... in the thread, because it is spot on in my humble opinion.

I see it that way, and you coherently explain why.

Like in this radio comment?

the bank, upon hearing Obama invoke the name of Reagan. In their code, which I think Obama understands very well, Obama has told them they can relax, everything will be just fine.

Obama knew what he was doing in using the image of Reagan in his campaign, and it has nothing to do with any sort of "progressive Reaganism." It is pandering to the right, and Reagan did not pander to the left. Reagan used solid conservative talking points. Can you imagine Reagan invoking the name of, say, Roosevelt, in the way that Obama invokes the name of Reagan?

This is blatant pandering, plain and simple.

I notice in your response that you don't mention Obama's agreement with Reagan about big government.

because you nailed it and I'm heartsick at how ppl are happily misunderstanding.

This ought to be a Comment of the Day.

As Greg Sargent pointed out at TPM, Obama's point is as follows:

-- Our country is ready for another paradigm shift, this time to the left, and

-- Obama is far better equipped to match the country's willingness to move left than Hillary Clinton, who is fundamentally incapable of anything other than, shall we call it, Clintonesque incrementalism.

-- So, Obama is trying to say, electing Hillary would be a hugely wasted opportunity, because our country is ready to move several steps to the left, but a President Hillary Clinton would (at most) be a couple of baby steps to the left of the George W. Bush presidency.

I agree with that point.  Though I would add that John Edwards would also be a worthy "change agent" to effect the significant change that we the people are ready for.

if, as you say

Obama also lived through the Reagan years. He was working as an organizer on the South Side of Chicago, a witness to the hell that Reagan's policies wreaked.

...where the hell is this in this quote from him? Okay, it's out of context, and I haven't read the context, but this quote reads, just like the diarist says, as nostalgia and praise of the Reagan 'optimism'.

If Obama truly remembers the hell that Reagan's policies wreaked, if he really believes he can help us turn a corner into a new progressive optimism, then every time the word 'Reagan' comes out of his mouth, it should be with utmost scorn. If he has the progressive sense that his supporters claim, if he has the true intelligence we need, if he has the boldness to put a final period on this nightmare of neocon horrors the nation has been subjected to, he needs to begin by utterly and explicitly rejecting Reagan - the prototype and god of the neocons -  from the actor's friendly smile and jovial humor right down to his invention of the Welfare Queen and his deification of the Tax Cut. And, yes, including utterly rejecting Ronnie's engineered optimism, which had rainbows defending us from nuclear bombs and tax cuts lifting all boats.

That style of unification, that style of myth-making by way of gaining power, is precisely what horrifies thinking people most about Reagan and his ilk. A progressive who exhibited the same tendencies would be nearly as terrifying, dismaying, and outrageous, as a Reagan or a George W. Bush.

argument is this:

Yes, Reagan tapped into something primal, but what he did was argue that what was wrong with America could be fixed ONLY if Americans embraced conservatism and the Republican world view.   The resulting realignment was not only toxic to the nation, but is turned partisanship into all out war.  Democrats were no longer the loyal opposition, they were the enemy.  Liberal became an epithet.  

The zeitgeist reflected in this success by Reagan is that people were feeling impotent, scared, and angry on the international scene (there was the ongoing Cold War, the Iranian hostage situation, and the OPEC oil crisis which had led to gas rationing, long lines, and the sense that we were at the mercy of the Middle East oil sheiks) and were both disgruntled and complacent at home (disgruntled about the economy which wasn't in great shape and complacent about all the gains made in the 60's and 70's as regards civil rights, the environment, government-funded science research, the space program, regulation of corporations,  etc.).  It was assumed that the Democrats, who controlled Congress, would be a counterweight to Reagan on domestic issues, but people wanted a John Wayne-like figure to act the tough-father figure on foreign affairs.  

Fast-forward to today.  What is the zeitgeist now?  It is for change, that is for certain.  Many would argue is that the zeitgeist is toward a progressive realignment.

But Reagan accomplished his "change" by lying to people and encouraging them to give in to their worst instincts -- whether it was to the chauvinists who wanted to posture about America's position in the world, the racists who disliked civil rights, the men who disliked feminism, the rich who didn't want to pay taxes, the middle class who aspired to be rich, the anti-New Dealers who hated the idea of a social-safety-net because everyone should be able to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, the energy consumers who didn't want to be told by their President (Carter) that their unwillingness to conserve was wrong and a long-term threat to the security of our nation. Indeed, most of the worst excesses of Bush's administration had their roots in the Reagan "revolution". So if the zeitgeist now is to seek change and escape from the devastation to our national values that the Reagan "revolution" created, how is praising the source of the devastation and making peace with its heirs going to accomplish that?  

Furthermore, Obama cannot be Yin to Reagan's Yang, because Reagan  pushed the country to the right through his extremely conservative positions and his highly partisan rhetoric.  Obama claims to not want to push anyone anywhere but to negotiate to some mythical middle.  Obama's push for bipartisanship will not harness the zeitgeist of today but instead will rob it of its vigor and its ability to materialize into real change.  

I take Obama to be saying that the way to effectuate a political realignment is to find a way to tap into something primal, something that resonates with the times.  [snip]  Obama's campaign has focused on the themes that we are not as divided as we are always being told we are, that we are one people with more that unites us than that divides us, that we are our brothers' and sisters' keepers, that we are a caring and diverse nation.  I think he is trying to tap into what he perceives as a widespread desire for a truce: to stop fighting over every little thing to stop allowing politicians and pundits to play us against one another for their own purposes, to just accept one another's differences so we can work together on the vast number of things we all have in common.  I think he believes that there is a yin to Reagan's yang, but that either times or the leaders that have stepped forward haven't been right to ignite a fire around that and move people toward a large-scale realignment of political loyalties.

this message IS resonating, and the idea that people here would oppose this message really mystifies me.

One thing that struck me was that you wrote in your diary that it wasn't until you got to Russia that you realized you'd been lied to.  Might that suggest that Obama is onto a kernel of truth that Reagan really did tap into a kind of selfish and simplistic zeitgeist of the times?  You had to leave the country to see it was false.

I would say that was no more, or less, true than it is now.

I was the same age as the diarist during that time, with the difference that I grew up in a major city, going to a series of programs in public schools run by what we now call progressives.  

We had an excellent Russian teacher in our high school who had lived in the USSR, also taught Russian history and worked very hard to counteract the propaganda of the time with real knowledge.  

And there were other attempts by other teachers to give us an idea of what was really going on for people on the other side of the Iron Curtain (as far as anyone could tell), to promote peace and understanding and faith in the scary commies as being normal people like ourselves who didn't want nuclear war any more than we did, people who were hostages to their government just as we were (and are) to ours.

Those teachers taught me and many of my peers to be deeply cynical about the mass media and anything a politician says.  We caught a lot of flak for that as a generation (that and being desperately focused on making sure we got good jobs when we got out of college, after spending our childhoods in a recession).

The propaganda was everywhere, but the information was available, just as now, if you really want to know what real Iraqis or Iranians are like, what they think, what they want, it is possible to find out.  The TV isn't going to feed it to you though.

Most of us knew Reagan was full of crap. We didn't have to leave the country to figure it out.

Reagan was a con artist and a charlatan, and no one who holds him up as some kind of example of leadership deserves the vote of any right-thinking person.

...I do appreciate it. I was describing my own "moment of truth" as a young person. It happens to different folks and different times (and multiple times).

I am a natural skeptic of some types of rhetoric, and this one struck my nerve.

I respectfully disagree with Sen Obama's take on the 1980 election and the mood of the country...

Thanks for commenting :)

you a thousand times, but alas, I'm still in kos' doghouse.

Thanks for a fine, fine comment.  You tell 'em - I stutter.