Obama On Reagan Again

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:39:42 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Via Stoller:

[JACK WELCH]: I gotta ask you this. Part of the reason that there's so much excitement about your campaign is to leave some of the divisive politics behind, and you made a comment about Ronald Reagan and his Presidency and I can tell you that probably half of this country looks back on those years and there's a lot of, you know, admiration left for President Reagan. Even the Wall Street Journal, I don't know if you saw the editorial, seemed to commend you for that. Then in the debate the other night it looked like you couldn't run fast enough from those comments when you were debating Senator Clinton. How do you really feel about the Reagan years?

More...

Obama: You know I didn't run from the comments, what I said was, and I'll repeat, I think he was a transformative political figure and that he provided people with a sense of optimism at a time when folks were feeling discouraged and attracted Democrats to vote for a Republican President. But what I also said was that there were a number of his ideas that I disagreed with and, you make an important point, which is that I don't think that everything is either/or. And I don't think that we as Democrats have to spend all our time running down Republicans, what I'm trying to do is get Democrats and Republicans to work together to move the country forward. That's the kind of President I want to be.

Emphasis supplied by me on the part of his answer I really do not like. Like Bill Clinton in 1992, Obama seems to be promising Third Way triangulation. I know those are not his positions, nor I dare say, his true beliefs, but it is very much the centerpiece of his campaign. Barack Obama is Bill Clinton circa 1992.

< Thursday Non-Politics Open Thread | FISA Debate - Clinton And Obama Are No Shows >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Obama On Reagan Again | 41 comments (41 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

The highlighted parts (5.00 / 2) (#15)
by Tano on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:28:20 PM EST

...are exactly why I support Obama.

It never ceases to amaze me how those who think of themselves as being on the leading edge of progressivism recoil in horror from a candidate who has a vision of fundamentally resetting the political landscape to our advantage.

So many here are so mired in the trench warfare that has defined the last few decades, where incremental advances seem to be the highest aspiration, that you fail to recognize that we are all still fighting on the landscape defined by Reagan and Gingrich.

Its a landscape defined by the issues and memes that they defined. And the very best that we do on that landscape, a la 1996, is to win close to half the votes and sneak over the line. On a platform of advocating school uniforms.

Obama aspires to win for Democrats are real mandate. That is what defines a political era. You cannot win a mandate with a base-appeal campaign - havent y'all learned anything from the Bush example? The Clintons are running a Rovian campaign - divide the nation, divide even the party, do whatever is necessary to sneak over the finish line.

Sorry folks, I am not a big fan of the kossacks, but at least they understand the stakes here, and are going for the big prize - a real realignment.

I am afraid you learned the wrong lesson. (5.00 / 2) (#21)
by Molly Bloom on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:43:10 PM EST

Its not whether or not you are partisan, its whether your appeal is solely to base issues and whether you are riding that unhappy accident of history when things are so wrong people demand change.

Ronald Reagan was partisan. He demonized Democrats and Jimmy Carter. High Gas and hostages. A crises.

See also FDR and the Republicans and Hoover together with that crises known as the Great Depression.

Rove demonized Democrats, appealed to fear but his appeal to the base was extremely narrow. Also there was never a desire for change like today in 2000 and they fundamentally mishandled 9-11.


: Who said there is desire for change? (none / 0) (#39)
by koshembos on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:32:54 PM EST

There is talk about change not necessarily desire. People like change because it doesn't mean anything. Everyone like vague ideas.

Excellent comment! (none / 0) (#27)
by robrecht on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:07:21 PM EST

I do think Hillary would probably be a better president, at least initially, but I believe Obama could be a much greater president. Just think what Bill Clinton could have been wthout his tragic weaknesses. I think Obama has that same poential. He probably should have waited until he had more national experience ... of course he would also get that pretty quick as president.


Something You Might Want To Consider (none / 0) (#37)
by MO Blue on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 03:13:20 PM EST

Rhetoric and talking points count, because they are what people will remember in a year. The talking points and the rhetoric are what the candidates are campaigning on, what people are hearing, and the kind of mandate the candidates are going to get.
So, if Obama campaigns on right wing talking points -- that is, on poison pill after poison pill for progressive policies -- he's going to get a mandate for right wing talking points.

: the mandate (none / 0) (#40)
by diogenes on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 07:30:17 PM EST

If the mandate means a big win and big coattails for congressional democrats, that is what people will remember. Part of why Reagan did what he did is that he brought over Republican control of the Senate, and that partly cowed the Democratic House.

Partisan (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by horseloverfat on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:55:50 PM EST

Obama simply does not care about partisan Democrat issues. It didn't occur to him when he proposed RR/"party-of-change" as role models that partisan Democrats would be offended. I think this RR thing has a lot to do with Obama's recent slippage in the polls.

All this quibling now by Obama over what he really meant to say or what he really thinks or whether HRC misquoted him just keeps the RR/"party-of-change" subject alive. If he were politically smart he would just drop the matter instead of keeping it alive, just shows what a poor campaigner Obanma would make.

What He Meant to Say... (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by Camorrista on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:25:54 PM EST

What's getting comical is that each time Obama opens his mouth lately, his admirers spend the next few news cycles (1) explaining what he actually meant; and (2) instructing us not to take offense.

[The most recent example is Obama's telling an interviewer that although he expects Clinton's supporters to vote for him if he's nominated, he doesn't expect his supporters to vote for her if the vice is versaed. His admirers have been busy all day telling us (1) he only meant he was more electable and (2) don't take offense.]

The point--a simple and obvious one--is that if I believe Obama has trashed years of Democratic governance and repeatedly pandered to Republicans, it is not up to Obama's admirers to tell me I have no right to feel offended. They can parse and spin his statments to a fare-thee-well, but they persuade nobody except themselves. (Try and imagine the reaction of those admirders if somebody alluded to Barack Hussein Obama, and then disingenuously explained, 'Why are you taking offense--that's his name.)

Agreed. I don't want to parse Obama's statements (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by ding7777 on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:52:30 PM EST

anymore than I want to parse Bush's statements

Bush never said "Mission Accomplished" but that's the message I got from how it was presented to me.

And the message I get from Obama is that he would rather pander to Republicans than applaud Democratic accomplishments.


: Bush stood under a sign (none / 0) (#41)
by Judith on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 07:46:43 PM EST

that said "Mission Accomplished". Are you sugesting he didnt read it before he stood under it? wink.

Yep (none / 0) (#38)
by chrisvee on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 03:43:56 PM EST

ITA. He's trying to be all things to all voters and that just isn't working. If he continues to leave his comments open to interpretation, they will indeed being interpreted -- and not always to his advantage.


You just won't let it rest, will you? (1.00 / 1) (#6)
by scribe on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:50:02 AM EST

Stop shilling for HRC/against Obama and hijacking the site.

To be entirely honest, scribe, (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by spit on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:09:42 PM EST

I don't like this track of Obama's either, and I'm completely undecided but suppose I'm most likely to wind up voting his way on the 5th. I understand what he's saying if you parse it deeply, but it's still rhetorical hell for the left IMO.


Shilling (5.00 / 2) (#19)
by Stellaaa on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:39:09 PM EST

Please explain to me what you imply when you throw that word out? It seems to have so many layers of code. If someone does not agree with you, why is your first thought that they are a shill? Be patient with me, I am one of those older partisan women.


: I am reminded of John Edward's comment (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by felizarte on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:57:00 PM EST

during the recent debate when he said something like this to Obama: "What you are accusing us of (attacks based on the worst possible interpretation of a statement) you are also doing yourself."
He criticized Hillary for leaving So. Carolina to campaign in other states, when in Nevada, he left before the caucus ended.
It seems Obama deeply resents any suggestion that he might not be as pure and noble as he has tried to project/ transcendental/ transformative, We all have feet of clay/and there has never been any candidate at any time who walked on water and he is not going to be the first one.
I hate to think of an imperial President Barack Obama.

shilling? gee i look on it as discussion. (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by hellothere on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:48:15 PM EST

if i want shilling, i can go to dialy kos.


Please do not particpate in threads of my posts (none / 0) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:51:05 AM EST

You abusive behavior is unacceptable.


: Hillary (none / 0) (#11)
by athyrio on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:56:03 AM EST

is a strong and independent woman who is aided by the experiences of her husbands 8 years as well as her years in the senate...She is a total lady and will do just fine against the slime machines of the GOP as well as the slime on various blogs...The more she is criticized, the stronger she gets....Go Hillary!!!!!

Shilling? Hijacking the site? (none / 0) (#17)
by felizarte on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:35:53 PM EST

You lose the debate before even getting started. Obama may lose because of his supporters. I don't see anyone here who is "shilling" except to state, in rational manner why he/she supports Clinton, or in some cases why there is disagreement on certain issues.

To me, Obama is wasting valuable campaign time for himself when he is still busy trying to justify his Reagan comments. It seems he does not handle opposition to him that well. Nobody should expect everybody to like or vote for him. I have nothing against him except that I think Hillary will make a better president; certainly she will take charge and be accountable for her decisions.


I said this on the "testy" thread (5.00 / 2) (#28)
by Kathy on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:10:49 PM EST

and I will say it again: he just cannot let it go. He won't drop it until everyone concedes that he was right and they were wrong.

This reminds me so much of Bush in so many ways--the whole thing where he cannot admit that he's ever made a mistake about anything. Also, I am very worried as a democratic voter (yellow dog!) that Obama cannot just move past this statement. I think someone here used the metaphor, "if you're in a hole, then stop digging!" For the love of all that is holy, stop parsing and explaining and backtracking. The rest of the world does not hear your long speeches to loving crowds about hope and change. They hear you going on and on for a week now about this stupid Reagan thing.


To be fair. . . (none / 0) (#30)
by LarryInNYC on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:18:40 PM EST

Obama has several times admitted to making mistakes and errors in judgement. If you want to tag someone who's unwilling to say outright "I made a mistake" I think Clinton is a likelier target. I think that for that most part that's the politically smart position to take, but still. . .


: As I recall (none / 0) (#32)
by Kathy on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:56:43 PM EST

she has said several times that she regretted a vote--such as on the bankruptcy bill. In the debate, she was asked if she regretted it, and she said, "sure I did." Then, she went on to explain policy, so that bit got lost.
I think what you're saying is true, though, that it's a political handicap to admit when you are wrong.

I'm curious. (none / 0) (#1)
by oculus on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:42:34 AM EST

Barack Obama is Bill Clinton circa 1992.

Who is Hillary Clinton?

Satan? (none / 0) (#2)
by LarryInNYC on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:45:34 AM EST

You know, I'm beginning to think I've been spending too much time on Daily Kos.


Serious question (none / 0) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:49:45 AM EST

What do you get out of it now? Obviously the level of discussion is beyond infantile.

You are not a candidate partisan. There are no interesting political or policy discussions or even good old fashion rallying behind an activism issue - say FISA today.

What do you get out of it?


I dunno. . . (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by LarryInNYC on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:52:57 AM EST

I feel that I still have a lot of friends there, and I think there still is some sensible political discussion that goes on over there although it's a lot harder to find these days.

But honestly the things I get out of it probably don't reflect too well on me -- for instance, the opportunity to zing really stupid people and to make myself feel smarter than others.


: Well if feeling smarter is your goal (5.00 / 3) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:58:36 AM EST

You are definitely right to spend time there.

Not to answer for others (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by spit on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:05:42 PM EST

to me, there's something sort of endlessly fascinating about watching the place devolve.

That and I enjoy some of the quieter folks, when they chip in now and then. There are still a few smart folks over there, but they're overwhelmed now.

But yeah, it's basically a cesspool these days. So I hope it's alright with y'all if I hide here a bit among other places -- good work keeping this site from getting caught in the stupidity pandemic.


I had to risk getting in trouble at (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Teresa on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:32:02 PM EST

work just to log in and ask Larry & Spit to please stay and come by more often. Two of my favorite posters from DK.

(tabbycat in tenn)


: Thanks and ditto :D (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by spit on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:51:35 PM EST

flattery is always happily accepted. But don't get in trouble at work on my account.
It's been good to see in my wanderings of the last few weeks that most of the people I still respect there also post a lot elsewhere.

Bill Clinton (none / 0) (#3)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:47:32 AM EST

circa 1998.

Afterhe learned his lessons about "unity."


Or rather circa 1995 (none / 0) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:48:07 AM EST

and the government shutdown.


I think she's. . . (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by LarryInNYC on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:50:05 AM EST

Hillary Clinton, circa 2008 -- after all the history of the Clinton administration that you referred to, plus seven years in the Senate.


: Sure (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:52:13 AM EST

But the easy cheap analogy is the one I use.

Um, these are CLEARLY his true beliefs (none / 0) (#18)
by MarkL on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:37:37 PM EST

I do not understand why you make excuses for him over this point.

Beliefs? or opportunist (none / 0) (#20)
by Stellaaa on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:41:18 PM EST

This is my question. What does he truly believe? I frankly don't find the meat and neither will the people in the EG.


: which pollster (none / 0) (#22)
by athyrio on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:43:48 PM EST

is the most accurate, if any of them are really?

New, Depressing Harris Poll On State of the Union (none / 0) (#26)
by kyordy on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:58:13 PM EST

Interesting/depressing new poll about what people thing about the state of the union. Interesting, but not particularly surprising
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/24/83445/9304/338/442051

Hey, y'all! (none / 0) (#29)
by Kathy on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:11:59 PM EST

Congress and the senate are working together to try to right the economy! It worked! He changed them! Yay! Unity forever!

Peace out.

I don't get this "controversy" (none / 0) (#33)
by s5 on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:16:52 PM EST

Yes, Ronald Reagan was a transformative president. This is indisputable. We are still playing in the framework that his administration and his ideological heirs set up. And he did this by convincing the entire country, Republicans and Democrats, that his framework was correct. Obama is saying that he wants to do the same thing, except within a progressive framework. This was clear from his first comment, and it's clear every time he's asked to "clarify".

This is entirely different than "triangulating". It's not about both parties meeting each other halfway; it's about convincing the other side that your way of looking at the world is fundamentally correct. Even where policy differences remain, they are fought out on the new turf with new assumptions.

I like Clinton and Obama an equal amount (I appreciate both of their strengths and weaknesses, and think both would do a fantastic job) and choosing who to vote for has been very difficult for me, but it's very obvious to me what Obama is saying here. I despise Ronald Reagan, and I even bought a bottle of celebratory champagne on the day he died, but grown-ups in the chattering class (including the bloggers) should be able to hear his name without screeching for weeks on end. If our next president, whoever it will be, ends up being the Ronald Reagan for progressive values, then that's a tremendous victory, worth more than any incremental policy advancement.

It wouldn't take more than (none / 0) (#35)
by Alien Abductee on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:39:12 PM EST

a subtle shift in his rhetoric to start turning this around. He could even keep his theme of bipartisanship.

what I said was, and I'll repeat, I think he was a transformative political figure who recognized people's need for a sense of optimism at a time when folks were feeling discouraged and attracted Democrats to vote for a Republican President. But what I also said was that there were a number of his ideas that I disagreed with and, you make an important point, which is that I don't think that everything is either/or. And I don't think that we as Democrats have to spend all our time running down Republicans, what I'm trying to do is get Republicans to work together with Democrats to move the country forward. That's the kind of President I want to be.

A small shift in emphasis but all the difference in meaning. Most people would hardly notice the difference if he started formulating his message that way, but he'd stop alienating partisans of his own side. Maybe he could even evolve it to the next step: What I'm trying to do is get Republicans to work together with Democrats to move the country forward instead of holding it back.

At this point I don't think he can afford to change his message overtly. We'd never hear the end of hypocrisy and flip-flop from his critics and tepid supporters.

But I really think it's moot. He's not going to change and I'm resigning myself to the prospect of HRC.