Edwards Hits Obama For Reagan Comment

Comments (98)

Angry Vet wrote on January 17, 2008 4:07 PM:

EEEK!!!!

Dammit Edwards, SHUT UP!

I hate it when JRE and Trippi do that to my candidate. Everyone can see the democratic trendlines in the Nevada caucus (to the right). I'll bet JRE and friends see an opportunity here.

DAMN!

We've already re-hashed the fallacies of JRE's argument in the past with various HRC elements out there. Shall I suggest a few dKos blog entries among the most recommended at this time?

Greg- I appreciate the disclaimer you put on there.

laura wrote on January 17, 2008 4:07 PM:

Hey Culinary workers--The guy you endorsed thinks your Union is an excess.

Maybe they should have endorsed someone who is PROUD to be a progressive democrat.

frankly0 wrote on January 17, 2008 4:10 PM:

Thank God Edwards is now coming full bore into Obama on this score.

I was completely mystified by his obvious attempt to get Hillary out of the game after Iowa, rather than go immediately after Obama. His natural competitor has always been Obama, since both are vying for the change agent designation.

john mccutchen wrote on January 17, 2008 4:11 PM:

Eric has taught Greg well. A fair post

Of course the comment has nothing to do with Reagan's substantive policies but the substantive failures of Clinton and the imperative of change from BushClintonBush to a real future for the democratic party

SLKRR wrote on January 17, 2008 4:11 PM:

Reading that quote, it looks to me like Reagan initiated a *lot* of changes. Which was the whole point of the original statement. No one said the changes were good ones.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 17, 2008 4:12 PM:

Ah well. I think that this is just as much a distortion of Obama's actual comments when it comes out of Edwards' mouth as it is when it comes off the keypad of Taylor Marsh & al. That said, we will see how it actually works out.

I tend to suspect that most hard-core democrats are already committed to one candidate or another. As we all saw yesterday, those of us who favored Obama before still favored him after seeing the interview. Those who did not favor him before the interview still did not favor him afterwards. Among the decided, in other words, the interview had little effect.

Nobody, however, is really fighting for the decideds at this point. They are fighting for the undecideds, and while I have no actual numbers concerning the demographics of the undecideds, it is not obvious to me that the association with Ronald Reagan would really be so toxic in the mind of these folks. Ronald Reagan, after all, won a lot of votes. I never thought much of the man, but I am not in the least wise convinced that Obama is going to find that this is a net loss for him, or that Edwards is going to find that this is a winning angle for his own campaign.

grover_rover wrote on January 17, 2008 4:14 PM:

Um, 1) laura, you are [severely cognitively challenged] if you really think that Obama was praising Reagan for his policies. You should probably go get yourself some critical thinking skills is this is the case. Here is a good summary of where you went wrong in the whole understanding process: http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=01&year=2008&base_name=obama_and_reagan

and 2) C'mon Edwards, I like you for the most part, don't be that slimy candidate. You are smart enough to know what he really meant, I know you know that this attack is baseless and disingenuous. I expect this kind of sad, politically motivated deception from the Clintons, but et tu Edwards? Et tu?? You just lost a few points in my book, sorry, but you did.

Tom wrote on January 17, 2008 4:14 PM:

I'm an Edwards supporter, but I disagree with him here. It sounds like he's just trying too hard to exploit this.

Reagan is an example of change, just not in a good way. But you can't deny that he brought about change.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 17, 2008 4:15 PM:

Meanwhile, in a totally unrelated comment, has anyone else been paying attention to those Pollster.com trendlines to our right? This question is directed especially to my fellow Obama supporter, Angry Vet, who fears that Obama is going to lose. Did you notice that in every graphy his trendline is rocketing up at nearly a 45 degree angle to the horizon?

Angry Vet wrote on January 17, 2008 4:16 PM:

Greg D-

Very aptly put.

Note, the Mason-Dixon poll was released, and Obama has a 9 point lead. Also note, however, the HUGE demographic split in the Democratic primary, at least in terms of race. JRE beats BHO for second by 8 points.

No surprise, I guess. They are still fighting the Civil War down there, for the most part.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/24931.html

john mccutchen wrote on January 17, 2008 4:16 PM:

Perhaps Greg Sargent will catch up to the Clinton News Network today running an item on how Obama is taking on TWO opponents Mr and Mrs. Bill

Time to cancel the Clinton Soap Opera

Angry Vet wrote on January 17, 2008 4:20 PM:

Oops! Error of omission:

"JRE beats BHO for second by 8 points [among whites]."

As for the rocketing, oh yes, I note it. I also note the compressed primary schedule, and I fear time be running out. Like I said, though, it only makes me work harder.

In addition, I note that (at least in NV) JRE is in the same position. Perhaps the reason for this attack?

phil james wrote on January 17, 2008 4:20 PM:

BO's choice of Reagan simply further highlights who is and who isn't the truly progressive candidate in this race and it ain't BO and it ain't Clinton. The sea change Obama has been talking about is the Everyone Around the Big Table Pollyanna Program as a change from partisan gridlock. Anyone who seriously think that that's not DOA needs to review the last 27 years starting with Reagan, who by the way would be laughing his ass off at the notion. Edwards approach of overcoming the entrenched interests by sheer weight of numbers actually has a chance.

john o. wrote on January 17, 2008 4:20 PM:

Be yourself John, not Hillary's shill.

Anonymous wrote on January 17, 2008 4:22 PM:

You know, if all you wanted to do was make Bill Clinton blow a gasket, possibly as payback for all of the goading and misleading comments he has been making lately and his injection of himself as a central figure in the race...

then you really could not do much better than what Obama said.

If we know anything about Bill, it's how much he wants to have a big legacy.

He already seems like he's on edge. Watch this video of him making a meritless argument to a reporter over the Vegas caucuses.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/01/bill_clinton_argues_over_nv_ca.php

Angry Vet wrote on January 17, 2008 4:23 PM:

JM-

No need to shoot the messenger here. Bias is an incredibly difficult thing to control. I think you are right as far as CNN goes, and I personally believe MSNBC tilts toward whoever the last winner was (in any given election/primary).

Greg and TPM as a whole does a pretty good job, I think, though they probably took the Edwards video to heart as well and wanted to be sure to publish Edwards' attacks as well.

I'm not really a fan of loyalty oaths.

Angry Vet wrote on January 17, 2008 4:26 PM:

One last point, then it's off to Criminal Procedure:

Welcome back JRE supporters! I've missed y'all around here. Now go back to yesterday and watch the full video of Obama's video. Even the MSM is getting it wrong, and simply printing out the JRE press releases.

Also, see Greg D's post above re: undecideds.

Republican Attack Machine wrote on January 17, 2008 4:26 PM:

Someone needs to tell Johnny boy that change is not always good. Are you kidding me? Rolling back FDR's vaunted social programs classifies as change, just really bad change.

Brighid wrote on January 17, 2008 4:27 PM:

Ronald Reagan fought from the very beginning for racist policies. He did it from his very first speech. Maybe Obama didn't intend to say he supported Reagan's policies, but what he did was invoke yet another--in a growing list--of right-wing talking points in order to curry favor with voters. But what voters? Certainly not DEMOCRATS. And, certainly not BLACK VOTERS. So, whose he going for with the hagiography on St. Ronnie? The money boys, that's who. He wants their freakin' money so he can keep his 'cult of personality' campaign going. Face it TPM, you've sold out. Trying to defend Obama's words is sickening.

Tithonia wrote on January 17, 2008 4:27 PM:

My husband and I attended a town hall meeting for Obama in Nevada. We stood in line with a well-informed retired Christian couple who were lifelong Republicans. They had never voted for a Democrat in their lives, but they intended to caucus for Obama.

The left can throw hissy fits all they want over what Obama said about Reagan, but I suspect there are more Nevadans out there like this couple, and I suspect that Obama knows that.

Tom Wells wrote on January 17, 2008 4:29 PM:

Edwards is right.

No Democrat should ever offer up Reagan as a model for change.

dajafi wrote on January 17, 2008 4:30 PM:

I think Edwards is willfully "misunderstanding" Obama's point. But he's gotta do what he's gotta do, and I personally am always glad to see anyone standing up for unions--even if they weren't being attacked.

The one thing about a prospective Edwards presidency that would really thrill me is his getting his hands on the NLRB. I'd just much prefer him to do this as Secretary of Labor in an Obama Administration.

NCSteve wrote on January 17, 2008 4:33 PM:

Crossposted from a post I did at Ezra's blog and slightly modified.

One of the many things dogmatic liberals and dogmatic conservatives have in common is that they are utterly incapable of differentienting between an empirical observation and a normative statement.

Obama was talking like the political science major he was and began his argument with a simple, indisputable empirical observation: Reagan pulled of a realignment. Clinton did what people from the party that lost the last realignment have to do to get elected, he accepted the basic governing assumptions of the realignment, but said "I can govern better within those assumptions." If you need an analogy, Clinton was to Reagan as Eisenhower was to FDR.

Obama did make a normative observation: it would be better for Democrats to pull off a realignment of their own and shift the policy paradigm in our favor than it would be to have yet another Democratic president governing within the paradigm of Reagan realignment. That is, it would be better to have a Reagan or an FDR style realignment than another Clinton I or Eisenhower.

He also made a political observation. We have a chance to pull off a realignment this year, but Hillary can't get it done and he submits that he can.

Sadly, however, almost by definition, the dogma blind (*cough*Matt Stoller*cough*) are incapable of even comprehending empirical observations as such. Because everything they say, do, or believe is dictated by their dogma, they necessarily assume that everyone else operates the same way. To them, everything everyone in politics says is always a normative statement. Mere empircal observations are as incomprehensible to them as science is to a religious fanatic.

Thus, to the dogmatic liberal, if Obama says Reagan was a transformational political figure, he must mean that he approves of Reagan's policies and, in fact, wants to be just like Reagan.

What's really depressing to me about this is that this kind of thinking is that one of the symptoms of a party that's about to lose a realignment election. As the old policy assumptions make less and less sense, and render increasingly bad policy outcomes, empiricism becomes increasingly inconvenient and dogmatism is their natural refuge. This is what Bush II and Tom Delay were all about. This is why the current Republican presidential candidates are all insisting that the reason the deficit is so high is because Bush II didn't cut taxes enough.

The Reagan realignment is on the brink of collapse. Unfortunately, it often seems to me that there are a lot of Democrats who are so invested in their angry opposition to the Reagan Revolution, and so fearful of what their world might look like without that comfy anger to fall back on, that they instinctively seek to prop up the old order that they so hate.

Tithonia wrote on January 17, 2008 4:36 PM:

Awesomely well said, NCSteve.

Angry Vet wrote on January 17, 2008 4:36 PM:

I was going to do homework, but I caught this post

(stands, applauds).

NCS- Brilliant analysis!!

phil james wrote on January 17, 2008 4:36 PM:

Yes the well-intentioned Christian couple surely want everyone to be kinder and gentler and get along and work in a bipartisan manner and love their neighbors and pet their dogs. But the power brokers in this country could not give a damn as long as they keep getting theirs and no one threatens their bottom line. Do you want ot keep going down the same road with some of the potholes kind of smoothed out with the cold-patch of intermittent bipartisanship or do you actually want a new direction?

TheraP wrote on January 17, 2008 4:37 PM:

I've got two elderly parents (85 and 90) who are lifelong repubs... and ready to tip for Obama.

I understand he's appealing to many voters. In the end, the Dems will win the congress. And I truly think Obama can ask citizens for sacrifice. To make sacrifices and be selfless, to come together, and work on the problems that need to be addressed. We will all have tighten our belts and give the old "heave ho" if we are to get back to living by the Constitution, the Rule of Law, and fairness to all Americans, fair healthcare, fair taxes, a better environment. All of this will take sacrifice and coming together.

It does no good to bash voters who prefer other candidates. That's our right as citizens. I respect your choice, whatever it is. And I ask you to respect the choices that may be different from yours.

What good does it do to dump on voters? If you don't like a candidate, express that, without dumping on other voters.

bill l. wrote on January 17, 2008 4:37 PM:

Are people serious? Does anyone here really think Obama raised the image of Ronald Reagan as anything other than a transparent attempt to curry favor with those right leaning Dems and Independents who voted "R" back in the 80's and still wrap themselves in the myth of Saint Ronnie? The idea that Obama was just pointing to another candidate who brought about change and was unconcerned with whether that change was good or not is ridiculous. Obviously the idea is to trigger the natural gut reaction Reagan=change=good=Obama. If Obama really wants to credit someone with change, why not bring up the Chimperor? Nobody in history has done more to trash the system of checks and balances and empower the unitary executive than Mr. "My Pet Goat." Bush is Reagan on steroids.

Somehow I don't think that comparison will ever happen.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 17, 2008 4:37 PM:

Ronald Reagan fought from the very beginning for racist policies. He did it from his very first speech. Maybe Obama didn't intend to say he supported Reagan's policies...

"Maybe"?!? For pity's sake, is there even a gleaming speck of doubt on this point? Of course Obama did not mean to imply that he supported Reagan's policies. I dare say that one would be hard pressed to find a single policy point on which Obama and Reagan both campaigned. Their similarities are entirely superficial (read "rhetorical"). That is just the point - Reagan was able to use pretty speeches and folksy charm to bamboozle the nation into enacting his disasterously reactionary agenda. Now it is our turn; we now have a candidate who can use that same bamboozling magic to vitiate Reagan's works completely.

How is this a bad thing?

Scientific wrote on January 17, 2008 4:40 PM:

Edwards says he won't use Ronald Reagan as an example of change. Even when it's true?

This is the kind of thing that illustrates perfectly why Edwards is the third wheel in this Democratic election. His comment is 100% pander, and DISCOURAGES an intelligent evaluation of what Obama actually said. That is not the kind of candidate I wish to support, and I strongly encourage others to vote for someone who respects you enough not to dumb down intelligent analysis in order to win votes.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 17, 2008 4:40 PM:

Echoing Tithonia and Angry Vet, I think that NCSteve's point is awfully well made.

Tithonia wrote on January 17, 2008 4:41 PM:

At the aforementioned town hall meeting, Obama had some choice words for GWB, and got a thundering response. Just sayin'.

Seth H. wrote on January 17, 2008 4:41 PM:

Okay, I'm not reading anymore of the comments already up... Gah! Reagan is a fantastic example of a president who came in ready and able to bring change to Washington. He did, in fact, bring change to Washington. Significant change. Just not change with which I have much, if any, agreement at all. Change, by itself, isn't necessarily good. Good change is good. Drrf. Anyway, Edwards is a douchebag, apparently. That's new.

AJ wrote on January 17, 2008 4:41 PM:

The fact that Obama neutrally describes the Reagan 'change', in the same quote he described the '90's Republicans as the 'party of ideas' just shows how vacuous his change mantra is becoming. It sounds as though Obama is just for a random reshuffling as long as stuff ends up different.

Edwards was absolutely right to take Obama to task for that.

TheraP wrote on January 17, 2008 4:46 PM:

Applause for NCSteve! Brilliant analysis!

frankly0 wrote on January 17, 2008 4:49 PM:

Speaking of reposting, since this post got pretty much orphaned elsewhere, let me post it here, in a live thread.

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

Look, people, Reagan was a demagogue. And Reagan was "transformative", alright -- demagogues often are, aren't they? (There are other, even less seemly examples of that, I'm sure people realize).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jeffrey Lamkin wrote on January 17, 2008 4:49 PM:

Is it possible both Obama AND Edwards are right here.

Obama: Reagan changed the country more than Clinton.

Who can argue with that one?

Edwards: Most of the change was really really bad.

Any progressives want to argue with that??

It's time someone stood up and said what Edwards said. Enough of this ridiculous Reagan hagiography. Another tempest in a teapot. And, criticizing Edwards for trying anything to get the cameras off the celebrity candidates? I can't see it. He's fighting a very steep uphill battle.

RFK wrote on January 17, 2008 4:50 PM:

Ever since Reagan, I've wondered if we would ever see a Democrat do for progressivism what Reagan did for conservatism.

For one year in the early '90s I thought Bill Clinton might actually achieve that. (Laughter, sobbing...)

Obama has a chance. Let's not blow it.

bill l. wrote on January 17, 2008 4:51 PM:

NCSteve has a good logical post, but I don't think that such rigorous logic was at the root of Obama's statement. In the real world, I have to believe that while Obama may internally understand what he meant and how he could shield himself from criticism using the intellectual argument, he fully understood that bringing up Reagan as a point of comparison was a bit of almost "dog whistle" politics that was meant to bolster his support from the more rightward leaning Dems in the South and Midwest. Really, why bring up Reagan at all? I get the "contrast with Clinton" argument, but I seriously doubt that going back to the Gipper was just about raising the change issue, particularly when you watch the GOP field fall all over themselves to be anointed "Reagan's Heir."

Oddly enough, I want Obama to beat Hillary, but I would also like to see Edwards advance as well, as, in fact, his positions are more in line with liberal/progressive politics and at least he is openly hammering away at the subject of corporate influence while Hillary effectively defends it and Obama ignores it.

stellaa wrote on January 17, 2008 4:51 PM:

I guess to people with no historical or party allegiance, it's ok to call the work of the New Deal and New Society and "excess" for political expediency. Remember the deal you make today for votes, you will have to live with tomorrow. Go ahead, think you are Junior Rove cadets, the Christian right is biting the GOP now.

phil james wrote on January 17, 2008 4:54 PM:

I do agree with the characterization of Obama's remarks about Reagan as in large part an attempt to garner support from those who continue to burn incense and sing hallelujah to Saint Ray-gun (as well as a sharp stick in the eye of Bubba.) But to carry it off one would have to accept that BO believed the changes Ray-gun made were good, which BO did by referring to the excesses of the 60's. But in Ron-Ron's case he had the opponents of "fair healthcare, fair taxes, a better environment" on his side. If BO pursues a truly progressive agenda they will be among his staunchest enemies. So, do we want to pretend that won't happen or do we want to move on those issues with our eyes open?

stellaa wrote on January 17, 2008 4:55 PM:

Bravo Frankly.

skibumlee wrote on January 17, 2008 4:56 PM:

Regan comment, putting republications on white house staff, asking drug and insurance companies to give something up, what next is Obama going to come up with??? I want a real Democrat not another Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid.

Dawn wrote on January 17, 2008 4:56 PM:

Yes, you can't blame Edwards for trying to get someone to listen to him. Nothing was false, and Obama asked for it by citing Reagan in any kind of positive light in a Dem primary.

I'm with Frankly0 - never made sense to me why Edwards didn't try to take out his counterpart first, instead of trying to set up a 2 way race with someone who is also trying to run as the 'change guy'.

frankly0 wrote on January 17, 2008 4:58 PM:

Obama did make a normative observation: it would be better for Democrats to pull off a realignment of their own and shift the policy paradigm in our favor than it would be to have yet another Democratic president governing within the paradigm of Reagan realignment.

What a load of pretentious garbage.

Excuse me, Obama isn't delivering a speech to a political science class. He's talking to ordinary voters about the model he intends his own Presidency to follow. He's going to do the "optimism" and hope thing, just like Reagan. Trouble is, Reagan did nothing but offer up false hope and optimism. He was a demagogue.

SN wrote on January 17, 2008 5:01 PM:

Obamites are morons, plain and simple. Easy prey for a slick like Obama. Hey everyone! Join the cult!

stellaa wrote on January 17, 2008 5:02 PM:

Reagan did not bring change, he dismantled the progress that was being made in giving the people a voice. He privatized democracy and demonized the public voice. This was not change, this was going back to the pre FDR years, where capital ruled America. This was regression.

Bupalos wrote on January 17, 2008 5:02 PM:

>>>Edwards is right.

No Democrat should ever offer up Reagan as a model for change.>>>

Anyone who can't get the political effectiveness vs. actual policy distinction is either playing dumb for a purpose, or too stupid to be a democrat.

Seriously folks, no one buys your mock stupidity and mock outrage based on mock stupidity.

RFK wrote on January 17, 2008 5:04 PM:

>it's ok to call the work of the New Deal and New Society and "excess" for political expediency.

Like maybe, the president who declared, "The era of big government is over"?

Bill and Hillary gave the world triangulation, don't ask don't tell, welfare reform... If anyone enshrined Reaganism, it was them.

Anonymous wrote on January 17, 2008 5:05 PM:

Most Obamites are to young or to uninformed to understand the tragedy for America that Reagan was.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 17, 2008 5:05 PM: What a load of pretentious garbage.

Somehow this is exactly the response I was expecting NCSteve's post to get. Fair enough, of course. We are each entitled to our own opinions. I cannot believe that any of the posts on this conversation (my own very much included) make much difference anyway, given that so few of us are really up for grabs in any meaningful sense. If, as Bill L supposes, Obama's interview was a dog whistle to the acolytes of Reagan, I expect that it will help Obama more than it hurts, even in the long term.

Scientific wrote on January 17, 2008 5:07 PM:

frankly0, you're a well-known Hillary supporter on these boards who seemingly can't find anything Obama's said or done that's good.

What he said was not pretentious. It was intelligent. How is it pretentious to say something intelligent and respect your voters enough that you know they'll get it? Honestly, what he said is not that hard to understand and given your history on these boards, I know you're just spinning, trying to put doubt in the minds of people who may not have heard the comments or don't have the time or inclination to read them for themselves.

And where in what he said indicates that he aims to follow Reagan's model? He said the guy was an agent for change in the political arena, not that he admired him. Get a grip, guy. We all know Reagan was a demagogue. I suspect Obama knows it, too - but how does that help him to say *that*? Please.

c wrote on January 17, 2008 5:09 PM:

As someone who remembers the 1980 election clearly, surely it's worthwhile figuring out how Reagan did it in order to start undoing it.

There's also something to be said for reflection, self-criticism and thinking through stuff. What the food-fighters on these boards insist is that every word and every gesture be down-the-line partisan and every reference to a Republican be visibly angry, as though you could win battles by thinking up bad enough names to call your opponents. I like the fact that Obama is reflective about the kinds of things government should and should not do.

stellaa wrote on January 17, 2008 5:10 PM:

So, do tell me how Obama is more progressive than Hillary if he actually believes the 60's and 70's were filled with excesses?

slightly_peeved wrote on January 17, 2008 5:10 PM:

Edwards approach of overcoming the entrenched interests by sheer weight of numbers actually has a chance.

This is Obama's strategy too, and this speech is how he outlined it.

Obama's not about unity within Congress - he's about unity within America. A unified America, supporting him. A unified America he can then ram down the throats of whatever Republicans are left in government.

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

It worked. Simple as that.

As many people have said on this forum before, politics ain't beanbag. If elections are about selling, then the Democratic party needs a salesperson. The difference between the parties is that the goods the Democrats sell you actually work.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 17, 2008 5:11 PM:

Most Obamites are to young or to uninformed to understand the tragedy for America that Reagan was.

Really? Care to back that up? Cite for me, for instance, some (any?) instances of Obama supporters claiming that Reagan was a good president? Cite for me Reagan-administration policies which some (any?) Obama supporters here or elsewhere support?

Honestly, none of us Obama supporters are supporting Obama because we hope and/or expect that he will re-instate Reagan-style regulatory policies, or some such. The comparison is strictly superficial - Reagan was a class A con-artist who bamboozled ordinary working folks into backing a reactionary agenda. Obama is a class A con-artist who can bamboozle the capital class and their attendant dupes into backing a progressive agenda. With Obama at our helm we are positioned to do unto them as they did unto us in 1980, and I am frankly mystified that so many here find this an unappealing prospect.

loki wrote on January 17, 2008 5:13 PM:

Obama is doing many right things to get elected. Including pandering...uh, I mean appealing to Reagan Democrats. He doesn't have to say he loves Reagan, only speak of him in comparison to someone they already hate (Clinton).

Smart move, politically. Opportunistic rank pandering, yes, but smart move.

Tithonia wrote on January 17, 2008 5:14 PM:

One of the many tragedies of the Reagan years was that the word "liberal" became an insult. I know well what Reagan did to California and to the nation. Now that George Bush and Karl Rove have ruined the Republican brand, I would love it if Obama could do for liberalism what Reagan did for conservatism. I'm old, I understand what Obama was saying about Reagan, and I'm supporting him as a candidate.

stellaa wrote on January 17, 2008 5:15 PM:

Greg says: "Obama is a class A con-artist who can bamboozle the capital class and their attendant dupes into backing a progressive agenda. With Obama at our helm we are positioned to do unto them as they did unto us in 1980, and I am frankly mystified that so many here find this an unappealing prospect."

You think with the Capital Class and their resources are going to let a "community orginizer' out smart them? Get a grip. This is not Dungeons and Dragons, this if friggin real.

stellaa wrote on January 17, 2008 5:17 PM:

Now "pandering" is change and a virtue. Killing liberalism is a good thing. Yikes.

frankly0 wrote on January 17, 2008 5:17 PM:

It worked. Simple as that. As many people have said on this forum before, politics ain't beanbag. If elections are about selling, then the Democratic party needs a salesperson. The difference between the parties is that the goods the Democrats sell you actually work.

And so what you do if you see someone selling snake-oil to the townspeople by making shit up about how great things will be for them if they drink it, and scaring them with all terrible tragedies that will befall them if they don't, is to mimic him?

Just great. What a surprise that an Obama supporter, as well as Obama himself, would be on board with this.

stellaa wrote on January 17, 2008 5:25 PM:

I guess some of us who believe in party politics don't buy sophistry, pandering and mimicking the Rovian tactics to win. Because it's not just about winning, it's about when you get elected doing something. I am not willing to bargain away, pacify and twiddle with the right wing. If we win, we win on our merits for changing the Reagan sell of our government and of the Rovian pandering.

frankly0 wrote on January 17, 2008 5:28 PM:

frankly0, you're a well-known Hillary supporter on these boards who seemingly can't find anything Obama's said or done that's good.

Nope, not a Hillary supporter. I'm just anti-Obama. I think he would be a disaster worse than Jimmy Carter for the Democratic Party. I'd be more than happy with John Edwards.

I'm sure there are good things to say about Obama. I will leave that, though, to his wife and other supporters, who seem to have the interest and energy.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 17, 2008 5:32 PM:

You think with the Capital Class and their resources are going to let a "community orginizer' out smart them? Get a grip. This is not Dungeons and Dragons, this if friggin real.

I take it, then, that you are not much convinced by that which I wrote? Fair enough as far as that goes. I am not much convinced by anything you have written, so I guess we have that certain measure of skepticism in common.

In any event, in time one of us will be proven right and the other wrong. If you find my words unpersuasive, then I will content myself to let the events unfold and we shall see who is actually the wiser. If you are right, I will have reason to be glad of your criticism; I am right, you will have reason to be glad of mine.

halfdan wrote on January 17, 2008 5:39 PM:

So Obama should be allowed to make a terrible analogy, but Edwards shouldn't be allowed to call him on it? Edwards is grand-standing, but Obama is not?

stellaa wrote on January 17, 2008 5:40 PM:

I find that the Rovian years have duped people into believing that winning is all there is and winning by any means. I think we are at this gigantic mess cause of those tactics. When I think of change, I think of trying honesty for a change and stop with the gaming and sophistry. If this is what Obama is about, out foxing the foxes, maybe it will work in the short run, he wins, but we will not win. We will lose precious years. In the meantime, the capital class, will continue diminishing and weakening our democracy. This is the battle. The destruction of democracy and our public voice. We cannot afford to trivialize it and or make alliances that will have to be sustained to the point of our destruction. I do have a problem with game playing.

JC wrote on January 17, 2008 5:57 PM:

Yay Edwards! So, those who say Obama wasn't complimenting Reagan missed the loaded us of the word "excess." C'mon. Obama, like CLinton and all middle of the road Democrats, stands for nothing but opportunistic elections. It's time for progressives to get past Obama's color, and tokenistic symbols, and to look at his vague Clintonian ideology.

marcus wrote on January 17, 2008 5:59 PM:

NC Steve's analysis is pretty much spot on. Having watched the complete 49 minute video, my takeway is this: If anything, Obama may be too smart. Watching him I realized he's talking about an entirely new politics from what we've seen in a very long time.

It is only by watching the entire video that you can fully appreciate the sea change that separates him from HRC. They are not really playing the same sport even.

The man is something that we have not seen on the political scene is quite some time, namely a visionary.

phil james wrote on January 17, 2008 6:08 PM:

I heard a piece of Obama's post-debate rally where he responded to a question about how he would run the Presidency with something like this: "Yes everyone will get a seat at the table. No one will be able to buy all the chairs. I will have the biggest chair cause I'll be president." Chuckles all around. This is very nice. A pleasant harmonious prospect wherein he will make the final decision about what to put forward by way of policy. Problem is, after that meeting, and maybe the 437 meetings thereafter, the entrenched interests will still be where they are now, and we know where that is. And the American people will still have the very same needs we know they have right now, only more so. There is no mystery to the solution and there is no mystery so far as whether big money will oppose it. So why can't we cut to the chase? Why can't we convince American voters now...right now...that what we are after is what really needs to get done in their interest? Why do we have to go about this gaming seduction pretend Ray-gun charade? We know the problem. It is what it is. Just get on board.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 17, 2008 6:20 PM:

Why do we have to go about this gaming seduction pretend Ray-gun charade? We know the problem. It is what it is. Just get on board.

Hey, good luck with that. I think that there is an awful lot to like in John Edwards. If you think that pitch can win it for him, no one would be more pleased than I. Somehow I have my doubts about the efficacy of that approach, but I will be pleased as punch to be proven wrong.

phil james wrote on January 17, 2008 6:28 PM:

Are there no similar doubts about the efficacy of BO's approach or HRC's approach (whatever the heck that is)? Or are those considerations really secondary to the fact that they are media-ordained celebrities of the moment and Edwards is not.

Tapper wrote on January 17, 2008 6:31 PM:

Hey Obamaniacs... I can give you a really great deal on tickets for the mother ship hiding in that comet's trail.
Just don't be too disappointed when most of us decline Obama's Gate.

mari wrote on January 17, 2008 6:33 PM:

Edwards is totally pulling a Clinton here, trying to deceive the voters about what everyone with half a clue knows he is talking about. That's pretty low.

I agree with the above poster who said that Obama may be too smart to win. Or, another way to put it, too many voters are too stupid to understand complex arguments like this, and too lazy to actually research (and understand) who each candidate really is.

kavh wrote on January 17, 2008 6:51 PM:

I watched the entire Obama interview. Why do his supporters argue that using Ray-gun as a more effective change agent than Bill Clinton is wise positioning?

Isn't Obama saying that CHANGE, no matter its content or effects, is valuable? Seems to leave him with a very hollow agenda.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 17, 2008 6:58 PM:

Isn't Obama saying that CHANGE, no matter its content or effects, is valuable? Seems to leave him with a very hollow agenda.

No, not really, but one grows tired of making the same case again and again, so I will not belabor the point. If that is the conclusion you take away from the interview, fine. So be it. I guess we will see in a few days time whether or not it was a wise move on Obama's part or not. I doubt that there is much more to be said on the subject that could convince anyone on any side.

Ann wrote on January 17, 2008 8:20 PM:

I totally agree with Edwards. It was offensive for Obama to invoke Reagan as a good example of change. Reagan ended liberalism. He attacked social security. He practiced trickle down economics. He was against raising the minimum wage. He closed mental hospitals and is the reason there are so many homeless. He railed against the great society. The Clintons and other Democrats like Ted Kennedy have tried to undo some of the harm of the Reagan years, but there is still a lot of work to be done. After listening to Barack's ridiculous comments about Reagan and his further attempts to blame Democrats for what's wrong with this country rather than the right wing Republicans who have and continue to fight for dismantling the social safety net, I will not vote for him. Give me Clinton or Edwards who both recognize that the right wing must be fought to submission, but not the weak and inexperienced Obama!

Ann wrote on January 17, 2008 8:26 PM:

I totally agree with Edwards. It was offensive for Obama to invoke Reagan as a good example of change. Reagan ended liberalism. He attacked social security. He practiced trickle down economics. He was against raising the minimum wage. He closed mental hospitals and is the reason there are so many homeless. He railed against the great society. The Clintons and other Democrats like Ted Kennedy have tried to undo some of the harm of the Reagan years, but there is still a lot of work to be done. After listening to Barack's ridiculous comments about Reagan and his further attempts to blame Democrats for what's wrong with this country rather than the right wing Republicans who have and continue to fight for dismantling the social safety net, I will not vote for him. Give me Clinton or Edwards who both recognize that the right wing must be fought to submission, but not the weak and inexperienced Obama!

TheraP wrote on January 17, 2008 8:47 PM:

People have their unique reasons for being for or against any candidate. Deciding on a candidate is their right. And how they decide that is also their right. Being simplistic and condescending about anyone's supporters is pointless. How do you think you will win anyone to your side by putting people down? It makes no sense to me.

But then I've been described as too young (nearly 63) and uninformed (a Ph.D.) to be able to make a decision on my own.

NCSteve wrote on January 17, 2008 9:19 PM:

Christamighty. There is only one place where I have seen people more in love with their own anger than some of Obama's opponents on the blogs: family court.

If you're a lawyer, you see, over and over again, divorces where the exes are utterly intoxicated with their all-consuming wrath. They eagerly use their own children as weapons in their holy war against their spouse, heedless of the emotional devestation they're wrecking on the kids. They are certain they are in the right and thus, by definition, any poison they pour into their kids' ears about the other parent is "the truth" and thus rightous. (And if the kids start cutting themselves with razor blades or end up in rehab, that's obviously that evil other spouse's fault, now isn't it?) They impoverish each other with legal fees because neither and perceive that winning a war of attrition is no victory. They'll do anything to hang on to that anger, year after year after year, killing themselves in the process because the prospect of not feeling it any longer is too terrifying to contemplate. And woe be unto anyone who dares to suggest that maybe, just maybe, their anger is the thing that's actually preventing them from achieving their professed goal. As surely as day follows night that person will be attacked more viciously than the hated spouse.

Maybe I'm doing some of you an injustice, but that's what I see every time I read yet another post from some boomer snarling about Obama being naive (or a snake oil saleman or an empty suit) and his followers are messianic dupes who can't see that we've got to fight, fight, fight, fight, fight with them until the nation's political life is reduced to blood-soaked cinders if that's what it takes to win.

roo_P wrote on January 17, 2008 9:20 PM:

Ouch. My old logic professor would have some hides. This is not a "complex argument" or "too smart" for the "average voter."

Before Reagan, the state of the nation is A. After Reagan, many things are different and we say that the nation is now in the state B.

A->B is "change."

Before Clinton, the state is B as inherited from Reagan (via Bush.) In this argument, after Clinton everything is still the same so the nation is still in state B.

B->B is not "change."

Reagan was able to enact a large amount of profound changes the effects of whom we still feel (change for the worse for most of us progressives.) Clinton was not able to do the same.

TheraP wrote on January 17, 2008 10:03 PM:

Thank you, NCSteve. I've seen that too.

Well put, roo_P. Your prof would be proud.

stellaa wrote on January 17, 2008 10:23 PM:

roo, this is where sophistry comes in. The assumptio is that A was bad, and needed to be changed by B, because Obama characterized A as an "excess" of the 60 and 70s. This is where logic, sophistry and manipulation are dangerous. Because what remains in the end of the day, is the perception, that Obama is not for progressive/liberal causes, since those are charachterized as an "excess" a negative thing.

So, logic and we all get logic, but it's not the right way to look at this, it's how language corrupts.

The Realist wrote on January 18, 2008 12:19 AM:

AJ wrote on January 17, 2008 4:41 PM:

The fact that Obama neutrally describes the Reagan 'change', in the same quote he described the '90's Republicans as the 'party of ideas' just shows how vacuous his change mantra is becoming. It sounds as though Obama is just for a random reshuffling as long as stuff ends up different.

Edwards was absolutely right to take Obama to task for that.

AJ, you are completely right, and NC Steve, for the record, only a rookie would invoke the name of RR, regardless of the intent of the statement, while running for the democratic nomination. Its either that or HE is pandering. JRE
was right to take it on. only an idiot would let that pass.

Jan wrote on January 18, 2008 12:23 AM:

I managed to live througth the 80's after being downsized. If you really liked Reagan vote Repulican you are not a Democrat.

Jan wrote on January 18, 2008 12:31 AM:

Iran Contra was a good thing??? Please take a history lesson.

G Davis wrote on January 18, 2008 1:53 AM:

I'm a boomer who would like to interject one minor point in this discussion...NC and roo state more eloquently than I the overall argument.

When Obama speaks of excesses he is not speaking in governmental terms.

Somewhere up thread someone asked what excesses the 60's and 70's brought...ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

Society went through a purely social revolution in that era that would not be believed unless you lived through it. We went from Mrs. Cleaver to bra burning...we went from *good* girls and boys to sex and drugs and rock and roll. We burned draft cards, American flags, bras, whatever represented the *establishment* of our parents, much to their horror.

Reagan reintroduced religion to the public sphere as a counter to the *excesses* of we dirty hippies.

I weep for the loss of history in this country. I also blame my generation of boomers for done such a poor job of passing on a sense of perspective.

Carry on NC and roo...fine job you're doing! ;0

raymondA wrote on January 18, 2008 2:36 AM:

I wish Edwards would stop lecturing Obama about supporting unions. In Edwards' one and only successful race for public office, NC Senate in 1998, he supported right-to-work laws. He has morphed into a pro-union politician, but he's morphed on so many other issues, always in a way that tracks what the polls say about the Democratic primary electorate, that we can't be sure he won't morph back if the polictcal winds change.

nsr wrote on January 18, 2008 3:18 AM:

Can anyone who's defending the neutrality of Obama's remarks tell me what they think these "excesses of the 1960's and 70's" were?

static wrote on January 18, 2008 4:14 AM:

There is one problem with Obama's rhetoric
and another larger problem with his strategy. The "excesses" is a complete pander to Republicans. To Reagan the excesses were civil disobedience, Great Society programs, civil rights and government regulation.

The larger issue is Obama comparing himself to Reagan as a change agent by campaigning on hope and reaching out to the other side. That was the "Morning in America" Reagan of 1984. In 1980, Reagan ran has the leader of the modern conservatism espousing very conservative policies. Reagan campaigned on supply-side economics, deregulation, and shrinking government. When he won in 1980 he had a "mandate" to pass much of his conservative agenda. Obama is focusing on rhetoric and process not policies. He is trying to run Reagan's 1984 campaign without establishing his agenda first. If Obama wants to usher in a liberal realignment ala Reagan, he needs to push the envelope with progressive policies, win big, and then use the momentum to enact sweeping legislation.

It doesn't appeared that the Obama campaign actually understands Reagan or political realignments.

Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 8:18 AM:

Good for John Edwards!!!! It is about time he started hitting home his message that he is the agent of change, not Obama. Why he has allowed Obama to get a free ride uo until now is beyond me. John if you are going to fight for change, then you better have the balls to fight Obama tooth and nail for the rest of this campaign. It may be politically dangerous, but if you are fighting a principled fight you do it.

Zee wrote on January 18, 2008 10:44 AM:

I agree it was way past time for John Edwards to hit Obama, but then again, maybe it was wise to wait till at least some could see the Barack koolaid enough to put it down and walk away.

All these windbag defenses of Obama's mancrush comments on Reagan are laughable. You want nuance? Reagan was an expert on "nuance" despite a brain ravaged by dementia. Where did he kick off his campaign? Philadelphia, Mississippi. Yeah, people got the nuanced message, all right. The great White Hope, that's who Obama is touting, and this is nothing new for him. Remember, Obama exhorted the voters in CT to send his "good friend" Lieberman back to DC after the Dems kicked Joe's butt to the curb in favor of Lamont.

If Obama and his crowd want to be Lieberman independents, let them just do so openly and quit trying to parade as progressives.

Jake wrote on January 18, 2008 12:57 PM:

Edwards for president?

http://acropolisreview.com/2008/01/john-edwards-for-president_18.html

ac-n-nc wrote on January 18, 2008 1:08 PM:

That was Obama's third strike for me. He is back to holding my nose to vote for him in the general. He does realize that he is a contestant in the Primary for the Democrats doesn't he ? It is beginning to look like he took lessons from "say anything Mitt". .

Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 2:06 PM:

Go read what Feingold says about Edwards.

Spencer wrote on January 18, 2008 6:34 PM:

Bill and Hillary gave the world triangulation

And Obama has learned how to use that technique well, since that seems to be his entire campaign strategy to this point.

SeeDee wrote on January 18, 2008 10:42 PM:

It seems to me that Obama should have made his point about Reagan being an 'agent of change' in such a way, and with enough clarity, that there would be no room for even discussion of his intent or motives in using the name of such a vacuous faker.

In the case of Ronnie, contrary to Brutus' oratorical point, "the evil is sorta interred with the bones," thanks to the Right-wing media which has held him up for adulation ever since 1989.

Personally, I've swung back and forth between Obama and Edwards...and I'm not sure this episode will not settle my opinion favorably for former Senator Edwards....even though, candidly, after Feb 5th, I might have to re-think the entire biz.

Goldspinner wrote on January 19, 2008 7:46 AM:

As a lifelong member of the liberal wing of the Republican Party, I chuckled when I read the pro-Obama posts above. Invoking Reagan was no accident. NCSteve, you must live somewhere near Chapel Hill if you didn't recognize the subliminal coded appeal to Republicans, Independents, and conservative Democrats. In the South and Southwest, Ronald Reagan is practically revered as a demigod in certain circles. If you have any doubt, check to see if your local county GOP organization changed their annual Lincoln Day Dinner to a Reagan Day Dinner instead. Edwards is right.

George Washington wrote on January 19, 2008 9:23 AM:

Who ever is in a union and votes for Obama gets what they deserve. In new hampshire Obama and Oprah bullied a working union picket line so they could cross it. Regean done more damage to unions and they have never recovered. So Regean is Obama's hero

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)