Obama Clarifies Reagan Comments on CNBC

by: Matt Stoller

Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 03:01


On a segment of CNBC with Jack Welch today, Obama clarifies his Reagan comments.

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

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

Here's Obama's original quote on Reagan.

I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure.  I think part of what's different are the times.  I do think that for example the 1980 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.  I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating.  I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.

And.

"I think it's fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10 to 15 years in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom."

Here's what he said a few days later.

"I didn't' say I liked Ronald Reagan's policies," Obama explained. "What I said was that was the kind of working majority we need to form in order to move a progressive agenda forward.

Parse this however you'd like.
Matt Stoller :: Obama Clarifies Reagan Comments on CNBC

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Obama Clarifies Reagan Comments on CNBC | 63 comments
As an Obama supporter I'll say this... (4.00 / 2)
And I don't think that we as Democrats have to spend all our time running down Republicans, what I'm trying to do is get Democrats and Republicans to work together to move the country forward.  That's the kind of President I want to be.

Ouch. Where is Obama's statement that Republicans should stop throwing fire at Dems? And since when do Dems really pay more than lip service to fighting Republicans?

Given his voting record, policies put forward, and advisors, I do believe Obama is progressive. But, I think he is pushing awfully hard to get independents into his corner, and as many say he is doing it at the rhetorical expense of Dems. My assumption is that he knows he has to pull in youth and indies to compete with the Hillary machine and that is the reason for such statements.

I do wish he had a little more fire-brand Dean in him.

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  

As a Dean supporter (4.00 / 1)
I will say that the fire-brand side of him didn't work so well in terms of winning elections, did it?

Politics is a strong and slow boring of hard boards.
[ Parent ]
It is way more complex than this (4.00 / 1)
Both the choice for President and the best style for governing the country when and if the Dems regain the presdiency along with Congress are much more nuanced and complex than this post or most of the commenters here seem to be willing to consider. 

As an alternative, I commend to you the article in the current New Yorker about Hillary and Obama and their different styles of campaigning and, ultimately, governing.  It draws heavily from interviews with those who know the candidates well (a large number of friends of Bill and Hillary are supporting Obama, it turns out) as well as George Packer's own interviews with them.  I learned new things about Hillary, particularly why  she keeps her human side so hidden.  I think the article lays the whole choice out very well, from both sides. 

Here's a sample:

The alternatives facing Democratic voters have been characterized variously as a choice between experience and change, between an insider and an outsider, and between two firsts-a woman and a black man. But perhaps the most important difference between these two politicians-whose policy views, after all, are almost indistinguishable-lies in their rival conceptions of the Presidency. Obama offers himself as a catalyst by which disenchanted Americans can overcome two decades of vicious partisanship, energize our democracy, and restore faith in government. Clinton presents politics as the art of the possible, with change coming incrementally through good governance, a skill that she has honed in her career as advocate, First Lady, and senator. This is the real meaning of the remark she made during one of the New Hampshire debates: "Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do-the President before had not even tried-but it took a President to get it done."

In the overheated atmosphere of a closely fought primary, this historically sound statement set off a chain reaction of accusations, declarations of offense, and media hysteria,  . . .  . But Clinton was simply expressing her belief that the Presidency is more about pushing difficult legislation through a fractious Congress than it is about transforming society.

These rival conceptions of the Presidency-Clinton as executive, Obama as visionary-reflect a deeper difference in how the two candidates analyze what ails the country. Obama's diagnosis is more fundamental: for him, the illness precedes the Bush years and the partisan deadlock in Washington, originating in a basic failure of politicians to bring Americans together. A strong hand on the wheel won't make a difference if your car is stuck in the mud; a good leader has to persuade enough people to get out and push. Whereas Clinton echoes Churchill, who proclaimed, "Give us the tools and we will finish the job," Obama invokes Lincoln, who said, "As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country."


To a large extent it does come down to how much one thinks that crushing the opposition is a prerequisite to moving forward, and how much one just wants to move forward and sees that as potentially counter-productive.  I urge people to take a look at the whole article.


John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
But Clinton won't crush the opposition (0.00 / 0)
That's what John Edwards is proposing.

Clinton will triangulate and end up hurting our side in the process. We've been down this road before.

What Obama wants to do is far more subversive: he's pushing a Democratic agenda, acting like it's NOT a partisan agenda at all -- and, of course, things like providing decent health care to people SHOULDN'T be a partisan issue (and it ISN'T in almost every other developped country in the world) -- so only a total loon or psychopath would oppose it.

If people end up supporting a Demcoratic agenda, it really doesn't matter if they label themselves Independent or Republican. They will start to vote for people who support that agenda and against those who block it. (And over time, more and more of them will begin to notice that those doing the blocking are Republicans....)

Howard Dean in 2016

[ Parent ]
Another provacative post (0.00 / 0)
Bravo Matt.
So did you ask your buddy Joe Trippi, why Edwards didn't have the balls to call out Clinton and Obama on Countdown or CNN about FISA., I was looking forward to it..........or did he just tell you that Edwards will win the nomination after the debate the other night and you just bought it hook line and sinker?
As an Obama supporter.... (0.00 / 0)
I have no idea what any of that meant. Rather than responding to the content of the post, you're just attacking Matt and Edwards.

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  
[ Parent ]
"Feet to the fire" progressivism (4.00 / 1)
See Trippi forced Obama to say these things. And, Obama has to say these things because he's the black candidate and doesn't want to appear angry, and blah blah blah. Any number of other excuses have also been made- some of them contradictory, but that doesn't matter.

We can't make these excuses for any of them or nothing changes.  Either one understands this or not. Does progressivsm=Obama or does progressivism=set of values? If you believe the later, then you judge Obama by an independent standard of how he behaves, and if the former, you lash out when someone points out an uncomfortable truth because Obama is progressism.

People can arrive at their support of Obama for different reasons, but the one that has been of most concern, at least to me, is the idea that Obama=progressivism because it means rather than hold him accountable one blames the messenger in self defeating ways.  The poster to whom you are responding, at least from what I can tell, believes in Obama=progressivism.

[ Parent ]
NO I do not (0.00 / 0)
think Obama=progressivism
But you have every right triangulate  my points into that premise.

But I do bellieve that Obama wants to forward a progressive agenda!

[ Parent ]
Your post seems rushed and confused (4.00 / 1)
Your argument about what Obama wants is irrelevant. I want a million dollars in my bank account, and, yet, there are certain strategies that will work to achieve the goal and others that will not. Is his strategy without regard to the candidate one that has worked? This is the nature of how we test assumptions that we make rather than merely support a candidate.

Leaving out Obama, demonstrate historically how triangulation to the right has worked for the Democratic Party and then you can claim objectivity here rather than bias for a candidate? Your formulation may not be Obama=progressive, but it certainly is Obama=always right answer. I would make the same arguments regardless of the candidate about how triangulation has failed the party.

  The reasons why such strategies fail is because they are at odds with the agenda Obama wants to accomplish. At the very least they create a cognitve dissonance in the listener which can't be parsed.

[ Parent ]
As a progressive (0.00 / 0)
I know exactly what this post is about. It is to provoke more animosity towards Obama. I don't think Obama is perfect AT ALL. But I do know that many of these posts are used to try and drive more people towatrds Edwards, which is fine, but I call it like I see it, you don't have to agree. Last night all the so called progressive blogs were touting Edwards going on Countdown or CNN to call out Hillary and Obama to support FISA.., Iwas all for this....I am sure it was TRippi who was telling them this would happen, because he is in touch with all those blogs. IT didn't happen, so I wondered what was up!
i'm tired.... (4.00 / 4)
This Reagan thing is getting pretty old - who the hell cares? I listened to the whole 45min interview and this was perhaps the least notable thing he said. Considering Obama's main theme in the interview was "I want to make government cool again," I think its safe to say he's not a closet Reaganite.

"I don't worry much about having things. I worry plenty about relating to them." - Bruce Sterling
The problem is that he never says WHY he wants government to be "cool" again (4.00 / 4)
because in order for him to complete the sentence he has to criticize the Republican philosophy of government and essentially given a teaching moment about WHY or HOW and WHAT has brought us to this moment - he walks away from fully articulating the porgressive view of government.

Reagan never would have let that opportunity slip by.

[ Parent ]
I don't think he's a closeted Reaganite (4.00 / 2)
The real question is why he's running as a closeted progressive, running away from it at every opportunity in order to pick up illusory soft right and indie votes and not scare them away. In the process he's scaring away folks on his side who might otherwise be inclined to vote for him. Sooner or later the country will return to the center--it has to--but only after we destroy movememnt conservatism and the worst elements on the right. There is simply no way to avoid this. But he keeps trying to pretend that we can finesse or avoid this, and it comes across as dishonest and cowardly at best, and delusional at worst. I think that the public gets this at last. So running as a progressive is not just the right thing for him to do, but the SMART thing for him to do. He's a smart guy yet somehow doesn't get this, and it's quite perplexing and infuriating. Sometimes you just want to slap him to wake him up. Not only is he getting some REALLY bad advice, but he's listening to it, which is disappointing, and a sign that perhaps he's just not politically sophisticated or mature enough to be ready for what he's gotten himself into. Finessing his way to the nomination and presidency, and if he gets elected to political success, is simply not going to work in today's political climate.

Btw, it's not just Obama, but the congressional Democratic leadership as well. They are ALL awful right now.

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

[ Parent ]
I've heard Bob Borosage (4.00 / 1)
and many other leaders of the nascent multi-issue progressive movement say this same thing. The Republicans HAVE been the party of ideas for the last 15 years, thanks to a well-funded conservative movement. We are in the early stages of funding progressive infrastructure that will combat this in the years to come, but i have no idea why this is so scandalous for Obama to say when I have been hearing it and reading it in the progressive movement for two years.

Politics is a strong and slow boring of hard boards.
[ Parent ]
My Reaction Exactly (0.00 / 0)
Because the Repubs have spent so much money funding foundations and think tanks, the Dems have spent most of the last 20 years playing defense to ideas that would dismantle important programs.  Dems have rarely been on offense b/c we haven't had the infrastructure to create ideas and promote them.  Numerous books have pointed this out including those by Matt Bai and David Brock.

I wasn't upset about what Obama said because its the truth which hurts sometimes.  The Dems and progressive movement have been outgunned for years on the policy and PR front.  It took the 2000 election to finally get progressives to invest in the type of infrastructure they should have created after the Reagan victory in 1980. 

All I can say is better late than never.

[ Parent ]
3 things (0.00 / 0)
a) the point didn't require comparison to reagan in a conservative news paper. its disingenous under the circumstances.

b) our problem with the reagan comment isn't for the reasons you posit, and since it's been said multiple times in multiple ways, i conclude many of you choose to miss the point on purpose because you why people have a problem

c) are kdding me using broder and bai?

[ Parent ]
My Post Said David Brock Not David Broder (0.00 / 0)
David Brock is head of Media Matters and a reformed right wing reporter who wrote The Right Wing Noise Machine, a terrific book which highlights how out gunned the progressive movement has been for decades.  Matt Bai's book points out a lot of the same things which is why I also referenced it.

I get the "framing" issue but as someone who leans more towards the policy wonk side Obama's comments about ideas struck a chord with me.  I agree it was a mistake to say it publicly but I find it comes up a lot in private conversations. 

The progressive movements failure until recently to really develop a strong policy and PR apparatus has been a huge frustration for me.  I believe it is why the Dems have spent so much time on the defensive and in the wilderness.

[ Parent ]
Oops Wrong Book Title (0.00 / 0)
Brock's book is The Republican Noise Machine.
[ Parent ]
now just tax cuts (0.00 / 0)
Obama also said that Republicans today are basically just down to tax cuts as their only ideas, so he was also trying to draw a line between the recent past and the present.
[ Parent ]
Um... because it's wrong? (0.00 / 0)
So you're telling me that the status quo in the 1990s was that we should have more public sector services and more progressivity in the tax code? Because the only ideas I heard out of the GOP in the 1990s were that we need to cut taxes (for the rich) and cut services (for everyone else). How is that an original idea (let alone ideas)?

Can you honestly say that if Clinton or Edwards had made this statement that you wouldn't be all over them for making it and throwing the Democratic Party down the river?

Gimme a break. Obama said something to curry favor with a conservative ed board. Then he made an about-face because he was facing an audience of hard-core democrats. Unfortunately Obama doesn't seem to have a hard-core set of principles that show him that perhaps the GOP wasn't such a status-quo challenging idea machine that he and the conservative media have made it out to be.

[ Parent ]
I will now predict Obama will lose to Clinton (4.00 / 1)
Not in small part because he maybe foolish enough to continue to listen to folks such as yourself.  And, no, not you literally. I expect that sadly to be the next comment so I respond in avoidance of it.

You ask who may care that he's admiring Reagan in his campaigning. I don't know what primary you think you are in, but this is a Democratic primary.  The people who will care are the one's whom he needs to have vote for him. Outside of SC he faces double digit deficits going into Super Tuesday in many states. Who do you think will make up the deficit? The  very people you risk offending by making even tactical comparisons to Reagan.

Forget Stoller, forget blogs, it's just stupid politics. This isn't the general. He needs to be running to the base.  Luckily for you, there is a reason why Obama is back peddling- he get's if you do not.

[ Parent ]
No, I get it... (0.00 / 0)
I get why appearing to praise Reagan is bad... I don't get why  we are STILL talking about it when other candidates (including both Hillary and Bill) have said almost the same thing. Hillary went even further than Obama in a Brokaw interview, praising not just Reagan's political skills but also his economic and foreign policy skills. Yet Obama's Reagan comments are the only ones being discussed in the media.

I got tired of it a few days ago. Obama may loose, but not because of this. This is just silly.

"I don't worry much about having things. I worry plenty about relating to them." - Bruce Sterling

[ Parent ]
Because it's an area (0.00 / 0)
due to what Obama has said in which he is vulnerable due to what he has said. No expects Clinton not to triangulate. They do, however, have those expectations of any candidate who is to be the anti-Clinton. If he's going to play the same game, why should we vote for him? It's a given on this site and elsewhere that Clinton will throw us on the bridge. People argue because t hey still hope Obama is redeemable, but if it's clear that he's not, and he's a bit worse (because of the whole unity kick which no one can accuse the Clintons of) then why again should we vote for him? That's the problem with your formulation.
[ Parent ]
misspoke above (0.00 / 0)
that should read Clinton will throw us under the bus.

Let me add, if Obama isn't offering anything better, then people will go with the devil they know. This is the flaw  in saying the Clintons do it too. Okay- fine. They do it too. Why should we vote for Obama again?

[ Parent ]
IDK (0.00 / 0)
I'm less concerned about Obama backtracking on his Reagan comments and less interested in reading/seeing more of this non-issue. He points out notable differences when it comes to foreign policy, when it comes to media reform, FISA (though we should wait and see) etc... yet that isn't being discussed.

I think he is offering something better (as is Edwards) but when silly comments like this get discussed 24/7 it manufactures a perception that Clinton and Obama aren't so different. I imagine this is what Bowers' means by "blurring."

"I don't worry much about having things. I worry plenty about relating to them." - Bruce Sterling

[ Parent ]
It's sad you really don't get it (0.00 / 0)
I sense in your comment that you like many Obama supporters think this is only about how you feel. It's not. It's about all voters who call themselves Democratic. Even he recognizes this- thats why he brought it up again to back peddle.  As I said before, for some of you, Obama=always right. This is why you will lose. He's not always right. He's running in effect as the challenger to HRC's incumbent. You asked me a question, and I answered it in way that provides you a way to understand this without trying to claim its Bowers. It's not. But you need to believe that. And thats the sad part.
[ Parent ]
Timing matters - sometimes, it matters a lot (4.00 / 2)
There's a difference, and there's expected to be a difference, between what a candidate says in the heat of the primary and what s/he says at another time.  It is a general expectation that a Democratic Presidential candidate is going to tack to the right in the general election by comparison to how s/he runs in the primaries.

So when a guy comes out during the heat of the primary season and says things that are at the very least easily interpreted as admiring of Reagan and Clinton era/post-Clinton era Republicanism, it kind of scares you about where he might go during the general.

Saying those things when he did also makes you think that he might just be extremely naive about politics.  After all, Mr. Obama had never been involved in the heat of a competitive election until the last couple of weeks.  This obvious rookie mistake is not lonely when it comes to Obama missteps over the last couple of weeks.  (For example, affirmatively deciding to publicly call Bill Clinton out on his honesty kind of reminds me of those drunken teen-agers taunting the tiger--that wall of media adoration turned out not to be quite as high as it looked.)

As for what Bill and/or Hillary said about Reagan at some point, I'm not sure exactly what it was, but my best guess would be that if I looked at it, I would find that (1) I disagreed with it, but (2) given context and timing, I understood what he/she/they were going for and why he/she/they said it when they did. 

[ Parent ]
Ugh (4.00 / 4)
Obama really needs to stop this obvious pandering to the soft right and center in he hopes of building a winning electoral coalition in both the primaries AND general. Not only hasn't it worked, not only is it backfiring in how it's losing him support on the left, but it's just plain wrong on principle. He should save all the Reagan/GOP make nice happy talk for the general, to get the votes of people who are still clueless about which direction the country has to go and who are not yet ready to completely abandon Reaganism and conservatism. But he's running for the nomination right, so it's not only the right, but smart thing to do to run to the left, not right or center.

I think he didn't get or failed to read the memo about how the era of liberal triangulation is over, the country and party are moving to the left, are rejecting right-wing policies and ideas, and don't want or need to hear about how the right isn't all that bad. Why he doesn't realize that running as a real progressive, and not acting like he's somehow embarrassed by the idea, is beyond me. The way to outflank Clinton right now is from the LEFT, not right. Any fool can see that, and I don't understand why he doesn't. This political caution that he's displaying and attempt to finesse his way through today's land mine-strewn political landscape is stupid, disappointing and most of all doomed. If he doesn't run as a progressive starting now, he will lose the nomination, and be left pouting, licking his wounds, and wondering what the hell happened.

Here's what will have happened: The era of Clinton-style run to the center political triangulation is OVER. And in any case you DO NOT try to run on it against the very people who invented it. Duh! He should be running AGAINST Clintonian politics, not with it. This is surreal, the more progressive candidate running on a triangulating political strategy against the wife of the man who invented it, who is running as the more progressive candidate. He's trying to out-Clinton Clinton, at a time when Clintonianism is on the way out. And throwing in some Reaganism for good measure, when Reaganism is REALLY on the way out.

What planet is he living on?

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

liberal triangulation (4.00 / 2)
Seeing as we got either Obama or Clinton II as our nominee, I'd say the era of liberal triangulation is not quite dead.
[ Parent ]
I meant that it's dead (4.00 / 1)
as a means of getting things done on the left in a political climate that favors the right. That climate no longer exists, so there is no longer a need to triangulate (assuming that there ever was such a need), and anyone who continues to employ this strategy is either too cowardly, too cynical, or too clueless, to be worthy of leading the party and advancing a progressive agenda. That the Clintons either do not get it, or don't care, is unsurprising. They invented triangulation and ran on it in the 90's. But for their top competitor for the nomination to be employing it against THEM of all people makes no sense for all sorts of reasons.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
It makes perfect sense (4.00 / 1)
It only doesn't make sense if you believe power will not morph to protect itself. If the Clintons failed, who would have been the backup for the established powers in DC? That's the question one has to ask. I don't mean this in a conspiracy sort of way. It's meant to convey the point that there has been a formulation going on here that Obama was the anti Hillary when in fact Obama has been running as Clinton 1992 (without the baggage). Those were the two choices all a long. The only reason why no one, in my opinion has paid attention to this dynamic, has been the identity politics.
[ Parent ]
That's about right (4.00 / 1)
Triangulation is the ultimate winner this cycle. The establishment found a way to use the progressive mind set against itself. In this case, pitting identity politics against the anti triangulation forces in the party. In some ways, this is exactly like "What's the Matter with Kansas." In that book, it talked about how the GOP uses the voters own values to get them to vote for things they never would have voted for-- ie, vote against gays but end up with tax breaks to the wealthy. Here, vote for the first black President who used to be an organizer (the biography and identity part) but end up with triangulation (the actual present policy part).
[ Parent ]
This line is a key, I think (4.00 / 2)
"I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating."

What "excesses" is Obama talking about?  As I've followed the fall-out, it seems that many Democrats and Progressives have interpreted this as refering to the socially progressive successes during that period - civil rights, abortion rights, environmental movement, and such - but those are not the only things that happened during that time.

This was a time when the US was involved in many covert and overt wars - low intensity conflicts was the operational phrasing - the CIA was operating in the shadows, plotting coups and staging assassinations.  The US was forging bonds will military dictators around the world and supporting their oppression of their own people. These could easily be considered "excesses of the 1960s and 1970s" - and they were well outside of any "accountability in terms of how it was operating".  To a large extent - this situation has not changed since that time.

Now, I don't know what Obama meant by these words - but the idea that he was refering to the socially progressive successes of that era seems like a stretch.  Or, maybe he was saying that the Conservatives felt these were excessive - I don't know.

I only wish this interviewer had dug a bit deeper into what, precisely, Obama sees as excessive.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

Excesses (4.00 / 2)
This was a time when the US was involved in many covert and overt wars - low intensity conflicts was the operational phrasing - the CIA was operating in the shadows, plotting coups and staging assassinations.

No, you are thinking of the 80's.  And Reagan was a big fan of this sort of thing.  The only reasonable interpretation of the "excessess" of the 60's and 70's are the things that Reagan attacked as excesses, namely, spending on social programs, welfare, food stamps, etc.  And yes, civil rights and government in general were also targetted by Reagan.

[ Parent ]
Just to get you started.... (0.00 / 0)
Take a look a this site:

http://www.commondre...

Reagan was bad - but he did not originate the idea of using the CIA and other "intellegence" agencies to undertake black operations.

Was the CIA plotting to assassinate Castro in the 1980s?

Was the US government "covertly" bombing Laos in the 1980s?

The CIA helped to overthrow Allende in the 1970's, no?


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
I'm sure Obama agrees those are excesses (0.00 / 0)
but certainly your list is not why people voted for Reagan.


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.
[ Parent ]
Back to my main point: (0.00 / 0)
Which I inadvertantly left out of the above post where I pointed out that the excesses of the CIA and such did not start with Reagan (sorry, but I ocassionally have to do work while at work)

The point being - I would like to hear Obama clarify what he meant by "excesses".  Without that, the rest of us are left to fill-in that blank on our own.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Yup. That was what pissed me off. (4.00 / 6)
"I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating."

What "excesses" is Obama talking about?

I spent a lot of time in those years fighting against an immoral war, opposing racism, promoting glbt tolerance, trying to get the ERA passed, defending a woman's right to choose, opposing the degradation of the environment, opposing Big Bidness,' shit like that.

If that was excessive, well, FUCK YOU, Obama!
 

Obama Knew (4.00 / 2)
Obama knew exactly what he was saying when he invoked the name of Saint Reagan.  He was saying whatever he thought he needed to say to get "Reagan Democrats" (and presumably "Reagan Independents") to vote for him.  You can like that or not - give a crap, or not - but that's what he was doing. 

Try to imagine that it was whatever candidate you most love to hate who said the same things, and see if you can honestly say you'd feel the same way about it.

"I don't think everything is either/or..." (4.00 / 1)
Yes, we've noticed!

Is there anything you do think is either/or, Senator?  If so, it's time to make that clear to the voters.  Please hurry, because February 5th is right around the corner.

Tell the country specifically what conservatives are wrong about, and what progressives are right about.

Getting a bit ridiculous (4.00 / 1)
Obama says something about Reagan and you folks have now devoted - what - 15 front page posts to this fact? At first it was a lively and heated debate, now it's just overkill.

And for the love of god, if you are trying to claim, Matt, in your last snarky line about 'parsing', that Obama's comments could IN ANY WAY be interpreted as Obama endorsing the policies of Ronald Reagan - then you are simply being inflammatory.

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

He's claiming... (0.00 / 0)
...that he, as President, would "work together" with those who believe (religiously, I might add) in the policies of Ronald Reagan to "move the country forward."

Actually doing such a thing strikes us all as a logical impossibility, of course, but nonetheless, that's what he said.

[ Parent ]
But (4.00 / 3)
It's been a week and he's still trying to figure out how to walk the whole debacle back.  This post was prompted by a CNBC interview, it's not like Matt just woke up and decided to make the same point again.

Obama gets some unfair knocks but you know what, it's starting to appear like he's just not a very good explainer.  We see it with this Reagan thing, we saw it on a number of issues in the last debate.  You might recall we ran a candidate in 2004 who had a lot of good things going for him, but was a terrible explainer.

[ Parent ]
I think Obama appeals to that side of (0.00 / 0)
progressives that wants to imagine that everyone wants eventually to work together. Whereas that's what I want eventually, I am not foolish enough to believe that's what everyone wants. Kerry's problem was different. He kept waiting for some perfect moment to fight. Remember how he changed tactics a couple months out and started to close better? Obama imagines people really don't want to fight. Both are wrong, but for different reasons. As a result in the GE, I think Obama is worse simply because it telegraphs he is never going to really go for the jugular.
[ Parent ]
Well (0.00 / 0)
On the issue I was talking about, being a bad explainer, I think he's almost exactly like Kerry.  A good explainer could have said "I voted for it before I voted against it" in a way that actually made sense to people.  A good explainer wouldn't still be wrapped up in justifying those Reagan comments a week later.

As far as the general notion of fighting back, I agree with you that Kerry just had poor judgment about when to draw the line in the sand.  A good example, not in the campaign context obviously, was when he made the botched joke and, instead of saying "I misspoke, sorry if I offended anyone" decided that THIS was going to be the glorious moment where he fought back against the evil tactics of the right wing and showed them Democrats have a spine.  He was like that on the campaign trail sometimes too, hissing and baring his claws on exactly the wrong issue - although the bigger problem is the times he didn't fight.

Obama seems content to take a punch, slug you back (generally in an effective way outside of the debate context) and leave it at that.  It's hard to imagine him remaining consistently on the offensive the way Bush was in 2004, out there every day pounding on the Democrats over and over again.

[ Parent ]
That about sums it up (0.00 / 0)
As one poster on at Ezra Klein wrote-- I may not like Clinton, I do think she would throw me under the bridge, but I have no doubt she would relish ripping out the spine of the GOP and laughing at it. Meanwhile, his supporters here can't understand why there is this seeming doubles standard about Obama compared to Clinton. I suppose if I had a life time I could keep pointing out its about perceptions of each candidates relative strengths and positioning in the primary.
[ Parent ]
Will Someone Please Tell Me Why It Should Be (4.00 / 1)
necessary to parse statements Obama makes to find the hidden meaning behind the words? I know politicians like to leave a little wiggle room but this is becoming rather tiresome.

Do you really think that the average voter is going to spend their time parsing and dissecting his statements to find something they like. I don't think so.

Average people who liked and approved of Reagan liked his original statement. His backing off somewhat from that statement in the debate and in this interview, may change their opinions because they may not particurly like these new takes on what he said. Average people who strongly disliked and disapproved of Reagan and were disgusted by the myth that was created around Reagan, disliked his original statement and I don't think they will be comforted by these new remarks.

[ Parent ]
Parsing. (4.00 / 1)
Yes, exactly, voters will not parse. That's  why anyone who believes in progressive values has a problem with it. They won't parse. They will believe he means Reagans values and not all of the things that every other supporter claims we should parse his words to mean. Do you get the point ? That he wins by destroying the very thing he wants to forward.
[ Parent ]
Basic Problem (4.00 / 3)
If you get beyond all the interpretations of what Obama meant or didn't mean by the Reagan comments, you are left with one simple but telling point: We are trying to figure out how much one of the leading candidates for the DEMOCRATIC nomination likes Ronald Reagan!
wow....you ppl are missing the point completely (4.00 / 1)
I'm as feed up with the tactics of the Republicans as anybody else.  However, the crux of what Obama is saying is true.  Reagan was transformative.  Why is it do you think that the GOP still bows at his alter?!#  Acknowledge what is true.  Reagan, politically, was able to accomplish many things.  He was a bastard but he did change the political landscape. 

Obama simply acknowledges it and Democrats are acting as if Obama said the world was flat.  Just because we are progressives doesn't mean we need to be intellectually ignorant.

Grow-up.

You aren't smarter than us (4.00 / 3)
Until you get that, you will never get our points. That requires you to listen and understand. I see far too many "I am the smartest kid in the room" posts parsing this in such a way that maybe logical, but it doesn't read the situation honestly. This is Reagan. It doesn't matter how you parse it. It's still going to be Reagan. And that's how your argument fails,a nd how your smarts are going to end up hurting your candidate if he's not more cognizant of which party to whom he's trying to appeal.
[ Parent ]
your analysis uses Republican logic (0.00 / 0)
Well something is what it is because we all believe it to be so and it can only be that way because thinking otherwise would mean that you are, a communist, hippie, hate our troops, hate our country etc.,.

There should be a new qualification for President, be smart but not too smart and for god sakes DO NOT engage in any nuanced discussion.

Obama clarified his statement and if you do not believe him then you are only getting what you want to get from it.

[ Parent ]
Someone needs to (4.00 / 1)
start handing out a dime to me each time a poster like you comes online claiming disagreement with Obama=a Republican talking point. I mean its very Orwellian in simple minded CNN talking head sort of way.  My point as you may or may not understand (I honestly can't tell) isn't that you are really smarter than others. It's that you think  you are smarter than others. There's a difference. The later is hubris. Or, if you prefer, I once had a law professor say to me that logic is a wonderful thing, but don't confuse it with reality.  Just because you can think of someway to explain Obama's words doesn't mean that anyone will buy what you are selling, and it's not Bowers or Stoller or me you have to convince- hence why Obama is back peddling because he knows this even if some of his supporters do not.
[ Parent ]
Backpedaling (0.00 / 0)
Obama has brought up Reagan before and everything he says when "backpedaling" is consistent with what he has said in the past.  The problem is when talking to a conservative paper he didn't feel the need to include much of the the additional nuance.  He just went with the main point in a way that the conservative folks approved of.  That was very wrong on Obama's part.  He needs to be more clear all the time.

You can see evidence this tendency in other parts of the interview.  He blames both parties for the bad discourse but mostly blames the Republicans.  But he can't just say it is mostly the Republicans, he says "as a Democrat I feel it is mostly the Republicans" (quote from memory, could be off).

Now, when I talk to Republicans I talk the same way, so I understand why he does this and am totally sympathetic.  It really is a good way to get them to understand why progressives are the good guys (at least this time, from their point of view).  But on the presidential campaign trail you are always under the spotlight.  There is no one-on-one conversation.  Everything you say is being said to everyone at the same time.  That is a hard lesson to learn; it is hard to put aside a lifetime of habits.

[ Parent ]
and no i'm not smarter than anyone (0.00 / 0)
However, I just love the right-wing frames you are throwing at me.  Intellect, nuanced, gray areas, are all tools of the devil who lives in the liberal ivory towers.

bleah.....

[ Parent ]
Thank You (0.00 / 0)
I fought the stuff that Reagan tried to do tooth and nail but to ignore that he was a politically transformative figure is crazy.  He changed the political landscape and we are still trying to reverse it close to 30 yrs later.  I hate what he created but you can't pretend it didn't happen. 

I have to say that as someone who was a teenager in 1980, 2008 has a similar feel to it.  The electorate is unhappy and restless.  They don't like the person in the White House or direction of the country and want major changes.  It will be interesting to see if 2008 will be as transformative as 1980.  It appears likely if you look at the indicators.

[ Parent ]
i thought i was the only one... (0.00 / 0)
You'll never hear me saying anything positive about the man as a person or the results of his presidency but.....
[ Parent ]
Once more with feeling! (4.00 / 1)
Hey, I have an idea.  Let's bring up Obama's Reagan quote every day!  Then we can all say the same things we have been saying over and over again.  Each time we can use slightly more capitalization and slightly more explanation points!!

That would be SWELL!

Did you read before posting? (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
My own post? (0.00 / 0)
Obviously, I didn't read my own post before submitting, otherwise my point would have been more 'exclamation' and less 'explanation'.  :-)

But yes, I read Matt's post and all the comments.  Let me re-read the post...

Sure enough, nothing particularly new.  Now let me go read what you wrote to see if I missed anything...

Nope.  Same old circle of arguments.

I think we all see where everyone else is coming from on this.  Until someone makes a new or interesting point I just don't see the value in repeating this cycle.

[ Parent ]
except it was Obama qualifying his comments (0.00 / 0)
Not this blog. If it was registering as a negative with voters rather than just a negative on blogs, it's clear it wouldn't feel the need to do so. But please I hope he continues to follow folks such as yourself at this point.
[ Parent ]
Obama Embraces the Reagan/Republican Brain-Washing Propaganda Machine (4.00 / 2)
When Obama praises the Republicans as the party of ideas over the last 10 to 15 years, what he is really referring to is a political propaganda machine that deceived the American people into thinking Republican ideas were going to make them better off instead of reducing their standards of living, which is what they actually did.

Obama should be attacking this propaganda machine and showing how it duped people into letting themselves be ripped off by the conveyor belt that Reagan and his Republican and Democratic supporters created to siphon off the earnings of working people and put them in the pockets of the corporate elite. (See Republican Class Warfare for supporting data.)

Instead, Obama disengenuously praises the machine and tries to use it to ingratiate himself with the people whom Reagan duped, such as the "Reagan Democrats", Independents, Christian fundamentalists, etc.

As Robert Kuttner pointed out last night on Amy Goodman's Democracy Now!, it is time for the Democrats to be the opposition party.

Candidates like Obama vying to run on the Democratic Party line must show how and why the conservative economic and political ideologies, practices and policies of the Republican Party have pushed our economy and middle class into meltdown mode by:
a) holding down wages and incomes;
b) raising prices and the cost of living by allowing corporate  predators to reap windfall/excess profits; and
c) diverting trillions of taxpayer dollars to ramp up U.S. military capacity to bludgeon imagined enemies and invade and occupy Iraq.

Let's get real here. If Obama cannot articulate a progressive platform within the Democratic Party's progressive ideological framework, he should leave the party and run as an Independent. The Democratic presidential nominee is not going to win the election by trying to sound like a Republican, much less a Reagan Republican.

So far, the only thing that Obama has done is alienate the Democratic base. If he continues to alienate Democrats by courting voters outside the party, he is not going to attract as many Independents and Republican Democrats in the general election as he will have lost voters who make up the Democratic base.

My view is that Obama ought to retract his statement about Reagan. The more he tries to explain it away with add-on justifications that were absent from his original formulation (like his phony argument after the fact that he just meant to say that Democrats who supported Reagan were voting against their economic interests, when he said nothing of the kind in his original statement), the more he appears to be an amateur political opportunist.

 

Conservative take (0.00 / 0)
Here is an interesting commentary from an Australian who is very pro-Reagan.  I think both sides of this debate will find evidence that they are correct about Obama.  Most will find this very painful reading that will make them want to throw there computer out the window (again, pro-Reagan).  Since I'm mostly pro-Obama I'll point out the conclusion:

History is throwing different problems at America today: the sub-prime mortgage crisis, Iran and Afghanistan among them. Republicans should examine these problems rather than Reagan's record. If they are both practical and conservative, they will tend to come up with reasonable conservative solutions.

Obama has already figured this out. He merely thinks the best solutions to these new problems are likely to be liberal ones, and so the next agent of change a liberal version of Reagan.


Obama Clarifies Reagan Comments on CNBC | 63 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