Edwards Goes After Obama's Take on Reagan

by: Matt Stoller

Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 15:14


Looks like John Edwards is getting into the historical game over Reagan's legacy.

"When you think about what Ronald Reagan did to the American people, to the middle class to the working people," said Edwards.

"He was openly - openly - intolerant of unions and the right to organize. He openly fought against the union and the organized labor movement in this country. He openly did extraordinary damage to the middle class and working people, created a tax structure that favored the very wealthiest Americans and caused the middle class and working people to struggle every single day. The destruction of the environment, you know, eliminating regulation of companies that were polluting and doing extraordinary damage to the environment."

"I can promise you this: this president will never use Ronald Reagan as an example for change."

Edwards was responding to a different part of the interview than our earlier discussion.

"When the country was so sick of a blue state president, Carter, Reagan was able to tap into it by being 100% red-state," said Obama. "Reagan knew the electorate was so sick of a blue-state president and blue-state policies, they we're willing to go 100% red. Reagan didn't mince words. He ran on a 100% red-state message. When Reagan won with a 100% red state message, Reagan had a 100% red-state mandate. Reagan knew transformation was all about mandate. Reagan ran a clear red-issue campaign. He never reached out to blue. Reagan was able to bowl over any resistance in Congress because he had a clear 100% red-state mandate. When you have a 100% red-state mandate, no one is surprised by what you do. Reagan, therefore, was able to get all the changes he wanted. Reagan was for those reasons...transformational."

The full interview is here. 

UPDATE: There's some dispute over whether Obama actually said this quote, and I have to say I'm skeptical.  It's clumsy and weird and doesn't sound like Obama at all.  I'm watching the full interview now, I only listened to some of it last night.  It's Edwards spokesperson Mark Kornblau who apparently put out that Obama said this, and CBS News's Aaron Lewis who wrote it into the article.

UPDATE AGAIN:  Ok, done.  Obama didn't say it.  Kornblau and Lewis should retract what they put out.  Incidentally, there's other stuff in the interview that falls along the same neoliberal interpretation of history.  He talks about his opposition to the Iraq war as not rooted 'in some 1970s love-in' mentality but as part of a pragmatic sensibility.

THIRD UPDATE:  The Edwards campaign apologized and Lewis is updating his story.  Stuff like this happens, I'm glad it's sorted out.
Matt Stoller :: Edwards Goes After Obama's Take on Reagan

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Edwards Goes After Obama's Take on Reagan | 31 comments
Too bad Edwards wasn't this forcefull (0.00 / 0)
When he was in the Senate and was esentially what we call a Bush-Dog now.
NO SALE
he was not a Bush Dog (4.00 / 3)
When he was in the Senate he helped push through the Patients Bill of Rights (which Bush and the House GOP stopped) and McCain-Feingold (which they were unable to stop). He also announced his decision to vote against the $87 billion Iraq supplemental first, before there was time to gauge whether the Senate would vote for or against.

Join us at the Missouri community blog Show Me Progress!
[ Parent ]
bankruptcy bills (0.00 / 0)
he helped push through the Patients Bill of Rights

that was a sop strictly to the middle class. this did nothing to provide coverage to the uninsured.

and this failed effort didn't make up for his vile bankruptcy votes which were passed. what kind of "populist" doesn't allow relief to people driven to bankruptcy because of illness?

[ Parent ]
he didn't vote for the bankruptcy bill of 2005 (0.00 / 0)
he opposed it.

Join us at the Missouri community blog Show Me Progress!
[ Parent ]
If Only Obama Had Said That... (4.00 / 3)
Ah yes, Edwards was responding to the part of the interview that Obama never said; the part that was a parody from a DailyKos diary. It doesn't even sound like Obama. But hey, it is an attack on Obama, so who cares if the Edwards campaign and CBS are just making things up, right?

I'm really curious how Edwards supporters feel about the interview he gave last week where he said "Every day in the morning I eat a fetus in order to maintain my fresh-faced, youthful good looks."

embarrassing (0.00 / 0)
I updated my post.  Sounds like this is a mistake from the Edwards campaign.
[ Parent ]
Heh (0.00 / 0)
See my comment below for more along the same lines.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
Hey Matt tell your buddy Joe Trippi he forgot about this! (0.00 / 0)
Will Edwards say HE IS SORRY FOR HIS STATEMENTS HERE, like he was for his Iraq war vote and the yucca mountain votes etc. etc..==============================================================

A Return to Moral Leadership

John Edwards

<…>

This century's first test of our leadership arrived with terrible force on September 11, 2001. When the United States was attacked, the entire world stood with us. We could have pursued a broad policy of reengagement with the world, yet instead we squandered this broad support through a series of policies that drove away our friends and allies. A recent Pew survey showed the United States' approval ratings plummeting throughout the world between 2000 and 2006. This decline was especially worrisome in Muslim countries of strategic importance to the United States, such as Indonesia, where approval dropped from 75 percent to 30 percent, and Turkey, where it fell from 52 percent to 12 percent. Perceptions of America's efforts to promote democracy have suffered as well. In 33 of the 47 countries surveyed by the Pew Research Center, majorities or pluralities expressed dislike for American ideas of democracy.

We need a new path, one that will lead to reengagement with the world and restoration of the United States' moral authority in the community of nations. President Harry Truman once said, "No one nation alone can bring peace. Together, nations can build a strong defense against aggression and combine the energy of free men everywhere in building a better future for all." For 50 years, presidents from Truman and Dwight Eisenhower to Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton built strong alliances and deepened the world's respect for us. We gained that respect by viewing our military strength not as an end in itself but as a means to protect a system of laws and institutions that gave hope to billions across the globe. In avoiding the temptation to rule as an empire, we hastened the fall of a corrupt and evil one in the Soviet Union. The lesson is that we cannot only be warriors; we must be thinkers and leaders as well.

And so as we contemplate a national security policy for a new century, we must ask ourselves far-reaching questions: Are we truly denying our enemies what they seek? Are we doing all we can to win the war not only of weapons but also of ideas? Are we battling the fear our enemies sow by planting seeds of hope instead?

This is about much more than convincing people to like us. There was a time when a president did not speak just to Americans -- he spoke to the world. People thousands of miles away would gather to listen to someone they called, without irony, "the leader of the free world." Men and women in Nazi-occupied Europe would huddle around shortwave radios to listen to President Franklin Roosevelt. Millions cheered in Berlin when President John F. Kennedy stood with them and said, "Ich bin ein Berliner." Millions of people imprisoned behind the Iron Curtain silently cheered the day President Reagan declared, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" Even if these ordinary men and women did not always agree with our policies, they looked to our president and saw a person -- and a nation -- they could trust. Today, under the current administration, this is no longer the case. At the dawn of a new century, it is vital that we win the war of ideas in the world. We need to reach out to ordinary men and women from Egypt to Indonesia and convince them, once again, that the United States is a force to be admired.

We also need to renew our commitment to engagement and diplomacy in order to solve problems before they occur, rather than scrambling to deal with crises after they have erupted. With engagement comes far greater knowledge and the potential for progress and even trust. Presidents Kennedy and Reagan talked with Soviet leaders at the height of the Cold War, in both cases turning back major threats to our national security. We need to do the same with Iranian and North Korean leaders.

The insanity continues (4.00 / 1)
Next thing you know, Terry McAuliffe will claim that Obama came up with "Morning in America" while heading up YAF at Columbia, in-between stints as a Muslim coke dealer at the local "neighborhood" madrassah.

Seriously, while one might reasonably object to Obama's invocation of Reagan, for all sorts of reasons (I don't, but I respect those who do, so long as it's done honestly), to claim that he was praising Reagan or hoping to emulate him is beyond rediculous.

Personally, I think that all that Obama was trying to say was that, whatever one thinks of Reagan the man and president, the admiration that many Americans had for him reflected a need felt by many Americans to have a leader to look up to--even if Reagan was not, as I'm sure Obama believes, a leader deserving of being looked up to. His comments were less about Reagan than about America and Americans. What he was saying that, whatver one thinks of Reagan, he (Obama) WILL be the sort of leader who deserves to be looked up to--which he backed up by saying that he'd make it his goal to restore competence and honesty to government (and which one can only view as an obvious dig at Bush and his ideological and political predecessor, Reagan, who were anything but competent and honest).

Can we please stop all the hyperventilating over how Obama is a sleath Republican? He is not.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

Loved full interview (4.00 / 4)
I know I have a different temperament than Matt, but I watched the whole interview and loved it.  He was actively selling progressivism to conservatives.  Every policy he discussed was very liberal but he kept using their language to explain it.

My favorite part was where he said he wanted to "make government cool again."  This, of course, is in direct contrast to claiming government is the source of our problems.

Heh (0.00 / 0)
Any establishment media "reporter" who fell for this obvious hoax should be fired on the spot and forced to sit alongside Tweety for the remainder of the decade and hand him his bottle of Aqua Velva, Fred Thompson limited edition. Hah!

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
The real quote (4.00 / 1)
Ok people.  This is getting way to confusing with people using the wrong quote.  The fact is Obama did say some very troubling stuff about Reagan.  Just to be clear, here it is, so you can watch it yourselves...

http://www.youtube.c...

I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what is different is the times. I do think that, for example, the 1980 election was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. They felt like with all the excesses of the 60s and the 70s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think he tapped into what people were already feeling. Which is we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.

Another Part of The Video (0.00 / 0)
Also included In the same video Obama stated:

I think its fair to say the republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10-15 years in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom.

It should be near the 20:17 mark in the video h/t standingup

Not a good way to sell the Democratic brand to voters.

[ Parent ]
Well, the idea that Democrats haven't had many new ideas (0.00 / 0)
is a very familiar one that many in the party acknowledge and are anxious about.  Remember 2004, right around mid-November?

This is what spawned a think-tank like the Center for American Progress to do for the Left what Heritage, Cato and others did for the Right from 1980s on.  So, Obama is not exactly saying anything controversial.

Another thing to remember is that this was an editorial board video.  It is important, because it gives a sense of Obama actually thinks about his candidacy, but not important as creating a "brand."  That's what happens in the speeches and the ads.

[ Parent ]
Presenting The Democratic Party As The Party (0.00 / 0)
without ideas is not the way to increase Dem majorities in D.C.  Larger majorities might actually produce more results than Obama's charming smile. Obama could have chosen to provide a sense of what he actually thinks about his candidacy without putting down the party.

The Republicans have had no new ideas on how to govern the country. All their ideas have been focused on how to market their product and they do not do so by putting down their own party.  They repeatedly and consistently put down the Democratic party and defend their own. Quite the opposite of Obama current strategy.

Their governing agenda does not consist of new ideas. It does not consist of moving the country forwards towards greater achievements. It consists of moving the country backwards to the time when the majority of wealth was concentrated all at the top, to when employers had complete control over the lives of their workers, to when people had fewer rights or the ability to address grievances, to when  minorities or any other chosen group could be exploited, persecuted or killed at their pleasure.

[ Parent ]
3 Things (0.00 / 0)
1. Great interview with Obama, including his discussion of a possible running mate and his priorities as President. I recommend listening to the whole thing.

2. Stoller lacks objectivity and credibility on Obama. If this wasn't obvious before, it is now. What Stoller chooses to focus on in this 49-minute interview says more about Stoller-as-Edwards-stooge than it does about Obama.

3. Having watched this video and the Edwards' campaign's reaction to it, and the Edwards-friendly blogger's reaction to it, all I can say is it's no wonder Edwards is in third place. 

Hey hey (0.00 / 0)
Matt was skeptical, found out the truth, updated his story.  He's not a stooge for any candidate, that's fer sure!
[ Parent ]
Skeptical? Or quick to attack? n/t (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
skeptical nt (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
push the fart button matt (0.00 / 0)
you deserve it.
come on (4.00 / 1)
I quoted ABC News.  Then I factchecked them, and it took me forty minutes to do so.  Then I updated the post.

It's inevitable that partisans of a candidate will slam people for disagreeing with their candidate's positions on anything, but I would hope that you recognize good faith work when you see it.

[ Parent ]
mistakes happen (0.00 / 0)
but three hours earlier your old boss posted the exact same story and was debunked in about 60 seconds...for us obamamamas, it gets old.

http://www.mydd.com/...

[ Parent ]
actually no (0.00 / 0)
I read that thread, and I actually went back and watched the interview.  Jerome simply said he wasn't sure.
[ Parent ]
Telling (4.00 / 3)
Seems telling that the "quote" needed to attack Obama was one he never said, as what Obama actually said wouldn't gain a whole lot of traction for Edwards.

I think part of the problem much of the blogosphere has with Obama comes from the fact that the blogosphere matured under Rove's politics.  For years we have been learning from Rove how to fight in politics, yearning for a Rove of our own.

But there are two huge problems with that.  First, "use versus them" is a uniquely conservative frame.  Conservatism largely boils down to defining and vilifying an Other.  Liberalism fundamentally is about Us, and trying to define Us to be as large as possible.  Rovian tactics simply aren't useful to liberals.

Second, ROVE LOST.  It looked like he was doing pretty well, but we confused 9/11 fear with Rove's accomplishments.  Take away 9/11 and Bush would have been another one-termer, just like his father.  With 9/11 it appears he has done even worse in terms of long term goals of Republican domination.

But go with the fundamentally liberal message that we are all in this together and we really can solve all these problems if we just get together and try, liberalism wins.  They NEED divisions to win, we don't.

Stupid On Edwards Part n/t (0.00 / 0)

No, good on Edwards (0.00 / 0)
The reporter screwed up the quote he was responding to.

Join us at the Missouri community blog Show Me Progress!
[ Parent ]
bipartisanship (0.00 / 0)
He talks about his opposition to the Iraq war as not rooted 'in some 1970s love-in' mentality but as part of a pragmatic sensibility.

that's what i've argued before the war broke out. i didn't oppose the war because of my liberalism. opposition to the war was based on common sense. both paleoconservative and progressives shared common ground here.

Exactly (0.00 / 0)
While both pure hawks and doves may occasionally make good arguments for their case, their opinion doesn't matter at all; you know what they will say.  Iraq was a bad war.  Invading just because it seemed like a good idea at the time really doesn't justify it.

But being against the war doesn't mean the last resort is always wrong, with Afghanistan being the most recent example where the positive reasons for invading outweighed the negative.

[ Parent ]
Re; the video (0.00 / 0)
My question: Why does the video fade out and then fade in to Obama's Reagan quote? There is clearly some sort of break in the film. Thats a problem since it doesn't provide any context for the quote. It isn't clear that the quote is a response to the previous question. It comes out of nowhere, why?
What's up with Kornblau? (0.00 / 0)
Kornblau should be fired, not just for putting words in Obama's mouth, but for doing it really badly.

Jimmy Carter a "blue-state president"? That's not even good forgery.

That said, Edwards is right about Reagan.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

uh huh, honest mistake (0.00 / 0)
THIRD UPDATE:  The Edwards campaign apologized and Lewis is updating his story.  Stuff like this happens, I'm glad it's sorted out.

oh yeah? where is it? i want to see the apology on paper.

Edwards Goes After Obama's Take on Reagan | 31 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox