Obama's head speech writer, just 23 years old I believe, is admittedly heavily influenced by Reagan, for what it's worth.  www.WhyTheDemocratsWillWinIn2008.c om

I have to think the use of the specific phrase "welfare queen" is a dog-whistle on multiple levels, and it's one I approve of.

"Welfare queen" was, of course, part of Reagan's strategy of demonizing liberal government programs by characterizing them as nothing but handouts for undeserving blacks.  Republicans still play this strategy, except now Mexicans get to join the fun too; the first argument against any Democratic proposal always happens to be "illegal immigrants will get the benefits!"

So on the one hand, he's signaling to blacks and other minority groups that he understands the process by which they are made the scapegoat and he rejects it.  And on the other hand, I have to think part of the reason he invoked this phrase was as a reaction to the whole Reagan flap over the past week, a nod to the fact that he understands what Reagan's game really was.

It's a very nice speech by Obama and in parts it really speaks eloquently to the vision of community that the Democratic Party stands for.  That is, at its heart, the difference between the two ideologies: we believe that we're all in this together, and the other guys believe we're all on our own.

This is a good speech. Every once in a while Obama does make the progressive case, I wish he could do it more regularly.

I have several thoughts. On one hand I think bamas opponents are trying to mischaracterize his praise for regan into support for his policies. anyone that argues their policy preferences are similar is being disingenuous. on the other hand, bama should not cry foul that his words are being politicized, since by bringing up regan, a person that was despised by progressives and minorities, he opens himself up to such criticism. clinton's willingness to be fuzzy and downright misleading - for instance by insisting obama is pushing a "trillion dollar tax increase," shuld have put him on notice.

secondly, I think obama is playing a delicate game - he is trying to appeal to the working class whites by showing he can be brutally honest to his own people. but he is also speaking to many blacks, who consider themselves as part of the post civil rights generation. these are people who are mre likely to agree with bill cosby's self criticisms, as opposed to sharpton. this is an increasing percentage of AA's, but they are simply not as effective in getting their message out as sharpton an co. I think that obama believes that nw that he apparently has the support of the vast majority of AA's that are excited about the possibility of a black president, that he can afford to be somewhat tougher And more critical of perceived faults without losing all support.

With all due respect, both to Ms. Chart and to the junior senator from Illinois, I maintain that this sort of thing:

"The believer condemns the non-believer as immoral, and the non-believer chides the believer as intolerant."

concedes far too much ground.  There is a false equivalency here that renders the whole passage both intellectually dishonest and morally--yes, morally--suspect. The "paranoid style" of American conservatism to the contrary notwithstanding, religious believers in this country are not beseiged by an aggressive movement of militant atheists claiming that "belief" is inherently intolerant, but there is in this country a large and influential political-religious movement aggressively asserting that "non-belief' is inherently immoral.    

And you just pretty much proved you don't understand what was said or the context it was said in.  Stop trying to take it in a way it was not said in or meant in.  See Steve M's comment above.

His campaign is not about all people agreeing on all issues being the only ones who can work together.  He may disagree with the anti-gay people you are referencing on gay rights issues.. Obama's record shows supports of Gay Rights.  But some of these ministers want to help the poor, improve the economy, etc.  In that regards and on those issues, Obama will work with them.  Or think of it this way.  You are a Democrat who wants to pass populist legislation.  Mike Huckabee wants to help (lets for the sake of argument say he's in the Senate)  Huckabee supports many populist measures... are you telling me you turn down an ally fighting for this specific legislation because you disagree with him on other issues?  Are you saying all your allies have to be 100% "pure" in order to work with them?  Because if they do, then you will NEVER get an item passed.

And THAT is what you and many others have never understood about Obama and the call for Change and Hope.  It requires US to work to bring about change, not just elected officials.  He is calling for us to get involved in Government and Make a difference... something Dean and Edwards have called for too.  

Obama is trying to bring new people into the process.  Reagan brought in disillusioned Democrats and turned them into Republicans, ultimately culminating in 1994.  Bush, luckily enough, and his cronies have shattered that by going further and further right.  Obama is saying the time is right to bring those disillusioned Republicans over to the Democratic Party and work to build a strong majority.  Otherwise, by not bringing in these people and by ignoring the youth vote, we will continue to see bitterly close elections.

This is ridiculous, and sets up a false conflict:

The believer condemns the non-believer as immoral, and the non-believer chides the believer as intolerant.

Believers don't condemn non-believers as immoral.  Sanctimonious assholes do that.

And non-believers don't condemn believers as intolerant.  They condemn sanctimonious assholes as intolerant.

The dichotomy that it is believers vs. atheists is a load of crap.  That's how the right wing wants to phrase it to create conflict where there is none, to rile up evangelicals who would otherwise not care what their non-believing neighbors do.

But when they are told their non-believing neighbor thinks they are intolerant, the believers get annoyed.  Then they treat their neighbor intolerantly, and the non-believer gets out of shape.

And now neither one notices that they get along fine and the real assholes are the plutocrats plundering our wealth and stealing their middle class futures.

Reagan was NOT a powerful orator.  He was an addlepated has-been film star who had been propped up by General Electric in the 1950s to move to the Republican side of politics.

He was on a mission from the GOP and social conservatives to undermine both FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society.

The MSM was then in the process of being bought up by Right-wing politicos (realizing that much of the news media by then had done in Richard Nixon after Watergate).

That is why Roger Ailes and company, through Right-wing owned media outlets, went to work on animating the Reagan presidency.

Reagan ought to have been impeached after Iran-Contra.  He was not because then House Speaker Tip O'Neill (Reagan's buddy and Chris Matthews' mentor), as well as the majority of the MSM, were there to prop him up.

Reagan, at 69, was only elected in 1980 because the American electorate had had it with the inaction of the Carter administration.  They were willing to set aside their concerns for Reagan's age in favor of CHANGE--which is the reserve of today, wherein John McCain, at 72, represents now the Bush White House status quo.  

That is why, whatever the MSM and pollsters tell us now, McCain hasn't a prayer.

But Reagan was one of the worst of all United States presidents, leaving the nation mired in credit card debt, always borrowing on tomorrow (his very age made him myopic on viewing the future), and he did not end the Cold War--the USSR imploded, much as the United States is doing today.

The MSM however, particularly after the lackluster George Bush I and the ascendency of Bill Clinton, needed to both resurrect and reanimate the Reagan legacy.

Those Right-wing elements created the Great Reagan Myth--and thus set the stage for the evisceration of the United States under George Walker Bush.

When a three-year neophyte like Obama praises--however parsed are those praises--the Reagan movement, he cannot begin to comprehend how horrible such words are to bedrock Democrats over fifty.

I do not mean here the "Reagan Democrats" of 1980 and 1984--they have already gone over to the Dark Side many years ago.  I mean to refer to those of us who have stood by our Democratic Party, and its union core members, against the onslaught of the Reagan years and beyond.

Obama's praise of Reagan--however parsed--reveals just how immature and just how politically green he truly is.

And just how in love with himself he truly is--to the detriment of both the party and nation he would ask to lead.

From the beginning of this campaign, the Obama camp never "got it."  Yes, one can build an army of volunteers, and "storm the gates" of the political process.  That is all well and good.

And one can give many an inspiring speech, and one can have the anti-Clinton media fawn over you 24/7.

But one CANNOT be the nominee of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY and both trash the Clintons and praise Ronald Reagan.

This is music to the ears of the Clinton-hating MSM, the Right-wing pundits, pollsters and talking-heads.  

Which is why, even after Obama's disastrous showing in Nevada (a 51-45% is still a huge loss in this very representative state, regardless of delegate allocation; no spin can make it otherwise), the MSM is still promulgating Obama.

The Clintons have long been very well-tested.  The core base is with them and shall not abandon them--and certainly not for the three-year novice Obama, praising Reagan.

With the possible exception of South Carolina tomorrow (and its plus 50% African-American base) and his home state of Illinois, I doubt that Obama will ever see a victory again.

We bedrock Democrats want our party back.  And Reagan-praising, Clinton trashing Obamamaniacs need not apply.

Funny how on one hand Obama is talking out about scorning our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them and OTOH homophobic "Cure All Gays" ministers are campaigning for him.

Article from the Houston Cronicle date Jan. 19, 2008.

The Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell, longtime spiritual adviser to President George W. Bush and senior pastor of Windsor Village United Methodist Church, plans to campaign on behalf of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama.
...
The pastor, however, said he has informed his congregation of his presidential choice and that Obama may even pay a visit to his church.

"I have been in contact with the Obama campaign team," he said. "I will be making visits on his behalf."

Caldwell, a believer that homsexuality is a curable disease of the soul, yesterday had this up on the church's website:

We are pleased to announce the creation of "The Way, The Truth and The Life", a program created to provide Christ Centered instruction for those seeking freedom from homosexuality, lesbianism, prostitution, sex addiction and other habitual sins.

That Source
 on the church's website now returns this message:

HTTP 404 File Not Found

The resource you are looking for may have been removed, had it's name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.