Obama causes stir with talk of Reagan, JFK

[ProSense]

Obama causes stir with talk of Reagan, JFK

<...>


Obama fans will hear/see the same comments, and come to a different conclusion — that Obama was merely characterizing this election as one in which the country is ready for a fundamental change in the way Washington works (or doesn’t), as voters were in 1960 and 1980. As Greg Sargent noted, “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.”

The entire hour-long interview is online here, so readers can get a sense of context, but I looked at this from a couple of different angles.

First, I think Obama could have probably been more cautious in his references to “excesses.” If, for example, he’d said “perceived excesses,” the comment would probably have been far less contentious.

Second, it sounded to me as if Obama were criticizing Bill Clinton far more than he was praising Reagan and Kennedy. It was subtle, but Obama seemed to be saying that Clinton, while successful, didn’t fundamentally change the political landscape (and, by implication, Obama probably wants people to believe that Sen. Clinton wouldn’t either). Whether there’s any real appetite in Democratic circles for this kind of criticism of Bill Clinton remains to be seen.

Matt Stoller argued:

There are many reason progressives should admire Ronald Reagan, politically speaking. He realigned the country around his vision, he brought into power a new movement that created conservative change, and he was an extremely skilled politician. But that is not why Obama admires Reagan. Obama admires Reagan because he agrees with Reagan’s basic frame that the 1960s and 1970s were full of ‘excesses’ and that government had grown large and unaccountable.

Maybe, but I’m not sure of that’s what Obama really meant. Indeed, with the added context of the Kennedy part of the quote, it’s not at all unreasonable to think Obama was talking about Reagan’s political skills/victories, his ability to bring voters into the GOP fold, and his success at tapping into the public’s attitudes of the time.

(For what it’s worth, in 2006, Obama noted on “Meet the Press” that Reagan “was a very successful president, even though I did not agree with him on many issues.” Obama cited Reagan having “transformed the culture and not simply promoted one or two particular issues.” It sounded more like praise for Reagan’s ability to generate broad change, and less like an endorsement of Reagan’s worldview.)

So, that’s the debate. What say you?

On edit: Obama drew a contrast between Clinton and Reagan; Clinton praised Reagan

[GodlessBiker]

1. Did Clinton change the political landscape? Not really.

Carter to Reagan was a big moment of change for the country. George I to Clinton wasn't all that big.

[RaleighNCDUer]

7. Most of Clinton's presidency was little more than a holding action,

and often an unsuccessful one, against the BFFE. He invented triangulation, where he stole Republican thunder by making their initiatives his own - NAFTA, welfare reform, DOMA - but in doing so he must share the responsibility for those initiatives.

I liked Clinton, volunteered for him in 92, voted for him twice, but I am painfully aware that he did not significantly impede the rightward trend of american politics.

We don't need another holding action. We need to press for a progressive agenda, to roll back the influence of the right. That is why Hillary, and a return to the 90s, is wrong for us. With the huge unfavorability of the Bush administration, we have an unprecedented opportunity to undo the damage they've done, but that won't happen without a pro-active progressive administration. As Obama said, the coming Democratic administration can be a ground-shift in the proportions of '80, or '60, or '32.

And the candidate to make it so would be Edwards.

[redqueen]

10. "And the candidate to make it so would be Edwards."

Indeed!

[hedgehog]

19. It wasn't just Carter - looking back all I remember is a Democratic Establishment that

seemed to be saying that we had reached our peak and it was all downhill from there. If the Reagan years meant that unions lost ground, that wages stalled and fell, that the middle class was squeezed, well, IMO, that wasn't much different from what the Establishment told us was the best we could get. Did Reagan fund the Contras? Well, Jimmy didn't shut down the School of the Americas when he had the chance. To me, Mondale epitomized that attitude. The only difference I saw was that the Democrats told us to deal with it while Regean lied and smiled and swore everything was hunky-dory.

[Dhalgren]

2. Obama's not for me.

[ananda]

3. Admire Reagan??

I will never support Obama now.

[ProSense]

4. His comments were analytical, this is

admiration:

This is a great day for our country. This is a day of honoring the legacy of President Reagan, remembering the service of President Wilson, and rededicating ourselves to the often difficult but ultimately always rewarding work of America.

As I stand within the Reagan Building I am confident that we will again make the right choices for America, that we will take up where President Reagan left off -- to lead freedom's march boldly into the 21st century.

more

[Tellurian]

12. Apples and Buicks!

Have your glasses changed!

[ProSense]

23. Bill Clinton: "This is a day of honoring the legacy of President Reagan" n/t

[terisan]

25. "Have my glasses changed?" Not a very intelligent or reasoned response.

[robbedvoter]

17. POTUS BS (sad and disgusting too) - but not RUNNING A CAMPAIGN on it!

The perspective of having a candidate who will imitate the other side in worshiping Raygun - makes me :puke:

[ProSense]

20. Facing the hard truth does that to you! n/t

[Tellurian]

28. Precisely Right!

you've restored my faith that not all here are imbibing around the Kool-Aid cooler..

[Maven]

26. Intellectually dishonest.

And you know it.

[Tellurian]

29. Think about it..

If cut and paste didn't exist..

[southern_belle]

6. Same here n/t

x(

[hedgehog]

22. I didn't read this as admiring Reagan, merely commenting that people chose

Reagen as the opposite of what they had at the time.

[sunonmars]

5. This Reagan thing is really picking up speed

I'm seeing it all over the place today, people talking about it.

[ProSense]

9. Good! n/t

[redqueen]

11. Well it's just so ODD... how many times do you hear Republicants praising JFK?

It really stands out.

Considering how far to the right this country has moved... it's kinda creepily odd.

[sunonmars]

13. I would imagine a lot of Democrats, ears have pricked up....

going wtf?

Is he trying to be like every president, first he was JFK, now he's reagan esque. Do we know who the fuck this guy is or is he just a "shape shifter"

[Tellurian]

14. Me too...sending sidewards glances towards Obama..

wondering where his allegiance lies.

[terisan]

8. Reagan did not transform the culture. He returned to Nixon era of Big Business & Lies nt

big military budgets,and covert actions around the world,

Carter was the change president. The first president with a global vision of human rights.

[Barack_America]

15. FYI. You contradict yourself in that statement....n/t

[robbedvoter]

18. No contradiction. Raygun was "more of the same". Much, much more of the same.

[Inuca]

21. Unfortunately not true

much as I admire Carter as a human being, he was not a successful president. Being a "change president" implies making change HAPPEN. By that measure, Reagan was a very successful president. And viscerally as I disagree with almost everything Reagan stood for and the changes in this country and the world that happened as a result (and incidentally, I never thought that the fall of the communist block had much to do with Reagan and his policies), there is no denial that he indeed was a "change president". And that's all Obama meant to say. Maybe he could have phrased it slightly better, but that was his point, and any other interpretation is nothing but splitting hairs.

[robbedvoter]

16. There is NO reason under the sun progressives should admire Raygun! Hate, racism

were dressed up by fawning MSM as "optimism". I'd go on, but this guy is so much better than me:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4088845&mesg_id=4088845

[girl_interrupted]

24. I should have known after Obama voted to confirm Condi Rice

Not to trust him. But I wanted to believe the hype too. We are going, if not already, into a recession and I wish I had Clinton's Economy, right about now. But hey...he did nothing, except pull us out of debt incured by Reagan/Bush, create 23 millon new jobs, & a trillion in surpluses.

[ProSense]

27. Clinton voted for Rice too

link


Clinton: Rice linked Iraq vote, inspections

Following up on what Ambassador Richard Holbrooke told us earlier this week regarding Hillary Clinton's vote to authorize the use of military force against Iraq, we asked Sen. Clinton today if it was correct that Colin Powell had persuaded her that the resolution could be a vote to avoid war rather than a vote for war.

She replied: "No, it wasn't Colin Powell. it was Condi Rice. Condi Rice told me specifically when I was still weighing all of the evidence, and I had been to the White House one last time -- I think, if I'm not mistaken, it was Oct. 8 -- and I'd had the whole presentation by the CIA and others and I hadn't asked any questions, I had listened. And I went back to my office, and Condi Rice called me and said, You didn't ask any questions, do you have any questions? I said I only have one: Will you use this authorization to put inspectors back in, so that we can find out whether any of this is true, how much WMD he still has or has reconstituted? She said, Yes, that's what it's intended to do. I think Dick might have gotten confused."

[Tellurian]

30. Reagan was never her hero..or anyone she thought to emulate as an example...