How do you know what they are going to do?

Hillary Clinton and her husband will not be able to govern.
they will only be fighting the past.

This is why I am switching my vote from
the Clintons to Obama.

Did you do this bit of research for the Obama campaign? Were you wondering if any other Democrat ever parroted that talking point? Were you wondering how people especially Democrats reacted to him saying that?

I can't imagine that this could hurt Hillary or help Obama but whatever.

This was talked about On Meet The Press on Sunday.

This is new news?

Scandalous!!!!

Great tactic by Obama and his shills to bring up a dead Senator.

The more we talk about this, the more Obama loses.

At this point in our nations history,
which is so important -
how could any one even start to contemplate a bush or clinton as our leader.

It's as if people are playing king and queen for a day,

No one "thinks" anymore

leave the Clintons and Bushes where they belong,
The dustbin of history.

Nonetheless, this is clearly something that the Obama camp will be able to use in its defense.

Maybe they can send you a bone or something.

Actually, a number of people had already made this point. Maybe people will start to care now about this now. As much as I would like it to help, I suspect this bit of information will not sway many undecideds (people who care enough to know about the controversy will have made up their minds and people who are not so politically minded will have no clue who Moynihan is--he doesn't exactly have the Q-Rating of, say, Britney Spears). Even so, anything that shows the Clintons are pushing tripe is welcome.

hadenough:
I don't think that was his intentions and by what he said, I couldn't pin him down as agreeing with the assertion he is speaking of. If you would actually read what he is saying, he is reporting what others have said.

Are you a politician? It would help to know which side you are because your spin is an utter distortion.

kyleXY

You need to think critically.

You cannot just hang on every word Bill Clinton says.

Our country needs mature debate and intellect.
Come on, get wwith the program.

You would not even know who Hillary is if it was not for her husband.
Take a moment to think about that.

I am willing to bet that there is a quote out there of mr. bill saying virtually the same thing in the late 80's or 90's. This is what the dlc was created for to take republican "ideas" away from them to win an election. Any takers? I'll bet a lunch.

It's fair to look @ Hillary's past comments. We don't need another flip flopper.

Clinton supporters have lost all ability to think for themselves.

It's as if Bill has bambozzeled them all.

Is it unfair to say that characterizing the GOP as the party of ideas also easily suggests that the Dems were the party without ideas?

I think this is the heart of the matter here. He didn't have to say they were good ideas. But it's clear he's suggesting they were the party of ideas, which quite obviously means there has to be a party without ideas...the Dems, his party!

He wants to be able to say something nice about the GOP to get some of the moderates to vote for him--he needs them--but also not appear to actually say he agrees with them--because he needs Dems as well.

I think there's a word for this... anyone? Anyone? Keith?

Have we decided on the meaning of "is" yet?

I once listened to an interview done by that icon of conservative thought, Jon Stewart. At one point, he was asked why, if Republicans and conservatives were so intellectually dishonest did they keep winning elections. Why was there message seeming resonating with voters.

My answer would have been they play political games, and introduce issues that people care about using deceptively simple language, pandering to voter's baser instincts. But Jon's answer was different, and I've thought a lot about what he said since.

He basically what Moynihan and Obama have said. He said, in the 60's and 70's, liberals had all the ideas. And by ideas, he meant, game-changing, ground-breaking, gut-wrenching ideas that were hard to argue against. He also said that liberals of that time eventually ran out of steam from the weight of governing, and the forum for "ideas" was thrown open. Into that opening stepped Reagan. Some people might have trouble looking that far back through the context of the last 25 years, but people were ready for a change.

Jon then went on to say (this interview was probably done a couple years back now) that the left of today was still struggling with this. It's clear now that the right has run out of ideas, and it's just as clear that the country is ready for a change. This is what Obama was speaking to.

The attempts to distort his point are hypocritical and damaging to everyone, especially since both Clinton's have praised Reagen in the past.

drop the crack pipe Sargent

Moynihan in 1981 - before Reagan declared ketchup a vegetable for public schools and before reagan emptied the mental institutions to save money said something positive...

so what.

to than claim cause Hillary said something good about moynihan who said something good about republicans is not a real comparison.

In 2008 Obama went before a republican editorial board and pandered to them and got caught

Thanks Greg. This is probably the best entertainment I've had all day.

Because as an unusually bookish politican, a former Harvard professor who prided himself on his intellectual honesty, Moynihan felt compelled to admit the impact of conservative ideas on American social thought, above all in economics. His generosity was refreshing and also ironic; for it came just at the moment when conservatism was simultaneously seizing real power and losing its soul, experiencing a process of intellectual and moral debasement.

Intellectual honesty is something everyone needs to recognize is vital to a healthy debate. Without it, you just have a bunch of partisan hacks hurling misstatements and accusations back forth. Sort of like the 1990s and the Bush Administration.

"Why would Moynihan say such a thing? Because as an unusually bookish politican, a former Harvard professor who prided himself on his intellectual honesty, Moynihan felt compelled to admit the impact of conservative ideas on American social thought" -Krugman

So, when Moynihan says this, it is because he was an "unusually bookish politician" and "a former Harvard professor who prided himself on his intellectual honesty" according the Krugman, yet when Obama makes similar and equally true historic observation about the significance of the rise of the conservative era, he is a horrible Reagan-lover. Uh huh. How does it not surprise me at all that Krugman the Hillary lapdog will jump on any chance to attack Obama, for anything, including hyped up lies about his Reagan comments, yet hypocritically he doesn't have the same views when it isn't Obama making the observations. Hmmmmmmm.

Krugman is a Clinton stooge, he as proven it again and again, and nothing that man says carries any weight with me after observing his disingenuous tirades.

Hello,

The Republicans have been the party of offense and action. Democrats continually defend and react, and don't frame the debate. I'll give the Clinton's for trying to pass bold legislation in 1993, but the party got slaughtered in 1994 by the Contract on American. They played defense from 1995-2000, but did a fine job of triangulating.. I'll give them credit for that..

"Intellectual dishonesty in defense of a Clinton is no vice. Critical thinking in opposition to a Clinton is no virtue."

With apologies to Hillary's former idol, Barry Goldwater.

Jesus, Keith...you're really drowning in the koolaid eh? Intellectually honsty? Obama? Heh-heh.

Dumb post Greg

'Krugman is a Clinton stooge, he as proven it again and again, and nothing that man says carries any weight with me after observing his disingenuous tirades.'

You realize, Krugman wrote this in 1994???

Greg is the one, apparently, who 'dug this up'?

Why?

I have no idea?

This is 'newsworthy' how, exactly?

'Nonetheless, this is clearly something that the Obama camp will be able to use in its defense.'

Nevermind...

LOL

why does greg sargent feel the need to "emphatically not endorse" a historical fact?

strikes me as a bit humourous.

>>>>>"Late Update: I am emphatically not endorsing Moynihan's views here"

>>>What are you doing?

He's endorsing Krugman's point of view. Just read it. Those of you who are accusing greg of anti-Hillary bias here are simply failing reading comprehension. I imagine he'll re-write it.

>>>as Krugman also notes, whatever the dominance of conservative "ideas," the reality was that the conservative movement entered into a period of "intellectual and moral debasement," an assessment that to my knowledge is considerably harsher than anything we've heard from Obama."

You have to follow the bouncing quotes, but in essence Greg is saying that Obama fails to offer the correct, Krugmanian truth, as Krugman sees it and writes it.

Greg, why don't you just share who you are supporting, like the rest of us do? Your "journalism" would be a lot clearer and more objective if you let us in on who you favor.

Lewis Black once said the "Democrats were the party of no ideas, and the Republicans were the party of bad ideas." So how much difference does this make?

Obama was trying to slip a Clinton-dig in with that "last 10-15 years" thing. It was clumsy and not very good strategy, given that the Clintons are not about to let anything like that slide.

His point about Reagan and the politics of change and his own time in history was fine. Saying that between 1993 and today the Republicans have been the party of ideas in the sense that they challenged conventional wisdom is a pretty damn weird assertion.

The Republicans whose ideas challenged conventional wisdom in the last 10-15 years are named Gingrich, Delay, W, Cheney, Rove, Rice, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld. Their ideas sucked.

Their ideas were about turning America into a single-party country by destroying the Democratic "brand." Their ideas were about starting wars they didn't know how to finish. Their ideas were about protecting wealth, no matter what.

Obama claims to want moderates and independents, but he's in a box because what those people want to see is fiscal responsibility (Bill Clinton balanced the budget), lots of jobs (Bill Clinton's record is stellar), sane foreign policy (Bill Clinton again . . . )

If Hillary weren't in the race, Obama would be handing out flyers about the times we all remember, when Bill Clinton was running the government and there was nothing too tough for him to take on--not even a stupid, unnecessary impeachment trial.

He has to figure out how to talk about the Clinton record without giving Clinton credit for it. Good luck with that.

thanks, bupalos. that's pretty much it exactly. I think Krugman's nuance is basically the most accurate take.

Greg Sargent "emphatically" does not endorse the idea that republican ideas impacted american social thought.

all evidence to the contrary, apparently.

"Hillary praised Moynihan after his 2003 death as "one of the greatest minds of our time.""

It was a TRIBUTE after he DIED.

If you want to find a seemingly contradictory statement by one politician about another politician, eulogies are always very useful. (Of course, to use this tactic, it is necessary for politician number two to have died.)

Furthermore, this statement by Moynihan proves Hillary's point! Moynihan did not mean his "party of ideas" comment in a derogatory way!

Loki:

Certainly there are two dominant/majority parties, but excluding the ideas spilling out of lesser parties such as the Libertarian, Green and other parties really misses the point. There is a competition between the parties to have their ideas either endorsed or accepted by a majority of the electorate. And once an idea starts to take root, it is usually co-opt in some form or fashion by one of the dominant parties. Think of the Progressive movement in the early 20th Century; Libertarians (taxes); Green Party (environmental). None of those parties has ever become dominant or called the party of ideas, but many of their ideas have become part of the mainstream political dialogue.

To me, the victor of this competition of ideas is best measured through elections and implementation of legislation. Which party implements its agenda; which party controls state and federal legislatures usually gives you the answer. From that perspective, I think it is fair to draw the conclusion that Moynihan recognized in 1981 and that Obama acknowledged recently is supported by the elections from 1980-2006 and the legislative agenda that swept the country.

Perhaps my logic is colored here by my support of Obama, though I don't think so. But I'm willing to reconsider my opinion in the face of superior logic/reason.

hello_world-

Good post, on the Stewart interview. Reminded me of a very good book I'm almost done reading, and which I'd recommend to other TPM folks:

The neglected voter: white men and the Democratic dilemma / David Paul Kuhn.
New York, N.Y. : Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.

Its basic point: Dems won't win until we can overcome the so-called gender gap. Folks like Mark Warner (and arguably, Howard Dean with his 50-state DNC strategy) have been saying that for a long time. You can argue with Obama's choice of words, but his recognition of this basic electoral math strikes me as astute. We should be reaching out to moderates and Reagan Democrats if we don't want to be saluting President McCain in a year.