Reagan's electoral success is a fact. It is, however, intextricably tied to his methods and goals

[jpgray]

October surprises, dirty tricks, excoriating Jimmy Carter on a very unfair basis, making corrupt alliances with corporations to obtain media cover, providing a facade of platitudes to cover up unpopular right-wing economic policies, the list goes on. To hold up his symbolizing of "hope" and "change" as an example, one can't ignore what allowed that to happen. It wasn't simply that he declared himself to represent "hope" and "change," as almost every politician tries to mine those buzzwords for all they're worth. His disingenuous campaign strategy and his collusion with the money centers of politics via a very regressive platform allowed that PR blitz to succeed. To claim his "hopefulness" existed wholly outside of all this Machiavellian backdrop simply isn't plausible. To emulate Reagan's brand of image-marketing, you'd have to throw a lot of progressive values under the bus. It isn't repeatable otherwise, though the DLC have been trying to repeat it with a more half-hearted sell-out position for a very long time.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

1. Yes, arguing that Reagan's success can be emulated by a Democrat is like

arguing that the key to Democratic Presidential popularity is getting al Queada to destroy the Sears tower.

Just because something happened doesn't make it replicable, or even a good idea.

We do not have the option of running on racial exclusion like Reagan.

What really kills me is these people trashing Clinton while orgasming over Reagan's brilliant political skills.

They won the same number of Presidential elections, and Bill didn't have Reagan's advantage of the option of running on white resentment of black people.

[FredScuttle]

2. Well said

Genghis Khan was pretty successful in land-grabbing, but that doesn't mean we have to emulate the Mongol Hordes to achieve success.

[tishaLA]

3. Of course, he didn't say it had anything to do with hope

And he said that it was a transformative change. It was. It wasn't positive transformative change, but it was transformative.

Sen Obama never endorsed, implicitly or explicitly, Reagan's goals.

[jpgray]

4. It's not just Obama--other Democrats have made similar statements

In my view, some qualification would make the intent of those statements more clear. Such as explicitly disagreeing with his goals and methods if one is going to hold up his strategy as an example. But if one does disagree with those key aspects that allowed his "change" to succeed, why use him as an example anyway?

[tishaLA]

5. Because when talking to newspaper editors,

as he was, it was an historical example they could understand. FWIW, and I have posted this too many times already, Ron Reagan Jr agrees with Sen Obama's sentiments: "They both came along at times when society was on the cusp of change and they are both agents of change," Ron Reagan Jr, told the Huffington Post. "As far as Barack Obama being a similar agent of change, that remains to be seen. But what I do see him saying is that we are in a historical moment right now like the 60s and 80s. And I think he's right. We are overdue for a cultural shift."

[jpgray]

6. I just wish the motivation and context were crystal clear

Because it would easily avoid the craziness we're seeing on DU now if the statement had been -somewhat- qualified. And that goes for other candidates too. Just a small, short qualification that Reagan's methods and goals are not admired by the person using him as an example. You may see that as obvious, but if you don't like or trust the candidate, that qualification makes a big difference.