capacity to get people to recognize themselves in each other. I think that I have the ability to make people get beyond some of the divisions that plague our society and to focus on common sense and reason and that's been in short supply over the last several years. I'm not an ideologue, never have been. Even during my younger days when I was tempted by, you know, sort of more radical or left wing politics, there was a part of me that always was a little bit conservative in that sense; that believes that you make progress by sitting down listening to people, recognizing everybody's concerns, seeing other people's points of views and then making decisions." - Barack Obama (on ABC's "This Week")  

by georgep 2007-07-27 04:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Reagan
That's easy.  
He's opposing "conservative" to "revolutionary" here.  He obviously isn't saying it's Republican to listen to people: Obama complains bitterly about Reagan's deafness to the poor.
All Obama is saying here is that he never much went in for revolutionary politics as a young person -- he is more in favor of making decisions after listening to all points of view, honestly recognizing other's concerns, etc.
by psericks 2007-07-31 07:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Reagan

Well since Obama admits that he just makes shit up in his book to come off sounding better, I consider your quotes useless.

by DoIT 2007-07-27 01:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Reagan

I don't usually say anything about troll ratings because to me they say more about the person giving them than anything about the poster. But since the policy for ratings was diaried today and DTB in TN has trolled me and others on this thread, I think the poster should be called on it. At a minimum the poster should have the courage to explain their rating.

by DoIT 2007-07-27 01:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Reagan

I rated you a 1, and 4 other people rated you after me. Since you're now up to 1.4, I think my rating speaks, with reinforcement, for itself.

by DTB in TN 2007-07-27 03:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama on Reagan

You're confusing the books anyway.  It was for his first book, before he had a political career, that he had a disclaimer at the beginning saying that names had been changed, etc.

by psericks 2007-07-27 03:37PM | 0 recs
Just one question.

Look, I'm not anti-Obama

I know this is your site but I was curious what you really thought about Obama's candidacy.  How about dedicating one of your posts to discuss your views of Obama so we will all know.

Let's assume for the moment you are not anti-Obama.  Why is he the target of all your criticisms?  Could you show me one post that you ever wrote from start to end that showed Obama in a positive light?  This is all out of curiosity of course because I know you are not obligated to answer but inquiring minds want to know.

by lovingj 2007-07-27 12:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher

Last time i checked,Obama was leading Giuliani in every head-tohead poll while at the same time, doing much better then Hillary when she ws polled against Giuliani on national polls.

by JaeHood 2007-07-27 01:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher

Last time I checked ... Edwards was kicking everyone's ass as well .. I saw one poll today where Rudy was beating HRC.

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2007-07-27 01:09PM | 0 recs
Ah yes...those glorious

days of transcending partisan divisions:

At Trent Lott's suggestion...

Philadelphia, county seat of Mississippi's Neshoba County, is famous for a couple of things. That is where three civil rights workers -- Michael Schwerner, James Chaney and Andrew Goodman -- were murdered in 1964. And that is where, in 1980, Republican presidential candidate Ronald Reagan chose to launch his election campaign, with a ringing endorsement of "states' rights."

It was bitter symbolism for black Americans (though surely not just for black Americans). Countless observers have noted that Reagan took the Republican Party from virtual irrelevance to the ascendancy it now enjoys. The essence of that transformation, we shouldn't forget, is the party's successful wooing of the race-exploiting Southern Democrats formerly known as Dixiecrats. And Reagan's Philadelphia appearance was an important bouquet in that courtship.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/art icles/A39345-2004Jun13.html

by david mizner 2007-07-27 01:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Ah yes...those glorious

still here, my friend. Edwards and Hillary are DLC, the new Dixiecrats. Ah, the hypocrisy of those DLCers calling Obama exploitative. Check out their donors and let me know if they're the grassroots Democrats you really want to merely act like they're running an election against Republicans. As I recall, Gore and Kerry, both DLC, just let their wins go. Fascinating.

by VCubed 2007-07-28 12:16AM | 0 recs
Huh?

He's not Reaganesque in his policies AT ALL.

He's somewhat Reaganesque in his ability to transcend ideology and unite the country behind a Democrat platform.  He's the leftist Reagan, our chance to take back this country and make a real difference for once.  As opposed to the Clinton years. . .

by ReggieH 2007-07-27 01:01PM | 0 recs
Transcend ideology??? Reagan

developed an ideology that has had us on the wrong track for the past 30 years.  He deployed a mocked up race and class based southern strategy.  That's how he united people.

by bookgrl 2007-07-27 01:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

Well, no kidding, I've been making this point for days.  Hopefully, he will drop this strategy immediately.  I nearly keeled over when he mentioned Reagan twice during the Democratic debate.  My guess is this is a strategy to woo independents but I really see this as a huge negative.  I don't think you have to be all that old to remember how divisive Reagan was.  He had this way of being a faux-uniter.  He'd talk about we Americans, but he only meant some Americans, those who were not poor, not black, not gay, not liberal.  The Reagan Revolution has only now crested.  I don't think if you are trying to be the Democratic standard bearer you want to be projecting Reagan right now.  However, I have faith this strategy will die quickly.

by bookgrl 2007-07-27 01:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

The Jerome Armstrong anti-Obama train keeps chugging...

What the Obama campaign is saying is that Reagan represented hope, optimism, and new leadership to many repubs. Obama is attempting to brand himself in the same way to dems.

Number two, the Obama campaign is trying to emulate the "insurgent Reagan campaign" as the underdog who goes on to defeat the establisment candidate.

Bottomline is that the campaign is not comparing themselves with Reagan on any ideological fronts, but on they way they are trying to model their campaign.

Third, I didn't know Jerome Armstrong is an "older black American".

Fourth, Cornell Belcher actually is an "older black American"....but I guess Jerome Armstrong knows more about his life then he does.

by blueprint 2007-07-27 01:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

Choo choo, keep it coming.  The starry-eyed could stand to get hit by the train of political reality from time to time.

by Peter from WI 2007-07-27 01:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

This takes it: the most pompus comment I've ever seen on MyDD. Congratulations, because that's a hard thing to pull off. But you did it!

by This Machine Kills Fascists 2007-07-27 03:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

And by pompus, I of course mean pompous. Spelling Nazi, where are you?

by This Machine Kills Fascists 2007-07-27 04:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

I have to agree with you that this is about the stupidest campaign strategy Obama could take. These Reagan worshipers are evil and I mean that sincerely. Reagan came across as Mr. Nice guy but as a President he was a Sexist, a Racist, a Homophobe, a Classist, and a Corporatist. He had NO regard for the rule of law, intentionally violated the Constitution and was the Anti-Environment President. If Obama wants to take on his mantle he might as well defect now to the Neocon party.

by DoIT 2007-07-27 01:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

I may be liberal, but I have friends who adored Reagan.  To classify them as evil for that fact is frightening.  I don't like much of what Reagan did, but when we start saying that people are evil for believing a certain way about politics, we cross a dangerous line.

Next you will be calling for them to be publically ostracized or even put before firing squads.  If you respond with "good riddance," I will be more afraid of you than I would be of any "Reagan worshiper."

by Jacor 2007-07-27 01:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

Next you will be calling for them to be publically ostracized or even put before firing squads.

Get a frickin grip would ya?

So your friends adore a President that was a Sexist, a Racist, a Homophobe, a Classist, and a Corporatist, with NO regard for the rule of law, who intentionally violated the Constitution and was the Anti-Environment President. Now THAT is frightening.

by DoIT 2007-07-27 02:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

Reagan came across as Mr. Nice Guy but as a President he was a Sexist, a Racist, a Homophobe, a Classist, and a Corporatist.

OK. Now, put this same sentence in the mouth of an Obama-voting Republican looking back on an Obama presidency:

"Obama came across as Mr. Nice Guy but as a President he was a [fill in preferred list of progressive Democratic apposite nouns]."

Do you not see that this is the most politically savvy strategy we Democrats could hope for?

by horizonr 2007-07-27 04:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

You said it yourself.  Reagan created a myth.  Obama is the only candidate I see out there who has the potential to create a myth greater than the candidate in the same way as Ronald Reagan or JFK did.  (Whether or not he can realize that potential is up in the air.)

Sometimes myth is more powerful than reality and Democrats seem to always fail to understand and utilze that point.

by Anthony de Jesus 2007-07-27 01:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

This is the difference between what the conservative movement did and what the progressive movement must do.  They had to invent myths to obscure, while we need to become better storytellers to talk about reality.

It's not OK to take the easy route to success if we become like them.

by Peter from WI 2007-07-27 01:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

I think we are more in need of storytellers who can symbolically represent reality than we are need of policy-oriented talkers who talk about the details and statistics of reality.

by Anthony de Jesus 2007-07-27 05:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

Obama doesn't need to create a myth. He is a myth.

by DoIT 2007-07-27 02:17PM | 0 recs
We Know Obama Is Big Into Myths

That's just the problem.  He's missing a similar grasp on truth.

There doesn't have to be a contradiction between the two.  FDR is a prime exmple of that.  RFK--even more than JFK--was another great example.  If Obama were to attune his mythos to historical reality, a good number of skeptics such as myself would become enthusiastic supporters.

But it's Obama himself (as well as supporters such as yourself) who is setting up myth vs. truth as a dichotomy and defending his (very Reaganite) disdain for inconvenient truths in terms of a superior mythic reality.

I hate to remind you, but this is the core belief system of Leo Strauss, godfather of the neocons.

by Paul Rosenberg 2007-07-27 02:57PM | 0 recs
Re: We Know Obama Is Big Into Myths

O.K. Thems fightin words. Call him what you will, but callin' him Straussian is waaaaaay out of step with his politics, and you know it.

by DTB in TN 2007-07-27 03:21PM | 0 recs
That's Just My Point!

I find it very troubling. But when you look at the logic here it is exactly the same: Forget the truth of what Reagan was. Look at the myth!  It was a powerful myth!  It was a successful myth!  By embracing his myth, we show we are bipartisan!

How is that not Straussian?

by Paul Rosenberg 2007-07-27 03:28PM | 0 recs
Re: That's Just My Point!

You are assuming they know who Strauss is.

by bruh21 2007-07-27 03:39PM | 0 recs
Re: That's Just My Point!

I don't need to know who Strauss was, (even though I do) I know who and what Ronald Reagan was. The lies, the myth, the deception. I lived it and survived and I sure as hell am not going to support ANY Democratic candidate that thinks Reagan or his myth were beneficial to our nation.

by DoIT 2007-07-27 03:55PM | 0 recs
Re: That's Just My Point!

True, but the above poster was discussing Strauss as if the person knew the history and idealogical underpinnings. I should make a larger point- I find much of the arguments here by Obama supporters out of touch with reality or history. That concerns me. They are still Democratic voters even if they are wrong. I had hoped we had enough of faith based voting with Bush. But apparently we have I own homegrown faith based voters. Like I said this scares me because the flip side of populism begins with voters who neither know or care to know history.

by bruh21 2007-07-27 04:13PM | 0 recs
Re: That's Just My Point!

I find much of the arguments here by Obama supporters out of touch with reality or history.

I completely agree with you. I sometimes wonder if they aren't Neocon trolls only because of their arrogant ignorance. But maybe they are just lost souls out of touch with reality grasping onto the politics of hope Obama pretends to offer.

by DoIT 2007-07-27 05:01PM | 0 recs
Re: That's Just My Point!

I don't know what's motivating them. I just don't think they understand politics at all.

by bruh21 2007-07-27 05:08PM | 0 recs
Before You Criticize Others' Understanding....

you might want to learn how to spell and conjugate verbs properly in the English language.  Idealogical is not a word; when people spell it like that, since a and o are nowhere near each other on the keyboard, they betray a lack education.  Maybe that's why you keep trying to shut other people up.

by DTB in TN 2007-07-28 05:08PM | 0 recs
Re: That's Just My Point!

To bruh21-

Your continued insults really show you to be unleterred and ill-mannered.  First, I'm a liar; now, I don't know who Leo Strauss is.    The trouble with you is: you are a true Alcibiades, a cunningly bad student of the netroots.

And, oh, I should be banned.  Who reading you in this thread will believe you know whereof you speak on anything?  You are much too quick to question the intelligence of people who disagree with you, which makes me question your ability to reason clearly.

by DTB in TN 2007-07-27 05:59PM | 0 recs
You get Strauss wrong!

At the level you're speaking in, you can call anything Straussian.  The writers of the Federalist Papers taking on Roman names is Straussian by that logic.

The answer is stylistically quite the opposite.  Leo Strauss was primarily interested in showing how much smarter he was than the great masses.  He is much more like national Democrats who have spent the last 40 years trying to argue the country into voting for them, thinking presumably that by winning the reasoning, they'd win the votes.

That kind of thinking, in the place of telling a convincing narrative, has kept us from withing election after election.  Instead of trying to pretend that reality is the opposite of myth, maybe you'd be better served by embracing the definition of myth that follows:

    A real or fictional story that appeals to the consciousness of a        people by embodying its cultural ideals or by giving expression to deep, commonly felt emotions.

by DTB in TN 2007-07-28 05:03PM | 0 recs
Re: We Know Obama Is Big Into Myths

I don't believe there is a myth vs truth dichotomy.  I tend to see more of a postmodern overlapping of mythical and material realities, among others.

The Democrats lack figures who loom large in mythic reality.  Obama could fill that need.  Or not.

by Anthony de Jesus 2007-07-27 05:13PM | 0 recs
Re: We Know Obama Is Big Into Myths

not is more likely if he doesn't get which symbols to use. part of being a smart performer is to know your audience- talking about Reagan and not realizing its impact- regardless of why he is doing it- doesn't suggest masterful myth maker to me.

by bruh21 2007-07-27 05:18PM | 0 recs
There Is A Dichotomy

if you don't align mythos and logos.  Republicans are all about mythos and just screw logos.  It's why they can't govern.  But we can't afford the luxury of doing that.  And that's the problem I have with Obama.  He doesn't seem to realize that he's got to do better than that.

The notion that Democrats lack mythic figures compared to Republicans is mostly just a function of two things: (1) the media plus the solid control of the government the GOP has had for six years have given them a tremendous advantage in exposure. (2) Democrats tend to focus more on logos--on actually making things work.

But no one can say that Bill Clinton lacks mythic status.  Heck, he's got more mythic status than practically the whole GOP wrapped up into one big ball.

And Obama is hardly the only candidate this time who has mythic potential.  Hillary as the first woman president would certainly have it, and Edwards with his history and aspirations would have it as well.  Even Richardson, as the first Hispanic President would probably grow into such a figure.

In short, I really don't see Obama as so exceptional in this regard.  Distinctive, yes.  But not exceptional.

by Paul Rosenberg 2007-07-28 12:00AM | 0 recs
Obama Advocates Reagan's Name & Policies

Obama INDEED invoked both the name and the policies of Reagan when he committed to meeting Enemies of the State, individually, without precondition, within the first year of his Presidency.

" Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to the Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire."

Unfortunately for Obama, he seemed unaware that Reagan didn't meet with the USSR until his second term and after extensive groundwork with preconditions.

Whatever you say about Obama, he's not one to let facts and details interfere with his soaring rhetoric!

by BigBoyBlue 2007-07-27 01:17PM | 0 recs
Nor was Reagan

Nor was Reagan.
His point fits with a larger issue however -- the Republicans have a history of bashing Democrats for being soft on "the enemy" and then turning around to meet them...

Reagan to Reykjavik, Nixon to China, Eisenhower to Korea.

Democrats, who have lost 9 of the last 14 elections, tend to get tangled in the issue, partially because of their concern to seem hawkish.

by Carrington Ward 2007-07-27 01:25PM | 0 recs
the whole story...

Here is the whole article for those that want some actual context.

Obama models campaign on Reagan revolt

The headline is misleading because Reagan is only mentioned once in the whole article. There are comparisons to McGovern, Carter and Hart (who provides some quotes himself) as well.

Here is more the point of the article

A close parallel to the strategy Obama is trying to execute (with a different conclusion) is the one that took Gary Hart to the brink of a major upset of Walter Mondale in 1984.

by JoeCoaster 2007-07-27 01:20PM | 0 recs
Re: the whole story...

Thank you...context is usually quite helpful.

by This Machine Kills Fascists 2007-07-27 03:09PM | 0 recs
Myth trumps Facts

The myth of Regan (the Regan Democrats) being a cross over figure, being plain spoken (even when he was lying,) etc., is stronger than the truth of him or his presidency.

Obama is running for president of the US, not president of the Progressive activist bloggers.  If he can cast him self as the Democratic version of Regan, he's won the general already.  Don't know about the Primary though.

Hope is the active emotion.

by David in Burbank 2007-07-27 01:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Myth trumps Facts

The Reagan myth has grown since he left office. I saw a poll (Gallup) from 2002 with a 73% approval rating for him. Thats why I don't think it's fatal to mention his name now days.

The "Reagan Democrats" were real...he got 25% of the democratic vote in '80 and '84.

by JoeCoaster 2007-07-27 01:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Myth trumps Facts

the question is to whom- see thats the part many of you didn't apparent read in the diary above

by bruh21 2007-07-27 03:40PM | 0 recs
Black Women

Maybe i'm being too bias here, but i think black women will eventualy swing toward Obama.

From talking to a cousin of mine in S.C,he told me something very interesting and it went like this:

The big fight between Hillary and Obama might help Obama pick up extra black women vote that currently leans toward Hillary because many black women are under the impression that Hillary will put Obama on her ticket anyway,so those women could justify voting for her...This gives those black women the pefect excuse to vote for hillary and still not do any harms to Obama's career since  as VP, he will be next in line to get the democratic nomination in 2016".

Now that Hillary is attacking him,those black women will soon understand that Obama's career could be over if Hillary wins this nomination since the war between the 2 is getting nastier by the day...Therefore, those black women will have to make an even more dificult decision and it goes like this:

A vote against Barack is a vote to finish him off as a potential "first black president"...Are they ready to do that to one of their own??..They will be a lot of thinking inside that booth.

by JaeHood 2007-07-27 01:27PM | 0 recs
sometimes i wonder


those it take that much to have an honest frontpage article about a presidential candidate?

you are ANTI-OBAMA and it sucks. the dishonesty on obama is disgusting.

by pmb 2007-07-27 01:43PM | 0 recs
Re: sometimes i wonder

I understand what you are saying,but,unfortunately,he will do whatever he has to do....If he wants to bash Obama , then nothing will stop him...It's his blog,he owns it.

I think it's his right to write whatever he wants...Us Obama fan will have to live with this fact..I know it suck,but it's true...I know we may not like it , but this is the way it is....The guy could ban you for speaking against his anti-Obama diaries,so there's not much you nor i can do.

Just post your daily pro-Obama diary and move on...This is what i'm trying to do...Jerome is just one blogger that just do not like Obama and it's fine with me..

Let's leave Jerome alone and let the Edwards and Hillary supporters celebrate jerome's anti-obama diaries...It serves us Obama-fans, no good to argue with Jerome.

The more we complain about his bias against Obama, the more anti-obama diaries he will write, so i really dont see the point in arguing with him....Maybe Mydd gets more traffics everytime Jerome bashes Obama...I dont really know.

by JaeHood 2007-07-27 03:22PM | 0 recs
Re: sometimes i wonder

Sadly, you may be right...it's just depressing that on the same day a front pager posts rules for honest discourse on this site, Armstrong comes out with the "Look, I'm not anti-Obama"...one of the biggest lies I've ever seen typed.

by This Machine Kills Fascists 2007-07-27 03:24PM | 0 recs
Cornell Belcher is Black!
Cornell Belcher doesn't need to study or research Black attitudes of older Black people; he was raised by older Black people!  He's a black man employed to help his candidates develop political strategies, even if that means borrowing from the enemy.  He's not praising Reagan or his policies, but his political achievements.  Obama has spoken frequently of the racist policies of the Reagan Administration. You can disagree with someone on princciple, but still recognize their abilities and use it to your advantage.  Reagan was wickedly brilliant; you can NOT deny that.  The smartest of all politicians have taken a page out of the play book from successful opponents.  
Generally, I'm so sick of you cowardly pecker woods that sit on this board hiding behind your monitors taking your thinly veiled bigoted shots at Senator Obama.  I just wish you would bring your asses to a live Black forum and talk the same shit you talk on this board to real Black folks.
by Dee 2007-07-27 01:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Cornell Belcher is Black!

his race is irrelevant to whether he is making a bad decision

by bruh21 2007-07-27 02:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Cornell Belcher is Black!

It is relevant!  Because he's Black means he doesn't need to be lectured by white folks on the legacy of Reagan!  And generally doesn't need to be lectured by white folks on race matters PERIOD!

by Dee 2007-07-27 02:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Cornell Belcher is Black!

it's irrelevant. i m black and from the south. what is being said here regarding african american primary voters in south carolina- which obama needs to win the state- is absolutely correct. reagan is hated by southern black voters. your post went from being kind of racist to out and out racist.

by bruh21 2007-07-27 02:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Cornell Belcher is Black!

Please!  

by Dee 2007-07-27 02:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Cornell Belcher is Black!

Hopefully you will be banned.

by bruh21 2007-07-27 03:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Cornell Belcher is Black!

You are really showing your true colors, "Black" man.  Ban me for having a different opinion and pointing out the imperialistic undertone of this diary?  Irrespective of race, a self-described liberal advocating censorship--of any kind--is truly lame!

by Dee 2007-07-27 04:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Cornell Belcher is Black!

you keep showing you are racist. and the comment about 'true color' confirms it.

by bruh21 2007-07-27 04:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Cornell Belcher is Black!

and yes- i dont come here to listen to a racist try to convince me that they aren't. feel free to spin whatever you need to spin- you are still going to be a racist.

by bruh21 2007-07-27 04:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Cornell Belcher is Black!

I think I'll way in here (as a black person who also lives in the souht). I don't agree with everything Dee has to say but I think some relevant points were made. This website could easily be retitled to the "Why we dislike Barack Obama" website. Almost every diary is an attack on him or pro-Edwards piece with very little variation on this theme. I cringe at the twists of logic and reason that are used sometimes by the attempts to make rather specious arguments seem reasonable. It is extremely disappointing. Every candidate has strengths and weaknesses but you'd never know it by the diaries and posts here.

by commoncents 2007-07-27 05:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Cornell Belcher is Black!

this isn't about hurting obama. that's where your logic is flawed. this morning Big Tent Democrat posted a diary criticizing Edwards that got recommended. I was one of the people who recommended. I am an Edwards supporter. You want to know why I recommended it ? because it was a legitimate criticism about Edwards campaign and strategy. It was fair game. So is this diary. Frankly everytime I see a posting such as yours it just comes across as whining. you think we are tough? Wait for the general and the GOP comes after you. They won't give a shit about whether you like it or not. I've not once seen a  diary where a poster such as yourself as feigned that your candidate is being bashed. It's getting old. These are grown ups running for the presidency of the US. If  they or you cant handle this then you shouldn't come here or be invovled in politics. This is what politics is.

by bruh21 2007-07-27 05:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Cornell Belcher is Black!

For clarity. Let's approach this based on fact and not just unsupported rhetoric. Pick a day (any day) and review the diary list and tell me how many of the diaries are anti-Obama and pro-Edwards. As I said, every candidate has strengths and weaknesses, so I don't mind if someone addresses an actual weakness in my candidate. I have a problem with constant attacks that have no factual basis. It is a leap of logic, to say the least, to arrive at the conclusion that his strategist is pro-Reagan because he is able to review an opponent and acknowledge a strenghth from their campaign. It is normally recognized as a sign of maturation and ability to learn from history. So grow up and when you're ready to engage in mature conversation with actual adults, let me know.

by commoncents 2007-07-27 05:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Cornell Belcher is Black!

I come here every day. so when you say fact- i assuming you must be kidding.

by bruh21 2007-07-27 07:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

I think people forget some aspects of American history or refuse to acknowledge some difficult realities (for a democrat).

When Carter left office the United States was sinking down the crapper fast. DOesn't anyone remember? There was stagflation, the Japan as Number One books were dominating the charts, we were shown up in Iran (correctly but still..), interest rates at banks were like 20% (my dad made a bucket), etc.

When Reagan left office in 1989 the US was back. The Soviet Union would crack very soon and we would finally be out of the horrible cold war.

The fact is that even though I hated Reagan very much and believe he was wrong in many things the fact is that he was able to provide leadership and instill in people a sense of belief in the country and more importantly themselves.

Look, I'm not in favor of renaming everything after the guy etc. but I think overall one has to admit Reagan was a pretty important President in our history. I mean what had we had before:

GUY GETS SHOT
GUY SINKS US DEEP IN VIETNAM
TRICKY DICK
PARDONER FORD
CARTER

Reagan comes in, and the way most Americans remember it and I think there is an element of truth, he righted the ship.

I believe Obama wants to do what Reagan did. Its not that he wants to be republican but more so that he wants to bring the country together and move it forward from the Bush CLinton BUsh thing which has had some problems. Even though there are many things I liekd about Clinton his second presidency ended up being a largely wasted opportunity just like the last two years of the current president.

I hope I won't get banned or killed for writing these words or, frakly, insulted.. I could really deal without the insults. If you don't like what I wrote its fine but please be civil.

(and I dont' need a list of Reagan's transgressions as I am all too aware of them)

by lafinur 2007-07-27 01:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

Ronald Reagan got a lot of people to come across the aisle and vote for him, whether or not they agreed with his politics.

Obama has been similarly drawing people from the Republican party, EVEN IF THEY DISAGREE WITH HIS POLITICS, which is the similarity between the two.

This is not to say that Obama's or Cornell's politics looks anything like Reagan's.  Only that they share that same optimistic outlook on governing America.

by Jacor 2007-07-27 01:51PM | 0 recs
not that anyone should be surprised


this is a partisan site and any acknowledgement of the other side might be damned.obviously, that is what people find frustrating about obama.

but obama is a minority and he knows that he can't engage or get anything done without reaching out.
that is his life and career narrative and maybe it takes an African American pollster to recognise that that reality.

these dishonest from page post from Jerome are becoming disgusting but maybe it's because unlike Jerome I get Obama's political impulse.

by pmb 2007-07-27 01:54PM | 0 recs
Barry Goldwater and William Fulbright

Lori,

Your attempts to impugn Senator Obama's liberal credentials because he mentions Reagan is disingenous when you don't mention that both Hillary Clinton and her husband when he was running for President invoked the names of men who opposed the 1965 Civil Rights Act, Brown vs. Board of Education and integration.  Barry Golder voted against the 1965 Civil Rights Act and rejected the constiutionality of Brown vs. Board of Ed.  Bill Clinton repeatedly invoked the name of of William Fulbright (his political mentor), a known and unrepentant segregationist, to appeal to cracker votes in the south.  Your selective moral outrage against Senator Obama, exposes you "liberal" bigots.

by Dee 2007-07-27 01:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

Everyday people on here say they want our nominee to be the candidate who is most electable in the general election.  By saying you are like Reagan in the respects he (Belcher) spoke to, he is obviously angling toward making gains in the electability department.  

by freepursuits 2007-07-27 01:58PM | 0 recs
The Nation,a reality-based progressive mag gets it


http://www.thenation.com/

in their recent article they praise the ingenuity of  obama's strategy. yes, it is a strategy.

Obama used that strategy to win in conservative regions in the 2004 when the election was about gay marriage and family values. he shared million votes with George Bush. If John Kerry had "got it" he'd be president. Obama did all this while having a 100% rating from planned parenthood and having opposed the irag war. so maybe Obama needs to school you, mr. Jerome.

obama has actually won elections; mr. jerome, you don't know what it takes to win an election because you've never been elected by anybody.

by pmb 2007-07-27 01:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

ITS TIME FOR US ALL TO GROW UP!

What's wrong with a democrat looking to what was good about a republican?  

Why are we so insecure that one side has to hate the other side and if you don't hate the other side you're a traitor?

We really need to get over it.  The country will not unite if we continue to harbor these ridiculous feelings.

Everything about democrats isn't good, and everything about republicans isn't bad.

I'm so thankful to see the maturity of Obama's candidacy.  

This picking sides (and hating the other side) nonsense has got to stop.

Try thinking about what life might be like if we really did have a "uniter" in the White House.  Not someone who uses it as a campaign slogan - a real uniter!

by ItsTimeToTurnThePage 2007-07-27 02:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

telling AA voters they need to grow up while talking about how Reagan was about strength and unity - yeah- that's going to go over well.

by bruh21 2007-07-27 02:14PM | 0 recs
Unfuckingbelievable

Wow. Just wow.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-27 03:15PM | 0 recs
Another day

another bs attack post from Jerome. Really, this has become laughable. You claim you're are not anti-obama? Can you show us one post where you don't trash him at some point if not in it totality? THe fact that he needs to deny he has it out for Obama should tell you how his posts have been trending and all you need to know about his position.

Look at the latest crap headline in breaking blue by Jerome. Where in that post there does it suggest Obama is backing away from his comments on Clinton at all? The title is just another drive-by smear, to start some more faux controversy of him waffling.  Of course, Jerome doesn't seem to be someone to let facts get in the way of tearing down Senator Obama. Keep it up Jerome, you're just losing what credibility you have.

by DrSB 2007-07-27 02:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Another day

More whining from an Obamaniac. LOL. If you don't like this board, just leave. Nobody is forcing you to stay.

by areyouready 2007-07-27 02:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Another day

And here's the response from the brainless Clinton worshipper. DO you ever add comments with substance,  cause all I've seen as ridiculous one line ad hominum attacks like this one.

Oh, and I'm not leaving this site. It's an open and free forum, that's why we are free to criticize Jerome on substance and we won't be banned. I wouldn't expect you to understand that, coming from a candidate who censors people on her own website. Apparently silencing dissent is not just for republicans.

by DrSB 2007-07-27 02:44PM | 0 recs
More on the Clintons and Fulbright...

I'm sorry for piece-mealing this, but this diary and the attitudes of some folks on this board have really got me pissed!  I should have added that in 1993 President Clinton bestowed Fulbright with the presidential medal of freedon calling him a "visionary humanitarian, a steadfast supporter of the values of education, and 'my mentor..the American political system produced this remarkable man, and my state did, and I'm real proud of it."  WTF?  This man helped disenfranchise Black people for years.  If he didn't ever participate in a lynching, his attitudes certainly lended to an atmosphere that promoted lynchings.  As governor of AR, Bill Clinton signed into law MLK Day as a holiday the same day he signed into law a holiday for Robert E. Lee.  That's all to say that the Clintons have a history of yielding to bigots and using bigoted attitudes to their advantage--just like Reagan.

by Dee 2007-07-27 02:23PM | 0 recs
Re: More on the Clintons and Fulbright...

Nice, now to call Clinton a bigot, a racist? LOL. Your guys' credibility is diminishing minute by minute.

It looks to me Obama is more a divider than a uniter. He pissed off every demographic group.

by areyouready 2007-07-27 02:29PM | 0 recs
Re: More on the Clintons and Fulbright...

I did call them racists!  I'm merely showing that they have a history of using white folks who have been unfriendly and down right evil to Black folks to their political advantage.  To say that Obama and his Black advisor is commiting democractic heresy by taking a page from Reagan is hypocrisy!

by Dee 2007-07-27 02:36PM | 0 recs
Re: More on the Clintons and Fulbright...

That is to say, I did NOT call them racists.

by Dee 2007-07-27 02:36PM | 0 recs
What the hell, Dee?

You do realize lots of whites hate Reagan too, right?  Jerome's point about african americans was that Reagan employed a strategy that most african americans found distasteful and maybe that will hurt him in SC.  Why is that so upsetting to you? I believe he said also mentioned older whites as well.  If he didn't he should.  The Reagan name is not well regarded among most Democrats period.  Look, my bet is that Obama will back away from this, and frankly if he does, it will just be a blip.  So why are you freaking out here?

by bookgrl 2007-07-27 03:00PM | 0 recs
Re: What the hell, Dee?

thats my question. why are they defending this. it's actually telling them something that will help their candidate out.

by bruh21 2007-07-27 03:07PM | 0 recs
No kidding. And, it's not terminal.

He's probably testing the message.  I think it is a failing strategy.  It may attract more indies, but it will alienate Democrats.  But to deny who Reagan was?  I mean, how old are these kids?  But, I just hope Obama puts this one to bed.  

by bookgrl 2007-07-27 03:29PM | 0 recs
Re: No kidding. And, it's not terminal.

I do too. My thing is I want this primary to be more about vetting candidates than it was the last time. I don't want them to die off over stupid head strong rationalizations of bad decisions. Then, again, if they think this is okay- maybe this tells us what we need to know about his candidacy. I am hoping that it's just a stupid mistake.

by bruh21 2007-07-27 03:43PM | 0 recs
Re: What the hell, Dee?

"I'd suggest Belcher and Obama do a little historical reading and find out just how bad the 1980's were for the African-American community."  This is what the fuck I'm upset about!  It's fair to debate whether it's a good strategy but it's insulting for any white person to assume (and lecture) that two educated Black men, or any Black person, does not know their own history.  We live it every day!

by Dee 2007-07-27 03:54PM | 0 recs
I am not liking the people Obama is listening to

Anyone remember the Obama aide, Robert Bauer who said the Scooter Libby should be pardoned?

Now with his pollster singing Reagan's praises, I wonder if Obama is aiming to become Republican-lite as opposed to a Democrat.

I hope not but we are judged by the company we keep and their statements concern me.

by DCPatriot 2007-07-27 02:23PM | 0 recs
Re: I am not liking the people Obama is listening

And so did James Carville!  Again, your selctive white "liberal" moral outrage!

by Dee 2007-07-27 02:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

Obama says: Jump
Supporters jump...

Obama says give me your life savings
Supporters do as ordered

The blind faith and celebrity appeal hold that Obama has on his supporters is just wacko. He is by far the greatest cult leader in all of politics.

Chanting....
OBAMA! OBAMA!
Chanting...

See more of reality here: http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view .php?id=25967
 

by bsavage 2007-07-27 02:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

Nobody can be that corny!

by Dee 2007-07-27 02:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

He is by far the greatest cult leader in all of politics.

You got that right.

by DoIT 2007-07-27 02:55PM | 0 recs
rating

love it, haha. I gave you '3'. Is '3' positive or negative? I meant to give you positive reinforcement. LOL. Hilarious.

by areyouready 2007-07-27 03:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

So, while Obama's calling Clinton "Bush-Cheney Lite," his own supporters are calling him Reagan Lite.  This just keeps getting better.  Keep it up, guys and gals.

by Junior Bug 2007-07-27 02:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

Obama has no chance to win the Iowa caucus even with his 30 million plus bucks.

However, it would be nice if he finishes 2nd so Hillary comes in third place.

by Djneedle83 2007-07-27 03:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

Not to be a spelling Nazi, but...the irony of calling something the "stupidest thing" you've "ever heard" and then spelling it "stupidist" is just too rich.

by This Machine Kills Fascists 2007-07-27 03:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

Denial of Reagan's current appeal is just that - denial.  A Rasmussen poll taken in June 2007 had Reagan's approval rating at 72%.  Regardless of whether it's warranted or not, Reagan is remembered as a great politician by many people.  Democrats like to think that only Republicans hold Reagan in high regard, but I believe it's mostly the opposite - it's mostly just the Democrats that DON'T hold him in high regard.  Again, I'm not saying that he was a good president, I'm just saying what the common people on the street think about him.  And if you asked them why they think he was a great president, I bet that not even 20% would cite any of his policies - it would be his leadership and persona that most mention.

Jerome trips his own argument up with one word - "myth".  In fact, the sentence "I am not necessarily saying Reagan wasn't able to brand himself as such through the mainstream media" defeats his entire argument.  Regardless of whether the remembered persona of Reagan is a "myth" or not, that's what people remember of him,and that's what's important.  No politician has gotten elected on the facts if the facts contradict what the public BELIEVES are the facts.  Belcher apparently understands this - he's appealing to what the populace believes about Reagan rather than what was true about him.  Given the fact that many independents can vote in the Democratic primary, I'm not sure that this is such a bad move.

by ThinkerT 2007-07-27 03:20PM | 0 recs
Clinton has a high approval rating too,

but you won't here Republicans projecting him in their primary.  

by bookgrl 2007-07-27 03:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

Thanks for providing the approval rating.  It's as high or higher than Abraham Lincoln.  Astonishing!  I'm a native Washingtonian, SE DC, East of the Anacostia, where the invisible majority of Washingtonians reside and the vestiges of the Reagan administration are still felt.  When he died, I was absolutely SHOCKED by the number of folks that came out to mourn him.  I had no idea that he was still that popular among Republicans AND moderate and conservative Democrats.  I found the whole thing hilarious.  Shit, me and my folks made a game out of spotting Black folks passing the coffin. But it was nonetheless very, very revealing--most Americans really love that MF!  If Obama can use Reagan's or any other BACKWARDS BUT POPULAR pol's political techniques, NOT CONSERVATIVE IDEOLOGY, to get elected in order to advance liberal values, than why not????  I don't support the Clintons but I do respect they've always understood that.  That's how we won the mid-term elections, running moderate/conservative Democrats like Jim Webb, a former Republican and deep admirer of Reagan and who called Clinton the most dishonest president in history.  But Clinton campaigned for Webb in order to get a Democratic majority.

by Dee 2007-07-27 04:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

I give up. You are clearly delusional if you think those numbers are in anyway reflective of what AAs in SC think of Reagan- which by the way is the conversation and diary's topic.

by bruh21 2007-07-27 04:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

No, Unc', you are delusional.

by Dee 2007-07-27 04:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

FDR approval rating?

Bill Clinton's?

Honestly, on the merits and ON THE POLITICS, admiration for Reagan is repugnant.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-07-27 04:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

Ronald Reagan is a lot more popular now than he was as president, particularly during his first term.  He talked like an extremist at times about reducing government, but was a lot more centrist in action -- federal spending went up every year he was in office, just like it has with every other president in my lifetime.

Democrats shouldn't reflexively bash him.  There are a lot of former Reagan voters who have left the Republican ranks, who are open to voting for a Democratic candidate, as long as that candidate doesn't automatically look to the government to solve all our problems.

by Lex 2007-07-27 03:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

Good lord.

Can we please step back from the brink here?

First, Belcher is THE most respected pollster in the biz when it comes to African-Americans. Bar none. Every progressive, every candidate who needs to understand AA trends goes to him.

Second, could you write a more incendiary and biased headline? Belcher is no fan of Reagan. He's remembering Reagan's ability to draw supporters from non-traditional constituencies (Reagan Democrats) and using that to promote Obama.

I know that people here, including me, have a visceral hate of Reagan because of what he did policy-wise to the country.

But that doesn't mean you can't learn something campign-wise from a man who had consistent approval ratings above 50% despite what he was doing.

Campaigning is different from governing. If Belcher or Obama were calling for emulating Reagan's policies I'd be flabberagsted and worried. He's not. He mentioned a style and persona that drew a broad range of people to a president.

Will this cause him to lose support from primary voters? It is definately possible, given how much activist Dems hate Reagan and anything associated with him. This would, of course, make it bad politics.

But I just don't see that, especially 6-8 months out.

Tempest in tea pot people.

Also, it must be "propaganda Friday" in the blogosphere because Think Progress posted a nothing article with the headline "Bush Insider Says Administration is Out Of Control".

Except the article says that Bush is frustrated that he doesn't control Congress anymore. That's really not the same thing as the "out of control" the headline implies.

I expect this kind of insulting stupidity from supermarkget tabloids and right-wing bloviators. Not from our side.

We can do better.

So let's do it.

by nathanhj 2007-07-27 03:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

unless you can pull out the poll showing AAs will be okay with comparison to Reagan I am going to say you are full shit.

by bruh21 2007-07-27 03:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

Talk about missing my point.

My point was NOT about Reagan's policies, which I stated quite clearly. Please go back and read the comment.

My point was that Belcher was making a point about how Reagan campaigned and how he was able to draw constituencies normally associated with the Dem coalition into his orbit.

Belcher has been trying to draw on that in talking about Obama.

But that's all this is. Obama isn't trying to emulate Reagan policies and even if he was, why the hell would he have a campaign aide talk about it in the run-up to the Democratic primaries. That makes no sense.

This is the kind of over-the-top commenting that made me post in the first place.

Just read what I wrote and step back from the brink.

by nathanhj 2007-07-28 12:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

I've seen him do his talk, and think he's over rated.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-07-27 06:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

Fair enough, but I don't think that your headline was justified. It's needlessly provocative and doesn't represent what Belcher is either doing or thinking.

Why couldn't you just say "Belcher Makes Weak Reagan Comparison" or something more along that line?

It's just irresponsible to call him a Reagan fan when that is demonstrably not true.

I'm not saying you need to be impartial or unbiased or anything like that. I'm just asking headlines that are pure propaganda. I get enough of that from Faux News and the wing-nutosphere.

by nathanhj 2007-07-28 12:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

Yea, good point; but I don't think the substance of the post can be as easily dismissed as the title.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-07-29 10:37AM | 0 recs
well, he can't be a Clinton fan

Belcher can't explicitly compare Obama's campaign to the one recent successful Democratic presidential campaign, so what else can he do? At best he can steal the 1992 Clinton themes (Hope, Change, beyond party labels).

But if Obama is going to run Reagan's campaign, can't he at least demagogue the Republican base?

by souvarine 2007-07-27 03:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan
Obama's staff invoking Reagan as a model for his campaign is more than just "blasphemy for Democrats" is suicidal for Obama among older black Americans and white liberals.
Look, I'm not anti-Obama, but praising Reagan as a model of hope for Obama?
The main article you mention discussed many past presidential candidates (one of them Reagan) and spoke about how the Obama campaign's has been looking to those campaigns for strategy ideas. What is the problem with looking at the battle tactics of even an enemy in an effort to strengthen your own? That is smart. To not learn from history or to deny it would be extraordinarily naive and ineffective. It should go without saying (but due to obtuseness of many posters here is necessary) that Belcher's brief comments do not endorse Reagan's positions or the nastier aspects of his strategy.

Speaking as an older white liberal, I think your title and your concluding paragraph are a complete misunderstanding of the article.
by Satya 2007-07-27 03:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

It's actually Obama supporters who keep arguing, and thereby missing the point, that this is about Obama advocating Reagan's positions. That's not the point. The point is plainly that using Reagan as a symbol of something positive, regardless of the purpose for doing so will hurt Obama with African American voters in SC. Just to check my own sanity all this I just talked to a few conservative AA friends of mine - to th e person they said this isn't a close call, and they don't know what he is thinking to even mention that man's name. The anger and dislike in the AA community over Reagan still runs deep. Obama needs to win in SC. This is just bad strategy. That's the point. Regardless of context- he shouldn't be using Reagan as a symbolic good.

by bruh21 2007-07-27 04:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan
It's actually Obama supporters who keep arguing, and thereby missing the point, that this is about Obama advocating Reagan's positions. That's not the point.
I know its not the point. And there is major misunderstanding of the article in a number of ways on this thread.

I think Jerome could try a little harder to avoid inflammatory diary titles.

And to paraphrase another person on this thread. I think the African American voters in South Carolina are sophisticated enough to appreciate the difference between the crap we had to put up with in the Reagan years and the pragmatic political calculation that goes into adopting winning strategies for 2008.
by Satya 2007-07-27 06:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

I think many of you are living quite frankly in a dream world. This isn't about being sophisticated. The dislike of Reagan by African Americans is visceral. Its even worse coming from Obama. It will only confirm their fears that he's not really one of them. Clinton has wiggle room that Obama does not. She can coast on her husband's reputation. Obama has only his own. Again, I'll say what I have said along this thread- if you truly support Obama this isn't the way to do it.

by bruh21 2007-07-27 07:23PM | 0 recs
Obama is finished.

All Hillary and Edwards have to do now is sit back and watch Obama fizzle down into the second-tier.  I don't know what end-result the Obama campaign team is hoping for, but they are really off-the-wall.

Obama actually said, "I'm not afraid to lose the PR war to dictators."

Good one Obama!!!!!!!!

by Regan 2007-07-27 03:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

With all of Obama's talk of partisanship I guess I shouldn't be surprised that he's trying to run as a Reagan Democrat.  Jimmy Carter set the stage for Ronald Reagan to become president.  Clearly, the Obama campaign is betting the disastrous Bush Administration will pave the way for him as well.

After all, Ronald Reagan could do no wrong.  He gave America hope.  He was All American, the Gipper.  He won the Cold War.  He told Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down that wall.

First, Ronald Reagan won two straight national elections in landslides that featured huge crossover numbers of Democrats. I really doubt that Republicans will crossover in enough numbers to vote for Obama.

Second, Reagan (probably by dint of his acting background) could sell his vision.  Obama hasn't been able to show that he really stands by what he says.

Whomever is giving Obama the advice that Reagan is a good reference point needs to rethink that advice.

by KimPossible 2007-07-27 04:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

Your not supporting Obama anyway so you are a little bias about who will or who will not vote for Obama.

Remember:

Forty-two percent (42%) of Americans say that the next President should meet with the heads of nations such as Iran, Syria, and North Korea without setting any preconditions. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 34% disagree while 24% are not sure.

That question came up during last Monday's Presidential Debate with Illinois Senator Barack Obama saying he would commit to such meetings and New York Senator Hillary Clinton offering a more cautious response. Democrats, by a 55% to 22% margin, agree with Obama. Clinton and Obama continue to dominate the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination.

by BDM 2007-07-27 04:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

What does your post have to do with REAGAN?   Nothing.

by georgep 2007-07-27 05:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

Another clever diary by Jerome to take a hit on Obama.

Jerome, why don't you ever have a diary about Wolfson and Penn? At least show some objectivity.

by BDM 2007-07-27 04:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

I have concluded based on many of his supporters here that Obama will lose. I wasn't sure until this diary. Your reaction says it all. You can't win with this sort of mentality. Races are about being able to recognize good and bad decisions and adapt.

by bruh21 2007-07-27 04:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

Please explain the correlation between a candidates supporters complaining about perceived hit diaries and the candidates ability to win. I am sure that none of the candidates have the slightest idea what is being posted on this website, despite the egos of those who post.

by commoncents 2007-07-27 05:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster

I find it particularly distasteful that for the past few weeks there have been many many inferences by Obama and his team that it is time to turn the page on the years when Bill Clinton was President, but they are out there referring to Ronald Reagan as though he was the greatest thing to happen to US politics.  It's just so fucking disturbing on so many levels.

by Regan 2007-07-27 06:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster

OMG, me too.  Also, it's as though Hil would not be any kind of change.  Frankly, I find the bipartisanship/uniter talk very 2000.  And, Hil would be something new.  Sure, she's been in DC along time, but a liberal woman president would be a real change, particularly for women.

by bookgrl 2007-07-27 10:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

I was 18 in 1980.  I'll never forget how Reagan loved to tell and tell and tell the bogus story of the Cadillac-driving welfare queen.   No other public figure was more significant in shaping my political consciousness than that s.o.b.  His victory was the ultimate triumph of the Southern Strategy, which had been percolating since Goldwater's day. Oh sure, he succeeded in offering a vision of a better nation to a particular segment of disenchanted Dems.  But let's be clear, the dream he peddled was built on the most craven (though successful) tradition in American politics: good old-fashioned race-baiting.   Hardly an appeal to the better angels of our nature.

What the hell are Obama and his people thinking?  I really wanted to support this guy.  

by lori j 2007-07-27 10:18PM | 0 recs
Jerome makes DLC happy

No lie, they were singing his praises on Hillary's blogsite, utterly thrilled over his attacks on Obama. His critics' comments here are often great to read for quality and content, though. Rock on, y'all!

I'm going out all day every Saturday with my Black Puerto Rican Native American unhyphenated female self and my neighbors of all colors, ethnicities, religions and sexualities - none of them DLC/Dixiecrats - to campaign for Obama. Some of us are actually working to take primary states from Hillary and get Obama, a real progressive Democrat, instead. It's good exercise! None of us are trippin' about pundit's navel-gazing pontifications, though they're good for telling jokes during break times. This campaign is something new, and as with that fiendish but clever Reagan's campaign, the pundits will catch up later. Later.

by VCubed 2007-07-27 10:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

It's embarassing watching Jerome sink to the level of daily Obama attacks.

Although I'm not totally shocked since he has had some ethical situations with regard to transparency in the past.  For all we know, Jerome may be working for Hillary or planning to in the future.

by JR Hawks 2007-07-28 09:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

Nice rightwing talking points, I've always been totally transparent.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-07-29 10:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

Are you saying your entries against a specific candidate couldn't give one the impression that you have a horse in the race?

You've single out Obama, who I believe has the most liberal voting record of the top-tier canidates, for a reason.  Unfortunately, you haven't been clear on providing that reason.  And that leaves room for speculation.

by JR Hawks 2007-07-29 12:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

I've singled out Obama because I want him to be more partisan and confrontational.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-07-29 02:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

He got more confrontational with Hillary and you got all over his case for it.

by JR Hawks 2007-07-29 08:28PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads