Am I the only supporter of Sen. Clinton who is disappointed by the faux Reagan/Obama outrage?

[MrsT]

By looking around at the threads lately, I might be. Of all the things we could be talking about, THIS is it? THIS is what is important? Not to me. Not all Sen. Clinton supporters are looking to exploit every dumb issue we can to advance her or tear down Obama and Edwards.

Obama supporters to take note, the next time there is faux outrage against Sen. Clinton, I hope you will chime in and defend her.

[SoxFan]

1. Fair enough

Thank you.

[rox63]

2. Thank you! n/t

[THUNDER HANDS]

3. i certainly will

I hate dumb arguments about things the candidates didn't even mean when they said them.

[FrenchieCat]

4. Faux outrage is right......

Thanks for seeing it. :hi:

And yes, petty stuff is, well petty.

[Barack_America]

5. I've taken note.

And, as long as her next offense is not too bad, I'll make an effort to defend her.

[babylonsister]

6. Sadly, MrsT, I think you are the only one. Thanks for your post. nt

[David Zephyr]

20. Good post from MrsT.

How grown up it is!

[nasher]

7. No, you are not.

I usually choose not to wade into the ugliness around here. Every candidate has some supporters around here who will exploit any stupid issue they can to advance their candidate. I highly doubt it works though.

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. I am disturbed by the daily faux outrage expressed on DU from backers of all our candidates

This is no exception. It is done to Hillary daily also.

There are real issues to disucss about how the Democratic Party can move a progressive agenda in America, about how change occurs. There is a real basis to discuss what Obama meant and why he said what he did, but too many posters are not interested in having a real discussion about any of the real choices we face in the primaries. It's all about always framing the opposing candidates as Bush-lite or worse.

[2rth2pwr]

9. ___

[Clarkansas]

12. "One candidate who would have a big electoral victory, another who already did."

Is that what you are trying to say?

I'll add the only other candidate who would have a bigger victory than Obama:

[2rth2pwr]

15. Edwards disagrees with you

Keep up.

“When you think about what Ronald Reagan did to the American people, to the middle class to the working people,” said Edwards.

“He was openly – openly – intolerant of unions and the right to organize. He openly fought against the union and the organized labor movement in this country. He openly did extraordinary damage to the middle class and working people, created a tax structure that favored the very wealthiest Americans and caused the middle class and working people to struggle every single day. The destruction of the environment, you know, eliminating regulation of companies that were polluting and doing extraordinary damage to the environment.”

“I can promise you this: this president will never use Ronald Reagan as an example for change.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/01/17/politics/fromtheroad/entry3724550.shtml

[Clarkansas]

17. Please tell me what I said in my post that Edwards disagrees with.

Thanks.

[redqueen]

28. I love this post!

:D

[Bonobo]

10. The only one I have seen certainly.

[Adelante]

11. I am glad to hear from you

I've defended Hillary Clinton in the past on DU. I may in the future if I don't get too pissed off at the continuous outpouring of faux outrage (horse shit) on Obama. Your OP makes it more likely I will defend her again than not. I was almost ready to go there. Thank you.

[Big Blue Marble]

13. MrsT, thank you for your thoughtful candor.

Emotions are running high here. Our country has been under the spell of the Republican ogre for so long that I can understand people being
supersensitive to any mention of our nemesis, Ronald Reagan. I understand exactly what Obama is saying about transformative political shifts
and how it is our turn to create one, one which will benefit the citizens of this country, not one that worked to the benefit of the power structure
at the expense of the people. I have arguing this for weeks on DU.

I think it is subtle and not as easily understood as I would hope. I have decided that is because we have been so traumatized by the harsh political
climate of our times and find it difficult to not be reactive and partisan.

I strongly believe that Obama is right about this opportunity for shift. I know that if it is to happen, it will take a candidate that is a fresh as
Obama is to do it. This is sadly, as much as I wish it were otherwise, something that Hillary or even Edwards cannot do. Hillary is just too
polarizing and Edwards has been around too long. All though his message of populism could move the country in this direction. I just think
he came to his populism after he relinquished his legislative opportunities. Because of that I see more than a hint of hypocrisy in his campaign.

[Laurab]

14. Thank you, Mrs. T

I'm not a Hillary supporter, but I have once or twice chimed in to defend her against ridiculous things like this, started by people who support my candidate.

I don't really think it's important to anyone - at least anyone who takes it in the context it was said, and I really appreciate you speaking out.

Kicked and Recommended!

[Clarkansas]

16. My 2004 candidate of choice, General Wes Clark, VOTED FOR REAGAN

Hell, most people in America did. While I am not a Clinton supporter, I find the outrage about the Reagan issue to be ridiculous.

[David Zephyr]

18. Most fair. And I appreciate your O.P.

First, I have no respect for Ronald Reagan. When he died, I posted here that his casket should have been draped with the AIDS quilt which many found over the top.

That said, when Bill and Hillary complimented and praised Reagan over the years, it did not send me into rage. At most, I'd bite my lip and chalk it up to politics.

The "faux" outrage now by some who have never posted here any outrage before regarding the Clinton's comments about Reagan is transparent and embarrasses them and their cause.

The Clintons have also said complimentary things about both Bush presidents and Bill and GHW Bush are down right chummy. That's not merited even a comment from me here.

I've stuck up for Hillary many, many times here. I will continue to do so when I feel it is necessary. (I'm the guy who defended her in New Hampshire when many were saying her tear and emotion were phony. That was crappy and I said so).

Trying to equate Obama's comment with a hatred of gays and lesbians (I am gay) is not only a stretch, but it diminishes our voice when it needs to be heard when real injustices happen.

Thank you for your most thoughtful and, dare I say it, "grown-up" O.P. here, MrsT.

K&R.

[AtomicKitten]

19. Thanks for your insight which is scarce around these parts.

If it's any consolation, I don't participate in the haircut/house/shrill threads. That stuff is minutia in the bigger scheme of things.

I think what you've tapped into is a boorish schoolyard mentality that purposely seeks kneejerk reactions here, which for the most part people seem willing to pony up.

Thank you for standing apart from that mindset and being real.

[hertopos]

21. That's not my concern

I don't misunderstand Obama's comment. I hate Youtube video moment myself.

However, there are some Obama people ( who are not Obama ) who start defending Reagan.
Otherwise, I could have kept my mouse shut. I don't post very often though I read DU regularly since right after 9-11 when the rest of the country went insane.

hertopos

[VotesForWomen]

22. it's a little over the top, but still pales compared to the hill-bashing frenzy on the other side.

[RuleOfNah]

23. I'll chime in for any (D).

This is my take on the phenomena: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/RuleOfNah/12

I'm on Team (D), not Team Candidate.

[suston96]

24. There is nothing false about this "outrage". See the politics in it and you will understand.

Obama's Reagan remark was a preemptive play for California's Reagan Democrats and Republicans who venerate Reagan as a saint. Obama knows precisely what he is doing and deserves the cumulative resistance fro those who simply do not have any kind feelings for the memories of the Reagan years.

Smart move by Obama, he thinks, fer sure.

[unc70]

25. Obama attacked Baby Boomers when he announced his candidacy

telling Boomers to get over themselves, to quit fighting those battles since the 60's replayed in the 90's, and to let a new generation take over with its new type of politics. Since those fights of the 60's and 70's were for the core issues of the Democratic Party (civil rights, women's rights, war, environment, poverty, hunger, and all the rest), we will continue to fight to keep them.

Many of us at DU started to look more-closely at Obama during the run-up to Iowa, our BS detectors activated as we found that his soaring rhetoric often glossed over and diverted the listener from the pesky details. For example, many Obama supporters are certain that he will remove all troops from Iraq, pointing to speeches and position statements on his web site to support their argument, but not reading as closely as required. When shown the debate transcripts where he was forced to admit that he would not withdraw all troops and would continue operations in the name of "anti-terrorism", many still deny these facts.

Clinton has a similar pattern of talking about immediately beginning withdrawing and then tries to move the discussion past that topic, hoping not be called on the details.

Edwards removes all troops from Iraq except for a larger-than-normal contingent of Marine embassy guards to guard the enormous embassy. Maybe as many as 2-3000 troops; but no combat and no anti-terrorism operations.

A few days ago, there were a couple of threads topping the Greatest page that discussed in detail passages from Obama's books that echoed RW attacks. Then the civil rights/racism "debate" brought forward discussions by members and leaders of the movement worried by clueless behavior.

If you do not personally remember the 1950's, it is nearly impossible to know the importance of those fights and the implications if those gains are compromised.

And then the Reagan comments surfaced, confirming our fears, and driving us to action.

Reagan did everything possible to "unite" a majority by scapegoating the very groups that define the heart of the Democratic Party.

[Enrique]

26. I'm with you

it's a senseless controversy. His statement is worthy of comment, but outrage? Come on!

[redqueen]

27. I don't know why you caul it "faux" outrage. I think that's insulting. (nt)

do you think 2/3rds of the respondents to this poll are trolls or fakers?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4099802&mesg_id=4099802

[BeyondGeography]

29. Thanks...Hillary has some reasonable supporters here

but they can always use an additional member.

Nice post.