Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan

by Jerome Armstrong, Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 04:41:04 PM EST

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: Cornell Belcher, Barack Obama (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 259 Comments :: Post a Comment


Good Point (3.00 / 0)

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.


"I want my voice to be read"
by icebergslim on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 04:44:38 PM EST

Re: Good Point (3.00 / 3)

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.


Never separate the life you live from the words you speak. -Sen. Paul Wellstone (Minnesota)
by Max Fletcher on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 05:03:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

By 1986 (3.00 / 1)

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 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 06:25:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: By 1986 (none / 0)

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


Never separate the life you live from the words you speak. -Sen. Paul Wellstone (Minnesota)
by Max Fletcher on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 07:16:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

False Equivalence (3.00 / 3)

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 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 06:34:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: False Equivalence (none / 0)

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


Never separate the life you live from the words you speak. -Sen. Paul Wellstone (Minnesota)
by Max Fletcher on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 07:18:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: False Equivalence (none / 0)

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 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 07:32:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: False Equivalence (none / 0)

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."


Never separate the life you live from the words you speak. -Sen. Paul Wellstone (Minnesota)
by Max Fletcher on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 12:23:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: False Equivalence (none / 0)

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 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 07:39:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

2 years after Watergate (none / 0)

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


Never separate the life you live from the words you speak. -Sen. Paul Wellstone (Minnesota)
by Max Fletcher on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 12:14:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Carter Won Georgia In 1980. (none / 0)

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 on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 03:36:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Because Carter was from Georgia, (none / 0)

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.


Never separate the life you live from the words you speak. -Sen. Paul Wellstone (Minnesota)
by Max Fletcher on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 12:53:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You Can Twist It However You Want (none / 0)

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 on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 02:08:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Can Twist It However You Want (none / 0)

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.


Never separate the life you live from the words you speak. -Sen. Paul Wellstone (Minnesota)
by Max Fletcher on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 04:13:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: False Equivalence (none / 0)

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


Never separate the life you live from the words you speak. -Sen. Paul Wellstone (Minnesota)
by Max Fletcher on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 12:27:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good Point (1.00 / 0)

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 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 07:28:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good Point (3.00 / 0)

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


by bruh21 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 07:33:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good Point (none / 0)

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 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 07:39:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good Point (3.00 / 0)

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 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 07:53:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good Point (none / 0)

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 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 09:13:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good Point (none / 0)

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 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:13:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good Point (none / 0)

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 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 09:16:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Belcher was referring to Reagan's optimism (3.00 / 1)

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 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 05:14:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Belcher was referring to Reagan's optimism (3.00 / 3)

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


by bruh21 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 05:25:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Belcher was referring to Reagan's optimism (3.00 / 1)

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 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 05:30:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Belcher was referring to Reagan's optimism (none / 0)

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 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 05:46:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Belcher was referring to Reagan's optimism (3.00 / 1)

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 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 06:06:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Belcher was referring to Reagan's optimism (none / 0)

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


by DTB in TN on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 06:07:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Belcher was referring to Reagan's optimism (none / 0)

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 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 06:09:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Belcher was referring to Reagan's optimism (none / 0)

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 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 06:13:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Belcher was referring to Reagan's optimism (3.00 / 1)

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 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 06:23:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You Use WORDS To Express An Opinion (none / 0)

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 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 06:37:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Use WORDS To Express An Opinion (none / 0)

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 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 06:51:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Use WORDS To Express An Opinion (none / 0)

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


by bruh21 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 07:36:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You Use WORDS To Express An Opinion (none / 0)

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.


"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - George Orwell
by This Machine Kills Fascists on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:37:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Belcher was referring to Reagan's optimism (none / 0)

A 1 is a troll rating.


Join us at Show Me Progress!
by clarkent on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 06:58:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Belcher was referring to Reagan's optimism (3.00 / 0)

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 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 05:35:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Belcher was referring to Reagan's optimism (3.00 / 1)

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 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 06:00:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Belcher was referring to Reagan's optimism (none / 0)

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 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 06:11:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Belcher was referring to Reagan's optimism (3.00 / 0)

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 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 06:22:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Belcher was referring to Reagan's optimism (none / 0)

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 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 06:25:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How Reagan Talked? (3.00 / 1)

Like he talked in Philadelphia Mississippi?

This is revisionst history at its worst.


by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 06:26:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome attacks Obama (none / 0)

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


Can you say with a straight face that Hillary has been a strong leader in the Senate?
by AnthonyMason2k6 on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 09:48:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan (1.00 / 1)

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


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 04:48:23 PM EST

Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan (3.00 / 1)

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.


"I want my voice to be read"
by icebergslim on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 05:02:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan (3.00 / 1)

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 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 07:22:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan (3.00 / 2)

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 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 04:51:38 PM EST

Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan (3.00 / 2)

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.


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 05:06:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are a Reagan Fan? (none / 0)

Fuckin A.

Just fucking incredible.

Are you telling me how African Americans felt about REAGAN?

Fuckin A.


by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 06:29:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan (none / 0)

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


by bruh21 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 06:42:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan (2.00 / 0)

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.


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 07:30:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan (3.00 / 1)

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 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 05:27:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan (3.00 / 0)

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 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 05:36:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan (3.00 / 1)

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 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 06:03:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan (3.00 / 1)

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 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 06:09:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan (3.00 / 1)

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 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 06:14:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan (3.00 / 1)

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


Follow the money
by dkmich on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 07:25:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

WTF? (none / 0)

Seriously, WTF????


by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 06:27:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WTF? (3.00 / 1)

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 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 07:14:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WTF? (none / 0)

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 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 07:30:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WTF? (3.00 / 0)

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 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 07:36:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WTF? (none / 0)

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 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 07:45:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WTF? (3.00 / 0)

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 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 07:58:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WTF? (none / 0)

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 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:05:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WTF? (none / 0)

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 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:10:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WTF? (none / 0)

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


by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:14:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WTF? (3.00 / 0)

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 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:22:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WTF? (none / 0)

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


by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 09:25:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WTF? (none / 0)

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 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:20:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WTF? (none / 0)

AA conservatives? Now that is a rare species.


by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:23:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WTF? (none / 0)

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


by bruh21 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:27:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WTF? (none / 0)

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


by bruh21 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:28:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WTF? (3.00 / 0)

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 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:34:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WTF? (3.00 / 1)

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 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:36:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WTF? (none / 0)

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 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 09:01:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WTF? (none / 0)

Really? No kidding.

Who said Reagan inveneted it?

Guess what, Reagan did not invent Paranoid Politics.


by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:14:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WTF? (none / 0)

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 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 07:39:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WTF? (none / 0)

This entire thread and the post which started it.

You just confirmed Jerome's point.


by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 07:45:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WTF? (none / 0)

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


by bruh21 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:04:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WTF? (none / 0)

To what line do you refer?


by DTB in TN on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:08:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree. (none / 0)

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 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 04:55:31 PM EST

Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan (3.00 / 3)

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 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 04:56:08 PM EST

Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan (3.00 / 1)

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


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 04:59:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan (none / 0)

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


by DoIT on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 06:10:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan (3.00 / 1)

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


by bookgrl on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 06:16:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan (3.00 / 1)

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 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 06:48:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh, I know. He was so god awful. nt (none / 0)


by bookgrl on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 07:31:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan (3.00 / 2)

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 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 06:30:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan (3.00 / 1)

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 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 06:41:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This supporter is grown and tired of the attacks (3.00 / 0)

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 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:36:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This supporter (none / 0)

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 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:38:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This supporter (1.00 / 1)

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 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:50:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This supporter (none / 0)

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


by bruh21 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:55:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan (none / 0)

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 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 06:49:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan (3.00 / 0)

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."


"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - George Orwell
by This Machine Kills Fascists on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 07:05:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

well, nineteen (none / 0)

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 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 07:29:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan (1.00 / 0)

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 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:25:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan (1.00 / 1)

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


"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - George Orwell
by This Machine Kills Fascists on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:32:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan (none / 0)

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 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:40:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan (3.00 / 0)

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.


"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - George Orwell
by This Machine Kills Fascists on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:45:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan (none / 0)

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 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:51:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan (none / 0)

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.


"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - George Orwell
by This Machine Kills Fascists on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 03:26:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan (none / 0)

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 on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 10:05:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan (none / 0)

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.


"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - George Orwell
by This Machine Kills Fascists on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 02:19:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan (none / 0)

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 on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 10:03:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama pollster Cornell Belcher is a Reagan Fan (none / 0)

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.


"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - George Orwell