TPM: Obama: Reagan Changed Direction Of Country In Way Bill Clinton Didn't

[babylonsister]

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/obama_reagan_changed_direction_of_country_in_way_bill_clinton_didnt.php

Obama: Reagan Changed Direction Of Country In Way Bill Clinton Didn't
By Greg Sargent - January 16, 2008, 3:19PM

This is interesting -- Obama is turning up the volume of his argument with what he terms Clinton style "incremental" change, arguing that Ronald Reagan fundamentally changed the direction of America in a way Bill Clinton didn't.

Obama made his case in a sit-down interview with officials from the Reno Gazette-Journal...

Some will find Obama's words about Reagan overly kind. And this is the first time I've heard him mention Bill Clinton in the context of saying such generous stuff about Reagan.

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

Juxtaposing Reagan and Bill Clinton in this way, however, decidedly takes his argument to a whole new level.

You can watch Obama's full interview with the RGJ here:

http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080115/VIDEO/80115026&oaso=news.rgj.com/breakingnews

[gaiilonfong]

1. I think this is going to help with thoughful Democrats

Independents, and thoughtful progressives.

I don't think he was making nice to Reagan, but the progressives who want to beat the electorate over the head will hate what he is saying.

I think this new strategy to knock down Hillary's 35 year argument may just work.
And frankly the way bill Clinto has been acting, again today playing the gnder card, he deserves to be knocked down by EVERY liberal and progressive.
Oh and i hate Reagan, but I understand Obamas points

[alcibiades_mystery]

20. Yes, but we need a majority

:-)

Woman to Adlai Stevenson: All the smart people in the country are behind you!
Stevenson: Yes, dear, but we need a majority.

:rofl:

[wyldwolf]

2. Yeah, Clinton only undid Reagan's voodoo economics and saved the country

[KittyWampus]

10. Did Clinton get a lot of cross over voters behind him like Reagan (Obama's point)?

Answer- NO!

Clinton triangulated and capitulated to the Right and they gave not an inch.

In fact, the Neocons grew stronger and presented us with the election theft of 2000.

[wyldwolf]

26. Answer - YES

Bush - 1988



Clinton - 1992



Look at all that blue in the South that Clinton picked up from Bush I

[depakid]

30. Doesn't show much unless you factor Perot in

[Zynx]

37. There have been a bunch of studies showing Clinton would have won anyway.

Not by as much, but still would have won.

[wyldwolf]

45. Perot was no factor

[depakid]

46. Of course he was!

He changed the entire dynamics of the race and kept the Republican machine off balance throughout the summer and the fall.

[wyldwolf]

50. nope! None. And as was pointed out to you above, there were studies that proved it.

[depakid]

56. Wrong- and studies can't "prove" anything because they can't take into account the dynamics

My gut feeling is just as good as anything that could be "reproduced" -which is that Clinton wouldn't have survived a twp person race with the full force of the Repblican smear machine and media complex pointed his direction.

Any more than Dukakis could.

[Hippo_Tron]

80. Dukakis was a weak campaigner who wasn't willing to play on their level

Clinton was at least smart enough to point out that Bush also had possible extramarital affairs and he was able to effectively frame Bush as out of touch, much like Dubya did to Kerry in 2004.

Clinton had charm and political instinct that Dukakis didn't have. I'm sure you've seen this already but it's a great example of this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ffbFvKlWqE

His charm was enough that IMO it would've allowed him to win with maybe 53% of the vote at most in a two way race. But it would not have been enough to get him a mandate as clearly demonstrated by his lack of coattails and I think that is Obama's point.

[wyldwolf]

86. your gut feeling is just as good as studies and stats! LOL! LOL! Well, end of discussion then!

[depakid]

92. It's pretty obvious from past discussions that you don't understand

the strengths and weaknesses of quantitative analysis- what it can and cannot do. In that- along with citing bogus polls, you repeat the same mistakes- over and over, and low and behold, like many who tout cheap media polls and such end up with egg on your face.

Time and again.

As is said, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, paricularly when it goes along with poor judgment and a (willful?) lack understanding how research processes work.

[wyldwolf]

93. "quantitative analysis" = "gut feeling." Right. Got it.

[depakid]

94. Gut feelings- intuition is JUST as good when one cannot model dynamics

with any accuracy- which none of the studies I looked at can. Bunch of meaningless numbers that would in all likelyhood have been significantly different in a two person race.

I'll take experience over GIGO any day....

[wyldwolf]

95. right. Deny electoral studies and analysis, rely on gut feelings, call it something fancy. Got it.

[Hippo_Tron]

76. Perot likely gave Clinton some of those states he won by just a bit

I'll argue against bullshit that people spew here that Clinton would have lost without Perot. But states like Georgia, Kentucky, and Montana might've gone to Bush without Perot in the race.

[wyldwolf]

87. well, sure. But the outcome was unchanged. Without Perot, Clinton still wins

[Recursion]

77. Are you ****ing kidding me?

Are you saying with a straight face that Perot wasn't a factor in the 1992 election?

[wyldwolf]

88. I'm saying with a straignt face, based on studies, stats, exit polling, etc.

Clinton still wins without Perot in the race.

Sorry to rain on your right wing parade. (Yes, the belief that Perot cost Bush the election was started by the right)

[incapsulated]

72. Thank you.

And the next Dem president will be in the same position x10.

[Pirate Smile]

3. Here are some good comments on what Obama was saying:

Michael wrote on January 16, 2008 3:23 PM:
Well...he's right. Reagan did far more for the GOP than Clinton did for the Dems. And the electorate is more primed for a realignment of that scale (only the mirror image)...much like Reagan used an uplifting vision of the country to draw indies and "Reagan Dems" into the GOP base, so too could Obama's uplifting message potentially win him the lionshare of independent support and create his own "Obama Republicans"

That's nothing but good for progressive causes, and it's not clear it's something Hillary can do. I've actually been working on a blog post about this.

Geek, Esq. wrote on January 16, 2008 3:27 PM:
It's absolutely correct.

Under Clinton, the progressive movement and Democratic party were deal severe setbacks.

We lost 48 Seats in Congress.

We lost 8 Seats in the Senate.

We lost a ton of governorships and state legislatures.

Reagan brought about real change. It was BAD change, but it was very, very real change that quite frankly didn't lose steam until 2006.

jbentley wrote on January 16, 2008 3:29 PM:
As usual, everything Obama says is true, but I'm virtually certain that the Clinonistas will take it out of context and saturate the media with claims that he thinks Reagan was a better president than Bill and/or this proves that Barack is not really progressive and that he's a closet Reaganite.

Greg wrote on January 16, 2008 3:30 PM:
I don't know how the Clinton people will present it, but I don't think that Obama was saying that Reagan was a better president than Clinton here.

Jeremy wrote on January 16, 2008 3:34 PM:
Anyone who's read Obama's books knows what he's talking about here. It's not praise for Reagan's policies, but his style of leadership. I think that Obama is right that if we want to truly change the direction of the country we need more than just a competent beurocrat.

Ben wrote on January 16, 2008 3:34 PM:
The worst night in the history of the contemporary Democratic party was when Reagan was elected in November of 1980. Not only did he take power but the Senate went Republican as well and we lost a whole generation of leadership including McGovern, Bayh, Culver and more.

This election in 2008 can be our transformational moment. The Clinton Admin was a bridge back, but a short one that left us with little in the way of permanent change. The next President needs to be a Democrat willing to take that opportunity and make change that will last for generations. While I appreciate Barack Obama's feelings on this historical perspective, these are the reasons I am supporting John Edwards.

ihatebeets wrote on January 16, 2008 3:35 PM:
Absolutely correct. Regardless of what you think about Roinald Reagan's presidency, he did bring about a huge change in America and became a Republican icon. Look at how Giuliani, Romney, et al paint themselves as the one who can best carry the mantle of St. Ronnie. I twice voted for Bill Clinton, but I don't believe he was a Progressive. This country is definitely ready for change and I think Barack Obama can do for the Democrats what Ronald Reagan did for Republicans.

Thomas McDonald, New York, NY wrote on January 16, 2008 3:38 PM:
Good Arguments

frankly0, the point is that if Reagan was an agent of transformation who inspired the country - the political cutlure as a whole - to turn in a conservative direction, Obama can be a similar kind of figure who inspires the entire country - the political culture as a whole - to move in a progressive direction. He contrasts this to Bill Clinton, who although himself a progressive at heart, did not shift the political culture of the country away from a generally conservative paradigm.

As someone still open-minded to both Hillary and Obama, I find this a very strong argument from Obama. While Hillary's contention that Obama's seemingly admitted 'hands off' style reminds too much Bush's is also a good argument. Hopefully this substantive conversation will overtake the silly and tired identity issues that have been dominating.

edit to add more

grover_rover wrote on January 16, 2008 3:39 PM:
It is actually a brilliant point he is making, Reagan really ushered in the neoconservative era, which has had the most drastic impact on our society and the world of any presidency in modern history. He is also right about Bill Clinton, because he wasn't much more than a hickup in the conservative movement. If you look at his economic policies, his support of NAFTA and globalization, and his butchering of our social assistance programs ("welfare reform"), and corporate deregulation, they are all very much in line with Reagan's agenda. I've been saying this for a long time, change does NOT mean going back to the Clinton years because even though the 90s were better than the last 7 years, Clinton was no progressive, and he did not take us in the right direction as a country.

And for those idiots, who will undoubtedly come here and say crap like "Obama wants to be the next Reagan, that is horrible, why would we want that??" I'd just like to say first, quit being stupid. Secondly, we need someone in our party to be OUR Reagan, the person who can inspire the country in OUR direction, not the opposite direction. Right now all our party has is Bill Clinton, that is the best we have managed in the last couple decades, and neither him nor Hillary can inspire, and neither him nor Hillary represent real change. The best thing the Clintons are good for is serving as placeholders, not to undo the damage of the conservatives, not to head in a fundamentally new direction, but to just slow down the fall. We need a president who can be our Reagan, someone who can be the face of change and inspire and energize our cause even after leaving the White House. Obama is the only one in this race who has a shot at being that person. He has everything going for him, whereas the Clintons have nearly everything proving that they are not the answer.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 16, 2008 3:39 PM:
This dove-tails nicely with the comment I made over on the Clinton-hand-on thread. Some folks will regard this as a "mistake," but I think that this is a smart move for Obama, just as Clinton's "hands-on" argument is a smart move for her. Clinton is running as the technocrat in this race, while Obama is running as the big-vision candidate. There are advantages to each approach, and neither candidate is necessarily stupid for taking the approach which s/he takes. We will see in a few more weeks whether more voters prefer a technocrat or a vision-guy, but given that it is not a foregone conclusion that the electorate prefers the one to the other, so it is perfectly sensible for each candidate to make a pitch that suits what each considers his/her strong points.

[babylonsister]

4. Thank you for those great additions. The linked interview is pretty

good, too.

[indimuse]

35. Quick..

Send those to Obama so he knows what he's talking about!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

5. The electorates mood in 1980 was a desperate turn toward proto-fascism

There was nothing hopeful about it. I was there...

The nation was desperate and took a wild gamble on a "strongman."

It's the same story everywhere people take that turn.

Hitler offered "hope." Germany was slow to recover from the loss of an entire generation of young men in WWI and in TRIUMPH OF THE WILL there's a scene where Hitler is addressing a woman's group and promises that when he's Chancellor, every woman will have a husband. Best campaign promise ever!

Hitlers appeal, of restoring national pride and confidence, wasn't so different from Reagan's schtick.

Hitler was a politician.

We need to recognize that great evils arise FROM politics, not in defiance of politics.

So I will pass on the idea that Reagan did anything positive for this country. He laid every predicate for GW Bush.

[BootinUp]

7. noted. nt

[Cameron27]

8. Thank you

I'll pass on the idea that Reagan did anything positive for this country too.

[Pirate Smile]

19. You guys are missing the point - perhaps on purpose. Read the comments in

Comment 3.

It isn't about approving Reagan's policies but I think most of you know that already.

[sandnsea]

11. I was there too

And no he didn't do a positive thing for the country in my estimation.

But the nation was not taking any wild gamble, people were genuinely inspired that we could rise out of the economic and global dispair that was everywhere at the time. I didn't vote for him, I lived in Caliornia when he was governor, but I knew plenty of people who thought he could bring the change we needed to get out of the gloom.

[KittyWampus]

13. Oh please, people didn't vote for Reagan because they were in a mood for proto-facism.

they voted for Reagan because of how he presented himself and the marketing. Because of how the Right's message was framed and how they successfully made the Left look like losers.

AND THERE'S EVERYTHING TO BE GAINED by understanding social psychology and using it to your advantage.

Obama understands how human psychology works.

[balantz]

14. I was there.

Reagan was a gung-ho, nationalistc, fatal move for our country. It was icing on the cake the right had been preparing throughout the '60's and 70's. It was a wrong move for America, and set the progressive agenda back a generation....and here we are suffering from that turn of events. Just what are "the excesses" of the 60's and 70's Mr. Obama refers to? What Gigantic entrepeneurs benefited from the Reagan revolution? Are we not suffering sorely from the reprecussions of that turning point in our history?

[jasmine621]

64. I think what Obama is saying is that there is nothing like a huge, swift

mistake. If you have a bad idea rolled up in dogma that's better than making incremental changes that might allow you to correct course along the way.

[redqueen]

21. I see it the same way...

:thumbsup:

[LandOLincoln]

98. Absolutely right, IMO.

"So I will pass on the idea that Reagan did anything positive for this country. He laid every predicate for GW Bush."

However, until proven otherwise, I will assume Obama didn't mean the "Reagan Revolution" was good for the country--any more than I accept the spin that Hillary Clinton's LBJ/MLK remarks were IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM racist or meant to derogate MLK's inarguably (and massively transformative) work in support of the cause of civil rights in this country.

[2rth2pwr]

6. Obama: Reagan Rocks!

"Viva la Reagan Revolucion!"

[cali]

9. why be deliberately obtuse?

He's arguing that Reagan was a transformational president who got the American people behind him. That's pretty clearly true. Obama's saying he'd like to do that. Obviously his policies and the direction he wants to take the country are as different from Reagan's as night and day.

[2rth2pwr]

15. ...

\_ yes, we can!

[Maven]

23. "Reagan was a transformational president" who addressed the "excesses of the 60s and 70s"

You don't see this as praise?

Have you read Obama's book?

[chimpymustgo]

24. I'm curious what Obama considers the "excesses of the 60's and 70's".

Ronald Reagan made white people feel their racism was a-okay = patriotic even.

A very POOR choice for an example.

[Luminous Animal]

57. Me, too.

What exactly were the "excesses of the 60s and 70s? Expanded social safety net? Gains in civil rights for minorities and women? And his administration was riddled with corruption.

[incapsulated]

73. Sounds exactly like a repuke

I'm sorry but it does, this is exactly what they say about the terrible 60's and 70's... you know when people started to question authority and demand their rights, they hated it.

Reagan promised to make all that like it never happened, back to the 50s.

Yay.

[Recursion]

32. Can you honestly deny that Reagan was a transformational President?

He transformed not only the national political landscape but also the public's idea of what a President does.

Some people here are so sensitive or whatever that they see that and assume somehow that statement is "praise" rather than a pretty unavoidable statement of the fact.

[MrCoffee]

33. isn't there a means to the end argument here?

what did Reagan DO with that "transformational presidency"? dragged the country further right than it had ever been. George W. Chimplestiltskin wouldn't dream of doing the crap he's doing now but for the Reagan precedent.

is it really a good thing that a Democratic candidate is talking in terms of a Reagan transformation?

[Recursion]

49. Which is why we need a change of that magnitude, in the right direction

And doing that requires being able to capture the public's imagination and create a convincing and moving narrative.

[MrCoffee]

102. you can create any narrative you want...the end is the same

any expansion of power by the executive branch is a dangerous thing. i don't care who's doing the expanding.

[Recursion]

104. FDR? LBJ? Jefferson?

All of them expanded the Executive branch's power

[Recursion]

51. A couple of thoughts about means and ends, too

A) The fact that Reagan's ends were bad doesn't mean that his means were bad. There's nothing wrong (and in fact a lot of things right) with a President who can form and effectively communicate a positive narrative about his agenda

B) Our ends, as good as they are, don't justify how ineffective our means have been. We might love the wonk-ish side of Bill Clinton's personality but that wasn't the side that got him elected

[MrCoffee]

101. and yet we rant and rail against chimpy's "unitary executive"

which would never have come about if Reagan hadn't laid the groundwork.

Reagan didn't just communicate a positive narrative about his agenda. He actively used the Oval Office to blatantly disregard US law during Iran/Contra. He actively used the Oval Office to crush the air traffic controllers union when they struck in 1981.

These gross power grabs by Reagan and his WH cronies undeniably enabled Chimpy and his gang of thugs to push "signing statements" and energy policy and the "unitary executive" theory.

Extensions of power by any branch of the federal government always come at a cost. It's the nature of the power their grabbing for. I don't dislike Obama, but talk like his scares the hell out of me.

[incapsulated]

71. Um, he really said that??

Jesus Christ.

[Cameron27]

74. Yes incap

there's a video, actually 2 are posted here, but look at the one that got buried, it's shorter.

[incapsulated]

75. Ugh.

Just.... ugh.

[Andromeda]

81. It sounds to me like Reagan...

is Obama's roll model.

Reagan was transformational all right. He called women on ADC "welfare queens" and called ketchup a "vegetable" when called out for cutting school lunch funds.

When looking at the want adds when unemployment was high, he declared that there were "tons" of jobs listed in the newspaper. Most were minimum wage but that hardly mattered to a president who was "transformational."

Reagan did have an ability to get people behind him but so did Hitler. Unless and until Barack makes that distinction I wouldn't feel comfortable with him in the oval office.

[bananas]

89. LOL - Reagan transformed ketchup into a vegetable!

This thread was pretty depressing.

[BeyondGeography]

12. He sets a nice little trap for the Clintons here

If they start foaming at the mouth over this, those relatively few middle-of-the-roaders that haven't already tuned them out and whose support they know they need in the general should she be the nominee will turn against them.

[GodlessBiker]

22. Yes. The fact remains that the vast majority of Americans think Reagan was a great Prez.

This is an excellent way to compare himself to someone who so many Americans respect.

I dare Hillary to say that Reagan was a terrible, immoral president.

[avaistheone1]

16. No thanks. Reagan has taken this country backwards.

As incompetent as George W. Bush has been in his response to the disaster in New Orleans, he wasn't the one who began the process that inevitably led to that disaster spiraling out of control.
That would be Ronald Reagan.

It was Reagan who began the deliberate and intentional destruction of the United States of America when he famously cracked (and then incessantly repeated): "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
Reagan, like George W. Bush after him, failed to understand that when people come together into community, and then into nationhood, that they organize themselves to protect themselves from predators, both human and corporate, both domestic and foreign. This form of organization is called government.

But the Reagan/Bush ideologues don't "believe" in government, in anything other than a military and police capacity. Government should punish, they agree, but it should never nurture, protect, or defend individuals. Nurturing and protecting, they suggest, is the more appropriate role of religious institutions, private charities, families, and - perhaps most important - corporations.
Let the corporations handle your old-age pension. Let the corporations decide how much protection we and our environment need from their toxics. Let the corporations decide what we're paid. Let the corporations decide what doctor we can see, when, and for what purpose.

This is the exact opposite of the vision for which the Founders of this nation fought and died. When Thomas Jefferson changed John Locke's "Life, liberty, and private property" to "Live, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," it was the first time in the history of the world that a newly founded nation had written the word "happiness" into its founding document. The phrase "promote the general welfare" - another revolutionary concept - first appeared in the preamble to our Constitution in 1787.

Talk show cons and TV talking head cons and political cons - both Republican and DLC Democratic - repeat the mantra of "smaller government," and Americans nod their heads in agreement, not realizing the hidden agenda at work.

Reagan was the first American president to actually preach that his own job was a bad thing. He once said, "Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." One can only assume he was speaking of himself and his fellow Republicans, and certainly the current Congress's devotion to the interests of inherited wealth and large corporations displays how badly his philosophy has corrupted a role so noble it drew idealists like Jefferson, Lincoln, and the two Roosevelts.
But cons can't imagine anybody wanting to devote their lives to the service of their nation. The highest calling in their minds is to make profit.

As Reagan said: "The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would hire them away."
This mind-set - that the only purpose for service in government is to set up the interests of business - may account for why not a single military-eligible member of the Bush or Cheney families has enlisted in their parents' "Noble Cause," whereas all four sons of Franklin Roosevelt joined and each was decorated - on merit - for bravery in the deadly conflict of World War II.
There are, after all, no reasons in the conservative worldview for government service other than self-enrichment. As Ronald Reagan said: "Politics is not a bad profession. If you succeed there are many rewards, if you disgrace yourself you can always write a book."

What they don't say is that the reason they want to remove government in its protective capacity is because they can then make an enormous amount of money, and have a lot of control over people's lives, when they privatize former governmental functions. They want a power vacuum, so corporations and the rich can step in. And with no limits on the inheritability of riches after the "death tax" is ended, wealth vast enough to take over the government can emerge...


As Brian Gurney, a listener from California, noted: "You can't govern if you don't believe in government.".....

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0906-21.htm

[balantz]

18. A very poor choice of a president for Obama to give ANY praise to

Excesses of the 60's and 70's? Please. Reagan was the fool who was set up to capture the American public that had been prepared by the right to follow a nationalistic theme of a return to "morality" which was the cover for dismantling our government...Much like the fervor that followed 911! A strange choice of something to emulate on Mr. Obama's part.

[Inuca]

41. He did not say he agreed with him

he said that he triggered a long-term transformation for his party and the country as a whole.Which, whether you like Reagan or not (and I most definitely do not) is TRUE. As others have pointed out (unless it was in Obama's original statement, I do not remember), it is all about the difference between transformational and incremental, and not a judgement on the value of the Reagan policies.

[William769]

17. Clinton balanced the Budget Reagan destroyed it is one difference.

[Avalux]

36. Not talking about policy or actions in office.

I hate Reagan, but Obama is right - Reagan had the ability to get everyone behind him. People who had been Dems all their lives voted for Reagan. Do you know why this is relevant? Because all of those wayward people who bought into the Republican bullshit have had enough with Bush and want to come back. They just need to be welcomed.

Some would say we don't want/need them but I disagree. I am proud of my family members who voted for Reagan and Bush and now will vote Dem this year.

[VotesForWomen]

25. dissing the clinton era is probably not going to be a net win for obama. nt

[BenDavid]

27. For Obama to even suggest there is something familiar in what

reagan hoped to achieve and what obama hopes to achieve is damn scary and then to join the two tells me something about the character of obama... Hell Reagon was a damn racist!

Concerning Reagan, a racist is as racist does. I cared, how Reagan treated African Americans in his personal life. I do care that prominent people i e Obama seem to think that he wasn’t really a racist. What I care about is that Ronald Reagan, the patron saint of the Conservative Movement, made a career out of deliberately appealing to the racist vote. it brought him to power and it was a constant tool throughout his career. Ronald Reagan acted in public as a racist acts. He deliberately set out to appeal to racists and continue the odious Southern Strategy. In doing so, he helped to mainstream racism in the GOP and thus the country.

SHAME SHAME SHAME......if it talks like a republican, walks like a republican then most likely you got a republican....and I am fearful obama is just that.....and to me this is not a far stretch for obama to play the race card, in which he has during this campaign.......

[suston96]

28. Doubling the national debt was a great legacy Reagan left.......

....huge tax cuts for the wealthy in 1986.... And so much more..... Definitely things Obama should emulate.

And certainly not what Clinton did in the 1990s: 20 million new jobs. Who needs new jobs? Several balanced budgets. Who needs them? Just do what Reagan did: raise the national debt. A 10 year projected surplus that would head off any Social Security problems......

Yeah! Bill Clinton really screwed this country up. Offer instead, Saint Ronald Reagan, Republican conservative, over a Democrat, Bill; Clinton, one of the highest rated presidents ever.

[FrenchieCat]

29. You are missing the whole boat!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0

http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080115/VIDEO/80115026&oaso=news.rgj.com/breakingnews

[suston96]

39. No, I missed nothing. I remember those times very well....

People agreeing with Obama on this are missing an important part of presidential history.

I was doing tax accounting in those years and the 1986 Reagan tax cut made wealthy clients even wealthier - and happier.

[FrenchieCat]

42. Then miss the boat......

cause it will be your loss. :shrug:

Sometimes one should take the time out to fully understand prior to commenting.

If you haven't heard Barack speak on this....then you have no clue to be able to even voice an opinion.

[LandOLincoln]

97. Frenchie, you know I love you, and I agree with Obama that

Reagan was more "transformational" than Clinton, assuming of course that he means Reagan changed the country more for the negative than Clinton did for the positive.

What gives me pause is the "excesses of the 60s and 70s." Exactly what "excesses" is he talking about? I haven't read his book, nor have I seen a clip of him actually using that phrase.

Did he really say that, and if so, can you tell me what he means by that phrase?

[ZinZen]

48. Frenchie,

they are purposely and stubbornly trying to miss the context. They do not want to concede one iota of points to Obama because they are over the top Hillary supporters. They are way too emotional to think clearly about this and Obama is an analytical candidate.

[MrCoffee]

31. Is Obama willing to use the "mood of the electorate" to the extent Reagan did?

his distasteful (imo) reference to Reagan means nothing unless Obama can demonstrate somehow that he would actually use the ephemeral "mood of the electorate" to advance a progressive Democratic agenda.

absent the will to do something with the office, whoever ends up in the WH could very easily find themselves in a Pelosi/Reid "go along to get along" mindset.

[jackson_dem]

34. Obama in his book before running for president: Clinton rocked, Clinton had progressive policies

[Zynx]

38. Reagan reflected, but did not change the electorate.

Remember the California tax revolt in 1979? Reagan didn't start it. He capitalized on an anger towards what seemed to be failed and moribund liberal government.

[goodhue]

40. yes, in a bad way

clinton didn't change much

[BootinUp]

43. Clinton fulfilled his promises

to a large degree relative to other Administrations. And with a hostile congress during the conservative revolution. A feat he should get more recognition for around here.

http://www.perkel.com/politics/clinton/accomp.htm
http://liberalslikechrist.org/about/Clinton.html

[LandOLincoln]

99. He used to.

Remember that poster that used to be so prominent on this site? The one that showed * giving a semi-Nazi salute, and that read "Because 8 years of peace and prosperity are boring?"

Wonder what ever happened to that? :eyes:

[Yael]

44. Oh noes! The context!!

We can't have CONTEXT! Ceast and desist and from now on, SOUNDBYTES ONLY.

Sheesh.

:P

[NashVegas]

47. Yeah, Reagan Brought All the Racist Assholes Out of the Closet

And rode them all the way to Washington.

[ShadowLiberal]

52. Obama is right, Reagan got tons of people to come over to his side, he won landslide elections

He changed things far more then Bill Clinton did, Clinton got elected with barely under half the votes cast for each presidential election, while Reagan easily attracted enough independents and democrats over to his side, while keeping republicans with him, to win landslide elections. At the same time though look at how they governed, Reagan governed as much more of an extremist who shouldn't have appealed to so many independents and democrats in theory (since most Americans are moderates). Clinton on the other hand governed as much more of a moderate then Reagan, yet he got far fewer votes, and did his party a lot less good in those 8 years then Reagan did the republicans in his 8 years.

There's more to Obama's admiration of Reagan then meets the eye, it's been mentioned in a few articles (such as one posted months ago at politico.com) that Obama is partially basing his strategy off of Reagan's, being able to unite a bunch of people who are sick and tired of how badly things have gone lately under Bush.

There's actually some news articles that have been written that you can find online that compare Obama to Reagan, and theorize how he could govern as a liberal version of Reagan. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23013962-7583,00.html">Check out this article calling Obama a potential liberal Reagan if you want to read one.

[Zorra]

53. Well, then...I can no longer consider Obama a viable Democratic candidate.

Hands down, this is some of the most god awful crackpipe "talking out the side of your neck" lack of substance bullshit I have ever read:

"But I think, when I think about great presidents, I think about those who transform how we think about ourselves as a country in fundamental ways...And, you know, there are circumstances in which, I would argue, Ronald Reagan was a very successful president, even though I did not agree with him on many issues, partly because at the end of his presidency, people, I think, said, “You know what? We can regain our greatness. Individual responsibility and personal responsibility are important.” And they transformed the culture and not simply promoted one or two particular issues."

That sounds exactly like some meaningless point that Professor George F. Will of the Ayn Rand School of Pseudo-Intellectual Free Market Cosmic Conservatism would make.
:puke:

That kind of crap could almost scare me into being a Hillary Clinton supporter.

[Colobo]

54. I made the exact point some time ago, and people jumped all over me.

Obama is right- Reagan was able to do wonders for the GOP, although he fucked up the country. Obama knows he has what it takes to do wonders for the Dem Party, but also save our nation as well.

Some of you guys are just obtuse.

[FrenchieCat]

55. Sometimes, when one hangs out on the Internet for too long,

and reads a whole lot of things for a long time, one starts not really reading and/or listening because one is tired. Folks then pretend to understand what a conversation is about, but they don't do their homework, so they don't really know. These folks are no longer liberals (open minded), but they are usually the last to know.

[Barack_America]

58. How is this not a true statement?

How can you argue that Reagan wasn't more effective in pushing his agenda? I mean, you can certainly argue that it was a shit agenda, but he was very effective at pushing it. And that is what a "great" President is able to do.

This is much ado about nothing, IMO.

[Zorra]

59. A great leader does good things for her/his people, no? Is it a great

thing to be successful at pushing an agenda that is destructive to your country?

I don't think so.

[Barack_America]

61. He didn't say a great "leader".

He said a great "President". In our country their are rich and poor. He was good for the rich, I guess.

But, like it or not, the term "greatness" is most commonly used to describe how effectively they pushed their agenda. It might not be what the average American thinks of as "greatness" though.

Check out this wikipedia page. I think it describes what I'm getting at. Have a look at Reagan's rankings vs. Clinton's
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents

[Luminous Animal]

66. It pisses me off....

because he makes the claim that Reagan's campaign of hope was in response to 60s and 70s excess. This is categorically not true. Reagan's campaign was in response to the expansion of the social safety net and civil rights gains. It harnessed anger and led a backlash against gains made by women, minorites, and poor folks.

[Luminous Animal]

60. And Hitler was a great orator. Holy Hell!!

There are some people you don't praise. Reagan's policies caused mass suffering at home and even more acutely, abroad. He slashed the social safety net, he beat the crap out of a couple of tiny countries, he engaged in "dog whistle" racism, he fucking vetoed the fucking bill to impose economic sanctions against South Africa, he had a "doctrine" named after him that resulted horrible harm to third world economies and the citizens of those countries.

But, (hahahahaha!!!) He had a sunny smile and offered hope. I am pissed that Obama would characterize the expansion of human and civil rights as excesses and that Reagan's human destroying policies (because they were delivered with style)were a response to them. Reaganism was not a response to any excesses. Rather, Reagan led a reactionary backlash against civil liberties and feminism.

[Barack_America]

62. You're confusing great = wonderful with great = effective.

And yes, unfortunately that hideous man you speak of was a tremendously effective speaker.

[Luminous Animal]

65. Like a said...

There are some people you do not praise under any circumstances. He was a Friedman acolyte. A "Shock Doctrine" President. That is, a president that championed horror and woe.

[Barack_America]

67. Unfortunately, the rest of the country..

Does not agree with you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents

[Luminous Animal]

70. Yes, it is the victors who write history...

and they've been working overtime to rehabilitate Reagan. But Obama was educated at Harvard, he should know his history. And, as he states, was a civil rights and community advocate. He should have seen first hand the rising homelessness and destitution in the U.S. that Reagan's policies wrought. He should have seen first hand the erosion of civil rights.

[Barack_America]

79. And he did see that...

...Which goes a long way to showing you that he was talking about Reagan's influence and NOT his agreeing with Reagan's policies, which he indeed does not.

[Luminous Animal]

82. I'll say it again...

The excesses of the 60s and 70s were the expansion of the social safety net and gains in civil rights. Reagan "optimistically" campaigned against them. He led a backlash of bigots. He "optimistically" and with clarity ran a campaign of fear against other Americans who had wrestled a bit of economic and social justice.

It was a decidedly not a hopeful campaign or an optimistic campaign. It was a cynical bigoted campaign that played on white men's fear a black and female planet. It was disgusting. It was soul sucking. It was absolutely nothing to emulate on any level.

Forgive me if I do not find leading a campaign to a shiny white America is in any way shape or form, optimistic.

[bklyncowgirl]

91. Well he was. Were his policies good for Germany and the world, of course not.

I once met someone who as a POW was forced to attend a Hitler rally. He said that the mood and the crowd was mesmerizing and even though he couldn't understand a word that Hitler was saying, he had to force himself to remember where he was, who he was, and above all keep his right hand at his side and not join the chorus of Sieg Heil.

There's a difference between admitting that a political figure has certain abilities and agreeing with whatever they said or did. Obama admires Reagan's ability to sense the mood of the electorate and ride that mood to a presidency that was successful in that it attained its objectives but in the long run bad for the country.

I see nothing wrong with Obama's analysis.

[BootinUp]

100. lol

I am not laughing to minimize your point, its the absurdity that we are even having discussion this in a democratic primary on the heels of the undeniably worst President in the last 100 years.

Did Reagan cite JFK or FDR as successes to win his primary I ask? I sincerely doubt it. He may have cursed them though.

[Luminous Animal]

63. Indeed...

The "excesses" of the 60s and 70s.



Oops!

[Zorra]

68. Lies! Damn lies and statistics!

;-)
It appears that the massive propaganda/brainwashing campaign of the Reagan years was so effective that the victims of this Orwellian mind fuck simply cannot accept the undeniable fact that Reagan was a shallow fascist racist asshole and an actor/figurehead placed into the WH by a corporate elite bent on destroying democracy in America.

Reagan was as dumb as a post, evil as a snake, and everyone in his administration him knew it.

[paulk]

69. Bill didn't have much of a chance since he had to spend his

Presidency fixing everything that Reagan FUCKED UP.

That's a lot harder work than standing up in front of a crowd "inspiring" people.

[LeFleur1]

78. What Reagan Really Did

Reagan was able to convince too many people in the country that he would be the best person for the job. He relied on comedic sayings, simple minded slogans, and his sincerity act to sway people. His policies set America on this downward spiral that we now see. His economic polices did almost the same thing that the Bush policies have done,and that is to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.
Just because a person has the ability to convince people to follow does not mean they should.
Especially when they aren't sure where the "leader" is going.

The lesson we should have learned from Reagan's election is that a whole lot people can be conned by a nice smile, a friendly speech pattern, and a pretense of caring. Be careful of a nice, friendly, manner and a simplistic plan.

[FrenchieCat]

84. The facts are plain.....

Reagan was able to galvanize that middle class and swing the pendulum to the conservatives...which is how Center became the Ceft.

Clinton was a Centrist who governed by appeasing the Right more than the Left (DLC phenomenon).

The time is now to swing the pendulum back towards the Left...but we are not going to be able to accomplish that by fighting them or by appeasing them. Instead, we have to offer them a new vision that is more beneficial to their personal interest. That is what Obama is talking about doing.

You underestimate both Obama's character and Obama's goals...by taking literally what should be taken strategically.

[paulk]

96. how is it a "fact" that Obama will swing the pendulum back

toward the left?

His platform, his voting record (what there is of it) - show indications that his policies are every bit as "DLC" as Hillary's.

Seriously. Where is this difference?

From my POV, Obama is offering a vision that is just that - a vision. Not reality.

Clinton is offering a reality based on a record of competent government. Obama is offering us a "vision" based on - well, his say so, from everything I can figure.

For me, a bird in hand always trumps two in a (burning) bush.

[eridani]

83. No, Clinton just slowed it down a little

I'm getting royally sick of this "unity" with assholes like Reagan that kicked off the economic assault on average people.

[girl_interrupted]

85. Yes , Reagan took us down the crapper

And Clinton pulled us out by cleaning up Reagan & Bush 1's mess.

[eridani]

90. For the bottom half it was more like a few inches back upstream

--while still being washed away by a much stronger current.

[Carrieyazel]

103. Obama has NO CLUE. The direction of the country was changing BEFORE Reagan was nominated.

That shift enabled him to be elected president.

Obama's really showing me a lot. That he is a lousier politician than I previously thought.