It's not "hardball politics" if one candidate lies about another candidate. It's "dishonest politics" or "dirty politics." Political journalists: If you are not willing to describe falsehood accurately, instead of euphemizing falsehoods as just another part of the game, please find another beat to cover, one where you are comfortable accurately describing what you observe.

There is no difference between describing Hillary's latest attacks as "hardball politics" and a sports reporter describing Barry Bond's illegal steroids use as, say, "dedicated pursuit of excellence."

Well, as a voter in Maine, I'm glad to know that my vote in our caucus on February 10 won't be totally irrelevant.

Maybe Senator Obama was on another plane of existence than I during the Reagan years.  On reflection I recall Reagan to have increased US dependency on Middle Eastern oil via elimination of CAFE limits and to have supported bin Laden in Afghanistan.  9/11 and Iraq are the inherent offspring of Reagan’s shortsightedness and of a general complicity of all Republicans therein.

Still further, the ongoing Republican myth of Reagan causing the fall of the USSR is more than I can stomach.  I know better - I was there.

If Mr. Obama wants my vote he's barking up the wrong tree.

In the AP article, I love that the professor from Duke felt it necessary to bring up the "aliens from Mars" contingency. Shows the state of our understanding of this race better than anything else I've seen written.

Obama - a proud and vocal progessive liberal (one of the few out there) was hardly endorsing Reagan's policies, come on people. Cue the video and watch was he *actually says* rather than simply swallowing the Clinton Borg lies and mindless media spin.

Obama admired Reagan's success in creating a movement and inspiring people, something you can hardly argue with whatever your view of Reagan. Obama's "admiration", if you can really call it that, was entirely tactical, not philosophical.  Again - come one people, let's stay on our toes and pay attention.

“Clinton Borg” - Wandreycer1

I love that.

Thanks Bukharin, but I did swipe it from another poster - I can't remember who sadly, I'd love to give them credit. It's perfect, I use it all the time now.

Here is what perplexes me about Mr. Obama in regard to Reagan.  If Senator Obama is this great progressive liberal why would he waste his vocal chords in praise of Reagan.  If he wants to make me think of him as an up and coming Joseph Lieberman he has succeeded.  Not a smart move by a long shot.

Wandreycer, you need to join me in resigning yourself to the fact that Clinton couldn't give a rat's ass about accuracy and nuance. Considering her supporters seem to be the same rubes that saw John Kerry as electable, don't expect much out of them either.

Hillary, get your nomination with Rovian tactics and then remember that 49% hates you already and many solid Democrats like myself won't vote for you in November since your campaign has made you into a modern day Nixon short of his experience and bowling skills.

Bukharin, maybe he thinks liberals like you and me actually read the full statements and can appreciate that even disastrous presidents can have positive attributes outside of their policies. (Aren't we supposed to be the smart and considerate end of the political spectrum?) I guess Obama is a little too inexperienced and optimistic in that way.

As we watch how she runs her campaign, it's pretty clear that Obama :: Reagan as Hillary :: George W. Bush.

At least as far as how each Democrat admires and attempts to emulate a previous Republican's tactical approach to politics.

Also, I'll be the first to condemn Reagan (Iran/Contra was, at base, literally treason in the White House). But 9/11 and bin Laden as blowback from Reagan's Afghan policy is just false. It's not true. And to the extent that there's even a kernel of plausibility behind that particular anti-American slander, it has nothing to do with Reagan. A reelected Carter would have followed exactly the same approach to supporting anti-Soviet resistance in Afghanistan; the Carter administration was already doing so when Reagan took office.

If Obama made a mistake at all in his discussion of Reagan, it was overestimating the intelligence of democratic primary voters, and assuming they'd actually look at his actual words, in context.

Carter would have followed exactly the same approach to supporting anti-Soviet resistance in Afghanistan; the Carter administration was already doing so when Reagan took office. - Rhubarbs

Carter wisely did Not support every group in Afghanistan against the Soviets.  Reagan did.  Successfully enlisting bin Laden.  Plenty of people knew that was unwise.  9/11 proved it.

I don't expect honesty from the Clinton Borg, but the lies are only effective if people are lazy about basic facts - and they know that too.  It's the same old tired tactics, distort and lie and count on laziness.  But at least smart people who know better can fight it, it's not like it;s hard. Just actually listen to Obama rather than what other people SAY he says.

Bukharin,

So I take it that you approve of the implication laden synopsis Clinton(s) are floating out there. Hmmm. Seems like the argument caves in of its own weight.

Hillary, get your nomination with Rovian tactics and then remember that 49% hates you already and many solid Democrats like myself won't vote for you in November since your campaign has made you into a modern day Nixon short of his experience and bowling skills. - ilnoca

Nixon bowled well?  Who knew!

Bukharin,

I thought your support of Hillary must be the worst thing about you, but now I know it's your lack of appreciation of The Big Lebowski. That's just un-American.

Mark it eight.

boxofrox,

I think my distaste for all things Reagan is stronger than even I had previously realized.

On a far better note I see Mrs. Obama has spoken up in defense of the Senator and I very much liked what she had to say, excepted from The Greenville News:

Michelle Obama defends husband's voting record, experience

Michelle Obama never mentioned the Clintons by name, and she told The Greenville News afterward that despite the involvement of former president Bill Clinton in his wife’s campaign, her role will remain "that of spouse," and that she’s "not a politician."

Referring to criticism -- renewed by Hillary Clinton this week -- of her husband’s more than 100 "present" votes in the Illinois Senate, Michelle Obama highlighted his work passing ethics reform, expanding child care, gaining tax credits for the working poor and dealing with racial profiling and the death penalty.

"So let me tell you, when people talk about Barack’s voting record in the state Senate, they will not talk to you about that because that would be too much information for you, wouldn’t it?" she said. "It’s much easier to focus on a few ‘present’ votes," instead of his work for "regular people" that "no other front-runner in this race can claim at all."

She described his decision after college to do community work instead of going to Wall Street to "make millions," then his decision after Harvard Law School to take on civil rights work and the state legislature. She said his books are the only reason they recently got out of debt.

"It would seem to me that before anyone would open their mouth to even claim to want to be president of the United States they would have to show that kind of commitment to regular folks," she said.

She said the candidates with Washington experience chose to support the Iraq war while her husband opposed it during a primary race he wasn’t supposed to win.

She also referred to detailed policy discussions in the presidential campaign, a trait Hillary Clinton casts as a strength.

"People always want to know the intricacies of candidates’ policies," she said, "but the truth is a lot of this stuff isn’t rocket science. We know what we need to do with public education because there are thousands of excellent public schools all over this country. We know what they look like, we know what they cost. Our problem is that they only exist for the fortunate few."

To the question of whether Obama is "tough enough" to run against the Republican nominee, Michelle Obama said, "Do you know where we live? Chicago politics. Illinois politics. Mean, tough politics."

The Greenville News - Published: Thursday, January 24, 2008 - 2:00 am