Obama: Reagan Changed Direction Of Country In Way Bill Clinton Didn't

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.

Thomas McDonald, New York, NY wrote on January 16, 2008 3:39 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.

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.

Steve LaBonne wrote on January 16, 2008 3:40 PM:

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).

Anonymous wrote on January 16, 2008 3:44 PM:

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 wrote on January 16, 2008 3:47 PM:

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.

green heron wrote on January 16, 2008 3:55 PM:

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.

retr2327 wrote on January 16, 2008 4:02 PM:

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

Nathan Avinbl wrote on January 16, 2008 4:03 PM:

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.

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?

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.

wj wrote on January 16, 2008 4:07 PM:

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't

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.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 16, 2008 4:09 PM:

"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

zane wrote on January 16, 2008 4:11 PM:

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

fillphil wrote on January 16, 2008 4:12 PM:

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!

MomentOfTruth wrote on January 16, 2008 4:12 PM:

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:

pollster

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.

frankly0 wrote on January 16, 2008 4:16 PM:

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.

Dawn wrote on January 16, 2008 4:18 PM:

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.

Anonymous wrote on January 16, 2008 4:29 PM:

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!

John R. Couch wrote on January 16, 2008 4:35 PM:

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!!!

TexModDem wrote on January 16, 2008 4:37 PM:

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?

bvd wrote on January 16, 2008 5:04 PM:

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.

Angry Vet wrote on January 16, 2008 5:05 PM:

"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.

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.

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?

brad wrote on January 16, 2008 5:20 PM:

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 he's in the middle of Democratic primary and he utters this fulsome praise of Reagan.

wj wrote on January 16, 2008 5:24 PM:

frankly0,

You are tiresome. Of *course* Obama was placing Reagan in a positive light, to the extent that Reagan was politically able to capture the imagination of the populace in a way no one has done since. NO ONE disagrees with this. As many have pointed out, BILL CLINTON, HILLARY CLINTON, INC. have expressed their admiration for Reagan on these same grounds.

The issue is that Obama is casting himself as the Democrats Reagan, whereas Hillary is willing to operate squarely within the political framework whose possibilities were delimited by Reagan himself.

Also, your fetish for repeating Obama's phrase about government "excesses" is frankly nauseating. What, do you think that neither of the Clinton's have ever spoken this way about the LBJ or Carter administrations?

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 16, 2008 5:24 PM:

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.

I hope that everyone else appreciated the delicious irony of this post as much as I did. It really was a jewel.

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.

Er, yes we have. More than once, in fact. Perhaps you have not, but that tells us more about yourself than it does about Angry Vet.

TexModDem wrote on January 16, 2008 5:24 PM:

Common Sense: "HRC supporter heads should explode in 3...2...1...."

Yeah, a quote from a dedication ceremony is so analogous to the campaign drivel coming from Obama.

LOL.

Sorry, no heads exploding, since your bomb is a dud.

Becca: "The guy knows how to play hardcore politics."

Which would be fine - hardball politics is what the Dems need, not Kumbayah-man - but this is exactly the type of politics that Obama supporters claim Obama is above.

LOL.

Diogenes wrote on January 16, 2008 5:25 PM:

Il Duce made the trains run on time, but I'm not going to hold him up as an example of how I'll govern. Reagan screwed the poor and the middle class, and left us with the bills. And he did it all while dozing in his chair, dreaming of his heroic combat service in WW2.

Anonymous wrote on January 16, 2008 5:26 PM:

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?

Because a progressive version of a movement that swings the nation, only this time to the left instead of the right (which is what Reagan did, swinging the nation to the right) is very much needed, and precisely the failures of the 90s and the Clinton's. I understand and respect the massive onslaught they faced and were able to hold their own against, but it, and they, where not about changing the nation and the culture in a movement sort of direction, but simply fending off the GOP movement which Reagan ushered in.

I think that ushering in a progressive Democratic movement to swing the country back is why Obama is a figure and and candidacy which is more and more winning my vote and support.

markg8 wrote on January 16, 2008 5:27 PM:

Jimmy Carter was about as conservative a Democrat as one could get in 1980. He'd spent years trying to balance the budget while the Kennedy-Tip O'Neill-Joe Califano (Carter's first Sec. of HEW) wing of the party demanded ever increasing outlays for unemployment and other entitlements as stagflation and unemployment worsened.

There were a lot of DC Dems who were upset with the "interloper"
who wasn't letting them reap what they saw as their just rewards, their due, after driving Nixon from office and putting up with "veto pen" Jerry Ford. They wanted to fully fund the Great Society programs that Nixon and Ford had stifled.

Those were bad economic times about to get worse under Reagan. We were paying 4 times the price for a gallon of gas as we were at the beginning of the decade. The price of everything was going up.
Social Security really was headed for bankruptcy until the bipartisan deal of 1983. The middle class wanted somebody who believed in our future, with a sense of optimism, economic security and well paying jobs. Not a tax increase to pay for another $25 a week in unemployment benefits.

Our party was so out of touch Reagan was able to make easy hay out of "tax and spend Democrats".

Hillary Clinton is a false hope. She's been beaten down so much she, like Bill, will triangulate in retreat, trying like hell to pick and choose small legislative fights she can win like an insurgent.

Obama wants more than that. He wants to change the tone - like Reagan - with a progressive landslide to make the massive changes this country needs in healthcare, energy and foreign policy.

He can get that huge mandate, I've talked to many Republicans and "Reagan Democrats" who will support him but will fight Hillary and everything she tries to do tooth and nail. Even if they were to propose the exact same legislation.

TexModDem wrote on January 16, 2008 5:27 PM:

wj: "TexModDem admits that Hillary has done nothing in the Senate except vote for the war in Iraq and the recent bill on Iran."

wj admits he or she is a liar.

brad wrote on January 16, 2008 5:28 PM:

TexModDem,

I'll keep it really simple for you. Your candidate has no chance of winning a general election because no won will vote for her except for a subset of the Democratic party base. She cannot and will not pull in enough moderates/independents either win or to govern.

DancingBear wrote on January 16, 2008 5:28 PM:

Anyone watch the whole video? In fact he does credit JFK as a transformer as well.

eric wrote on January 16, 2008 5:28 PM:

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.

Nice catch. I didn't think that sounded right.

Keith wrote on January 16, 2008 5:28 PM:

I think he tapped into what people were already feeling.

Apparently the HRC supporters have reading comprehension problems. He's not citing with approval Reagan's policies, he's saying that Reagan was acutely aware of what people were thinking and tapped into that to bring his own policies. The judgment isn't on Reagan's policies but his ability to connect with the American people wanted and use their desires to bring about change. Again, no judgment on the type of change he brought about.

Of course, if you are predisposed to Clinton, you can't possible accept this reading of the sentence because it's not possible that any Republican had anything to offer. Hell Greg has updated the post but you folks have settled into your narrative and you have no interest in admitting that you are overreacting/overreaching in your analysis.

Partsianship is an ugly thing.

lestatdelc wrote on January 16, 2008 5:28 PM:

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.

Exactly. Which we see some in this thread (franklyo) edging towards. Wether such misinterpretation and recasting what Obama said is unintentional myopia, or deliberate spin and attack against Obama will vary, but I fully expect it.

wj wrote on January 16, 2008 5:29 PM:

TexModDem,

Yes, I do admit that Hillary is a liar, though I don't appreciate you taking a cheap shot at her androgynous appearance.

John Y wrote on January 16, 2008 5:29 PM:

I'm the one who brought up the Defense of Marriage Act. I can't understand the equivocation by Hillary supporters of FEDERAL LEGISLATION SIGNED INTO LAW with the homophobic opinions of one or two Obama supporters. Are we going to hold Hillary responsible for the personal views of every one of her supporters, starting with say, ROBERT JOHNSON?

Jake in Milwaukee wrote on January 16, 2008 5:30 PM:

Well, if you consider that Bill Clinton presided over the presidency during the greatest Republican landslide victory in 40 years, perhaps he WAS a transformational president, in a sense.

Again, I ask. Why aren't some of you listening to what Senator Obama said? This isn't about what we think about Reagan, or even Clinton. It's about what the 1980 and 1984 elections were about.

And, frankly, "excess of the 60s and 70s" could be a reference to a stupid war, out of control inflation, and presidential illegalities.

Jan wrote on January 16, 2008 5:30 PM:

It appears to me that if Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, Senator Obama won't even be able to bring his own supporters aboard.

So much for his ability to bring us all together.

hope4usa wrote on January 16, 2008 5:30 PM:

I am fed up with his pandering to Republicans. Reaching across the aisle to these people is EXACTLY what keeps this country in the mess it is in. If Obama is the candidate, I'll vote Republican for the first time in my life. Why not? He's just Republican lite.

TexModDem wrote on January 16, 2008 5:31 PM:

markg8: "He can get that huge mandate."

Would that be like he got that huge consensus in Congress on how to end the war in Iraq?

Hillarious.

Anon 1 wrote on January 16, 2008 5:33 PM:

I think Rush Limbaugh is going to accuse Obama of stealing his analysis. Rush has been promoting this idea of Reagan coalition to Mitt Romney. And Obama has fallen for it. Obama appears to be going after Republcans to help him win this nomination.

In the Nevada debate both Obama and Clinton were asked a question relating to how they view the job of the President. Obama was not concerned about the details of the job. He felt the job of the President is to have a vision for the country. Clinton, on the other hand felt you need to have a working knowledge of the government in order to make things happen.

I am not sure if what we need is change now. I think Obama wants to reshape America to his likeness and the likeness and teachings of his Church mission.

Under a Obama with his utopian vision, America economy will go down in the dumps. I hope he starts to talk about economic issues soon. Right now I need to pay bills, inspiration can't buy me a home.

Hillary Clinton will make a great transition president in times of economic crises. I only hope she does not only look at giving out money but try to limit waste and offer some tax cuts.

wj wrote on January 16, 2008 5:33 PM:

Jan,

No one here supporting Obama has pledged not to vote for Hillary, so far as I can tell.

hope4usa,

Imagine you are a Republican in 1979. The Eve of the Reagan Revolution. You might say: "I am fed up with Reagan's pandering to Democrats. Reaching across the aisle to these people is EXACTLY what keeps this country in the mess it is in."

Of course, you'd be EXACTLY wrong.

TexModDem wrote on January 16, 2008 5:34 PM:

brad: "Your candidate has no chance of winning a general election because no won will vote for her except for a subset of the Democratic party base."

Exactly what they said about Bill when he was trailing both Perot and Bush.

How'd that turn out?

You are either a child with no experience with the American voting public or an idiot (or both).

eric wrote on January 16, 2008 5:35 PM:

Diogenes wrote on January 16, 2008 5:25 PM:
Il Duce made the trains run on time, but I'm not going to hold him up as an example of how I'll govern. Reagan screwed the poor and the middle class, and left us with the bills. And he did it all while dozing in his chair, dreaming of his heroic combat service in WW2.

LOL

Although this may need some explanation for the kiddies here. Il Duce was Benito Mussolini, Italian dictator and ostensibly the inventor of Fascism.

The illusion to Reagan dreaming of his heroic combat is a reference to the fact that Reagan was ACTING in war movies instead of fighting in WWII, although we were never sure if he knew the difference.

Jake in Milwaukee wrote on January 16, 2008 5:36 PM:

Oh, and the personal attacks on people engaged in our democratic system continue.

"Child"? "Idiot"? Really?

TexModDem wrote on January 16, 2008 5:37 PM:

wj: "No one here supporting Obama has pledged not to vote for Hillary, so far as I can tell."

Then you just haven't been paying attention.

Nor have you paid attention to what "progressives" did to Gore in 2000.

LOL selling your BS, though.

wj wrote on January 16, 2008 5:37 PM:

TexModDem,

Why is it that you refuse to answer any substantive questions about your chosen candidate's legislative record, instead making snarky comments about those people supporting Obama?

frankly0 wrote on January 16, 2008 5:37 PM:

Of *course* Obama was placing Reagan in a positive light, to the extent that Reagan was politically able to capture the imagination of the populace in a way no one has done since. NO ONE disagrees with this. As many have pointed out, BILL CLINTON, HILLARY CLINTON, INC. have expressed their admiration for Reagan on these same grounds.

What I'd like to see from you or any other Obama supporter is any reference in which Hillary, in particular, declares that she is going to take Ronald Reagan as representing any kind of important example of the sort of Presidency she wishes to bring into being.

What you can't get around is that Obama is using Reagan as such an example -- and his praise of Reagan's inspiring "optimism" etc., makes that unquestionable. The man really does want to follow in Reagan's footsteps. You and Obama of course want to act as if Obama will somehow magically tease out the "good" parts of Reagan from the "bad" parts, but that's because you believe that Obama has mystical powers.

You see, that would be the point.

DancingBear wrote on January 16, 2008 5:38 PM:

pjsauter wrote:

I’m sorry. I don’t give a shit how he qualifies it. I can’t abide anybody including Reagan amongst “great presidents.”

Okay. Of course, Obama did no such thing.

TexModDem wrote on January 16, 2008 5:38 PM:

Keith: "Apparently the HRC supporters have reading comprehension problems."

Now, that is deliciously ironic.

frankly0 wrote on January 16, 2008 5:38 PM:

[The last sentence of my previous post got in by mistake. Omit it.]

Anonymous wrote on January 16, 2008 5:39 PM:

I'm not convinced that Obama is any more progressive in intent than Clinton, but I have a lot more faith in his ability to push progressive policies through.

eric wrote on January 16, 2008 5:39 PM:

Keith wrote on January 16, 2008 5:28 PM:
I think he tapped into what people were already feeling.

Apparently the HRC supporters have reading comprehension problems. He's not citing with approval Reagan's policies, he's saying that Reagan was acutely aware of what people were thinking and tapped into that to bring his own policies. The judgment isn't on Reagan's policies but his ability to connect with the American people wanted and use their desires to bring about change.

I understand it just fine. The point, again, is that Obama IS WRONG. Yes Reagan was a successful politician, but it wasn't about hope, optimimism or entrepreneurship. It was about appealing to the worst in people.

Dale S wrote on January 16, 2008 5:39 PM:

Marc - why don't you do a little more research into Obama's history and figure this out for yourself? Go read his books. Check out his accomplishments when he was a state senator. Consider all the great work he did as a grassroots community organizer. Looking at those things, you'll see he delivers the goods. If you look into his campaigns for the state and U.S. Senate runs, you'll see his message hasn't changed. I have little problem with a guy who states that he intends to be a full-term senator for a while, and then changes his mind. I have a bigger problem with a guy like Edwards, for example, when his '08 campaign is a completely different song and dance from how he campaigned 4 years ago. You obviously have access to the internet. Why don't you type in the words "Obama's accomplishments"? without any effort, I found this:

Some legislative triumphs from Illinois:
• A law requiring confessions made to the police to be videotaped. This was initially opposed by, well, everyone, but Abeam prevailed and it passed the Senate by 35-0.
• He passed Illinois' first earned income tax credit
• He passed the state's first campaign finance reform law in 25 years, making Illinois one of the "best in the nation" on campaign reform, according to the Washington Post.
• He earned these comments from a Republican Illinois legislator: 'Taken together, these accomplishments demonstrate that Abeam has what Dullard, the Republican state senator, calls a "unique" ability "to deal with extremely complex issues, to reach across the aisle and to deal with diverse people." In other words, Obama's campaign claim that he can persuade us to rise above what divides us is not just rhetoric.

So, Marc, I think with a little effort you could find even more noteworthy things about Obama's lifetime of accomplishments. But, you might have to give up your opposition to Abeam in the process. That is, unless you're a committed Republican and just want to throw mud at any of the Democratic candidates. You're wasting your time, but, feel free.

TexModDem wrote on January 16, 2008 5:40 PM:

Jake in Milwaukee: "Oh, and the personal attacks on people engaged in our democratic system continue."

Yeah, but nothing personal about "Hitlery," right?

TexModDem wrote on January 16, 2008 5:42 PM:

wj: "Yes, I do admit that Hillary is a liar, though I don't appreciate you taking a cheap shot at her androgynous appearance."

wj admits wj has no reading comprehension, thus this stilted reply.

wj also admits wj is a liar, this stilted reply necessary because wj is a moron when it comes to grammar.

Jake in Milwaukee wrote on January 16, 2008 5:42 PM:

Yeah, but nothing personal about "Hitlery," right?

Um, actually, no. Run a "find" function in your web browser. Not one reference of aforementioned "Hitlery."

Common Sense wrote on January 16, 2008 5:43 PM:

So in other words he was lying about Reagan's optimism? You folks really are sad if you can't recognize that, even if you disagree with his policies and politics, which I do, Reagan was a transformative figure. I recognize that HRC is a terrific technocrat, one of the smartest individuals in American politics, and I can say that as an Obama supporter. She's got other failings that outweigh those benefits, but I'm not going to pretend that she isn't a formidable individual or someone to be admired.

Likewise, I find it hard to believe that you folks can't recognize Reagan's appeal. Not on policy, but on a leadership. Same with FDR. I can't imagine listening to a Republican dismiss FDR as a leader. Or Churchill. Thatcher. MLK. The list goes on and on. You may not agree with their positions or policies, but you'd be hard pressed to make an argument about their leadership. Not saying that you folks won't, but it's a disingenous argument that stems from partisanship and not from rationality.

brad wrote on January 16, 2008 5:43 PM:

TexModDem,

You are a terrific spokesperson for your candidate and I mean that sincerely and without irony. Keep making friends and representing that positive, confident campaign of Hillary Clinton. I'll be phone-banking for Barack Obama tonight with the support of my local service workers union. Should be a good time.

TexModDem wrote on January 16, 2008 5:44 PM:

Anonymous: "I'm not convinced that Obama is any more progressive in intent than Clinton, but I have a lot more faith in his ability to push progressive policies through."

You mean like he pushed that consensus on ending the war in Iraq through Congress where he actually had a vote on legislation and membership in legislative committees?

Yes, Obama has such an outstanding success rate in consensus building in Congress.

Absolutely riveting fiction from Anonymous and the Obama supporters.

wj wrote on January 16, 2008 5:45 PM:

frankly0,

You are failing to disentangle specific policy proposals from political success. Neither Obama nor Clinton wants to advocate for Reagan's policies. (Though I think a case could be made that Obama is more anti-Reagan here than Clinton--see last night's debate on the Bankruptcy reform bills...)

Obama *is* claiming that Reagan's political success--his ability to unify independents, middle-of-the-road Democrats, and Republicans--was transformational in its power and longevity. I don't think anyone would argue against this.

He is saying that he can be for the Democratic Party progressives what Reagan was for the Republican Party conservatives. He is also saying that Clinton operates still within the shadow set by Reagan, whereas he will be able to unify enough Independents and moderate Republicans under the Democratic banner to create a long lasting shift in the way politics is envisaged.

Do you understand how this is *not* saying that he agrees with Reagan's policies?

wj wrote on January 16, 2008 5:45 PM:

frankly0,

You are failing to disentangle specific policy proposals from political success. Neither Obama nor Clinton wants to advocate for Reagan's policies. (Though I think a case could be made that Obama is more anti-Reagan here than Clinton--see last night's debate on the Bankruptcy reform bills...)

Obama *is* claiming that Reagan's political success--his ability to unify independents, middle-of-the-road Democrats, and Republicans--was transformational in its power and longevity. I don't think anyone would argue against this.

He is saying that he can be for the Democratic Party progressives what Reagan was for the Republican Party conservatives. He is also saying that Clinton operates still within the shadow set by Reagan, whereas he will be able to unify enough Independents and moderate Republicans under the Democratic banner to create a long lasting shift in the way politics is envisaged.

Do you understand how this is *not* saying that he agrees with Reagan's policies?

Matthew wrote on January 16, 2008 5:45 PM:

Obama ranking Reagan higher than Clinton?! Has he no memory of Iran-Contra, Ed Meese, and the corruption that Reagan brought with him to the White House?! Everything else aside, Obama should (1) Apologize and/or (2) Withdraw from the Democratic party.

Democrats everywhere should denounce Obama.

eric wrote on January 16, 2008 5:45 PM:

So in other words he was lying about Reagan's optimism?

Yes. What part about opening your campaign for president in Philadelphia, Mississippi is an appeal to optimism? Maybe it gave southern racists some hope, but for me, not so much.

eric wrote on January 16, 2008 5:47 PM:

Matthew wrote on January 16, 2008 5:45 PM:
Obama ranking Reagan higher than Clinton?! Has he no memory of Iran-Contra, Ed Meese, and the corruption that Reagan brought with him to the White House?! Everything else aside, Obama should (1) Apologize and/or (2) Withdraw from the Democratic party.
Democrats everywhere should denounce Obama.

Amen

TexModDem wrote on January 16, 2008 5:47 PM:

wj: "Why is it that you refuse to answer any substantive questions about your chosen candidate's legislative record, instead making snarky comments about those people supporting Obama?"

The legislative record of my chosen candidate, Edwards, is not under scrutiny.

You assume too much.

Pretty typical of Obama supporters.

Like their assumption, without any proof whatsoever, that he will be a consensus builder and despite his absolute failure to build any such consensus on his most important issue: Iraq.

Jake in Milwaukee wrote on January 16, 2008 5:48 PM:

Democrats everywhere should denounce Obama.

Wow! Everyone has psychic abilities now! Nineteen-Eighty. That's, like, wow, way before Reagan's sleepy ineptitude of Iran-Contra.

Publicus wrote on January 16, 2008 5:48 PM:

I realize that HRC supporters CAN'T acknowledge his point, because to do so is to cede the change mantle to him. Given that this is a change election, she'd be putting herself on the wrong side of what America wants right now.

I mean she's running around using Republican-tactics, Republican-talking points, but the mere mention of Reagan's ability to tap into what folks wanted to bring about change (whether you agree with that change or not) is blasphemy. You folks will have credibility when you start calling HRC on her Rovian tactics. Until then, your comments will be viewed as partisan bickering.

wjj wrote on January 16, 2008 5:49 PM:

TexModDem,

Of course I understand that you were accusing *me* of lying and not Hillary. I was just trying to appeal to your robust sense of humor.

wjj wrote on January 16, 2008 5:51 PM:

TexModDem,

If you really are an Edwards supporter, then it makes much more sense for you to support Obama as well. His progressive bona fides are much stronger than Clinton's.

It seems to me, though, that you are very angry.

TexModDem wrote on January 16, 2008 5:52 PM:

brad: "You are a terrific spokesperson for your candidate . . ."

Since I've not posting anything promoting Clinton as a candidate and since my candidate is Edwards who I certainly haven't spoken on, your comment is more than a little inane, but see my comment to wj on this little issue.

TexModDem wrote on January 16, 2008 5:54 PM:

Publicus: "I mean she's running around using Republican-tactics . . . "

I'm sure you mistyped and meant to type . . . "I mean Obama's running around using Republican-tactics . . ."

There. Fixed.

willyjsimmons wrote on January 16, 2008 5:55 PM:

1.) No way in holy hell that Obama is attempting to reach out to Dems with this crap.

2.) He's pandering.

Shall I provide Obama supporters with an analogy?

A black man praising Raygun, is like a Jewish man praising Hitler.

Do.Not.Want.

Simple as that. No need for several paragraphs of BS.

You're all welcome.

Captain Obvious wrote on January 16, 2008 5:55 PM:

Matthew:

Funny, I don't recall him ranking Reagan above anyone. Perhaps you were watching a different clip.

I think you and a lot of folks on this thread hear Reagan and it's like a dog whistle. Perhaps you should step back, relax and watch the clip again. Because it doesn't say any of the things you seem to imply that it does.

And if it does, please explain to me how Clinton fundamentally changed the trajectory of our politics in a way different than Reagan.

Jake in Milwaukee wrote on January 16, 2008 5:57 PM:

A black man praising Raygun, is like a Jewish man praising Hitler.

LOLOL! Are you serious?

dan S wrote on January 16, 2008 5:57 PM:

brad: Thank you for correcting me. I did have it mixed up. But the facts aren't as clear cut as Obama might like. From a Mother Jones article entitled "Campaign Contributions from Credit Card Companies? Priceless":

Obama, who made a strong floor speech in opposition to the 2005 bankruptcy bill, nonetheless voted against a key amendment that would have put a cap of 30 percent on interest rates. Financial firms, according to Ken Silverstein’s much-discussed Harper’s article “Barack Obama Inc.,” “constitute Obama’s second biggest single bloc of donors.”

http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2007/07/campaign_contributions_credit_card_companies.html

I am not against Obama. I am undecided. But I think he is no more pure than the Clintons. He just hasn't been around as long. And Clinton did vote to cap the interest rates.

eric wrote on January 16, 2008 5:58 PM:

wjj wrote on January 16, 2008 5:51 PM:
TexModDem,

If you really are an Edwards supporter, then it makes much more sense for you to support Obama as well. His progressive bona fides are much stronger than Clinton's.

One thing that we DO know for sure, Edwards isn't going around singing the praises of Reagan. And to be clear, he also isn't singing the praises of Reagan's way of tapping into the feelings of people, either. You don't cite Reagan in a favorable light ever, in any way, and keep my respect.

Anonymous wrote on January 16, 2008 5:59 PM:

Obama paraphrases what the VOTERS were thinking at the time, not what he was thinking. He says Reagan tapped these feeling, and because he did, he was able to take the country in a radically different direction.

PS-what Obama is saying is true. Perhaps that's why it's so controversial.

Publicus wrote on January 16, 2008 5:59 PM:

TexModDem:

Nope, I know what I meant to write. She's employed several tried and true Republican tactics. You may not want to admit it, but those are just facts. Good example: Her claims about a $1T tax increase (comes from the Heritage Foundation). Look it up.

The lies and distortions over the course of the last couple of weeks, vintage Republican-bs. The Politics of Personal Destruction, I believe is what the Clintons called it when they were on the receiving end. I guess now it's just good campaign tactics.

willyjsimmons wrote on January 16, 2008 6:01 PM:

'LOLOL! Are you serious?'

Yes Jake in Milwaukee...

and?

Jake in Milwaukee wrote on January 16, 2008 6:01 PM:

And?

Nothing to add. Just wanted to make sure the dingbat vote was accounted for in this discussion. Thanks!

eric wrote on January 16, 2008 6:02 PM:

I am going to put this video on my cell phone and bring it to my precinct caucus on Feb 5. I don't think the Dems in my area will care too much for this.

I encourage everyone to spread this video as widely as you can.

Publicus wrote on January 16, 2008 6:03 PM:

Here's a little more backup on that tax attack:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/A_tax_attack.html

dans:

Just so you know, each state sets their own maximum interest rates. That's why states like South Dakota have an inordinate number of financial institutions.

wjj wrote on January 16, 2008 6:03 PM:

I'm leaving now, but let me say one thing.

Do refuse to acknowledge--as eric and TexModDem and willyj do so refuse--that Reagan was an incredibly successful politician under whose shadow Amerian national politics is still practiced is not to prove oneself a committed progressive but rather someone with a limited understanding of recent political history and a limited imagination for future political possibility.

Jake in Milwaukee wrote on January 16, 2008 6:04 PM:

I encourage everyone to spread this video as widely as you can.

So do I! And make sure everyone sees the whole thing!

TexModDem wrote on January 16, 2008 6:05 PM:

wj: "If you really are an Edwards supporter, then it makes much more sense for you to support Obama as well. His progressive bona fides are much stronger than Clinton's."

I'm sure this is true in the bizzaro world of the neo-progressive.

"It seems to me, though, that you are very angry."

As someone who is involved in ensuring justice, I do get angry when people lie about Clinton, misrepresent her record and statements, write demeaningly on her acts, call her "Hitlery," refer to her as "GOP-lite" (the same term btw that Nader supporters used to describe Gore and I think you can pretty much guess how angry I am at progressives for putting Bush in the White House, especially on that theory), refer to her as a "Goldwater Girl" (something that happened decades ago), belittle her loyalty to her husband, engage in misogynistic campaigning, etc, etc, etc.

Yes, injustice bugs me, even when it occurs to Obama, and I really have no dislike for Obama, except I don't think he's ready, beyond the fact that his supporters a shit-for-brains puritanical self-righteous haters who remind me ever so much of the little puritanical toads that infest the Bush administration and I really can't stand the thought of eight more years of that kind of government.

And what's more, this personality cult that people have built up around Obama because he's a good orator totally ignores his utter failure to do anything remotely significant when it comes to consensus building and yet somehow he's going to rip it up as president and build the biggest consensus in history, well that's just as delusional as the neo-con fantasy world that now infests our White House.

So, yeah, I'm angry at the current administration and someone who seems to want to be just like that administration, but simply with different policy positions.

No thanks.

willyjsimmons wrote on January 16, 2008 6:06 PM:

'PS-what Obama is saying is true. Perhaps that's why it's so controversial.'

It's true. Sure.

Raygun exploited deep seeded racism, and DAMN is was successful.

Let us give him a few golf claps for his political savvy.

Well done Raygun!

He certainly did take American in a new direction, straight into the crapper.

TexModDem wrote on January 16, 2008 6:06 PM:

Jake: "Not one reference of aforementioned "Hitlery.""

No one said it was in this thread, bozo.

Jake in Milwaukee wrote on January 16, 2008 6:09 PM:

I do get angry when people lie about Clinton, misrepresent her record and statements, write demeaningly on her acts, call her "Hitlery," refer to her as "GOP-lite"

An Edwards supporter, eh?

Again, no mention of "Hitlery" here, other than your own. I suppose Edwards going after Hillary's triangulation is somehow different from Obama's in a substantive way?

frankly0 wrote on January 16, 2008 6:09 PM:

Maybe one way to think about Obama's praise of Reagan is that he is right: he, Obama, is just as willing and able to promote false hopes and optimism as Reagan.

God knows that to Reagan it hardly mattered whether any of those hopes really got delivered on. And God knows that they didn't get delivered on. I'm expecting the same kind of performance out of Obama.

That's probably why Obama admires the man so much, and can't contain himself on the subject.

Jake in Milwaukee wrote on January 16, 2008 6:10 PM:

bozo

You are so angry.

Publicus wrote on January 16, 2008 6:10 PM:

And what's more, this personality cult that people have built up around Obama because he's a good orator totally ignores his utter failure to do anything remotely significant when it comes to consensus building and yet somehow he's going to rip it up as president and build the biggest consensus in history, well that's just as delusional as the neo-con fantasy world that now infests our White House.

So he's done nothing? No consensus building whatsoever? Healthcare in Illinois doesn't count? What about the death penalty reforms that have been praised by conservatives and liberals alike? Nothing? Hell, what about his campaign, a mixture of liberals, moderate conservatives? Doesn't mean anything?

You may believe that he's not your first choice for a lot of reasons, but shitting on his record as if he's fresh out of law school or all rhetoric, makes you look disingenous and a partisan hack. Don't act surprise when people dismiss you and your comments as such.

willyjsimmons wrote on January 16, 2008 6:11 PM:

'Just wanted to make sure the dingbat vote was accounted for in this discussion. Thanks!'

Te he he.

Dems praising Raygun, and I'M the dingbat...

signing off.

**WOW**

frankly0 wrote on January 16, 2008 6:12 PM:

Really, when you get down to it, Obama's praise of Reagan is like one snake-oil salesman admiring another.

Liam wrote on January 16, 2008 6:12 PM:

Some people just do not get it. Who did Ronald Reagan take over from?. Answer: Jimmy Carter, who was a micro manager, and was a very poor president, and Reagan was a hands off two term very popular president.
Obama is making the case that Hillary's Hands on Argument does not hold water, since Reagan was not that kind of President, and he was more successful than the hands on guy that he ousted from the White House.

lestatdelc wrote on January 16, 2008 6:13 PM:

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.

Yeah, how stupid of Obama to want to come into the Oval Office with a progressive agenda and then proceed to enact it.

Listen to how stupid the argument you are making sounds.

TexModDem wrote on January 16, 2008 6:13 PM:

Jake: "I suppose Edwards going after Hillary's triangulation is somehow different from Obama's in a substantive way?"

Not a fan of all of Edwards tactics, but then there are no Edwards supporters here who are engaging in acrid dishonesty about Clinton.

No has Edwards embraced the misogyny of the Obama campaign.

So, yeah, big difference.

"You are so angry."

And your point?

Just how angry are Obama supporters about Clinton?

A lot angrier than I am about Obama and just about as angry as I am about Obama supporters.

And if you haven't seen Obama supporters refer to Clinton as "Hitlery" you haven't been reading these posts long.

Jake in Milwaukee wrote on January 16, 2008 6:16 PM:

Dems praising Raygun, and I'M the dingbat

LOL! The gift that keeps on giving! Was there a bunch of concentration camps in the 1980s that I wasn't aware of? Priceless! You've managed to turn this discussion into a complete figment of imagination! Who needs to praise "Raygun" when loons like you make it so easy to defend that lousy president?

What else ya got?

lestatdelc wrote on January 16, 2008 6:17 PM:

frankly0 wrote on January 16, 2008 6:12 PM:

Really, when you get down to it, Obama's praise of Reagan is like one snake-oil salesman admiring another.

And he eats babies... you forgot that part.

Your "arguments" get more stupid, shrill and dismissible with each post you make. They are laden with nothing but pathetic invective. It says nothing at all about anything of substance about any candidate, only to your odious personality.

TexModDem wrote on January 16, 2008 6:17 PM:

Publicus: "So he's done nothing? No consensus building whatsoever? Healthcare in Illinois doesn't count? What about the death penalty reforms that have been praised by conservatives and liberals alike? Nothing? Hell, what about his campaign, a mixture of liberals, moderate conservatives? Doesn't mean anything?"

Bipartisanship is far more common in state legislatures than in Congress and only a doofus hipster would fail to know that so yes his state legislative record is fairly meaningless.

Why is it that Obama supporters go back to his state record and utterly ignore his failure to do anything about their single most important issue, Iraq, during his time in Congress?

Because they know he never built any consensus as a member of Congress and they want to divert attention from that.

Not. Working.

Jake in Milwaukee wrote on January 16, 2008 6:17 PM:

And if you haven't seen Obama supporters refer to Clinton as "Hitlery" you haven't been reading these posts long.

So you aren't an Edwards supporter.

TexModDem wrote on January 16, 2008 6:19 PM:

lestatdelc: "Your "arguments" get more stupid, shrill and dismissible . . ."

Yeah, no pathetic invective in this statement.

LOL.

Obama supporters are caricatures of themselves.

wglad wrote on January 16, 2008 6:20 PM:

I'm beginning to think Mr. Obama is a lot like Mr. Kerry, Mr. Dean and Mr. Gore -- men who didn't really want to be President. There is change, and there is change. Sounds like Mr. Obama can't tell the difference.

TexModDem wrote on January 16, 2008 6:21 PM:

Jake: "So you aren't an Edwards supporter."

So you are no more literate than wj.

Par for the course for Obama supporters, all emotion and no intellect.

And all koolaid drinkers.

frankly0 wrote on January 16, 2008 6:21 PM:

It says nothing at all about anything of substance about any candidate, only to your odious personality.

Let me see. I criticize a public figure, a politician, in a political context, and you lash out and personally attack me, a fellow commenter, as having "an odious personality", and I'm the one with a big problem?

Yeah...Right.

Heard the one about the pot and the kettle?

Jake in Milwaukee wrote on January 16, 2008 6:21 PM:

So you are no more literate than wj.

SO angry.

marcus wrote on January 16, 2008 6:21 PM:

that sound you hear is the political landscape shifting . . .

Anonymous wrote on January 16, 2008 6:24 PM:

TexModDem wrote on January 16, 2008 6:13 PM:

And if you haven't seen Obama supporters refer to Clinton as "Hitlery" you haven't been reading these posts long.

The only people I see saying that are the one's claiming those attacks are occurring, but never seen the attacks around here like that. Even you you found one, BFD, there certainly is no way a FReeeper LGF scum-bag could post here normally could they?

Damn some of the people slinging shit at people who dare not drink the CLinton kool-aid make stupid arguments. FYI, I would fully support CLinton were she to get the nomination, though she is a very distant third on my list of preferred candidates in the race.

lestatdelc wrote on January 16, 2008 6:28 PM:

TexModDem wrote on January 16, 2008 6:19 PM:

lestatdelc: "Your "arguments" get more stupid, shrill and dismissible . . ."

Yeah, no pathetic invective in this statement.

The tired old saw which is analogous to claiming someone being intolerant of intolerance are bigots.

What next, the "I am rubber you are glue" defense?

Liam wrote on January 16, 2008 6:29 PM:

You can not win without the support of Independent moderate voters. Who ever they support wins. Those people loved Reagan, and still do.
Do you want to take back the White House or not. If you want the moderates who supported Reagan to support the Republican candidate, instead of the Democrat, then you are just interested in being a perpetual partisan loser.

Camorrista wrote on January 16, 2008 6:29 PM:

What else can one say, except...wow!

So next week when Obama tells us that, okay, maybe Richard Nixon sabotaged the Constitution and, okay, maybe he tried to mount the first serious putsch in the United States, nontheless Richard Nixon changed the world by going to China, will Obama's supporters here (and elsewhere) carefully explain to us non-believers that Obama didn't mean Richard Nixon was wonderful, only that he was transforming?

And the week after that when Obama explains that, okay, maybe Newt Gingrich created an atmosphere of endless nastiness and bigotry and, okay, maybe he and his Republican troops did everything round up everybody who disagreed, nonetheless Newt Gingrich changed American politics forever, will Obama's supporters here (and elsewhere) carefully explain to us nonbelievers that Obama didn't mean Newt Gingrich was wonderful, only that he was transforming?

No doubt. Because no doubt is the country in which Obama's supporters happily dwell.

frankly0 wrote on January 16, 2008 6:30 PM:

Just to return to my point, I think most progressives would agree that the "optimism" and hope that Reagan promoted in the American people were, in fact, false optimism and hope, right?

What's their idea, that Obama is just exactly like Reagan, except he's going to fix the "false" part?

Yeah, I'm sure that'll work just great. I keep forgetting Obama has the special sauce.

brewmn wrote on January 16, 2008 6:33 PM:

As an Obama supporter who has just read through the comments, I've got to say: the willful obtuseness or outright stupidity of those criticizing Obama's comments is depressing.

I understand his critics' defensiveness, we've been down a long time, but c'mon. When you look at Obama's record and personal history, do you really think he's arguing this new paradigm stuff so he can get in the Oval Office and give global capital more control over the lives of ordinary Americans or to start more phony wars?

And after the Clinton years of Republican-lite governance, why do you want to go back to that? And Edwards, someone I could gladly support, will turn off a majority of American with his us v. them rhetoric. Most Americans still think of business as a force for progress, and will easily buy into the Republicans' message if he is the nominee.

Obama's rhetorical third way is an attempt to thread the needle. And, if you want to argue that he's being dishonest, I woud simply argue that the progressive message in it's old versions has been a consistent loser. I'm ready to try something different.

Jake in Milwaukee wrote on January 16, 2008 6:34 PM:

No doubt. Because no doubt is the country in which Obama's supporters happily dwell.

Oh come one, cut everyone a little slack, here. Obama didn't say any of that and frankly, if he did, that certainly would change things.

But I suspect he won't say anything like that because he didn't say anything like that in the first place. Did you listen to this video clip? Doubt it, because he specifically mentioned Nixon's lack of "transformative" politics in his reference to Reagan despite your analysis of this interview.

Jake in Milwaukee wrote on January 16, 2008 6:42 PM:

Just to return to my point, I think most progressives would agree that the "optimism" and hope that Reagan promoted in the American people were, in fact, false optimism and hope, right?

Sure. But that's not what Obama was talking about in this interview.

lestatdelc wrote on January 16, 2008 6:43 PM:

frankly0 wrote on January 16, 2008 6:21 PM:

It says nothing at all about anything of substance about any candidate, only to your odious personality.

Let me see. I criticize a public figure, a politician, in a political context...

No, you hurled an ad homniem at a solid progressive candidate for the Democratic parties nomination calling him a snake-oil salesmen.

...and you lash out

No, I point out for other to note.

and personally attack me...

If you consider me pointing out out your ad homniem speaks more about the person launching it than their intended target, sure.

...a fellow commenter, as having "an odious personality", and I'm the one with a big problem?

Yes.

You will also note that while I find the other two viable Democratic candidates far more compelling and worth supporting, I do not throw negative smears against Hillary Clinton, who I think would make a good president and would support. Maybe you should follow your candidate's lead at last night's debate and stop going negative.

Once you figure out that difference (between your negative shit-flinging and that of your candidate now that she is no longer going negative) then perhaps you won't get called out for your shit-flinging crap and people may begin to reassess the type of person you come across as.

"So I very much appreciate what Senator Obama and I did yesterday, which is that we both have exuberant and sometimes uncontrollable supporters, that we need to get this campaign where it should be." - Hillary Clinton, Jan 15, 2008 Las Vegas Debate

"I think that as Hillary said, our supporters, our staff get overzealous. They start saying things that I would not say, and it is my responsibility to make sure that we're setting a clear tone in our campaign. And I take that responsibility very seriously, which is why I spoke yesterday and sent a message, in case people were not clear, that what we want to do is make sure that we focus on the issues." - Barack Obama, Jan 15, 2008 Las Vegas Debate

Care to follow their lead?

chancellor wrote on January 16, 2008 6:52 PM:

Obama was in college at the time Reagan was first elected and, I suspect, doesn't have a clue as to why Reagan "brought the country together." For those who were actually working at the time, and trying to buy our first homes when mortgage rates were at 17%, the galvanizing force behind Reagan was the economy, not ideology. People voted their pocketbooks. Reagan took some tough steps to bring interest rates down, and that was followed by a boom in the stock market. There was absolutely nothing transformational about Reagan other than cleaning up an economic mess. Poor choice, Obama.

lestatdelc wrote on January 16, 2008 6:53 PM:

Camorrista wrote on January 16, 2008 6:29 PM:

You convinced me. We shouldn't try and elect someone who wants to generate widespread popular support for the progressive Democratic vision for America. Because that would be bad.

Good thing you stopped us from doing THAT.

That was a close call, onward small-bore issue triangulation, because THAT will shift the country to a progressive footing!

OxyCon wrote on January 16, 2008 6:56 PM:

Yeah, Barack...Reagan changed the direction of the country alright, and we've been skidding downhill ever since, except for that brief respite from Reagan's downward trajectory between the years 1993-2001 when Bill Clinton was President.

lestatdelc wrote on January 16, 2008 7:00 PM:

chancellor wrote on January 16, 2008 6:52 PM:

So why didn't the Reagan Democrats come home when the economy finally improve in the late 90s, and far more than it ever was in the Reagan "the government is the problem" era...?

Because there was no counter-swing movement against it in the 90s because of the approach Clinton used in that decade. "Its the economy stupid" got Clinton elected (though not even by a majority, only a plurality), but it never changed the political landscape nor did it swing the country back form where Reagan moved it (which I think we all agree is nowhere near where the country ever has a business being).

Your thesis is off.

frankly0 wrote on January 16, 2008 7:04 PM:

lestatdelc,

So let me see if I get your argument. I called Obama a "snake oil salesman". Somehow this implies, by some tortured reasoning, that I'm "an odious personality".

I hate to break it to you, but if calling a politician a "snake oil salesman" (OMG!) means you've got an "odious personality", there are large bunches of people on these boards and in real life who better pick up some potent psychotropics.

What really takes the cake, though, in your saying this about me is just how judgmental and intolerant and hysterical you yourself must be in order to attack someone over such a statement.

Physician, heal thyself.

lestatdelc wrote on January 16, 2008 7:06 PM:

OxyCon wrote on January 16, 2008 6:56 PM:

Yeah, Barack...Reagan changed the direction of the country alright, and we've been skidding downhill ever since, except for that brief respite from Reagan's downward trajectory between the years 1993-2001 when Bill Clinton was President.

Exactly. And Obama wants to change the direction in the same widespread manor Reagan did, the other direction and tip the slope to get us going back up that hill, to undo the Reagan shift in the country which we are still sliding down under Bush.

Obama is taking about dynamic and shift, not at all about embracing the GOP policy or agenda, which is vastly different than splitting the difference (i.e. triangulating) in order to simply hold onto your poltical viability.

lestatdelc wrote on January 16, 2008 7:10 PM:

frankly0 wrote on January 16, 2008 7:04 PM:

lestatdelc,

So let me see if I get your argument.

You didn't.

Though to be clear, I was operating under the premise that you were on the Democratic Party and progressive team, if not that would certainly change things.

Davidson wrote on January 16, 2008 7:12 PM:

The double standards are most impressive: the Clintons are rabid racists for truly benign comments, but Obama is progressive for speaking well of Reagan (Yes, I saw the full interview, twice).

If we applied the same standard to Obama, he'd be labeled a right-winger to the extreme. It's amazing no one catches themselves tripping on the hypocrisy so evident by these posts.

And b/c it's now obligatory: I'm not a Clinton supporter; I still hope Edwards can make a good run.

Obama people are simply delusional. It is officially now IMPOSSIBLE for him to do wrong.

Jake in Milwaukee wrote on January 16, 2008 7:17 PM:

The double standards are most impressive: the Clintons are rabid racists for truly benign comments, but Obama is progressive for speaking well of Reagan (Yes, I saw the full interview, twice).

No one said the Clintons were "rabid racists," at least not here.

alan2a wrote on January 16, 2008 7:18 PM:

Obama's politics are similar to Reagan-He's conservative, he all glib talk and no substance and his policy positions are closer to Lieberman's than to say Edwards.

Ross Best wrote on January 16, 2008 7:25 PM:

"Juxtaposing Reagan and Bill Clinton in this way, however, decidedly takes his argument to a whole new level."

Note on incrementalism and clicheology: no one ever takes anything to a half new level.

lestatdelc wrote on January 16, 2008 7:38 PM:

Davidson wrote on January 16, 2008 7:12 PM:

Obama people...

Broad-brush cliché alert.

...are simply delusional. It is officially now IMPOSSIBLE for him to do wrong.

According to you it is official?

So what official office or power to hold to make such a pronouncement?

I am leaning heavily towards Obama, and think his posturing on Kyl-Lieberman is approaching being flat out fraudulent, same with Edwards on that score. He still is my preferred candidate at this point. They all have policy points which reasonable people can disagree on, and votes that can likewise be decried and held against them. That said, they are all solid candidates who would make good Presidents, and have the potential to be truly great ones.

lestatdelc wrote on January 16, 2008 7:40 PM:

alan2a wrote on January 16, 2008 7:18 PM:

Obama's politics are similar to Reagan-He's conservative,

A completely moronic assertion. Total devoid of fact, basis or merit.

MonaL wrote on January 16, 2008 7:44 PM:

Don't you Obama folks Hillary republican-lite or Bush-lite? Sounds like your guy wants to be Reagan II.

What a panderer.

mkolb wrote on January 16, 2008 7:47 PM:

This doesn't seem to be a particularly good analogy to me. Here's why:

Reagan made incredibly beautiful speeches - he's not remembered as the Great Communicator for nothing.

But while he was doing that, Iran-Contra was brewing in the background, we went through the Bork hearings, and the obstinate block-everything Republicans built their coven.

The excesses of Reagan's period rivaled the Golden Age (until we got to the current administration which has outdone everyone) while a lot of people suffered.

I voted for Reagan and ended up pretty disappointed at the mess he and Bush I left for the Democrats to clean up.

I thought Pres. Clinton was a good start on the road back until he recklessly helped his enemies.

Yes, Reagan turned the tone from malaise to morning in America, but in the long run, our country was not well served.

MonaL wrote on January 16, 2008 7:49 PM:

I agree with what TexModDem wrote:

...his supporters a shit-for-brains puritanical self-righteous haters who remind me ever so much of the little puritanical toads that infest the Bush administration and I really can't stand the thought of eight more years of that kind of government.

And what's more, this personality cult that people have built up around Obama because he's a good orator totally ignores his utter failure to do anything remotely significant when it comes to consensus building and yet somehow he's going to rip it up as president and build the biggest consensus in history, well that's just as delusional as the neo-con fantasy world that now infests our White House.

Jake in Milwaukee wrote on January 16, 2008 7:52 PM:

MonaL wrote on January 16, 2008 7:49 PM

Angry Angry Angry Angry Angry.

Anonymous wrote on January 16, 2008 7:53 PM:

Reagan sold us a bill of goods. This Obama statement certainly shows that Obama did not grow up like most African-Americans. He grew up like one of the many privileged white kids I knew who loved Reagan. Go on now, all you privileged progressives, and continue your lovefest for Obama.

Karen wrote on January 16, 2008 8:17 PM:

Basically, Obama is correct!
Republicans are great at rallying around a leader; voters see that and follow too. (ei. Reagan, Bush Sr. Bush Jr.) Republicans are known for getting things done. Even though Rep. Presidents are notorious for putting the country in economic peril.

They only time Democrats are successful is when the electorate is working behind them to push the issues. This is one of those times. Obama would be a great person to lead the country out of fear and recession. The Clintons have a limited ability in this area, especially with Republicans.

Bill Clinton, tried to be a centrist. Especially, with NAFTA which is hurting a lot of bread and butter people. He had many talents and flaws. I really don't want to go back to that. The Clintons need to be historically sidelined. Please!

willyjsimmons wrote on January 16, 2008 8:21 PM:

'Was there a bunch of concentration camps in the 1980s that I wasn't aware of? Priceless!'

Jake...

you missed my point, dude.

Lemme go a lil slower.

Praising Raygun's effectiveness in creating harmful divisions based upon class and race/ethnicity...is like praising Hitler's effectiveness in creating divisions based upon class and race/ethnicity.

slb wrote on January 16, 2008 8:21 PM:

OK, I did listen to the whole hour of the video. Not only did I hear him diss baby boomer politicians, I also heard him say that part of the problem with the current Congress is that the Democrats are just too ideological.

Excuse me? Harry Reid is too ideological? Diane Feinstein is too ideological? Joe Biden is too ideological? Gee, who would ever have thought that our real problem has been that Democrats are insufficiently supine? I guess what we really need is for more of them to be like Obama's mentor good ol' Joe Lieberman. Yeah, that's the ticket. That should really advance the progressive agenda.

Paulie wrote on January 16, 2008 8:22 PM:

Sweet holy hell, Obama just lost himself the Dem nomination. As someone said on another site, no good Dem should ever say Regan's name without setting off their gag reflex.

Hillary '08!
Edwards '08!

BluePuppy wrote on January 16, 2008 8:25 PM:

"Obama supporters are caricatures of themselves."

I think the reason the Obama folks played the race card after NH is that they know that SC is their firewall. Pathetic. Smearing the good name of Mrs. Clinton with their evil racial politics.

ardais wrote on January 16, 2008 8:26 PM:

Lestatdelc - just so I am not confused further, could you translate your message into English at some point?

PAMPERS DEPENDS ,HERE wrote on January 16, 2008 8:27 PM:

The real question here: Were you born pre or post Pampers?

Nice try Greg!

1.Regain realize that the Soviet Union could not compete economically, and was begining to unravel.
2.Post Vietnam, War on Poverty/ Great Society Era of the 60's & late 70's hyper inflation in the Ford and Carter era, created employment and economic problems for Reagan. USSR & USA had long reached stalemate on the M.A.D
3.

laurel wrote on January 16, 2008 8:34 PM:

"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'd like to know how Obama thinks he's going to make this sweeping change of trajectory that he proposes will be so much better than what Bill Clinton was able to do. Before he disses a great President whom many still love, Obama should show us what daring things he's managed to get done so far besides whipping up crowds of people into a frenzy as they shout "Yes we can." My father is a preacher and Obama sounds just like a preacher to me - he can inspire for a couple of hours, but then you have to go home and deal with reality. Emotional highs don't get a nation out of a recession.

PAMPERS DEPENDS ,HERE 2 wrote on January 16, 2008 8:38 PM:

3. The solutions was the Star Wars Narrative! In short a military build up was a job or economic tonic. Problem, debts and the normal crooks (Saving & Loan mess) that these folks leave behind.

In short Reagan figured how to break the USSR; as LBJ addressed Civil Rights & Poverty; Kennedy space; Carter Human Rights & Democracy in the International arena; Nixon did China;Clinton did Monica with Ireland and Eastern Europe in the Yugo!!!!!!

Nice TRY GREG, & Obama?????????????

John H wrote on January 16, 2008 8:41 PM:

Reagan sure did alot to transform unions in his time in office now didn't he. Not a good talking point among democrats Barack. As a proud union member, no one gets more credit for hurting unions than Ronald Reagan. I hope the people in the CWU take these comments to heart when they are in the caucuses. IBEW 934 Live Better/ Work Union

slb wrote on January 16, 2008 8:41 PM:

Is anyone else here struck by the cognitive dissonance in the argument being made by the Obama supporters here?

(1) The problem with the Democrats is that they are too ideological.
(2) The problem with the Clintons is that they are too centrist.
(3) The problem with the Clintons is that they are too polarizing.

(4) We need to be more accommodating to bring Republicans and Independents on board.
(5) The problem with the Clintons is that they are too accommodating toward Republicans.
(6) The good thing about Obama is that he appeals to Republicans.

Jake in Milwaukee wrote on January 16, 2008 8:48 PM:

you missed my point, dude.

Lemme go a lil slower.

Patronizing, insulting drivel.

ineedalife wrote on January 16, 2008 8:50 PM:

When will people wake up to Obama? With George Bush most did not take him at face value, thinking he was some closet moderate. Big mistake. I am convinced that if Obama had entered politics in some other part of the country he would have entered as a Republican. He is running to the right of the field among the democrats. He takes Bush's position in Iraq. He rolls over on social security before a single shot is fired. He is more afraid of criticism from pro-life than pro-choice groups. Now he talks up Ronald Reagan. He admits he lied during the last presidential campaign about his Iraq position for political expediency. What is he lying about this time around?

I think alot of progressives have a major surprise in store if Obama gets to the Whitehouse.

hope4usa wrote on January 16, 2008 8:54 PM:

wj,

why would I be "exactly wrong"?

what was so overwhelmingly GREAT about Ronald Reagan.

Let's ignore the fact that he had alzheimers and wasn't really running the country, for starters.

Lets ignore the harm he did to the middle class, the poor, to education, to healthcare, to ...the list is endless.

Trickle down theory? The only people who got rich were the wealthy! What a coincidence ....same thing now.

What a coincidence ...S& L scandal, then....greatest banking scandal since 1929 now.

Let me know when to stop!! OHHH I know violating the Constitution ohh Iran Contra! Lying to Congress.....no problem!

Look I'm not the best historian but anyone who thinks LIFE WAS GOOD with Ronnie is a moron.

Sorry. Not exactly someone a Democrat much less a Progressive should hold up as his mentor.

WorkingMan wrote on January 16, 2008 8:57 PM:

Say it ain't so, Barack!!!

When will the country WAKE UP from this glassy-eyed admiration for Ronald Reagan? Will it take 100 years for historians to get it right?

Reagan sowed the seeds of the harvest we are now reaping. He made war on the middle class and decimated the labor movement in America. From Star Wars to tax cuts he was just plain WRONG and created the "caricature" presidency where the advisors on the team actually set policy for the grinning buffoon out front.

Damnit, it makes me angry that smart people can call themselves "Reagan Democrats. What are a few hundred thousand dead Central Americans anyway? Selling arms to Iran out of the White House basement to get filthy lucre for a dirty war against a Democratically elected government in Nicaragua? Sure. Truly, he was a man of honor and greatness.

I've been a supporter of Obama all along, but I'm now ready to write him off, along with all the rest.

I guess the Republicans were ultimately right when they said, "We create our own reality."

Kefa wrote on January 16, 2008 9:01 PM:

There are some Obama spinners out there that would spin if he said "poop tastes good" would say "yeah and it's good for you too."

ineedalife wrote on January 16, 2008 9:03 PM:

The Ronald Reagan that always said the word liberal with a disgusting sneer.
The Ronald Reagan who made union busting a central theme of his presidency.
The Ronald Reagan of the Iran-Contra scandal.
The Ronald Reagan that kicked off his campaign in Selma Alabama and turned the southern strategy into a science.
The Ronald Reagan that invented the "welfare queen".

But he is remembered well so all that is cool with Obama. Style over substance which is what Obama's campaign is all about.

DBX wrote on January 16, 2008 9:05 PM:

Obama is right that Reagan was a transformational figure and Clinton was not -- he needs to be much clearer about Reagan being transformational in a bad way. Local and state government have had fiscal trouble ever since his administration -- and that has caused huge increases in sales and property taxes that more than wiped out the gains from income tax cuts for all but the very rich. Conservative contempt for facts has become a daily fact of life. Wealth inequality has spiraled. RIght-wing hacks fill the judicial ranks, assaulting individual freedom on a daily basis while reflexively favoring corporations over individuals in any economic matters.

Just as bad, he can't claim credit for many of "his" successes. For example, the decline in inflation was largely attributable to the Fed and to the fall of oil prices in his second term, and assisted by the rise in new technology.

And when he was successful it was usually because he told neocons to get lost. On the foreign policy stage he listened more to advice from Margaret Thatcher than to the kooks he appointed to the administration. He listened to Tip O'Neill on the successful rescue of Social Security. After the destructive bias toward the rich in the tax changes of 1981, he listened to Bob Packwood and Bill Bradley -- and infuriated the neocons -- on tax reform in his second term.

I will give him one big brownie point -- no president that I know of initiated more new commuter and light rail projects.

In general, the reason we need a transformational figure is to put the Reagan genie back in the bottle.

carrenderb wrote on January 16, 2008 9:06 PM:

WorkingMan at 8:57:

Don't lose faith! What he's saying is that the country was ready for a big change in 1980 and Reagen tapped in to that desire. He didn't say he felt Reagen was great or his policies were even good. He's comparing now to then in the sense that the country is ready for a BIG change and he (Obama) feels he can inspire and lead the country in that change, which will be diametricly opposed to the sort of change that Reagen ushered in.

BTW, you're not a Rush (the Canadian rock band) fan too, are you?

POST PAMPER PRE DEPENDS MAN HERE wrote on January 16, 2008 9:10 PM:

WorkingMan got it right!

The meme & narrative folks, I did write Pre Depends

Good Try, ALL!!!!!!! BYE

carrenderb wrote on January 16, 2008 9:12 PM:

Dang it! Spelled Reagan like my niece's first name (ReagEn)the whole way through that last post @ 9:06. SORRY!

Gloria wrote on January 16, 2008 9:24 PM:

MMMMM....I'm skeptical over anything Obama has done or will do, esp. when I look at where his money is coming from.

JubleJohnson wrote on January 16, 2008 9:24 PM:

laurel:I'd like to know how Obama thinks he's going to make this sweeping change of trajectory that he proposes will be so much better than what Bill Clinton was able to do. Before he disses a great President whom many still love

*****BClinton was a great Prez ?Are you Crazy.I guess all the outsourcing & influx of illegals into our country just started.The sucking up to Corporations only repukes do such.It's the reason we keep getting screwed by Dem Pols,Dem supporters look at Dems in congress with rose colored glasses.They are not responsible for the crap we are in today.In a reasonably decent society anyone who voted for the Iraq war should be looked upon with scorn.Unfortunately many of the bad actors have lined up to be our next Prez.Tells you exactly where we are going .

eric wrote on January 16, 2008 9:25 PM:

ineedalife wrote on January 16, 2008 9:03 PM:
The Ronald Reagan that always said the word liberal with a disgusting sneer.
The Ronald Reagan who made union busting a central theme of his presidency.
The Ronald Reagan of the Iran-Contra scandal.
The Ronald Reagan that kicked off his campaign in Selma Alabama and turned the southern strategy into a science.
The Ronald Reagan that invented the "welfare queen".

But he is remembered well so all that is cool with Obama. Style over substance which is what Obama's campaign is all about.

Yes. Good comment. Except it was Philadelphia, Mississippi were he kicked off his campaign. But for the same reasons. That is where he wanted to let the southern whites that he was on their side. Civil rights and welfare had gone far enough.

At the time, in 1980, Obama was 19.

Dagome wrote on January 16, 2008 9:28 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.

Reagan is a more effective example in this case because many people remember him. I have resented Reagan's political success and his influence on American politics for much of my life. But I cannot deny it. No figure does more to unite Republicans and give them common purpose to this day. (Though... each of the Clintons might be close, in their own way.)

I do agree that pointing out Reagan's success is dangerous and likely to rub many Democrats the wrong way. I think everything he said is true, but people don't relate to politicians on a purely intellectual basis --- they usually hear things through emotional filters. (This is also why Clinton's MLK remarks were ill advised.)

WorkingMan wrote on January 16, 2008 9:31 PM:

carrenderb @ 9:06

I was hoping that change was the theme and not Reagan's supposed greatness, but he danced pretty close to the usual fairy-tale crap we always hear about Reagan.

And I am of the age where we were ALL fans of Rush from about 13 to 17 years old, but I looked for a reference in my post and couldn't find it. What made you say that?

Dagome wrote on January 16, 2008 9:41 PM:

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?

Let's suppose that's true. Is that evidence of exactly the point that Obama inspires more loyalty and is a more effective leader? It might well be in a "What's-the-matter-with-Kansas" way --- people so enamored with a politician that they're voting/arguing against their own self interest.

I wish that didn't happen. I wish people were perfectly rational agents. They're not. And progressives have lost again and again because of that fact. It might be nice to be on the winning side of that equation, for a change.

But it is quite clear that Obama did not say that Reagan was a "better" president than Clinton. He said Reagan had a greater long term impact. For example, Republicans are still trying to claim Reagan's mantle with a fervor. Bill just does not inspire that way.

fillphil wrote on January 16, 2008 10:04 PM:

A good Democrat gags when saying the name Regan. He is the beginning of what we are seeing the end of. Good riddance.
Obama is pandering.

hello_world wrote on January 16, 2008 10:07 PM:

Say what you want to about the comment, Barack sure lives up to his change meme by getting people talking. Here's what Obama said:

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 think it's clear that Obama isn't saying anything like Ronald Reagan is some kind of personal hero or something. The problem with his statement is that so many self-identified Democrats are still so traumatized by what the post-Reagan years have brought about that they want any mention of the man's name to come with a chorus of boos.

Obama's point was one of historical significance. He's saying that he has the most potential to accomplish what it was that Reagan was able to accomplish. I honestly have no idea why so many people want to question Obama's commitment to Progressive ideology, while giving Clinton a pass in the same breath.

I see nothing wrong with this statement at all, except that it allows people who are already inclined to want to misconstrue his positions to do so with even more glee now.

I guess he figured if people are going to talk, might as well give them something to talk about...

foxx wrote on January 16, 2008 10:08 PM:

Reagan was A CROOK. He was the model for Bush et al, who we can only hope will be indicted soon for putting our treasury in their pockets. Forget "nuance," a grasp on reality is what I want from my president.

I knew before I read any of the comments that the Obama supporters would find a way to spin this (that satisfies themselves) in order to continue supporting him. It really does seem that nothing can break the spell.

I can hear now the howls of outrage that these same posters would be emitting if Clinton had said anything like this.

Roadkill Refugee wrote on January 16, 2008 10:10 PM:

I donated to Obama, and I think I want a refund... His contempt for Clinton is so great he belittles the only multi-term Democratic president since FDR. What Obama's celebrating about Reagan is how Reagan spun and conned America, led by Michael Deaver, his alcoholic, convicted PR man, not what Reagan actually did (Obama admits he disagrees with Reagan's policies). Ironically, Reagan was hardly all about being inclusive and harmonious. While Reagan was running his slick "morning in America" TV ads, he was divisively inventing bogeymen of welfare queens, quotas, union slackers, and liberals, and appointing Scalia, Rehnquist (to Chief), O'Connor and Kennedy (only after the Bork nomination failed) to the Supreme Court. Pretty transformative, that whole overturning the Warren and Burger Courts thing. By contrast, Clinton nominated Breyer and Ginsberg, who have been much better than any of Reagan's picks.

savvy wrote on January 16, 2008 10:12 PM:

Holy Cow, is Obama EVER Brilliant!!
This guy is a master and his political acumen is beyond anything we have ever seen. He is just incredible.

These words comparing Reagan vs. WJC coupled with his manner in the last debate is so overpowering.

Think about it, Obama has known all along that race was going to be an issue. He HAD to. After all, it is THE story of his life because he is biracial. So he saw that coming. What did he do? First, he said nothing for weeks and then when it built to a fever pitch in the past 72 hours with Clinton in full frontal assault mode, he let her stew in her own comments. Then he not only waved the white flag but he also took a huge body blow and acquiesed by letting Russert pin the entire race baiting situation on him as the 'pusher'. Knowing it was the balck community and NOT his campaign. Obama,though undoubtedly has experienced this numerous times in his life and he has learned how to neuter the race card that he has consistently had to neutralize in pursuit of his goals. So, now he is against the 'race ropes' and the Clintons think that he is on the mat and they are about to be crowned. And what does Obama do? He takes the game to a whole new level. He shifts and pivots to what did the Clinton era do for Democrats as a party. An entirely different level. Hot damn!

Obama has known for a long time that his real opponent in the electorates mind is not Hillary but Bill Clinton and Obama is ready to redefine the Clinton era. He is going to change the perspective of just what did the Clintons mean for us Democrats as a party, not Bill's legacy but OUR interests as Democrats. Woo, boy is this ever a new level. Bill threw all those punches, sullied his name, and just brought out a string of folks to throw mud at Obama. Obama listened went subterrean and is not coming back like a stealth bomber focused on the First Lady MRS. Bill Clinton on Bill Clintons' record that she is running on, he is raising the stakes. He is out to demonstrate that there is far more to be gained as Democrates as he is a far better politician than Bill and he is about to show the country the possibility of what we can have if we do not limit our pinnacle to what Bill Clinton did. We can soar higher as Obama tells us then what Bill Clinton was capable of. Remember Reagan he says, remember how Regan ushered in a new era of conservatism? I can usher in a new era of progressivism for the country Bill was only a little hill but that we can scale Mt. Everest, with a fundamental change in our politics, not the incrementalism of Bill Clinton. Holy smokes. Yes we can. Change we can beleive in.

This is beautiful, the best part is that everyone knows that Bill is going to blow his stack about Obama diminishing his legacy. That is when Obama wins. Bill has to have great admiration for Barack but boy is he ever furious that Barack's ascent is at the expense of Bill's stature in the Democratic party. It need not have been this way but those were the terms Bill set. bill threw down the gauntlet calling Barack a symbol and a kid and now Obama is going to take Mrs. Bill Clinton head on. Hillary is no longer his political rival, Bill's record and how limiting it was for Democrats is the new target. Bill never saw this coming. He can't defend her without talking about himself now, and that will be the political death knell for her.

This is a defining moment. America this is our time. We have a leader who can transform our politics and move us forward. We are going to turn the page with Barack Obama, who personifies all that America is when he stands before us, he embodies the great racial divide in America in that his person is a unity of black and white, he embodies America's history of a first generation immigrants child as his father was from Kenya and he's lived through the unique challenges that both of those present and knows how to unify the nation because he had to learn how to build those bridges with society in order to be at peace within.

Barack Obama is going to be the next President of the United States not because he has the longest record of being in government, not because he has the longest list of people in his Rolodex but because he has the brightest ideas and greatest amount of hope. People laugh at hope but we need hope because hope is the only antidote to despair. Without hope you can't accomplish anything that is not right in front of you..you give up and walk away. You think about issues that confront us today and you say, I don't know how we are EVER going to get out of Iraq. Unless we have hope we can't begin to do the work it will take to get us our of Iraq. Without hope we wonder if we will ever be able to afford healthcare and you fill with despair and give up. It is only with hope that we are able to do the work that is required to change America.

Obama has the Hope and ideas to move America forward.
Barack Obama is going to be the next President of the United States because we need him. Obama does not need the Presidency. America needs Barak to be President more than anyone else.

Go Head, BO...take to Slick Willy.

Obama/Edwards 08

Case wrote on January 16, 2008 10:13 PM:

Sweet sufferin' jaysus the Hillaryites on here need to learn to read quotes. Hell, Greg even put it in BOLD for you:

"...even though I did not agree with him on many issues"

It's amazing to me how quick the Hillary supporters in these comment boards are to argue semantics over substance.

Like it or not, Reagan's legacy will be alive and kicking for decades. His policies were terrible for progressive (God, I hate that term. why are we too chicken to own "liberal" again?) values in this country, but if we're not prepared to face reality and acknowledge that every highway overpass and every median was packed with well-wishers from both parties during Reagan's funeral procession, we're as snobbish as the Repugs make us out to be.

Reagan changed the country in a fundamental way. Bill Clinton did not. Bill Clinton stuck his finger in a leaky dike and provided an economic band-aid. But Bill Clinton did not change the country in a fundamental way.

Feel free to argue substance, but if you're just going to skim the headlines you read on Drudge and the Hillary Campaign website and pretend you know what the fourth paragraph said, do the rest of the Democratic Party a favor and just read the ones about Joe Lieberman, where the headlines are actually enough to know what paragraph 4 says (hint-- starts with Joe, ends with Republican)

Donald from Hawaii wrote on January 16, 2008 10:17 PM:

DBX: "[Sen. Obama] needs to be much clearer about Reagan being transformational in a bad way."

Let's also never forget that by picking George H.W. Bush as his running mate in 1980, Ronald Reagan gave the Bush family an their cronies an ill-advise and undeserved opening to embed themselves in American politics and government like a parasitic infestation of liver flukes to their host.

Thanks in large part to Reagan's remarkably poor judgment of character -- which first manifested itself in the Iran-contra affair 20 years ago with a significant number of these same fuckin' clowns -- our country now finds itself trapped in a nightmarish farce that's truly worthy of a Roger Corman film. We've paid a very steep price for this GOP folly in very real terms of blood, fortune and the precipitous loss of international prestige and goodwill.

If Barack Obama can find something admirable in that rather grotesque and macabre legacy, then while he may be a Democrat, he's a damned foolish one.

johnd wrote on January 16, 2008 10:17 PM:

Reagan was "sucessful" in the sense that he engendered a whole new generation of working class deception.

Obama is now dangerous in my view. He's obviously welcoming the Reaganites who are in denial about the actual tale of the tape that is the country's fiscal record during and after Reagan was in office.

Bush started his 8 years with a soft economy and now leaves us one a year before he splits, and the government is in a sea of fresh red ink drastically worsened by his tax cutting on the highest earners strategy.

GHW Bush is pilloried by the GOPers for not living up to his read my lips promise, but no mention is made of how totally f'd we'd be fiscally now if the first Bush and then Bubba's tax policies were never enacted.

We love Ronald Reagan! Cut taxes on the wealthy, keep paying us through a bean blower and run the government on more and more borrowed money, and blame the people whose party leaders actually reversed the deficit trend while in office during the longest and largest economic expansion in all of history.

If Obama is triangulating to this crowd, count me out.

A parting thought: George W Bush in the very 1st year of his term enacted tax cuts that allowed him to personally save a sum that was basically equivalent to one years after tax earnings of the median US household, in the very 1st year alone. Oh how those tax cuts help the "economy."

G Davis wrote on January 16, 2008 10:23 PM:

If people would read the entire context they would find that Obama is talking about STYLES of leadership, not policy.

Anyone who won't admit that Reagan saw and developed the three legged stool of conservatism as we know it today is a fool...he merged the fiscally conservative, the social conservative and the strong national defense segments of the right into a group that we progressives have been battling since.

What Obama is saying that a true LEADER will meld all the disparate elements of anyone shy of hard right into a lasting coalition that by it's sheer numbers will sway public policy in our direction.

The Clintons, both of them, time and again have ceded their supposed core beliefs to the center...even right of center.

We don't have to do that.

There are serious problems that face this nation and the majority of the nation feels as progressives do about most of them.

The majority of people are against the Iraq war.

The majority of the people are for saving social security.

The majority of the people are for universally accessible health insurance.

The majority of the people are for border enforcement first.

The list goes on and on. None of these things will get done if we don't let down our own short sighted lust for revenge against the very coalition that Reagan started.

Listen to what Obama is saying...not the snippets, but his actual words in context. He represents a mood in this country that we absolutely need to get beyond the stoogy party bickering (evidenced by the mere mention of Reagan's name) and get on with getting something done.

The Clintons will continue to compromise.

Obama wants us to build a coalition so large they can't ignore us any longer.

He's not saying he will do it...he's saying WE will do it.

My choice is clear.

Kefa wrote on January 16, 2008 10:28 PM:

I stand corrected...I see the light...

1....a Goldwater girl
2....a Reagan boy

Clinton/Obama 08

A WINNING TICKET NO ONE CAN ARGUE WITH RIGHT???

Morgan wrote on January 16, 2008 10:34 PM:

Obama is starting to sound like a political scientist. Of course Clinton and Reagan had different abilities to create change. Reagan was a republican who took office when the Nation was still recovering from the Carter administration. The country wanted a Republican, they were tired of a Democrat, so Reagan was elected. But in 1992 when Clinton announced his candidacy nobody believed that he had a chance to win it, but he did. With the Congress controlled by the Republicans and the nation and political circles still longing for Republicans, Clinton was a president in a different situation. Not only does this explain Clinton's ability to make change it also explains why so many people in the Country was so against him.

i b joshin wrote on January 16, 2008 10:38 PM:

Come on! Adolf Hitler was a charismatic leader who hugely transformed Germany. Rayguns was a charismatic and he hugely transformed America and not in a good way, either. Bill Clinton was a charismatic who couldn't effect much of a transformation because he couldn't behave with a sense of propriety as POTUS and because triangulation and major transformation do not go hand in hand. Now we have Obama, another smarmy charismatic promising out one side of his mouth that he is going to heal America in some huge transformation while he demonstrates out the other side of his mouth that he cannot even heal his relationship with a fellow Senator who is also running for POTUS.

This little prick refers to and addresses HRC as "Hillary." This is a pattern of his. She is a US Senator, just like he is, and she addresses him and refers to him as Senator Obama, as did everyone on the stage last night. And evryone on that stage refered to and addressed HRC as Senator Clinton because that is how it is done. But the churlish little great healer refuses to acknowledge that HRC is a Senator.

How you going to heal a damned thing with that kind of agenda? He's just another charismatic. We don't need another charismatic in the WH.

I would also quibble with the statement that LBJ didn't effect a substantial transformation. The Civil Rights Act of '67 was hugely more transformational than
than Rayguns's success at leading the country into military industrial hell. Although nothing can really compare to the way he transformed the national debt. That was truly huge.

Dagome wrote on January 16, 2008 10:47 PM:

Just to return to my point, I think most progressives would agree that the "optimism" and hope that Reagan promoted in the American people were, in fact, false optimism and hope, right?

I think I agree with that. I also think that to a large degree, winning politicians are the ones who connect more with the voters on an emotional level. Reagan used "Morning in America" and "City on a Hill" to do this. Bush I (poorly) went for "1000 points of light." Bush II went for, "a uniter, not a divider," and was "someone you wanted to have a beer with."

And Bill spent a lot of time on, "I feel your pain."

And connecting with peoples' hopes and dreams is a critical first step in making them happen.

What's their idea, that Obama is just exactly like Reagan, except he's going to fix the "false" part?

Yeah, I'm sure that'll work just great. I keep forgetting Obama has the special sauce.

You know, you don't approach --- to pick an example --- achieving peace between Israelis and Palestinians by starting with, "Well, this is probably a waste of time, but what the heck." Your negative attitudes are just going to rub off and handicap your efforts. You go in with as much enthusiasm as you can muster. You do your best to get the parties to believe that success is possible, because, hope (and lack of it) is often a self-fulfilling prophecy.

To pick another example, every coach wants to psych up their team before they take the field, otherwise they enter at a disadvantage. It's bad strategy to insist that a coach should muster anything less than maximum hope. The more of that resource they can get, the better their chances are.

Wishing doesn't make dreams come true, but believing is a crucial first step.

i b joshin wrote on January 16, 2008 10:49 PM:

How many people were murdered and tortured in Latin America by thugs abetted by Rayguns and his boys? Obama is comparing himself to a murderer. "I'm better than "Bill/Hillary" because I'm so much like a murderous fool of a POTUS."

I wouldn't compare myself to Rayguns.

Anonymous wrote on January 16, 2008 10:57 PM:

Greg:

Not that you are reading these posts, but your late, late update doesn't really add anything beyond the JFK line. The guy is just quoting Obama out of context (you already spelled out the full quote). Obviously this won't impact the mass hysteria amongst the HRC supporters, but I thought I'd pass that along.

SeeDee wrote on January 16, 2008 11:07 PM:

From a historical standpoint, it is pretty clear that whether it is Reagan or Bush II or Harding-Coolidge-Hoover of a bygone era, twelve years of conservative Republican rule (since the beginning of the 20th-century) is always followed by a severe economic down-turn.

Their ideology simply leads to that result...and there are usually the same reasons: 1) - Legislation that favors the 'investing' class, protects established wealth at the expense of the average 'consumer' citizens, and, 2) an unwillingness to champion remedial changes until it is too late.

To illustrate the most easily comprehended examples, look at the era of 1920 - 1932, the Reagan-Bush I era of 1980 -1992 and, most recently, the present run from 1996 to the present (starting with the GOP 'Contract' junk in the mid '90's).

And, it remains to be seen if the mess left by our present GOP governance will prove to be the worst yet.

waka waka wrote on January 16, 2008 11:13 PM:

Bill has to have great admiration for Barack but boy is he ever furious that Barack's ascent is at the expense of Bill's stature in the Democratic party. It need not have been this way but those were the terms Bill set. bill threw down the gauntlet calling Barack a symbol and a kid and now Obama is going to take Mrs. Bill Clinton head on. Hillary is no longer his political rival, Bill's record and how limiting it was for Democrats is the new target. Bill never saw this coming. He can't defend her without talking about himself now, and that will be the political death knell for her.

Hahahaha! You nailed it! But don't tell TexModDem. They're liable to FREAK OUT!1!!!!!11! again. LOL

I CAN HAS CLINTON LEGACY?

eric wrote on January 16, 2008 11:23 PM:

Roadkill Refugee wrote on January 16, 2008 10:10 PM:
I donated to Obama, and I think I want a refund... His contempt for Clinton is so great he belittles the only multi-term Democratic president since FDR. What Obama's celebrating about Reagan is how Reagan spun and conned America, led by Michael Deaver, his alcoholic, convicted PR man, not what Reagan actually did (Obama admits he disagrees with Reagan's policies). Ironically, Reagan was hardly all about being inclusive and harmonious. While Reagan was running his slick "morning in America" TV ads, he was divisively inventing bogeymen of welfare queens, quotas, union slackers, and liberals, and appointing Scalia, Rehnquist (to Chief), O'Connor and Kennedy (only after the Bork nomination failed) to the Supreme Court. Pretty transformative, that whole overturning the Warren and Burger Courts thing. By contrast, Clinton nominated Breyer and Ginsberg, who have been much better than any of Reagan's picks.

Thank you for sharing. I agree fully.

ChrisNBama wrote on January 16, 2008 11:26 PM:

I think the larger perspective seems to be missing from all this. In three days the dems will caucus in a very red state, and then move on to another very red state. Obama is NOT going to persuade the Clinton dems to vote for him, but he MAY be able to persuade the so-called Reagan democrats.

I think this was a very smart, strategic play by Obama.

ARR wrote on January 17, 2008 12:05 AM:

I am perplexed by the response of some people posting here. It's as if they didn't even listen to the interview clip or, if they did, they looked at in complete isolation from everything else Obama (or anyone else) has ever said or written on the subject. It's really sad that the discourse here has sunk to such a low level.

Obama's past statements on Reagan, his voting record, and his books make it absolutely clear that he was not and is not supportive of the changes Reagan made in the 1980s. What Obama is saying is that the kind of incremental changes that came about during the Clinton administration did not compare to the more fundamental political changes wrought during the Reagan years. Obama does not agree with those changes but acknowledges the political reality behind them. And he's not the only one.

Who said in a State of the Union address, "The era of big government is over"? Ronald Reagan? No, think again--it was Bill Clinton.

marcus wrote on January 17, 2008 12:10 AM:

I find it instructive that so many so-called intelligent politically people are getting themselves so riled up over this. It is really the first time many of them have been confronted with a charismatic politician that seeks to engage them on an intellectual level. You can almost see in the posts here the difficulty in moving beyond the political framework for the last 30+ years. It is as if you are telling them the world is flat again. They are struggling with it. They can't get past the word Reagan. He looms so large in their collective consciousness that the assumption is that any poltician who does critique him in the standard way must somehow want to conjure the man himself. Obama is offering the delectable, tantalizing idea that the Reagan paradigm shift can go the other way. The idea to them seems so patently absurd to them. How can this be, they wonder. So thoroughly beaten down are they that they can only conceive of shaking their eternal fist at the moon. They have no faith in the ability to shift a paradigm they've been convinced is permanent. Their critique in many ways only reinforces the very idea that Obama's observation was deconstructing. But you can see that many are not able to go there with them. For them it is madness.

It is clear that here, Obama is signifying something much greater than himself. He is trying to point to a way out of the wilderness but they'd rather believe the way doesn't exist.

Mike wrote on January 17, 2008 12:20 AM:

Obama is right.

This is basically a warmed-up Skowronek paradigm shift argument, noting that Reagan was a reconstruction president. And it is true that most scholars of the type think that Reagan was a paradigm shifting President, a minor FDR if you will, whereas Clinton was a preemptive president fighting a paradigm at every turn.

It is good that Obama wants to be a new paradigming reconstruction president.

mary reynolds wrote on January 17, 2008 12:24 AM:

so, you vastly increase the efficiency of government, you meet the opposition party halfway on trade and welfare reform, you endure 8 years of investigations on unfounded or unimportant accusations and still show up with an effective presidency and this is how it gets played: you didn't change the country like reagan did.

didn't parlay with the iranians behind a sitting president's back. didn't cover up gun-running operations that shed rivers of blood in central america. didn't take credit for the fall of communist russia that was basically accomplished by the marshall plan. didn't foster rumsfeld and cheney...

how can i expect obama to address social security and runaway deficits and global warming and oil dependence with thinking like this? i'm seriously reconsidering my support for him.

slb wrote on January 17, 2008 12:32 AM:

It is really the first time many of them have been confronted with a charismatic politician that seeks to engage them on an intellectual level.

Not hardly, youngster. It's because many of us have seen how easily charismatic figures can enchant the lemmings into jumping over the cliff that we are concerned.

Not that I really understand how they find Obama so enchanting. Inspiring speaker? I find him tedious and preachy.

slb wrote on January 17, 2008 12:35 AM:

so, you vastly increase the efficiency of government, you meet the opposition party halfway on trade and welfare reform, you endure 8 years of investigations on unfounded or unimportant accusations and still show up with an effective presidency and this is how it gets played: you didn't change the country like reagan did.

[High five]

Elrod wrote on January 17, 2008 12:46 AM:

I love how Obama exactly echoes the progressive critique of Clinton - that he had no transformative power and did little to truly change the course of the nation - and yet many so-called progressives breathlessly whine that Obama makes the point vis-a-vis Reagan. Obama is making a very accurate historical point about Reagan, who not only won comfortably in 1980 but was re-elected in a landslide in 1984. I cannot stand Ronald Reagan, but I certainly recognize his transformative power on the nation in 1980.

Clinton is associated with peace and prosperity in the 1990s, and with holding off the right wing in Congress. But did he advance a progressive agenda the way Reagan advanced a conservative agenda? Hell no. Clinton triangulated away any progressivism while Reagan embraced his ideological base.

HarpoMarxist wrote on January 17, 2008 12:50 AM:

"...any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction."

-- Hillary Clinton, October 10th, 2002

"That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason
but on passion, not on principle but on politics."

-- Barack Obama, October 2, 2002

mike2 wrote on January 17, 2008 12:51 AM:

I think we should just take a deep breath and consider the possibility that Obama and Clinton are both deeply flawed unacceptable candidates for the nomination.... one of whom we're probably going end up voting for in the Presidential election.

Clinton... uninspiring and heir to Clintonian triangulation....

Obama reaching so desperately for the middle that you KNOW he is going to abandon the left and govern there. But he gives good verbiage.

Both are intelligent. Both are pro-corporate.... will only advance their agendas in cooperation with Wall Street and corporate America.

Both are imperialists... unlikely to reduce US troop presence around the globe... unlikely to pull back from empire.

Do YOU believe that Obama has some secret of democratic people power that he is going to use to take the country in a new direction? I do not.

Nor does Hillary, self evidently.

It really really really doesn't matter which of these two corporate imperialists becomes President... they are both alright, and intelligent and want to do the right thing, but they are running in a matrix of political power that profoundly limits their capacity for independent action.

Reagan changed America not with his rhetoric, but by bringing corporate America into the governance system... by moving us toward fascism. THAT was a plan.

What would Obama's revolution be.... marches in the street? More democracy? Those would be great things, but is it possible? What forces will he seriously use to defeat corporate America's entrenched control of the election and governance system?

Yes, self evidently he meant "transformational" like Reagan, not "fascist" like Reagan. But what is his plan for acknowledging and attacking our fascist and corporate controlled government?

I have no doubt that Hillary is at peace with that form of government, just as Bill Clinton was. Obama is HINTING that he is not, but somehow making more modest , more right wing sounding policy proposals (eg. health care, social security.) Is that ALSO part of his secret plan to transform our corporate fascist system? If so, it is very clever... so clever that I don't get it.

Yeah, I'll vote for one of them in the general election (or most any other Democrat), but with eyes wide open, and with no expectations of transformation at all. I REALLY don't care which one wins the intraparty contest... only that one of them wins the general. And, yes racial prejudice is about the same level of problem as Clinton fatigue, so neither has an obvious advantage in the general election either.

Aaron M wrote on January 17, 2008 12:54 AM:

I think it’s important to point out that one of the primary reasons that so many Americans (including myself) are drawn to Barack Obama is the belief (and hope) that he can do for Democrats and the progressive movement, what Reagan did for Republicans and conservative movement. (And this is not a blind hope, but an informed one based in part on his impressive and progressive ten year legislative record, his history as a community organizer, and his work as a civil rights lawyer and senior lecturer of Constitutional Law.)

At the 2004 Democratic National Convention many Americans saw (for the first time) Obama speak passionately about what makes America great- but from a progressive perspective of inclusion, hope, and possibility (in stark contrast to the standard Republican appeals to fear, anger, and resentment).

For many of us, Obama seemed to get it. He was able to communicate so effectively what so many of us already understood: that progressive values ARE American values; that progressive positions are deeply patriotic positions; and that progressive policies are the most pro-family and represent the best hope for our nation's security.

Obama understands that a majority Americans have become disillusioned with the corruption and incompetence of Republican rule; he understands that the American people are ready to hear this message, and unite behind a new movement.

Reagan created a new movement, and did so by tapping into the disillusionment of Americans in the years immediately following Vietnam and Watergate; and in the process he created a new electoral majority. And Reagan succeeded in large part by helping Americans feel good about themselves and their country again. Unfortunately, the patriotism that Reagan pitched was largely hollow and intolerant; in addition, he linked this renewed sense of "patriotism" to a demonization and resentment of government and the less fortunate within our society.

Now Obama also appeals to peoples' sense of patriotism; but the patriotism Obama describes is rooted deeply in a belief that government can work for its citizens and in particular the most vulnerable among us; it is a patriotism born from the idea that we are our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers; it is a patriotism that values most highly our Constitution, our civil liberties, and our commitment to human rights.

Yes, like Reagan, Obama hopes to create a new electoral majority in this country.

But unlike Reagan he will do so by appealing to our better angels and the idea that we as a people can do better by living up to and fulfilling our nation's promise as defined by our greatest ideals and principles.

Joe Lisboa wrote on January 17, 2008 1:07 AM:

Obama's points are both historically accurate and politically (i.e., tactically) astute. The (national) Democratic Party has tolerated a culture of mealy-mouthed mediocrity for far too long. A candidate lands in our proverbial laps with the ability to captivate the nation's imagination (and thereby help move it leftward, for those of you thinking more than two steps ahead here) and we're concerned he's potentially too attractive to too many Americans, even those who have not historically sided with us?! Really?? I forgot that pointing out that Reagan was a wildly popular two-term and epoch-changing (for ill, IMHO) president is now verboten by Dems in any content whatsoever. Those of you implying that Obama is uncritically praising Reagan, here, are missing the point entirely

Seriously: if you want to win the general in a potentially decisive way, convert more Rs and Is to Ds, pick up a bunch of Congressional seats and a mandate (on important things like health care and Iraq) to boot, all while putting the tired, tired 90s to bed already, well then you know what to do.

And it ain't nominating Hillary.

Niwind wrote on January 17, 2008 1:10 AM:

"so, you vastly increase the efficiency of government, you meet the opposition party halfway on trade and welfare reform, you endure 8 years of investigations on unfounded or unimportant accusations and still show up with an effective presidency and this is how it gets played: you didn't change the country like reagan did.

didn't parlay with the iranians behind a sitting president's back. didn't cover up gun-running operations that shed rivers of blood in central america. didn't take credit for the fall of communist russia that was basically accomplished by the marshall plan. didn't foster rumsfeld and cheney...

how can i expect obama to address social security and runaway deficits and global warming and oil dependence with thinking like this? i'm seriously reconsidering my support for him. "

I think that Obama is not saying that Clinton was a bad president. In fact in earlier in the video he admits there is not much difference in his and Hillary's health plan. That he admired and wants to go back to the Clinton economic policy, as well as saying her respected their stand on health care. But what he is saying is that Clinton did not reverse the conservative movement that Reagan started in 1980 but merely manuevered in the enviroment that Reagan set up. At the end of Clinton's era we got a Republican House, Senate, and Presidency of conservative mayhem. Ideologically, Clinton did not reverse the trend of increasing conservatism in America and in fact was a moderate in ideological term.

Just like JFK, Reagan created a new dynamic in political discourse. Where JFK opened up the age of progressive progress, Reagan opened up conservative process which we are still suffering from today.

BigMajority wrote on January 17, 2008 1:36 AM:

All Obama means here is JFK and Reagan created new majorities that relaigned the parties in a way that allowed their party to remain the majority for a long time after they were elected. Obama wants to pull independents, moderate republicans, that in the past voted for the GOP and new voters, along with the Democratic base to create a new ruling majority that will live past this election.

The Clintons, while they obviously know how to win elections, always seem to settle for the 50+1 majority. Hold on to the base and win just enough votes to get them over the top. This might win elections but it does not build long lasting effective majorities. The electorate in this case remains divided and polarized making it very difficult to get things done.

Zephyrus wrote on January 17, 2008 3:20 AM:

I love the contortions of the intentionally obtuse to try to claim Obama is running as a neo-Reaganite.

Imagine if Clinton compared herself to, say, LBJ, and Obama supporters started braying "SHE WANTS TO INVADE VIETNAM!!!" They'd rightly be laughed out of the house. And yet when Clinton supporters do the same to Obama, they think they're making some kind of substantive point. Here's a hint: not all voters are as stupid as that. Try again.

vix wrote on January 17, 2008 3:23 AM:

I think the way Obama says this is meant to be a smear of the Clintons. C'mon he has to run not only against his opponet but her husband who was a very popular president. It was most definately meant as a smear. Makes me look at Obama as just another politican.

laurel wrote on January 17, 2008 3:56 AM:

I doubt that Obama will realign the parties because so far the animosity between Obama and Hillary supporters is quite bad. If he can't even bring the Dems together, how will he bring the whole country together? He seems to be more interested in pandering to the Republicans and Independents, while ignoring the large group of Hillary supporters who will take offense at his jabs at Bill Clinton. He is implying that Clinton's presidency wasn't good enough since Clinton didn't bring about a Revolution. He might get the Reagan Democrats, but he risks losing the Clinton supporters.

If he isn't able to deliver on his promises, the country will end up even worse off, especially after having endured Bush for 8 years. I agree that Obama wants to change the country in a great way, but every aspiring President hopes to be the great leader of his/her time.

jello wrote on January 17, 2008 4:35 AM:

obama, in the response to the mortage crisis in the debate, argued for "the need for more regulatory oversight." calling for more regulation on corporate practices is hardly a reagan-esqe position. contrast that with bill clinton who deregulated banking legislation.

remember "the age of big government is over"? that was bill clinton aping reagan. reagan talked about welfare moms but it took clinton to dismantle it.

Matt S. wrote on January 17, 2008 6:29 AM:

I've been on numerous blogs on sites from LA to London and I must say that those here in the States, not everyone mind you, seem to not be paying too much attention to the FACTS. I see people continuing to post ignorant and uniformed responses. One cannot claim to know about these candidates' real stances and ideas by reading some headlines or listening to the spin on MSM. If you listen carefully and objectively, Obama makes a very good point. He isn't saying he is the next Reagan. Instead he is saying is what made Reagan so successful is he had a united majority and vision. Reagan was a leader, not just a manager. At that point, America was looking for a leader. Bill Clinton wasn't a leader, just the CEO. Just a businessman running the company.

Right now America is looking for a leader. Obama has the intelligence judgment, strength of character and vision that is necessary now. The Clinton's are very good at policy-they are book-smart. They can study the issues and crunch the numbers, but they just re-hash the same issues with the same methods but different polices. No outside-the-box thinking. No vision. Can one truly expect to get different results with the same people doing the same things?

At the root, both Obama's and Clinton's policy ideas are similar. Where Obama differs is he goes the extra mile to invent the new software not just upgrade it. He challenges and inspires us to not just launch the rocket in to space, but put a man in it and send it to the moon. He doesn't just talk about, he has done it. But he reminds us that it will take time. If Reagan can bring down the Iron Curtain by talking directly, one on one, with our enemy, Russia, why would it be hopeless or naive to think we could do similarly with Iran and Syria and the like?

If you do some serious objective fact finding you would find that Clinton does not indeed have '35 years of experience' as she would like to remind us. Her 7+ years as US Senator is the ONLY political office she has held and hasn't much to show for it. Obama has more to show for his 3+ years as US Senator and even more to show in 8 years as a state senator in Illinois. That is pure FACT.

I could go on but I leave it to you to find the truth. Check out Obama's website under the 'issues' tab and especially under 'ethics' to get an idea of the vision for change he has. It is very fresh and motivating. I won't tell you who to vote for, just please make informed, educated responses and decisions.

Kefa wrote on January 17, 2008 6:37 AM:

So riddle me this......how do you this this is gonna sit with the black people in SC?
Not to well I think, since you all are so concerned with black feelings these days.
Spin the love Reagan had for the black people back then, let's go down memory lane for a bit.

Don L wrote on January 17, 2008 6:45 AM:

If he's admiring Reagan shouldn't he place himself subject to his commandment about - speaking no ill of others in your own party?

yesterday gone wrote on January 17, 2008 7:22 AM:

If he's admiring Reagan shouldn't he place himself subject to his commandment about - speaking no ill of others in your own party?

did obama engage in muslim baiting against somebody? or attack their kindergarden record? did obama call out somebody for inhaling?

Anonymous wrote on January 17, 2008 8:09 AM:

Jeebus, a lot of you Hillary folks completely missed the point. It's not so much that he's reaching for the center (certainly Hillary can lay equal claim to that mantle), it's that this is a tipping point moment, and really cries out for a "Great Communicator"-esque figure. Yes, we all agree that St. Reagan's dementia probably set in some time around the "October Surprise," but let's face it, his effectiveness is part and parcel of our loathing for him. Obama certainly has the capacity to do the same thing from the other side, and more so than Hillary.

frankly0 wrote on January 17, 2008 8:35 AM:

I just don't understand how the Obama supporters don't get why the obvious admiration Obama expresses for Reagan should disturb progressives.

Look, people, Reagan was a demagogue. Sure, he fed into feelings of "optimism" and hope -- but that's what demagogues do. But then, instead of delivering on the optimism and hope, the voters get the shaft instead.

Isn't this exactly the story of Reagan? Wasn't he the best example of a President who claimed to care about the "optimism" of average voter, and yet turned right around and implemented policies that sabotaged their interests so that he could serve the rich?

What Democrat -- besides Obama, of course -- could look at this cynical manipulation of the voters' aspirations and declare that there is much to be admired in it, and that he himself will model his Presidency in key ways on Reagan's?

Really, it's hard not to conclude that Obama really doesn't get the difference between real hope and false hope, or simply doesn't care, and he is happy to model his own behavior on a paradigm example of a President -- a demagogue -- promoting false hope.

Is it too much to ask that we have as a Democratic President someone who knows and appreciates the difference between false hope and optimism and the real things?

frankly0 wrote on January 17, 2008 8:39 AM:

And as for Reagan being "transformative", well, demagogues often are, aren't they?

This is to be admired, and to be incorporated into your own Presidency?

frankly0 wrote on January 17, 2008 8:41 AM:

Oh, one other quick point.

It seems that some Obama supporters are eager to point to the idea that Reagan, after all, was the Great Communicator.

Well, I can tell you that among my progressive friends at the time, we had another name for him: the Great Prevaricator.

Such a fine model for a Democratic President!

Anonymous wrote on January 17, 2008 8:42 AM:

Remember in New Hampshire during her "cry", Hillary said.. "I dont want to see us fall backwards"... then she went on the bash Obama. Hillary sees Obama "change" as backwards. Hillary is nothing more than g w bush in a PANTSUIT.

Hillary only parrots Obama's speech. She doesn't believe it.

conway wrote on January 17, 2008 8:57 AM:

Matt s: you were realy getting a head of steam until he commented on Hillary 7 years in the Senate. Please take your own advice and get your fact straight. Or ask Sen Brownback (R), Graham(R), or Lott(R) as they are already on record that Sen Clinton worked hard, did not throw her weight around, reached across the aisle, etc. Then go to up state New York and talk to people. They will tell you about a hard working Senator who followed up on her promises to help.

This takes nothing away from Obama. But it shows how, for all your familiarity with blogs elsewhere, you still slant your argument for the person you support. That is okay. But to dismiss Sen Clinton's contribution shows that you do let your preference get in the way of your opening point.

DonnaG wrote on January 17, 2008 9:15 AM:

Greg Sargent,
Thanks for offering the link to the full RGJ interview.
I watched the entire 49 minutes last night.

I defy anyone to watch that full interview and come away with anything other than deep appreciation for Obama's extraordinary mind. He possesses a remarkable ability to focus the related historic and current parts of issues in a way to hit the jugular, again and again arriving at a synthesis of the whole and then clearly communicating that synthesis in outlining the steps to be achieved to reach goals.

Gestalt theory postulates that the whole is more than a sum of the parts. I am struck by a contrast between Obama and Hillary Clinton in terms of gestalt theory. Hilllary seems able to almost endlessly 'list the parts', yet Obama can do that same 'parts listing' AND keep sight of the interrelationships of those parts to each other in the whole field of 'what to do' and 'when to do it' to achieve substantive, even transformative change in overall functioning of the government and the nation.

I try to imagine Hillary having the synthesizing mind to also perform like this in a long interview, and the picture of such happening just won't jell.
It is not that she cannot list all the parts important to any specific endeavor [like foreign policy], but rather that she does not show a capacity to effectively understand and communicate all the interrelationships which constitute overall whole functioning. Barack talks a lot in that interview about the structural changes necessary to effect functional change, while Hillary seems tied to using willful over-powering to force functional change.

abby wrote on January 17, 2008 9:24 AM:

The worst thing here is that he implies that Reagan was better than bill clinton. For all that reagan said about spending, he increased the federal deficit, which Clinton covered up. You can see the comparison here: http://zzpat.tripod.com/graphs.htm

Then again, it's obvious why Obama is impressed by Reagan, both are all talk, no action, appeal to emotions rather than rationality.

Jane wrote on January 17, 2008 9:48 AM:

Great TNR piece on Obama that may shed light on his seeming overtures to Republicans:

The Visionary Minimalist
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=8200e5c2-a250-4532-b318-6182083b698e&p=1

frankly0 wrote on January 17, 2008 10:08 AM:

The Visionary Minimalist

Yeah, I guess it's Obama's "minimalism" that made him plunk down for universal health care that clearly wasn't universal.

But don't worry -- I'm sure he'll get Americans to feel good while they're getting the shaft instead of the real deal -- just like his man-crush Reagan.

Hey, if Reagan could lie so convincingly to the American people, why shouldn't Obama lie about "universal" health care while delivering Republican-lite?

Oh, I'm so much looking forward to the Obama "transformation".

savvy wrote on January 17, 2008 10:11 AM:

Donna G,
Excellent post. I would succintly put the Gestalt theory as Hillary 'can't see the forest for the trees'.

Your point about interelationships is also critically important as it is the causal relationship that underscores the lack of good judgment and leadership on Hillary's part. She sees the parts not the whole. Thus her great managerial skills without executive expertise.

Hilliary has the intellectual capacity to tell us about every type of tree species and whether it is deciduous or coniferous yet she does not grasp the ecological balance of trees, sunlight and the gases emitted that enable human life to exist. Consequently, she would vote for a war because it is politically expedient without every once realizing that if she cuts down the trees she diminshes the gasses that are essential to maintain human life.

Obama however is brilliant and his ideas are transformative and thankfully he is not a visionary before his time...he presciently tells us (just as he did about the war) as he concludes his speechs:

America our moment is NOW. This is our defining moment...Let's go change the world.

those last 5 words tell enable us to think about shifting the fundamental way we do politics in this country.

Anonymous wrote on January 17, 2008 10:24 AM:

reagan used his cult of personality to win over the 'reagan democrats' to move the country severely to the right.

obama wants to use his cult of personality to win over 'obama republicans' to move the country meekly to just right of the middle or if you squint one eye maybe it's just left of the middle.

Robert Levy wrote on January 17, 2008 10:39 AM:

Obama is appropriately invoking the argument that was presented in the book Regime Change Begins at Home. He is saying that Reagan "took the country in a different direction". Everyone knows what direction he took it in. Obama is implying that he could be sort of a Reagan but for a different direction, the direction that events must go in now to address current concerns, a more progressive direction.

Marc wrote on January 17, 2008 10:56 AM:

I think it could have been worded better but he's basically saying there was a moment where America was full of hope and ready for optimism, and Reagan tapped into that. I think most people understand the point he was making. Yes, there was some mild praise of the the man. But the larger point is not policy related. He is saying that there is a parallel moment now where people are ready to rally around big change. The kind of change he is offering is very clearly not the same as that of Reagan, and so the point he is making is a valid one for a democratic candidate to make. He's showing that he senses the mood of the country, and this is a big plus on his side.

Anonymous wrote on January 17, 2008 10:57 AM:

Roadkill Refugee wrote:

"...While Reagan was running his slick "morning in America" TV ads, he was divisively inventing bogeymen of welfare queens, quotas, union slackers, and liberals, and appointing Scalia, Rehnquist (to Chief), O'Connor and Kennedy (only after the Bork nomination failed) to the Supreme Court. Pretty transformative, that whole overturning the Warren and Burger Courts thing."

Yes, exactly. Thanks for making Obama's point.

Frank wrote on January 17, 2008 10:59 AM:

I don't see how being a reagan democrat is a good thing unless you think joe lieberman or zell miller are good?

DBX wrote on January 17, 2008 11:36 AM:

There's a bad disconnection in these comments between rhetoric, talking points and policy.

Obama is absolutely right on the rhetoric; there needs to be a conversational push towards transformation.

Obama undermines himself all too often on the talking points; he concedes too much ground to the right to be transformational, and he'll have to change that, and fast. Ironically he shares this problem with Bill Clinton; he wants too much to be liked, and sometimes forgets the importance of being respected.

Obama is fairly solid on policy -- but still does not articulate the vision of three or four transformational goals (this failure is due to the talking points problem) that is needed to build the support for the kind of major changes in policy that are needed.

Paulie wrote on January 17, 2008 11:44 AM:

More Reagan love from Obama. The following is from Obama's book:

"That Reagan's message found such a receptive audience spoke not only to his skills as a communicator; it also spoke to the failures of liberal government, during a period of economic stagnation, to give middle-class voters any sense that it was fighting for them. For the fact was government at every level had become to cavalier about spending taxpayer money. Too often bureaucracies were oblivious to the cost of their mandates. A lot of liberal rhetoric did seem to value rights and entitlements over duties and responsibilities. Reagan may have exaggerated the sins of the welfare state, and certainly liberals were right to complain that his domestic policies tilted heavily toward elites, with corporate raiders making tidy profits throughout the eighties while unions were busted and the income for the average working stiff flatlined.

Nevertheless, by promising to side with those who worked hard, obeyed the law, cared for their families, loved their country, Reagan offered Americans a sense of common purpose that liberals seemed no longer able to muster."

Pat Bresina wrote on January 17, 2008 12:03 PM:

The Republican marketing machinery that coalesced during Reagan's presidency had more more to do with changing the direction of the company than Reagan's leadership. This marketing machine very effectively sanctified Ronald Reagan/ conservatism, demonized Bill Clinton/liberalism and is only now losing steam due to the disaster that is George W. Bush.

MonaL wrote on January 17, 2008 12:10 PM:

CommonSense: "Likewise, I find it hard to believe that you folks can't recognize Reagan's appeal. Not on policy, but on a leadership. "

I did not like Reagan, did not vote for him and saw through his "kumbaya" bs as an 19-year-old in 1981. People who did believe his line (or appeal) were and are "sheep" or "useful idiots". This is true of the folks who believed GWB was a uniter, also true of Obama. The three were/are masterful politicians, but empty suits nonetheless. No more inspiring politicians for me. I want the smart ones who really know how to get it done. I would however vote for Obama if he were the candidate.

DBX wrote on January 17, 2008 1:12 PM:

Actually, the Obama quote from Paulie's post doesn't bother me at all. Liberals had definitely gotten sidetracked on emphasizing entitlement rather than responsibility and preaching to specific interests on a group by group basis, and the consequences were there for all to see when they weren't able to put any hits on Reagan despite the Republican union bashing and economic failures and the giveaways to the rich.

What bothers me is Obama's recent tendency towards using right wing talking points. This most recent remark concerns me because it seems to me that Obama is hesitating to criticize the Reagan legacy on policy. It's fine to point out that Reagan was a great communicator and a transformative figure that the Democrats could do well to learn from in terms of political tactics -- but it is a very different matter to rationalize Reagan policies. The moment you do anything to rationalize the Reagan legacy on policy, you're entering very dangerous territory in which bad things could happen; dismantling Social Security, punting on environmental policy, failing to reverse wealth inequality.

For example, when Obama says that there is a Social Security crisis, he's making an immediate concession to the Republicans, because the fact is that over the past 25 years the Social Security trustees' "optimistic" projection rather than the "middle scenario" has always been the one that turned out to be accurate. And that "optimistic" scenario holds for no default in Social Security at all. How ironic that this favorable state of affairs that Obama and most of official Washington won't admit to was the result of Reagan and Tip O'Neill cutting a deal.

DancingBear wrote on January 17, 2008 1:28 PM:

Frank wrote: "I don't see how being a reagan democrat is a good thing unless you think joe lieberman or zell miller are good?"

Who said being a Reagan Democrat (meaning a Democrat who was unsatisfied with his party and thus voted for Reagan) was "a good thing"?

Adam Smith wrote on January 17, 2008 2:27 PM:

The thing that so many forget is that Reagan's ideas worked because they struck a chord. People could understand them, and they intuitively made sense. That won't work for Obama, and that is why liberals always have to campaign as a conservative in general elections. Government programs are nearly always mediocre or worse, and people don't want more mediocre. If Obama can speak in terms of vague ideas and high-minded notions, he might win. If he tries to transform the culture through Big Government, he's going to hit a brick wall. As for me, I don't want anyone to tell me how to spend my money, and I don't want my neighbor's money to pay for my health care, college, or anything else. This is revolting to me because I have pride and faith in my own abilities.

DBX wrote on January 17, 2008 2:58 PM:

"Adam Smith" makes a very important point. It is more difficult to distill liberal ideas into simplistic talking points than conservative ideas. With the drift of conservatism away from modernist rationality towards populism, you're talking about the difference between logic and emotion. Logic simply takes longer to explain than emotion; it's not as easy to soundbite.

So the important thing for Obama is to hit upon things we can all agree on -- personal responsibility, clean government, transcending partisan conflict -- without compromising the basics; Social Security, health care access for all, a sustainable environment, a progressive tax code, security abroad, and quality of life at home. He needs to be very careful not to compromise these basic policies at the same time as emphasizing the stuff that everyone can and should agree on.

Dawn wrote on January 17, 2008 3:33 PM:

The left-wing of the Party is becoming so blinded by hatred, that we can't appreciate rationale anymore. It's perfectly sane to hate Reagan's policies, but to diminish his poltiical abilities is silly and quite stupid. We can't keep running a 48% of the country campaign. We have to build a new majority with Independents and moderate Republicans--the same as Reagan did with conservative Democrats. Hate Reagan, but don't hate his game...learn from it!

WorkingMan wrote on January 17, 2008 11:56 PM:

OK, having slept on it, I want to rescind my previous post. I tend to get apoplectic when Reagan's name comes up, and for good reason.
Obama's too smart to triangulate to the right-wingers. Actually, it was Clinton who did the real triangulation. Read the list of Clinton's essentially right-wing proposals in Michael Moore's "Stupid White Men." It looks like Rupert Murdoch's Christmas List.
Lest this turn into a Clinton bash-fest, that's not what I'm saying. But the deference to corporate power, the attack on welfare, the march toward globalization, left many of us scratching our heads. Times were undeniably good, though, and fiscal responsibility ruled the day.
However, the door was left open. Wide open.
At any rate, if Obama is saying that he will tap into reasonable people's disgust at the current health care system, the appalling profiteering on Wall Street that coincides with the shrinking of the middle class, and the real fading of the American Dream, all in an effort to shift the country sharply back toward sanity, then count me in.

sallythewally wrote on January 18, 2008 12:21 AM:

Having read several threads of comments by Obama supporters, I do find the comments to be consistently and remarkably like the ideas expressed by members of my own generation (including me) in the 60s - thin-skinned, self- righteous, often cruelly sarcastic and aggressive, and certain of the superiority and beauty of their vision of life. He says his supporters are noted for their respectfulness but that's the last thing I see from them in these threads.

My generation's idealism and determination were attached to specifics, and therefore became part of a truly profound transformation in American history and culture. Some of us, black and white, even died on behalf of the civil rights movement and both in opposing and participating in the Vietnam War. That time cracked open the door for an Obama to walk through today.

But I can't find such specifics in the vision referenced by Obama and his supporters. Just bitching about partisanship and talking about all coming together is meaningless. What will the world actually look like when their transformation is done?

This question does not make me a stupid retro moron unable to drag my mind out of the stupid retro moron past. This question is valid and deserves clear answers.

How can Obama be for progressives what Reagan was for conservatives when many of Obama's policies are less progressive than those of both Clinton and Edwards?

Another thing: The angry, elaborate 500-word explanations, repeated over and over again by Obama's supporters in these threads, of how Obama didn't mean the plain meaning of his statements, and how stupid we all for not intuiting that the real meaning is obviously the direct opposite of the plain meaning of these statements, is so tiresome!!!!!

I am a writer and editor, I earned a 680 on the analytical section and a 740 on the verbal section of the Graduate Record Exam, and I can tell what words mean. If you need 500 words to try to convince me that Obama's words don't mean what they say, you may as well admit failure. If that were true, you wouldn't need 500 words.

I cannot get myself to trust that Obama is what he presents himself to be. It would help a lot if he could be specific about his actual vision (no, not just bringing people together. But I don't see that coming. And given the less progressive Obama policies we do know about, I am concerned that he is a very well-packaged but triangulating, centrist, bargaining old-style Democrat, not a progressive. I think this is what some people mean when they say he is actually the old establishment. And it might be why so many of the old-style Democrats in Washington are endorsing him these days. You know, the ones who haven't gotten anything done since they took power.

Finally, I think it's apparent he is extraordinarily sure of his own importance and with his hypnotic ability to give speeches without revealing anything, I think that's dangerous.

If Obama is going to earn my vote, much less campaign for him, he's going to have to show himself a lot more clearly and a lot more progressive than he has so far.

WorkingMan wrote on January 18, 2008 12:51 AM:

sallythewally:

First, I would recommend Andrew Sullivan's piece about how Obama is the right choice precisely BECAUSE he is not a baby-boomer.

I look forward to the day when baby-boomers are no longer relevant. As a gen X-er, most of my heroes in politics, arts and literature are baby boomers.

So you will never understand the depths of despair I (and others) have been launched into as we watched your generation sell your hard-earned 60s values CHEAP in the 1980s and beyond.

Hunter S. Thompson had a particularly memorable rant when he asked, (to paraphrase), Where are all those people I met back then? What happened to them? I thought we were going to change the world.

I would say the "Me" Generation DID change the world. And here it is.

WorkingMan wrote on January 18, 2008 1:05 AM:

Oh, and yes, technically, Obama is a baby-boomer, but Sullivan points out he does not spring from that cultural epoch, and was born at the tail-end of the official demarcation.

In other words he does not have a dog in that fight. That silly sibling-rivalry fight that has been going on in this country for 40 years.

DancingBear wrote on January 18, 2008 8:10 AM:

Well, now Obama has REALLY stepped in it. On NPR's All Things Considered last night, when asked for his presidential role model, he said ABRAHAM LINCOLN!!! Another Republican!!! Obviously the man is a Republican wolf in Democratic sheep's clothing!!!

Zee wrote on January 18, 2008 9:33 AM:

Why do people keep repeating the meme that Dems "need" to bring in rethugs and independents? Has it been escaping everyone's notice that the Dem turnout in the primary season has been passionate and vastly outnumbering those on the other side?

If Obama wants to run as a Lieberman independent, let him do so openly and honestly and butt out of the Dem race. This is nothing new for Obama, as he supported sending "his good friend" Joe back to D.C. after the CT Dems kicked his sorry butt to the curb and elected Lamont.

Obama's not a Dem. Period.

BernieO wrote on January 18, 2008 9:36 AM:

I think this was a huge mistake on Obama's part and an insult to his party. Obama's definition of a successful president is one who gets his policies and world view adopted regardless of the harm it does to our country?
It is important for this country that the worship of Reagan stops. Ironically, just as some conservatives are beginning to have the guts to say this, Obama decides to speak positively about him!
This country is still trying to clean up the mess Reagan made, yet criticising Saint Reagan is taboo. Some examples: Reagan's implementing of the goofy supply side economic "theory" has put this country billions of dollars into debt yet Republicans are still drinking this Kool Aid.
After the oil crisis in the 70's our government put in place aggressive policies to promote energy independence which were extremely effective. Reagan came in with his fairy tale "We can have it all" and did away with these policies, making us much more vulnerable than we would have been if he had faced the fact that oil was a problem for us.
He instituted the free market fundamentalist creed and did away with regulations (or failed to enforce the ones he couldn't kill)and VOILA!! we got the Savings and Loan disaster that cost taxpayers billions in bailout money while the fat cats got off scot free.
He also bought into the Star Wars fiction. We are still paying for that program even though it does not work, and according to many top physicists can never work.
For any Democrat to praise Reagan is ridiculous. He may have been a success, but it was not as president, it was as a politician. It is time our country faced up to this and dropped the disastrous policies he championed.

DancingBear wrote on January 18, 2008 10:50 AM:

BernieO wrote: "...This country is still trying to clean up the mess Reagan made...Reagan's implementing of the goofy supply side economic "theory" has put this country billions of dollars into debt yet Republicans are still drinking this Kool Aid...Reagan came in...and did away with these policies, making us much more vulnerable than we would have been if he had faced the fact that oil was a problem for us...He also bought into the Star Wars fiction. We are still paying for that program even though it does not work, and according to many top physicists can never work."

Sounds like you agree with Obama.

MPinSC wrote on January 18, 2008 12:47 PM:

Reagan did it by being strongly and unashamedly partisan. He made no bones about the fact that he was yanking the country hard right AWAY from the ideals of the Democrats. He wrapped it all in a sunny schtick, but his words and policies were conservative to the core.

Obama is doing no such thing in reverse. Obama is similar to Reagan in that he has the sunny schtick and is campaigning against the Democratic Party and their long-held ideals and core constituencies whenever it suits him to woo the middle. He out-triangulates even Bill, and that is hard to do.

Obama is not the leftward reverse of Reagan. He is Reagan with no political compass at all. Which makes his obvious admiration for the man even more disturbing.

Skeeter Sanders wrote on January 18, 2008 1:52 PM:

Although I will never forgive Ronald Reagan for his willful ignorance of the AIDS crisis, I actually voted for the man in 1980, because I was sick of the preachy, self-righteous peanut farmer from Plains, Georgia who couldn't get along with his own party in Congress and who was fatally wounded by Ted Kennedy's 1980 primary challenge against him.

And I was far from alone, as many longtime Democrats abandoned the party to vote for Reagan. Why? Because -- contrary to popular belief -- it wasn't the Iran hostage crisis that did Jimmy Carter in. It was the economy tanking in 1980 -- and Carter's total failure to do anything about it. By the time Reagan was sworn in in January 20, 1981, America was well on its way to its worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Unemployment soared to a post-Depression high of 10 percent as millions of Americans lost their jobs and millions more lost their homes.

Twenty-eight years later, I predict that by the time the Republicans hold their convention in Minneapolis in September, the U.S. economy will fall to the brink of a second Great Depression, with all-time record-high gasoline prices above $4 a gallon or higher, unemployment matching -- perhaps topping -- that 10 percent post-Depression high and millions of Americans having lost their homes as a result of the sub-prime mortgage meltdown.

And Americans will once again turn to a president with a clear out-of-the-box vision for the future, as they did in 1932 with FDR, in 1960 with JFK and in 1980 with Reagan.

That president will be Barack Obama. Mark my words.

bornagaindem wrote on January 18, 2008 2:33 PM:

Couldn't agree more Bernie O. I will add that the main thing Ronnie Ray-gun brought us is the all talk no cattle mentality that is today's republican party. Ronnie lived in La La land and Obama is living there too.

I want a candidate who knows exactly what enemy we face right now in america and that is corporations and the ultra rich who control our democracy and the republicans who enable them. Edwards gets it and so does Hillary because she faced thier hatred. The last thing I want as a democrat, is lets bring the country together happy talk, ala ray-gun from my candidate.

I am beginning to seriously dislike Obama.

woody, tokin librul wrote on January 18, 2008 4:27 PM:

The 1980 Election WAS DEFINITELY different from preceding ones.

Until 1980, candidates had usually forsworn negotiating with foreign Govts behind the backs of the sitting president.

But Raygun sent Casey and GHWB to Paris to strike a deal with the Iranians, to keep the hostages til after the election.

Treasonous motherfuckers otta swing. Dig up Raygun and Casey and hang them sumbitches, too

RobInNYC wrote on January 18, 2008 4:50 PM:

Whoa!!! Slow down everyone, and take a pill. Obama didn't shower praise on Reagan, nor did he hold himself up as a next incarnation. He stated the obvious truth. Look, I couldn't stand Reagan or anything that he stood for. Hell, I worked for the Mondale campaign in '84. But for well or ill, Reagan was a transformational figure in modern politics. I can't stand (and I suspect, neither does Obama) most of what he did with that transformational role. But it was there. Let's not be silly. I'm sure you'd be hard pressed to find a true conservative fan of FDR, but I doubt you'll find any serious minded conservative who would deny FDR's transformational impact on our country.

Levgre wrote on January 18, 2008 6:06 PM:

Hilary has more praise for Reagan than Obama.

Straight from here website:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674
Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan - demonstrates how she thinks.

TripleDeuce wrote on January 18, 2008 7:45 PM:

Obama is more to the right than Hillary is. Edwards more properly represents liberal values...

ClareinTX wrote on January 18, 2008 7:58 PM:

Paul Krugman is right!! Obama's policies are not progressive. They are to the right of Sen. Clinton and Sen Edwards. This praise for Reagan for being a transformational president and conflating Pres. Clinton with Nixon is the feather that broke tha camel's back . He and his supporters are accusing Sen. Clinton of pandering and triangulation. What is he doing with these remarks about Reagan if not doing the same thing? He is just another politician who will do anything to get elected. It's a case of the pot calling the kettle black. And I thought he is above politics. Disclosure: I'm a baby boomer , a physics teacher with a master's degree. And I always vote!!

Ben wrote on January 18, 2008 10:49 PM:

The only way the Regan run for office affected us is by not only inforcing the starwars issuse but by finding it.

Imelda Blahnik wrote on January 19, 2008 12:54 AM:

He wants to emulate Reagan's leadership style? Wow. Alzheimers and astrology as governing strategies.

I never bought into the Reagan schtick, and I don't buy Obama's either.

As far as the "party of ideas" goes, how about universal health care as an ideal (oops, no, Obama won't get us there). How about fiscal responsibility (not a Reagan strong point).

George Regis wrote on January 19, 2008 1:28 AM:

400 viewers have commented and I just saw the clip.

Obama is reciting history that is accurate. His recitation in no way undermines his bona fides as the most serious candidate out there right now.

It is amazing how much shit he will take for this.

sallythewally wrote on January 19, 2008 1:41 AM:

Working Man, I'm not a baby boomer, I'mof war baby (that's WWII), so I'm even more
"so yesterday" than they are. I attribute the 70s and the ME Generation to those
who followed me, and I was no more a fit for the hippies and drug experimenters of the 60s than I am among groups that are trendy today. Indeed, one of my misgivings about Obama is that he is popular among the trendy professional group...I am not much into them, you see. I've always distrusted them. They are the ones who sell out.

I don't share your contempt for the baby boomers as a group; I suspect the valuable members of that generation are about the same percentage as in any other generation, which means I shouldn't make broad statements about any generation at all, including yours.

And I agree with you that many or most of those folks did sell their souls - and probably voted Reagan in and thus helped create the current world that is his direct legacy, including through the 90s when Clinton moved the Dems even farther to the right than they'd moved in the 80s. But I always thought those folks were just being swept along by "the movement" because it was cool and seemed inspiring, not because there was anything much to them as people.

Nevertheless, there were those who died standing up for their values and dreams in those days, and the sorrow of the assassinations of the Kennedys, Malcolm and Martin....And there were many of us who acted on principle, and the anguish that time created when it broke apart our families has never left us.

So when you say I could never fathom the despair you feel seeing the baby boomers and whatever the next couple of generations since have done, you need to think further. I did not sell my soul. I fought every day to save it. And I have paid heavily for it. Not that I'd have done differently!

Working Man, I was a working stiff all my life, despite my fine GREs, my relative smarts and depth, and my ultimate work as a writer. I was paid a pittance for that work because I was an employee advocate and on the shit list of the sociopaths in charge.

Meaning I am now a relatively financially vulnerable retiree...leaving me in a position to care profoundly what the next president's stances are on issues like Social Security and Medicare. It matters viscerally that Obama's stances are to the right of Clinton and Edwards. Because their stances are to the right of Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, even Nixon.

I wish all of you who are part of this movement, if that's what it is, the best of luck. If Obama is the next president I hope to God he does bring the exact opposite fundamental change that Reagan did, because that change destroyed lots of people and set our culture back many decades.

But I still don't get why Obama, with all his charisma, immense talents and soaring intellect, couldn't find a less horrifying figure than Reagan to illustrate the transformational nature of (as he sees it) his own potential. And actually I find that self-view just a bit narcissistic on the face of it, but hey, whatever......

milltown wrote on January 19, 2008 2:06 AM:

I'm a baby boomer. And I don't really want to vote for Clinton without a lot of consideration.

But Obama's use of Reagan as a favorable example has really lost me. And all of the Obama supporters are really giving tortured dishonest justifications.

Obama, confess...you want to be a Republican. Get outta here.

Why not use Hitler? Hitler really truly had an ENORMOUS effect on the dissaffected peoples of his day. Why not use Hitler in your analogy, Obama?

(PS...Do you and your friends stay up late at night trying to think of new shocking PR stunts. Is that pretty much your whole contribution?)
-mill

Craig R. Lane wrote on January 19, 2008 8:38 AM:

This type of centrist language from Obama has secured my vote for Dennis Kucinich. Many leaders have transformed the countries in which they rule. How many for the better? As far as commenting on what either Clinton or Reagan did for their respective parties goes, what about what they were supposed to be doing for the country as a WHOLE? One thought comes to my alleged mind immediately upon seeing this crap on Buzzflash, and that is that Reagan and Clinton BOTH espoused the personal responsibility angle each in his own way. Reagan busted unions, (Air Traffic Controllers Strike), and pretty much started the ball rolling against continued subsidization of all of the alleged cadillac driving welfare recipients. He told all of the homeless people of America that there are plenty of jobs and that if you are not working it is the fault of the worthless American citizen. Clinton enacted, I believe, the largest welfare reform system and cut the welfare budget by BILLIONS of dollars. I guess this largely affected those who continued to ignore their personal responsibility to get off of their dead-beat homeless asses to get a job. Clinton must have thought that we Americans would feel those billions were better spent by giving BILLIONS more dollars to Israel, shortly thereafter. A couple of peculiar bits of information to add here, reminders really. Bill Clinton and Bush Sr. touring for charity, AND Clinton's chief of staff now works for the Carlyle group. It would seem to me that the ultimate expression of personal responsibility that the average American can engage in would be to stop believing that they have any representation in the U.S. government AT ALL. THEN we should ALL gather, enmasse, on the white house lawn to demand that all of these members of this organization of crime, (masquerading as leaders of superior moral and spiritual integrity, but in truth are only CLOWNS THAT BELIEVE IN THE IDEA OF "OTHER-PERSONAL" responsibility), be run out of Washington on wagons that may be pulled by either donkeys OR elephants. Hey has anyone ever found out who made all that money on the highly suspect stock transactions made on American Airlines and United Airlines yet? Marie Cocco responded to this same query five years ago to me by sayig that she was looking into it. Did she go blind? Oh yeah, lick my ass Jane Harman!

Craig R. Lane wrote on January 19, 2008 9:10 AM:

Sorry about the troll-like rant folks. I feel very strongly about this as I am sure many of you do. I see grammatical errors and an omission of one bit of info. that I feel needs to be put "out there" The unusual stock transactions that I referred to occurred in the 2 weeks prior to 9/11. SOMEONE made millions of dollars by the increased, (by approx. 600%), options placed on the 2 airlines most affected on that day. The Securities Exchange Commission says that people cannot place "put" or "call" options anonymously. So even if the money was never actually collected, someone knew something was up, and the SEC knows who they are. The Pentagon also knew something was up as the Pentagon Staff canceled all scheduled commercial airline trips the day before, according to Time magazine at least). They knew more than A.G. John Ashcroft who stopped flying on commercial planes a full 2 weeks prior to 9/11. The 9/11 commission didn't feel that this FACT fit into their goal of, um, uh, what was the goal again? Oh yeah, medals of FREEDOM for everyone. Unfortunately, YES I AM ONE OF THOSE. I wish I could stop. Bill Maher made a pretty convincing argument against believing in such an absurd notion that the U.S. government would engage against terrorism against it's citizens. Oh wait, no he didn't and he is the 2nd comedian to go south. Are he and Dennis Miller dating? Sorry again folks. But we have unresolved matters. Personal responsibility should dictate to every "good" American out there that you should not waste your time trying to prove anyone wrong. Take 5-6 years to do some research and just try proving yourself right. Let me know, because I have been desperately seeking correction of my beliefs. I am serious. Psalm 23 can only get me so far here. Hello? Anyone? Is this thing on? God?

Jim Beam wrote on January 19, 2008 9:36 AM:

Who ever is in a union and votes for Obama gets what they deserve. In new hampshire Obama and Oprah bullied a working union picket line so they could cross it. Regean done more damage to unions and they have never recovered. So Regean is Obama's hero

pjonathan wrote on January 19, 2008 10:43 AM:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)