Obama: Reagan Changed Direction Of Country In Way Bill Clinton Didn't
This is interesting -- Obama is turning up the volume of his argument with what he terms Clinton style "incremental" change, arguing that Ronald Reagan fundamentally changed the direction of America in a way Bill Clinton didn't.
Obama made his case in a sit-down interview with officials from the Reno Gazette-Journal...
Some will find Obama's words about Reagan overly kind. And this is the first time I've heard him mention Bill Clinton in the context of saying such generous stuff about Reagan.
But Obama is also making an argument about the readiness of the electorate for change, comparing today's desire for a new direction with the electorate's mood in 1980. In this context, Obama is presenting himself as a potentially transformational figure in opposition to Hillary, who, Obama has been arguing, is unequipped to tap into the public's mood due to her coming of age in the sixties and her involvement in the political battles of the 1990s.
Juxtaposing Reagan and Bill Clinton in this way, however, decidedly takes his argument to a whole new level.
You can watch Obama's full interview with the RGJ here.
Late Update: Here are some comments Obama made about Reagan's presidency on Meet the Press in October 2006. In them, he made it far clearer that he disagreed with Reagan's ideas:
But I think, when I think about great presidents, I think about those who transform how we think about ourselves as a country in fundamental ways...And, you know, there are circumstances in which, I would argue, Ronald Reagan was a very successful president, even though I did not agree with him on many issues, partly because at the end of his presidency, people, I think, said, “You know what? We can regain our greatness. Individual responsibility and personal responsibility are important.” And they transformed the culture and not simply promoted one or two particular issues.
Late Late Update: The Huffington Post's Sam Stein adds the important point that Obama also compared himself to JFK later in the discussion. But Stein also adds this about Obama's remarks:
In fact, Obama offered praise for the Gipper, lauding him for tapping into the country's concern with the growth and "excesses" of the federal government, and its desire to "return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship" -- hardly a welcomed interpretation within progressive circles.
Comments (407)
Michael wrote on January 16, 2008 3:23 PM:Well...he's right. Reagan did far more for the GOP than Clinton did for the Dems. And the electorate is more primed for a realignment of that scale (only the mirror image)...much like Reagan used an uplifting vision of the country to draw indies and "Reagan Dems" into the GOP base, so too could Obama's uplifting message potentially win him the lionshare of independent support and create his own "Obama Republicans"
That's nothing but good for progressive causes, and it's not clear it's something Hillary can do. I've actually been working on a blog post about this.
Michael's Mom wrote on January 16, 2008 3:24 PM:It's a shot across the bow no doubt about it. I'm glad you're keeping up on your Taylor Marsh reading Greg; I'd almost thought you'd transformed or something.
frankly0 wrote on January 16, 2008 3:26 PM:So Obama wants to hold himself out as another Reagan?
And this would be a good thing, because why?
I'd be careful about those analogies, Obama.
Obama: The Second Coming of Reagan?
Greg wrote on January 16, 2008 3:27 PM:michael's mom -- is there anything in the post itself that you think is wrong or unfair?
Or should I not expect comment on the actual post?
Geek, Esq. wrote on January 16, 2008 3:27 PM:It's absolutely correct.
Under Clinton, the progressive movement and Democratic party were deal severe setbacks.
We lost 48 Seats in Congress.
We lost 8 Seats in the Senate.
We lost a ton of governorships and state legislatures.
Reagan brought about real change. It was BAD change, but it was very, very real change that quite frankly didn't lose steam until 2006.
jbentley wrote on January 16, 2008 3:29 PM:As usual, everything Obama says is true, but I'm virtually certain that the Clinonistas will take it out of context and saturate the media with claims that he thinks Reagan was a better president than Bill and/or this proves that Barack is not really progressive and that he's a closet Reaganite.
Greg wrote on January 16, 2008 3:30 PM:I don't know how the Clinton people will present it, but I don't think that Obama was saying that Reagan was a better president than Clinton here.
Michael's Mom wrote on January 16, 2008 3:31 PM:Greg-
I think the first sentence is my comment on the post.
Is there anything wrong with sourcing information for your readers, so they know from whence info comes? Often, sourcing is a way to tell who's feeding what to whom. Is there a reason you failed to acknowledge the source?
hadenough wrote on January 16, 2008 3:31 PM:"This is interesting"
Ha ha!
"Some will find Obama's words about Reagan overly kind."
Stop it! I can't take any more! Ooooh HaaaaHaaaa!
"Juxtaposing Reagan and Bill Clinton in this way, however, decidedly takes his argument to a whole new level."
Yes. Yes it does. Bwaaaah!
Anonymous wrote on January 16, 2008 3:32 PM:The beginning of the end of the middles class: Ronald Reagan, so is Obama to finish the job?
Jeremy wrote on January 16, 2008 3:34 PM:Anyone who's read Obama's books knows what he's talking about here. It's not praise for Reagan's policies, but his style of leadership. I think that Obama is right that if we want to truly change the direction of the country we need more than just a competent beurocrat.
Tom wrote on January 16, 2008 3:34 PM:Some will cringe that Obama talks about Reagan's impact on the Republican Party, but Barack did not say that the trajectory their party took with Reagan was a good thing. Reagan did give the Republican Party a shift that they needed badly.
The Democratic Party now desperately needs a change in direction, and the Clintons are fighting it tooth and nail.
Surely even Clinton supporters agree that Bill was loopy when he said Obama represents the establishment and Hillary is the insurgent.
Ben wrote on January 16, 2008 3:34 PM:The worst night in the history of the contemporary Democratic party was when Reagan was elected in November of 1980. Not only did he take power but the Senate went Republican as well and we lost a whole generation of leadership including McGovern, Bayh, Culver and more.
This election in 2008 can be our transformational moment. The Clinton Admin was a bridge back, but a short one that left us with little in the way of permanent change. The next President needs to be a Democrat willing to take that opportunity and make change that will last for generations. While I appreciate Barack Obama's feelings on this historical perspective, these are the reasons I am supporting John Edwards.
ihatebeets wrote on January 16, 2008 3:35 PM:Absolutely correct. Regardless of what you think about Roinald Reagan's presidency, he did bring about a huge change in America and became a Republican icon. Look at how Giuliani, Romney, et al paint themselves as the one who can best carry the mantle of St. Ronnie. I twice voted for Bill Clinton, but I don't believe he was a Progressive. This country is definitely ready for change and I think Barack Obama can do for the Democrats what Ronald Reagan did for Republicans.
Greg wrote on January 16, 2008 3:37 PM:Michael's Mom -- didn't you see the link to the full interview? Doesn't that count as sourcing?
I didn't get this from Taylor Marsh.
obmahype wrote on January 16, 2008 3:37 PM:wait.. im confused.. the excesses of the 60s and 70s.. led to Reagan.. not exactly.. it was just a bad debate by Jimmy Carter.. thats about it.
sebs wrote on January 16, 2008 3:37 PM:i am not a clinton supporter. if anything, i'm for edwards first and obama second, though i will support whoever wins.
but good god. this was like someone scratching a chalkboard. i really don't care what he meant to say. it sounds really freaking bad. he needs to come right out with a categorical statement that Clinton was a heck of a lot better president than Reagan right away.
Mike wrote on January 16, 2008 3:37 PM:I find it odd that Obama could not find it in himself to name a Democratic president who took the US in a new direction. FDR? JFK? LBJ? Nope, Reagan. Is he trying to turn Reagan into an honorary Democrat, like some Republicans are trying to turn Truman into an honorary Republican?
It may be a bit hard to persuade voters there is something to choose among the two major parties if both parties' candidates are campaigning on the legacy of Ronald effing Reagan. And why is it so much to ask for a leading Democratic candidate to campaign in the name of the party he is supposedly representing.
Thanks, but no thanks. It's Edwards or Clinton for me.
Thomas McDonald, New York, NY wrote on January 16, 2008 3:38 PM:Good Arguments
frankly0, the point is that if Reagan was an agent of transformation who inspired the country - the political cutlure as a whole - to turn in a conservative direction, Obama can be a similar kind of figure who inspires the entire country - the political culture as a whole - to move in a progressive direction. He contrasts this to Bill Clinton, who although himself a progressive at heart, did not shift the political culture of the country away from a generally conservative paradigm.
As someone still open-minded to both Hillary and Obama, I find this a very strong argument from Obama. While Hillary's contention that Obama's seemingly admitted 'hands off' style reminds too much Bush's is also a good argument. Hopefully this substantive conversation will overtake the silly and tired identity issues that have been dominating.
Good Arguments
frankly0, the point is that if Reagan was an agent of transformation who inspired the country - the political cutlure as a whole - to turn in a conservative direction, Obama can be a similar kind of figure who inspires the entire country - the political culture as a whole - to move in a progressive direction. He contrasts this to Bill Clinton, who although himself a progressive at heart, did not shift the political culture of the country away from a generally conservative paradigm.
As someone still open-minded to both Hillary and Obama, I find this a very strong argument from Obama. While Hillary's contention that Obama's seemingly admitted 'hands off' style reminds too much Bush's is also a good argument. Hopefully this substantive conversation will overtake the silly and tired identity issues that have been dominating.
grover_rover wrote on January 16, 2008 3:39 PM:It is actually a brilliant point he is making, Reagan really ushered in the neoconservative era, which has had the most drastic impact on our society and the world of any presidency in modern history. He is also right about Bill Clinton, because he wasn't much more than a hickup in the conservative movement. If you look at his economic policies, his support of NAFTA and globalization, and his butchering of our social assistance programs ("welfare reform"), and corporate deregulation, they are all very much in line with Reagan's agenda. I've been saying this for a long time, change does NOT mean going back to the Clinton years because even though the 90s were better than the last 7 years, Clinton was no progressive, and he did not take us in the right direction as a country.
And for those idiots, who will undoubtedly come here and say crap like "Obama wants to be the next Reagan, that is horrible, why would we want that??" I'd just like to say first, quit being stupid. Secondly, we need someone in our party to be OUR Reagan, the person who can inspire the country in OUR direction, not the opposite direction. Right now all our party has is Bill Clinton, that is the best we have managed in the last couple decades, and neither him nor Hillary can inspire, and neither him nor Hillary represent real change. The best thing the Clintons are good for is serving as placeholders, not to undo the damage of the conservatives, not to head in a fundamentally new direction, but to just slow down the fall. We need a president who can be our Reagan, someone who can be the face of change and inspire and energize our cause even after leaving the White House. Obama is the only one in this race who has a shot at being that person. He has everything going for him, whereas the Clintons have nearly everything proving that they are not the answer.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 16, 2008 3:39 PM:This dove-tails nicely with the comment I made over on the Clinton-hand-on thread. Some folks will regard this as a "mistake," but I think that this is a smart move for Obama, just as Clinton's "hands-on" argument is a smart move for her. Clinton is running as the technocrat in this race, while Obama is running as the big-vision candidate. There are advantages to each approach, and neither candidate is necessarily stupid for taking the approach which s/he takes. We will see in a few more weeks whether more voters prefer a technocrat or a vision-guy, but given that it is not a foregone conclusion that the electorate prefers the one to the other, so it is perfectly sensible for each candidate to make a pitch that suits what each considers his/her strong points.
jds wrote on January 16, 2008 3:39 PM:Who cares?
Bill Clinton was incapacitated as a president by his own doing- his perjury and impeachment trials.
Obama won't kiss the Clintons butts.
So what?
Anonymous wrote on January 16, 2008 3:40 PM:The comparison is terrible for Obama, even on his own terms, because Reagan came in with a radical agenda which he then proceeded to enact.
Obama has nothing of the sort.
Very boneheaded move by Obama.
He makes a good point. Now if only I believed that Obama is actually a progressive...
This is really an argument for my candidate- John Edwards. ;)
Thomas McDonald, New York, NY wrote on January 16, 2008 3:43 PM:Obama's point is that we are actually still under the Reagan paradigm - the various cultural and economic values of his Republican coalition - and that he will be more able to shift the country toward a progressive political culture than Hillary would (since pragmatic Bill did not either).
Clear mind and imagine this: John Edwards just said that Reagan was a better President than Bill Clinton. Would you be reading all these creative perspectives on why this is a good message?
John McCutchen wrote on January 16, 2008 3:45 PM:And he's right!
That's why the Clinton Campaign has never been about anything more than Bill.
I am delighted that Obama has taken Bill head on because too many Democrats want this election to be all about Bill
Since that is what they want, let's give it to em
kindness wrote on January 16, 2008 3:45 PM:I'd like to support Obama, but....
What are his plans? He speaks well, but so much of his speeches are about coming together as a country. Does he not remember the sliming Republicans have given A) America & B) Democrats since Clinton was first elected? Does he really think repubs are going to roll over, play dead & support any Democratic proposal? That isn't their party any more. Republicans don't care about America. Republicans only care about rich republicans.
I will support Obama if he starts identifying what he'll do. But I won't support him if he thinks singing kumbaya together is the answer.
R Redddy wrote on January 16, 2008 3:47 PM:Pandering! This guy ain't no Ronald Reagan. His dismissiveness of all that was fought before him and his arrogance about change is too much to take. What an empty suit.
frankly0, the point is that if Reagan was an agent of transformation who inspired the country - the political cutlure as a whole - to turn in a conservative direction, Obama can be a similar kind of figure who inspires the entire country - the political culture as a whole - to move in a progressive direction.
To the average Democratic voter that's going to sound like Obama's saying "I want to be like Reagan, because blah, blah, blah". By all means, Obama, go with that argument.
In case you haven't noticed, Democratic politicians are not in the habit of trying to compare themselves to Republican Presidents who, by their lights, are so much better than a Democratic President in a very important way.
I wonder why that might be.
katie wrote on January 16, 2008 3:47 PM:He really just doesn't want democrats to vote for him eh?
Anonymous wrote on January 16, 2008 3:47 PM:http://firedoglake.com/2008/01/16/ronald-reagans-slipping-halo/
grover_rover wrote on January 16, 2008 3:48 PM:Urg, Obama isn't choosing Reagan over FDR, JFK, LBJ or any other Democrat, you are missing the point entirely. These people, with I'd say the exception of FDR, weren't transformative. Historically they also didn't have the transformative capacity that Reagan had (and yes, he was in the wrong direction). JFK was charismatic, good looking, and he did some good things, but he also did a lot of bad things that people like to overlook because he was tragically assassinated while relatively popular. LBJ managed to do a few good things, but he was in no way transformative, he didn't usher in a new era, and he had his share of bad policies too. The point here is that Reagan started something bigger than any other president in recent history, which is what Obama is saying we need for OUR side, and he is completely right. He is completely right about the Clinton record (I'd say he was actually too positive about Clinton's record), and he makes a damn good distinction between the options on the table: more of the same incrementalism, or a something altogether different, a chance for a new page and a new Democratic party that doesn't have to look back half a century to find its hero.
Anonymous wrote on January 16, 2008 3:48 PM:Edwards could steal this argument and make it his own. From Obama it's pretty sad.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 16, 2008 3:49 PM:It's absolutely correct.Under Clinton, the progressive movement and Democratic party were deal severe setbacks.
Hm, I agree with your first line there, but your second strikes me as irrelevant to the point that Sen Obama was making. Obama was not saying that Reagan did more to advance a progressive agenda than did Clinton. He is saying that Reagan's presidency was a more fundamentally transformative event in American politics than was Clinton's.
Of course, Obama is right about that. Until Reagan came along, the fundamental terms of the debate were those set by FDR - the government exists to solve America's problems and if there is a problem the question to be asked is what should the government do. This frame of debate worked very well for us Democrats, but Reagan took that advantage away from us by fundamentally altering the terms of debate. Reagan effaced the government-is-the-solution meme and replaced it with the government-is-the-problem meme. After Reagan, the question became "how can we get government to stop causing this problem?" or "how can we get government out of the way so that ordinary citizens and businesses can solve this problem?" That is a fundamentally different question than FDR's "how can the government solve this problem?" and one that has made it much harder for Democrats to compete. Clinton did nothing to change the terms of this debate and his presidency was an object lesson in trying to be as progressive as possible within the Reagan frame of reference. For Obama to take note of that fact is not to say that Reagan was a good thing. It is simply to acknowledge the reality, and thus to begin the business of reframing the terms of the debate again so that we can retake the advantage.
John R. Couch wrote on January 16, 2008 3:51 PM:You have got to be kidding, Sen. Obama. Reagan was more of a positive influence than Pres. Clinton? Ha, ha, ha. Reagan was a corporate conservative, to whom we are all indebted for the "Conservative Movement", which has brought us most of our present difficulties.
WillyK wrote on January 16, 2008 3:51 PM:Having grown up in Nevada and heavily involved in its state Democratic party, I can tell you that was a brilliant and not an accidental view. In Nevada, Reagan is an icon, his best pal was Sen. Paul Laxalt. This message will resonate with its voters.
Shelly wrote on January 16, 2008 3:51 PM:
The dem candidates' policies/ideas/points of view differ only slightly. I personally think they are all intelligent with good ideas for solving problems facing our country and moving us forward.
The problem: the President NEEDS the Congress to get things done. Period. The President needs the support of the people to stay involved and put pressure on their representatives. The Dem President is going to need a much more solid majority than we have now in order to get things done.
No matter how great Hillary's ideas are, the sad truth is that many people will not even give her the opportunity to inact those ideas simply because a Clinton is proposing them. Many Republicans are politcal weenies that would never want to be seen as "compromising" with a Clinton. I just don't think Hillary can bring in a democratic majority OR bring together people from across the isle to get things passed.
Barack, I think, can do these things. He's intelligent, has specific ideas about getting to the root of problems, and he has a specific vision. AND, he has all these things with a proven ability to bring people together to get the votes to get these things done (especially in IL and as a commuity organizer).
And a bonus, he understands the difference between COOPERATING with all walks to get things done without COMPROMISING his progressive stance.
Bottom line: I think Barack can bring in a majority and get fundamental change accomplished for the democrats like Reagan did for the Republicans. I have severe doubts Hillary could do this because she already has a built-in prejudice towards her with 50% of the country (not that that's fair) and she doesn't have those "leadership" abilities. A leader must bring people together to get things done and convince others that what they're doing is putting America on the right track.
liberal historian wrote on January 16, 2008 3:52 PM:Brilliant.
Brilliant.
Brilliant.
Obama stands out like a tall horse in a field of cows.
frankly0 wrote on January 16, 2008 3:52 PM:Having grown up in Nevada and heavily involved in its state Democratic party, I can tell you that was a brilliant and not an accidental view. In Nevada, Reagan is an icon, his best pal was Sen. Paul Laxalt. This message will resonate with its voters.
Psst- hate to tell you, but everybody else in the country is also listening.
Sorry to spoil it for you.
Michael A wrote on January 16, 2008 3:52 PM:I hate to say it, but some things are better left unsaid. Major foot in mouth on this one in my opinion, regardless of the truth of the statement and analysis.
Tom wrote on January 16, 2008 3:52 PM:Yes Steve, this is very much an argument for John Edwards. We are at the right moment for a President to take this country in a fundamentally different direction, as Reagan did in the 80s. Edwards is the candidate best prepared to do this.
I do believe Obama is a progressive. His record shows that. What I don't believe is that he's ready to fight for this transformational change. He seems to just think it'll happen if he can work his rhetorical magic with the American people. I'm hopeful, but skeptical.
Whit wrote on January 16, 2008 3:53 PM:Granted, Reagan had numerous, deep flaws. But he also really believed in a largish subset of core American ideals - a belief he was able to leverage into true rhetorical force. And he projected a calm confidence - precisely what allowed the Soviet Empire to surrender without a shot, knowing that the US would not respond rashly.
Obama's got the belief in core American ideals (arguably a larger subset - maybe even the whole package), without the delusional tendencies (Laffer curve, mistaking movie parts for memories). And he won't project H. Clinton's nervousness, which will make us safer in a still treacherous (especially after the damage Bush has done) world.
The Clinton's have met there match--and then some. I can see Hillary's team of spin doctors scratching their heads as we speak.
A mensch wrote on January 16, 2008 3:56 PM:You know what's really cool?
Reading the comment thread and seeing the way the pro-Hillary punks parse this according to their own reality.
All they hear are two things: "Reagan" & "Clinton."
They've lost every ounce of objective reasoning. They don't hear at all what he says.
Here dummies let me clue you on:
He is talking about who changed the course of American history more.
Got it dummies?
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 16, 2008 3:57 PM:
Reagan was more of a positive influence than Pres. Clinton?
Go back and listen to the interview again. That is not what Obama said. He said that Reagan put us on a fundamentally different path. Not a "better" path; a "different" path. He is right. We democrats have been on the defensive every since Reagan and Bill Clinton was no exception (hence why he was so often given to enacting the very policies which the GOP wanted - NAFTA, welfare reform, etc - and then claiming credit for them as his own accomplishments).
A worthy question to ask is whether we are able at this time to reframe the terms of the overall debate ourselves to make them more favorable to our agenda. If so, how so? To dispute that Reagan achieved this much, however, is willful blindness. Give the devil his due.
Luxor wrote on January 16, 2008 3:57 PM:So if it's about Reagan's style of leadership then it must mean sleeping through everything, be brain dead, and deny remembering anything. Obama is up for the job.
Saharag wrote on January 16, 2008 3:57 PM:I've seen the validity of a Reagan/Obama comparison for some time. Their styles and approaches have always been similar. However, I'd feel a LOT more comfortable with Obama's words if he were HELL of a lot more specific about what kind of transformational change he has in mind. I fear that folks make a lot of assumptions about him due to his past, his book and his rhetoric. However, on the national stage, he seems to be taking a stance to the right of Clinton on domestic issues from economic relief to health care. Add to that his Donnie McClurkin moment in which he shared a stage with a pretty vehement homophobe, and I cannot take it on faith that the move he wants to make right is in a direction with which I am entirely comfortable.
frankly0 wrote on January 16, 2008 3:58 PM:Granted, Reagan had numerous, deep flaws. But he also really believed in a largish subset of core American ideals - a belief he was able to leverage into true rhetorical force. And he projected a calm confidence - precisely what allowed the Soviet Empire to surrender without a shot, knowing that the US would not respond rashly.
Could you and Obama take your man-crushes on Reagan outside the Democratic Party?
Thanks!
green heron wrote on January 16, 2008 3:59 PM:He's fucking with Hillary and it looks like he's enjoying himself. This is the most clever political tidbit I've seen in a long while.
John Y wrote on January 16, 2008 3:59 PM:While correct, Obama's position is waaay too complicated (in that it takes more than 1 sentence to explain) to do him much good. I can see the Hillaryites now: Obama says Reagan was better than Clinton!!!! Heck - it's already happening in the comments here.
What he needs to say is "I want to be the Democrats' Reagan. It's our turn to redraw the political map to the progressive's advantage."
"Obama Republicans." I like the sound of that.
wasab wrote on January 16, 2008 4:00 PM:I'm missing the editorializing here...
Obama Hits Clinton: Reagan Changed Direction Of Country In Way Bill Clinton Didn't
Obama went out of his way to...
Hmmmm?
green heron wrote on January 16, 2008 4:01 PM:He's baiting Bill perhaps. He knows Bill is off the reservation these days and can't help but respond.
Anonymous wrote on January 16, 2008 4:01 PM:Green heron,
The willingness of Obamaphiles to laud anything and everything he says has been quite disappointing.
Numerous commenters have seen the problem---Obama doesn't have the specifics to match Reagan's. Another point of comparison is that Reagan spend decades on GE sponsored speaking tours inculcating his talking points into the public mind. By the time he was running in 1980, his faux lexicon was already established---e.g. "cadillac driving welfare queens".
There's nothing in Obama's message to match Reagan in any way.
I'm somewhat handicapped by not being able to watch the clip, but my sense of it from Greg's summary is that Obama's not saying Reagan was "better" in any substantive sense, just "better" at pointing the country in a new direction - which seems to be beyond reasonable dispute, whether you like that direction or not.
For a really interesting discussion of the "typology" of presidents which is fully consistent with Obama's point, see Jack Balkin's blog (excerpt below):
"some presidents are reconstructive presidents: they state new principles and encourage practices different from the constitutional order of the present (think Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, FDR, and Reagan). They tear down the old order and begin the process of building a new one. Others presidents are affiliated: they extend, articulate, and consolidate the new order they have inherited. They are faithful sons of the reconstructive presidents. (Think Madison, Monroe, Van Buren, Polk, Grant, Harrison, Teddy Roosevelt, Truman, Bush I). Then there are preemptive or oppositional presidents, who take office in the face of a political order opposed to their political views and who must triangulate and accommodate (think Andrew Johnson, Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton). Dominant forces try to take these presidents down, and scandal is often the most familiar technique. Finally, we have disjunctive presidents, whom we know in hindsight: they are the last affiliated presidents in a failing political order. The disjunctive president appears to create problems rather than solve them, and therefore is widely viewed as incompetent and ineffectual. (Think John Adams, J.Q. Adams, Pierce, Buchanan, Hoover, and Jimmy Carter.). Because of changed circumstances, disjunctive presidents cannot keep their coalitions together, hence they preside over the dissolution of the governing political and constitutional order and are usually followed by reconstructive presidents."
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/01/what-kind-of-president-will-next.html
I don't see how this is terribly surprising. There isn't a better analogy for the rationale and appeal of an Obama presidency. He's not the 'other guy' and he's an agreeable enough fellow. Unlike Regan, Obama isn't an ignoramus. So there's hope.
Obama's campaign is a carbon copy of Regan's 1980 campaign. His rhetoric has been low on policy/substance, but emphasizes broader themes. I imagine his success as a president will be predicted on using a blowout victory in the presidential race to ram his legislative agenda through Congress. Although, things get interesting if Obama doesn't win by a couple of touchdowns.
Tony T wrote on January 16, 2008 4:03 PM:Some people still call themselves Reagan Democrats. How many Clinton Republicans are there out there?
texasdem wrote on January 16, 2008 4:03 PM:Mike,
He doesn't use JFK or FDR as references because it's too far back for this electorate (and I'm speaking as a middle-aged woman); and as such, people don't appreciate the transformational nature of FDR as opposed to Reagan. As another poster put it, Reagan completely changed the political process (for ill, in my opinion) right through the Clinton years until 2006. Clinton not only was unable to do the same for the Democrats, his tenure oversaw the LOSS of Democratic representation.
kindness,
Please give me a single break. "I'd like to support Obama, but..." If you do not agree with the way Republicans have used the trajectory created by Reagan--and obviously you don't--this is what Obama is saying. This time period right now is positively ripe for that type of major transformation, only for Democrats this time. We already know from experience that the Clintons can't do it.
If you want more specifics, by all means refer to his website. Let me assure you that if you take some initiative, you will find no reference to kumbaya sing-alongs.
As to coming together as a country, the majority of my family and friends are conservative Republicans. They are not evil, but they are united in their poor opinion of Hillary Clinton. They are considering, however, voting for Obama. That's pretty unifying, right there.
Michael wrote on January 16, 2008 4:04 PM:I find it amusing that some people think this well lose Obama votes. He's targeting his core constituencies here: educated Dems, upscale Dems, independents, moderate GOPers. All of whom would easily both a) understand the point he was making, and b) respond positively to it.
The suggestion that he'll lose votes because people won't understand his point is precisely the type of arrogance and condescension that creates such a southern/rural backlash against the political left.
It's kind of amusing to see some live down to the stereotypes. Disappointing, but amusing.
Again, the point is simple: Reagan did more for the GOP than Bill did for the Dems. What the Dems need is someone to do for them what Reagan did for the GOP, not another Bill, who didn't bring the party forward at all. That doesn't mean steer the party and country towards Reagan-esque policies; it means steer the party and country towards progressive policies to the degree that Reagan did for conservative policies.
It's not hard to figure out.
Some people still call themselves Reagan Democrats. How many Clinton Republicans are there out there?
Tony T wrote on January 16, 2008 4:04 PM:Some people still call themselves Reagan Democrats. How many Clinton Republicans are there out there?
green heron wrote on January 16, 2008 4:04 PM:Your taking the whole thing far to literally. What's interesting about what Obama said is that it's interesting.
poetry wrote on January 16, 2008 4:05 PM:What are we discussing here? Change for change's sake?
Omigod, if that's the benchmark here -- and not whether that change is good change or bad change -- no one changed his nation more than Adolf Hitler did. He picked up on the German people's frustration with their horrible economic situation (rampant inflation and widespread unemployment) combined with the German people's humiliation after World War II and rode that frustration to unprecedented power.
It might be better for Obama to praise presidents who changed this country for the better -- such as Franklin D. Roosevelt -- than to praise Ronald Reagan who turned out to do more harm than good for most Americans. Reagan cut taxes for the rich, making the rich even richer, while putting the costs for those tax cuts onto the federal debt. He put our nation into big financial trouble and we are still struggling to deal with that debt today.
Zach wrote on January 16, 2008 4:05 PM:Curious as to where the clip came from as well. Not accusing you of pulling clips from Taylor Marsh like whoever did before, but it is precisely the same segment of the interview (like to the quarter second) that Taylor Marsh posted. Her clip, like a lot of Obama 'gotcha' clips circulated by Clinton supporters online, was posted to YouTube in a user's first post.
Most news outlets say who provides primary sources for reporting. It's likely that it's a clip that the RGJ put out to promote its interview; I'm just curious.
Roseann wrote on January 16, 2008 4:05 PM:Look,I understand that there is a lot of Obama love out there, but I'm feeling it less and less the more I actually see him. This Reagan reference just makes me queasy.
wasab wrote on January 16, 2008 4:06 PM:Maybe a few more Clinton Republican women than you can imagine.
Dawn wrote on January 16, 2008 4:06 PM:Are conservatives going to be turned in a progressive direction all at once, or incrementally? Anyone care to place any bets?
RandyMacon wrote on January 16, 2008 4:07 PM:Reagan brought a well-developed conservative plan and executed it with his unique, albeit infuriating style and the support of an obedient Congress. Obama has no discernible plan and not as much panache. Even if elected, he will not have enough support in Congress to pull off a transformation.
People who think hope alone can be transformative would do better to go see 'Peter Pan' and clap for Tinkerbell. That's a much better bet. In real life, I'll stick with incremental, positive change in the Clinton mode.
It's unfortunate that so many commentators are too obtuse (or uncharitable) to see what Obama's point here is. He is *not* claiming that Reagan instituted better policies than Clinton. He *is* claiming that Reagan was a more transformational president than Clinton-- so transformational, in fact, that Clinton's policies were effectively negotiations within parameters set by Reagan's presidency. He is claiming to be able to provide for progressives what Reagan achieved for conservatives, and he is suggesting, quite rightly, in my opinion, that another Clinton presidency will not fundamentally alter the political landscape, but will instead constitute another skirmish in the now-protracted turf war between post-Reagan conservatives and progressives.
slb wrote on January 16, 2008 4:08 PM:This is not the first time he has dismissed my entire generation as irrelevant. And I am supposed to find this inspirational? Sorry, I am not only not inspired, I am made damned angry. Screw you, Obama. Screw you. I want to vote for the Democratic candidate in November, but that's going to be a hard choice if he is the nominee.
Michael wrote on January 16, 2008 4:08 PM:TomT has it exactly right.
dcshungu wrote on January 16, 2008 4:08 PM:Obama: Reagan Changed Direction Of Country In Way Bill Clinton Didn'tGreg DeLassus wrote on January 16, 2008 4:09 PM:This is pure horse manure actually: (a) Reagan - the US President who oversaw the demise of the Soviet Union, effectively ending the cold war (great achievement, no doubt). In the process he and his successor racked up the largest debt in the nation's history that (b) Bill Clinton, with Bob Rubin, managed to eradicate in just 8 years after creating unprecedented wealth and wealthy kids, engineering the longest economic expansion in the nation's history and ushering in the the 'dot.com' era that has fundamentally changed every facet of post-cold world.
So, you see Senator Obama, Bill Clinton DID oversee a fundamental change direction of not only the country but also of the whole world! On the other hand, Senator, this cheap comparison of Reagan and Clinton really strikes me as transparent pandering for the Repub vote in the worst possible way... which is really sad if you'll even "go there" just to get elected.
"Obama Republicans." I like the sound of that.
Exactly. There are plenty of good reasons to support Clinton and plenty of good reasons to support Obama. One of the (many) reasons in the Obama category which I find compelling is that his presidency could (would!) spell the end of the Reagan era and the "Reagan democrats."
Right now, in my polling place, if you ask for the Republican ticket, it has the face of Lincoln and Reagan up top; those of the two folks which the MO republican party wants you to think about when you think "republican." The Democratic ballot has the faces of FDR and JFK. Those are the two that the MO democratic party wants you to think about when you think "democrat." I would bet a good bit of money that if Obama is elected president, twenty years from now the Democratic ballot would have FDR and Obama's faces, and that would be a very good thing for our party.
grover_rover wrote on January 16, 2008 4:09 PM:Oh, I should also point out, that Hillary has stated on the record (it was even in one of her paper endorsements in Iowa) that Reagan and Bush Sr were among her favorite presidents of all time. Also a fun bit of historical trivia, the whole time Hillary has been touting LBJ over MLK, the media failed to point out that back in the 60s she campaigned for southern racist Republican Barry Goldwater AGAINST LBJ! If Hillary had had her way, LBJ would have never even been elected!! Seriously, learn about your own candidate before trying to paint others as something they aren't.
edshea wrote on January 16, 2008 4:10 PM:all together now: we hate hillary...we hate her...waaaahhhhh...brace yourself, kids: she's coooooooooooommmmiiiing
Anonymous wrote on January 16, 2008 4:11 PM:Whoa,
I just listened to the clip.
This is deadly for Obama. He's not just praising Reagan's style, he's saying Reagan was right! He talks about the "excesses" of government, without question.
Wow
wow this comment section is full of obama supporters.
So last night oblahma said he would be hands off president a la george w, and today he wants to be transformative like reagan.
perhaps tomorrow he will want to be as likable as nixon and as inspiring as ford.
Obama, reach out to pugs all you want all you will get back is a knife in your eye. i for one will enjoy it when the republicans destroy you whilst you try and make out with them.
green heron wrote on January 16, 2008 4:11 PM:I know this is great politics by Obama because it's making everyone who likes Hillary very nervous.
Nathan Avinbl wrote on January 16, 2008 4:11 PM:I think Obama is right, but only because of 9/11. Does anyone remember the 200 campaign?
- Bush hadn't committed to a position on abortion. He danced circles around the issue with his talk about a 'culture of life'.
- Gay marriage and abortion weren't quite the political cudgels they used to be in the early 90's. It did feel like we had won the culture wars. Decisively.
- The Democrats started rolling up Congressional victories once the Monica Lewinsky madness had died down. I firmly believe they were on a path to taking back both chambers of Congress in 2002, but for 9/11. Remember Bush was on target to becoming highly unpopular before 9/11 and the party of the president usually loses seats in the mid-term elections. With Jeffords' defection and House Democrats 7 seats away from control, 9/11 upset the applecart in a big way.
p.s: Let's also remember that Regan's landslides never translated into control of both chambers. He did however alter the conventional wisdom and moved the rhetorical window sharply to the right. I believe Clinton did the same. However 9/11 changed the trajectory of the country.
John McCutchen wrote on January 16, 2008 4:12 PM:
We Love LA!
Obama gets major labor endorsement
The L.A. Times
The head of the politically powerful Los Angeles County Federation of Labor said Tuesday that she is endorsing Barack Obama for president.
...As executive secretary-treasurer of the federation, Durazo heads an organization of more than 800,000 union members, the biggest regional labor group in California. It includes janitors, teachers, construction and hotel workers as well as supermarket and government employees.
Durazo said her endorsement, to be formally announced today, was a personal one. She is taking a leave of absence from her job to campaign for Obama through Feb. 5, when more than 20 states, including California, will conduct primaries or caucuses.
"My passion is the labor movement, and I believe very strongly that Sen. Obama is very clear about his support for workers who want to organize, workers who want to lift themselves out of poverty, and also protect good middle-class jobs," Durazo said in a phone interview before taking an evening flight to Nevada, where she will work for Obama through the state's Saturday caucuses.
http://www.barackobama.com/2008/01/16/obama_gets_major_labor_endorse.php
You're now witnessing the burning embers of the Reagan Presidency. His, other than Nixon, may have been the most arrogant, law breaking administration we've ever had. (How many indictments?)
We had a great thing going with Bill until Al didn't seem to think he needed Bill's help, the lackluster effort and support of Kerry plus the Repubs shenagigans in Floridan and Ohio these last two elections. I think Bill Clinton's tenure was remarkable. $75 million w/ no indictments and he actually got something done over Repub opposition for the common good. It has made, however, every male in the US think twice before saying yes to a blowjob. Bad Bill! Bad , Bad Bill. Ha!
He is comparing himself to so many souls who have passed on, I'm starting to see a resemblence to Shirley Maclaine!
Michael wrote on January 16, 2008 4:13 PM:Are conservatives going to be turned in a progressive direction all at once, or incrementally? Anyone care to place any bets?
Um, there already are Obama Republicans, in Iowa and NH. That's been documented in exit polling. Hell, look at his GE matchups in Iowa, where he crushes the GOP by dividing their base:
General Election Match-ups for President:
McCain 46%, Clinton 45%
Clinton 46%, Huckabee 45%
Clinton 48%, Romney 45%
Clinton 47%, Giuliani 42%
Obama 51%, Romney 39%
Obama 51%, McCain 39%
Obama 52%, Huckabee 39%
Obama 55%, Giuliani 36%
You don't get those numbers without being massively appealing to Independents and moderate Republicans...the mirror image of Reagan.
In a recent national survey, Obama had something like 80% approval rating among Dems, similarly high among Indies (and was best-rated of any politician polled in that demograph), and a stunning 54% approval rating among Republicans.
Consider that.
kenga wrote on January 16, 2008 4:14 PM:wait.. im confused.. the excesses of the 60s and 70s.. led to Reagan.. not exactly.. it was just a bad debate by Jimmy Carter.. thats about it.Well, a certain October Surprise may have had something to do with it. Frog Leg wrote on January 16, 2008 4:14 PM:
The comparison is absolutely true. Obama's theme of hope fits right with Reagan's vision of "Morning in America."
The interesting question is whether Obama compares more closely to the 1976 Reagan (the central idea was there, but he was not quite ready) or to the 1980 Reagan (the complete package was there).
dan S wrote on January 16, 2008 4:15 PM:Reagan represented an ideology that was distinct from his Republican opponents at the time. Obama and Clinton are virtually identical ideologically.
Reagan was able to sweep into power because of the incompetence of Carter, the likeable guy who seemed nice and pure but didn't know how to govern. Bill Clinton had to fight against a new phenomenon-- the right wing media machine, which was created by Reagan when he destroyed the Fairness Doctrine. He was the first Democrat to face the tidal wave of lies coming from talk radio and the 24 hour cable networks. I will always be grateful to him and Hillary for what they endured. The tidal wave washed over them, and Bill Clinton had the most successful record of any president since WWII. Unfortunately he had to play on the defensive in the new media environment that swept the Republicans into power in 1994.
I have not decided between Obama and Senator Clinton yet, but I don't appreciate the simplification of history that Obama presents here.
On the more substantive side, wasn't one of the great disgraces of the Reagan Presidency the Iran/Contra scandal? And wasn't that quite arguably due to the detached, and soft-headed, "inspirational" style of Ronald Reagan?
Wasn't one of the constant critiques of Reagan that he would have flowery, inspirational speeches, and then botch things terribly in execution, demonstrating again and again that the fish was rotting at the head?
How, as a Progressive, can Obama look up to the man as a model for a President?
To me, what is telling is the very fact that Obama HAD to go to Reagan as an example he could use for his own Presidency. He had to be able to point to a President as detached as he would expect to be, who somehow brought about change.
Who could it be? Not JFK, because he didn't actually bring about major change. Not LBJ, because though he did bring about major change, he wasn't "inspirational". Not FDR, because though he brought about change and was inspirational, he was most certainly NOT detached or inexperienced.
So he clean ran out of Democratic examples, and had to go for Reagan. And yet Reagan is Reagan, and it's hard to see how you can tease out the supposedly wonderful things Obama wants to see in him from the truly detestable consequences of his Presidency.
TonyC wrote on January 16, 2008 4:16 PM:Hey, it worked for Tony Blair - for a while, while also pissing off a great many grassroots Labour supporters. Be careful the road you're going down here Mr. O.
Anonymous wrote on January 16, 2008 4:16 PM:This is not the first time he has dismissed my entire generation as irrelevant. And I am supposed to find this inspirational? Sorry, I am not only not inspired, I am made damned angry. Screw you, Obama. Screw you. I want to vote for the Democratic candidate in November, but that's going to be a hard choice if he is the nominee.
Irrelevant? What about ineffective for progressives? Would you argue the last 20 years have seen a string of victories for progressive policies? That's a hard argument to make. This isn't about "dismissing" anyone, it's about the factual outcome of political tactics and electoral strategies we've seen before.
Aaron M wrote on January 16, 2008 4:17 PM:Echoing what so many have already said so eloquently in the comments above.....
Obama is clearly not endorsing Reagan's policies, and has himself admitted that he does not agree with Reagan on most issues.
He is simply saying that Reagan took advantage of a moment in American history (Americans bad about their country after Vietnam, and the great "malaise", and Iran hostages etc.) and shifted public opinion in a manner that led to a mainstreaming of conservative ideology for a generation (i.e. tax cuts equal strong economy, liberals want only big government, welfare queens, quadruple spending on defense etc.). All negative things to be sure.
However, what Obama is saying (or arguing) is that he, like Reagan, has the ability to bring new voters (deeply dissatisfied with the direction our country has taken under GOP leadership) and create a new electoral majority that supports progressive policies.
Imagine if you will, a President who can do what Reagan did in the 1980s, but for the forces of good.
THAT is what Obama is trying to achieve.
Obama understands that a large percentage of Americans (blue collar, working class, religious) have supported Republican candidates based mainly on false perceptions adopted toward Republicans (patriotic, strong on national security, pro-family) during the Reagan Administration.
Obama understands that these perceptions are only that, perceptions, and have no basis in reality; and that he can best convince voters and mainstream the understanding that American liberals and progressives are deeply patriotic (support the Constitution, oppose torture) are strongest on national security (do not oppose all wars, they oppose dumb wars – including the Iraq War) and are truly pro-family (tax cuts for the middle class, universal health insurance, increase the minimum wage etc.).
Obama has demonstrated that he can transcend the negative labels and false perceptions held by so many towards Democrats, and in a manner similar to what Reagan did for Republicans in the 1980s, create a new Democratic (progressive) majority as our country continues into the 21st Century.
Read Jane Hamsher's post on this at firedoglake.com. I couldn't possibly say it better. A snippet:
"No, Ronald Reagan didn't appeal to people's optimism, he appealed to their petty, small minded bigotry and selfishness."
Nickal wrote on January 16, 2008 4:19 PM:I, for one, am glad that Clinton didn't change the country in the way that Reagan had. Reagan practically bankrupted the country, comforted the comfortable, and talked out of his ass to the point where he was claiming as fact the contents of old war movie scripts. If that is how Obama wants to change the country, will he please have the decency to wait until the grown-ups fix the country first? Also, Obama is going to find out that marginalizing an entire generation of voters is not a particularly intelligent politacal practice.
JohnG wrote on January 16, 2008 4:20 PM:A tectonic shift in politics occurs very, very infrequently. 1868 - the post civil war era, which lasted until 1932 - the New Deal, which ran until 1980 - the Reagan Era (of which Bill Clinton was a part).
Obama is the only chance we have for another major shift in allignments.
mari wrote on January 16, 2008 4:21 PM:dan S, with all due respect, there are few signs that Bill Clinton was fighting for anything in particular. He definitely wasn't fighting against Reagan's "new media" because he continued the Reagan-Bush era deregulation.
Anonymous wrote on January 16, 2008 4:21 PM:green heron wrote on January 16, 2008 4:11 PM:
I know this is great politics by Obama because it's making everyone who likes Hillary very nervous.
Remember, Obama doesn't do politics.
michael wrote on January 16, 2008 4:21 PM:Why bother with Jane Hamsher? We've already seen her head explode over the Ned Lamont endorsement. It's clear where he loyalties lie, and it's clear that she's lost the ability to evaluate the horserace in any manner that's at all detached from emotion. She's become completely irrational, unfortunately.
It's been discussed here at the cafe in the readers' blog section just this past weekend
green heron wrote on January 16, 2008 4:22 PM:For the trillionth time, he's not saying he agrees with Reagan's policies, he's saying Reagan tapped something in the culture at the time which allowed a transformation to take place. Watch the clip.
eric wrote on January 16, 2008 4:22 PM:I suspect most Obama-culters are too young to remember Reagan. He was evil. To compliment his is disgusting.
KathyF wrote on January 16, 2008 4:22 PM:First, anyone commenting here needs to watch the actual video. He also says the Reagan changed the Republican party in a way that Richard Nixon didn't.
And, if anyone thinks he's actually comparing himself favorably with Reagan's ideology, they need to pick up a dictionary.
marcus wrote on January 16, 2008 4:22 PM:here's a novel idea: Go to the original website and listen to the ENTIRE INTERVIEW then form an opinion.
or pretend you did continue your misconceptions.
green heron wrote on January 16, 2008 4:23 PM:Anonymous-Obama does politics like a master. Getting nervous?
wj wrote on January 16, 2008 4:24 PM:frankly0 refuses to admit what everybody knows. Reagan transformed the way politics was practiced in this country in a way that no one had done since FDR.
This is *not* to say that Reagan was a *good* President--if you mean by *good* implementing sound domestic and foreign policy.
This *is* to say that Reagan was more successful politically, and cast a greater political shadow, than any president since him. If you doubt this, go back and look at the supposed "achievements" of Clinton--NAFTA, balancing the budget, welfare reform, private sector growth--every one of these is dictated by the vision of government set him by Reagan, who effectively altered the possibilities for legislation.
Obama is casting himself as being capable of effecting a like transformation.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 16, 2008 4:24 PM:To me, what is telling is the very fact that Obama HAD to go to Reagan as an example he could use for his own Presidency. He had to be able to point to a President as detached as he would expect to be, who somehow brought about change.Who could it be? Not JFK, because he didn't actually bring about major change. Not LBJ, because though he did bring about major change, he wasn't "inspirational". Not FDR, because though he brought about change and was inspirational, he was most certainly NOT detached or inexperienced.
Fair enough. We are each entitled to our own opinions, but for my part I think that your analysis completely misses the point. Sen Obama could not find a precedent in JFK or LBJ because they did not fundamentally alter the trajectory of our political conversation. They were simply continuing in the terms of the debate set by FDR. He cited Reagan because Reagan was the first one to really fundamentally change the terms of the debate as set by FDR.
Why did he not mention FDR instead of Reagan? Why cite a precedant less familiar to most of your listeners in preference to one more familiar?
green heron wrote on January 16, 2008 4:25 PM:I remember Reagan well. He was evil. But Obama is not complementing Reagan's policies, he's saying he was a transformational president because he tapped something in the culture that was ripe for transformation. Watch the clip.
eric wrote on January 16, 2008 4:25 PM:JohnG wrote on January 16, 2008 4:20 PM:
A tectonic shift in politics occurs very, very infrequently. 1868 - the post civil war era, which lasted until 1932 - the New Deal, which ran until 1980 - the Reagan Era (of which Bill Clinton was a part).
Obama is the only chance we have for another major shift in allignments.
Where do you people get this "Obama is the only hope stuff"? It's creepy.
wwjb wrote on January 16, 2008 4:25 PM:I'm just going to copy this because I think it did a great job at hitting at a core point, namely, you people who are freaking out about this and trying to say that Obama hearts Reagan are too stupid to understand. Sadly, it requires a level of understanding that is above what a lot of these diehard Hillary supporters seem to possess.
Do you think it is a coincidence that time and time again surveys and exit polls show that the more educated you are the more likely you are to vote for Obama?
Michael wrote on January 16, 2008 4:04 PM:
I find it amusing that some people think this well lose Obama votes. He's targeting his core constituencies here: educated Dems, upscale Dems, independents, moderate GOPers. All of whom would easily both a) understand the point he was making, and b) respond positively to it.
The suggestion that he'll lose votes because people won't understand his point is precisely the type of arrogance and condescension that creates such a southern/rural backlash against the political left.
It's kind of amusing to see some live down to the stereotypes. Disappointing, but amusing.
Again, the point is simple: Reagan did more for the GOP than Bill did for the Dems. What the Dems need is someone to do for them what Reagan did for the GOP, not another Bill, who didn't bring the party forward at all. That doesn't mean steer the party and country towards Reagan-esque policies; it means steer the party and country towards progressive policies to the degree that Reagan did for conservative policies.
It's not hard to figure out.
hwc wrote on January 16, 2008 4:27 PM:In addition to singing the praises of Ronald Reagan, Obama says elsewhere in the interview that he is a "fiscal conservative" and that Democrats have been too "ideological" in Washington.
Which party's nomination is this guy running for?
Anonymous wrote on January 16, 2008 4:28 PM:green heron wrote on January 16, 2008 4:23 PM:
Anonymous-Obama does politics like a master. Getting nervous?
Not at all, I will be elated to elect any of the Democrats, I simply do not apply varying standards to each of the candidates.
Jason wrote on January 16, 2008 4:28 PM:Obama is exactly right, as usual. He's not speaking favorably of Reagan's policies, and any attempts to portray it as such will ring hollow for anyone who sees the actual clip. He's saying Reagan caused a major ideological alignment in this country, which he did, and that Clinton didn't swing the country back in the other direction at all. There's nobody disputing Obama on the facts here -- just Clinton fans salivating at the possibility of taking this out of context.
It will take a kind of anti-Reagan to move the country back to the left, a leader with Reagan's transformational and inspirational power but the opposite ideology. Obama is that anti-Reagan we've been looking for.
Anonymous wrote on January 16, 2008 4:28 PM:Heavens to Betsy. Fully 35-40% of the people in America who write comments on blogs think this was a mistake. Given how prefectly representative of this demographic is of the electorate at large, its clear that this comment will surely cost im the election.
Anonymous wrote on January 16, 2008 4:28 PM:The denial from the Obama camp is like a broad African River:
Obama CLEARLY agrees with Reagan's core message about big government.
That's very disturbing.
It's official: the bulk of Obama supporters are complete morons. Anything Barack says, they bray in agreement.
Pathetic.
kindness wrote on January 16, 2008 4:30 PM:Let's understand one thing...I'm voting Democrat in November even if it' Kucinich that they put up there because Republicans only support the to 1% of the tax payers & they support Corporations even more than that.
Texasdem - you are taking it way too personal. Sure, I think you're a jerk. I was a Dodd supporter till he dropped out.
My problem with Obama is exactly waht I said. What is he gonna do? Who does he expect to help him do it? Republicans won't change. If we don't win 60 Democratic Senators, nothing will happen.
Steve LaBonne wrote on January 16, 2008 4:31 PM:In addition to having a genuinely transformative message, paradoxically the candidate whom the demographic breakdowns of exit polls suggest appeals most to older, more conservative Dems- i.e. those most likely to be "Reagan Democrats"- is, you guessed it, John Edwards.
It's really too damn bad that a combination of his opponents' money advantage and the MSM's conspiracy of silence about him is preventing his campaign from reaching its full potential. There's no doubt in my mind that he's our strongest general election candidate in a lot of ways.
John wrote on January 16, 2008 4:31 PM:THis is a very gutsy move by Obama, and the more I think about it, the more I like it. It's time to take on the legacy of Bill Clinton. As much as we all like to say he was a great president (and next to W he was), he was actually pretty mediocre and was cowed by the forces REAGAN unleashed.
Wouldn't it be nice to do the opposite? FOR ONCE?
Welfare reform, NAFTA and the Defense of Marriage Act. Hey thanks, Bill! Way to stand up for progressive values!
Not since 1932 has the country been so primed for a progressive agenda. I believe Obama has the power seize this opportunity, attract disaffected GOPers and independents and keep them in our camp for a good long while.
Obama recognizes this. That's what he's talking about when he speaks of the fierce urgency of now. This could be our only chance for another generation.
And we all know there's not a chance in hell that Hillary could be OUR Reagan and attract more than 50.1% of the vote.
Think about it people!
Having been challenged here to go back and listen to the tape again, I did so. I find that Sen Obama does actually refer in a negative way to the "excesses of the '60s and '70s, AND he then goes on to suggest that Pres. Reagan was able to tap into a reaction against those "excesses". Sen. Obabm thus DOES SUGGEST that Pres. Reagan made positive change.
Malarkey!!!
I've voted for Anderson, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton twice, Gore, and Kerry - I've never voted for a Republican for president.
Nevertheless, no way in hell am I going to vote for a Democrat that uses Reagan in this way to sell himself and demean other Democrats or whose supporters embrace the same kind of religious devotion to Obama and want to engage in puritanical imposition of their "progressive" agenda in the same manner as neo-cons did with Bush and his agenda.
One might as well call them "neo-progressives."
And talk about "triangulation!"
Greg wrote on January 16, 2008 4:38 PM:All,
I just added an update from an october 2006 interview Obama did in which he made it much clearer that he disagreed with Reagan on the issues. Take a look.
texasdem wrote on January 16, 2008 4:38 PM:"Texasdem - you are taking it way too personal. Sure, I think you're a jerk. I was a Dodd supporter till he dropped out."
Hmm...now why would I take that personally?
marcus wrote on January 16, 2008 4:38 PM:watch the full clip on the RGJ website. this is a shot across the bow.
Akonitum wrote on January 16, 2008 4:39 PM:There's no higher leverage point for change than changing the center of gravity of a people's culture. Obama will shift US culture in a progressive way. Clintons won't. They'll take us deeper into the politics of cynicism, balkanization, and toxic acrimony.
wj wrote on January 16, 2008 4:40 PM:kindness,
look at Obama's record in the illinois state legislator. he passed two or three bills there that, at the outset, were universally opposed by state republicans.
to say that "republicans won't change" is to buy into the us vs. them rhetoric whose terms were set, in the modern/contemporary political era, by Reagan. Hillary Clinton and the Party Machine want to continue this paradigm, Obama doesn't.
liberal historian wrote on January 16, 2008 4:42 PM:Lol.
Go back into the archives.
Plenty there to show Bill praising Ron Reagan in 1990.
He couldn't smooch up to him enough.
I swear... the left is looking as loony to me as the right these days.
grover_rover wrote on January 16, 2008 4:46 PM:TexModDem, once again, you aren't getting it. He isn't demeaning anyone, he is just showing he actually has a firm understanding of history, and he makes a very good point, if you are astute enough to understand it...which apparently many people aren't.
I'll also point it out yet again: Hillary has stated on the record that Reagan (and Bush Sr.) were on her list of favorite presidents. She was also a diehard supporter of Barry Goldwater and campaigned AGAINST LBJ. So before you go trying to either distort what Obama has said, or just have it fly over your head yet yap about it regardless, maybe you should take a look at where Hillary's allegiance lies. Also take a look at how center-right Bill Clinton's economic policies were during his administration.
I'm seriously sick of people supporting Hillary and trashing on Obama without doing their homework on either one! Use some goddamn brain cells people! We are Democrats, we are supposed to be better than this!
pacr wrote on January 16, 2008 4:47 PM:Obama is entirely correct: Reagan changed the course of the country in a way that Clinton didn't. He is not arguing that Reagan was better, he is simply saying he had more impact. The national political dialog shifted markedly to the right during and after Reagan, and stayed there during the Clinton years. The point Obama is making, I think, is that we now have the opportunity to break with the whole Reagan/Bush era and shift the dialog back to the left ... and Hillary is too much a part of that era to accomplish that shift.
This is Obama's appeal to younger voters who are growing up with only the Reagan Republican dominated era as a frame of reference. They look at Hillary, rightly or wrongly, as part of the past thirty years, while Obama projects himself as the future.
We can split hairs all day over whether the Reagan shift was "tectonic", but it was decidedly more dramatic than anything Clinton achieved. The measure of Clinton's success was that he managed to ameliorate the damage Reagan did at a time that the country was not ready to swing back to the left. Unfortunately he was followed by the Bush disaster so his good efforts have been more than undone.
Ironically Bush has ensured that the Reagan era can now be put behind us. The country is ready to move on and Obama seems to be reading that mood in a more expansive and optimistic way than Hillary. That doesn't diminish Clinton, but it does challenge Hillary to focus more on deconstructing and replacing Reaganism.
This fight should be about articulating the framework for the next era rather than dwelling too deeply in the mess that the Reagan/Bush years have left us. This is a once in a generation opportunity to achieve a shift similar to the one Reagan initiated. Obama is saying we should recognize that and not let it pass.
wj wrote on January 16, 2008 4:47 PM:One more thing. An interview like this clarifies how Obama views "change" in contradistinction to Hillary Clinton. Clinton's view of "change" is to combat the immediate effects of the Bush administration by winning a bare majority, then duking it out for four years of legislative squabbles. But her political memory and political hope doesn't extend much further than this. Obama, however, invokes "change" to refer to a fundamental change in what it seems possible for us to achieve as progressives politically. It is a far grander ambition, but, for that very reason, it is far more important to realizing a truly progressive society.
Marc wrote on January 16, 2008 4:47 PM:Will somebody tell me what Sen. Obama has done besides give soaring, inspirational speeches (i.e. - DNC 04) that shows he can get things done? Please someone tell me. After promptly arriving in the Senate in 2005, he pledged to serve his full term and not to run for national office in 2008. Barely a year later, he did a 180 and started running for president. I'm not saying Hillary or Edwards is a better alternative, but Obama has had the chance on the national level to get things done in the Senate and he hasn't to my knowledge affected the change he thinks he will bring about in the executive branch.
Bupalos wrote on January 16, 2008 4:48 PM:>>>>There's no higher leverage point for change than changing the center of gravity of a people's culture. Obama will shift US culture in a progressive way. Clintons won't. They'll take us deeper into the politics of cynicism, balkanization, and toxic acrimony.>>>>
Bingo. Bingo Bingo Bingo. I'm glad Obama is back out making his case. Yes, a lot of people will intentionally misunderstand this. More power to them.
stryker wrote on January 16, 2008 4:49 PM:What a load of BS !! Reagan gave us the worst economic depression since the 1930's and left a whopping budget deficit that stayed all thru Bush Sr.'s term and one that Clinton finally cleaned up. Some of you folks need to go back and read the history books again. Give me a break. What, you don't remember 21% interest rates under Reagan and how it shut down practically the whole bloody country ? ?
Jeremy wrote on January 16, 2008 4:49 PM:I get the impression from the clip that Obama knows that he is saying something that is going to be taken out of context--he knows that Clinton is going to chide him for likening himself to Reagan--but he is willing nonetheless to say something nuanced. I think it's going to work. If you like him already, you probably appreciate that he "does nuance." If you don't like nuance . . . well, you probably think fondly about the Reagan presidency, in which case you appreciate Obama's having seemed to have praised him.
What's going to happen, then, is that Clinton is going to oversimplify what he has said and accuse him of being a closeted right-winger, and in his response Obama is going to be able to say, "No, that's not what I said, and this in fact is the problem with Clinton-Bush politics, since it depends upon spin, oversimplification, personal attacks, divisiveness, etc. And that's why I am running for president."
Plus, maybe this earns him a few more Independent and Republican votes in the next open primary.
Dale S wrote on January 16, 2008 4:49 PM:I didn't "find Obama's words about Reagan overly kind", and I'm no fan of Reagan. I think Obama was clear that Reagan's candidacy meshed well with the mood of the electorate at the time... that people wanted a certain kind of change, and for better or worse Reagan was empowered by the electorate to make big changes. Then he draws a valid parallel: America seems to be ready for another major change, and Clinton is not the one who can deliver the goods. People aren't looking for incremental change, nor a good administrator, no matter how intelligent or experienced he/she may be. Like 1980, people want to be able to be proud of their country again. People want to be inspired be a leader with an empowering and uplifting message. People want the opposite of what they've been experiencing with the sitting president. This time, that means someone who stands for open government and not secrecy, who's message is country first, party second, who promises not to exclude the other party from the process, who can speak and lead through inspiration instead of intimidation and fear. I could go on... but, again, the point is that for all her good qualities, HRC isn't all that. She represents more of the hyper-partisanship of the past. She doesn't inspire... she's not a true leader. She's seen as being secretive. Those perceptions, fair or not, are a big problem for her.
eric wrote on January 16, 2008 4:49 PM:I just watched this clip again, just to be sure that I understood it. He clearly is complimenting Reagan.
Starting at about :42, he says that Reagan, "tapped into what people were already feeling, which is we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and . . . entrepreneurship that had been missing."
These words might as well have been spoken by Mitt Romney. In fact, if I saw this quote, I would wager they were.
He also makes some comment about the "excessess of the 60's and 70's". It's all standard Republican talking points. And its scary.
It's like Obama liked Reagan or something. Reagan didn't do anything like that. Instead, as indicated above, "he appealed to their petty, small minded bigotry and selfishness."
Taken all together, I also ask, "which party's nomination is this guy running for?"
Lawanda wrote on January 16, 2008 4:50 PM:That cold hearted man Ronald Reagan cut funding and let the mentally ill out of the hospitals..creating the largest homeless population we ever had and still have. To those kids sitting safe and warm in front of your computers..wake up Reagan was a bastard and Obama is a fool for even mentioning him.
TexModDem wrote on January 16, 2008 4:50 PM:Akonitoum: "They'll take us deeper into the politics of cynicism, balkanization, and toxic acrimony."
This is just hillarious.
How cynical is it to oppose the war, then hedge on that opposition to promote the party's candidates, then change back and say its wrong to support any candidate who didn't oppose the war, all to promote oneself as being above politics as usual.
And these threads simply reek with toxic acrimony, misogyny, and plenty of balkanization by Obama supporters.
wj wrote on January 16, 2008 4:51 PM:Marc,
Look at his record in the Illinois Senate--especially the bill he passed on videotaping police interrogation and confessions.
Look at his attempt to institute lobbying reform--which is admittedly imperfect (Clinton, by the way, was opposed to its stronger formulation) but is nonetheless something.
But what do you think Clinton has *actually* achieved, besides voting for the Iraq War, the Iran Resolution, and setting a real discussion of health care back fifteen years by her horrid handling of the issue as first lady?
marcus wrote on January 16, 2008 4:53 PM:Guys. The clip is nearly an hour long. Listen to it. Nowhere is he saying I want to be like Reagan in terms of policy.
CMO wrote on January 16, 2008 4:53 PM:After reading these comments I finally figured out what's bothering me about this election. I would enthusiastically support Obama, if it weren't for Obama's supporters.
My favorite is the poster "thanking Bill" for the Defense of Marriage Act. Yep, and Obama's homophobic preacher friends are sure to deliver some major advances to the gay rights movement once they get the chance.
TexModDem wrote on January 16, 2008 4:55 PM:It's funny seeing Obama supporters cry about Obama's statements allegedly being taken out of context after endlessly twisting Clinton's words beyond all recognition.
The air reeks with their hypocrisy.
Mensch wrote on January 16, 2008 4:55 PM:The kid is finally starting to find his stride. This is beautiful subtle hard ball.
I am starting to think he may actually have a chance.
Anonymous wrote on January 16, 2008 4:55 PM:Yes, CMO, and don't forget about his black Jew-hating friends of friends--that's the way to increase the civility of discussion here.
Bamarama wrote on January 16, 2008 4:57 PM:Sweet! Obama just Reagan-baited the Clintons. He's being "too positive" and "too hopefull" again. Now we'll have the Hillbots intentionally misunderstanding the point and howling bloody murder. But in the end, all it will do is paint the decidedly centrist Clintons further into their very much undeserved "liberal" corner!
All with a point that is true on every level, except the "intentional misunderstanding" one that will say Obama wants more right wing policies.
That's called jujitsu folks. Have at it Hillbots.
Skreeeeeetch!!!! HE SAID REAGAN!!!! SKREEEEEETCH!
mari wrote on January 16, 2008 4:57 PM:This is seriously giving me flashbacks to Bush-Kerry debates where Kerry would say something intelligent, but wwaaayyy over the heads of most Americans, then Bush would say something stupid as hell, flat out wrong, yet simple, and people responded favorably to that. I fear for our country when so many people, even too many on the liberal side, can't keep up with simple intellectual discourse. Maybe we need to retool the education system first and wait a couple generations before we try for real change, maybe then people will be smart enough to be able to understand history and learn to think critically and make informed decisions.
Of course we'll all be dead by then and much of the planet will either be radioactive or under water. Personally, I'd rather just have some fundamental changes now. Can we please not mess this up?
eric wrote on January 16, 2008 4:57 PM:CMO wrote on January 16, 2008 4:53 PM:
After reading these comments I finally figured out what's bothering me about this election. I would enthusiastically support Obama, if it weren't for Obama's supporters.
My favorite is the poster "thanking Bill" for the Defense of Marriage Act. Yep, and Obama's homophobic preacher friends are sure to deliver some major advances to the gay rights movement once they get the chance.
You said it. It isn't all about his supporters for me, but they sure do a lot of damage.
TexModDem wrote on January 16, 2008 4:57 PM:wj: "But what do you think Clinton has *actually* achieved, besides voting for the Iraq War, the Iran Resolution, and setting a real discussion of health care back fifteen years by her horrid handling of the issue as first lady?"
Asked and answered, time and again.
But then, Obama supporters have made it clear that they will "refuse to believe otherwise."
The same kind of blind and deaf (to the facts) attitude that has infested Bush and his supporters who "refuse to believe" anything other than their preconceived fantasy world.
Michael A wrote on January 16, 2008 5:01 PM:Are you smelling your own posts tex? Hypocrisy, you have got to be kidding me. Come up with any ground breaking legislation or programs that your fearless leader implemented as a 35 year change agent? The list that you kept posting, doesn't cut it, sorry.
Even your fearless leader when interviewed only mentioned one item on the list and lied about marshalling schip through the senate as a senator. That's not a 35 year change agent in my book.
green heron wrote on January 16, 2008 5:03 PM:Hillary's supporters are determined to view this tape through their well worn filters. WATCH THE FUCKING TAPE. He's saying he's tapping into the zeitgeist, just as Reagan did.
CMO wrote on January 16, 2008 5:04 PM:Dear anonymous - you only reaffirm what I said about Obama's supporters. Feel free to visit a link or two to find out some of the things Obama's religious supporters have said about homosexuality, starting here: http://www.wilshireandwashington.com/2007/10/gay-rights-grou.html. Given the previous poster's reference to Bill Clinton and the Defense of Marriage Act, it is entirely appropriate to bring this issue up.
As for increasing the civility of the discussion - you're not helping.
wj wrote on January 16, 2008 5:04 PM:Tex,
I admit it's sly of you to accept my points that she voted for the war, voted with the Lieberman bill on Iran, and was more a hindrance than a help the first time she tried her hand at reforming health care. So those are some things we agree she accomplished. What else?
Experience, we are told, 35 years worth.
35 years of experience doing what?
Being a Governor's and President's spouse?
Oh, *legislative* experience...but Obama has *more* legislative experience than Hillary...so, I'm at a loss here...
What *has* she done?
brad wrote on January 16, 2008 5:04 PM:Jesus Joseph and Mary,
Quick! To the Batmobile! Obama just said something nice about Reagan! Burn him! He is a witch!
I'm 39 years old and I'm plenty old enough to remember Reagan. I didn't like him then and I still don't. But its insane to deny that he was the most effective movement politician in the last 30 years. I mean, its not even close.
I watched the video and his point is not based upon effectiveness not ideology, and its well taken. And as much as I didn't like Reagan, I like the Lee Atwater/Dick Morris/Karl Rove strategies even less.
So based purely on effectiveness who has the better playbook?
McCain 46%, Clinton 45%
Clinton 46%, Huckabee 45%
Clinton 48%, Romney 45%
Clinton 47%, Giuliani 42%
Obama 51%, Romney 39%
Obama 51%, McCain 39%
Obama 52%, Huckabee 39%
Obama 55%, Giuliani 36%
What part of this Political Science 101 discussion are you Clintonistas failing to grasp?
Before anyone gets too bent out of shape kindly recall that Bill CLinton often said positive things about Reagan. He invoked Reagan's name in may speeches - it drove the Republicans crazy.
Personally I think Reagan was horrible but the point that he was effective in changing the direction of the country is indisputable. It was the WRONG direction but it was the direction he intended. Hence the mess we're in.
In contrast, Bill Clinton turned the country into a different direction from what he intended. Hence... the mess we're in.
"I'd vote for Obama if it weren't for Obama supporters."
Huh?
You are all idiots.
I am an Obama supporter, and I do not support the hate from all sides on this post.
gcs wrote on January 16, 2008 5:06 PM:Nine of ten comments about this enormous non-issue are either willfully ignorant of what Obama meant or are so profoundly lacking in any comprehension skills it's laughable.
Obama makes an excellent point. And at the same time, takes his message of change right to the damned Republicans - threatening to take their beloved Ronald Reagan away from them.
If he isn't ready to kick some ass and be president, no one is.
Max wrote on January 16, 2008 5:07 PM:When you watch the whole video, without the selective editing by TPM, you see that the statement is also followed up by him saying that Kennedy was also such a change agent that tapped into the nation's zeitgeist.
So, basically: Kennedy & Reagan as change agents vs Nixon & Clinton as incrementalists.
Seems pretty objective and historical to me.
TexModDem wrote on January 16, 2008 5:07 PM:mari: "This is seriously giving me flashbacks to Bush-Kerry debates where Kerry would say something intelligent, but wwaaayyy over the heads of most Americans, then Bush would say something stupid as hell, flat out wrong, yet simple, and people responded favorably to that."
Exactly.
The similarities between Obama's Washington-outsider, a new Democrat, hope and compassion, bipartisan message and Bush's Washington-outsider, a new Republican, hope and compassion, bipartisan message are scary.
Throw in supporters who are as antithetical to criticism of their hero as Bush proponents were and as religiously and puritanically devoted to their "neo-progressive" agenda as Bushiites were to his "neo-con" agenda and you have a real horror story brewing: 8 more years of fanatical zealots with no experience imposing their puritanical vision on all who cross their path or who cross them.
McCain and Romney are becoming "no-worse" alternatives by the second.
green heron wrote on January 16, 2008 5:08 PM:Thank you gcs. The inmates are running the asylum.
frankly0 wrote on January 16, 2008 5:08 PM:OK, here is the entire quote from Obama's clip, I believe (lifted from HuffingtonPost):
"I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what is different is the times. I do think that, for example, the 1980 election was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that 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 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. I think he tapped into what people were already feeling. Which is we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."
I don't see how you look at that without concluding that Obama was expressing approval of Reagan's turning against the "excesses" of government. Nor can it be denied I think that Obama was admiring Reagan's purported "optimism" and "clarity" and "sense of dynamism" (all of which, of course, Obama has independently been trying to say is what his own Presidency would be all about).
Yeah, I'd think we can pretty safely conclude that Obama has a man-crush on Reagan, and fully intends to follow his example in many basic ways as a President.
And for those of us who think that a very large part of Reagan's allure to voters actually derived from his conscious effort to appeal to the worst angels of human nature, that is a very hard thing to swallow indeed.
wasab wrote on January 16, 2008 5:09 PM:I don’t have a problem with Obama using Reagan’s appeal to win over some of the Reagan Democrats. I just wish he had left Bill Clinton’s name out of it. That was really gratuitous and unnecessary. I also personally think that the excesses of that era really opened up the potential for alot of people, especially minorities and women.
“He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like, you know, with all the excesses of the 60’s and 70’s and government had grown and grown but there wasn’t much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. And I think people just tapped in - he just tapped in to what people were already feeling. We want clarity, we want optimism…”
Barbara wrote on January 16, 2008 5:09 PM:I worked for the federal government during the Regan administration. I found them to be a very corrupt bunch. Just the mention of him turns my stomach. He may have done a better job than GWB of snowing the public but I couldn't stand the man and I wasn't snowed by him.
I haven't looked at the video yet, but if Obamba is touting Regan's ability to snow the country while doing his dirty deeds, that sends me back to Hillary or Edwards.
TexModDem wrote on January 16, 2008 5:11 PM:Michael A: "Come up with any ground breaking legislation or programs that your fearless leader implemented as a 35 year change agent?"
So, now it has to be "ground-breaking?"
LOL with your moving goal posts.
BTW, where is Obama's "ground-breaking" legislation? Nowhere to be found.
Where is Obama's "consensus legislation" on Iraq? Nowhere and if he can only do it from the presidency, then it's an admission that neither Clinton nor any other Democrat can be blamed for not getting it through Congress - the bottom line is, however, Obama has never built a consensus in the Senate, much less Congress, on the war in Iraq, but promises that he will be a consensus builder if we just give him the big chair.
He's had plenty of opportunity to prove he's a consensus builder on the one issue that motivates his supporters and he's failed in all respects.
But don't let that obvious failure deter you from your worship.
Jake in Milwaukee wrote on January 16, 2008 5:11 PM:Wow, from the looks of it here it doesn't appear that people either listened to what Obama actually said or what Greg Sargent reported. No, Obama didn't compare himself to Reagan, and no, Obama didn't place Reagan in a positive light. He made one point, very specific, about the public mood and the country's embrace of a new direction in 1980. That's all. Perhaps people are so used to politicians' calculating use of words that they're incapable of taking someone's statements at face value?
dan S wrote on January 16, 2008 5:12 PM:mari: Thanks for your comment. As I say, Clinton was on the defensive for most of his presidency, and had to deal with a Republican Congress to get anything done. His record is far from perfect from my standpoint, including his role in futher deregulating the media. But there is no indication that Obama is perfect with respect to issues of deregulation. As we learned last night in the debate, he voted for the 2005 banking deregulation, allowing credit card companies to raise interest over 30%.
Interestingly, Hillary voted against it.
franklyO
"They felt like with all the excesses of the 60s and the 70s..."
He's talking about the voters in the 80 election. "They" felt this way. Obama is not saying he agrees. He's saying "they"--the voters--were feeling this and Reagan tapped it.
Becca wrote on January 16, 2008 5:14 PM:This diminishing of both Clintons with a paean of sorts to Reagan is what I would call unnecessary roughness and only hurts the party. Also, not in keeping with his brand, you know?
The guy knows how to play hardcore politics. He got "stewed" in them Chicago-Springfield style.
TexModDem wrote on January 16, 2008 5:14 PM:wj: "I admit it's sly of you to accept my points that she voted for the war, voted with the Lieberman bill on Iran, and was more a hindrance than a help the first time she tried her hand at reforming health care."
I admit its sly of you to misrepresent what I said, just as Obama and his supporters have continually misrepresented what Clinton has said and done.
But I bask in the knowledge that Obama supporters are consistently undermining his candidacy every time they post an arrogant, self-righteous, snarky, demeaning, and dishonest comment, which pretty much means every single comment they post.
Keep it up!
Clinton and Edwards, not to mention the GOP, appreciates your work!
P J Evans wrote on January 16, 2008 5:15 PM:If Obama wants to present himself as the Second Coming of Reagan (like all the Publicans who are trying to avoid Bush), then maybe he should have joined the GOP already.
Not voting for him, or for Clinton, maybe even if one of them gets nominated. Neither one is what I want to see in the White House.
TexModDem wrote on January 16, 2008 5:17 PM:brad: "What part of this Political Science 101 discussion are you Clintonistas failing to grasp?"
Must've missed those New Hampshire polls.
Please go back and repeat Political Science 101 before you make an even bigger ass of yourself.
All those independents and Republicans voting for Obama now will vote for the Mittster or the McCainster when they step into that booth and are confronted with Obama's inexperience and his supporters' acrid campaigning on his behalf.
frankly0 wrote on January 16, 2008 5:17 PM:no, Obama didn't place Reagan in a positive light.
And what about the part where he says that Reagan "tapped into what people were already feeling. Which is we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."
Are you really going to seriously maintain that Obama isn't praising Reagan here? Most especially when it is those very qualities that Obama claims he would likewise bring to the Presidency?
And the worst part of that is that Obama directly connects those feelings of optimism etc. to Reagan's goal of eliminating the "excesses" of the government, and the sixties and seventies (talk about scattershot attacks!).
eric wrote on January 16, 2008 5:18 PM:The larger point here is that Obama is just plain wrong. Reagan didn't "[tap] into what people were already feeling, which is we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and . . . entrepreneurship that had been missing."
He tapped into hate, blame and distrust. He opened his campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, "where three civil rights workers were murdered in one of the 1960s' ugliest cases of racist violence. It was a ringing declaration of his support for "states' rights" — a code word for resistance to black advances clearly understood by white Southern voters." (quote from Time)
He was a union busting, gay hating, race bating, evil man. If you are going to compliment him, at least be honest about it. Yes Reagan was a successful politician, but it wasn't about hope, optimimism or entrepreneurship.
Common Sense wrote on January 16, 2008 5:18 PM:``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. It is fitting that a piece of the Berlin Wall adorns the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington.''
HRC supporter heads should explode in 3...2...1....
wj wrote on January 16, 2008 5:18 PM:TexModDem admits that Hillary has done nothing in the Senate except vote for the war in Iraq and the recent bill on Iran.
He also admits that her purported 35 years of experience is a talking point and nothing more.
She was the wife of a Governor and a President.
She has less legislative experience than Obama.
Tex refuses to allow that Obama's capacity to unite Democrats with Republicans in the Illinois state senate portends anything about his political skills.
What next, shall we discuss our various candidates' levels of PAC contributors? I feel that Hillary would not fare well in such a comparison.
TexModDem wrote on January 16, 2008 5:19 PM:Angry Vet: "I am an Obama supporter, and I do not support the hate from all sides on this post."
And yet we've never seen you take an Obama supporter to task for their dishonest and acrid comments about Clinton, her supporters, or her defenders.
Max wrote on January 16, 2008 5:19 PM:The video is a selectively-edited hatchet job.
Watch the full video: http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080115/VIDEO/80115026&oaso=news.rgj.com/breakingnews
Why did TPM cut out the line where he talks about how Kennedy was a similar change agent historically?
Or where he says he wants to roll back the Bush tax cuts?
pjsauter wrote on January 16, 2008 5:20 PM:I’m sorry. I don’t give a shit how he qualifies it. I can’t abide anybody including Reagan amongst “great presidents.”
eric wrote on January 16, 2008 5:20 PM:Anonymous wrote on January 16, 2008 5:13 PM:
franklyO
"They felt like with all the excesses of the 60s and the 70s..."
He's talking about the voters in the 80 election. "They" felt this way. Obama is not saying he agrees. He's saying "they"--the voters--were feeling this and Reagan tapped it.
Exactly. And those excesses were things like welfare and civil rights. Whites in the south resented these things. Why does Obama refer to this favorably?
DanS,
You have it exactly, 100% backwards.
Obama voted AGAINST the 2005 banking deregulation bill.
Clinton voted FOR the 2005 banking deregulation bill.
Look it up.
"But it was cringe-inducing to hear another Edwards apology for a wrong vote--this one in response to Tim Russert's question on the bankruptcy bill.
Hillary, too, said she's sorry for voting for the 2001 bill. “I was happy that it never became law,” she added oddly. And then she pointed out that she didn’t vote for the 2005 bill.
Obama sounded best here, saying: "I opposed them both. . . . They were pushed by the credit card companies. They were pushed by the mortgage companies. And they put the interests of those banks and financial institutions ahead of the interests of the people.”
http://www.progressive.org/mag_rc011608
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 16, 2008 5:22 PM:When you watch the whole video, without the selective editing by TPM, you see that the statement is also followed up by him saying that Kennedy was also such a change agent that tapped into the nation's zeitgeist.
Does he really? I would have to disagree with him about JFK. In what way did the zeitgeist shift during JFK's tenure? I just do not see it. This is a small point, however. Obama's larger point is still fundamentally sound.
frankly0 wrote on January 16, 2008 5:23 PM:HRC supporter heads should explode in 3...2...1....
Jesus F Christ, so-called "Common Sense", you quoted from Bill Clinton's EULOGY of Ronald Reagan.
Don't you think that in that context you'd see a lot of praise, not necessarily entirely candid, of the deceased? Obama's problem is that h