home

Senator Obama, You Are No Ronald Reagan

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 04:01:59 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

TPM's Greg Sargent has this video of Obama comparing his ability to make a transformational change to that which Ronald Reagan accomplished in 1980:

I will not take the easy political cheap shot here and take on Obama's point. Greg describes it well:

Obama is also making an argument about the readiness of the electorate for change, comparing today's desire for a new direction with the electorate's mood in 1980. In this context, Obama is presenting himself as a potentially transformational figure in opposition to Hillary, who, Obama has been arguing, is unequipped to tap into the public's mood due to her coming of age in the sixties and her involvement in the political battles of the 1990s.

Obama simply misunderstands how Reagan achieved that transformational change - to the detriment of the country I must add - he ran a partisan, ideological divisive campaign that excoriated Democratic values and trumpeted GOP values. He also race baited.

Obama is running a post-partisan, nonideological campaign that is bereft of defenses of Democratic values and ideas. He is running an anti-Reagan campaign. His argument is simply ahistorical. It is precisely BECAUSE he refuses to try and make this a transformational campaign, a campaign to fight for Dem values, to persuade the country that the Dems are right, that his campaign is a promise unfulfilled.

In short, Obama STILL does not get it.

< Wednesday Non-Election Open Thread | Barney Frank On Obama And The Fights Of the 90s >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Senator Obama, You Are No Ronald Reagan | 91 comments (91 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Obama too slick (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by athyrio on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 04:06:28 PM EST
    Ronald Reagan was a union busting fool...He opened up this country to all sorts of greed when he broke up entities and his rich buddies moved in and bought them up....He also tripled the national debt...In short, he wasnt a great president as republicans would have you believe..I am surprised that any union would supporrt Obama after those remarks.....

    hehe (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 04:55:55 PM EST
    Last time I checked Congress.... you do remember those folks who were going to defund the war don't you???..... controlled the purse strings.

    If the budget tripled it was because the Congress allowed it to happen.

    You also fail to address the huge increase in revenues that also came pouring as Reagan's tax cuts brought the economy roaring back to life.

    As for the air controllers, their slow downs, sick outs, etc., made life for any of the flying public miserable. They got what they deserved.

    Parent

    Personal (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by athyrio on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 05:07:55 PM EST
    I have to admit that I really despise Reagan, because he caused my union husband to lose his job after 25 yrs. So it is personal. I have nothing but bad memories about Reagan

    Parent
    If your husband wasn't an air controller (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:13:54 PM EST
    then please tell me how Reagan caused him to lose his job.

    If he was an air controller, tell me how Regan kept him from going back to work when told to do so?

    Parent

    Try looking up some of the many labor laws (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by DA in LA on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:17:50 PM EST
    Reagan destroyed.

    Parent
    He appointed Donald Dotson (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:55:46 PM EST
    as chairman of the NLRM. Mr Dotson believed unions violated an individual's freedom. The NLRB didn't settle very many cases of  illegal complaints against employers... alot the complaints were about union represenative being fired. The complaints got caught up in red tape and lasted for years.  My father was the president of a local labor union during these times. He was lucky that he didn't get caught up in the firings. Illinois was on of the stong holds for labor unions... until Reagan became president.

    Parent
    Donald Dotson was confirmed by (none / 0) (#93)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:37:51 PM EST
    the Demo Senate.

    Your complaint should be to them.

    BTW - The company I was with closed a plant and moved its functions to another existing factory in '82-'83. Chief problem was bomb threats causing the factory to be closed.

    The main disagreement was the union's objection to management wanting to give everyone the same health benefits package. It seemed to me that the union was afraid they would lose control. So they lost it all.

    Parent

    This might work except (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 05:12:41 PM EST
    The budgets proposed by Reagan weren't balanced and would have caused a worse deficit, if passed. What passed was a compromised budget. What you are admitting is that the GOP led by St. Ronnie was complicit in that spending and those deficits.

    You see  when you cut revenue (taxes) and increase spending (military) you have more going out than you have coming. This creates something called a deficit. This was the Reagan platform. This is the type of budget he wanted passed and he led his party in getting that budget passed. Careful what you wish for as they say.

    What actually brought the economy back to life was the increased military spending (file this tidbit under Keynes, John).

    Parent

    heh (none / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:16:37 PM EST
    He was as involved in the budgets as any President is involved and he could have vetoed. But fact remains that it is the CONGRESS that starts the process. If they don't put the dollars in, the President can't make them.

    Parent
    Can't bring yourself to criticize St. Ronnie can u (none / 0) (#80)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 07:24:47 PM EST
    the man just had no flaws!

    Dude you are being willfully blind to the political process and history. Take off those rose color glasses. You will see more clearly.

    Parent

    Molly (none / 0) (#92)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:26:19 PM EST
    It is called a statement of fact.

    You don't have to be for, or against everything in life. Facts are neutral.

    Try it sometime.


    Parent

    statement of half fact (none / 0) (#95)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:29:31 AM EST
    when you only state half the facts you only get half the story.

    Its deceptive.

    Parent

    Meaningless protests and snipes. (none / 0) (#96)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:08:48 AM EST
    What did you NOT understand when I wrote:

    He was as involved in the budgets as any President is involved and he could have vetoed.

    What is it about CONGRESS must pass a budget don't you understand??

    Parent

    What is it about St. Ronnie's platform, his role (none / 0) (#97)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:05:08 AM EST
    and the role of the GOP in passing those budgets don't you understand?

    Why run on a platform calling for cutting revenue and increasing spending if you have no responsibility and no role to play in the budget process?

    Half facts result in half truths.

    Parent

    Obama is just trying to one-up Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by MarkL on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 04:13:01 PM EST
    He's JFK/MLK/RWR all rolled into one.
    Stupid argument from Obama.
    Nice response, BTD. I've read plenty of other sensible objections to Obama's analysis, but yours is one of the best.

    I think the obvious (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 04:23:06 PM EST
    arguments will be made by the Clinton campaign.

    Let's face it, this is a huge political gaffe from Obama.

    They may even cut an ad with this. I know I would.

    But my point is taking his statement most charitably and HE STILL does not understand what Reagan did.

    What FDR did.

    He just does not understand politics.

    Parent

    I agree with you (none / 0) (#40)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 05:20:15 PM EST
    100% on this. This is precisely what I can't stand about Obama.

    Parent
    Barney Frank's point (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 04:41:38 PM EST
    was excellent.

    I wish someone would ask Obama, "exactly which battle of the 90s would you not have fought?"

    Sometimes I just think he means that Clinton should have resigned.

    I ask my wife this question (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by DA in LA on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 05:00:08 PM EST
    She's an Obama supporter.  I wonder how he is going to bring together people, when one side has vocally declared war and followed up with a scorched Earth policy.

    My wife still likes the message.  People are just tired of the fighting and they want to hear someone say, "Let's end it."  Actually thinking about how that might be done is another level, however.  And one those people don't want to think about.

    Starting wars is easy, ending them is difficult.  And the Republicans started a war.

    Parent

    His point (2.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Jgarza on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 04:44:08 PM EST
    is that, a lot of those battles were won, people won't fight you on the issue, but they will still fight the person.

    Parent
    You got all night? (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 04:45:37 PM EST
    I can name lots of "battles of the 90s" that we haven't won.

    Parent
    So Hillary lost battles once (none / 0) (#20)
    by Jgarza on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 04:48:56 PM EST
    and that proves she can win them now?  

    Parent
    Who said anything about Hillary? (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 04:50:10 PM EST


    Parent
    Wow (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 04:59:14 PM EST
    you really are missing the point here.

    Parent
    Respectfully disagree (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by CanyonWren on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 04:50:18 PM EST
    I think Obama's point is that he is the way, the truth, and the light to bipartisanship, and that Dems are just as complicit as Republicans in creating the toxic atmosphere in D.C. as well as all the problems we find ourselves in now.  (Please pardon my sarcasm).  This is pure hogwash, and is either a slick ploy to gain support from the woefully uninformed, or speaks to Obama's lack of knowledge on the subject.

    Parent
    personally (none / 0) (#24)
    by Judith on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 04:54:02 PM EST
    he is a very good politician.  This is clever.

    Parent
    Transparency is lacking (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by CanyonWren on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 05:12:56 PM EST
    into Obama's beautiful mind and his plans for our country as President, isn't it. It's hard to tell if he is being clever or not.  Frankly, I want a candidate who speaks openly about the current state of affairs, what mistakes we have made in the past, and what that person thinks he or she can actually do about those mistakes and new challenges. We've had very few gratifying responses from Obama on these issues and I resent having to guess at his intentions.

    Parent
    not hard for me (none / 0) (#36)
    by Judith on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 05:14:17 PM EST
    to see he is a particularly skilled politician.


    Parent
    You could be right (none / 0) (#43)
    by CanyonWren on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 05:35:05 PM EST
    In fact, I hope you are (including your post below).  As far as Obama goes, I think it's unwise to underestimate the lengths to which the GOP will go for power, and surely his conciliatory message is making them salivate.

    Parent
    we'll see - an any case, being good (none / 0) (#44)
    by Judith on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 05:42:34 PM EST
    doesnt mean being right and it doesnt mean winning.  I just see this as a tactic that may pay off for him.  If you consider that some people will vote for him no matter what then he doesnt need to coddle them - he can go after other people HRC can't. I think that is clever.

    Parent
    Yeah he's just lying (none / 0) (#37)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 05:14:41 PM EST
    to conservatives to get them to vote for him. He's a new kind of politician.

    Parent
    how do you know (none / 0) (#38)
    by Judith on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 05:18:01 PM EST
    he's lying?

    Parent
    It's called sarcasm (none / 0) (#39)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 05:18:38 PM EST


    Parent
    ahhhhhh. (none / 0) (#41)
    by Judith on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 05:23:46 PM EST
    didnt anybody ever tell you that sarcasm is rudeness disguised as wit? :-0

    Parent
    That makes no sense (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 04:58:37 PM EST


    Parent
    They both have nice smiles. (none / 0) (#2)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 04:08:45 PM EST


    so Big tent (none / 0) (#3)
    by Judith on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 04:11:18 PM EST
    does that mean you do or do not still think he best promites progressive values in a quicker way that HRC? :-)

    promotes (none / 0) (#10)
    by Judith on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 04:37:23 PM EST
    would be the word I meant.

    Parent
    Well, he is not running a general election (none / 0) (#6)
    by Geekesque on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 04:27:10 PM EST
    campaign yet.

    Well (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 04:37:45 PM EST
    Not clear what kind of campaign he is running right now.

    I do not like it and this is a great example of what he does not get on the politics of this.

    Parent

    he is (none / 0) (#23)
    by Judith on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 04:52:34 PM EST
    bashing the Clinton years to belittle Clinton - attract those who hate her - AND attract conservative Republicans disgusted by the current admin.

    I'd say that is the essense of politics.

    Parent

    Well, when you have an opponent (none / 0) (#46)
    by Geekesque on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:01:03 PM EST
    who pulls stuff like this, one has to be careful.

    As for the campaign he's running, he loses a contest that's based purely on party loyalties.  Too many people, to this day, equate the Clintons with the party itself.  

    Parent

    Yikes (none / 0) (#47)
    by DA in LA on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:05:51 PM EST
    More Rovian politics from camp Clinton.

    Parent
    The Club for Growth could have written that. n/t (none / 0) (#48)
    by Geekesque on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:11:15 PM EST


    Parent
    Hum (none / 0) (#7)
    by Jgarza on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 04:34:15 PM EST
    i have read several criticisms of this, some have gone so far as to put words in his mouth.

    He is pretty specific about what he admired about Reagan.

    Lets compare what Reagan did for republicans, 12 years of republican control over presidency, and a generational shift in the tone of politics in republicans favor.

    Clinton brought us, divided government, and 8 years of republicans.

    Barack says that he wants to do for democrats what Reagan did for republicans. rather than what Clinton did for Dems.

    Explain to me 12 years of Dem presidency and a generational shift of politics in Dems favor is bad because?

    Why don't you address MY post (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 04:36:46 PM EST
    and not someone else's.

    Parent
    I addressed his comments (none / 0) (#15)
    by Jgarza on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 04:42:29 PM EST
    the way i interpreted them,

    sorry i had just read another post, that had literally put words in his mouth, not yours, it was fresh in my head.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 05:00:02 PM EST
    go write a post on your blog if you like but please address the posts written here, not someone else's post.

    Parent
    Reagan Did Put The Country on A Trajectory Alright (none / 0) (#8)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 04:34:17 PM EST
    NPR
    But when the former California governor ran for the presidency again in 1980, he began his campaign with a controversial appearance in Philadelphia, Miss., where three civil rights workers had been brutally killed. It was at that sore spot on the racial map that Reagan revived talk about states' rights and curbing the power of the federal government.
    To many it sounded like code for announcing himself as the candidate for white segregationists. After he defeated President Carter, a native Southerner, Reagan led an administration that seemed to cater to Southerners still angry over the passage of the Civil Rights Act after 16 years. The Reagan team condemned busing for school integration, opposed affirmative action and even threatened to veto a proposed extension of the Voting Rights Act (the sequel to the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed a year later and focused on election participation). President Reagan also tried to allow Bob Jones University, a segregated Southern school, to reclaim federal tax credits that had long been denied to racially discriminatory institutions.

    Politics makes strange bedfellows.

    Do you have a link to the Frank piece? (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 04:40:42 PM EST


    link (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 04:42:35 PM EST
    here.

    Parent
    Thanks (none / 0) (#18)
    by CanyonWren on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 04:44:10 PM EST
    I got hung up on the NPR segment;)

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 05:10:34 PM EST
    politician changes the country.

    This being a democracy the President can only echo and amplify the message of the voters. Reagan's message was one of hope. American was good. Democracy was desirable. Taxes were too high. The Soviet Union was evil. Our foreign policy had failed.

    Obama can't do that because the Demos are the party of high taxes, of surrender in Iraq and in the WOT, Democracy is not worth fighting for, no culture/political system is evil, merely different.

    Neither he, or Hillary, can run away from those facts. If either tries they will lose for the same reasons the Repubs lost for years by trying to be Demo Lite. The country wanted a Democrat.

    His message of change is seen by any thinking person as pure BS. To win he must define it. His failure to do so brands him as a lightweight.

    technical question (none / 0) (#32)
    by Judith on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 05:12:08 PM EST
    Big tent - or anybody - ate the threads/subject posts Big Tent writes under "Big Tent" considered "Diaries" on Talkleft?

    because (none / 0) (#42)
    by Judith on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 05:29:38 PM EST
    maybe that is whjhat people need to do to be able to make posts on topics that interest them...that way nobody gets offended by off topics.  Everybody gets a say if they want it.

    Parent
    Comments must be on topic (none / 0) (#98)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 09:46:59 AM EST
    whether they are in response to a post by a site contributor like Big Tent or a diarist.

    Off topic comments are allowed on open threads.

    Parent

    do you mean my question here? (none / 0) (#101)
    by Judith on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 10:11:13 AM EST
    or the content of the question?

    if the former - I am sorry for asking this question here.  It seemed like a fair one conisering you brought up diaries on a thread once...though I do not recall the topic of the post. But I will be more careful in future.

    if it is the latter - I agree.  That is why I was bringing up diaries - perhaps it would be easier for people to have their say on anything outside a specific topic/post if they if they had their own diary.  Though truthfully I have no idea what makes that different from a contributor as BTD is although it sounds jr to his role.

    Parent

    No BTD is a contributor (none / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:21:24 PM EST


    Parent
    ok (none / 0) (#58)
    by Judith on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:28:20 PM EST
    I assume that is above a diarist.

    thanks for the clarification -

    Parent

    are for ate, please (none / 0) (#33)
    by Judith on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 05:12:26 PM EST


    Are you saying you think (none / 0) (#56)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:22:55 PM EST
    Bill Clinton DID change the national ideological conversation as profoundly as Reagan did? Or that a change of national conversation to something new and improved isn't what the country needs and desperately wants right now?

    This is such an over-reaction to some fairly obvious points from Obama on his belief that the time is ripe for transformational as opposed to incremental change.

    Whether he can actually deliver transformational change with his low-key non-confrontational approach is a different matter. But sometimes a simple change of perspective lets problems melt away without having to be either solved or fought over - they simply cease to exist in the same way or with the same level of attention and you wonder why they were ever perceived as problems worth dealing with at all.

    No (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by BDB on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:58:49 PM EST
    This isn't about Bill Clinton.  This is about Barack Obama.  Barack Obama is no Ronald Reagan because, to the extent Reagan changed the course of the country, he did it by using bare-knuckled partisanship.  He didn't talk about sitting around working with Democrats, he worked to discredit them and beat them into submission (and then he worked with them).

    Obama's problem isn't that he isn't liberal enough, it's that he has no interest in discrediting the Republican party or conservative theories of government.  Without doing that he cannot bring about the same change in the country that he credits Reagan for (albeit in a different direction).

    In short, Obama misunderstands how Reagan brought about change, thinking he did it with sunny optimism when, in reality, he did it through brute partisanship and waging a relentless ideological war, he just dressed it up in sunny language sometimes (sometimes he didn't even do that) and delivered it with a smile.  Obama just delivers the sunny optimism without the underlying brute partisanship.  

    In short, Obama is no Ronald Reagan.

    I can't say for sure that's what BTD meant or thinks, but it's certainly what I think.

    Parent

    How can you say you do not know what I think (none / 0) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 07:02:36 PM EST
    IS there something in my post that is confusing?

    Parent
    Not At All (none / 0) (#75)
    by BDB on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 07:13:19 PM EST
    I just didn't want to be seen as trying to speak for you.  Some folks don't like that.  

    It had nothing to do with your post, which I thought was quite clear.

    Parent

    BDB (none / 0) (#71)
    by athyrio on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 07:04:59 PM EST
    I totally agree with you. Thanks for articulating it.

    Parent
    I think you're not quite clear (none / 0) (#82)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 07:31:09 PM EST
    on what he has in mind. You might get more sense of what he means from watching more of the video, here.

    His strategy is to use the technological tools available now to enlist the vast non-ideological portion of the population in the process - to use transparency to end the partisan gamesmanship and address what are real concerns of conservatives through negotiation and being able to show up the phony divisive ones for what they are.

    Maybe it will work, maybe it won't. For sure it's different from what Reagan did. You're all trying to hold the Maginot Line here. The world is moving on.

    Parent

    Are you making things up now? (none / 0) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:27:38 PM EST
    Tell me what part of what I wrote could POSSIBLY have led you to ask me that question? What have I written in the past that could have led to such a question? What have  I written in the past that positively EXCLUDES that question?

    You are not treating me with any respect. So I will ignore you.

    Parent

    Are you joking? (none / 0) (#60)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:33:27 PM EST
    It's what the Greg Sargent post you linked to is all about, not to mention what Obama in the clip is talking about.

    Parent
    If that is not what you were attempting to (none / 0) (#62)
    by DA in LA on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:47:40 PM EST
    articulate, BTD, you strayed way off course.

    I agree with the above poster you would like to ignore for hitting the nail on the head.

    If you meant something different, please explain further because your post did not do so.

    Parent

    I utterly disagree with you (none / 0) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:54:34 PM EST
    and defy you to quote from my post and MY  words to make your argument.

    My gawd, did you read the TITLE of my post?

    I find your comment incredible. Truly incredible.

    Parent

    Oh, right (none / 0) (#66)
    by DA in LA on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:58:07 PM EST
    Maybe it was because the video did not back up your assertion.  Either way, it fell pretty flat for me.

    Parent
    The video did ot back my assertion? (none / 0) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 07:03:55 PM EST
    So NOW you know what my assertion is? You just said you did not.

    So which is it?

    Oh by the way, what part of the video do you think does not back my assertion?


    Parent

    The entire video. (none / 0) (#74)
    by DA in LA on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 07:12:04 PM EST
    From beginning to end.  IMO you are putting a spin on something that is not there.  You were upset about the MLK Clinton quote, but are guilty of the same sort of spin here.

    Parent
    What was my spin? (none / 0) (#77)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 07:22:23 PM EST
    Please express what you think I said and how it was wrong.

    Parent
    Sure thing (none / 0) (#85)
    by DA in LA on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 07:58:38 PM EST
    This:

    Obama simply misunderstands how Reagan achieved that transformational change - to the detriment of the country I must add - he ran a partisan, ideological divisive campaign that excoriated Democratic values and trumpeted GOP values. He also race baited.

    Has nothing to do with what Obama said.  NOTHING.

    Parent

    Say what? (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 08:08:03 PM EST
    Dude, it is precisely about what Obama said.

    Precisely.

    Parent

    Uh, no. (none / 0) (#88)
    by DA in LA on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 08:40:55 PM EST
    Take off your anger hat and listen to it.  It's pretty factual.  It is not negative or positive.

    Parent
    Let 's review it shall we? (none / 0) (#68)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 07:01:41 PM EST
    TITLE - "Senator Obama, You Are No Ronald Reagan" Nothing in the title could have caused you to miss my point.

    Score a point for me.

    LEDE - TPM's Greg Sargent has this video of Obama comparing his ability to make a transformational change to that which Ronald Reagan accomplished in 1980

    Nothing in the lede that supports you as I state EXPRESSLY that I will be discussing Obama's comparing himself to Reagan.

    Score another point for me.

    Next - the video.

    Neutral.

    Next analysis- I will not take the easy political cheap shot here and take on Obama's point. Greg describes it well:

    Obama is also making an argument about the readiness of the electorate for change, comparing today's desire for a new direction with the electorate's mood in 1980. In this context, Obama is presenting himself as a potentially transformational figure in opposition to Hillary, who, Obama has been arguing, is unequipped to tap into the public's mood due to her coming of age in the sixties and her involvement in the political battles of the 1990s.

    BIG SCORE FOR ME as Bill Clinton is NOT EVEN MENTIONED in the excerpt I quote.

    Next analysis- Obama simply misunderstands how Reagan achieved that transformational change - to the detriment of the country I must add - he ran a partisan, ideological divisive campaign that excoriated Democratic values and trumpeted GOP values. He also race baited.

    BIG SCORE FOR ME - expresly and exclusively an analysis discussing Obama's misunderstanding of Reagan.

    Next analysis- Obama is running a post-partisan, nonideological campaign that is bereft of defenses of Democratic values and ideas. He is running an anti-Reagan campaign. His argument is simply ahistorical. It is precisely BECAUSE he refuses to try and make this a transformational campaign, a campaign to fight for Dem values, to persuade the country that the Dems are right, that his campaign is a promise unfulfilled.

    In short, Obama STILL does not get it.

    BIG SCORE FOR ME.

    The fact is there is NO WAY IN HECK that the interpretation you and AA provide is even plausible.

    Absurd is the word to apply to it.

    I expect you will retract your comment now.


    Parent

    Excuse me? (none / 0) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:53:22 PM EST
    Are you really saying that MY WORDS, MY WORDS are not the ones that form my argument?

    I quoted Sargent's formulation of Obama sayng he is NOT like Clinton, he is transformative LIKE REAGAN and THEN addressed, see my title please, whether Obama is in fact, LIKE REAGAN.

    I can not believe you are insulting my intelligence in this way.

    I weill ignore you in this thread. You are being incredibly disrespectful.

    Parent

    OK, ignore away (none / 0) (#79)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 07:23:05 PM EST
    Obama is trying to make a political distinction between himself and Hillary and their approach to change and to lay out what it is. He says Reagan tapped into the zeitgeist and that he's trying to do that too. You respond by saying "But he's going about transformation the wrong way! Reagan was partisan and divisive!" Well, sure he was. But that's only half the equation. If he hadn't been able to tap into the zeitgeist the way he did, all the partisanship and divisiveness in the world wouldn't have helped him. So Obama's addressing half of equation and you're addressing the other half, and then excoriating him for not addressing your half.

    Parent
    That is a red herring (none / 0) (#83)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 07:31:16 PM EST
    I was disputing your pretense that I was stating that Clinton was a transformative figure. I think it was clear that I was making no such statement and you, who are quite familiar with my work on this, know I think the exact opposite. I have made detailed arguments to that effect. Indeed, I have compared Obama's campaign to Clinton's 92 campaign.

    That was my point to you.

    Parent

    Take it as an homage (none / 0) (#84)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 07:39:05 PM EST
    It's right out of your playbook.

    Parent
    I take it as an insult (none / 0) (#86)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 08:04:12 PM EST
    You have been incredibly disrespectful in this thread.

    Enjoy your play.

    This is a serious issue to me.

    Parent

    Disrespectful? Nonsense. (none / 0) (#89)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:18:40 PM EST
    It's serious to me as well.

    Parent
    hubby was a steel worker (none / 0) (#59)
    by athyrio on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:32:55 PM EST
    Reagan destroyed the steel industry

    In my opinion, symptoms of not being (none / 0) (#72)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 07:06:17 PM EST
    ready as Jeralyn often puts it.

    Does anyone have the full context of ... (none / 0) (#76)
    by robrecht on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 07:18:19 PM EST
    ... Obama's remarks?  'Cause it seems like there might be some misinterpretation going on here.  I'd rather hear the remarks in their entirety.

    an off-topic question (none / 0) (#78)
    by commissar on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 07:22:52 PM EST
    I'm genuinely confused that few leftie bloggers have not picked up on the DNC's action (re: the Nev. lawsuit). I'm not charging hypocrisy either.

    Plenty of Leftie bloggers, even Clinton-leaners here, will comment on principled issues, in a way negative to Clinton. And, very few things are nearer and dearer to Progressive hearts than 'voter suppression,' per Florida 2000 and all of Bush's shenanigans at the DOJ.  But, now when Howard Dean's own DNC weighs in on a voter suppression issue, it's not on the radar screen.

    This is not snark.

    I leave that topic for Jeralyn (none / 0) (#81)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 07:26:09 PM EST
    Know too little about the issues.

    Parent
    I was offline yesterday (none / 0) (#99)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 09:50:08 AM EST
    when the DNC filed the suit. Since oral argument on the lawsuit is today, I figured I'd wait until then to write about it. I will later today.

    Parent
    Sniping Comments (none / 0) (#100)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 09:52:43 AM EST
    without substance have been deleted from this thread.

    Senator Obama, You Are No Ronald Reagan | 91 comments (91 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment