Reagan fixed the "excesses of the 60s and 70s", "party of ideas", Clinton is divisive" These are all RNC spin points. What the fuk is up with that?

I understand why Obama might admire Reagan as an optimist who made people feel good no matter how badly things were going whether due to his screw ups (remember the teflon president moniker?) or due to other reasons. But by purposefully not mentioning that the republican party is not the "party of ideas" (remember? RNC spin point?), but rather the "party of shitty ideas"(remember? reality?) he’s simply pandering to scrape up a few of the “disillusioned republican” votes.

Furthermore as sorenreport points out, Bill Clinton by any measure (The economy. Wages. Taxes. Foreign policy. The environment. Women's health. Race relations. Supreme Court nominees. Food and safety regulations. World opinion. Popularity when leaving office.) shows himself well above presidents like Reagan, who on his best days was a nice figure head and on his worst days a disaster in foreign and domestic policy.

So for the sake of political expediency (yeah right Obama’s above that) it does not behoove Obama to equate the best management and best leadership in recent memory to a president with Clinton in their name. But he should know the reason every time the name Clinton is mentioned to Republicans, they drop a load in their pants is because he is the only democrat in recent years to have owned them no matter what kind of bullshit they pulled.

And finally does Obama pay royalties for these RNC spin points or does he get them for free?

Don't blame Nader, at least he ran on conviction.

So what? Every idealogue and zealot who causes desperation and ruin does so on conviction.

If Hillary is the nominee I will not vote in the general election. Does that mean you support one of the dumb fuk republicans for president - which one?

The last time I heard this much anti-establishment talk similar to whats coming from the Obama fansters was in the sixties. So does that mean the hippy era is returning? (I am cool with that. Yeah let's wave our freak flag high.!)

So really, for some of us still down here on earth, we the people are selecting a candidate to a management and leadership position. A big one granted, but still like you know an earthly job. Actually a job that doesn't even pay that well relative to other ceo jobs. This cult of personality thing with Obama is getting a little weird.

Let's not kid ourselves: HRC supporters better be comfortable with a McCain or Romney presidency. Because that is what a HRC nomination will bring us.

Geesh thank goodness I thought you were going to say a HRC nomination would have us all slaughtered by terrorists. You know it's that republican fear tactic. Nice.

...and made it crystal clear that he wasn't in agreement with Reagan's policies.

um no he didn't. Obama wasn't clear at all. The better to pander to conservatives.

And how does a candidate for change identify with Reagan as a perceived catalyst for change, and then diss the 60's and not know, apparently due to his abject and dismal ignorance of history, how the 60's were an immense and profound catalyst for change. You know the changes republicans have been reacting against and trying to turn back for the last thirty years. Jesus, how can someone be so stupid.

BTW, does anyone ever look at Reagans approval ratings when leaving office and oh I don't know compare it to a democratic presidents ratings like oh I don't know Clinton and maybe draw some conclusions about oh I don't know leadership.

Oh poor Bushie, he got tricked by the intelligence. The unprovoked, pre-emptive war where the blood of hundreds of thousands stain the soil, wasn't his fault. You gotta understand, the intelligence made him do it. They made him do it. They made 'im. Poor little Georgie.

Awwhhhhh, come on Dana give Georgie a cookie - help him feel better.

"abandon Iraq to terrorists - surrender to al-Qaida"

Do all people who speak like this take medication that makes them repeat "al-Qaida" and "terrorists" like it's a nervous twitch?

Perhaps if they stop the medication they might grasp:

~ We introduced Al-Qaida to Iraq by invading it and de-stablizing that country.

~ The country remains unstable, and while there are pockets of improvement that appear and then disappear over and over ad-nauseum, with an occupying force present, Iraq will achieve stability somehwere around the same time we isolate death as a disease and then cure it.

~ Saying al_Qaida or terrorists are the main issue in Iraq is like telling someone suffering from major organ failure that the real problem with them are the hemoroids on their ass.

I do think McCain takes the a-hole of the month award for lying about Clintons position.