"Yes, he is vilified by less-secure Democrats for acknowledging Ronald Reagan"

[wndycty]

-snip-
By one measure, this endorsement is a paradox. We're urging votes for a candidate whose political views we often disagree with. But this is a more complicated contest, and a more complex candidate, than the norm. This nation's next president inherits a war—against terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere—that has found many ways to divide Americans. Capitol Hill is gridlocked and uncivil. Our discourse is hostage to blame.

Obama can help this nation move forward. A Tribune profile last May labeled his eight years in Springfield as "a study in complexity, caution and calculation. In the minority party for all but his final two years in the Statehouse, he tempered a progressive agenda with a cold dash of realism, often forging consensus with conservative Republicans when other liberals wanted to crusade."

Racial profiling, death penalty reform, recording of criminal interrogations, health care—when victory was elusive, Obama seized progress. He did so by working fluidly with Republicans and Democrats. He sought out his ideological foes. He listened closely to them. As a result, many Republicans in Illinois have warm words for Barack Obama.

Obama's key opponent, U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, unifies only her foes. Her penchant for gaming every issue—recall her clumsy dodging when asked in a Philadelphia debate whether illegal immigrants should be licensed to drive—feeds suspicion of maneuvering that would humble Machiavelli.
-snip-

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0127edit1jan27,0,847324.story

[aquart]

1. "Seized progress." How does one do that?

Wouldn't seizing it stop it in its tracks?

I don't mind idolatrous metaphors, but could they please not be ridiculous?

[robbedvoter]

2. Less secure? Acknowledging? How fitting for the Trib!

So the Trib says, a secure Dem should praise (acknowledge) Raygun's greatness....O-key dokey then You endorsed the right guy then.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4172215&mesg_id=4172284
Audacity of Hope page 31:

"That Reagan's message found such a receptive audience spoke not only to his skills as a communicator; it also spoke to the failures of liberal government, during a period of economic stagnation, to give middle-class voters any sense that it was fighting for them. For the fact was government at every level had become to cavalier about spending taxpayer money. Too often bureaucracies were oblivious to the cost of their mandates. A lot of liberal rhetoric did seem to value rights and entitlements over duties and responsibilities. Reagan may have exaggerated the sins of the welfare state, and certainly liberals were right to complain that his domestic policies tilted heavily toward elites, with corporate raiders making tidy profits throughout the eighties while unions were busted and the income for the average working stiff flatlined.

Nevertheless, by promising to side with those who worked hard, obeyed the law, cared for their families, loved their country, Reagan offered Americans a sense of common purpose that liberals seemed no longer able to muster."

Pages 156-157

"The conservative revolution Reagan helped usher in gained traction because Reagan's central insight--that the liberal welfare state had grown complacent and overly bureaucratic, with Democratic policy makers more obsessed with slicing the economic pie than with growing he pie--contained a good deal of truth."

[Hydra]

3. I love how they always make things "complicated"

by saying that we have war or terrorism to contend with.

That is NOT a good excuse for why we should put up with things we don't want in our candidate.

[ursi]

4. does the White House belong to the Clintons or to the people?

[Ravy]

5. The issue (to me) is not the mention of Reagan, it was equating

the presidency of Clinton and Nixon. If being transformative is so rare, why choose to list the presidency of a national disgrace with that of your chief rival's spouse. There should have been dozens of non-transformative administrations to choose from.

He also claimed that the republican party, starting with a date of your chief rival's spouse's administration, was the "party of ideas". How would Obama react if Hillary singled out Elizabeth Edwards as "the potential first lady with ideas"?

Obama picked this fight.