home

The Battle Over Republican Ideas

Hillary says:
"I have to say, you know, my leading opponent the other day said that he thought the Republicans had better ideas than Democrats the last ten to fifteen years. That's not the way I remember the last ten to fifteen years. "I don't think it's a better idea to privatize Social Security. I don't think it's a better idea to try to eliminate the minimum wage. I don't think it's a better idea to undercut health benefits and to give drug companies the right to make billions of dollars by providing prescription drugs to Medicare recipients. I don't think it's a better idea to shut down the government, to drive us into debt."
Obama Camp (interestingly NOT Obama)retorts:
“It’s hard to take Hillary Clinton’s latest attack seriously when she’s the one who supported George Bush’s war in Iraq, the most damaging Republican idea of our generation. While others were triangulating and poll-testing their positions, Senator Obama has been fighting for progressive ideals for over two decades.
So I guess there were some progressive ideas the last 2 decades. Fair point on Hillary' support for the war, but unfair to argue Obama has NOT supported Bush's Iraq Debacle. His voting record is exactly the same as Clinton's in the Senate. And Obama has had some kind words for Bush himself, including stating in 2004 that he basically agreed with Bush on how to conduct the Iraq war.

More interesting was both camp's refusal to say a bad word about Ronald Reagan. What is up with that?

Update [2008-1-18 18:47:20 by Big Tent Democrat]: From the turnabout is fair play dep't, via Geekesque, Hillary's favorite President's include Reagan and Bush 41.

< "When History Hesitated . . ." | Obama's Right: Hillary Is Likeable Enough >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Good on Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by CanyonWren on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 04:00:00 PM EST
    She's impressing me more and more. I'm glad Edwards spoke to this as well. Because of Obama's elevation of the second worst presidency of the last century, he has totally turned me away. Done. Finished. IMO, he's now a craven panderer, devoid of substance. (Harsh, I know, but I'm bitter about this).

    Obama deserves credit, but. . . (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by RickTaylor on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 06:34:19 PM EST
    Obama deserves credit for opposing the war before it started, and for the right reasons. Sure, he could have been stronger afterwards, but the best time to oppose that war was before it started.

    That said, it's getting a little ridiculous the way they're pulling that out as a response to every criticism, a little reminiscent of Rudy's continuous invocation of 9/11. Yes he deserves credit for it, but what does that have to do with his comments about Reagan and the sixties and Hillary's criticism?

    Like Biden (none / 0) (#47)
    by RalphB on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 10:03:45 PM EST
    said about Rudy's every sentence being "A noun, a verb and 9/11",  Obama's seems to be "A noun, a verb and a 2002 speech".  :-)


    Parent
    The newspaper editor said (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by athyrio on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 08:56:39 PM EST
    David Cutler, the co-owner of Salmon Press Newspapers, released the following statement:

    The question posed was originally what portraits would you hang in the White House if you were President and as the dialogue progressed, who are the presidents you admire most?

    She [Sen. Clinton] listed several presidents that she admired and mentioned she liked Reagan's communication skills. She did not say Reagan was her favorite President. She didn't say anything close to that.


    Oh, so she admires Reagan. (none / 0) (#43)
    by Geekesque on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 09:15:14 PM EST
    That's not close or anything.

    Parent
    Geek, you're just Obama palace guard... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by rhbrandon on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 09:25:33 PM EST
    You've bought into the Obama Messiah meme so much, you're fight with Steven R. over who's going to sit at Obama's right hand.

    Give it a rest. Your candidate's flip-flopping as much at Romney.

    Parent

    you can admire (none / 0) (#46)
    by Judith on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 09:26:03 PM EST
    somebody's communication skills without implying they are your favorite anything.  Surely you know that?

    Parent
    If you're explaining, you're defending. (none / 0) (#1)
    by Geekesque on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:43:27 PM EST
    If you're defending, you're losing.

    The goal in these exchanges is to turn the discussion to the other candidate's weaknesses and force them to explain.

    Clinton also willfully distorted what he said, so there is that as well.

    Hardly a distortion (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by MarkL on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 04:29:56 PM EST
    Republicans are the party of ideas means Democrats had no ideas. Obama is trying to straddle the fence. Hillary knows Obama personally will not condemn Reagan's ideas or Republican ideas in general, so he's in a bind.

    Parent
    Not much of a distortion (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:48:16 PM EST
    Obama was playing to the middle there I think.

    I think he is making a grave mistake anyway but you really  can not complain about this.

    Parent

    I don't think there's any doubt that (none / 0) (#3)
    by Geekesque on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:57:38 PM EST
    the Republicans have had a much clearer ideological agenda than the Democrats have had--until this year.

    Clinton ran on V-chips and school uniforms in 1996.  Mark Penn politics.

    Reagan had horrible, destructive ideas.  But, there was a certain amount of clarity.

    Democrats have been primarily able to win when the Republicans haven't offered a clear ideological agenda--1992, 1996, 2004.

    Parent

    Republicans Developed Great Marketing Strategies (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 04:32:14 PM EST
    to take us backwards in history and spent their time demonizing the Democrats.

    The Democrats never developed a good marketing strategy to promote their ideas and spent their time saying those other Democrats might be bad but I'm not like those people.

    Parent

    And Obama is the answer for that? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 04:01:28 PM EST
    kinda, yeah (none / 0) (#6)
    by mike in dc on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 04:10:26 PM EST
    He gets flak for the "fuzziness" of his rhetoric, but the truth is he's miles ahead of Clinton on this score--he inspires more people and is considered likable by people who would normally never consider voting Democratic.  Some of those people would vote for him, enough to secure a sizable majority in November, with a coattail effect securing a big Democratic majority in Senate(god willing).  Plus there's the issue of new voter turnout, which I think he'd be better at as well.
    Basically, he's arguing that he's a better salesman for progressivism than his opponents, because his style is more inclusive and less likely to turn off potential "converts".

    That's the theory, anyway.  You're on record as disagreeing.  Depending on who wins the nod, we'll find out who's right or wrong. :)

    Parent

    "Inspires More People" (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by BDB on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 04:35:27 PM EST
    What is the basis for this?  He's polling nationally behind Clinton.  He's split the early states with Clinton.  She turned out a huge number of voters in New Hampshire, just as he did in Iowa.  If you mean large crowds, that seems to me as likely to be brought about by celebrity and the youthfulness of his supporters.  

    For every person inspired by Obama, there seems to be a person turned off by him.  Indeed, I think there's a good argument to be made that far from Edwards and Obama splitting the anti-Clinton vote, that with Edwards out of the race, Clinton would be walking away with it.  In other words, I don't think a majority of Democrats support him, much less find him inspiring.  Although I will grant that he gives a terrific speech.

    As for whether he would turn out a sizable majority in November, I think polls are pretty clear that both Clinton and Obama would do this in November and that who turns out the most support depends largely on who the Republican opponent is.

    Basically, he's arguing that he's a better salesman for progressivism than his opponents, because his style is more inclusive and less likely to turn off potential "converts".

    If you hide your progessive beliefs behind kind talk about Reagan and other rightwing framing, are you selling progressivism at all?  I have yet to hear him give a barn-burning speech about why progressive ideas are better than Republican ones.  When I hear that, then I'll believe he's selling liberalism.  Right now, he seems to be just another politician selling himself.

    Parent
    Yes. (none / 0) (#8)
    by Geekesque on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 04:26:00 PM EST
    His policy stances, unlike his tone, are consistently liberal/progressive.

    There's a track record with the Mark Penn wing of the party of avoiding ideological fights.

    Parent

    Oh (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 04:33:53 PM EST
    I think they both stink on SELLINg progressivism.

    Edwards was the best at it. Ideologically, I could not support him but I sure wish Obama would borrow some of his political style.

    Parent

    Edwards (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by womanwarrior on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 06:19:23 PM EST
    Where ideologically do you disagree with Edwards?  I don't see any evidence of fundamental change with HRC and BO.  They are certainly more articulate than W, but HRC is owned by the corps. She is not against the war.  Her "inevitability" reminds me of the Borg:  "Resistance is futile.  You will be assimilated."

    Obama so far sounds hollow to me.  What has he done?

    So do give Edwards another look, at least to keep the other two honest?  or at least saying more progressive things?    Getting to be a cynic.  

    Parent

    Hello pot, this is kettle (none / 0) (#7)
    by Jgarza on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 04:19:30 PM EST
    I don't get how Hillary can criticize admiring Reagan when she:

    Hillary praised Barry Goldwater last year

    Called him a (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 04:32:20 PM EST
    straight talking Westerner.

    Yep, that will do.

    Think Obama is going to use it?

    Parent

    hum (none / 0) (#19)
    by Jgarza on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 04:37:50 PM EST
    "I have gone from a Barry Goldwater Republican to a New Democrat, but I think my underlying values have remained pretty constant; individual responsibility and community. I do not see those as being mutually inconsistent."

    She sass her values haven't changed since then? So she still has republican values?  Guess that is why she voted to attack Iraq.

    Parent

    code for (none / 0) (#22)
    by Jgarza on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 04:39:27 PM EST
    have gone from a Barry Goldwater Republican to a New Democrat

    Does "new democrat" = DLC democrat?

    Is she implicitly criticizing the 60's and 70's liberals?

    Parent

    Please. Try to keep up. (5.00 / 5) (#29)
    by oldpro on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 05:05:25 PM EST
    As a college freshman, Hillary (like her father) was a Goldwater Republican.  By her senior year, she was doorbelling for George McGovern.  I'd say that makes her a 60s-70s liberal, not a critic.  It appears those liberal arts colleges actually did their job in educating the young 'uns.

    Parent
    well this (none / 0) (#31)
    by Jgarza on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 05:13:17 PM EST
    quote is from Hillary now, not then.

    Parent
    OMG...and Teddy Kennedy too! (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by oldpro on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 05:31:13 PM EST
    Imagine saying nice things about dead people...their personal qualities...not their politics.

    C'mon....and BTW, she's right about we westerners.  We do tend to cut to the chase with straight talk and call bull***t when we hear/see it.

    Parent

    Did I miss something? (none / 0) (#35)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 05:35:50 PM EST
    Nothing important. (none / 0) (#36)
    by oldpro on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 05:44:02 PM EST
    Nap time or senior moment?  Those are my two excuses since retirement...feel free to borrow one unless you're still employed...in which case, there are no excuses.

    Parent
    Are reports of Teddy Kennedy's death (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 07:00:34 PM EST
    exaggerated?

    Parent
    Oops. My bad. Shortcuts in (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by oldpro on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 09:15:33 PM EST
    conversation are not good to those overhearing only part of the conversation...sheesh.

    So...when I went to the link provided by the poster complaining about Hillary's comments about Goldwater, I discovered that it said Senators Kennedy and Clinton had made generous comments about Senator Goldwater for a TV special on his life and career.  Both Ted Kennedy and Clinton talking nice about Goldwater.  The anti-Clinton complainer did not mention Kennedy because, I assume, his accusatory point would have been undercut...unless he thinks Ted Kennedy is a secret Goldwater conservative.

    Hold the flowers and memorials...so far as I know, he's still alive.

    Parent

    Goodness!!!! (none / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 09:03:58 AM EST
    She sass her values haven't changed since then? So she still has republican values?  Guess that is why she voted to attack Iraq.

    So you think individual responsibility is just a Repub value????


    Parent

    Goldwater (none / 0) (#13)
    by athyrio on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 04:33:20 PM EST
    Goldwater, before his death, repudiated the republican party and praised the liberal ideals so no wonder she did....

    Parent
    On Iraq from the WAPO (none / 0) (#9)
    by Jgarza on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 04:27:40 PM EST
    fact checkers, rather then Hillary campaign press releases. (which is what the two stories you cited are based on.)

    To resolve this dispute, I have assembled a chronology of Obama and Clinton statements and actions on Iraq with the help of Emily Freifeld, a producer at washingtonpost.com. Several points emerge from this chronology:

       1. Obama has been consistent in his opposition to the Iraq war. His Oct. 2, 2002, speech opposing the war stands in clear contrast to Clinton's vote later that same month to authorize military action.

       2. Once the U.S. went into Iraq, Obama's position became much more nuanced. While he still opposed the war, he was not in favor of an early pullout. In 2004, he even talked about sending more U.S. troops to Iraq in order to stabilize the country as a prelude to an eventual withdrawal.

       3. His Senate voting record on Iraq is quite similar to that of Hillary Clinton. Both senators waited until May 2007 before they finally voted to cut off funds for the war, on the grounds that the administration had not agreed to a firm timetable for withdrawal. They both voted against a June 2006 amendment proposed by John Kerry (D-Mass.) for the redeployment of U.S. troops. A list of votes compiled by the Clinton campaign is available here. See here for the TalkingPointsMemo version.



    You're making BTD's point for him (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 04:36:38 PM EST
    How long have you been reading him on Iraq?

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#33)
    by Jgarza on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 05:18:43 PM EST
    when you can't disprove claim it was done 9 years ago and that I'm just not a loyal enough reader... RIGHT

    Parent
    Number 1 is disproved by #2 (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 04:37:01 PM EST
    The WaPo Fact Checker is a proven dolt frankly.

    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#24)
    by BDB on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 04:42:03 PM EST
    The Post's often idiotic editorials and political coverage are less surprising now that I know that they can't even check the most basic facts.

    I don't just mean this one.  They've repeatedly made mistakes this season.  It's embarassing and if the Post still cared about being embarrassed, someone would lose their job.  Of course, once you put Fred Hiatt in charge of your editorial page, you've pretty much given up trying not to be embarrassed.

    Parent

    Is it me? (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by BDB on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 04:39:03 PM EST
    Or do points 2 and 3 largely undermine Factchecker's first sentence of #1.  He was consistently agains the war, except when he hedged and voted for funding.

    Again, all due respect to Obama for his initial opposition, but his failure to lead in the Senate is depressing (so is Clinton's, btw).

    Parent

    It's not you (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 04:41:32 PM EST
    Nope Not Just You (none / 0) (#27)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 04:52:44 PM EST
     Agree with your comment 100%.

     

    Parent

    Well if you think (none / 0) (#32)
    by Jgarza on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 05:17:25 PM EST
    you are not opposing the war unless your are cutting off funding, then you are correct.  Like i said i don't buy that, and apparently a lot of other people don't.

    Parent
    speaking of distorting facts (none / 0) (#16)
    by athyrio on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 04:36:29 PM EST
    Try This (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by squeaky on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 04:46:01 PM EST
    1. copy your link's address (http://www.......)

    2.  highlight word or phrase in your comment that will be the link

    3. press the link button over the comment box (looks like chain)

    4. paste the link into the link box that appears

    5. press ok

    I had trouble figuring it out at first too.

    Parent
    If You Are Unsure (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by BDB on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 04:49:06 PM EST
    Hit preview instead of post so you can see what your post will look like and make sure the link is imbedded.

    I, too, had trouble with the links.

    Parent

    Also (none / 0) (#55)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:46:59 AM EST
    Make sure the comments in your user preferences are set to autoformat.

    Parent
    Also This (none / 0) (#56)
    by squeaky on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:36:06 PM EST
    Put brackets [ ] around a url and then write the tet you want to be the link to the left of the URL inside the bracket with no spaces.

    Parent
    You need to learn how to link (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 04:37:52 PM EST
    She's trying. (none / 0) (#30)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 05:12:20 PM EST
    Hillary's Response (none / 0) (#28)
    by BDB on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 05:03:05 PM EST
    While I don't think Obama agrees with very many of Reagan's policies, I think Hillary's response is still politically very smart because it links Obama to a bunch of very unpopular Republican policies.  And every one of them is aimed, in some fashion, at economic concerns, which polls show folks starting to freak out about.

    And Obama's camp completely misses the point, throwing out Iraq, triangulation and all their usual talking points that everyone's heard a million times (it's the equivalent of the Clinton campaign overusing "whatever happened to the politics of hope" a few months back at a certain point nobody hears you anymore.)

    I'd feel bad for Obama since Clinton is playing a bit with his words, but any Democrat so quick to regurgitate vapid MSM and Republican talking points about Ronald Reagan and the alleged Republican revolution deserves to be knocked about the head (in a political sense).

    I do wonder how the rising economic insecurity will play in the primary.  My initial reaction is that it's probably too late to help John Edwards.  As between Obama and Clinton, I suspect it helps Clinton in that it makes people care less about building a movement and more about paying their mortgage.  I think Obama can be effective talking about the economy and is starting to add specifics about his plans to his speeches, but it's my impression that Clinton has pivoted more quickly to address these issues than Obama.
       

    More Obama on Reagan (none / 0) (#37)
    by BDB on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 05:55:49 PM EST
    This from one of his friends on why Obama admires Reagan

    When he told me that about Ronald Reagan, I said , what?" Nesbitt told me. "I was like every other Democrat. But Barack told me, no, he really had something that inspired the company and brought it together. I may disagree with him on policy, but he was what American needed at that moment in history.

    What American needed at that moment?  Ugh!

    And, you know what, I totally blame the MSM and Obama for HRC including Reagan and Bush Sr. on her list of fave presidents to a NH newspaper.  Because, honestly, all this talk about unifying and the media lapping it up puts pressure on the "polarizing" candidates to do the same (it's why I think John Edwards promised a Republican in his cabinet).  I don't for one minute believe that the woman who reportedly told Bill Clinton not to sign the independent counsel act because William Rehnquist was essentially still the same Republican fixer he'd always been, chief justice or not, and would screw the Clintons over, suddenly has warm feelings about Ronald Reagan.

    I've come to the conclusion that Obama really does admire Reagan and wasn't just saying that to win over the Reno paper (although he might've chosen to talk about his admiration for that purpose).  However, if Clinton admires Reagan at all, I suspect it's for his partisan ruthlessness.  But reading her list, I find it impossible to believe she holds Reagan or HW on the same level as the rest - they seem like a pander to independents and moderate Republicans to me.

    I must be cynical because I honestly prefer the dishonest pander of Clinton over the probably honest pander of Obama.  I really don't believe in the politics of hope.  Heh.  

    oh my (none / 0) (#42)
    by Judith on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 09:04:58 PM EST
    are so saying somebody was trying to mislead us?  Say it aint so, Joe!

    Barack is being slammed for nothing (none / 0) (#48)
    by Terry Ott on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 10:28:46 PM EST
    I read only about half of the comments here, so please excuse me if I'm repeating.

    We can say that Reagan was this, or that, or stood for the other.  But let's put this into some context (for the younger crowd here).  He came on the heels of Carter, for crying out loud.  There is the key parallel between Reagan and Obama.

    My rationale:  when this country is coming off a failed presidency (Bush, Carter, eg) it is, almost by definition, a dispirited and pessimistic public.  It (we) are likely to elect NEXT a magnetic and optimistic person as President.  It could be a liberal or it could be a conservative, depending on the circumstances, but it needs to be someone who has the personality and sense of purpose/vision that attracts people to this promise of a "new beginning".

    It seems to me that Barack is merely observing, without endorsing the substantive policy aspects, that Reagan offered that vision of hope and strength and purpose. Reagan was the anti-Carter, just as Obama is positioning to be the anit-Bush. There WERE Reagan Democrats, you know, just as now there could be some Obama Republicans.  Now, if you assume all Republicans are evil, greedy, unpatriotic hatchet-wielding people, you won't buy what Obama is saying or "selling".  Obviously that's your prerogative and who am I to try to change that mindset?

    My take is that Obama is saying:  The way to marginalize the far right is to create a pragmatic  and collaborative approach such that 70%+ of the country will reject the confrontational and impractical "extremes" (on both sides) and just say to those on the far right (and far left), "Are you kidding? We have to get this figured out, and we are making some headway, so please just go sit in the corner and shut up (please)".

    If you don't agree that the federal government is essentially broken, then I think you're wrong about that.  And the remedy is NOT more name calling and political one-upsmanship.  If the Republicans were smart enough to nominate a person who would stand "above the fray" in terms of political monkey business, they'd win the 2008 Presidential election going away.  If neither party does that, then we'll have a continuing slugfest and "dirty pool".  

    I think it is very unfortunate that the Clintons are (intentionally) misconstruing what Obama is saying about the TYPE of candidate who can win, a person perceived to be a "positive-minded" and charismatic agent for change.  THAT's what got Reagan to the Oval Office, in stark relief to the Carter years.  If the Clintons grasp that, they sure aren't acting that way.  On experience, Obama ain't so presidential; but if he taps into the discontent in the same general way that Reagan did, he WILL (for better or worse) have a chance to learn on the job.

    Obama and Reagan, Reagan and Obama (none / 0) (#49)
    by CanyonWren on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 12:24:31 AM EST
    If you don't agree that the federal government is essentially broken, then I think you're wrong about that.  And the remedy is NOT more name calling and political one-upsmanship.  If the Republicans were smart enough to nominate a person who would stand "above the fray" in terms of political monkey business, they'd win the 2008 Presidential election going away.  If neither party does that, then we'll have a continuing slugfest and "dirty pool".  

    I respectfully disagree wholeheartedly with this section of your post.  Who is talking about name-calling and one-upmanship?  This is a talking point furthered by the right to downplay the harm the GOP has done to our country, and to neuter any attempt to reverse the harm.  We don't need to name-call to get the job done (that's what Republicans do) we just need to vote in a real progressive who knows what is at stake and isn't afraid to do the hard work to get it done.  Laws need to be eviscerated (ie the Mililtary Commissions Act, and much of the Patriot Act, for example), Rules need to be reversed (ie, environmental rules reinstated that Bush cancelled out or tweaked), and so on.  This won't be pretty---at all.  The GOP is not going to go quietly down the road hand-in-hand with Barak Obama to pre-2000, which is exactly what we need to do.  

    Even the suggestion that both parties are responsible for the "slugfest" and "dirty pool", so we must all learn to get along is offensive to me.  Democrats and the American populace have dealt with slugfests and dirty tactics from the GOP for about 27 years.  That's the only way they know how to operate--why should we think they won't do the same when given the opportunity with Obama?  I think it is naive to assume the sun will shine and the clouds will part; in fact, I'm sure the GOP is licking its chops at Obama's assertion that he is the leader who can inspire collaberation.  The GOP collaberate?  They've had that opportunity since 2006, and they have shown they have no interest.  This isn't the Democrats fault, this is the GOP's fault.

    No matter how you slice it, Obama's comments place Reagan in a positive light, and are entirely incorrect. Offering "vision, hope, and a strength of purpose" were what Reagan promised, but the exact opposite of what he delivered. It is because of this fact that I find it nothing short of incredible that Obama (and Clinton?) is propping up Reagan as a role model of sorts when the American populace under Reagan became poorer except the top layer of society, the environment suffered, and foreign relations took a nosedive. We also had Iran-Contra and the savings and loan meltdown.  We had the second largest debt in history, second only to Bush's. But thanks to the GOP's efforts, history has been rewritten to cast Reagan as some ideological messiah, when really he was well known and lampooned to be an intellectual incompetent, and mocked by his own staffers for reading the funnies and Reader's Digest instead of the day's work. Watch old Saturday Night Live broadcasts to understand that the entire country knew what a bumpkin Reagan really was.  

    Reagan was really Bush-lite.  He was an excellent figure-head who went along with the GOP plan, who read the teleprompters, gave good speeches thanks to Peggy Noonan, and passed laws that his ideological intimates told him to pass. It's infuriating that our Democratic candidates (sans Edwards, God love him) who know the harm Reagan caused, are now exalting him because of a contrived popular perception furthered by the GOP! It's either naivete, or a craven political tactic. My guess is the latter rather than the former.

    Parent

    your post is wonderfully written (none / 0) (#52)
    by Judith on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 11:12:31 AM EST
    I really enjoyed reading it.

    I am not sure I agree with Reagan as "Bush-lite."
    He played the nicey nice guy in public, but I am pretty sure he was an S.O.B. behind the scenes...not anybody'spuppet, per se.  But you may be right.

    Parent

    Why, thank you! (none / 0) (#53)
    by CanyonWren on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:56:19 PM EST
    Much appreciated, Judith.

    Parent
    Pure BS (none / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 08:56:14 AM EST
    I don't think it's a better idea to undercut health benefits and to give drug companies the right to make billions of dollars by providing prescription drugs to Medicare recipients.

    If Medicare Rx insurance did not exist our drug costs last year would have been in the $10,000 range.

    Perfect it's not, but its a damn lot better that what Hillary got passed. Which, BTW, was ZERO.

    Hillary talking point misrepresentation? (none / 0) (#54)
    by robrecht on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 10:53:21 AM EST
    And Obama has had some kind words for Bush himself, including stating in 2004 that he basically agreed with Bush on how to conduct the Iraq war.

    Obama's response to this Hillary talking point (from the same link):

    "Senator Clinton started off trying to make history and now she's trying to rewrite it. She's trying to rewrite it about my record and hers," the Illinois senator said. He said Mrs. Clinton was taking "a half a sentence" from 2004 out of context in what he called a "ludicrous" attempt to assert that he and she were in agreement.

    Does anyone have the full context of what Obama said in 2004?