I think Clinton supporters just stepped in a trap.

[lurky]

When Obama made his statement that Reagan changed America more than Clinton, he had to know that Clinton supporters would go ape. It was a double dis: praising a president who is still reviled by many Democrats, and criticizing the administration on whose record Hillary is running. Predictably, Hillary people have been quick to paint Obama with the Reagan brush, doing everything they can to associate Obama and Reagan in people's minds.

However, I think this is exactly what he wants. Look at who Clinton's base in the Democratic Party is: White, blue-collar, high school graduates over 40. These are exactly the same Democrats who put Reagan in office in 1980 and 1984. In short, the Reagan Democrats are Hillary's bread and butter, and by shouting "Obama=Reagan! Obama=Reagan!", her boosters are giving these voters the message that Obama is like one of their most cherished leaders and Hillary is not. While the association may hurt him in places like DU, I think it could help Obama with the very Democrats he has been having trouble reaching. I'm interested in seeing if this gives him a boost.

Oh, for the record, I haven't committed to a candidate yet, and I think Reagan was a disaster this country. I just think this may have been a clever strategy on Obama's part.

Any opinions? (Ha ha ;))

[aquart]

1. Well, good for him if he gets those votes.

I'm sure he richly deserves them.

[THUNDER HANDS]

2. even if it wasn't his intention to compare himself with Reagan

which I don't think it was, and based on what his actual statement was, it's cler that he wasn't -- it will benefit him.

[AtomicKitten]

10. otherwise referred to as Obama's political jujitsu

Obama has skills. ;)

[chimpymustgo]

3. I think Obama just stepped into a pile of SH*T. Period. Democrats HATE Reagan.

And we aren't buying into the myth Obama seems to have swallowed hook, line and sinker.

[emilyg]

13. Amen.

[stillcool]

26. Is it a myth

that Ronald Reagan is credited with the Republican Revolution, and the last 35 years of corporate policy? You don't find that ability impressive?

[Usrename]

37. I find it to be repulsive and a huge bold-faced lie. Not a myth, a lie.

Reagan was an empty suit, a puppet, an ACTOR.

He never did anything except what his handlers, like Poppy Bush, told him to do.

He wasn't aware of what Iran/Contra was even about, and that's after he admitted that it was all true.

His accomplishments consist solely of breaking and destroying and ruining every decent thing that he touched.

He never built or created a single thing, he just fed the monster's greed.

[stillcool]

61. I think the 'Reagan Revolution'

built and created quite a bit. As in, De-regulation, Corporate Welfare, American Intervention, Flooding the Streets with Cocaine. That is "his" Legacy.

[stillcool]

78. What is the difference between a myth..

and a lie? The fact that people here are distorting and altering the words in this interview, means they are all telling a big fat lie..and they are creating a myth.

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

[Peregrine Took]

31. Obama = DLC = rethug lover. n/t

[Nedsdag]

35. "DLC=rethug lover?"

Nah! You're talking about Hillary.

[RaleighNCDUer]

63. True, Democrats hate Reagan (except for all the Democrats who

deserted the party to vote for him, of course) but there is noting in Obama's history that suggests Reaganesque political ideals - he is, of course, talking about a Reagan level of change, but going in the opposite direction - a groundswell of public opinion that would move the country as firmly into the Democratic camp as Reagan moved us into the Republican camp.

But then, you know that already, don't you -- tell the truth, now.

[patrice]

4. I think Reagan was a disaster too and my take on why Obama did this is allmost

identical to yours.

[Vincardog]

5. Reagan started the shift toward corporatism. Bill just nudged it along.

Ron did do more to hurt America than Bill did.

[William769]

6. Got news for you sweetie, it's not just Clinton supporters. NT

[lurky]

7. Please elaborate?

[William769]

12. For starters.

" a campaign stop that Ronald Reagan made in 1980, just after being nominated. He spoke in Mississippi, then a swing state, near the site where three civil-rights workers had been murdered in 1964, and in the course of talking about education he said, "I believe in states' rights."


Praise either assholle all you want. Good luck with it.

[lurky]

15. No disagreement on Reagan being a slime.

That wasn't my point.

[William769]

19. You asked to elaberate, I did.

Now tell me thats Hillsy's base, I date you.

[FrenchieCat]

8. I think that you are correct.

And I think that the whole point is that Obama has a vision in how to swing the pendulum back to the left, and Hillary doesn't have a clue beyond getting back into the White House.

That's the difference between the two.

Plus, Obama was never praising Reagan for what Reagan did in terms of his policies, so these Hillary supporters stepped into it, when they didn't even have to.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

9. Few Reagan Dems are big DU readers

Hillary is not going to go ape-shit on Barack over Reagan, so there's no public issue.

Most people on DU argue out of passionate belief. The few who think they are campaign apparatchiks (for any campaign) fighting a meaningful fight on DU are deluded.

[lurky]

22. Sure, everything here is a tempest in a teapot.

But I imagine similar conversations are happening elsewhere.

[BootinUp]

41. agreed nt

[2rth2pwr]

11. I love these memes- "My candidate gets no attention because everyone is scared of them"

"that wasn't a gaffe, Obama is setting a very clever trap"

They rank right up there with "Don't worry, Kerry is playing three dimensional chess, and any minute now he will counterattack".

and "they have more information than we do, I'm sure that this vote (capitulation) makes sense when we learn more"

[grantcart]

17. well a little self deception is necessary during these neurotic times lol

[lurky]

18. Is my opinion a meme now?

Sweet! I've entered the meme-o-sphere!
:)

[2rth2pwr]

51. Do a search here at DU for "Obama" and "trap" in the last few days. nt

[lurky]

60. I didn't see this particular point get made,

but if somebody else has made it, my apologies.

[Benhurst]

34. Yeah, we were all hoping Kerry was playing three-dimensional

chess, when in reality he was lost somewhere in the twilight zone.

[truedelphi]

14. The OP states: Look at who Clinton's base in the Democratic Party is: White, blue-collar,

school graduates over 40.

Thank you for saying that. Today's Democratic Party voter thinks like the Republican of yester year. Many of them are not blue collar, however, but people who are quite secure (The way that white blue collar people were in the 1980's.)

[CRH]

66. Thank you for saying that, ...

many in the democratic party today do not understand that in the 60's and 70's there was a real blue collar work force, that was respected and earned a wage. After Reagan and DLC democrats, that blue collar force has diminished greatly along with significant union influence. NAFTA and immigration, legal and illegal, gave the blue collar worker a one two punch with their jobs either disappearing or the wages being frozen for so many years they no longer provided a living. Thus the wifes entered the work force, some of them part time or for less wages, adding to the labor pool and further suppressing wages in the labor force. All the time while the blue collar force declined in numbers and income, the service sector grew with non benefited, low wage, and often part time jobs. The poorer the working class became, the more desperate their need for employment in the stagnated service sector.

What many people refer to as blue collar workers, has been greatly diluted to include much of the service sector, and reflects little of the political influence wielded in the days of a well paid and respected blue collar force whose wages were directly or indirectly supported by labor unions.

Well stated, the democrats of today are the republicans of yesteryear, and the old democrats, well we are for the most part, the looney left. FDR rest in peace, your influence is nearly finished.

[truedelphi]

71. I hope you won't mind my adding you to the ol'

Buddy List.

We old school "loons" need to stick together.;)

[CRH]

74. No problem buddy, stick together or fall apart. ...n/t

[killbotfactory]

16. Saying someone had more influence than someone else isn't exactly praise

It's recognizing historical fact. Clinton, throughout his presidency, was largely working in the political atmosphere that was set up by the "Reagan Revolution". Welfare "reform", war on drugs, etc.

It's no more praise saying than saying "Reagan won two elections".

[oasis]

20. Let's see how Obama's "Reagan love" goes over with African American voters in South Carolina.

:wow:

[lurky]

36. Yeah, I think he's gambling

that this will help him with white, blue-collar more than it will hurt him with liberals and black Dems. We'll see if he's right or wrong, I guess.

[Barack_America]

39. He'll be okay because those voters are willing to give him....

...The benefit of the doubt. They'll read his entire comment. And, when they do, they'll see it as another example of Obama being unjustly criticized.

Here's a more complete quote:

"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."

Where does he off the praise for Reagan that the other candidates are claiming? Simple, he doesn't. Ergo, you have an unjustified attack against him.

[sandnsea]

56. TV interview in Reno

This is what started the controversy, and then various distortions were quoted from his book.

"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.

I think Kennedy, 20 years earlier, moved the country in a fundamentally different direction. So I think a lot of it has to do with the times. I think we are in one of those fundamentally different times right now were people think that things, the way they are going, just aren’t working."


http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2721

He isn't praising Reagan, he's saying Reagan tapped into the people's anxieties and was able to transform the country because of it. The same thing he's said in that quote of yours.

He's being wildly distorted, on purpose.

[oasis]

75. "Unjustified" or not, Obama is on record singing the praises of Reagan. It's

up to him to explain the nuance to black voters. He'd better hope they've forgotten that Reagan kicked off his '80 presidential run in Mississippi by giving a "states rights" speech near the site where the three civil right workers were murdered.

But then, Obama is giddy about Reagan's ability to inspire. It doesn't seem to matter who Reagan inspired.

[sandnsea]

21. He Did Not Praise Reagan

He said Reagan was successful at getting people to unite around his vision. He said we need to change that vision, change the trajectory.

You don't change what you agree with.

Although Edwards attacking Reagan is not the most brilliant thing he could do.

[Barack_America]

29. But that's not what he's being charged with...

Much like Hillary didn't technically insult Dr. King.

Like the King comment, it's a statement designed to outrage the other candidate's supporters, while seeming innocuous to everyone else. Except Obama's move is stronger, because his statement will actually be attractive to many voters, whereas Hillary's was, at best , neutral.

This is getting interesting. Is it getting legs? (Off to troll the MSM)

[robbedvoter]

43. He PRAISED REAGAN - in his book. See # 42 - Liberals were wrong to slice the pie

[sandnsea]

48. How does that equate to praising Reagan?

How does saying x is wrong automatically make y right? It doesn't.

And if there wasn't anything wrong with some social policies, why did Clinton "end welfare as we know it"?

[stillcool]

23. The Reagan Revolution..

is the last what 35 years of policy in this country? Saint Ronny is still alive and well among many. I suppose there is something impressive about one man being credited with the ability to alter policy to such a degree, and for so long. I sure hope somebody can get into that office and do the very same thing in the opposite direction.

[robbedvoter]

49. I am thinking you must be young - to miss the dark resonance of "Reagan revolution"

It's when "liberal" became a dirty word...Don't expect primary voters over 18 to buy the damage control. In his Book Obama clearly credits Bush with being right and the liberals wrong. (see # 42)

[Barack_America]

24. I agree with you...(my analysis follows)

I mentioned this on one of the other 50-million Reagan threads.

This, IMO, was a strategic move on Obama's part. He's written about Reagan and could've expected this to come up. So he puts a few statements out there to draw the ire of Clinton supporters. The majority of the press on this will be Obama defending himself against comparisons to Reagan. Essentially, it's the same strategy that Clinton used with race. Put a few "hmmm" comments out there and let the supporters of the other guy stir the shit, then you can play the "misunderstood" card.

Though, it's not my favorite tactic of Obama's, it is smart. He's already losing the "hardcore" Dems to Hillary anyway and, like it or not, Reagan is still enormously popular with Americans (voted the 2nd greatest president of all time just last year--you don't accomplish that without a significant number of Dems in agreement). And like racial insensitivity to Obama supporters, Reagan is something that Clinton supporters simply won't be able to let die, in spite of themselves.

It'll be fun to watch this play out... :popcorn:

[ShortnFiery]

25. Interesting commentary ... have to think over ... but .... yeah, perhaps?

:hi:

[enid602]

27. Reagan

It just means that Obama probably likes Reagan. Proving one's Reaganesqeness is generally not a big positive in Dem circles, though.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

28. Reagan did more for the conservative movement

than Clinton did for the progressive movement. That was Obama's point. Why is that so hard for some to comprehend? I don't get it.

Anyway, you may be right. But I'm not so sure Obama was thinking so far in advance, as he has praised Reagan along these lines in the past. and it's not Clinton, but Edwards who seems to be the one lashing out against Obama's statement the most.

[robbedvoter]

42. Maybe because the stuff Obama wrote in his book? "Reagan right - liberals - wrong?"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4087189&mesg_id=4087491
by promising to side with those who worked hard, obeyed the law, cared for their families, loved their country, Reagan offered Americans a sense of common purpose that liberals seemed no longer able to muster."
and
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4090801&mesg_id=4092172
"The conservative revolution Reagan helped usher in gained traction because Reagan's central insight--that the liberal welfare state had grown complacent and overly bureaucratic, with Democratic policy makers more obsessed with slicing the economic pie than with growing he pie--contained a good deal of truth."

[AX10]

30. It's more like the Obamites are looking for..

anything to assault Hillary with.

[desi]

32. Interesting

You wouldn't have any empirical evidence to prove the following: "Look at who Clinton's base in the Democratic Party is: White, blue-collar, high school graduates over 40. These are exactly the same Democrats who put Reagan in office in 1980 and 1984. In short, the Reagan Democrats are Hillary's bread and butter," I personally am NONE of the above, would NEVER have thought of voting for Raygun/Bush yet voted for Clinton Twice and will vote for Hillary in the primary and the general if she is our nominee. btw, you didn't happen to vote for either Lazio or Tasini did you?

[Barack_America]

33. Those are called "exit polls"...go over to CNN and have a gander...n/t

[desi]

40. Tell you what

YOU go over to CNN or wherever the hell you'd like and bring back empirical evidence to prove THIS: "the Reagan Democrats are Hillary's bread and butter," I have all day so go ahead and take your time... Thanks in advance.

[Barack_America]

45. I'm not going to do your thinking for you...

If you're curious about this, go look at the Iowa and NH exit polls and see who Hillary is attracting. Then go find out what demographics the Reagan Democrats fall in.

I'll be here waiting for you.

[desi]

54. My thinking? rofl

Looks like you can't back your condescending bullshit can you? But I already know that...have a great day.

[robbedvoter]

44. I voted for Tasini - but after the Raygun BS, I might end up voting for her February 5

The OP is total BS - and Obama is pretty much over now.

[lurky]

46. That's a good question.

Here is the wikipedia entry on Reagan Democrats:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_Democrats">Reagan Democrat
"Reagan Democrat is an American political term used by political analysts to denote traditionally Democratic voters, especially white working-class Northerners, who defected from their party to support Republican President Ronald Reagan..." snip

Here is an article (Old, but still valid, I think) on Clinton's strategy:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2450119,00.html">Hillary targets the Blue Dog voters
Here's a choice Terry McCauliffe quote re the midterm elections and Clinton's strategy:
"It was a 'throw the Republicans out' election. Some people voted for us reluctantly but we have a terrific opportunity to get back the Reagan Democrats we lost in the 1980s"

[desi]

62. Thanks for your reply.

Your links, though wiki is always suspect, do not agree with your OP as to the geographical demographics at this early stage of the primaries. It is comparing apples and oranges to rely on data from national presidential elections with state-run primaries. You understand the major differences yes?

[lurky]

64. True enough, but

The same split seems to be playing out in places like New Hampshire: Hillary did well in the old mill towns, while Obama did well in college towns and among more affluent voters. I can't count the number of professional bloviators (I mean pundits) I heard making this point on the primary night and during its aftermath.

[desi]

68. Well we are all aware how accurate those pro gasbags, Tweety/et al,

were last week and especially in '04 aren't we? btw, imho anybody and everybody who voted for Raygun/Bush stopped being a Democrat the moment they pulled the lever for them. Have a great day...Lazio or Tasini?

[lurky]

69. Tasini!!!

For God's sake, let's keep this civil!

[desi]

72. LOL

:spank: ..from the Bronx myself. Take care.

[lurky]

73. You too!

:hi:

[robbedvoter]

38. So far. Edwards is peeling the Obama voters who actually KNEW Reagan

and Hillary won't lose anyone in this process - so we'll see how clever this trap is.

[cali]

47. huh? got any evidence for that

or is it simply wild speculaion? Nevermind, I know the answer to that.

[robbedvoter]

52. Watch this board for the next few days. I had predicted the opposite when Kerry

endorsed Obama - and a cursory look on page one confirmed that within 24h.
As the Reagan thinghie becomes known, it will happen. It's visceral with most democrats. Of course, it's possible a few will even go to Hillary - as she is attacking Bush now, but most will go to Edwards as he is milking it for all it's got (and it's got plenty!)

[sandnsea]

50. Edwards can win the south

because the south will never vote for a black man or woman.

Are we denying that's been said now?

[robbedvoter]

55. It's certainly NOT what I am saying. Edwards will win bubkus. And the South

would have voted for Obama - pre- Raygun disclosure. I think Hillary will now clean up.

[sandnsea]

59. Classic DU

Spew shit for months, and then when called on it, deny deny deny.

[flyarm]

53. well Obama may have the union leaders..but union workers will not forget Reagan destroying their

pay scales and their power structure.

Obama may have the young kids who barely remember Reagan..but the rest of us remember reagan..and how he destroyed the middleclass of this nation.

Those dems who went for Reagan paid a very high price ..and they are not easily going to forget what he did to them..

Just be careful what you wish for ..Reagan fucked the middle class of this nation..never forget that!


and if you don't know it..i suggest you educate yourself to those facts!

start with PATCO...and work your way through what Reagan did to the airline industry..and the split incomes ( A&B salary structures that were put in place)..we all made..look at ALL THE UNIONS AND HOW THEY WERE FUCKED BY REAGAN...

AND IF YOU THINK HE ONLY DESTROYED THE UNIONS..YOU ARE FOOLING YOURSELF..when union salaries go down, so do everyone's, nation wide..even managers..and management.

Reagan put through the highest taxation calling it other shit ..on the middle class..by taking away all the tax deductions at the time..

Reagan was a corrupt s.o.b..nothing more and nothing less..he was a corrupt criminal..he allowed the elite to fuck the little guy in this nation..all while telling them he was taking care of them..

with a daddy type line of bullshit..

i don't want a daddy figure as pres....i don't want a buddy to drink beer with...and if you do ..please stay home and don't vote.

I want an adult who tells the damn truth as president ..and it is about time we all want that!

Lets grow up as a nation and demand we have the smartest , most intelligent person to lead us ( yes lead us..we must be involved in this!) out of the damn mess this country is in..and gets our Habeus corpus back and restores our born rights of our constitution and bill of rights!

I don't want anyone who thinks Reagan was a good guy..he sure as fuck was not ..not to the middle class of this nation!

fly

[robbedvoter]

57. I bet even those union leaders are embarrassed for being taken in - good points.

[flyarm]

65. those union leaders ought to be embarrassed standing up for Obama..who would say anything nice

about Reagan..no one screwed dems or the middle class more than Ronald Reagan..he began this neo con bullshit..

and i can damn well tell you how Reagan fucked the airline industry and the youth of this nation..those young who came in after Reagan destroyed PATCO..came in at much lower wages ..and they to this day ..they remain lower!

Fuck Reagan and any dem who would appeal to dems with the name Reagan!

Reagan and pappy * did all they could to fuck Jimmy Carter..they made deals to keep our hostages ..till Reagan could manipulate our election..Reagan was a mtf'er..and we are still living with the fall out of his presidency.

enough..

if you are ignorant to the ways of Reagan..read "Barry and the Boys"..By Daniel Hopsicker.

educate yourself..damn it..but please don't vote for anyone who would tell you he wants to emulate Reagan..or Reagans times..or anything Reagan!

that s.o.b. destroyed what i know as my country!

and his crooks are still running and ruining this country today!

fly

[yodermon]

58. 2nd time I've seen this interpretation today on DU.

I think it's probably correct. Obama is *not* campaigning for left-wing purists or DUers.
He want the Reagan Democrats back, or even moderate Republicans who are fed up with their sham of a party.

The irony of course is that John Edwards addresses the Reagan Democrats' interests more directly and forthrightly, but you'd never know it by watching teevee.

[David Zephyr]

67. Plus, Hillary and Bill have heaped praise on Ronald Reagan for years and years.

I doubt there is any Democrat who has ever lauded Ronald Reagan more than the Clinton have.

[polichick]

70. Fuck all of 'em for praising Reagan...

I don't care if it's Obama, Clinton or Edwards ~ I'm sick of Democrats sucking up to Republicans. That tired ol' abused spouse syndrome is pathetic.

[Catherine Vincent]

76. I doubt if he'll get a boost from those Reagan Democrats.

Imo, those are the ones that wouldn't vote for a black candidate whether s/he's a republican or a Democrat.

[VotesForWomen]

77. i'm not sure those votes are gettable by obama. it would be a risky strategy. nt