Hillary Personally Slams Obama Over Reagan Comments
The Hillary campaign clearly made a decision to go all out on Obama's Reagan comments today. Hillary herself just lit into Obama over them in Las Vegas, according to a transcript provided by her campaign:
"I have to say, you know, my leading opponent the other day said that he thought the Republicans had better ideas than Democrats the last ten to fifteen years. That's not the way I remember the last ten to fifteen years."I don't think it's a better idea to privatize Social Security. I don't think it's a better idea to try to eliminate the minimum wage. I don't think it's a better idea to undercut health benefits and to give drug companies the right to make billions of dollars by providing prescription drugs to Medicare recipients. I don't think it's a better idea to shut down the government, to drive us into debt."
In fairness, Obama didn't really say that Republicans had better ideas than Dems (more on this here). This is what Obama said:
"The Republican approach I think has played itself out. I think it's fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time over the last 10 or 15 years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom. Now, you've heard it all before. You look at the economic policies, when they're being debated among the presidential candidates, it's all tax cuts. Well, we've done that, we've tried it."
Between this and what Hillary's surrogates said today about this, it looks like the Hillary campaign is waging all-out war over the Reagan comments to "win" the last news cycle, as the political pros like to say. We'll see what happens.
Late Update: The Obama camp responds.
Late Late Update: Bill Clinton weighs in, too.
Still Later Update: It's probably worth pointing out that Obama's quote is saying that the GOP "challenged conventional wisdom" and suggests by default that the Dems didn't have any ideas. At the very least this is a poor choice of words on Obama's part.
Comments (377)
Dan wrote on January 18, 2008 3:22 PM:She's vicious. I can't stand her, but she has an instinct for the kill that is Bush-like.
I'm starting to wonder if Obama has that instinct, I've yet to see it. I'm rooting for him. It's time for him to hit back hard.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 18, 2008 3:24 PM:It will be interesting to see how this works for her. It is not obvios in the least to me that Reagan will really play so poorly in Nevada. I deny that Obama really said anything like what Sen Clinton is claiming that he said, but even if she succeeds in convincing folks that he did say those things, will caucus goers (even democratic caucus goers) in NV really count that as a strike against Obama?
Tom wrote on January 18, 2008 3:25 PM:Just like in New Hampshire, the Clintons resort to lies and misleading attacks in the last days before the election.
katie wrote on January 18, 2008 3:25 PM:What can he say in response?
He said something dumb, WAY too nuanced. He's a terrible politician...with no killer instinct. It's better we realize this now, instead of in the general when the Republicans take him down and we lose the White House.
phil james wrote on January 18, 2008 3:25 PM:Here's the main point. When Hillary blasts Obama for his Reagan remarks, she will be lauded. When Edwards blasted him, way before Hillary did, he got slammed.
Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 3:27 PM:"I have to say, you know, my leading opponent the other day said that he thought the Republicans had better ideas than Democrats the last ten to fifteen years. "
Well...no thats NOT what he said Hillary.
"I think it's fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time over the last 10 or 15 years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom"
No where does he say the republicans had "better" ideas, nor does he even comment on the QUALITY of those ideas.
jbentley wrote on January 18, 2008 3:27 PM:This is just a run-of-the-ill example of Clinton's intellectual dishonesty. She knows damn well that Obama didn't say or mean what she says he did.
Organizer wrote on January 18, 2008 3:28 PM:I know if she wins we'll unite behind her as we must. But this kind of vicious misrepresentation and Karl Rovian tactic is disgusting. Next she'll be saying in South Carolina that Obama has an illegitimate white baby. What a sleazy, desperate, dishonest campaign.
CT Voter wrote on January 18, 2008 3:28 PM:I've read snippets of Obama's comments, and listened to part of the interview, and I think he's right on the mark when he talks about how Reagan was able to swing the country hard right in a way that Bill Clinton was never able to do.
That being said, he's probably going to get hammered over this in the primaries, and Clinton's campaign has demonstrated repeatedly that they are willing to slime their opponents.
On the other hand, a lot of non-Democrats don't think Reagan was so awful. Perhaps Obama is reaching out to them, and I don't know if this is necessarily a bad idea.
I was suprised and amazed that Obama mentioned Reagan, and I'm wondering if it might have a counterintuitive effect--(not on Democrats, obviously--but on other voters...)
katie wrote on January 18, 2008 3:29 PM:Cry me a river.
It's called politics folks...Saint Obama does the same thing, just not as well.
Play hard or go home. Obama is just like Kerry, he doesn't have the backbone for this kind of hard ball. I'd rather not lose again.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 18, 2008 3:30 PM:Here's the main point. When Hillary blasts Obama for his Reagan remarks, she will be lauded. When Edwards blasted him, way before Hillary did, he got slammed.
Dear Mr James,
That was precisely the point I was trying to make on the other thread. Sen Clinton's campaign so far has proven to be an extended aping of John Edwards. Edwards's health plan becomes Clinton's health plan. Edwards' economic stimulus package becomes Clinton's economic stimulus package. Now Edwards' cheap-shot talking-point becomes Clinton's cheap-shot talking-point. Nice work if you can get it, that, but one rather has to wonder why Clinton's supporters prefer to get this stuff through the intermediate agency of Clinton instead of direct from the source (especially given that the head-to-head match-up polls show that the actual source is more electable in the GE than the intermediary).
NCSteve wrote on January 18, 2008 3:31 PM:"Ooooh, he's, doomed, doomed, I say! Hillary is criticising him! It's all over now!"
Sheesh.
Has it every occurred to any of you people that the opinions about Reagan of people who write comments on liberal blogs might not be too representative of the opinions of primary voters in general? Or has the repeated dismal failures of the netroots to get their favored candidates elected made absolutely no impression on you at all?
Aaand, has it occurred to any of you that she is playing directly into the "Hillary the Hysterical Distorter" frame with this crap?
bill wrote on January 18, 2008 3:31 PM:His point is spot on -- hello democrats! We have not controlled government since 1994 -- wake up -- his comments were critical of the Repukicans -- she is acting like one -
green heron wrote on January 18, 2008 3:31 PM:It's time for Obama to play his ace: Hillary and Edwards' vote for the Iraq war. Not some feel good ad. Drop an A-bomb on both of them from a great height.
JimS wrote on January 18, 2008 3:32 PM:The I-Barrack now with I-tunes for the I-bot generation.
This is a personnal attack but Obama's comedy routine was just good clean fun. The blatant bias against Senator Clinton in the so-called progressive media makes me sick.
Go ahead, pick Obama in spite of the fact that he's increasingly a Republican mouth piece. He's on GQ. He must be cool.
CT Voter wrote on January 18, 2008 3:32 PM:@katie:
I agree that he says things that may be too nuanced for a political campaign, but I'm increasingly sure that he does, in fact, have a killer instinct.
Have you seen the comments he made about Clinton last night? (assininely reported as a stand-up routine by the AP) In any event, he shredded her. In a funny way. And had the crowd laughing with him. That's more devastating than a reasoned critique--make people laugh at your opponent, and your opponent doesn't look so strong any longer.
peterboy wrote on January 18, 2008 3:33 PM:Did you ever hear a Republican praising Roosevelt or LBJ?
never!
Democrats like Obama need to get their shit together before they ask to become president or a party leader. If I want gooper talking points, I can listen to rover or grover or kristol.
He needs to take his foot out of his mouth. and dont tell me we should understand what he is trying to do and say--I dont.
Obama supporters seem quite ready to launch into learned dissertations "proving" that what Obama said could be made sense of while still keeping in a progressive tradition.
How about the simple idea instead that, in saying what he did about Reagan and the Republicans, Obama proved himself to be the hapless naif everybody has been claiming all along that he is?
If he can't hit back the softball pitches allowed in the Democratic Primary, how is he going to handle the major league hardballs that are going to be thrown at him when he faces, for the first time in his sheltered life, real opposition from the Republicans?
DRinOH wrote on January 18, 2008 3:34 PM:"...It's better we realize this now, instead of in the general when the Republicans take him down and we lose the White House."
Yes, because we all know how much Republicans hate it when you say good things about Reagan. Give me a break.
Seriously Hillary fans? This is the kind of politics you want to embrace? Yea, this kind of shit is sure to end the bitter partisanship in Washington. Best of luck...
katie wrote on January 18, 2008 3:34 PM:Sweet. So he's turned into Huckabee.
He can have the laughs.
She'll take the votes.
bob wrote on January 18, 2008 3:36 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."
green heron wrote on January 18, 2008 3:36 PM:Obama's other ace? Eight more years of Billary in the White House. Do we really want that white trash polluting the white house for eight more precious years?
Slomike wrote on January 18, 2008 3:37 PM:Well.....Reagan WAS awful. He took Prop 13 and supply side as far as he could. Then, like Obama, he built a personality based appeal that ushered in W who pushed those ideas to their ultimate. We are harvesting those fruits today and for the rest of our lives. No self respecting Dem should ever point to Reagan as a model.
katie wrote on January 18, 2008 3:37 PM:DRinOH-
Sure they'll love that he said good things about Reagan. "Even Sen. Obama knows that the Republicans are the ones with the good ideas!!"
Partisanship in Washington isn't going anywhere. That's what you guys fail to understand.
If he can't take the heat from Hillary, what does he expect to get from the Republicans???
Maybe if he asks really nicely, they won't attack him.
Steve LaBonne wrote on January 18, 2008 3:37 PM:peterboy, I'm glad you asked! The answer to your question is "yes".
"I cast my first vote for Roosevelt and the full Democratic ticket. And like Jack - and millions of other Americans - I soon idolized FDR. He'd entered the White House facing a national emergency as grim as any the country had ever faced and, acting quickly, he had implemented a plan of action to deal with the crisis. During his fireside chats, his strong, gentle, confident voice resonated across the nation with an eloquence that brought comfort and resilience to a nation caught up in a storm and reassured us that we could lick any problem. I will never forget him for that."
-Ronald Reagan, An American Life
Gnopple wrote on January 18, 2008 3:37 PM:This is Hillary reaching across the aisle, huh? This is how she's going to lead?
Fine. If she's the nominee, as a Democrat, I will work to make sure she's defeated. I would rather jump into four more years of darkness than have her represent my party.
Orwell's Intuition wrote on January 18, 2008 3:38 PM:You don't have to say specific words to imply certain attitudes. "Dr. Feelgood" Obama, by his measured manner, came across as being an admirer of the GOP. Of all the presidents in history he could have chosen for his little bipartisan rhetoric, why choose Reagan? It has clearly inflamed the Democrats and given the Repubs a pat on the back for what could be implied as praise for a job well done. Ms. Clinton is right to blast him, and I want to see this issue front and center, because Dr. Feelgood defined himself once and for all.
brewmn wrote on January 18, 2008 3:38 PM:Boy, is this stupid: "Did you ever hear a Republican praising Roosevelt or LBJ?
never!"
You must have missed the thousands of references by Republicans that claimed Reagan and now Bush are the true heirs to FDR, HST, and JFK.
You're so uninformed, you must be a Hillary supporter.
"and dont tell me we should understand what he is trying to do and say--I dont."
That you don't understand...not a shock.
katie wrote on January 18, 2008 3:39 PM:Gnopple-
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Fine, work against Hillary. You deserve what you get.
Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 3:40 PM:In running a slimy, politics-as-usual, mislead-the-public, no-hope-of-reform campaign, Hillary is ramping up the public cynicism and depressing the electorate, playing to the worst instincts of the American people, and kneecapping our best chance for positive, progressive change in a generation.
So when you support Hillary, know that this is what you are supporting.
grover_rover wrote on January 18, 2008 3:40 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.
And to Organizer: 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.
green heron wrote on January 18, 2008 3:40 PM:Fascinating. The Democrats are being handed the presidency on a silver platter, and they're going to blow it again by nominating Hillary. I'm not sure I want to belong to the loser party much longer.
freaktown wrote on January 18, 2008 3:41 PM:I h8 Hillary. sorry, but i do. I"m a democrat, a pretty liberal one at that, and I will never ever ever vote for her. Ever.
This is one of the reasons why. She is distorting and drawing conclusions that can't be drawn from what Obama said. He never ever, said, or implied even that "republicans had better ideas than democrats."
How you run your campaign is how you'll govern. And if your willing to lie, distort, and mislead to win, she'll use lies, and distortions to win her political battles in the White House. I guess Hillary's definition of "change" means just changing WHO is doing the lying and distorting.
Hillary could have criticized Obama for what he actually said. Instead, she decides to criticize him for something he NEVER said.
How do you clinton supporters justify that? And how much of this slime ball politics are you willing to tolerate?
JimS wrote on January 18, 2008 3:42 PM:Barrack is this cycle's John Kerry. The Republican are ready to embrace and praise him until the Howard Dean is out of the way. They will then rip him to pieces and leave him as a hollow shell, like Kerry. And you 20 something i-bots won't know what hit you. Ok, Obama is cool - very cool and good looking but he's a republican mouth piece in over his head. You don't even understand what your voting for besides a cool image.
benjoya wrote on January 18, 2008 3:43 PM:i'm an obama supporter, but to be fair, did hillary vote for the bankruptcy bill? i thought they both voted against it.
Southpaw wrote on January 18, 2008 3:43 PM:Given the "in fairness" portion of your post, Greg, I would appreciate it if you made it clearer in the HEADLINE that Sen. Clinton's accusation is a FALSE one. Try this: "Sen. Clinton Falsely Accuses Obama of Claiming that Republicans Had 'Better' Ideas."
Enough of this "we report, you decide" junk, we get enough of that elsewhere. There is no gray here. Clinton is wrong, dead wrong. Just as Bill Clinton was dead wrong in his claims about the substantive merits of the NV at-large caucus lawsuit. Just as both Clintons were dead wrong in their suggestion that Obama has been inconsistent in his position on whether we should have started a preemptive war with Iraq. Just as their campaign is dead wrong on the accusation that Obama wants a trillion dollar tax hike on the middle class.
All of these accusations are *readily* demonstrable falsehoods. Yet when it comes to the Clinton campaign, TPM-EC functions like the rest of the MSM does in general, simply reporting the accusations as made, and abdicating their roles as journalists to analyze the statements, expose those which are lies and report the TRUTH.
We can do better than this.
TPM is becoming as useless as every other media outlet.
Jerry wrote on January 18, 2008 3:43 PM:boy..its why I hate hillary and why i love hillary. For her to say that Obama was praising the republicans or reagan is a lie. He was commenting on transformational presidencies and said that reagan was one(which he was like him or hate him) and that nixon and carter and clinton were not.
But on the other hand, she and her are absolutely vicious on other candidates just like the republicans are so that is why I love her..or maybe I just want to beat republicans so bad, I will do anything to win..yep that's clinton..willing to do anything to win
jim wrote on January 18, 2008 3:43 PM:I love how people are demanding "change" and that they are sick of Rovian politics, yet at the same time they laud Hillary for being a Rove clone.
Some of us out here don't want to replicate the Republican smear machine. We don't want a politician who will say or do anything to get elected. Hillary had many, many chances to stand up to the extremism of the Bush administration -- pick almost any issue. She did nothing but jump on their bandwagon. And now Hillary is great because she is just as vile, cynical, and "tough" as Rove? Hillary may be great at distorting what people say and out-and-out lying -- sorry, this doesn't prove she can "beat" Rove or Limbaugh. It just proves she is no different, except for the brand name.
Mark F. wrote on January 18, 2008 3:45 PM:I thought for awhile that if Obama didn't get the nomination, I could choke back the tears and the vomit and pull the handle for Hillary. I realize now that it can never happen. This campaign has made me hate the Clintons and their snotty, dishonest, arrogant sense of entitlement more than ever.
I've made my decision: If Hillary gets the nomination, I'll stay home on election day. I don't want her in the White House any more than I want Bush there.
CT Voter wrote on January 18, 2008 3:45 PM:If he can't take the heat from Hillary, what does he expect to get from the Republicans???
Absolutely, katie. I mean it's been what, at least 30 MINUTES since this hit the wires, and he clearly hasn't a clue how to respond...Sheesh. And morons out there think he should be elected?
And you're also right: Washington is a partisan septic tank right now, and Hillary Clinton will clearly fit right in.
katie wrote on January 18, 2008 3:45 PM:the republican smear machine isnt going anywhere. You gotta fight fire with fire jim.
Naive really doesn't even cover it around here.
Dave C wrote on January 18, 2008 3:45 PM:So we've had about 3-4 posts today of Clinton campaign talking points. When are we going to get Obama's and Edwards'?
bupalos wrote on January 18, 2008 3:46 PM:This is called Reagan-baiting, and I guarantee it's a win for the Obaminator. Clinton herself has done well to more explicitly just lie about what Obama said, and keep Reagan out of it. Her surrogates were playing 100% into his hands. I think they tightened it up for her, or maybe Clintons reflexive instinct to lie just naturally transformed the comment.
However you slice it though, Clinton is left saying "hey, he's talking like one of those damned winners! You need to stick with us and keep true to the losers. That's what our party is all about! Look at Barney Frank! He's been a dedicated loser for thirty years, just like me! Don't try new things! Just keep fighting!! We can win the recount in Florida this time!!"
I can't wait for Obama's "clarification" where he explains that all the democratic presidents were better than DLC Clinton too.
nerdoff wrote on January 18, 2008 3:46 PM:The Dems are going to lose the general. They're going to nominate Hillary, a year of Hillary fatigue and hatred will pass, and we'll be looking at eight years of Mitt or McCain or Huck. Some Democrats can stand Hillary. Half of America HATES her.
frankly0 wrote on January 18, 2008 3:46 PM:Oh, and BTW, with regard to the funny Obama made about being so honest and everything when asked the question "what is your greatest weakness", don't you think that the whole episode reveals more than Obama might like?
Think about it. Obama says that if he had been the last one to have been asked the question "what is your greatest weakness", he would have known what was up and come up with an answer like that of Hillary or Edwards.
But how many of us here beyond the age of 20, who have been on a job interview, have not been prepared for the question "what is your greatest weakness"? How naive and out-of-touch and sheltered must one be, never to have anticipated such a question? I mean, Obama has no clue about a question that practically every working American would be aware of, and most likely would have actually had to answer at some point or another in their career?
This is the person we want to put into the most powerful position in the world -- someone who would be stumped in an interview for a entry level management position?
brewmn wrote on January 18, 2008 3:46 PM:katie:
"Play hard or go home. Obama is just like Kerry, he doesn't have the backbone for this kind of hard ball. I'd rather not lose again."
So, you endorse deception, misrepresentation, and outright lying in a campaign?
And, if so, why should anyone vote for any politician, because you can never trust what they say?
JimS wrote on January 18, 2008 3:47 PM:I will vote for a Republican (which I never have done) rather than Obama. He's an immature, whiny Republican.
katie wrote on January 18, 2008 3:48 PM:I'm glad you've figured it out CT Voter.
DC isnt going anywhere, the lobbyists, the republicans, the big evil corporations, its here to stay. You gotta play in the big leagues with the big guns, and WORK for change, and FIGHT for the change.
Obama should have spent a few more years in the minors.
Tom wrote on January 18, 2008 3:48 PM:Most polls show that about 70% of Americans have a positive impression of Reagan's presidency. That doesn't even include those who agree with Obama's even less controversial point about Reagan bringing about transformational change.
As far as his comments on the Republicans' ideas, he's saying they were failures and are now worn out, so its the exact opposite of what Hillary is claiming. I'm sure she knows this, but she also knows the media won't bother to fact-check and correct her.
phil james wrote on January 18, 2008 3:48 PM:First of all his comments appear to pertain more to Gingrich than to Reagan, though he did "praise" Reagan very recently as well. However, whether his supporters think it's fair or not, his characterizations of the Thug party as "the party of ideas" come a tad too close to being Republican talking points than the reality warrants. The implicit praise I think is going to turn off Dem voters in the primaries and serve as fodder for the Thugs against him in the general if he makes it that far. It would go something like: "If you want the reincarnation of those big change Reagan years and those "party-of-ideas" Gingrich years, why not just vote for the real thing---a Republican?"
Bat Guano wrote on January 18, 2008 3:49 PM:Is this what we've come to, that blatantly disingenuous comments are not called out, and are taken as serious statements.
Clinton is either being completely stupid here, or she's being dishonest. Anyone can see that Obama wasn't saying what she says he said.
And are Clinton supporters going to side with the Rovian tactics we've been fighting since 2000?
Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 3:49 PM:"If he can't take the heat from Hillary, what does he expect to get from the Republicans???"
Can't take it?!!! What are you talking about? Hillary is digging her own Herbert Hoover grave here. He Reagan baited her and she lurked in a corner for two days staring at the shiny object, and then finally bit. I know Bill prompted her. It was his legacy that was being discussed.
Ongoing win for Obama, however long this stays in the news.
maavelous wrote on January 18, 2008 3:50 PM:Hillary is ruining her general election chances with this.
Daniel A. Greenbaum wrote on January 18, 2008 3:51 PM:Obama talking about Reagan being a change agent and having better ideas is a bit strange for a Democrat. It does not seem to bother either Obama or his supporters that Reagan kicked off his campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi and talked of states rights.
Also isn't Obama indirectly endorsing Clinton's statements about Dr. King and President Johnson? Reagan undoubtedly changed many things. However, he was following on the tax-revolt in California and the many movement conservatives.
Either Obama is insulting all the people who made Reagan possible or he is acknowledging that a President who can get things done, whether Johnson or Reagan, is crucial to enacting dreams into law.
Dave C wrote on January 18, 2008 3:51 PM:Good grief! What part of "The Republican approach I think has played itself out" are you not getting, phil james?
LJ wrote on January 18, 2008 3:51 PM:I don't think it's a better idea to privatize Social Security.
This is part of why I cannot support Hillary Clinton. She knows Goddamn well that Obama doesn't support privitizing Social Security. But she has no problem purposely misrepresenting his position on this issue or a host of others for personal gain. She's disingenuous, at best. Downright slimy at worst.
lestatdelc wrote on January 18, 2008 3:52 PM:"my leading opponent the other day said that he thought the Republicans had better ideas than Democrats the last ten to fifteen years."
Clinton is lying on this. That is a flat out untrue statement.
CT Voter wrote on January 18, 2008 3:52 PM:I'm glad you've figured it out CT Voter.
Yep. I'm glad you're so capable of spotting snark, too.
freaktown wrote on January 18, 2008 3:53 PM:"He Reagan baited her"
you know, thinking about it you might be right. What better way to show hillary's polarizing side than to show her going batsh*t crazy when Obama says something nice about republicans?
BluePuppy wrote on January 18, 2008 3:53 PM:"WAY too nuanced. He's a terrible politician...with no killer instinct. It's better we realize this now, instead of in the general when the Republicans take him down and we lose the White House."
Katie, you're awesome. Keep posting.
JimS-If you vote for Hillary, you will be voting for a Republican.
Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 3:53 PM:katie wrote on January 18, 2008 3:29 PM:lestatdelc wrote on January 18, 2008 3:55 PM:Cry me a river.
She's good at that isn't she?
Daniel A. Greenbaum wrote on January 18, 2008 3:51 PM:...and having better ideas is a bit strange for a Democrat.
Liar. He didn't say that. Did you even read that damn quote (and in context)...?
Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 3:55 PM:took a new tact in his battle with Hillary Clinton . . .
If I could take a moment from the partisan ranting to do a little grammer policing, it's tack goddamit, not tact. "Tack" refers to the ziz-zagging you do in sailing when the wind is not directly behind you. "Tact," in the immortal words of Cordelia Chase "is just not saying things that are true."
Sorry, I see people doing this one more and more and it drives me crazy.
nisleib wrote on January 18, 2008 3:55 PM:Peterboy asks: Did you ever hear a Republican praising Roosevelt or LBJ
Answer: Yes, FDR was Reagan's hero.
Greg DeLassus Says: It will be interesting to see how this works for her. It is not obvios in the least to me that Reagan will really play so poorly in Nevada.
My comment: I've heard this could go over quite well for Obama, especially in Northern Nevada and California. This wouldn't be the first time HRC has attacked Obama on something he said only to find it backfire.
frankly0 Said: If he can't hit back the softball pitches allowed in the Democratic Primary, how is he going to handle the major league hardballs that are going to be thrown at him when he faces, for the first time in his sheltered life, real opposition from the Republicans
My answer: Given Hillary's funding and nastiness if Obama wins the primary he will have already dealt with the hard part of this election. Vote suppresion, attacks on race, attacks on youthful indiscretions. Hillary is Rove's heir apparent.
jim wrote on January 18, 2008 3:55 PM:In fairness, Obama didn't really say that Republicans had better ideas than Dems
Then why the stenography? She says something false and you are honor bound to repeat it without labeling it false? Please spare us the faux objectivity "she said, he said" that we are all so familiar with.
green heron wrote on January 18, 2008 3:55 PM:White women are making a terrible mistake. They're going to vote for Hillary out of gender alliegence, and cost the Dems the presidency.
JHo wrote on January 18, 2008 3:56 PM:Did anyone watch the full interview? If you haven't - go watch it and ask yourself afterwards - has Hillary ever shared this honestly and bravely?
These people are relentless. She has taken his comments out of context and is preying on the soundbite voters again.
Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 3:56 PM:Anonymous wrote @3:27...
"Well...no thats NOT what he said Hillary.
"I think it's fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time over the last 10 or 15 years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom"
Well...no, Anonymous Hillary's paraphrase is a fair reading of what Obambi said.
If the Republicans were the party of ideas for the last 10 to 15 years because they were challenging conventional wisdom then Obambi is saying that they had better ideas than Democrats (who supposedly represented conventional wisdom).
The "better" is implicit in the framing of the sentence. Here's a reading comp aid for you: If it wasn't "better" to "challenge conventional wisdom" then there is no reason to utter the words, even if Greg tries his level best to do the whole Faux Fair and Balanced routine in his post.
BillyBob wrote on January 18, 2008 3:57 PM:This whole thing remind me of the Republicans in Michigan. In a moment of honesty McCain tells the voters that he can't bring the jobs back. Romney, on the otherhand, promises to bring them all back.
In this case, Obama makes the honest statement that Reagan changed the political landscape in a way the triangulating Clinton never did. Hillary, like Romney, panders.
There are two honest candidates in this race and the independents are begging the parties to nominate either one of them. Whether the Democrats, the Republicans or neither listen is what the primaries are about. I just wish the Democrats would get it right for once. Four more years in the wilderness will be hard to take.
Bupalos wrote on January 18, 2008 3:57 PM:I'm not going to fault Clinton for baldfaced lying. She can't do anything about that, so people should back off. It's just in the blood, and half of the democrats here are so Rovetized that they think it is a sign of strength.
But anyone who thinks this particular distortion serves her purpose is missing the boat, IMO. Obama deliberately used Reagan because he wanted to bait the Clintons, and it worked, although probably too late to change Nevada. They hung back a couple days. They obviously aren't real sure about this shiny object they are biting on, that makes Obama into Reagan, or FDR in the coming twist, and them into Carter or Hoover. But they just can't resist it.
katie wrote on January 18, 2008 3:57 PM:well..i guess I would post anonymously if I was just going to personally attack a candidate.
Good work! Thanks for the extra woman voters!
This is the primary people, Obama shouldn't be running in the general with this I heart Reagan crap already.
NH and Iowa both show that DEMOCRATS, real ones, not the lofty latte sipping ones here on the blogs, vote for Hillary.
And the make up the majority of primary voters.
Moderate republicans vote for McCain. Obama tried this wink in NH and it backfired, and it will in NV also.
JimS wrote on January 18, 2008 3:59 PM:Pleaseme - 20 something pampered Mommie's little soccer boy or Daddy's little princess. You're not familiar with issues, with history, or with politics. All you know is that Obama is cute and looks good on GQ. Little fools deserve what you're going to get. What grown up is going to vote for a Democrat who PREACHES like a Baptist minister instead of talking about issues.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 18, 2008 4:00 PM:It does not seem to bother either Obama or his supporters that Reagan kicked off his campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi and talked of states rights.
Excuse me, sir, but that does indeed bother me. Are you actually laboring under the impression that any of us Obama supporters liked Ronald Reagan? Please allow me to disabuse you of that misimpression.
Any other Obama supporters out there care to help Mr Greenbaum understand the reality of our campaing here? If you did not like Reagan, please let him know, as he is evidently confused on this point. If you thought that Reagan's speech at Philadelphia was despicable, please let him know, because evidently Mr Greenbaum has somehow been left with the opposite impression.
SOH wrote on January 18, 2008 4:00 PM:He said something dumb, WAY too nuanced.
Did anyone else see the hilarity in what katie said?
Nick wrote on January 18, 2008 4:00 PM:This lying harpy had better win in the fall. I'm 56, a lifelong Democrat, and quite frankly, she makes me sick.
gren heron wrote on January 18, 2008 4:01 PM:Independents are not going to vote for Hillary in the general. Abandon ship Dems! Hillary is a sure loser.
RP wrote on January 18, 2008 4:01 PM:Its time for the Clinton dynasty to end. Hilary knows damn well that Obama was pointing out that RR transformed the country ideologically and Bill Clinton did not. If he had, we would have had Universal health care. But, thanks to his, and Hilary's inability to handle that one, we don't. But, hey, she's the candidate of experience. What Bill Clinton did was, after messing up and allowing the Republicns win Congress, play the hand he was dealt very shrewdly and gain a number of significant tactical victories over the Republicans. If you want a tactical Presidency engaged in a political death struggle almost constantly, with some mild, but the current grid lock firmly in place, vote for Hilary. If you want an opportunity for a progressive transformation a long the lines of the conservative transformation gained by Reagan, vote for Obama. That, and no dynasties, an end to identity politics, and the final burial of the stupid culture wars
CT Voter wrote on January 18, 2008 4:02 PM:Did anyone else see the hilarity in what katie said?Bat Guano wrote on January 18, 2008 4:02 PM:Yes.
Where's the actual quote where Obama is saying that Reagan/Republicans had the "better" ideas?
Was it too damned "nuanced" for you to understand his point -- that Republicans in the '80s on were challenging the status quo, and the Democrats didn't fight back their ideology in an effective manner, but now it's the Democrats' turn to be the party of change? Is that really hard to understand?
You might argue that point, but don't be such a lying sonofabitch to pretend he said "I love me some Reagan!"
NH and Iowa both show that DEMOCRATS, real ones, not the lofty latte sipping ones here on the blogs, vote for Hillary.
Really Katie? Every demographic group in Iowa voted for Obama more than Hillary, including women.
So are Demcorats who voted for Obama in larger numbers in Iowa than For Clinton not "real" Democrats?
So only Democrats who vote for Clinton are "real" ones by your decree?
Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 4:03 PM:RP@4:01 PM:
I think thats the most accurate reading of the situation yet...
Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 4:03 PM:Hey Anonymous @ 3:56 PM... this is your "future self" talking to you. You are an idiot.
blackstar wrote on January 18, 2008 4:03 PM:Think about it. Obama says that if he had been the last one to have been asked the question "what is your greatest weakness", he would have known what was up and come up with an answer like that of Hillary or Edwards.
But how many of us here beyond the age of 20, who have been on a job interview, have not been prepared for the question "what is your greatest weakness"? How naive and out-of-touch and sheltered must one be, never to have anticipated such a question?
-------------------
this, again, is indicative of the kind of politics Hillary supporters are relying on. the JOB of a Presidential candidate is to answer questions HONESTLY, not to prepare all their answers ahead of time according to what tests best in your pollster's focus group. Obama answered the question earnestly, Edwards and Clinton gave what were obvious non-answers that they thought would go over better.
the former is what we need, the latter is what we've been getting up until now that hasn't helped us. Obama supporters GET that concept, Hillary supporters don't.
Keith wrote on January 18, 2008 4:04 PM:So the Clintons are distorting his comments for political gain and none of the reporters called them on it? Got it.
Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 4:04 PM:DEMOCRATS, real ones, not the lofty latte sipping ones here on the blogs, vote for Hillary.
katie, I'm confused: Are you or are you not "here on the blogs"? You're posting, so either you're here or you're not katie. I'll go out on a limb and conclude you're both katie and you're here.
Therefore, I guess you're not a real Democrat?
Therefore, I guess you're not for Hillary?
"It's just in the blood, and half of the democrats here are so Rovetized that they think it is a sign of strength."
I guess that's what bugs me. But I guess what do you expect when they got blasted two times in a row by a freaking lying chimpanzee that turned America into TortureWorld? Now they want their own mudslinging chimp I guess.
ChrisO wrote on January 18, 2008 4:05 PM:"Hillary Attacks Obama Personally?" She addressed the statements he made, in a political context. Call it unfair, if you want, but wouldn't a "personal attack" be an attack on him personally, rather than his political views?
And can the Obama supporters please stop whining? Horors, a candidate cast her opponent's statement in the worst possible light. It's called campaigning, folks. It's not "Rovian," and it's not a "slime machine." I really think the only thing you guys would tolerate from Hillary would be if she praised Obama. Anything else is "slime."
katie wrote on January 18, 2008 4:06 PM:Um. Guys. I get his point.
I'm saying it was a stupid point to make, and that things like that will be exploited by republicans in the general, kinda like
"I voted for it before I voted against it."
No wonder Kerry endorsed him! Enjoy another crappy politician!
If I was voting for a priest, I'll take Obama, but I'm looking for someone who will fight, and take it TO the republicans rather than bend over and take it like in 2004.
Do Clinton supporters not see that she is lying? Do you not read carefully?
Last week on Meet the Press Hillary lied and said that Chuck Hegel agreed with her that a vote for the Iraq authorization was not a vote for war. But in fact Chuck Hegel had said that about his own authorization wording, not the wording Clinton voted on. She just flat out lied about her war vote. Her WAR vote! To the people who support her, don't lies like that bother you? I really don't get it.
blackstar wrote on January 18, 2008 4:07 PM:RP@4:01 -
very well put.
Jammer wrote on January 18, 2008 4:08 PM:Now, now. I dont want to hear from any of you alleged democrats or progressives that you wont vote for Hillary in the General Election, or that you wont vote for Obama, but that you will sit it out or vote Republican. You obviously do not have the stomach for politics and should find another hobby. This is a rough sport. Kudos to those who lay themselves out their as candidates. And NOTHING that Clinton or Obama have done to each other even begins to approach what the Repubs will try to do to either of them in the GE. Heck they are mailing plastic fetuses in S. Carolina to try and ruin McCain. If you cannot stand the way politics works, dont read blogs, dont read blog comments especially, and read a book. Calm down.
Both Obama and Clinton are doing everything they can to win. The stakes are high. That includes both of them twisting and spinning what the other says to get an advantage. Obama says HRC attacked MLK, but it wasnt true. HRC says Obama thinks Reagan had the better ideas, but that isnt true. Bill says the casino votes count 5 times more than others, that isnt true. The Culinary Union intimidates its members to make sure when they publicly stand up in the caucuses to express their favorites, that their favorite is what the union says it should be (caucuses are so stupid). People say the Clintons parse words too much, then turn around and parse Obama's words to make them acceptable. It the way the game is played.
Now for anyone who says, well if my personal favorite isnt nominated I am taking my vote and going home: you are no progressive nor are you a friend to progressive ideals. The Supreme Court hangs in the balance. 4 solid ubber conservatives: Thomas, Scalia, Roberts and Alito. ONE MORE CONSERVATIVE APPOINTMENT and we will have a 5 vote unbreakable ubber conservative court. Especially if that conservative appointment comes, as expected, when liberal Justice Stevens retires in the near future.
Ponder that carefully and a good long time before you engage in the childish "I'm going home because my person didnt win." Remember: you aint seen nothing until you have seen what the Right will do to our nominee, whomever it is, to retain the Whitehouse. Stay united in the end result. There is nothing being said now by Clinton or Obama that cannot be forgiven and put aside to ensure that the Supreme Court doesnt veer to the right for the next 20 years.
Independent wrote on January 18, 2008 4:08 PM:
I hear a lot of people saying "We're Democrats, so we'll vote for Hillary no matter what she does." As an independent and has no loyalty to either party, I have a different perspective.
No candidate, in either party, has positions I completely agree with. But I think policy is only part of the equation. To deal with unforeseen challenges, I want a president with exceptional character, judgment, and leadership abilities. Someone who is more concerned with what is right than what is popular, and who is able to make the right course of action popular. Senator Clinton's blowing with the wind on the Iraq war made me doubt that she had the appropriate qualities, and this campaign has confirmed it.
Hillary Clinton would not be a good choice for president. She has managed, in a relatively short period of time, to confirm all of the worst rumors about the Clintons: the poll-driven waffling, the looseness with the facts, and the pursuit of power at the expense of the greater good.
Barack Obama has the potential to be a truly great president, fundamentally re-aligning the country. I have watched the entire hour-long interview in which he makes the "Reagan" quote, and you Democrats should recognize a good thing when you see it.
I suspect a Democrat will win in November, and I hope it is Obama. But if Clinton is on the ballot, this independent will stay at home or vote for McCain.
If you're interested in the interview:
http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080115/VIDEO/80115026&oaso=news.rgj.com/breakingnews
Talk about spin. Wow is Hillary a piece of work. And stupid too! She's walking right into a trap.
What Obama actually said was that the Clintons hadn't changed direction like Reagan did, which is a polite way of saying they endorsed Reaganomics lite. Which is easy to factually substantiate on NAFTA,deregulation, etc.
And Obama was only "praising" Reagan's political skills, in the sense that he did actually change the country's direction. Which again highlights that despite the Clinton's supposed charm and political skills, they failed on progressive legislation, and went with Reaganomics the rest of the time.
Hillary is just walking into this, and making herself out to be a liar and spin doctor again. Stupid. But old habits I guess.
Score another for Obama.
Bupalos wrote on January 18, 2008 4:08 PM:>>>"Hillary Attacks Obama Personally?" She addressed the statements he made, in a political context. Call it unfair, if you want, but wouldn't a "personal attack" >>>
Don't be a schmuck. It's an update to the headline below it that says it is being done through surrogates. The "personally" means Hillary is doing it personally now, not through Barney Frank.
freaktown wrote on January 18, 2008 4:10 PM:I guess I'll ask again since no one has answered yet.
Hillary could have criticized Obama for what he actually said. Instead, she decides to criticize him for something he NEVER said.
How do you clinton supporters justify that? And how much of this slime ball politics are you willing to tolerate?
katie wrote on January 18, 2008 4:10 PM:You're right Joseph. Obama has NEVER lied.
Oh wait, he lied when confronted with the fact that his NH chairman was a lobbyist.
I guess lies don't count if said by Saint Obama.
The hypocrisy around here is really mind-boggling. You guys are all either blind or stupid.
I know my candidate. I know what shes doing here, its called being a smart politician.
lestatdelc wrote on January 18, 2008 4:11 PM:ChrisO wrote on January 18, 2008 4:05 PM:"Hillary Attacks Obama Personally?" She addressed the statements he made, in a political context. Call it unfair, if you want, but wouldn't a "personal attack" be an attack on him personally, rather than his political views?
Personally, not a "PERSONAL attacks". She attacked personally, as opposed to smearing him and being dishonest about what was actually said through surrogates. She PERSONALLY was being dishonest about what was said, both technically and what was the meaning of what was actually said. But like the Clinton campaign, and now Clinton herself, you can't seem to read words as they are actually given and the meaning of what they say in an honest and accurate fashion.
blackstar wrote on January 18, 2008 4:11 PM:If I was voting for a priest, I'll take Obama, but I'm looking for someone who will fight, and take it TO the republicans rather than bend over and take it like in 2004.
-------------
unfortunately, this country doesn't have time to return to the 90's. there is shit we need to do that we cannot do fighting newly hyper-partisan Republicans to the last drop of blood on every issue and minor amendment. that's just a fact.
Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 4:11 PM:I'm saying it was a stupid point to make, and that things like that will be exploited by republicans in the general, kinda like
"I voted for it before I voted against it."
That would be a valid analogy, katie, if the crux of their statements were the same. They're not. No amount of wonkery could puncture Kerry's "I voted for it before I voted against it."
However, you don't have to read/hear very far into what Obama actually said re Reagan to know it bears no relation to the spin that Hillary, Tucker Carlson, and Pat Buchanan are trying to pin on it.
freaktown wrote on January 18, 2008 4:12 PM:And Obama Plays the trump card.
I love it
“It’s hard to take Hillary Clinton’s latest attack seriously when she’s the one who supported George Bush’s war in Iraq, the most damaging Republican idea of our generation. While others were triangulating and poll-testing their positions, Senator Obama has been fighting for progressive ideals for over two decades."
Yeah, the way to win in the DEMOCRATIC primaries is to praise the "sainted" Republican president Ronald Reagan.
Apparently, Barack Obama does not feel any respect for any of the Democratic presidents, such as (for instance) President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Maybe Obama just didn't think any Democratic voters would recall that Ronald Reagan had one of the worst administrations for anyone who wasn't rich and privileged.
For those who do not recall the Reagan years, here's a link to bring you up to date: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040628/editors
Maybe someone could recommend it to Obama.
One thing I find troubling about the Clintons is that they seem to have bought into the Reagan agenda, e.g. to privatise everything in sight. Hillary's health care plan involves the insurance companies. After watching "Sicko" I do not see why we should involve the private insurance companies in health care. They perform no useful economic function. Their sole aim is to siphon off health care dollars to the private sector.
The free trade acts which were passed in Clinton's administration are a disaster for the country. We have outsourced much of our manufacturing sector to countries that do not abide by our environmental acts, our worker protection acts. We have exploited our own workers as well as those in third world countries.
When Reagan entered office, the country had a surplus; we now have a ten trillion dollar deficit. Is the nation better off now than it was when Reagan took office? Reagan pursuaded the country to transfer its wealth from the public sector to the private sector, and at very unequal terms.
We need to reverse that course and begin putting money into the public sector: health care, infrastructure, environmental protection, education, libraries, parks, etc.
All the Democratic candidates need to speak out very clearly about the Reagan myth and debunk it. After all Bush 41 referred to "Reaganomics" a s"voodoo" economics. The current crop of Democratic candidates are petrified to criticize Reagan.
Obama has opened a useful door for debate, and the Democratic candidates ought to go through that door and start explaining to the voters in detail how our current economic crisis is related to the Republican economic agenda -- the "Bush-Reaganomics" which puts corporate profits ahead of the the working classes and of the national welfare.
katie wrote on January 18, 2008 4:12 PM:Jammer-
You are awesome.
That is all.
Bupalos wrote on January 18, 2008 4:13 PM:>>>Do Clinton supporters not see that she is lying? Do you not read carefully?>>>
I think its pretty clear that not only do they not care that she is lying, they think it is a sign of strength. They have stockholm syndrome.
Southpaw wrote on January 18, 2008 4:13 PM:PLEASE READ THIS. It's from Hillary's OWN WEBSITE. An endorsement of her from the Salmon Press, who owns 11 newspapers across New Hampshire.
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674
The money shot:
"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."
Q.E.D.
ChrisO wrote on January 18, 2008 4:05 PM:And can the Obama supporters please stop whining?
We will stop "whining" about Clinton and her booster's being liars, when they stop lying.
Deal?
frankly0 wrote on January 18, 2008 4:15 PM:Obama answered the question earnestly, Edwards and Clinton gave what were obvious non-answers that they thought would go over better.
Yeah, and this is exactly what you hear from the doe-eyed 20 year old naifs who, when asked about their greatest weaknesses, actually told the interviewers the real deal. "But I thought they wanted honesty!!! they protest -- while everyone around them snickers.
And, look, the problem is that by Obama's own admission, he didn't even realize that he should have expected for the question. How naive is that, for God's sake? How many of us haven't had to parry such a question?
katie wrote on January 18, 2008 4:16 PM:No one cares about past votes anymore, and the polls have beared that fruit.
Obama can keep hammering that point, but the fact is she's the one leading the charge now, especially how she perfectly framed the future of Iraq in the last debate.
People dont care what you did before, they want to know what you're going to do for them now.
That's actually "DO" not just make a speech about how nice it would be if "washington" would go away and we could all hold hands and get along.
Wil Burns wrote on January 18, 2008 4:16 PM:Obama not only does he talk about hope -- a lot -- he talks about the
importance of talking about hope. He talks about how he hopes to talk more about talking
about the importance of talking about hope.
He touts unity the same way. If we all buy into his "message of hope," he explains, then everybody
-- blacks and whites, men and women, Republicans and Democrats, lions and gnus, bears and park
rangers, Superman and Lex Luthor -- will be united!
Obama's point was dead-on; he may well have overestimated the ability of normally intelligent people to grasp it. However, Reagan DID change the way people thought about America. Obama could do the same, with the added benefit of not being senile, or guided by astrologers.
I keep trying to remind myself that, despite my powerful distaste for Hillary Clinton, I'll need to get behind her if she wins the Democratic nomination. But her ongoing dishonesty (coupled with the weaseling of her various surrogates) makes that difficult.
It's shaping up to be an election inspired by South Park: a choice between a douchebag and a shit sandwich.
Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 4:17 PM:Apparently, Barack Obama does not feel any respect for any of the Democratic presidents, such as (for instance) President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
poetry,
What in Obama's comments re Reagan made you conclude he has no respect for FDR?
Clinton backers -- try to understand this.
Independents and Demorcats (and some Republicans) have grown increasingly horrified at the way the Bush administration approaches reality. Bush says one thing when your eyes, ears and mind clearly tell you it's just wrong.
We need a candidate who fights, but we need him/her to fight honestly. Not choirboy clean, but brutally hitting at the facts, in a factual manner.
If we get a candidate who clearly twist statements, who lies, even against the Republican candidate, then we'll have a lot of people get disgusted with the process. They won't bother to vote. They certainly won't get involved in the campaign -- no donations, no volenteer work, won't even bother to put a bumpersticker on the car.
I'm not talking about not fighting back -- Kerry should've hit back hard at the AWOL in Chief after the swiftboating. I'm talking about blatant dishonesty. Just because it seemed to help the Republicans doesn't mean it's going to help Democrats.
lestatdelc wrote on January 18, 2008 4:20 PM:Southpaw wrote on January 18, 2008 4:13 PM
Perfect. So katie, going to cry us a river (is that sexist of me?) over the endorsement on her own website which states:
"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."
Or are you and the Clinton supporting liars going to demand that Hillary reject and disavow the endorsement she was so proud of that she posted it on her own website which touts how her thinking is and her favorite presidents are George H.W. Bush and Reagan?
blackstar wrote on January 18, 2008 4:21 PM:Jammer,
there's no point trying to paint them both with the same brush, because Obama's is clean and Hillary's is filthy.
let's look at your examples to see what i mean:
he DID NOT accuse her of attacking MLK. maybe you'd like to provide some evidence for this assertion. all Obama even said on the MLK flap was that it was "unfortunate" and "ill-advised", in a statement made AFTER Clinton accused him of attacking her on it (which he didn't).
the Culinary Worker's Union DID NOT engage on voter intimidation, that story pushed by Taylor Marsh has been soundly refuted as more lies on her behalf. see: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/18/25812/2147/708/438638
so no, these sorts of dirty political tricks are not just something everybody does, they are what Hillary is doing and Obama has avoided as much as possible. there is no cogent equivocation of the two.
Jay wrote on January 18, 2008 4:21 PM:"How naive is that, for God's sake? How many of us haven't had to parry such a question?"
Jesus, the guy gets slammed for answering a question honestly - lord forbid.
Southpaw wrote on January 18, 2008 4:21 PM:This is just piling on, but why not. This from a good Daily Kos post.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/16/22424/9811/227/438094
"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."
-Pres. Bill Clinton and Sen. Hillary Clinton
So there.
Obama hasn't gone so far as to list Reagan (or the first Bush, for that matter) as one of his "favorite presidents," as Hillary has. His Reagan comments were more akin to those of another, fairly prominent politician, who I think it's fair to say isn't exactly a conservative:
“We often disagreed on issues of the day, but I had immense respect and admiration for his leadership and his extraordinary ability to inspire the nation to live up to its high ideals."
-Sen. Ted Kennedy
katie wrote on January 18, 2008 4:16 PM:No one cares about past votes anymore
Then why did you bring them up about NH and Iowa?
Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 4:22 PM:The Clinton campaign should not be blamed for this comic dishonesty. In the Clintons' orbit, meretriciousness is as reflexive as a sneeze, and reflexes are not moral failures. - George Will, 1-17-2008Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 4:22 PM:
People dont care what you did before, they want to know what you're going to do for them now.
katie,
If Dick Cheney promised to get us out of Iraq, repeal his tax cuts, amend No Child Left Behind, personally donate millions of dollars and every weekend for the rest of his life to remaking New Orleans ... would you support him for president?
I mean, if you really don't care about the past ...
Jane wrote on January 18, 2008 4:22 PM:"How about the simple idea instead that, in saying what he did about Reagan and the Republicans, Obama proved himself to be the hapless naif everybody has been claiming all along that he is?"
Exactly! Also, don't for a second think he didn't know what he was doing when he (rather glowingly) talked about Reagan without any disclaimers and used Rethug code words. He was pandering to the right, plain and simple. If Hillary had done that some of you would have been all over her and would have pointed to it as proof that she's Republican Lite. Obama does it and it's excused and explained away.
As for the Obama-doesn't-lie meme, obviously you never saw the look on his face during the MSNBC debate when Russert took out the 4-page memo the Obama camp had been circulating. Obama had been playing innocent and acting like his camp weren't trying to gain political points (by race-baiting, really) from Hillary's gaffe, and Russert proved that Obama is certainly no stranger to lying.
KevinH wrote on January 18, 2008 4:24 PM:Katie and Jammer: Your both so right on this issue.
Winning elections these days is all about defining your opponent.
If (God forbid) Obama is nominated, as an unkown to most of the voters, the Republicans can and will swift boat him to the point where he'll be lucky to have W's poll numbers.
Hillary is a known quanitity by virtually all the voters. Her negatives may seem high, but the Republicans won't be able to move them any further.
Daniel A. Greenbaum wrote on January 18, 2008 4:24 PM:lestatdele
I saw Obama's interview and I have read it a few times. It is quite clear that Obama was praising Reagan and his attack on bloated goverment. It is a lot clear that Obama was praising Republican ideas even if they have now played themselves out. It is certainly clearer than anything any Clinton supporter said was racist.
Wil Burns wrote on January 18, 2008 4:25 PM:I have a question:
What did Obama do to try to stop the war in 2002?
What did Obama do to try to stop the war in 2003?
What did Obama do to try to stop the war in 2004?
What did Obama do to try to stop the war in 2005? (He voted for more war funds)
What did Obama do to try to stop the war in 2006? (He voted for more war funds)
What did Obama do to try to stop the war in 2007? (He voted for more war funds)
Is it enough to say "I was against the war" and give a few speeches about it?
Why didn't Senator Obama use the filibuster?
He claims he wanted to stop the war, but not enough to stand up?
Yeah, and this is exactly what you hear from the doe-eyed 20 year old naifs who, when asked about their greatest weaknesses, actually told the interviewers the real deal. "But I thought they wanted honesty!!! they protest -- while everyone around them snickers.
-----------------------
an unrealistic, cynical hypothetical situation is a fantastic way to attack a candidate. really compelling. but this isn't a temp or accounting job we're talking about here (maybe another indicator of just how far off the mark Hillary supporters are?). its the Presidency of the U.S., and wouldn't you think that especially in light of the past 7 years, or even on to the Clinton administration, honesty and forthrightness in a President would be paramount? isn't that a huge part of what has been missing from the holder of that office for so long, the simple ability to tell the truth?
Paulie wrote on January 18, 2008 4:26 PM:Southpaw, you can't really compare what Obama is saying now with what people said about Reagan right after he passed away. That's not the time for being partisan and critical, generally.
Ohhhh, snap! wrote on January 18, 2008 4:28 PM:Southpaw nailed you like Colbert!
I'm going to repost the link because everyone needs to read this. And a big issue needs to be made of it before the Clintons remove this endorsement from their site!
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."
-Salmon Press, December 12, 2007 endorsement of Hillary Clinton
Q.E.D., indeed!!! Spread the word!!!
And to you ignorant Hillbots in this thread who are saying that if "Obama can't take the heat from Hillary on this then the Republicans will kill him", he has shown he can take the heat, he always comes back with a response, and generally the response makes the Clintons look worse for it. You have absolutely NO reason to say that he doesn't have a backbone or can't stand up to attacks, because he has time and time again turned these kinds of attacks around and came out on top. His only problem is that the media gives 80% air time for her attacks, and 20% or less for his response, so it often gets overlooked, but he responds strong and intelligently to these sorts of attacks, and to say he "can't take the heat" is nothing more than mindless Hillary-talking point echoing drivel. Go learn to think for yourself you pathetic drones. You are an embarrassment to this party. It is no coincidence that every poll shows that the more EDUCATED you are the more likely you are to vote for Obama.
Thomas McDonald, New York, NY wrote on January 18, 2008 4:30 PM:A Democratic 'Reagan' effect would be a good thing
I will support Hillary if I have to, but this latest attempt (echoed in concert by Erica Jong over at HuffPo) to spin up an anti-Obama narrative (where it has been so difficult to do so) is getting so utterly desperate. Bill, Hillary, and all of their surrogate voices are seriously tarnishing their reputations, win or lose, by employing shallow tactics against a candidate like Obama.
Today, America is in a similar socio-economic and emotional state as it was on the eve of the 1980 election, and what Obama is brilliantly pointing out (for any with the capacity to hear) is that while Reagan used positive symbolism and poetic rhetoric to grasp that moment and move the electorate in a conservative direction, it is possible that in such a moment a similarly positive, symbolic figure could shift the culture toward a progressive paradigm.
Clintonites are grasping at and distorting this Reagan comment because the prospect of such a paradigm shift catalyzed by Obama (indeed, a hopeful possibility as of today) is utterly dangerous in its optimism to the pragmatic style (not unrespectable itself) that Clinton is offering. And I do not personally dislike Hillary Clinton by any means.
Unfortunately, to Hillary-supporters chagrin, Obama just has a naturally greater "EQ" (emotional intelligence) - and a sense of the American culture as a whole - than Hillary: Obama is more like Bill Clinton and Reagan (e.g. natural, savvy, 'winner') where Hillary is more like Gore and Kerry (e.g. stiff, wonky, 'loser').
The phenomenon of 'Reagan Democrats' says a lot here. After Bush II isn't this the moment of opportunity - for a unifying candidate - to create a version of that phenomenon for our side? Can you see Hillary making that happen?
Its sad that the reconciling spirit with substantive arguments that both put forth at the Nevada debate seems already deteriorating. I still wish them both the best.
A Democratic 'Reagan' effect would be a good thing
I will support Hillary if I have to, but this latest attempt (echoed in concert by Erica Jong over at HuffPo) to spin up an anti-Obama narrative (where it has been so difficult to do so) is getting so utterly desperate. Bill, Hillary, and all of their surrogate voices are seriously tarnishing their reputations, win or lose, by employing shallow tactics against a candidate like Obama.
Today, America is in a similar socio-economic and emotional state as it was on the eve of the 1980 election, and what Obama is brilliantly pointing out (for any with the capacity to hear) is that while Reagan used positive symbolism and poetic rhetoric to grasp that moment and move the electorate in a conservative direction, it is possible that in such a moment a similarly positive, symbolic figure could shift the culture toward a progressive paradigm.
Clintonites are grasping at and distorting this Reagan comment because the prospect of such a paradigm shift catalyzed by Obama (indeed, a hopeful possibility as of today) is utterly dangerous in its optimism to the pragmatic style (not unrespectable itself) that Clinton is offering. And I do not personally dislike Hillary Clinton by any means.
Unfortunately, to Hillary-supporters chagrin, Obama just has a naturally greater "EQ" (emotional intelligence) - and a sense of the American culture as a whole - than Hillary: Obama is more like Bill Clinton and Reagan (e.g. natural, savvy, 'winner') where Hillary is more like Gore and Kerry (e.g. stiff, wonky, 'loser').
The phenomenon of 'Reagan Democrats' says a lot here. After Bush II isn't this the moment of opportunity - for a unifying candidate - to create a version of that phenomenon for our side? Can you see Hillary making that happen?
Its sad that the reconciling spirit with substantive arguments that both put forth at the Nevada debate seems already deteriorating. I still wish them both the best.
If (God forbid) Obama is nominated, as an unkown to most of the voters, the Republicans can and will swift boat him to the point where he'll be lucky to have W's poll numbers.
KevinH:
Really?
What makes Hillary, like Kerry, so ripe for quote swiftboating is that she has this "35 years of fighting for change" (a funny contradiction in and of itself, if you think about it) hanging like an albatross around her neck. Doesn't that give the Republicans more ammunition than Obama's relative inexperience?
And, as an unknown to most voters, doesn't that give Obama a fighting chance to introduce himself and his candidacy on his terms vs. the Republicans' terms?
Is anyone in the middle going to give Hillary Clinton the benefit of the doubt come November?
poetry wrote on January 18, 2008 4:32 PM:"Southpaw":
For heaven's sake, when President Clinton said those nice words about Ronald Reagan, it was in response to the fact that Reagan HAD JUST DIED.
Most decent people will try to say something nice when commenting on the death of someone, even someone with whom they disagreed.
See "Ronald Reagan dies at 93" at: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/05/reagan.health/index.html
Independent wrote on January 18, 2008 4:33 PM:
KevinH:
I think you're wrong. A lot of younger voters weren't really familiar with the Clintons until now, and a lot of older voters have memories that have been fogged over by the bliss of the internet bubble.
The Clintons are re-introducing themselves to the nation in the worst possible way. There is a lot of room for rising negatives.
Winning elections these days is all about defining your opponent.
If (God forbid) Obama is nominated, as an unkown to most of the voters, the Republicans can and will swift boat him to the point where he'll be lucky to have W's poll numbers.
Hillary is a known quanitity by virtually all the voters. Her negatives may seem high, but the Republicans won't be able to move them any further.
---------------
so you're simply assuming that the big mean Republicans will go to town on Obama, but in the same breath assuming their attacks won't have any effect on Clinton? in other words, you're saying that we should not nominate Obama based on what the Republicans MIGHT do to him, and should nominate Clinton based on what the Republicans have already done to her?
i hate to break it to you, but Hillary's negatives are high enough that even if the big scary Republican attack machine moves them a few points, she has no shot of winning the election. by contrast, Obama polls the best among Republicans and Independents, but JUST WAIT until that terrifying Republican machine, with Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck at the helm, gets ahold of him!
what a load of total tripe this argument is.
Orin wrote on January 18, 2008 4:33 PM:"Obama says HRC attacked MLK, but it wasnt true."
No he didn't. You just repeated a verifiable lie.
"HRC says Obama thinks Reagan had the better ideas, but that isnt true."
Almost. The way you put it, it would be unverifiable. But she claimed he said it. And that is a verifiable lie. A LIE. A FLAT, VERIFIABLE, ROVIAN LIE.
"Bill says the casino votes count 5 times more than others, that isnt true. "
right. verifiable lie. A LIE. A FLAT, VERIFIABLE, ROVIAN LIE.
"The Culinary Union intimidates its members to make sure when they publicly stand up in the caucuses to express their favorites, that their favorite is what the union says it should be (caucuses are so stupid)."
Your opinion. No more than any other union does, and this is nothing more than a slam on caucuses in general, which is just a matter of opinion.
In short, Jammer, your post trying to make everything relative does not do so and I won't buy it. One candidate here has a serious credibility problem, and is cheered on in verifiable lying as if it is a strength. In the general, this is all we'll here about the Clintons, and it will be true.
Now I'll vote for the democrat, sure. But I'm not going to stop calling a lie a lie in the name of party unity. I'm not going to revalue my values in the name of the Clintons. In my book, it's the Clintons, specifically Bill and his pubescent penis and sex addiction, that gave us Bush instead of Gore. So screw his lying, finger waggling, intern diddling ass.
Lying weakens the party. It isn't tough. It isn't hard nosed. It's stupid and weak. The Republicans hollowed out their party acting this way with their dynastic piece of trash Bush, and now they are toast. I'll be damned if I'm going to stand by why some relativists turn my party into the same hollow dynastic shell because "that's politics" and they think it's tough and a winners game.
It's garbage. That's what it is. It's cynical, losing garbage.
Southpaw wrote on January 18, 2008 4:33 PM:I see, Paulie, so Hillary's comments were made about Reagan after his death. Which distinguishes her statements from Obama's in what way, exactly? I was not aware that Reagan had been reincarnated.
Besides, like I told you, here's your money shot:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674
Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 4:35 PM:For heaven's sake, when President Clinton said those nice words about Ronald Reagan, it was in response to the fact that Reagan HAD JUST DIED.
poetry,
Are you calling Bill Clinton a liar, then?
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."
ah hahahahahahaha.
I like Obama but those comments were just stupid. Comments like that will get Democrats beat in November.
I want both on the ticket, don't really care which one is at the top.
Winning is everything!
synykyl wrote on January 18, 2008 4:40 PM:I just hope I don't hate *all* of our candidates before the primaries end ;-)
Orin wrote on January 18, 2008 4:41 PM:>>>Hillary is a known quanitity by virtually all the voters. Her negatives may seem high, but the Republicans won't be able to move them any further.>>>
What a losing mentality. Let's nominate the damaged goods, because we're so afraid of the big bad Republicans and their retarded candidates. I'll vote for her if I must, but if we nominate her, we've already settled for at best a squeeker win. And you're simply wrong that the 41% of people who alread say they will never ever vote for her can't go higher. It can and it will. When people actually start to envision Bill and his Clenis wandering the halls of the white house again, when they think about 8 more years of the same lying Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton faces, it isn't going to help.
frankly0 wrote on January 18, 2008 4:41 PM:Besides, like I told you, here's your money shot:
Oh, please.
The release is NOT something that Hillary's own campaign composed, nor is it something Hillary herself is directly quoted as saying.
It is somebody else's summary of something that Hillary said, about who her "favorite" Presidents might be. God only knows what was REALLY said by Hillary, and how she may have qualified what she said. Maybe Hillary liked the way Reagan smiled or groomed his hair when he delivered his speeches. Who the hell knows? There's no content there, and it's way too indirect to conclude a damn thing.
Really, is that all you've got?
fa wrote on January 18, 2008 4:42 PM:Obama is not above using these tactics. In his case, he usually tries to have his campaign associates do the dirty work so he can appear 'better than that', then refrains from disapproving of the practice, and finally, after the desired effect has run its course, comes out against it. It's a little like what happened with the MLK story a week or so ago.
frankly0 wrote on January 18, 2008 4:45 PM:Are you calling Bill Clinton a liar, then?
Look, even Tim Stinking Russert wouldn't dare to use words from what is in effect a eulogy against a politician -- as if he could do "gotcha" with that without inducing gales of laughter. He'd look like an even choicer fool than he already does.
For Christ's sake.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 18, 2008 4:46 PM:This thread reminds me so much of an elementary school playground. Katie might as well declare the monkey bars to be her gang's territory and then grover_rover can claim that his people control the teeter-totter. Hopefully the caucus results will defuse some of this tomorrow.
Southpaw wrote on January 18, 2008 4:48 PM:Nice try, franklyO.
Here's the beauty part. SHE PUT IT UP ON HER OWN WEBSITE!
Whatever arguments you could otherwise make about the Salmon Press and its reporters somehow taking statements Hillary had made to them out of context, somehow interpreting an off-the-cuff compliment of Reagan into a statement that he was one of her "favorite" presidents... they all disappeared when Hillary PUT IT UP ON HER OWN WEBSITE!
Man, I am really enjoying this one. Gotta link to it just one more time, for effect.
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."
-Salmon Press
12/12/07
Endorsement of Sen. Hillary Clinton
I'm so sick of this. It seems pretty obvious what Obama was talking about, and Clinton and Edwards are being willfully obtuse and trying to score points off of headlines, instead of substance. Like it or not, they dont' call it the "Reagan Revolution" for nothin'. There's something really condescendingly anti-intellectual in all this, like all those dumb voters out there couldn't possibly understand any argument based on an understanding of politics more sophisticated than, say, 8th grade civics. If I thought for a moment that either Clinton or Edwards were dumb enough to really believe their suggestions, I wouldn't vote for either of them, and if they're so devoid of anything useful to say that this is all they've got, I wouldn't vote for either of them, either. Guess that makes things easier. I'm not surprised so much at this coming from Clinton, but from Edwards it's a dissapointment. I hadn't considered myself as a decided voter until this latest round of crap, but I think I'm going to go out Saturday morning and volunteer with the Obama group in town.
Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 4:51 PM:Look, even Tim Stinking Russert wouldn't dare to use words from what is in effect a eulogy against a politician
frankly0,
If I'm understanding you correctly, then it is okay for a politician to lie at a funeral, but it's not okay to point out that s/he is lying. Is that correct?
Are there any other occasions where it's okay for a politician to lie to the American people?
Repeat wrote on January 18, 2008 4:51 PM:http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674
The money shot:
"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."
Frankly0:
Can you post a link to Obama's statement that Clinton is referring to in her comment? I've watched the entire 49 minute video and I don't recall him EVER saying or intimating that the Republicans were the party of better ideas.
Here's HRC's statement: "he thought the Republicans had better ideas than Democrats the last ten to fifteen years"
This is a clear, unambiguous statement, that suggests a clear and unambiguous statement from Barack, so it shouldn't be hard.
frankly0 wrote on January 18, 2008 4:53 PM:Here's the beauty part. SHE PUT IT UP ON HER OWN WEBSITE!
IT DOESN'T MATTER!!
The release remains what it was: a paraphrase by someone else of what Hillary said.
As I said, maybe she liked the folksy ways of Reagan - who the hell knows? There is no content as it stands. It can be filled in anyway you want.
Obama's problem is that he started talking about specific things about Reagan and the Republicans. It came out of his own mouth, unforced, in a context in which he was on the record in a political campaign.
None of the cites you've come up with can possibly compare to what Obama is on record saying.
Daniel A. Greenbaum wrote on January 18, 2008 4:53 PM:I am glad that Obama supporters find Reagan's presidency as not something to praise. Thatis why it was odd for Obama to praise Reagan.
It is also strange to me how many of Obama supporters think it is terrible to say things about him that are true. Not only is Katie right about the need to withstand Republican attacks that are complete lies. If he is already trying to suppress accurate claims how is he going to survive his version of "swiftboat?"
Thomas McDonald, New York, NY wrote on January 18, 2008 4:56 PM:My sentiments, and I believe any honest assessment of this matter, are with m in athens. It is just so sadly obvious that Edwards and Clinton are both making a shameless and dishonest distortion of what they know Obama meant. Go Obama!
Common Sense wrote on January 18, 2008 4:56 PM:Daniel A. Greenbaum:
Same request I posted to frankly0:
he thought the Republicans had better ideas than Democrats the last ten to fifteen years"
Please provide a link to Obama's statement that supports HRC's allegaion. It should be just as clear and unambiguous as her allegation.
grover_rover wrote on January 18, 2008 4:58 PM:fa, Obama has NOT used these kinds of tactics, nor have his surrogates or supporters. Obama did absolutely nothing nefarious with the MLK thing, in fact, he showed admirable restraint in NOT accusing Hillary on it or any of the other race-baiting. How about you use some facts or critical thinking when you decide to come on here and tell everyone your opinion. I don't understand, are you Hillbots just extremely ignorant or is it just intellectual laziness? Or are you like her and know for a fact how dirty all this is, yet back it nonetheless. I don't know is worse, but I guess I could forgive laziness or ignorance before I could forgive being purposely disingenuous (which is what the Clinton campaign has been doing nonstop).
And I also agree with those who say that Hillary's 50% unfavorable rating is something that:
a) should ring alarm bells right away because she is damaged goods and won't be able to win in a general election
b) proves that her experience with being attacked by the GOP hasn't made her impervious to their attacks, it only shows that their attacks were VERY EFFECTIVE and that she is already half dead to them and they are itching to go in for the kill and
c) can still get much worse. There are many Democrats on here, and all over the country who have been witnessing Hillary's appallingly dirty tactics in this campaign, and many have went from originally being willing to vote for her as the lesser of two evils, to being absolutely unwilling to vote for her no matter what, and a few are even willing to vote AGAINST her if she is nominated because of how disgusted they are with who she really is. Before she started ruthless attacking Obama she was at 50% unfavorable, what do you think is going to happen to that number after she tears apart her own party and makes a good portion of us HATE her? This group grows every day, and by the time she wins the nomination (if she does), that number is going to grow a lot more because she is obviously going to stoop lower and lower, so there is NO WAY IN HELL she will win an election with virtually all conservatives and most independents hating her, along with a sizable portion of her own party hating her.
SHE CAN NOT WIN!!
gtash wrote on January 18, 2008 5:02 PM:I am an Edwards supporter, but I think Obama said nothing about Republicans being better and the video clip everybody is watching (about his not being a "singular" figure) is obviously part of a larger interview that --if listened to by anybody with an ounce of sense--would show the context correctly.
Obama is being pilloried for nothing. Edwards criticized Obama for using Reagan as an example AT ALL; Hillary seems to be piling on extraneous stuff. Both are doing something they should not.
Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 5:05 PM:Dave C wrote on January 18, 2008 3:51PM:
Good grief! What part of "The Republican approach I think has played itself out" are you not getting, phil james?
Good grief yourself Dave C. What part of Obama's musings don't necessarily translate to votes in the general election don't you get?
I'm going to have to hand this one to Obama.
Clinton responded very poorly with a comment that is clearly not true and also hypocritical if you look at her own comments on Reagan. That's a clear unforced error.
The thing is, you have to look at the Republican contest as well as the Democratic one. All of the Republicans are trying to make the case that they are the One True Heir of Ronald Reagan, and even a cursory analysis shows that none of them can measure up.
Obama is trying to make the point that Reagan convinced a lot of life-long Democrats to vote Republican for the first time in their lives, and a there are a lot of disaffected Republicans out there now wondering if it's finally time to vote for a Democrat. If Obama can bring those into his tent, he's unbeatable.
Jake wrote on January 18, 2008 5:10 PM:Clinton & Edwards teaming up against Reagan-Obama? Conceding that Bill couldn't match Reagan in "changing course" hurts.
http://acropolisreview.com/2008/01/john-edwards-vs-obama-and-reagan.html
frankly0 wrote on January 18, 2008 5:11 PM:Quote from Obama:
I think it's fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time over the last 10 or 15 years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom.
Now I should think that most sensible people reading this would conclude that 1) the Republicans had ideas, and only the Republicans had ideas in the last 10 or 15 years, and 2) because they "challenged conventional wisdom", they were ideas that were, in an important way, valuable.
How many times do you have someone say that somebody had an idea that "challenged conventional wisdom", without the presumption that that idea was an important one to pursue? In virtually every case in which people utter such phrases, that's the exact implication. If they want to indicate that those ideas were nonetheless terrible, they would simply say so in the very same context. Does Obama say so? No he doesn't. He just says that those ideas are now, in effect, old hat. Where is there any sense communicated about how horribly those ideas worked out? Where? Obama acts as if they were just fine and important ideas, but now outdated. And, of course, he is most definitely saying that Democrats did not even have any real ideas during the same period -- indeed he disparages any Democratic ideas as "conventional wisdom".
What kind of real progressive feels that that in any way accurately captures the horrors visited on us during the last 10 or 15 years by Republican "ideas"?
ChrisO wrote on January 18, 2008 5:16 PM:southpaw, maybe you can get over the gotcha triumphalism. I have no idea what Hillary actually said. But newspaper endorsements are taken very seriously. Do you really think any candidate would ignore a significant endorsement because it published an inaccurate list of their "favorite" Presidents? So you can stop with the SHE PUT IT UP ONE HER OWN WEBSITE like it's some kind of smoking gun.
As far as the headline goes,I think the phrase "she attacked him personally" would be interpreted by more people as meaning it was a personal attack, than that the attack was made by a person. Even giving the benefit of the doubt, it's hardly blindingly obvious.
And I'm still waiting for some reaction from Obama's supporters to the blatanly racist ads his campaign put out in Nevada regarding the caucus lawsuit.
Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 5:19 PM:The thing is, you have to look at the Republican contest as well as the Democratic one.
I believe Splitting Image hit the nail on the head.
Which might show Obama's ability to see the big picture in a way Hillary doesn't.
Which some voters might see as an important trait for a president.
If Obama and his campaign are paying attention to the Republicans now, while Hillary and Edwards see only Obama, what does that lead us to believe Obama will do if/when he wins the Dem nomination?
What does it lead us to believe Hillary will do? Or Edwards?
Daniel A. Greenbaum wrote on January 18, 2008 4:24 PM:lestatdele
I saw Obama's interview and I have read it a few times. It is quite clear that Obama was praising Reagan and his attack on bloated goverment.
Sorry, I don't think you read it in anyway other than to parse it for negative spin, Nobody who is not a partisan hack thinks he is praising Reagan for Reagan's attacks on the Gov.
Unless you are thinking that somehow Clinton's welfare "reforms" are a continuation and are also a praise of Reagan's thinking?
stellaa wrote on January 18, 2008 5:22 PM:Once again,there is an expectation of a coronation and canonization of Obama . It's politics. I was just watching side by side the Obama and Hillary interviews in the Reno Gazzette site and I find the "conventional wisdom" crack ridiculous. She is right to criticize, you call it attack. Gee, it's politics.
Frankly I second your comments. For an education watch the interviews side by side. The whole hour.
Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 5:23 PM:frankly0 wrote on January 18, 2008 4:53 PM:Here's the beauty part. SHE PUT IT UP ON HER OWN WEBSITE!
IT DOESN'T MATTER!!
The release remains what it was: a paraphrase by someone else of what Hillary said.
So are you suggest