Should Obama Mention Bringing "Honor and Integrity Back To The White House"? It'd Kill 2 Birds

[KittyWampus]

It would damage the Clintons, since that was what Junior claimed he'd do when running for 2000. It obliquely refers to Monica and Clinton scandals without actually doing so.

Mediawhores would definitely pick up on it considering it's historical context.

It'd reinforce the sorry state Junior has since brought the USA down to.

People trust Obama more than the Clintons, it'd help drive the Clinton's numbers down.

[Lerkfish]

1. ya know, I'm thinking he doesn't even need to.

he's ahead, and she's trailing by more and more due mainly to her negative kitchen sink smears. I think the high road is working for him and he should stick to it.

[goclark]

2. If he does I would only mention "for the last eight years"

Bill and Hillary were great in the WH and this is coming from an Obama fan.

[jobycom]

3. It might also make people see him as an inexperienced media creation they'd want a beer with

but that they're fed up with us electing.

It's sick enough that he's willingly modeled his campaign after Reagan's, but then to add a nod to the other worst president of all times... I'm thinking that's a bad idea.

Remember, too, that real Democrats have good memories of the Clinton era, so an oblique reference to that time might create warm feelings toward Clinton, rather than the opposite.

[KittyWampus]

4. how is building real live grassroots organizations in all 50 states "modeled after Reagan"?

this should be interesting hearing your bullshit response.

Reagan was all about astroturf, wedge issues and pandering to racists.

There is one Democrat who has engaged in such Reaganesque behavior and it's in a pantsuit.

[jobycom]

7. Ask Obama's advisers that one.

"Now, it is blasphemy for Democrats," Obama pollster Cornell Belcher said of Reagan, "but that hope and optimism that was Ronald Reagan" allowed him to "transcend" ideological divisions within his own party and the general electorate. (This is from July of 07)

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0707/5097.html

Here's Obama's own words: I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating.

(I'm not sure how backing Republican memes about the government's excesses is progressive, but I didn't get the Kool Aid gene, anyway, so maybe I'm not qualified to judge.) http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3263


Here's an article from February of 08 that I found interesting:

1) Obama has surrounded himself with centrist economic advisers, like the frustratingly reasonable Austan Goolsbee of the University of Chicago. Former Fed chief Paul Volcker is also a supporter.

2) Obama seems skeptical that we can somehow "stop globalization" by pulling out of NAFTA or the World Trade Organization. Better to cut smart trade deals and help displaced workers.

3) Obama's healthcare plan is more cautious than Hillary's, with no mandate to buy coverage. And no single-payer Kucinich kind of deal—at least not yet.

4) Obama has resisted the temptation to call for an interventionist mortgage rate freeze or a moratorium on resets, as Hillary did, to help homeowners. Instead, he favors tax credits.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/2/12/is-obama-really-the-liberal-reagan.html

Anyway, just google Reagan Obama and you'll see that not only have most political observers noticed and noted it, but Obama and his advisers brag about it.

And many of us believe Obama is all astroturf, too, you understand. This man built his campaign on corporate money, then once his war chest was large enough, he stopped taking PAC mony (except through his own PAC) and started pretending he was funded by "grass roots" efforts. Like much else about Obama, that's false.

Obama supporters will be hurt if he loses, but they will be broken hearted in he wins. Dude's as phoney as Reagan, but like Reagan, his supporters don't see it. The cult of personality rules.

[uberblonde]

5. Hmmm.

So which candidate's supporters are more interesting in poisoning their opponent for the general election? Let me guess, it's, hmmm...

[GoldieAZ49]

6. since he has neither he may not want to go that route

then again, it would be fun to watch