The witch Taylor Marsh has her spin on this.

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=26859

Looks like he has learned the lesson of John Kerry. Good for him.

From Obama's campaign site:

http://factcheck.barackobama.com/

VIDEO IS HERE:
http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080115/VIDEO/80115026&oaso=news.rgj.com/breakingnews

Obama: "Fair to Say the Republicans Were the Party of Ideas For a Pretty Long Chunk of Time," Then Laid Why Many of Those Ideas Were Wrong. Obama was asked how his being the nominee would help congressmen and senators, down-ballot candidates, get elected. Obama said, "I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that, you know, Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. They felt like, you know, with all the excesses of the 60s and the 70s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating and he tapped into what people were already feeling. Which is, people wanted clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamic and entrepreneurship that had been missing, alright? I think Kennedy, twenty years earlier, moved the country in a fundamentally different direction. So I think a lot of it just has to do with the times. I think we're in one of those times right now. Where people feel like things as they are going aren't working. We're bogged down in the same arguments that we've been having, and they're not useful. And, you know, 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 there over the last ten, fifteen 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 and it's all tax cuts. Well, you know, we've done that, we tried it. That's not really going to solve our energy problems, for example. So, some of it's the times. And some of it's, I think, there's maybe a generation element to this, partly. In the sense that there's a, I didn't did come of age in the battles of the 60s. I'm not as invested in them. And so I think I talk differently about issues. And I think I talk differently about values. And that's why, I think we've been resonating with the American people." [Reno Gazette Journal, 1/14/08]

What? He was dead wrong on clearly perpetuating the myths of Reagan and, if anything, the press has failed to pounce on him fully for it since they're rather pro-Reagan themselves. He got caught pandering the editorial board of a conservative paper for an endorsement. I doubt he knew they'd put it on YouTube and he's pissed (rightly so). Instead of hanging on to Reagan, he needs to admit he made a mistake and move on.

When Hillary Clinton was actually intentionally misrepresented over the MLK/LBJ remarks (even the NYT ran an outrageous editorial racializing a benign statment) Obama himself perpetuated the nonsense by saying she had offended some people rather than those people twisted her words.

Obama has gotten a pass from the press. If he's upset now, he'll be dead in the water if he gets the nomination when they'll turn on him in favor of McCain (or any GOP candidate).

I guess Bill will go to a coffee klatch and cry next.

Davidson:

Perpetuating what myth? That Reagan was able to attract Democrats to his side of the ledger? That, in effect, he transformed the political landscape by doing so?

What part of that is myth?

DRinOH,

If the GOP was the party of ideas it clearly implies that the Dems were not or that their ideas were inferior. There's no way to spin that.

On a somewhat separate note: I am astounded that Obama supporters were demonizing LBJ just last week and now many are so desperate to clean up Obama's mess that some have even gone to lionizing Reagan.

Anonymous,

Great Krugman quote. It's amazing isn't it? The usual reply is either, "No what he really means is..." or "Just wait till he gets elected. You'll see!" For a group of people that are supposed to be believers, how odd that they refuse to believe Obama's own clear cut words.

Common Sense,

Did you even see the video? Obama talked about how the country was ready for change because Reagan was about optimism, accountability, dynamism, etc. This is the equivalent of saying opposing gay marriage is about "defending" traditional marriage. How we shape perceptions defines our reality (i.e. framing matters). Where did I say Reagan wasn't a transformational president?

Bill has had plenty warnings. Yep! Love or hate him, he has long been over the top. This stuff may have worked in the passed ,but not after 7+ years of Bush & Co. By Obama simply raising the question, the Big Dawg is trapped!

Oh! Greg: In the word of the great Lee Atwater from the great state of S.C.: That(your remarks) dawg don't hunt!
Perhaps the Nevada win drove home that the previous responses to Bill were ineffective and that Bill's broadsides worked better than expected. More in a bit.

The point is I don't buy either(ineffective responses or broadsides); the issues was timing or ripeness. Now the issue(Hill & Bill; Bill; or Hill) is ripe for Obama, as in who is running for president!

Obama should stop attacking Hillary and Bill because its hurting him..... it cost him new hamsphire, michigan, nevada and might hurt him in tonight's debate.

'What part of that is myth?'

The 'rub' is, Reagan attracted Democrats by feeding them 'feel good bullshit' based up the demonization of liberal ideals and policies

But Obama wants us to believe that his 'feel good bullshit' is REAL, and the republicans will go along with it. And that somehow Bill Clinton couldn't do what Reagan did because he was so 'polarizing'.

Feh!

Obama got caught PANDERING to conservatives and is now paying the price for it.

As to whether Obama's comments on Reagan were "inaccurately" reported in any important sense, let's see Krugman's take on it, shall we?

Bill Clinton knew that in 1991, when he began his presidential campaign. “The Reagan-Bush years,” he declared, “have exalted private gain over public obligation, special interests over the common good, wealth and fame over work and family. The 1980s ushered in a Gilded Age of greed and selfishness, of irresponsibility and excess, and of neglect.”

Contrast that with Mr. Obama’s recent statement, in an interview with a Nevada newspaper, that Reagan offered a “sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.”

Maybe Mr. Obama was, as his supporters insist, simply praising Reagan’s political skills. (I think he was trying to curry favor with a conservative editorial board, which did in fact endorse him.) But where in his remarks was the clear declaration that Reaganomics failed?

...I understand why conservatives want to rewrite history and pretend that these good things happened while a Republican was in office — or claim, implausibly, that the 1981 Reagan tax cut somehow deserves credit for positive economic developments that didn’t happen until 14 or more years had passed. (Does Richard Nixon get credit for “Morning in America”?)

But why would a self-proclaimed progressive say anything that lends credibility to this rewriting of history — particularly right now, when Reaganomics has just failed all over again?

willyjsimmons:

Obviously you are a HRC supporter, so I see why you believe this is a rub. However, nothing you wrote is a myth. Obama wasn't pandering; he was TALKING about historical fact. Even your post demonstrates it--Reagan was able to attract Democrats with his message (whether you thought it was bullshit is beside the point since it convinced enough Democrats to vote for Reagan (twice)).

So again, where's the myth that Obama was perpetuating about Reagan?

'How can that not be one of the worst economic stimulus ideas EVER?'

It has nothing to do with 'economic stimulus'.

It's a direct response to the foreclosure issue.

Actually - Bill did lie. You can absolutely and legitimately disagree with what Obama said - but if you need to change the words to make them sound like something else - then you don't really disagree your just trying to find an edge in the PR. We can argue back and forth all day - but we already know who we support. No one is working for our votes - they are a done deal. It is how this plays to undecided voters who don't necessarily love Bill, Hill or Obama that is an interesting question. Any undecided people out there – what do you think?

This has been my beef with the right-wing media since the iraq war fiasco. They just repeat the lies as news without any critical analysis or investigation. It really is pathetic. I usually go to european news sources to get information. I don't understand why the media can get away with this. Hopefully, they will at least repeat obama calling clinton out on his continuing lying and maybe that will resonate.

A lie is a lie regardless of who says it, whether its the king or mr. bill. Unfortunately, people are generally too lazy to recognize what is going on and think critically. A classic example are clinton supporters. They just repeat the distortions and lies without even thinking about it. Pathetic.

Yes Obama, it would be nice if the media would report the FACTS instead of trying to MAKE THE NEWS by reporting only what Bill Clinton Says or Does.

I think the biggest mistake by the Obama campaign has been in thinking the press would correct Bill on its own.

If they want the record set straight, they have to do it themselves. The media is clearly not interested. Their actions (or lack therof) with regard to the Iraq War show that pretty clearly.

frankly0:

Ah, Krugman, such an honest broker when it comes to Obama. Honestly, why would we need to go to Krugman to get an interpretation of Obama's words when Obama is alive and well, and capable of speaking for himself? Usually you quote the source if it's available, right?

Clinton was talking about the particular policies Reagan-Bush implemented, while Obama was talking about his ability to appeal to the broader American public and attract Democrats to his side of the ledger. Nothing about policies, nothing about whether Reagan was a good president based on those policies. Just his political skill of broaden his governing base.

Don't believe me, read Obama's own words:

Obama, speaking of remarks he made to a Nevada newspaper last week, told The State he wasn’t praising Reagan’s policies. Obama said was making a point that Reagan reached across party lines in order to snare a large majority of American voters that made it easier for him to push his agenda.

By attracting so-called Reagan Democrats, the California governor swept into office in 1980 and cruised to a 49-state landslide in 1984. Such big victories gave Reagan a mandate to push change. “Hopefully we can get some Obama Republicans and independents,” Obama said.

From statement:
U.S. Sen. Barack Obama said Monday one of the biggest frustrations of his presidential bid is dealing with national media that he says doesn’t correct inaccuracies about his candidacy and his record...

How hilarious! They don't correct inacurracies because they never talk about him. The media is always trashing Hillary for anything she says claiming it is anti-Obama while he gets no scrutiny at all. My goodness, this is whining from a first grade school kid. If Obama can't take the heat from someone like Clinton then he better pack up and go back to the Senate. This just shows he can't play hardball politics and still shows his rookie status. He can't even fight back against Bill without announcing how hard done by he is and has to do it. This is a sad display. I don't know why he opened his mouth anyway because the media is all over crucifying Bill for his good cop bad cop. They are now showing they have two Clintons to trash all over their airwaves now. How much fun they must be having but at least they have given Hillary a break for a few days.

Reagan said the 11th commandment is never speak ill of a fellow Republican. Democrats need a commandment, too, never pay homage to that rat bastard Reagan in comparison to Clinton or any other president. Obama knew what he was doing, stirring the pot. The damn thing is, no one can agree on what exactly he meant, and that's exactly where Obama wants it, clear as mud.

Davidson wrote: "If the GOP was the party of ideas it clearly implies that the Dems were not or that their ideas were inferior. There's no way to spin that."

How about this spin: The Democrats in Washington have for too long allowed Republicans to set the agenda, and spent their efforts playing defense.

I get the impression that Obama's camp did not explain how the media exactly distorted his words.

wjs:

My bad on the HRC supporter, given the tone of your remarks and the general loathing you have for Senator Obama, I drew the natural conclusion. My bad.

Historical fact, is well, historical fact and doesn't change whoever the audience is or will be. Recall that in that same conversation he talked about JFK within the same context. Who was he pandering to then? According to your analysis, it would be the conservative editorial board. Frankly, that makes no sense and completely ignores the real possibility that he was in fact talking in purely historical terms. But of course, you will digress, because it doesn't dovetail with whatever the narrative is you've settled on for Senator Obama.

We all know that facts are biased against the Clintons.

And really folks, you can get worked up about alot of things, but someone calling Bill Clinton a liar is not one of them.

Bill Clinton is a big fat liar. This a documented fact. But again, facts are biased against the Clintons.

No one party or candidate has a lock on the truth. So let's all agree that both the Obama and Clinton camps are guilty of some distortion of the facts, etc. However, it is my opinion that it is the media who is the true guilty party because the media refuses to report the correct facts. They use partial quotes and then use them out of context. Let's all get a grip here. Be an informed voter. And that means not believing everything you hear or read - from the campaigns and the media. Dig a little deeper and get all the facts and then make up your mind about the issues.

Obama should stop attacking Hillary and Bill because its hurting him..... it cost him new hamsphire, michigan ...

Right. That, and not being on the ballot in Michigan. Thanks for playing.

Obama was pandering to a right-wing newspaper in order to secure their endorsement, which did.

Because, of course, when Obama is caught admiring Reagan in front of a conservative editorial board, we must of course accept his only own interpretation of what he was saying.

More lies from the Clintonites.

In what world is the Reno Gazette-Journal "right-wing" or "conservative"? Because they dared endorse someone other than the Clintons?

They endorsed both Gore and Kerry over Bush. What right-wing paper would do that?

Clinton/McCain: Eight more years of the old business-as-usual. Yuck.

""Obama said was making a point that Reagan reached across party lines in order to snare a large majority of American voters that made it easier for him to push his agenda," the paper reports"

Will somebody tell obama to stop digging please.

"The party of ideas" - here, in context, Obama was saying that it was the Republicans whose ideas came across as fresh. If you were concerned with things, and you were looking for a fresh approach, the Republicans were doing a much better job of selling that than the Democrats were. That's why Bill Clinton's signature accomplishment was throwing hundreds of thousands of the poorest Americans off of welfare. Reagan got elected on the myth of "welfare queens," but it took Clinton to drastically cut welfare, by giving it a "Democratic" face that in reality was nothing but a mask over Reaganism.

If the Democrats had been a "party of ideas" during Clinton's years, rather than just Republican Lite, Clinton's would have been a far different, and far more successful, presidency. And the Democrats wouldn't have lost the legislature; and Bush would never have taken office.

Obama's problem is that he gives Americans too much credit and assumes Americans are intelligent enough and are critical thinkers. Alas, we are not.

I guess we all had better take away that John Bates Clark medal from Krugman! Shouldn't that be reserved for intelligent and critical thinkers?

And absolutely forget that Krugman was the first major pundit to call bullshit on Bush. Now that he's done the same for Obama, everybody knows he's just not one of the Kewl Kids, and can be completely ignored. The man is so yesterday!

I have been a lifelong democrat and have never even contemplated voting for a candidate from another party in a local, state or national election. However, I am so disturbed by Billary that I will not vote for her in the national election if Mcain wins for the Repubes. Primarily because I don't see much difference in them. Hillary will continue this war as she voted for it and supported it until 2006. Only when it became politically unacceptable to support the war did Hillary jump ship. Having said that, I think that she would only add to the partisan nature of Washington and would continue to drive a stake down the middle of red and blue states. The only candidates that can heal this divide are Obama and MCain. Therefore, if Obama loses, I will be forced to do all I can to avoid the clinton machine from ruining the democratic party.

Sayonara, Obama
Your words speak for themselves.

I like the idea of responding to Bill. I don't know why they didn't do it sooner. Frankly, Bill these days looks like a raging, abusive drunk, and his presence reminds people that Hillary is climbing into office on family connections. He can do the politics well, and he does the race thing with a subtlety that is sheer artistry. But I think it makes her look weak. Which is funny, because she isn't weak at all. Except maybe she really is when it comes to Bill. He and his wang are quite a personality to stand up to.

Part of me gets pissed that she is shrinking into a weak political wife when her candidacy should be affirming for women based on her considerable talents and intelligence. But the part of me that just can't do bush-clinton-clinton-bush-bush-clinton-clinton welcomes drunk raging sex addict onto the scene.

I honestly don't think the Clintons can beat McCain. Hillary, maybe, but there is no Hillary alone in this case. That boat sailed a long time ago.

On GMA this morning whining that President Clinton was being mean and misrepresenting his record and now claiming that real Democrats who didn't like his Reagan comments are somehow all mixed up. The Obama camp has effectively changed the conversation from issues, experience and bad Republican policy to race and Ronald Reagan. The Republican party will have a field day with this guy. Still not ready for primetime.

Davidson, frankly0, BluePuppy:

All 3 of you have made the statement that Reno Gazette-Journal has a "conservative" or "right-wing" editorial board.

However, as I noted above, they previously endorsed Gore and Kerry. So what is the justification for your statement? What is just another Clintonite lie?

A vote for me is a vote against Reagan! I'll be Ready for Change that You Can Believe in And For Which you are Ready on Day 1!!"

Actually, Obama said Reagan "tapped into the sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing." He did not say Reagan offered it

A distinction in a political context utterly without a difference. Where did Obama note the fact -- rather critical to a progressive politician one would think -- that Reagan did NOT actually create any "dynamism and entrepreneurship"?

I ask, if Obama believed otherwise, why didn't he just come out and say it, right there on the spot? Why?

Perhaps because he was shamelessly sucking up to a conservative board and didn't want to say anything that rocked the boat, however antithetical to progressive ideals his "omission" might be?

New poll question:

Are Americans ready to disavow secondhand racism that they blame on unspecified others by asking if America is ready for a black president?

frankly0,

Why are you continuing to repeat this lie about the Reno Gazette-Journal having a conservative editorial board?

It's interesting how the Clinton supporters follow in the footsteps of their leader, continuing to distort and lie after they've been exposed.

When do you think the word will come down from The Pope on Obama's fast track to Sainthood???

I'm a black hispanic Jewish antiwar liberal and I think Hillary offers us the best chance for Change that We Can Believe in. She'll be ready from day 1, which is a big concern for me as a potential terrorist victim. She's also not afraid to hold the cap on payroll tax where it is, so that us black hispanic jewish antiwar liberals who make $98,000 aren't subject to a trillion dollar tax increase just to support Republican talking points.

Shalom!

Nizzy,

Obama's not a saint. He just looks that way compared to his direct competition.

It's truly not fair to say Republicans were the party of ideas. I had a big idea about a new kind of humidor, and the VRWC attacked me for it! Although to be fair, it did allow me to get elected. So props to that.

It's just total crap that Obama gets all this great press coverage. I mean, why would we want to nominate someone like that? Nominate me, my friends, it's change you can believe in for the 6th time!

The media has been PRO OBAMA and anti-Hillary since Iowa and I think we all saw it happen evidently in New Hampshire! For Obama to claim the media has not been fair to him is wrong and makes him look small to me.

The mere fact that Obama has referred to Ronald Reagan and his party being the "party of ideas" sends shockwaves to ranknfile democrats. Sure, yes, we-heard-you and agree- Obama did not say they were "good" ideas but that is a stupid argument - that's like when Bill Clinton said he didn't inhale. Obama clearly wanted to make a jab at Bill Clinton by comparing Reagan in a positive light and saying Bill Clinton did not achieve that. plain and simple . and it didn't work so now all of you Obama supporters are interpreting his words in the most harmless way possible to support your narrative of Obama being a savior who is pure and can do no wrong and the Clintons are evil political machines who LIE - the reality is : both campaigns lie !

'and the general loathing you have for Senator Obama'

Say Whuuuuut?

At what point did I state that I 'loath' the dude?

My basic point is Obama's shit stinks just as much as the Clintons', and the more he tries to convince me otherwise, the less I believe him. I'll throw Edwards in there as well. Given his voting record.

Want an 'honest' politician, search Ernie Chambers.

Obama trying to convince me that republicans in congress will stop obstructing upon his taking office is fool's gold.

A 'lie'.

Her strength is Bill Clinton.

Why would you people even consider voting for a guy that everyone treats as a saint? This is a dirty, nasty business where you need to lie and cheat and steal and do what you have to do because of your passion to help poor people and your impatience for change that you can believe in from day one.

This isn't about power. It's about healing the pain that you feel. It's about being safe from terrorists. Come come. Vote for me. You know you need it.

Jack Frost,

I don't think you have an argument here.

How is Obama's attempt to clarify his *actual* statement the equivalent to Clinton's lying about his use of marijuana?

Is your opinion of the electorate so poor that you don't think them capable of making this distinction, or are you incapable of making it yourself?

How is this for funny? Paul Krugman agrees exactly with what Obama said about Reagan:

It’s not just a matter of what happens in the next election. Mr. Clinton won his elections, but — as Mr. Obama correctly pointed out — he didn’t change America’s trajectory the way Reagan did. Why?

Well, I’d say that the great failure of the Clinton administration — more important even than its failure to achieve health care reform, though the two failures were closely related — was the fact that it didn’t change the narrative, a fact demonstrated by the way Republicans are still claiming to be the next Ronald Reagan.

The cognitive dissonance may collapse on itself and form a black hole shortly.

"Obama said was making a point that Reagan reached across party lines in order to snare a large majority of American voters that made it easier for him to push his agenda," the paper reports.

I guess he just doesn't get it. How can he say this without adding that the people Reagan snared were in large part southern dems that he appealed to using racism - the so-called Southern strategy that Atwater admitted using? I know Obama does not say it was good, but he doesn't point out that it was bad either. good god.

Anonymous wrote: "The party of Reagan has most definitely NOT been the party of ideas for the last 10-15 years. In fact, the party of ideas has been the Democrats, with the Clintons at the helm."

Please provide a list of those ideas.

The fact is that the Dems have allowed the Republicans to set the agenda, and have only been playing a defensive game at the fringes.

Exactly LiberalTarian.

The fact that he can't make himself say anything negative about Reagan, even when he is attempting to defuse this situation, speaks volume.

David wrote: One thing that annoys me is the double standards of how we talk about each other. Obama lost in New Hampshire, it was because they discriminated against him. When he won in Iowa it was because they were discriminating against Hillary, yes?...The Black people need to stop using this race card."

STRAW MAN ALERT!! STRAW MAN ALERT!!

This story is about Obama saying the press is not holding the Clintons accountable for their stretching of the truth. Nobody's playing any race card here.

brad wrote: "Kay, If it was a 70/30 country, why did we lose both houses, and why did WJC never get over 50% in a general election?"

Thanks for the reality check, Brad.

frankly0,

Are you going to address my posts above where I call you out on your lies?

I'm going to keep reminding you until you do.

If it was a mistake, then admit it. But don't ignore it. That just makes you look bad.

For the love of god, Obama was criticizing Reaganite policy. This is what he actually said:

I think Kennedy, twenty years earlier, [also] moved the country in a fundamentally different direction. So I think a lot of it just has to do with the times. I think we're in one of those times right now, where people feel like things as they are going aren't working, that we're bogged down in the same arguments that we've been having, and they're not useful.

And the Republican approach has, I think, played itself out. I think it's fair to say that the Republicans were the 'party of ideas' for a pretty long chunk of time there, for the last 10, 15 years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom. Now [he means 'nowadays'], you've heard it all before -- you look at the economic policies that are being debated among the [Republican] Presidential candidates, it's all [just] tax cuts. You know, we've done that. We've tried it. That's not really gonna solve, you know, our energy problem, for example.
I added the annotations for tone, so YMMV on those -- regardless, if you watch what he was saying, the meaning of the statement is very clear, and it's not even remotely pro-Reagan or pro-GOP.

Oops. TPM's broken blockquotes ruined that. Let me try again:

I think Kennedy, twenty years earlier, [also] moved the country in a fundamentally different direction. So I think a lot of it just has to do with the times. I think we're in one of those times right now, where people feel like things as they are going aren't working, that we're bogged down in the same arguments that we've been having, and they're not useful.

And the Republican approach has, I think, played itself out. I think it's fair to say that the Republicans were the 'party of ideas' for a pretty long chunk of time there, for the last 10, 15 years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom. Now [he means 'nowadays'], you've heard it all before -- you look at the economic policies that are being debated among the [Republican] Presidential candidates, it's all [just] tax cuts. You know, we've done that. We've tried it. That's not really gonna solve, you know, our energy problem, for example.

Mike, when I say that the board before which Obama made his points was conservative, I am simply relying on Krugman's own statement to that effect. I expect that between his own research, and the fact checking that I'd expect the NY Times imposes, that that was an accurate enough statement.

If it's proved false, I take back the point.

But you may notice that very little in what I'm arguing depends on it. At most it goes to an obvious motive for what Obama said. But Obama's problem is that there is NO good motive for him to have said what he said.

Obama gives a good speech, but who is he? What has he done?
What does he stand for? What has he accomplished?
He was in the game TWO YEARS when he decided he was the most
qualified person to lead America - that doesn't seem egotistical to you?

Hillary has eight years in the White House and seven in the senate and some
people claim she's not qualified, so how does Obama clear that hurdle?

Greg Sargent said: "Perhaps the Nevada loss drove home that the previous responses to Bill were ineffective and that Bill's broadsides are working better than expected."

You wish Greg.

Perhaps Obama is just expressing a deep concern felt by much of the nation that Bill Clinton is behaving unfairly and unethically and should be called to account. Clinton is a former president of the United States and head of the Democratic party. Campaigning for his wife does not require agressive, dishonest attacks on Obama or any other candidate.

Greg Sargent and other Hillary opperatives should be outraged by this turn in the the Clintons' campaign. Bill is doing damage to the nation, the Democratic party and the democratic process. Win at any costs is a selfish, discructive strategy.

frankly0,
thanks for responding.

I doubt the NY Times does any fact-checking of its opinion columns. This was just a big mistake made by Krugman in his zeal to attack Obama yet again. He probably just assumed that because the board liked his statements on Reagan, they were conservative. In reality, they were solid Democrats.

This is yet another reason why Krugman shouldn't be trusted when it comes to Obama. His hatred has clouded his judgment.

Reagan as agent of change; Bill Clinton not an agent of change: I don't know if that is smart politics or not, but it is accurate.

"Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not," Obama said in a video on the Gazette Journal's website.
I don't know if that is smart politics or not, but it is accurate.

I think Michael Goodwin may have been the first to write about Hillary's experience claim. John F. Harris, Maureen Dowd, and others also touch on this factor. However, they are just describing the peak of the iceberg.

Hillary Clinton is On the Ropes (Michael Goodwin, New York Daily News)
"The nostalgia for the '90s, a move for a restoration of the Clinton presidency, isn't a persuasive rationale. The flaw was on display in her speech - surrounded by Bill and some of his old aides, she was a tableau of the past, not the future."

"She needs to come out from behind Bubba and the barricades and the imperial court of handlers who create a bubble."

Hillary and Bill Clinton's time in the White house was during a much different, much easier time in our country's history than the next eight years will be.

I think the voters realize that Hillary's claim to experience was that she had only some experience and that it was during that much different, much easier period.

It is not all that relevant to the difficult next eight years. Her time has come and gone.

I think that voters are seeing Bill Clinton as someone who rode the wave, not as someone who actively created the good times. The more I read and think about Bill, the more I see him as someone who wasted a fabulous opportunity to help the people of this country.

I think that is underlying Hillary's drop in the polls and the loss in Iowa. If that is correct, I don't see how she can regain the lead without a very negative attack on Obama. I think that having Bill on the campaign trail was the cause of her decline. It made her look like his puppet, reminded people of Bill's failings to seize the fabulous opportunity, and reinforced the opinion that she was of the past that was much different than the present.

If this is correct, Bill's taking over her campaign will only make matters worse for Hillary. Sharp attacks by both of them against Obama will also reinforce the differences between the two candidates.

He probably just assumed that because the board liked his statements on Reagan, they were conservative. In reality, they were solid Democrats.

I very much doubt that Krugman could possibly have come to such a conclusion on such a basis. There should be nothing easier in the world to check for someone in the newspaper business than the basic orientation of an editorial board.

And you are ignoring the obvious possibility that there are such things as conservative Democrats. That is indeed exactly the kind of Democrat I'd expect to find in Nevada, and the kind of editorial board one might expect.

Anonymous: "Campaigning for his wife does not require agressive, dishonest attacks on Obama or any other candidate."

Nor has it resulted in such attacks.

You, and Obama, are simply lying about Bill's lying, just like you lied about the Clinton campaign saying Hillary's nomination was inevitable (never happened no matter how many times you lie about it).

LOL at Obama's numbers in Connecticut. I thought he was supposed to have broad appeal with conservatives, but guess what, no such luck. His only support among Republicans comes from a relatively small number rabid GOP Hillary Haters, whose numbers have a disproportionate effect in slightly attended primaries and caucuses and who will do anything to defeat her before voting GOP in November, and independents who are looney far left defectors from the Democratic Party they feel isn't radical enough for them.

Everybody know Bill Clinton was and continues to be a compulsive liar.
He has even been convicted of it in court.
Glad the Atlanta Mayor told the corrupt liar off in public.
It is time to save the Democratic party and send them back to Arkansas or from wherever they came.

frankly0,

No offense, but you clearly don't have a good grasp on what opinion columnists do. They don't spend much time, if any, researching their columns.

And if you think any conservative board, Democrat or not, would endorse Gore and Kerry over Bush, then you're obviously living in a fantasy world.

Everyone is attacking Obama. This guy is ridiculous. Hillary has taken punch after punch for over 15yrs, and he can't take a tap. He is a wimp. He has to fight for the presidency. No one is going to give it to him. He is not the chosen one as the media has said. Grow some balls Barack. Stop whinning. How many times have the Clintons been lied on? The republicans will kill him and laugh when he complains. This is hardball politics it is not a cocktail party.

U.S. Sen. Barack Obama said Monday one of the biggest frustrations of his presidential bid is dealing with national media that he says doesn’t correct inaccuracies about his candidacy and his record...

I'm glad someone is calling the media on this, but frankly someone should have called the Clintons on this earlier.

• They started out with mail and email campaigns falsely implying that Obama was weak on abortion -- no one called them on it.

• They then had Bill go off on a misleading "rant" about, among other things, Obama's opposition to the Iraq war. The story was "Bill rants," and the media did no fact-checking.
• They then expanded their mail campaign to imply Obama's plan to tax wealthy people for Social Security hits the middle class. No one called them on it, or on the fact that Hillary has NO plan for Social Security.
• Then another rant from Bill about "5x the votes." Repeated over and over on TV, and no one calls them on the fact that it's an obvious lie.
• Now, totally emboldened, they both start directly talking about how Obama claimed Republicans had "all the good ideas," a claim he clearly never made. The media doesn't call them on it AGAIN, but at least Obama does.
  

This is the same sort of he-said she-said faux-journalism that has dominated the age of cable news. Thank God for sites like TPM.

litigatormom: "How could Obama use him as an example of a transformative politician without expressly qualifying the nature of the transformation?"

Obama is like Reagan and Bush 43, who both ran on goodness and sunshine flowing out of the butt and nothing else.

Obama is all talk; he's a blowhard.
We just went through seven years (eventually eight) of a president who believed if you just say America is safe, or America is strong, or America is back, or America is doing the right thing, enough, then it will happen.

It was the same with Reagan, who thought that saying "it's morning in America" was sufficient to make it so.

And Obama is the same: if I say "hope" and "change" and "togetherness" etc over and over it will come true.

His would be the "Kumbayah Presidency."

With don't need a tooth fairy president for another eight years.

And we don' need his obsessively defensive attack dog supporters doing their best to imitate politics as religion from the left like Bush's Regent University factotums have.

TexModDem -- What makes you think that Obama is all talk? He is a good speaker, but he also has substantial policy depth and more years in elected office than Clinton. On some important issues, like Social Security, he has proposed a solution and Clinton has not.

What specifically do you feel he's lacking?

Sadie: "she can't even overwhelm the people of her own party."

How pathetic is Obama then, since he can't even beat Clinton in the national polls, but only in primaries and caucuses involving rabid GOP Hillary Haters and far left independents, and even then he lost the actual vote in Nevada where he p*ssed all over Hispanic and Black teachers, pretending they didn't exist.

The only thing overwhelming about Obama is how much hot air he can spew in pretending he has substance.

No doubt, Obama's numbers will go up in Connecticut as soon as Joe Lieberman endorses him for President.

TMD - So now, Hillary people hate JFK, deminish the importance of MLK, but have nothing but praise for LBJ?! And Obama is somehow the crazy one for recognizing that we need to present our ideas and inspire the people with our shared progressive ideas.

It's like Karl Rove has taken over the party and some of you are suddenly living in a world where up is down and right is left.

I'd like to see them frame Bill Clinton as divisiveness and dividing the party with his attacks.. Clinton may have been great @ triangulation, but he never built the party, and barely lifted a finger for either Gore or Kerry.

Basically, go after Bill and make it appear he's running for a 3rd term and Hillary's clinging to his coattails.

TexModDem,

The current SS system will not be able to meet future obligations. That's not a right-wing talking point, that's just the truth. It will need to be fixed, and Obama has a plan to fix it. Hillary won't touch it with a ten-foot pole, presumably because no realistic solution polls well.

If you think Obama plans to just "preach from the White House," I don't think you've been paying attention. He's been clear that he believes the president needs to be a good manager, supported by highly qualified people. What he gets criticized for is the notion that he'd want to set the national agenda, building popular support for his plans instead of building his plans around whatever is popular.

Bill Clinton's main idea was "play defense." Reagan played offense.

Bill was a good president, but Reagan was able to unite more people and make major change. Of course, most the change wasn't good... Bill made incremental changes, was never a uniter.. His egomaniacal campaigning makes this more transparent.

rachelrachel:

If you're looking for Clinton's Democratic ideas, you need go no further than the Democratic Party Platform of 1992.

I'd put this up against Reagan's "morning in America" pablum any day of the week. Or for that matter, against Obama's own platform.
Which of those ideas caught on? Which got implemented? Which were new, innovative? DOMA? DADT? NAFTA? No more big government?

Did those ideas remove abortion, gay marriage, Republicans' advantage on economy, Democrats being weak on defense, tax cuts being more revenue as premises for the national conversation?

Boy, the Clinton haters are really out in force, tonight, aren't they? Did they spend the 1990s listening to Rush Limbaugh, or what?

I guess these are the famous Republicans that Obama wants to reach out to. Good to know.

From a purely tactical standpoint, this unseemly public fight Sen. Obama is having with former Sen. Bill Clinton is simply a lose-lose proposition for the senator from Illinois. He's now clearly off-message, and he's seen publicly as attacking a former president from his own party who enjoys immense residual goodwill amongst rank-and-file Democrats.

The more Barack Obama ties to defend his remarks about Ronald Reagan, or whines that former President Bill Clinton and the media have misinterpreted those remarks, the longer the story arc remains in the public's collective consciousness. And to be frank, the vast majority of that public is simply not going to go back to the original interview and parse the senator's words for him, the way his supporters on this thread apparently will.

There are two things here that the senator needs to consider before he digs hmself in any deeper on this easily-flanked line: First, Bill Clinton's not the candidate; his wife Hillary is. Second, Obama's clearly not heeding his own advice when he swallows Mr. Clinton's bait hook, line and sinker.

So even if the senator does win this particular argument in the eyes and minds of own supporters, Obama now runs a terrible risk of losing the war by alienating the very people he needs to attract away from Mrs. Clinton if his campaign is to remain a viable alternative to her candidacy.

Therefore, if I was advising Sen. Obama, I would strongly urge him to immediately disengage himself from this pointless argument with Bill Clinton, drop the issue and move on, and let it recede from the public's mind.

The Obama campaign really needs to regain its momentum quickly. As it now stands, Obama's like a jockey in the middle of a race, who has inexplicably stopped his horse along the far turn rail in order to argue with his chief rival's trainer, while that rival continues her sprint down the final stretch toward the finish line.

I don't understand how someone who holds himself out as a "Uniter" wrapped up in a cloak of hope can inspire such hatred. The hatemongering from Obama supporters is shocking. Spewing hatred of the Clintons and anyone who has the temerity to question Obama's credentials (e.g. by calling Taylor a "witch")all over the internet is not the way to heal this country after being Bushwacked for 8 years. This is politics. Can we get back to the issues please. I for one still do not know what Obama stands for other than hating Hillary and Bill. Wow, really makes me want to jump on board and vote for him.

Love the jockey analogy. Donald from Hawaii, you nailed it.

Look from a Democratic point of view this ends two ways. Obviously Clinton Inc will lie and distort from here on out so we end up with Hillary having the delegates and the party loses the White House and the House in the Fall. Or the Clintons are rejected and Obama pulls this out. I will not vote for Hillary...and if a center-left dem like me is saying that, her nomination would be a disaster for the party.

"You. Can. Not. Do. It. Hell, even Paul Krugman agrees with Obama."

So while the Republicans were attempting to abolish the Dept. of Education, President Clinton worked on the following issues amongst many others:

*Universal health care (now almost universally accepted by Democrats as necessary. Not so in 93-94)
*Stopping genocide in Kosovo
*Americorp
*Family Medical Leave Act
*Peace in Ireland
*Ruth Bader Ginsburg
*Stephen Breyer
*Protecting affirmative action
*Huge swaths of protected land
*Raising the minimum wage
*Brady Bill
*Progressive taxation (1993 Budget)

Yes.I.Can. (I don't buy Obama's framing of the debate). The Contract with America was repudiated after a mere two years. He was wrong, wrong, wrong and pandering to an extremist newspaper while undermining the progressive agenda of the last 10-15 years. Shameful. No wonder his support among liberals has been falling and he has been losing.

I for one still do not know what Obama stands for other than hating Hillary and Bill.

Jere,

Somehow I find it hard to believe that you've made it to this blog, but you have not made it to Obama's website. Here it is:

http://www.barackobama.com/index.php

You might also want to watch the debate tonight. If it's anything like the last 18, you'll hear Barack talk about issues.

Speaking as someone who's still an undecided Dem, this debate isn't raising my impression of either candidate. Citing Reagan as a model, even of the things he did right, isn't especially endearing, and Bill's attack dog politics are driving my opinions of the Clintons straight down.

My favorite argument so far is that Obama is "whining" when he points out errors in the media coverage. That makes him weak if he doesn't reply, and a baby if he does. It's the sort of argument I'd expect from a seasoned GOP campaign operative.

What we seem to have are two seriously flawed candidates. Obama seems not quite ready for prime time, and the Clinton machine seems to not be interested in anything beyond their own victory. I've yet to see where the Clintons have delivered for anyone else, nor would I be especially looking forward to another four years of "Republican-lite" in the White House.

Regular Joe... Were you around during the Clinton administration? I know that it's fashionable among the Publicans and Obamaniacs to totally dish Clinton but the majority of Americans remember those years with fondness and longing.
Of course on here you get the Obamabots mouthing their Master's Publican talking points.
I'm amazed that they think that the American public that firmly rejected the right wing inquisition of Clinton's sex life ten years ago will be more receptive now. Or all the other discredited Publican talking points.
Note to Obama: Hillary is running for President, Newt is hitting the after dinner circuit. Dohhhh!

Or, as my grandpa says, if Bush getting blown in the oval office would give us back Clinton's peace and prosperity he'd volunteer to do the job himself!

Tapper,

Clinton did some good things in office (many of which are on BluePuppy's list). But I suspect he was more a beneficiary of the prosperity than the cause.

The cause, as far as I can tell, was a financial bubble fed by the development of the world wide web, technology upgrades to avoid the Y2K bug, and lax regulation. Clinton should have prevented something like Enron from happening, but he chose temporary prosperity and popularity instead.

Independent: "He's been clear that he believes the president needs to be a good manager, supported by highly qualified people."

No, he's belittled the idea of president as manager.

Nice spin on your part though.

bm: "What is this ?"

You proving what a moron you are?

The judge's own words (not your tendentious and dishonest interpretation of what others have falsely said):

"The Court therefore adjudges the President to be in civil contempt of court pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)."

No mention of conviction, which doesn't apply in civil contempt, and to boot . . .

And in holding him in contempt, the court actually found Clinton to have disobeyed the Court's discovery orders, not of "lying under oath."

Again, you have either decided to lie or you haven't bothered to actually investigate the facts of Clinton's judgment of contempt.

Tex,

Such as?

Independent you are exactly the sorta trash talkin Publican wanna be I was referring to.
Anything good on Clinton's watch well that was happenstance, nothing to do with him or his policies!
But anything bad, well now that's definitely all his fault!
Look, unlike the Obamabots I have no need to talk like Clinton is the Great One Who Can Do No Wrong. God knows I got my spite list.
And yes Clinton was lucky in the tech boom and most importantly he made the most of that luck. You think the declining deficit had nothing to do with Clinton's economic policies and that decline had nothing to do with boom? Give me an effin break.
Bush 1 recession
Clinton boom
Bush 2 recession verging on meltdown

Yeah, just dumb luck for Clinton!

And PS It wasn't Clinton caused Enron it was Bush's refusal to allow for government intervention to reign in the fools. Remember California?
But yeah, even though Kenny Boy Enron happened on Bush's watch, even though 9-11 happened on Bush's watch, everything bad is Clinton's fault. Hell, it's Clinton's fault that North Korea didn't go nuke until Bush overthrew the Clinton initiative.

Get real!

Tapper: "Get real!"

They are clearly Hillary-hating GOP fake Obama supporters who want to damage her as much as possible and promote the candidate they can most handily beat.

*Universal health care (now almost universally accepted by Democrats as necessary. Not so in 93-94)

Nope. Unsuccessful, no meaningful discussion since 1993 until now.

*Stopping genocide in Kosovo

Good, policing.

*Americorp

First real foray of faith-based initiatives, but a useful if non-visible group.

*Family Medical Leave Act

Unpaid, employment restrictions, no benefits during leave.

*Peace in Ireland

Not giving you this. Not killing people because of their religion is definitely a progressive idea but because I do not think he ultimately played much of a role here.

*Ruth Bader Ginsburg & Stephen Breyer

Good choices for the court. This did nothing on the "ideas" front but definitely helped with the "law" part.

*Protecting affirmative action

Trying to prevent existing programs being dismantled is not necessarily equivalent to a novel idea. Either way, do you have anything specific about this?

*Huge swaths of protected land

Actually the Clinton environmental record is pretty iffy--he went from terrifying lows to a very good finish in the last six months or so, when most of this occurred.

*Raising the minimum wage

Not federal.

*Brady Bill

Slightly limited but a good gun control bill. Used effectively by the Republicans in 1994.

*Progressive taxation (1993 Budget)

The budget definitely reached its goal of balancing. It was presented as a specific alternative to the deficit-who-cares policies of the previous decade. Republicans were able to convince a lot of the public otherwise (plus their tax increase canard) and this was quite helpful to them in 1994.

How about these: Communications Decency Act, Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Telecommunications Act 1996 (removed restrictions), Taxpayer Relief Act? (Also the aforementioned DOMA, DADT and NAFTA?)

Also, the counterexamples? I am not seeing huge success here.

Bill Clinton didn't get much of his agenda completed, but your guy, Mr. Reagan, didn't have very much success, either.

End the deficit? No, he presided over the biggest increase in the deficit.

Smaller government? No, government grew at a bigger rate than ever before.

Shut down the Department of Education? No.

Stand up to the terrorists? No, he thought the idea was to exchange arms for hostages.

This is so bizarre, this entire episode. Obama misspoke, or, rather, he spoke honestly but not carefully. Strange for a lawyer. But still...Now he is plainly attempting to lawyer his way out of it. And, as it turns out, what he said was correct. But his many supporters, who up til now have been busily constructing some Progressive aura around him, which he clearly doesn't warrant, are seeing their champion falling to earth, his wings aflame.

The Clinton's, ever rapacious, are lending to this mess their own very special brand of sleaze. Had enough?

BHO came in to this race trying to transcend the notion of race. Ha ha! Now, really, you didn't think THAT would ever last, did you? His main appeal being to younger voters who are described as being past the whole idea of race. Maybe. But this is America, the idea of race will never be done with. I wonder how disgusted these yongsters are by all this?

I almost hope McCain gets his party's nomination and Clinton's hers, then McCain goes on to trounce Clinton in the general election, just to finally, at long last, be done with her and that husband. Forever. Yeah, McCain is looking really good right now.