Don't get me wrong, I like Obama and all, but this kind of pisses me off. I understand the need to reach out, but does this guy really not understand that invoking Reagan enrages a large segment of the democratic party? Though, someone at Daily Kos says the entire thing is taken out of context. See the analysis here.
Though, in fairness the Clintons liked him too.
Former President Bill Clinton and his wife, Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, issued a statement that praised the former president for his optimistic outlook.
"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," their statement said.
15 comments:
Watch Obama's quote in its full context
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TfCOX22g2E
Jeez. Why are folks on the left so damned puritanical these days?
He did not, by any stretch, say that he supported Reagan's policies. He said that Reagan transformed the political debate in this country. This is manifestly true. He said that Reagan's message of optimism resonated with a country tired of divisiveness. This is also obviously true.
He did NOT say we should invade El Salvador, shred the social safety net, sell arms to the Ayatolah, triple our military budget, etc.
He said Reagan was a successful politician, who's campaign was the right one for its moment. He said that Reagan successfully reached out to independents. The fact that he won 2 landslides proves this true.
It is not being a traitor to recognize when your enemy made a good move in the past, and learn from it.
Paul, well put. I agree with everything that was said. Discussing reagan's politics does not equal acceptance of his policies. A distinction way too subtle for the media to hash out. (Not that it takes a genius to understand the difference!)
I agree with that. Now, that is why I put the daily kos analysis in the post, but I think you are all being a little disingenous (though I support the candidacy of Obama and Paul Newell for that matter) when saying it is a little unnerving.
I do agree it was taken out of context, that I do agree with; but I also have to say Reagan was a scumbag, the biggest of scumbags, not as incompetent as Bush and is why Reagan gives froth at the mouth of progressives dismantling the Roosevelt revolution all over the world.
Obama praising his optimism is troubling in some regard...that I am sure of. Is it dispositive that Obama is going to start a new Reagan Revolution, no and I don't think normal rational thinking folks are saying that.
But, Reagan's dynamism and optimism was a charade to attempt a full throttle ass whipping on the American worker and the middle class, the results of which we still suffer today (because Clinton certainly did not reject enough).
Still, Obama for President.
The idea that you can't cite to political history that involved your political adversary, without some sort of partisan rebuke, strikes me as very Bushian at its core. It is anti-intellectual hyper-partisanship!
One of Obama's greatest attributes is his ability to use his intellect and analytical skills to draw conclusions free of ideologically driven bias.
One conclusion that can be drawn from Reagan's election was that the country was ready for change. That is political history, and a simple fact. It strikes me as counterproductive, at best, to pretend that the 1980's didn't happen because we don't agree with what happened.
It is sweet comfort to me to know that Obama may be President and would approach history and inconvenient facts in exactly the opposite way from our current President. That is to say, without ideology blinding him to reality.
It strikes me as counterproductive to cite Reagan as a an example for anything. As I said I don't think Barack was doing anything untoward, but for people to think progressives are not going to freak out is completely naive.
Reagan is the counterpoint to anything the Democratic party stands for and I mean anything. We are still recovering from the Reagan Revolution. And for Barack to talk about the "excesses of gov't in the 60's in 70's" is an insult to what those decades accomplished for working families.
Now, I see it clearly as a mistake and certainly out of context, but I would love a little clarification.
Perhaps for political purposes Obama should clarify his point. While candidates are clarifying, I find it more disturbing that Edwards jumps on this to prop himself up as the true progressive democrat.
If you compare records and their lives, on just about every subject, Obama is more progressive than Edwards. It seems like a cheap political move for Edwards to claim, because of true statements about Reagan, to be a more true progressive. It is misleading and politically opportunistic.
Actions speak louder than words and if you look at both of their actions it is clear who is more progressive. Edwards talks about helping the poor and middle class, but what has he ever actually done to do that. Obama has a long record of actually doing it!
Point taken certainly, but I would not downplay what Edwards did in a courtroom. As someone who has needed a trial lawyer to sue an insurance company for medical coverage, that type of work (though lucrative for the attorneys) is very public interest.
I do agree, however that Edwards misrepresented what Obama said. There is also a report that he not only misrepresented it he reported the quote to a source using different words.
I have liked Edwards candidacy actually because true progressivism is for the working class and changing the system that supports big business and corporations, but the tone of his campaign since N.H. has turned me off.
"Reagan is the counterpoint to anything the Democratic party stands for and I mean anything."
Only if you want to stand for losing. Wouldn't it be nice to win 49 states?
Just heard a great quote on Reagan fron Garry Trudeau and Robert Altman's "Tanner '88. "Under Reagan we have gone from a country concerned with doing good to a country only concerned with feeling good".
Yes, exactly and if we have to win to invoke Reagan you have to wonder what you are winning?
On another note, this issue goes to the heart of the criticisms of Obama. He talks to the enemy. That is considered "selling out" when the enemy is the GOP. It's considered naive when the enemy is Ahmadinejad or Kim.
I believe these are both misguided. This approach is the substance of what makes Obama different, and makes him the most viable "change agent".
Reagan, as well as JFK and FDR before him (whom Obama also praises) reframed the debate in this country, by offering something that more than just hard-core partisans can believe in. These kinds of leaders establish generational trends in political life. If "Reagan Revolution" is too distasteful, think "Liberal Consensus". Sounds nice, doesn't it?.
Obama is the only leader on the horizon with that potential. Let's not clip his wings with demands for rhetorical purity.
Hey peops I am still hoping for a win tomorrow. I think he needs it. I think it would be a very large boost to the campaign. predictions?
BTW- this was clever.
Obama began by recalling a moment in Tuesday night's debate when he and his rivals were asked to name their biggest weakness. Obama answered first, saying he has a messy desk and needs help managing paperwork _ something his opponents have since used to suggest he's not up to managing the country. John Edwards said his biggest weakness is that he has a powerful response to seeing pain in others, and Clinton said she gets impatient to bring change to America.
"Because I'm an ordinary person, I thought that they meant, 'What's your biggest weakness?'" Obama said to laughter from a packed house at Rancho High School. "If I had gone last I would have known what the game was. And then I could have said, `Well, ya know, I like to help old ladies across the street. Sometimes they don't want to be helped. It's terrible.'"
I just watched the video of Obama talking about the debate. It was hysterical. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/
Post a Comment