Personally, I think if Hillary were the likely nominee, things would probably be different. And I think the reason she is fighting so hard to stay in the campaign is that she is well aware that Barack cannot win the General Election. But, her only hope at this point is that there is a "brokered convention" and that enough will come out about Obama that she can sway the Super Delegates to give her the nomination.

d;-)

her slash and burn tactics would be the same.

I don't see Dean as worse, but, no better either.

that he seemed to maintain a stranglehold on the Democratic Party. That always seemed bizarre to me but it makes sense in the context of paving the way for Hillary.

Lord knows she couldn't get there on her own.

Is to raise MONEY for party political campaigns and spread it around where it is likely to do the most good. Normally, they have little or nothing to do with the campaigns for POTUS since the candidates have a huge organization of their own to campaign and raise funds.

d;-)

Not at all odd. Bill Clinton was a brilliant president who led our nation through eight incredible years that stand out all the more for being surrounded by so much dismal Republican-led failure. So, even when Clinton moved on from the day to day workings of Democratic politics, of course proud Americans continued to pay a lot of attention to him.

What always confused me more was how a failure like Ronald Reagan could become a deity for his party. Even after he lost his marbles... in fact, even now, when he's been rotting in his grave for years, the GOP continues to genuflect at his altar. Why is that? What's the hold he has on your party? I could see such popularity if his era was one of across-the-board dramatic improvement, like Clinton's. But, instead, it was mediocre, economically and socially, and was most notable for its reckless dive into record pubic debt.

after the mysery of Vietnam and the doldrums of years Carter.

Bill road Reagan's coattails. What Bill accomplished was to take credit for the fruits of Reagan's work.

Recognize, he was a man who was elected Republican governor of one of the most Liberal States in the union - and was very popular Governor. And throught his years as POTUS he remained popular with a broad cross-section of the population.

And while his "domestic" accomplishments may not compare to those of Bill Clinton - his accomplishments vis-a-vis the USSR were both significant and popular at home.

d;-)

They run around here saying...what's wrong with the Hillary supporters? We just can't imagine why they are so angry.

Yeah right...if we treated them the way they've treated us they'd really have something to whine about.

I can tell you one thing...if Obama does win the nomination they are going to see just how easy they had it with HRC...the neocons are going to tear them a new one...I must say I'll enjoy watching it.

SG

One of my favorite things about Reagan idolatry is the insane selectivity of its economic rules. Reagan is credited with the decent economy of 1984-1989, but not the dismal economy of 1990-1993, then gets credit again for the brilliant economy of 1994-2000, but not the horrible one from 2001 to the present. It's fun to make up the rules as you go along, isn't it?

for the economy of the late 90s but not the downturn of 2000...

Reagan had that Holllywood skill of self-promotion down wonderfully. His supporters learned well, and so credited Reagan with developments in Russia, even when those developments happened years after Reagan left office and were tied to processes that started long before he entered office.

In the real world, Reagan deserves some measure of credit for winning the cold war -- as does every major leader of a Western nation from WWII through the mid 90s (when the danger of communist relapse gradually faded). Reagan should rightly get a slice of that pie, but no bigger than Kohl, Thatcher, Carter, and countless others, and smaller than Truman and GHW Bush. But right-wingers loved the guy unthinkingly, so they had to invent something to justify that love, and they invented the notion that he won the cold war.

As you know, I don't ignore the slowdown of 2000 (it was a slowdown, not a downturn -- the economy grew in 2000, and unemployment and poverty fell). I count Clinton's era as a whole, from the tough times of 1993 through the difficulties of the Asian financial meltdown, right up through the day he left office. Taken as a whole, complete with those tough times, it was a brilliant era, economically. Job creation was far above average, as was median income growth, as was stock growth, as was GDP growth, and the economic and social negatives plummted, from budget deficits to violent crime to teen pregnancy. I don't cherry pick the Clinton era. But Republicans happily cherry-pick the Reagan era, by discounting his first term and then selectively picking from events that came after he left office. I suppose I can't blame them. If I'd made the odd decision to idolize someone who was horrible for this country, I'd have to be a lot more creative with my arguments, too.

Clinton's years were a setup for disaster and with Greenspans help it was exactly that! The effects of their actions (if any by clinton) would show up immediately; they took a few months to appear to the casual watcher but early in 2001 to the astute market watcher.

Arkady:

Reagan had that Holllywood skill of self-promotion down wonderfully. His supporters learned well, and so credited Reagan with developments in Russia, even when those developments happened years after Reagan left office and were tied to processes that started long before he entered office.

In the real world, Reagan deserves some measure of credit for winning the cold war -- as does every major leader of a Western nation from WWII through the mid 90s (when the danger of communist relapse gradually faded). Reagan should rightly get a slice of that pie, but no bigger than Kohl, Thatcher, Carter, and countless others, and smaller than Truman and GHW Bush. But right-wingers loved the guy unthinkingly, so they had to invent something to justify that love, and they invented the notion that he won the cold war.

The best con that Reagan came up with was the Neutron bomb, something that never existed, and, still doesn't - but the Russians couldn't take the chance that he was running a con.

If the Neutron bomb existed, all the Russian tank armies, which could have swept across Europe, were negated, they just couldn't risk it, and, their industrial military base collapsed, leading to the break up of the USSR.