Hillary Campaign Opens Fire On Obama Over Reagan Comments
It's official: Camp Hillary is making a campaign issue out of Obama's comments about Reagan.
In a conference call with reporters that ended moments ago, several Clinton campaign surrogates just excoriated Obama's assertions about Reagan and recent political history, which he made in an interview with the Las Vegas Review Journal a few days ago. Interestingly, the Clinton camp seized on this Obama comment from the interview:
"I think it's fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10-15 years in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom."
Hillary supporter and Congressman Barney Frank, who was on the call, said: "I was stupefied by the comments...It's baffling to me that he would speak so highly of him."
Frank also grabbed onto Obama's description of the "excesses" of governance in the 1960s and 1970s, saying: "When I think about the 60s and the 70s, I think about Medicaid, Medicare, the Environmental Protection Agency, Community Development Block Grants...It's astounding to me to have this blanket endorsement of a right wing attack."
Frank added: "When he says government in effect grew too much in the 60s and 70s...Reagan agreed with that. This is not simply a tribute to Ronald Reagan's rhetoric but an endorsement of some of the substance."
In fairness to Obama, later in the interview he did take a step towards denouncing some of the "ideas" he'd referred to in the "party of ideas" comment. And he didn't endorse the substance of any GOP idea in particular. As for the "excesses" comment, Obama was perhaps referring to the perception of governmental excess that Reagan so skillfully exploited, but it seems clear that at the very least there were some poor choices of words by Obama here.
Comments (129)
John Q Ostrich wrote on January 18, 2008 2:43 PM:I have spent the last 30 years hating the turn the government took in 1980. Also, I think Obama could'a been a little less admiring. But it is a FOOL that thinks that Reagan wasn't instrumental in the last realignment election. Obama is promising a new realignment election. That is what we want. No more of this "centrism" that looks a lot like Birchism. One thing we can be pretty sure of is that Hillary has no plan or hope for a realignment election.
Dan wrote on January 18, 2008 2:43 PM:Does anyone else find this argument boring?
Dave C wrote on January 18, 2008 2:43 PM:*yawn*
Stirling McLaughlin wrote on January 18, 2008 2:45 PM:Poor choices of words indeed! I appreciate, academically, the point Obama is making. Unfortunately, he has given his opponents some pretty juicy sound bites.
benjoya wrote on January 18, 2008 2:48 PM:maybe not content to let hillary bring the campaign back to the 90s, obama wants to see if she'll bring it back to the 80s -- that oughta get the young people excited. now back to my nap zzzzzzzzzzzz...
idlemind wrote on January 18, 2008 2:51 PM:Why does Obama keep attempting to sooth Republicans like he's already won the nomination?
john mccutchen wrote on January 18, 2008 2:52 PM:It's all about Bill. In his mind, his was a transformational, watershed presidency like Reagan's.
That's why Obama's observation, indisputable on its face, bites so hard
It's all about Bill.
That is all Mrs. Bill's campaign has ever been about
jbentley wrote on January 18, 2008 2:55 PM:Just the Clinton's daily routine of twisting Obama's words and trying to score political points.
freaktown wrote on January 18, 2008 2:55 PM:We can't trust Obama. I mean, saying something NICE about a Republican?! Surely this proves he is unfit to be president.
Mike timmons wrote on January 18, 2008 2:56 PM:Was Hillary still a Republican when Reagan was President?
AJM wrote on January 18, 2008 2:57 PM:"I'm for Change. Reagan was for Change. We are the same. Vote for me so I'll have a mandate."
This is not how you run a realignment election.
I'll have to grant Reagan that he put his bad ideas forward more than that when he went for a realignment election.
If Obama regurgitated Reagan's talking points this badly in a term paper, he'd flunk.
Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 2:57 PM:Oh, Barney did you mean this "the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom"
Well better than: Shaheen, Kerry, Rangel, Johnson, and Bill!
Yep! And on message of course!
????? What is the message, Barney?
Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 2:57 PM:Why is it so difficult for people to understand he was saying Reagan was a change agent, but he doesn't mean it in a good way? This is ridiculous and pathetic how people are taking this way out of context.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 18, 2008 2:57 PM:One thing that Clinton supporters might want to ask themselves is why they are voting for Clinton, not Edwards. Edwards announced a really brilliant health care plan very early in the campaign. Much later, Clinton came along and announced a plan that was very good, because it was essentially the same as Edwards'. A few weeks ago John Edwards announced an economic stimulus package to deal with the looming threat of recession which is presently emerging. A week or so later, Hillary Clinton announced her own economic stimulus package which was also very good, because it was essentially the exact same plan as Edwards', but with a few minor (albeit clever) emendations. Now Sen Edwards is making a cheap-shot talking point out of an out-of-context quote taken from one of Sen Obama's interviews. Merely 24 hours later (she is really picking up speed with time) Sen Clinton again apes Sen Edwards on yet another aspect of the campaign.
The pattern that a nearsighted person could see emerging a mile away here is that Sen Clinton's campaign is really just Sen Edwards' campaign in slower motion. While settle for the simulacrum when one can have the real McCoy?
BluePuppy wrote on January 18, 2008 2:58 PM:I'm surprised that Obama has given Hillary a couple openings with the CEO statement and this one. He's usually more precise in his language and its implications. These were the mistakes Hillary was supposedly making during New Hampshire re MLK & LBJ. But I imagine that everyone is exhausted.
Will wrote on January 18, 2008 2:58 PM:"Obama was perhaps referring to the perception of governmental excess that Reagan so skillfully exploited, but it seems clear that at the very least there were some poor choices of words by Obama here."
Greg - you're aren't properly characterizing Obama's reference to Reagan, while conceding to Clinton's premise. The context of the comparison is that the country is in the mood for redefining political shift. Like RR created the "Reagan Democrat", he's attempting to create the "Obama Republican".
Keith wrote on January 18, 2008 2:58 PM:Welcome to Politics as Usual.
Greg:
I just finished watching the full interview and I don't recall Frank's characterization of Obama's comment. Did anyone on the call ask for them to substantiate their characterizations of his comments?
This is where, to me, the media always fails people. The report this crap without pointing out where folks are taking liberty with what the individual said. I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same.
I'll concede the floor to the incoming HRC Horde, cause I know they are prepared to demonstrate their craven ability to distort and mock without conscious.
stryker wrote on January 18, 2008 2:58 PM:well, when you go on in the same talk and put down Pres. Clinton, the most popular democrat in the country, then that ain't too smart and as a union democrat myself I can say he won't get my vote. Talk about judgement and there you have it in your face from this fellow.
Jaz Hayre wrote on January 18, 2008 2:59 PM:Has Obamas strategy changed?
"The democrats arn't going to vote me in... Lets see if Republicans will instead?"
So far this week, he's been "fond" of Reagan, and then also slated Bill Clinton's presidency.
He should be concerned about this one, because if this goes mainstream Democrats will slap him in the face, and hard!
Bozo the Clown wrote on January 18, 2008 2:59 PM:john mccutchen wrote on January 18, 2008 2:52 PM:
It's all about Bill. In his mind, his was a transformational, watershed presidency like Reagan's.
That's a joke, right? All Bill did was lead the Democrats on a HARD RIGHT TURN, which is why he is such an enigma.
Q: Why do his fellow Republicans hate him?
Answer: Because it isn't about policy, it is about winning and controlling the patronage.
Q: Why does the Democratic establishment love him?
Answer: Because it isn't about policy, it is about winning and controlling the patronage.
Q: Why do the activists reject Hillbot?
Answer: Because it isn't about winning and controlling the patronage, it is about policy.
There you go again Greg writing about what Obama actually said as if that meant anything.
We all know that it doesn't matter what he says, the only thing that matters is what he means!
And Obama means CHANGE!
Change like more Reagan union busting (take that you Culinary Workers!) and illegal wars in Central America in defiance of law and the Constitution and more selling arms to our sworn enemies!
And lets not forget the slaughtered marines of Lebanon.
Or Nancy's freebie designer gowns and Imperial chinaware.
So what if some silly nuns got raped and murdered by School of the Americas alum in the process?
Or that Reagan financed right wing death squads throughout Central and South America.
That's what Obama is talking about:
CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE!
Back to the 80's!
Back to the Real Southern Strategy, the Republican one!
All hail the ObaReagan!
Whoops, that should be "why settle..." not "while settle..."
Tom wrote on January 18, 2008 3:00 PM:I think this is perfect example of why Obama is attracting so many people tired of these stupid partisan attacks, where anyone who dares make any remotely positive remarks about Republicans is attacked.
John wrote on January 18, 2008 3:03 PM:Well this didn't take long. Obama luvs Reagan - the new Hillary slogan. Sheesh.
idlemind wrote on January 18, 2008 3:03 PM:He's trying to soothe them, too.
Piled on top of his Social Security alarmism and his rejection of healthcare mandates, and I'm starting to get a hollow feeling about Obama. I've wanted to vote for him -- I'm tired of the managerial style in so-called leadership -- but doubts are accumulating...
lombard wrote on January 18, 2008 3:03 PM:Dan wrote on January 18, 2008 2:43 PM:
"Does anyone else find this argument boring?"
Yes. The Clinton campaigners may feel they need to do a little nitpicking here but they must be careful to avoid:
1) the notion that the Democratic party is still filled with Reagan resentment
2) the notion that casting aspersions on the big government solutions of the 1960s is casting aspersions on the very foundation of the Democratic party. After all, it was Bill Clinton himself who said, "The era of big government is over."
The Democrats don't want to create such a pronounced big government message in the primary that the party may have to backtrack from in the general election.
Fred wrote on January 18, 2008 3:04 PM:Well, at least Clinton has decided to stop fighting the battles of the late 1960's and has moved up to the battles of the early 80's.
Maybe by 2010 she'll get to her Iraqi war authorization vote.
I think Obama might have underestimated the hatred many on the left still have for Ronald Reagan. He wasn't following the Democratic CW script of, at most, admiring Reagan for being a good politician. That interview was more about the political realignment that Reagan brought about (as was mentioned above). And on that point, Obama is entirely correct that taking back "Reagan Democrats" can put the Republican Party in full retreat.
john mccutchen wrote on January 18, 2008 3:05 PM:
I think it's fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10-15 years in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom."
Hillary supporter and Congressman Barney Frank, who was on the call, said: "I was stupefied by the comments...It's baffling to me that he would speak so highly of him."
BarneyTheHack's baffled? Well, while Barney was doing whatever he's been doing for 28 years, Republicans have held the WH 20.
Stupified is as stupified does
Yes, let's go back to the 90's when the last President Clinton lost the Senate and House to the Republicans.
I am sure the Republicans would love that aspect of the masterful Clinton political machine.
DancingBear wrote on January 18, 2008 3:06 PM:Jaz Hayre wrote:
"So far this week, he's been "fond" of Reagan...."
Please, Jaz, point me to where Obama said he was "fond" of Reagan.
"While settle for the simulacrum when one can have the real McCoy?"
Greg, as a Hillary supporter I disagree with the premise of your question.
Russ Feingold says that "The one that is the most problematic is (John) Edwards, who voted for the Patriot Act, campaigns against it. Voted for No Child Left Behind, campaigns against it. Voted for the China trade deal, campaigns against it. Voted for the Iraq war … He uses my voting record exactly as his platform, even though he had the opposite voting record." I think Edwards is a new faux Dean who has 0 chance of being elected and, if he were, could not implement the changes as effectively as Hillary. So Hillary introduces similar plans? BFD. Her health care plan is better than Obama's.
The Clinton campaign had no plan coming out of Iowa, but managed a shoestring catch in New Hampshire. They did nothing about making sure the types of people likely to caucus for her in Nevada would have access to caucus sites, so they came up with a lawsuit AGAINST THE STATE DEMOCRATIC PARTY in an effort to deny those caucus sites to culinary workers after they decided to endorse Obama. They're currently running behind in South Carolina polling, largely because -- fair or not -- a pretty good number of African-American voters found offense in comments coming from them & their surrogates. And here we are, 48 hours after the fact of this interview, and the Clinton team is just now coming up with talking points about it. Needless to say, they're incredibly lame talking points. And this hers is supposed to be an argument for experience & a steady hand on the wheel???
Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 3:10 PM:Great, can I just now assume that Hillary supporters are either: a) willfully misunderstanding these comments so that they can spin them, or b) immeasurably ignorant and stupid?
Either way, doesn't say a lot for Hil's supporters.
Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 3:11 PM:This bullshit is really getting old fast. Heaven forbid someone gave an opinion that wasn't vetted, polled and triangulated.
I always wondered why so much of the country has such a visceral dislike of Bill and Hillary, no wonder, they're completely shameless.
MomentOfTruth wrote on January 18, 2008 3:12 PM:I think it's fair to say Obama's waxing on of Reagan's "sunny optimism" and Obama's negative comparision of Clinton's legacy is fair game.
As an AIDS activist from the 80's, I have no warm and fuzzies toward Reagan.
Obama supporters - your man is wrong. It's OK to admit that and still support him. Really. It is.
I think this could be a brilliant campaign strategy on Obama's part. Hillary is running on the idea that simply by returning to the 1990's with a Clinton at the head instead of a Bush, everything will be alright. I see Obama's comments as a way of turning that argument upside down by pointing out that Clinton set us up for the second coming of the Bushes by not taking advantage of his position to rally Americans around the mainstream benefits of our party's ideas.
I don't see his words as a praise for Reagan, I see them as a desire to move the progressive ideas of our party to the mainstream in a way that even Clinton with all of his successes, could not do, but as Reagan was able to do with Conservative ideas in the 1980's.
There can be no denying that Reagan brought this nation together under the crazy conservative ideas that he was espousing. He won his re-election in 1984 while only losing 13 electoral votes. Clinton couldn't do that against Bob Dole - arguably the weakest candidate the Republicans have given us Democrats!
If Obama can successfully come out and expound on this idea by pointing out that he desires to bring the country together to push forward progressive ideas in the same way that Reagan was successful at putting forward Conservative ideas, which I think was obviously his point, then it is a brilliant political maneuver. It effectively takes the only unique experience Hillary is running on and throws it out the window when he successfully points out how the Clintons turned liberalism in to a bad word instead of the mainstream beneficial reality that the ideas behind the word are.
grover_rover wrote on January 18, 2008 3:13 PM:It isn't difficult to understand what Obama was talking about and how absolutely 100% right he was on all counts. Obviously the Clinton campaign is continuing with its strategy of distorting comments and facts and trying to deceive voters in order to win this election, which I think is pretty sad and morally bankrupt. If you can't win an election on using facts and reality then you have no business winning an election at all. Bush taught us this, playing American voters for fools might be an effective campaign strategy, but it is GOP dirtiness, not how Democrats are supposed to work. I wouldn't expect any better from the Clinton campaign at this point...they have already shown they will turn into the GOP in order to win an election. That is why she lost any chance of me ever casting a vote in her favor. I could never vote for her in good conscience.
And Edwards attacked Obama for this as well, showing that although he is a lot less ethically corrupt than Hillary, he is still not beyond trying to deceive the voters to get ahead. Shame on Edwards and the Clintons.
Mike timmons wrote on January 18, 2008 3:14 PM:So this week Obama is too much like Reagan, according to the Clinton machine. Well I guess that the Obama cannot be elected because he is black line will not work in Nevada, since it is not 98% white like New Hampshire.
Good to know team Hill is keeping the campaign positive like she promised. Running on ideas. Trying to lift people up, instead of tearing them down. Giving people hope for the future.
Sad to watch Bill's legacy get strangled, but like a car wreck, oddly fascinating too.
DemUnity08 wrote on January 18, 2008 3:14 PM:I don't have a problem with Obama's comments on Reagan per se, but I think it's foolish for him to be making pro-Reagan and Bill Clinton-dismissive comments in the DEM primary season. He's not exercising the discipline to save his waxing eloquent on the virtues of Reagan for the fall election, when he might win votes by appealing to those numerous voters who like Reagan. Obama's comments are not those of a very disciplined campaigner, it seems to me.
Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton '08
Mary wrote on January 18, 2008 3:15 PM:Hillary misconstruing and spinning again.
For all of those who do not think hill/bill are playing the game of muck. This ABC news video sums up the start of their rovian game quite nicely:
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4130824&affil=wls
"I think this could be a brilliant campaign strategy on Obama's part. Hillary"
LMAO.......
I think Edwards is a new faux Dean who has 0 chance of being elected and, if he were, could not implement the changes as effectively as Hillary.
Fair enough, as far as that goes. That said, as I have pointed out above, Clinton is simply copying Edwards; as such, if Edwards is a faux-Dean, you are backing a faux faux-Dean, and one with demonstrably less chance of being elected (according to the head-to-head match-up polls) than Edwards at that. You will have to forgive me if I find the logic of your choice rather difficult to follow.
Your Uncle Bastard wrote on January 18, 2008 3:16 PM:Note to Obama:
If we DFHs that make up the D footsoldiers wanted to support and vote for Republicans - which we manifestly DO NOT - we'd just go ahead and vote for one. So cut it the hell out already! That Unity08-postpartisan-numbnuts-BS you're spouting is getting reeeeeeally old.
Would you PLEASE stop the pandering to Reagan greatness myth, and otherwise rolling over like a beaten dog (offering R's places in your cabinet? GMAFB)? It's neither attractive nor persuasive.
Get to work on actually articulating a message instead of genuflecting platitudes for the press and we might have a better campaign for it!
NYer wrote on January 18, 2008 3:16 PM:Sorry, but just the mention of Ronald Reagan's name send shivers through me. Once told a very Republican friend of mine, when he could not understand my dislike of Reagan that the only thing I agreed with Reagan about was motherhood and apple pie and I wasn't so sure about the apple pie. No matter how people want to parse this interview - the mention of Reagan and the slap at Clinton is just a cynical way to get independents and Republicans to vote for him in open primaries and caucuses. Cynical, cynical and people who lived through the Reagan years don't have to like it
diogu wrote on January 18, 2008 3:16 PM:The Clintons pander to the lowest and least common denominators of the US public. The only people who are mad and twisting his words are the people that have spoken out against it. They are the extreme of minority of this Country. If you listen to the tape in its entirety, you know what Obama said. The more this people attack Obama in the manner they do, the better Obama looks.
This actually helps Obama in SC and NV. Do you really think anyone that will caucus for Obama tomorrow will change his/her mind because the so called comment about Reagan?
The more like Bonny Frank speak against and attack Obama the better Obama looks.
Joyce wrote on January 18, 2008 3:17 PM:This is why our politics stinks.
Hillary and Bill are so desperate, they are only pointing out the type of political games of which the American people have grown so tired.
For two people who screamed about being "attacked" by conservatives, these people certainly know how to dish it out. The hypocracy is becoming so great it's hard to tell the difference between the Clinton's and the Bush's end game. Maybe this is due to the cosy relationship between the to families.
Barbara wrote on January 18, 2008 3:17 PM:There was nothing remotely positive about Reagan. He was GWB light. There is change for the better and change for the worse. Change itself is not what we need. I'm undecided, but Obama took a turn for the worse in my book when saying anything positive about Reagan, no matter what the context. I agree with Tapper about the change we got with Reagan. Not to mention his anti-civil rights stance. I was privy to some of the internal memos during the Reagan administration that I wish I had saved, copied, and passed on to the press. They were flauting Congress very similarly to the way GWB is doing now.
jbentley wrote on January 18, 2008 3:18 PM:Just the Camp Clinton's daily routine of twisting Obama's words and trying to score cheap political points.
Mike wrote on January 18, 2008 3:19 PM:Does anyone else find this argument boring?
Yes!!
Some random guy on the Internets wrote on January 18, 2008 3:20 PM:Hillary and her supporters: stop. Just stop. You're hurting our country. Throw in the towel and let a new generation of leaders take us out of the mess that triangulation and your "Third Way" left us in.
Whit wrote on January 18, 2008 3:23 PM:It is deeply insulting to our intelligence that H. Clinton's stooges use every opportunity to twist what Obama says into something else entirely. Reagan fundamentally changed the course of American politics. It stayed on Reagan's course straight through the Clinton administration to the present day. Remember the drastic cuts in welfare under Clinton? That, his most significant "accomplishment," was a purely Reaganite move.
So Obama wants to do what W.J. Clinton did not, but what Reagan did: fundamentally change course for a generation to come. And, unlike H. Clinton, he damn well can. It is the Clintonistas who are stay-the-course Reaganites. So of course she goes Rovian and insists Obama is, when he's, or at least aspires to be, the Anti-Reagan which she can never become.
bebop wrote on January 18, 2008 3:26 PM:But Reagan did change the direction of the country-only very much for the worse.
kid oakland wrote on January 18, 2008 3:27 PM:Here's the irony.
The entire "Reagan debate" is really about what kind of rhetoric is allowed in a Democratic primary.
Clinton is arguing that the only permissible rhetoric is "red meat."
At the same time Clinton, failing to win the endorsement of the Culinary Workers Union, had Bill Clinton argue in favor of a lawsuit disenfranchising the workers from that union.
Ie. The Clinton campaign is acting like the Reagans and the GOP while misconstruing Obama's statements about Reagan.
Anyone else see the rich irony here? The hypocrisy?
(Please check out my take on the Clinton ad currnetly running in Nevada, "I didn't know."
In which I ask the question...
Can you win a presidential primary by making voters feel bad for wanting to vote for your opponent?)
anon wrote on January 18, 2008 3:28 PM:Before we even get into a debate about whether Obama is endorsing some of the substance of the Reagan policy agenda, let's question some more basic assumptions of his comparison:
1. Reagon did not create the modern conservative movement. He was an appealing spokesman for it but there were tectonic shifts occurring in the American political landscape that he was able to articulate and for which he summon support. Despite the continual noise about how we are on the cusp of fundamental change, I don't really see proof of some grand political realignment. People are unhappy with particular policies of the administration but there is no ideological shift in the populace.
2. Obama's remarks were prompted by the debate discussion about whether the president could be primarily a visionary rather than a manager of the bureaucracy. He is using Reagan as an example of a president who was primarily a visionary. Even if we concede #1, there is still a question of whether we want primarily a visionary when we seek to push a Democratic and more progressive agenda. Reagan's "vision", other than in strengthening the military, was to cut and shrink government. A Democratic president's agenda will be to make government run better. In this case then, we want a president who can not only be a visionary but also an effective manager. Can a leader who is primarily a visionary be a good Democratic president?
bb wrote on January 18, 2008 3:29 PM:I'll vote 3rd party before I ever vote for Hillary. I'm sure I echo the sentiments of many. I'm about as sick of the Clintons as I am the Bushes. May both families fade into a well deserved obscurity.
bob wrote on January 18, 2008 3:31 PM:Obama said that REAGAN'S VOTERS were reacting to the excesses of the 60s and 70s. He didn't say anything about himself.
Do I have to define the plural pronoun "they" for Greg Sargent and Barney Frank?
Rep. Frank's statement to the effect that Obama held such views himself about the 60s and 70s is a PURPOSEFUL DECEPTION.
I generally like Rep. Frank, but I just don't get it.
HOW DOES HILLARY FIND SO MANY PEOPLE WILLING TO MAKE STUFF UP FOR HER?
Bupalos wrote on January 18, 2008 3:32 PM:Ha! The Clintons got Reagan-baited. I thought this was genius when Obama said it, but then it looked like the Clintons refused the bait. I think the personal comparison was too much for Bill and he had to come out swinging at ghosts.
Kudos. This round definitely goes to Obama. The Clintons need to get the story back on race pronto. I don't know how Clinton drifted so soon after she "found her voice" in the working class white suburbs of NH, but they need that focus back. Every mention of Reagan or JFK or Lincoln, or any Roosevelt is a victory for Obama, plain and simple.
Now he gets the chance to say, sorry, if you're that stupid, let me rephrase; FDR was a lot better than Clinton too, and so was Lincoln, JFK, TR, etc. etc. All the transformational presidents. Clinton was a bit more like Carter, a well intentioned but flawed man who ended up so firing up the opposition that we got a disasterous boomerang effect that destroyed America. Next question.
Toni C wrote on January 18, 2008 3:34 PM:This is a theme Obama uses in his writings as well.
It's sorta like Bill Clinton's credit for the economy or more particularly the balanced budget and deficit reduction. (something Obama does praise Clinton for). Deficit reduction as a focus was greatly the result of Ross Perot establishing the idea for both parties and the American public.
Clinton then was Obamaesque by adopting that vision (the Perot deficit mandate) and putting good people in place like Rubin and others to see it through.
obama makes a point about the late African American mayor of Chicago.
"This potentially powerful collective spirit that went into supporting him was never translated into clear principles, or into an articulable agenda for community change.
The only principle that came through was 'getting our fair share,' and this runs itself out rather quickly if you don't make it concrete. How do we rebuild our schools? How do we rebuild our communities? How do we create safer streets? What concretely can we do together to achieve these goals? When Harold died, everyone claimed the mantle of his vision and went off in different directions. All that power dissipated."
http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/archive/barackobama/
Reagans power did not really fade from the agenda of Republicans as Harolds did. And despite his not embracing Reagan, it's a fact that the themes of smaller government and lower taxes remain the hope of Reaganism still alive in the GOP (and greater landscape) today. The DEMs now always talk middle class tax break to woo the "Reagan democrats".
What remains from Clinton is the hope that by bringing in Hillary we somehow get a "twofer" and get Bill back to guide the economy. Becasue we don't get back the ideas that Bill instilled in the party or nation. What are they really? I'm not really sure and I voted for him twice becasue I don't vote for the GOP generally.
Besides the phiolosophical, Obama thinks he can get some of the red state folks to come out and caucus for him since Nevada allows same day and on site registration for non-party voters.
If he can't win the women (forget race it's gender) he has to always take a big pitch at the indy vote even in this so-called "closed" caucus.
You want context? Introducing the comments about transformational Presidencies, he specifically said:
"When you think of Presidents who were able to really move the country forward in a significant way, it's because they had a mandate for change.".
There is no way that putting Reagan in the category of "moving the country forward" does not amount to an endorsement of his Presidency.
He also said this:
"The problem is that ... the general attitude of whichever party is the minority party is, we're just gonna' block things from happening. And the majority party, typically, is pushing a highly ideological agenda. Now, I confess, I'm a Democrat, so I don't think it's completely even. I think ther's more of that coming from the other side. But we're not blameless in this"
This is a destructive slander of the Democratic party that plays into Republican hands. The Democratic party was extremely accommodating in the minority, and pretending that to believe otherwise is a partisan bias (though one Obama professes to share) is a dangerous rewrite of very recent history.
goldberry wrote on January 18, 2008 3:35 PM:Ok, some of you are not listening. It's "boooorrrring", you're yawning, she's spinning.
There is a reason why so many peoplke are alarmed by what Obama said. It has NOTHING to do with Reagan per se. It has to do with the very idea that there was something drastically wrong with the government that Reagan needed to clean away.
Granted, there were programs that needed to be tweaked or discontinued or tightened up. But the reason that Reagan was so successful in getting Reagan Democrats is that they were suffering economically. They saw the loss of power of the unions, the stagflation of the 70's and 80's, the oil crisis, the decimated military and the Iranian hostage crisis and they were dismayed.
THAT is what Obama is tapping into- the general discontent in the country.
But here is the problem: Obama actually seems to buy into Reagan's argument that it was big government at fault. Now that might be because he wants to sway independents. But you can understand the disthymia and channel that feeling into girding your loins for the hard work to come or you can promise Care Bears for everyone with sunshiny hope and rainbows.
Obama's solutions for healthcare and social security and other issues do not reflect Democratic principles that we have promoted over the past several years.
The candidates who *do* represent those principles are Clinton and Edwards. I have had an epiphany about Edwards sincerity, apparently backed up now by several Senators. His rhetoric does not match his voting record. Clinton has admittedly made mistakes but she's not pretending to be anything she isn't. She is a solidly progressive Democrat and wants to bring voters to her, not the other way around.
As for Reagan, he was a decidedly hands-off president who half the time had no interest in what was going on around him. And frequently no interest in the lives of the people his policies affected. That's not a role model that I want my president to emulate. We've had 7 years of that.
I guess if I had to sum up my choices now I would say that Obama is prozac; Hillary is rehab.
One of them makes you feel better while one of them puts you back on the wagon to sobriety.
Take your pick.
This is surprising to read many of the comments. Obama may want to change the political landscape but until then it is still a political game. We are in the middle of the an election year. Every Obama supporter who decries those who take exception to Obama's comments, are bored or decry the Clinton's capitalizing on an opponents bungling his message, take a step back. What do you expect? Obama brought this upon himself with his less than articulate attempt to make the point. Do you expect the Republican candidate or organizations will be any more charitable in the general election?
grover_rover wrote on January 18, 2008 3:41 PM:Urg, THIS is why I hate her. I used to defend her even though I didn't agree with some of the more conservative Clinton policies, but who she has shown herself to truly be in this campaign has appalled me. To be so dishonest and manipulative, so callous and disingenuous, all to deceive voters, destroy your opponents, anything to win IN A PRIMARY for Christsake. It disgusts me that she is in our party.
No, there is no way in HELL I will get behind her if she wins the nomination. She disgusts me. I can't stand her, she has been no better (maybe even worse) than a Republican in this campaign, she has stooped to unbelievable lows to destroy anyone who gets in the way of her quest back to the White House, and I'll be damned if I ever give her my vote. I could never vote so such a sleazebag in good conscience. If she wins the nomination I am switching to Independent, because I refuse to be associated with a party whose leader is that dishonest and power hungry. She can try to lie and say that Obama loves Reagan, but she obviously loves Bush/Cheney/Rove, at least when it comes to her tactics and political honesty.
Oh, and for a little perspective, she has stated on the record (it was even published in one of her Iowa endorsements) that Reagan and Bush Sr are among her favorite past presidents. How DARE she try to twist Obama's words and then denounce him when SHE has ACTUALLY praised Reagan!! And lets not forget who she wanted to send out on diplomatic missions to be the "new" face of America: Bush Sr. And also, she campaigned AGAINST LBJ back in the 60s, if she had her way he would have never been elected president. Give me a break, she is disgusting and hypocritical to the extreme. You are a sad sad person Hillary Clinton. You don't belong in our party.
bob wrote on January 18, 2008 3:42 PM:They should make this appearance into a TV ad. I hope the networks pick this up and run it in contrast to the Clinton surrogate wars.
Obama Goes for Laughs Instead of Jugular
By SUNLEN MILLER
LAS VEGAS, Jan. 18, 2008 —
With only hours to go before Nevada Democrats begin caucusing, Barack Obama took a new tact in his battle with Hillary Clinton laughing at her criticism of him.
Obama opened a town hall meeting by drawing laughs as he went point by point through Clinton's attempts to discredit or criticize his record.
Obama brought up, in almost comic perplexity, Clinton's criticisms over his recent debate answers, the bankruptcy bill, Yucca Mountain, Social Security and lobbyists. He presented himself, by contrast, as the one who is the straight shooter, and Clinton as a candidate who will say anything to get elected.
Responding to the fallout from Tuesday's debate question over each candidate's weakness, Obama mentioned his messy desk and said that he loses paper easily.
"So I thought, ya know, 'cause I'm like an ordinary person, I thought that they meant 'what's your biggest weakness?' & So the other two [Clinton and John Edwards] they say, they say well my biggest weakness is 'I'm just too passionate about helping poor people.' 'I am just too impatient to bring about change in America,'" Obama said.
"If I had gone last, I would have known what the game was. I could have said, 'Well ya know, I like to help old ladies across the street. Sometimes they don't want to be helped. It's terrible.'"
Obama then took on the bankruptcy bill and criticized Clinton for her reasoning for voting for the bill.
"So Sen. Clinton votes for this and then she says, 'I voted for it, but I was glad to see that it didn't pass.' What does that mean?" Obama exclaimed to the crowd. "If you didn't want to see it passed, then you can vote against it. People don't say what they mean."
Obama moved on to the proposed nuclear waste site at Yucca Mountain and Clinton's recent questioning of Obama's position.
"I have said over and over again I'm against Yucca. & I think the science is not there. I've never been for Yucca. Never been for it. Never said I was for it. Suddenly you've got the Clinton camp out there saying 'He's for Yucca.' What part of 'I'm not for Yucca' do you not understand?"
Obama moved to Social Security, responding to a mailer in Nevada the Clinton campaign has sent out criticizing Obama's plan.
"Suddenly you have a flier out by the Clinton campaign saying 'Obama is proposing a trillion-dollar tax increase on hardworking Americans.' Now understand that here in Nevada only 3 percent of the people make more than $97,000 so maybe she thinks that middle-class folks [are] making a million dollars. I don't."
Lastly, Obama hit hard on Clinton's criticism of the ethics reform bill he passed in the Senate with Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis.
"She mocked our bill. This is an example of saying what you mean. She said, she's been saying over the past couple of weeks, 'You know, this bill doesn't do anything. You know, it was just a little, symbolic bill. If Sen. Obama thinks that's a big accomplishment, that's his right.' Keep in mind she had voted against some of the provisions that would have made it even stronger. So only in Washington can you vote to weaken a bill and then complain later it wasn't stronger."
Obama then said he looked at what she said about the bill on the floor of the Senate and reports back that what she said was 'this is excellent legislation and I'm proud to be voting for it cause this is really making progress.'"
"Wait a minute, you can't say one thing back then and now say something complete opposite now," Obama exclaimed as the crowd roared in laughter.
After getting through the list, Obama wrapped up by concluding, "Those kinds of tricks, that kind of approach to politics is what has to stop. Nobody believes anything. Voters don't believe what politicians are saying."
He then promised the audience, "You won't hear me saying one thing one day to one audience and then saying something else another day to a different audience because I think it's politically convenient."
mostest wrote on January 18, 2008 3:45 PM:"As for the "excesses" comment, Obama was perhaps referring to the perception of governmental excess that Reagan so skillfully exploited, but it seems clear that at the very least there were some poor choices of words by Obama here."
Why do you find it necessary to presume the most favorable interpretation of Obama's remarks? Why does Obama need the blogs (and the press for that matter) to add more defined edges to his subtle statements. That bothers me. It allows him to be attractive enough to the "Reagan Democrats" and provides him cover for the liberal left bloggers. That bother me.
Thanks for the tiny, misleading, out-of-context quote, Greg Sargent. You ought to seriously consider working for Drudge. You'd fit right in.
lombard wrote on January 18, 2008 3:48 PM:Greg DeLassus wrote on January 18, 2008 2:57 PM:
"One thing that Clinton supporters might want to ask themselves is why they are voting for Clinton, not Edwards."
Good question, Greg. I don't think I can give a satisfying rational answer but I will try to portray my feelings on the question.
I see both Clinton and Edwards as political opportunists but I see Edwards as less skillful and far more transparent. Russ Feingold said recently that he was having a difficult time choosing between Obama and Clinton. When pressed on Edwards he implied similar reservations about his candidacy.
Clinton certainly has her shameless moments but she is able to make people forget them when she concentrates on substance. She is also able to multi-task well between various areas of interest to voters.
Occasionally (unfortunately not often enough) Clinton is able to forget politics for the moment and give voters the impression that she does have a "real person" side and does have some dimension outside of being a political candidate. Edwards, on the other hand, is relentlessly on message and has strikingly little variation in message. Someone joked recently if he was asked who he thought would win the Super Bowl, he would respond that the real issue is that many people in the Two Americas cannot afford to see the Super Bowl.
Finally, I believe that Clinton is more hardworking, respectful of institutions, and deserving than either Edwards or Obama and is more capable of multi-tasking. Also, like her husband, she has shown some real interest in the details of how things work. The "vision thing" is not enough because the devil is always in the details.
Sure, Clinton is a middle aged version of Tracy Flick in Elected but my view is that Tracy Flick deserved to be student body president and would have made a more effective president than the more easy going and likeable male jock.
Gosh, he got the Reno newspaper's endorsement after this statement. The rural and Northern areas of NV probably don't mind the reference and Culinary is backing him up in Vegas. Why, oh why would he say such a thing! Maybe he's trying to win NV; that's what I think, but I'm just some mom somwhere looking at the blogs between studying for boards. Surely, Greg is wiser and knows his words were poorly chosen.
Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 3:48 PM:Folks, like it or not (and I don't) Reagan DID change the direction of the country. Massively.
A detailed parsing of Obama's words will reveal that he meant nothing more than that.
If Obama could redirect the nation's course to the same degree wouldn't it be beautiful?
Jeebus, you might even see DEMOCRATS actually bantering about repealing the 22nd amendment the way the GOP did during the Reagan years.
Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 3:48 PM:The Obama camp is getting desperate. Here's a Reader's Digest version of the above comments.
"Hillary and Bill are so desperate"
Let's see, Hillary is ahead in Nevada and has controlled the news cycle since the debate. I think we know who is desperate.
"I'll vote 3rd party before I ever vote for Hillary."
That's awesome. Just like you did in 2000 when you elected Bush. Thanks.
"Hillary and her supporters: stop. Just stop. You're hurting our country."
By supporting our candidate? By voting for our cadidate of choice? I thought I lived in a free country.
"Was Hillary still a Republican when Reagan was President?"
No, she was a well respected attorney, children's advocate, and first lady of Arkansas. Were still a pork sword?
"The Clinton campaign had no plan coming out of Iowa."
Her plan was to win NH, genius. What was Obama's plan? LMAO............
Dawn wrote on January 18, 2008 3:53 PM:Who is being baited? Let's see if Obama comes out and clarifies which of Reagans ideas, and the "excesses" of the 60's and 70's, he supports and which he doesn't. Maybe he'll take a step towards Democrats instead of Republicans for a change. Is that too much to ask of a candidate for the Democratic nomination?
RFK wrote on January 18, 2008 3:57 PM:
Bill C. WAS transformational. He transformed the Democratic party into a minority in Congress, supportive of DOMA and don't ask don't tell, proclaiming that "the era of big government is over." Heckuva job, Willie.
Too honest.
I am intrigued that in nearly every poll I've seen that ranks electability and honetsy in the internals Hillary rates highest in the former and lowest in the latter.
Amazingly, the most electable is seen as the least honest.
As in most elections, we get what we settle for.
Barbara wrote on January 18, 2008 4:01 PM:I am sorry but when heard Obama's comments I was outraged. Reagan masterminded the destruction of the social fabric of this country. Just look around at the homeless population. Neverly every significant social problem this country has today can be traced to Reagan policies.
this nostalgic view of the Reagan legacy is dangerous
Charlie wrote on January 18, 2008 4:04 PM:I didn't get the impression that Barack was either glorifying or identifying with the last 10-15 years of Republicans. I got the impression that he was speaking to the Americans ready for change, the same kinds of change that Reagan accomplished. Not the same changes, but change in general.
And Hillary DOES take his words, twist them around, and use them against him time after time after time. I see him rebutting less (because it gets old) and see him laughing the allegations and comments off now. I agree that Hillary's comments are seldom even worth commenting on, that time could be better spent on substance of his own. But less educated voters, the ones that Hillary appeals to, may not catch the fact that she's twisting his words around and using them against him. If he comments on the BS she spews, he's on the defensive...if he doesn't, he grants them authenticity.
Is Karl Rove REALLY retired? It really does seem that he's working for Hillary. I thought the Karl Rove days were over? I was relieved when he retired...but his tactics remained. Clinton, as a "Democrat" could and should do better. If you can't win an election honestly, you don't deserve to win. Right George? HA!
stryker wrote on January 18, 2008 4:07 PM: I lived thru the 80's. Reagan changed the direction of the country alright, right down the toilet. He gave us the worst economic depression since the 1930's. unemployment lines out the door and back thru the parking lot, 21% interest rates, 1,000's of businesses shut down while being the worst union buster in years. Add the Iran-Contra scandal to that and record budget deficits that lasted thru pappa Bush until Clinton cleaned those up in the 90's.
From some of the posts here I suspect many don't have a clue about any of that good stuff Reagan brought us... not. And Obama is going to shine a good light on this guy ? In a democratic primary ? and his judgement in doing so should not be questioned ? Give me a break.
I'm not sure the denizens of Hillaryland really thought out this latest post-Iowa Obama attack.
The unfortunate fact is that Reagan was far more effective at implementing the agenda he came to office with than Bill Clinton was with the agenda he campaigned on.
In fact, Reagan achieved that success without ever having a Congress in which his party controlled both houses, an asset Bill Clinton did have when he took office -- though he and the First Lady made short work of that with the rather disastrous first two years of their administration capped by the First Lady's health care reform "experience".
If this latest attack from Hillaryland prompts people to examine the two presidencies in a comparative way, it's difficult to imagine Bill Clinton gaining by the comparison. Somehow the V-chip and school uniforms don't quite seem to have the heft of strategic arms reduction talks with the Soviets, the Reagan tax cuts (deficit busters though they were), and even that invasion of Grenada.
What is really unfortunate, and even tragic, is that when Clinton's administration is considered along side Reagan's it becomes painfully apparent that Clinton was not much more than a mediocre president. Whether due to managerial failures, political miscalculations, or personal distractions, the dirty little secret is that Clinton squandered much of his time in office.
That's tragic for the many Americans whose very real problems were left unaddressed. If more Democrats think about it, it may prove unfortunate for those seeking the Restoration.
Dawn wrote on January 18, 2008 4:12 PM:Lombard, for me it always comes down to the fact that Edwards just didn't do all that well in the 2004 election, and I'm not sure he is any better a strategist or campaigner now. I love his fighting attitude and a lot of his ideas, and I think he deserves a lot of credit for steering the conversation towards the economic injustice in this country. If I thought he had a chance of winning I would probably vote for him. But he campaigned in Iowa for nearly 3 years and still lost to Obama, so for me that makes the choice between Clinton and Obama.
I liked what Feingold had to say, because I think it sums up what most of us are dealing with. In the part of the interview that was not about Edwards, he says he too is torn between Clinton and Obama because of the change vs experience question.
In my mind I always come back to who I want to have in charge of 200,000 troops in the field, and I want the person who, in addition to what she learned as first lady, has spent her time in the Senate educating herself on military affairs. that is the bottom line for me. If we were not at war it would be an easy decision.
jeffersonian wrote on January 18, 2008 4:32 PM:And, Barney, you finally have a committee to chair. From your comments, that responsibility must be occupying most of your time and nearly all of your great intellect.
Maybe you should take a hiatus from also attempting to serve as one of the attack drones of Hillaryland. Goodness knows, if she's elected you probably won't have to worry about that committee chairmanship after two years; and you can expound on the greatness of the Great Society and the evils of Reagan to your heart's content.
Me? I'd rather keep our congressional majorities, and Tim Johnson, Ben Nelson, Tim Kaine and Janet Napolitano are telling us how to do so.
grover_rover wrote on January 18, 2008 4:34 PM:Did someone just seriously equate refusing to vote for Hillary on principle to people who voted for Nader in 2000??? Wow, that is some stunning ignorance there. People didn't refuse to vote for Gore because he was a vile and despicable candidate, they just voted for Nader because they liked him better (and yes, it was an incredibly stupid move from a strategic standpoint). The difference is, these people didn't have anything against Gore, they could have voted for Gore with a clean conscience and been just fine with it. This is NOT the case with Hillary because she has actively repulsed many in the Democratic party with her vicious and fallacious attacks against Obama (to say nothing about her repeated attempts at voter disenfranchisement). It is not even in the same ballpark, and if you think it is, you must have been dropped on your soft spot too many times as a child.
Anon 1 wrote on January 18, 2008 4:36 PM:Hillary CLinton is showing her haters why so many commentators liken her to Franklin D. Roosevelt. This woman is a political genius. She is ruthless at making her opponents look like stumbling amateurs. She can talk about the economy, foreign policy and still connect with voters on a personal level. I must say only a woman with courage, strength and a passion to set this great nation back on track can tolerate so much ridicule, abuse and still remain compose. She is taking so many hits for her husband administration, as if she was the President and not the President's wife. Obama made a grave mistake trying to woe Republicans.
No Republcan will ever vote for Obama on his abortion stance. He must be desparate he can't get die hard democrats votes.
Everytime a teleprompter is out of MR. Obama's reach, his inability to talk about issues is highlighted. How can he like Reagan ideas of opitimism and hope but not his policies. Obama needs to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh talk on Reagan.
In these times of economic slow down and geo political turmoil we need a transition President who understands the job.
Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 4:36 PM:"Why does Obama keep attempting to sooth Republicans like he's already won the nomination?"
It shouldn't take too much thought to realize that Reagan is still much beloved in California, where what probably will be the most important primary will be fought in a few more weeks.
For Democrats who are interested in expanding the size of the party (rather than shrinking it, as Clinton was trying to do with the voter suppression attempt in Nevada), this is a skillful political move. Remember those Reagan Democrats? Obama's trying to turn them into Obama Republicans.
Of course, if you want a smaller party, with no possibility of coming anywhere close to gaining a majority vote in Congress or taking the White House, go right ahead and vote for Hillary Clinton. She loves fighting those dirty nasty wars with the Republicans and will do it as long as she breathes. That's her idea of governing the country.
I'd rather see the government actually work instead of spending day after day squabbling with each other. Your views may differ.
Dawn wrote on January 18, 2008 4:40 PM:Can you site any data to show that Reagan is still beloved in California? Just curious to know if this is true since you admit you didn't put too much thought into it.
lombard wrote on January 18, 2008 4:45 PM:Dawn,
Very well said and I would echo all of your sentiments. The importance of the thoughts contained in your last paragraph are evidenced clearly on the NH exit poll where Hillary had a big edge on the commander and chief question.
Dawn wrote on January 18, 2008 4:48 PM:OK, Charlie, I'll ask you, since Obama has not clarified yet. Which of the so-called excesses of the 60's and 70's does he deplore?
Dawn wrote on January 18, 2008 4:57 PM:I'll take back my question to Charlie and Obama, since Obama did not say that he agreed with the people who thought there were excesses. I just wish that every once in a while he would disagree with them. In public. It just puts me over the edge to see a Dem candidate adding to the Reagan myth in any way, since Reagan's methods and policies were so divisive behind that congenial facade. Obama should know that and not take him as any kind of a role model.
Mike timmons wrote on January 18, 2008 5:07 PM:If Reagan was such a divider, how come he won in a landslide in 1984?
OxyCon wrote on January 18, 2008 5:11 PM:Obama is starting to sound like the drugs he was taking back in the 1980s has affected his ability to recall what the right wing Repubs were doing to our country during that time.
Mike timmons wrote on January 18, 2008 5:14 PM:Today, the "Reagan Myth" is the Hillary machine arguing that Reagan did not change the political direction of America.
He did.
The Hillary machine looks idiotic for picking this fight. Obama makes Hillary supporters look foolish for trying to go to war against a dead man.
Saying Obama is divisive is hilarious considering last week the Hillary machine had Gloria Steinem shaming women to vote for a woman over a black man in New Hampshire.
Oh, yeah, they apologized for that..kind of...AFTER the primary.
timbnyc wrote on January 18, 2008 5:24 PM:A. Why the delay in voicing their apparently strong feelings about his statement?
B. Clinton and Co. don't have feelings without prior polling.
undecided but getting there wrote on January 18, 2008 5:29 PM:This thread is a hoot! Look at all the Obama supporters getting up in arms because someone dared question him about something he said! It appears it is still okay for all of you to bash Hillary for everything, even what she doesn't do, but don't dare speak against the great Obama? This is too funny! The man has had nothing but positive coverage, no scrutiny and, my goodness Hillary brings up him talking about Reagan and this is supposed to be something disastrous for HER? Give me a break! I want to know why it hasn't been mentionned earlier? I want to know if he is pandering like all the other republicans who can't keep the name of Reagan out of their stump speaches? Thank you to someone other than Keith Olbermann for mentionning this.
timbnyc wrote on January 18, 2008 5:53 PM:
Oops...
Hillary identifes Reagan as one of her favorite Presidents.
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=467...
Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan - demonstrates how she thinks. As expected, Bill Clinton was also included on the aforementioned list.
Corrected link (one number was missing from the end)
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674
academic... will be Obama's meltdown, just like Kerry was a East Coast Elite!!!
Tim wrote on January 18, 2008 6:21 PM:If the change Obama promises to bring is similar to the one Reagan brought, I am NO part of it. No, thank you.
hkeith wrote on January 18, 2008 6:30 PM:Well Tim, that is not what he was talking about and Barney Frank knows it. I resent that this silly issue would be one that the Clinton's would expend so much negative energy.
It tells me they ain't got nothing else.
Obama did not agree with Reagan's policies -- he was saying that he was a change agent and had the nation's ear. That is true.
He also got along with the Democrats even when he did not agree with them. Will Hillary get along with the Republicans -- not.
Volum wrote on January 18, 2008 6:43 PM:Greg DeLassus wrote on January 18, 2008 2:57 PM:
"One thing that Clinton supporters might want to ask themselves is why they are voting for Clinton, not Edwards. "
Easy.
Because I think that Edwards is lying. I totally agree with everything he says, his speeches are very powerful, he has a great message.
But I don't believe he is telling the truth.
While I do not agree with Sen. Clinton on many issues, I do believe she is telling the truth. I can disagree with her policies, but I do not think she is lying about them. I do agree with Edwards, but I think it's all farcical.
Shaz wrote on January 18, 2008 7:26 PM:The Clintons are being very careful in their attacks in that they are focusing on Obama's comments about the Republican party (and completely mischaracterizing them in the process), but remaining silent about Obama's comments about Reagan specifically. They obviously have done this b/c they know that Hillary cites Reagan as one of her favorite presidents on her own website and, therefore,would be called on the carpet if she were to criticize Obama's comments about Reagan.
This is yet another example of the calculating and methodical nature of their tactics--which, of course, calls into question the innocuousness of earlier statements they and their supporters have made about MLK/Johnson, Obama being a "kid," Obama "shucking and jiving" and his past drug use etc. While not overtly racist, it appears those statements were very carefully crafted to appeal to certain stereotypes held by many majority (white) folks while at the same time plausibly deny trying to introduce race as an issue in the election. They should be ashamed of themselves, but that has never stopped them in the past.
Cruise Ship Jobs wrote on January 18, 2008 7:27 PM:Hello, tpmelectioncentral.com
Was just browsing around using google's blogsearch and found you tpmelectioncentral.com !!!!
Just added you to my reader, and leaving a friendly comment
Don't stop posting to your blog please, you have a loyal reader in me ;) that is about the vibrator
Ciao
especially yours
Maya
My blog about
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674
But no president can do it alone. She must break recent tradition, cast cronyism aside and fill her cabinet with the best people, not only the best Democrats, but the best Republicans as well.. We’re confident she will do that. Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan - demonstrates how she thinks.
If Reagan was such a divider, how come he won in a landslide in 1984?/i>
Good question. In a nutshell, by using a superior PR team to appeal to the basest of human emotions to convince different segments of the populace of any one of the following:
1) white people are the best, and Democrats are the party of the 'other'
2) lower taxes always balance the budget
3) Dems are weak weak weak on national defense
It is my belief that a significant number of Republicans still believe #1. It took G. W. Bush, who courageously raised taxes, and Bill Clinton to refute #2 (at least for a while - now it will take another Dem to do it again). #3 was never true - the Dem congress never met a defense appropriation it didn't like, and preferring a diplomatic approach to defense is not weak, but Dems are still trying to refute it, even going through contortions like Kerry, Edwards, and Clinton voting for that damnable Iraq authorization.
He didn't unite the country - he united a segment of it into irrational hatred against the other. I seriously doubt that is really a model Obama wants to emulate.
grover_rover wrote on January 18, 2008 8:17 PM:Hillary is on record stating that Reagan (and Bush Sr.) are on her list of favorite presidents:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674
"But no president can do it alone. She must break recent tradition, cast cronyism aside and fill her cabinet with the best people, not only the best Democrats, but the best Republicans as well.. We’re confident she will do that. Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and REAGAN - demonstrates how she thinks. As expected, Bill Clinton was also included on the aforementioned list."
grover_rover wrote on January 18, 2008 8:35 PM:Oh, and Bill:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/05/reagan.health...
Former President Bill Clinton and his wife, Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, issued a statement that praised the former president for his optimistic outlook.
"Hillary and I will always remember President Ronald Reagan for the way he personified the indomitable optimism of the American people, and for keeping America at the forefront of the fight for freedom for people everywhere...
"We will always remember his tremendous capacity to inspire and comfort us in times of tragedy, ...and we can rest assured that, as joyous a place as Heaven is, his wit and sunny disposition are making it an even brighter place to be." President Bill Clinton and Sen. Hillary Clinton.
Dawn wrote on January 18, 2008 9:12 PM:If that is the best they came up with to memorialize an ex-president on the occasion of his death...it hardly sounds like a ringing endorsement to me. He had wit, optimism, and a sunny disposition...I'll give him that much.
John McCutchen wrote on January 18, 2008 9:17 PM:Obama Interview With SF Chronicle Editors
Sen. Obama was interviewed by the SF Chronicle editorial board yesterday - the one hour interview can be seen here:http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2008/01/18/MNSNUH7GC.DTL&o=0&type=politics poetry wrote on January 18, 2008 9:57 PM:
"hkeith":
If getting along with the Republicans even when he doesn't agree with them is what makes you praise Obama, you must LOVE Senator Joe Lieberman.
He REALLY gets along with the Republicans -- votes with them often, giving them a majority.
There is a time to get along and a time to fight, and a president has to know when to do which.
Frank wrote on January 18, 2008 10:05 PM:Billary are up in arms because Obama is a guy with ideas and Billary is a pair who have abandoned ideas for power. Perhaps Billary have it right and are taking a lesson from Karl Rove. The speed and intensity of the attacks over a reasoned and fairly modest statement is reminiscent of 2000 and 2004.
openmindedone wrote on January 18, 2008 10:09 PM:As one who leans conservative (but not necessarily Republican) I have to say that Slickstress (aka Hillary) is doing just what one would expect over the comments Mr. Obama made regarding Ronald Reagan. All Mr. Obama said was that Reagan was politically astute enough to sieze on a need for change and to lay out a plan of change. Something Slickstress will never be able to do because she can't take a stand. I see Mr. Obama as a strong and viable candidate who can lead change and will take a stand even when/if the stand he takes may not be populear.
I have certainly come around to giving strong and due consideration to Mr. Obama as my candidate of choice that I would NEVER give to Slickstress. No matter who the Republican candidate for President you can rest assured I would have (and will) vote AGAINST Hillary, not for the Republican party. Now I find that I may well have a candidate (Mr. Obama) that I can say I'd vote FOR.
Height of Hypocrisy wrote on January 18, 2008 10:11 PM:Posted on Hillary's Website. Seriously.
Go to http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674
"But no president can do it alone. She must break recent tradition, cast cronyism aside and fill her cabinet with the best people, not only the best Democrats, but the best Republicans as well.. We’re confident she will do that. Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan - demonstrates how she thinks. As expected, Bill Clinton was also included on the aforementioned list."
Oh dear, Hillary and Bill please accept your fate..you're done...the torch has been passed to a new generation..ok? thanks.
poetry wrote on January 18, 2008 10:23 PM:How can Barack Obama praise anything Ronald Reagan did? Reagan was terrible for blacks in America.
We should have gotten the clue to what Reagan was all about when he went to Philadelphia, Mississippi, to announce his candidacy for the presidency.
Philadelphia, Mississippi, was the place where white racial bigots killed three civil rights workers (who had traveled to Mississippi to help black voters register to vote) and buried their bodies in a construction site.
In Philadelphia, Mississippi, Reagan declared, "I believe in states' rights," which any fool knows was code for: trust me, I won't do anything to help blacks.
In his quest for the presidency in 1980, Reagan declared that the Voting Rights Act had been "humiliating to the South."
Reagan opposed making Martin Luther King Day a national holiday. He signed the bill only after Congress passed the law creating the holiday by a veto-proof majority.
His Administration weakened workplace safety standards. He presided over an S&L scandal that stuck taxpayers with a bill approaching a trillion dollars. He appointed Antonin Scalia to the Supreme Court. He tried to gut the Civil Rights Commission, and his Administration waged a relentless series of attacks on affirmative action while trying to grant tax-exempt status to private schools that engaged in racial discrimination.http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040628/editors
More on Reagan and his anti-black Southern Strategy: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/10/innocent-mistakes/
How COULD Obama praise that man?
poetry wrote on January 18, 2008 10:45 PM:
By the 1980s in America, the "conventional wisdom" Obama disparages so much and praises Reagan for "challenging" was that black Americans had every right that white Americans had.
It took Ronald Reagan to make it "safe" for racial bigots to step up their efforts to REVERSE that progress and push black Americans back to the old days, and keep them down.
The fight against affirmative action swung into high gear with Reagan leading the charge to end it.
Gee, Barack, glad you like someone who tried so hard to do you out of your Constitutionally-promised rights.
When, in 1976, he talked about working people angry about the "strapping young buck" using food stamps to buy T-bone steaks at the grocery store, he didn't mean to play into racial hostility. (sarcasm)http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/10/innocent-mistakes/
Funny thing is Reagan often told that story in the South but when he campaigned in, for instance, New Hampshire with its small black population, Reagan didn't use the term "young buck," which was code in the South for a large black man.
If that's Obama's idea of a man to praise, we need to think about that.
Jason wrote on January 18, 2008 11:08 PM:Reagan is dumb, Obama is dumber.
Hillary voted for the war before Bill voted against it (last month). wrote on January 19, 2008 12:59 AM:Hillary voted for the war before Bill voted against it (last month).
Hillary voted for the war before Bill voted against it (last month).
Hillary voted for the war before Bill voted against it (last month).
Hillary voted for the war before Bill voted against it (last month).
Hillary voted for the war before Bill voted against it (last month).
greensky wrote on January 19, 2008 12:59 AM:who is obomas karl rove he reminds me of the detroit lions offensive coodinator starts out fast then runs out of gas
ARR wrote on January 19, 2008 1:04 AM:Poetry,
Did you realize that Reagan is one of Hillary's favorite presidents?
See her website: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674
An excerpt:
"But no president can do it alone. She must break recent tradition, cast cronyism aside and fill her cabinet with the best people, not only the best Democrats, but the best Republicans as well.. We’re confident she will do that. Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan - demonstrates how she thinks. As expected, Bill Clinton was also included on the aforementioned list."
Kind of hypocritical of her to be slinging mud, don't you think? Especially because she is totally mischaracterizing what Obama actually said and she knows it.
greensky wrote on January 19, 2008 1:10 AM:come on that came from an editorial
ARR wrote on January 19, 2008 1:53 AM:It was an endorsement by a NH newspaper. The information came from an interview with Hillary Clinton.
The full endorsement was quoted in a press release released by the Hillary campaign and is currently posted on her website.
gnostic19 wrote on January 19, 2008 1:59 AM:Someone will come around, eventually, and unite this country behind them. Would you rather that person be McCain? Romney? It can't be Hillary...too many people hate her. Edwards himself hates the upper class. Why can't it be Obama? Better a Dem create a new centrism that leans left than a republican creates one that leans right.
Desider wrote on January 19, 2008 3:27 AM:Reagan had an all-inclusive message - unless you were gay, black, liberal, out of work, from another country, etc.
He was a cheerleader for willful ignorance, cutting back on libraries because he didn't have them when he grew up.
He did do a very good thing cutting the highest tax bracket, and wish all we want, it's hard to deny his effect in managing the collapse of the Soviet Union (not discounting the Russians job in Afghanistan and elsewhere of doing their own part).
But he also brought back illegal nation building/destroying, and his "management by delegation" became a complete lack of responsibility for aspects of government he should have controlled. He's given the office of President a bad name because people think it's easy, when if you run it poorly and irresponsibly, sure it's easy.
But the Republicans have built this goddamned "transformational" moment into a purely crap myth. Yes, Reagan cut taxes but then raised them again. And again. - but if you get into an argument with conservatives, they only remember the tax cuts, and then they quote the Laffer Curve, etc.
America had a transformational moment in 1980 because they didn't like feeling like oppressed underdogs, from the Soviets, from OPEC embargoes, from Iranian hostages, from recession. But that was because of external factors. The biggest problems we have in 2007 are from our own government - the dismantling of the Constitution, the giving away of trillions to special interests.
When Obama talks about transformational moments, it's just really dumb to appeal to the guys we're trying to transform from.
Asp wrote on January 19, 2008 8:28 AM:Desider: it's not "dubm to appeal to the guys we're trying to transform from." That's how you build a coalition. Obama is dead-on. Reagan won a mandate because he tapped into broad popular support for rolling back some of the "excesses" of the welfare state and for rebuilding U.S. military strength. Broadly speaking, his big ideas worked. He put liberalism on a diet and made those who believe that government can work accountable for outcomes. And he skillfully midwifed the remarkably peaceful collapse of the Soviet Union. Obama is brilliant and courageous to recognize this. His subtext, I think, is that he can be a fusion of Clintonian grasp of policy nuance, Reaganite steering by basic principles, and his own brand of coalition building, of which this is exhibit A.
green heron wrote on January 19, 2008 9:53 AM:This issue is officially dead. Until the Republicans revive it to whack Hillary in the general.
Matthew wrote on January 19, 2008 10:07 AM:With comments like these, next Obama will invite Lieberman to join his campaign, maybe even be his VP. It is good, for whatever his immediately needs are, that even Edwards realizes how over-the-top Obama is.
poetry wrote on January 19, 2008 11:05 AM:If Obama wanted to praise a president who REALLY TRANSFORMED America, and was optimistic, he should have named President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
In 1933, when FDR was first inaugurated, unemployment in America was at 25%, banks had failed, people had lost their life savings, lost their homes, lost their farms, and were tossed out onto the streets. There was despair in the country unlike anything Americans had ever known. Fear was rampant.
Then, FDR won the presidency and made dramatic and unprecedented changes that opened the banks, insured deposits, put people back to work and, in general, gave Americans hope.
After we were attacked at Pearl Harbor, in 1941, and Hitler declared war on us four days later, FDR led us from being a second-class military power to winning World War II.
Ronald Reagan NEVER faced the challenges FDR did, and Reagan's whole presidency was geared toward helping the rich and dumping the tax burden on the poor and middle class.
So, I have to ask: If Obama wanted to name a president with an optimistic outlook who did great things for this country, WHY did he pass over President Franklin D. Roosevelt -- who was of Obama's own political party -- to name a Republican president who was bad for the very people the Democratic Party represents?
poetry wrote on January 19, 2008 11:19 AM:The whole story of Ronald Reagan's presidency is a myth he invented and the press gobbled up.
For one thing, a chilling meanness lurked at the core of Reagan's political agenda (always effectively concealed by the affability), and he used this meanness like a razor blade to advance his main purpose--delegitimizing the federal government. Race was one cutting edge, poverty was another. His famous metaphor--the "welfare queen" who rode around in her Cadillac collecting food stamps--was perfectly pitched to the smoldering social resentments but also a clever fit with his broader economic objectives. Stop wasting our money on those lazy, shiftless (and, always unspoken, black) people. Get government off our backs, encourage the strong, forget the weak. In case any white guys missed the point, Reagan opened his 1980 campaign in Neshoba County, Mississippi, where three civil rights workers had been murdered in the 1960s. His speech extolled states' rights. The tone was sunny optimism. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040628/greider
Apparently Obama is overly gullible and needs to do his own research -- he should not just accept on faith that the baloney written about the Reagan years is based on fact.
Reagan was a fabulist. He told stories--often charming, sometimes loony--in which sentimental images triumphed over facts, warmth over light. So it is entirely appropriate today that the major media, draped in mourning, are solemnly fictionalizing his presidency. Reagan spun them around brilliantly, used the White House reporters and cameras as hapless props in his melodrama, ignored the tough questions and stuck unyieldingly to his scripted version of reality. This was partly conviction, partly the discipline of an "old pro" movie actor. It appears to have worked with the press. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040628/greider
A fabulist is: A composer of fables. A teller of tales; a liar.
Liam wrote on January 19, 2008 11:45 AM:Who voted for the new BK laws?
A voting guide, take note so you can vote against the Members of Congress who voted in favor of this law next time they are up for re-election:
Senate
NAYs ---25 (the good guys!)
Akaka (D-HI)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Wyden (D-OR)
YEAs ---74 (the bad guys)
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Salazar (D-CO)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Not Voting - 1 (the cowards)
Clinton (D-NY)
I fail to see how Obama is going to be the great uniter when he and his supporters are making comments that have the potential to divide the base of the democratic party.No one can seriously make a case that the Clintons have ever been anything but pro minorities or that they have not worked to improve the lives of minorities. A serious unbiased look at Hillary's work since she graduated from college,the issues she has championed would certainly prove were her heart has been.I have noticed a real snarley intolerence on the part of Obama supporters for a fair historical account of the Clinton's work. I wish the younger people knew their history better.Who do they think has been in the trenches trying to hold back the conservative take over of the country? Who do they they think has held up under the most brutal barrage of smearing and demonization from both the right and their mouth pieces the MSM? Obama supporters need to search their hearts and ask themselves if they have fallen for and internalized some of the slime that has been directed at the Clinton's their entire political lives. Do you think that the same tactics won't be used on Obama because he talks nice about theie heros?
poetry wrote on January 19, 2008 12:13 PM:"Liam ":
Barack Obama did NOT vote on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment.
Are you now calling Obama a "coward"?
poetry wrote on January 19, 2008 12:31 PM:
Question: On the Amendment (Kyl Amdt. No. 3017 as Modified )
Statement of Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding Iran.
NOT Voting - 2: McCain (R-AZ) ... Obama (D-IL)
Vote Result: Amendment Agreed to
JimNYC wrote on January 23, 2008 3:19 PM:LMFAO! Because I don't know what else to do at this point. This he said/she said bs is pathetic. Is this supposed to play to Liberals and Progressive who have already made up their minds? What has this got to do with the state of things in this volatile world? I'm laughing because in all likelihood McCain will waltz into the White House.
