Obama's ACTUAL WORDS Regarding Reagan on Stephanopoulis Today --->>>

I see some Billary supporters are adopting Clintonian tactics. Below is what Obama actually said on This Week this morning, in response to Steph's question about his Reagan remarks. (Transcript by me, video at link).







edit -->> Below is the transcript of Obama's ACTUAL WORDS in the original editorial board meeting, which the Clintons seized on and clumsily distorted.

Any fool can see that he was attempting to praise Reagan. And, in context, it was to a conservative editorial board--whom he won over...and now takes it back...they should take back the endorsement.

the same point he made in his book last year.
I can't figure out if people are really so blindly angry at Obama that they actually believe he was praising Reagan's policies, or if everyone spinning it that way is just looking for a cheap shot.

not blindly. Didn't you get the email....the guy is a "terrarist." /SARCASM

more progressive

attempt to demean us, marginalize us because we are just "angry."

I am angry. I am angry that Obama is getting a free pass after he accused the Clintons of racism--and attempted to divide us even further just to get votes.

I am angry that Obama gets a free pass on his war votes, and on his speeches about Iran and his convenient absences from key votes, while Clinton is held to a higher standard.

I am angry that Clinton is vilified by the right-wing media and instead of objecting, Obama uses it to lie to the voters.

YOu are damn right I am angry. I was angry then and I am angry now...and, no that is no reason to marginalize me--like the freepers do .

was the first person to object to Bill Clinton, and Clyburn said that Bill Clinton should be careful how he chose his words, and Obama said nothing. That is what I remember happened.

And you notice he waited weeks before he disavowed the lies and distortions, by then it was too late.

2004 campaign?

I want to puke every time she gets on CNN as dem pundit...who the hell does she represent as a dem

to make dishonest attacks against Obama. What he said today is the same as what he said before.

It is you who appears to have a very gullible streak and will believe the distortions and back-tracks the Obama camp along with the media feed you.

Not the way he changed American politics. Not how Reagan made people feel. His policies. Show me which policy Obama praised. I'll be waiting here all day because there's no such quote and you know it.

Someone else posted the quote of what Obama originally said and it was the same exact point he made today. Why don't you post a quote? Go ahead. I'll wait right here while you go find it.

I just added it.

Thanks for proving my point.

:hi:

unsaid it. He does this every time he makes a boo-boo. And when he doesn't win, he crys foul. Yep, just like what we've got now.
Only thing is now we can criticize Bush but not BO.

and he made the same point a year ago in his book. He hasn't had to "unsaid" anything. He had to make a dumbed-down explanation for people looking for any excuse to attack .

and the politics of personal assassination through deception.

Hillary Clinton has paid dearly for that so I'm puzzled why her supporters try to continue it here.

This is growing tiresome. I wish some of you would take some time to consider the actual facts instead of the distortions. Below is what Obama actually said:

"you know, 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 people just tapped into -- he 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."


The 60's and 70's people were fighting for civil rights. They were fighting to end Vietnam. They were fighting. Excess? Clarity? Optimism?

And you are letting him get a free pass? What the hell do you think he is saying?>

Yes there was the anti-war and civil rights movements, but there was also chaos, riots, assassinations, drugs, etc. There was a desire for change on the part of the very voters Obama is discussing, the independents, and those Democrats who crossed over to vote for Reagan. It's not as simplistic as you suggest. Obama is talking about the history of modern American politics. He also mentions Kennedy as seizing on an earlier seismic shift. He sees the same opportunity now, for a great sea change in American politics. What is so hard to understand?

traction for himself.

He mentions Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan and Clinton in terms of the mood of the electorate and where we find ourselves today. You read it, right? It's right above in the OP if you'd like to read it again.

He is using Reagan-esque language to describe how Reagan got elected.

Allow me to translate:

"with all the excesses of the 60s and the 70s"

Civil rights legislation, voting rights legislation, women's rights, gay rights, etc. Because of these "excesses," white males, who were used to getting the advantage without doing anything to deserve it, now had competition. They didn't like that. Reagan tapped into their feelings of the pendulum having swung too far. BUT IT HADN'T! (At least I can't imagine someone calling themselves a Progressive thinking that it had.) But Reagan told these folks what they wanted to hear, that these uppity blacks, hispanics, women, gays, etc., were getting an "unfair advantage" thanks to "government programs" and he was going to put a stop to it.

"and government had grown and grown"

Government (*domestic* spending, not military spending, mind you) was "too big" and THAT was a big cause of America's problems in 1980. Shrink government, cut taxes, cut domestic spending, and the economy will get better and America's problems will go away. That's what those words meant to Ronald Reagan. Why couldn't Obama say that Reagan *convinced* people that government was too big, that government was the problem, instead of stating it like it is a fact???

"but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating."

This is the whole "unaccountable bureaucrats are a big cause of America's problems" and another element in Reagan's anti-government and pro-private enterprise philosophy. Obama is saying that government wasn't being very accountable--do you believe that was true in 1980? If you do, can you still call yourself progressive? I don't.


"I think people just tapped into -- he 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."

This strikes me as disingenuous on a couple of levels. First, if people "want clarity" do you feed them a pack of lies about welfare queens and government programs being the cause of problems for the working Joe? To you tell them government is the problem, as a device to get support for tax cuts and slashing domestic spending (that benefits real people) and boosts in military spending (that benefits the military-industrial complex)?

Do you capitalize on peoples nostalgia (at that time) for the 1950s, but use it as a justification to REMOVE and DISMANTLE so many of the government programs that created the exploding middle class of that decade? (Public support for higher ed; labor rights, minimum wage, etc., etc.) Sure, we may "want a return" to some mythical past where things were better, but keep in mind what else was different about that longed-for past: simple rules that said if you were female, or a person of color, or the wrong religion, you simply did not get to compete with white males for most of the American dream.

Then there's "that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing." Not "that seemed to be missing." Not "that they convinced people was missing." He states it as a truth. That had been missing.

On that, I simply call, bullshit. It is Reagan Republican code-words for "All this health, safety and environmental regulation is making it hard for entrepreneurs to create jobs. All these government programs are giving poor people an incentive not to work. We're going to fix all that!" It is the same crap Republicans are pandering with today.

Please. PUH-LEEZ! How is Obama NOT saying that these things ARE this way--the way Reagan and Republicans to this day describe them?

that I found so troubling. Rather than simply state, "I disagreed with Reagan's actual policies, but Reagan did much to influence political discourse and that is what I would like to see Dems do" he actually used a great deal of Reaganspeak which implied approval. He had his chance to be clear and failed.

Not becoming to someone who claims to be a democrat!

The Clintons may want to try honesty and campaigning on the issues for a change. It may help them for the remainder of the primary season.

That's why she doesn't want to talk about it, why she obfuscates on her positions. If we talk about the issues, she loses.

both Obama and Clinton are very close on the issues. I would love to talk issues, instead we are hit with "racism" "politics of old" crap.

Political ploys that work on people who don't seem to want to see past the superficial.

Are we staying or are we going? Or would she split the difference? Are we REALLY bringing the troops home, or are we just going to BEGIN to bring the troops home? She says BEGIN. What does that mean in real terms? And the permanent bases? The World's Largest Embassy? The agreement to hand over the oil fields to multinationals? Where does she stand? I'd love to know.

Hillary Clinton has announced her plan to end the war in Iraq and urged President Bush to act immediately.

Our message to the president is clear. It is time to begin ending this war -- not next year, not next month -- but today.
"We have heard for years now that as the Iraqis stand up, our troops will stand down. Every year, we hear about how next year they may start coming home. Now we are hearing a new version of that yet again from the president as he has more troops in Iraq than ever and the Iraqi government is more fractured and ineffective than ever.
"Well, the right strategy before the surge and post-escalation is the same: start bringing home America's troops now."
If President Bush does not end the war, when Hillary Clinton is president, she will. Her three-step plan would bring our troops home, work to bring stability to the region, and replace military force with a new diplomatic initiative to engage countries around the world in securing Iraq's future. Hillary has been fighting every day in the Senate to force the president to change course. And today she described how she would bring the war to an end.
Starting Phased Redeployment within Hillary's First Days in Office: The most important part of Hillary's plan is the first: to end our military engagement in Iraq's civil war and immediately start bringing our troops home. As president, one of Hillary's first official actions would be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, her Secretary of Defense, and her National Security Council. She would direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration. She would also direct the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs to prepare a comprehensive plan to provide the highest quality health care and benefits to every service member -- including every member of the National Guard and Reserves -- and their families.
Securing Stability in Iraq as we Bring our Troops Home. As president, Hillary would focus American aid efforts during our redeployment on stabilizing Iraq, not propping up the Iraqi government. She would direct aid to the entities -- whether governmental or non-governmental -- most likely to get it into the hands of the Iraqi people. She would also support the appointment of a high level U.N. representative -- similar to those appointed in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Kosovo -- to help broker peace among the parties in Iraq.
A New Intensive Diplomatic Initiative in the Region. In her first days in office, Hillary would convene a regional stabilization group composed of key allies, other global powers, and all of the states bordering Iraq. The- mission of this group would be to develop and implement a strategy to create a stable Iraq. It would have three specific goals:

• Non-interference. Working with the U.N. representative, the group would work to convince Iraq's neighbors to refrain from getting involved in the civil war.
• Mediation. The group would attempt to mediate among the different sectarian groups in Iraq with the goal of attaining compromises on fundamental points of disputes.
• Reconstruction funding. The members of the group would hold themselves and other countries to their past pledges to provide funding to Iraq and will encourage additional contributions to meet Iraq's extensive needs.
As our forces redeploy out of Iraq, Hillary would also organize a multi-billion dollar international effort -- funded by a wide range of donor states -- under the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to address the needs of Iraqi refugees. And as we replace military force with diplomacy and global leadership, Hillary will not lose sight of our very real strategic interests in the region. She would devote the resources we need to fight terrorism and will order specialized units to engage in narrow and targeted operations against al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in the region.

http://hillaryclinton.com/issues/iraq/

"start bringing our troops home"

But when will she finish bringing them home? Next year? Or will it be 50 years as McCain and others have suggested?

From this sentence, it appears she has no intention of actually ending our involvement in Iraq >

... Hillary will not lose sight of our very real strategic interests in the region.She would devote the resources we need to fight terrorism and will order specialized units to engage in narrow and targeted operations against al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in the region.

That sounds just like the Bush policy now. How is it different?

is the exact same stance as both Obama and Edwards (except Edwards has them based across the border, Obama's is the same as Clinton's). But, surely, you must know that--wouldn't you?

Tell me, how is Obama's plan any different than Clinton's?

Ending the War in Iraq

Judgment You Can Trust: As a candidate for the United States Senate in 2002, Obama put his political career on the line to oppose going to war in Iraq, and warned of “an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences.” Obama has been a consistent, principled and vocal opponent of the war in Iraq:

In 2003 and 2004, he spoke out against the war on the campaign trail;

In 2005, he called for a phased withdrawal of our troops;

In 2006, he called for a timetable to remove our troops, a political solution within Iraq, and aggressive diplomacy with all of
Iraq's neighbors;

In January 2007, he introduced legislation in the Senate to remove all of our combat troops from Iraq by March 2008.

In September 2007, he laid out a detailed plan for how he will end the war as president.

Bring Our Troops Home: Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

"He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."

I know you want to twist stuff to make it look like Obama has a better stance on Iraq, but it is the same.

He's unambiguous about bringing all combat troops home within a specified period, about no permanent bases. And protecting the embassy is a very different mission than "fighting terrorism." It is not the same at all. He says IF AL QAEDA ATTEMPTS TO BUILD A BASE IN IRAQ - that is a very specific IF. Not the same, not even close.

"We don't need debate; we don't need non-binding resolutions; we need to end this war. In order to get the Iraqi people to take responsibility for their country, we must show them that we are serious about leaving, and the best way to do that is to actually start leaving." -- John Edwards

There is no military solution to the chaos in Iraq. Instead, the Iraqi people must solve the problem politically by taking responsibility for their country. By leaving Iraq, America will prompt the Iraqi people, regional powers, and the entire international community to find the political solution that will end the sectarian violence and create a stable Iraq. We must show the Iraqis that we are serious about leaving by actually starting to leave, with an immediate withdrawal of 40,000-50,000 troops and a complete withdrawal within nine to ten months. We should leave behind in Iraq only a brigade of 3,500 to 5,000 troops to protect the embassy and possibly a few hundred troops to guard humanitarian workers.

We can only achieve these steps through legislative action. Edwards strongly supports the supplemental spending bill passed by both Houses of Congress and vetoed by President Bush that funds the troops with a timetable for withdrawal. He has called for Congress to respond to the President's veto by sending back the same bill—and doing this as many times as it takes for the President to end the war. Edwards supports the following specific steps:

Stop the Escalation and Immediately Start the Drawdown
Edwards opposed President Bush's "surge" and supports immediately drawing down 40,000 to 50,000 combat troops.

Require Troops to be Ready
We should prohibit funding for any new troops that do not meet real readiness standards and that have not been properly trained and equipped. American tax dollars should be used to train and equip our troops, not to escalate the war.

Clarify the Lack of Legal Foundation for the War
The 2002 authorization did not give President Bush the power to use U.S. troops to police a civil war. Edwards believes that Congress should make it clear that President Bush exceeded his authority long ago. The president now needs to end the war and ask Congress for new authority to manage the withdrawal of the U.S. military presence and to help Iraq achieve stability.

Withdraw Combat Troops within Nine to Ten Months
Edwards believes we should completely withdraw all combat troops from Iraq within nine to ten months and prohibit permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq. After withdrawal, we should retain sufficient forces in Quick Reaction Forces located outside Iraq, in friendly countries like Kuwait, to prevent an Al Qaeda safe haven, a genocide, or regional spillover of a civil war.

"After withdrawal, we should retain sufficient forces in Quick Reaction Forces located outside Iraq, in friendly countries like Kuwait, to prevent an Al Qaeda safe haven, a genocide, or regional spillover of a civil war".

There you go.

Again, that is VERY SPECIFIC, whereas Clinton won't say when, if ever, we are ending the occupation. She'll only say that she'd BEGIN to bring the troops home. That's weaselly. You could say we're BEGINNING to bring the troops home TODAY, since I'm sure a few of them came home today for one reason or another. The difference is, she won't commit to ending the occupation. She carefully selects her words to give the appearance that that is what she favors but that don't commit her to anything concrete.

And that is really all I have time for of this argument today. Carry on, I'm sure someone else will be happy to argue wtih you. But thanks for talking about issues instead of all that other nonsense.

in the withdrawl. You are attempting to nitpick and distinguish what is not there.

I hope, however, you consider what she said, and really learned something rather than attempt just to find disagreement were there is none.

It sounds like you didn't really want to talk about the issues after all.

"It is time to begin ending this war -- not next year, not next month -- but today"
"Her three-step plan would bring our troops home, work to bring stability to the region, and replace military force with a new diplomatic initiative to engage countries around the world in securing Iraq's future."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/07/we_can_bring_the_troops_home.html

"As President, I will convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, my Secretary of Defense and my National Security Council and direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting within the first 60 days of my Administration.
We should do this as quickly as we can, consistent with preserving our security and protecting our troops. I have been long worried that the Pentagon is not adequately planning for the withdrawal of our troops because the White House does not want them to plan for withdrawal."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/21/debate.main/index.html

Obama responded saying, "I want to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in, but I want to make sure that we get all of our combat troops out as quickly as we can safely."


While there are some differences between their plans, both candidates have talked about keeping a residual force in Iraq to battle Al-Qaeda and protect U.S. interests in the country. Both candidates have also said that it is in the U.S. "national interest" to counter the influence of Iran.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/12/clinton_vs_obama_the_fact_chec.html

"slink into a corner." My opinion and observations are no less accurate than yours--and for you to attempt to dehumanize me so you can attack me is not becoming a "progressive."

certainly doesn't speak well for you.

You are divisive and without a complete knowledge of the facts.

You don't debate the true issues and spread falsehoods which is not appropriate!

and conversely, I have seen Gore's and Clinton's.


And you f'in show me where I called Obama homophobic. YOu are distorting MY statement in an attempt to what...Make you right and me wrong?

My opinion is based on facts, on Obama's own actions.

Your posts are divisive, vitriolic, and distortions. And you owe me an apology.

As "any fool can see."

be. You people won't even listen to a sensible, intelligent,or meaningful post if it doesn't fit into the BO doctrine

of a cultist.

But perhaps the most interesting offering was when he tried to place his candidacy into a historical context. Which elections does Obama see as analogous to 2008? And with which presidents does he share personal similarities? That would be John Kennedy in 1960 (hardly surprising) and Ronald Reagan in 1980 (more daring). But not, it should be noted, Bill Clinton in 1992.

In fact, Obama offered praise for the Gipper, lauding him for tapping into the country's concern with the growth and "excesses" of the federal government, and its desire to "return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship" -- hardly a welcomed interpretation within progressive circles. Said the Illinois Democrat:

"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."***


()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()

As well as >>>>>>>

In the best part of Obama's The Audacity of Hope, Obama, with some reservations, pours even more praise on our 40th president.


That Reagan's message found such a receptive audience spoke not only to his skills as a communicator; it also spoke to the failures of liberal government, during a

period of economic stagnation, to give middle-class voters any sense that it was fighting for them. For the fact was that government at every level had become too

cavalier about spending taxpayer money. Too often, bureacracies were oblivious to the cost of their mandates. A lot of liberal rhetoric did seem to value rights and

values over duties and responsibilities.

(Obama then veers off this brilliant thought pattern and digs a bit into Reagan's legacy.)

Audacity of Hope peaks early. The above passage appears on page 31.

He's back tracking as usual.. How is going to spin REZKO??

(as Hillary claimed)

2. You must consider yourself a fool then. ;-)

Of course you are the one who believes that Clinton was racist when he said fairy tale...double standard?

Clinton is reamed for anything and Obama has no responsibility for anything.

And please show me where I said I believe Clinton was racist for saying fairy tale. Liar?

"Barack Obama had the judgment to oppose the war in Iraq. And he warned at the time that it would divert us from Afghanistan and al Qaeda, and now we see the effect of that," Axelrod said. "Sen. Clinton made a different judgment."
...
Axelrod was responding to reporters' questions about the Pakistan situation and whether it enhanced assertions that Clinton's foreign policy experience may make her more fit to serve as commander in chief.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/28/clinton.obama/index.html

There it is. He responded to a reporter's question, stating a fact-that if we followed Obama's judgement on the Iraq war, al Qaeda wouldn't have been as strong as they now are in Afghanistan. Hillary voted for the war. You don't like it? Too bad. Nearly 4,000 of our troops and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis wouldn't have died, either. All because of people like Hillary who allowed Bush to invade Iraq.

And he warned at the time that it would divert us from Afghanistan and al Qaeda, and now we see the effect of that," Axelrod said. "Sen. Clinton made a different judgment."

He said more, I don't have all the quote, but it is clear that he was saying that what killed Bhutto was that we diverted attention from Afghansitan with Iraq and that is what caused her death...it could not be more clearer...and of course Clinton's judgment was part of that diversion.


What surprises me about your response is that you can read all sorts of negative evil characteristics in everything Clinton or her surrogates do. But, when the evidence is before your very eyes, you ignore it and pretend it is not there. Everyone who saw Axelrod saw what he said and there was outrage. Obama later attempted to mitigate it, and twisted what Axelrod said in that attempt.

It shows a lack of historical knowledge, a really low blow as Clinton was her friend, and just plain ugly dirty divisive politics. YOu can ignore it all you want and pretend that it is not there. That's fine.

I would like to see the ACTUAL QUOTE, rather than your recollection of what you thought he said.

Going into Iraq DID divert us from Afghanistan and al Qaeda. Hillary voted for that. He didn't say she was responsible for Bhutto's assassination. He said the conditions, due to the fact that we diverted our attention from Afghanistan/al Qaeda, affected what happened to Bhutto.

I'm surprised you're buying the Clinton spin.

is a lie. Iraq has nothing to do with Pakistan insability. To suggest that is to be ignorant of history.

And to suggest that it was Clinton's vote that helped to cause her death is BS and a horrific thing to say to someone who was her friend.

Obama and his team will say anything to win. Even resort to calling the Clintons racist.

instability shows your lack of understanding of the whole situation.

It's a fact that invading Iraq took our focus off al Qaeda (on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border). For you not to understand THAT shows you're uninformed and so I'm not surprised you think Axelrod said Hillary was responsible for Bhutto's death.

And please show me ONE person who called the Clintons racist. Thanks.

He criticized Bill for not having a visionary message, not making real change and adopting Reagan's message.

What I find fascinating is the complete failure among those people so profoundly offended by his mention of Reagan to actually reckon with the argument he was making. A shorter version of that argument might be: "We need to do for liberalism what Reagan did for conservatism." And Obama is saying that we HAVE THE CHANCE TO DO THAT.

Precisely right. The other part of his argument is, "it was a singular opportunity in American history to change the course, and this election is another."

And the Clintons' Distortion of that is what really pissed me off.

I don't know if it will be enough to keep Billary from the nomination, but I hope so.

He should have done a better job of making himself clear the first time. That he didn't, sorry, but I *do* attribute it to an attempt to invoke Reagan to get independents and conservative Dems to lean his way. I think he's trying to butter the bread on both sides with this one.

Edwards and Clinton had it right in SC's debate last week.

They are masters of obfuscation.

It's not what he was implying before, in my opionion.

If what he says today is what he really means, then I'm glad.

I just hope that everyone on DU can cool it so that we all work together in the general.

I woke up this morning remembering how Dems were so divided in 1968 that Richard Nixon, the most unlikeable candidate in the history of the country, was elected President.

So, Obama supporters and Hillary supporters and Edwards supporters, let's don't let that happen again.

What do you think he was implying? Seriously. Please be specific.

It was January 1996.
It was in his State of the Union address to Congress.
Whey you said "Bill Clinton said the era of small government is over" you were either lying or don't know what you are talking about.



http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/other/sotu.html

n/t

How so very convenient when Obama is pandering to republicans to accuse Clinton of declaring that the era of small government is over.

This big misspeak of his just fits in so very nicely with his pandering, now doesn't it.

What he said is what he said. This is not rocket science, you know.

My apologies.

Clinton did not say what Obama claims.

As I stated above. It does not change his argument one bit, as I said. So stop attempting to distort Obama's words, as the Clintons have been doing in recent days. How about that?

Then I gave my opinion of why he was incorrect.

But carry on. I'm done with you.

I am one of those Boomers who won't get over himself. Obama began his campaign attacking the fights since the 60's and for us to step aside for "him" and his new type of politics.

When Obama brings up Reagan and views as positive that Reagan was able to get some Dems to vote against their self-interests to form a new coalition, I feel a great need to remind everyone that Reagan was put in power by Jesse Helms and almost their first action was to cut Food Stamps. Mean spirited, cruel, anti-gay, anti-women, anti-poor, anti-black. No thank you, Obama. I have a long memory.

for the first-wave boomers to step aside. Sixteen years is quite enough time for one cohort to hold the office. The struggles are different now.

More than any candidate, my concern is with what the battles really were/are. The attack on Food Stamps under Reagan is mirrored this week with RW claims that Food Stamps are causing obesity among the poor!

Obama wants us to quit fighting all those old fights. We are far from victory with most of them, many are still under active attack. Given his direct statements and his weasel words in other areas, I am not confident entrusting these issues to Obama going forward. Which ones are you willing to risk: hunger, poverty, social justice, civil rights, human rights, family rights, reproductive, gender, orientation, housing, courts, social security, privacy, militarism, and the many others?

on every one of those struggles you mention. Clinton I sold us out on a lot of them.

It's interesting that you left racial equality off your list. Just having a black president will advance equality more than anything Clinton II could do on any of the issues you mention.

I have posted a longer list of these issues in a thread a few weeks ago. Note that I prefer Edwards.

"Just having a black president ..." is not true on its face value. Alan Keyes would be a simple counter argument. But I get your intent, although I am not so sure with Obama.

And it doesn't change anything about his argument.

and he is using code words.

Please just go away.

this is so petty, and folks are being so intellectually dishonest on these boards, that it's not even funny. I will never forget this incident....when folks thought that twisting other folks' words was the style. You better pray that it ain't Hillary or someone other than Obama that gets the nom.....cause when she opens up her mouth and the GOP distorts her words, I won't give a shit.

So much dishonesty, so little time. :eyes:

a mere TWO key words: "BAD IDEAS."

Reading those transcripts there's a lot of verbiage (which, by its volume, confuses and confounds the listener. If it takes too long to explain, you better come up with something else, in this short-attention-span world). I wished and hoped that Obama would have SPECIFIED - leaving absolutely NO DOUBT - that while the republi-CONS did appear to be "the party of ideas" - those ideas were still BAD IDEAS. He needed to come out with it leaving NO DOUBT and NOTHING open to interpretation. Coulda done it with TWO WORDS. Complexity doesn't go over well with the simpletons that make up most of America's electorate. They don't have either the time or the patience to try to understand deeper, more complex things. That's why John Kerry didn't resonate with as many people as was needed. That's why the term "plain-spoken" is considered a compliment, a positive attribute, NOT a negative. Anything else just doesn't sink in.

Unfortunately, it has to be dumbed down to match the receptive capacity of the idiots in this country who are so easily swayed by the george bushes of the world. EVERYONE agrees he's "plain-spoken" - he uses little words, he can't pronounce even the semi-big ones, he talks in "folksy-isms." Nobody remembers his Ivy League, high-fallutin' Harvard and Yale days (he probably doesn't either, as pickled as his brain is by now), because he doesn't sound like it. He sounds like a simpleton, and unfortunately, THAT RESONATES. That made him acceptable, not threatening, not smarter-than-thou, which bothers and threatens the small-minded. They want to see themselves in that leader, that candidate. They want to be able to relate and to identify with that candidate. And if that candidate is out of their league, deep down, I suspect they resent it.

I think that's one reason why Hillary is so threatening. Nobody likes a smarty-pants. Her husband (Mr. Yale, Mr. Rhodes scholar) diffused that because he talked with a folksy accent and people were lulled sufficiently by that to think he was a reg'lar guy. People who are "too smart for their own good" tend, in too many eyes, to be untrustworthy, bad, negative, superior, elitist. Not Main Street. I think, psychologically, it gives lesser achievers a complex and they don't like that. I think people like Hillary give many other Americans a complex about how much she's achieved, how smart she is, and how far she's come on her own efforts and smarts and creativity and hard work - because deep-down it reminds them uncomfortably that they haven't made much out of their own lives. In effect, she makes them look bad and that makes them feel bad about themselves. And if THAT kind of feeling is evoked, she's S.O.L., and her campaign is D.O.A.

We are a nation that's been dumbed down. We're trained like Pavlov's dogs to expect that the problem will be solved in a half-hour, or an hour, because that's what we've seen on TV for decades. We're trained that you just take some pill if you've got problems and Poof! Problem solved. We're trained that you drive up to a window and get food in just a coupla minutes. We're trained that the brain-teaser questions on game shows are about TV sitcoms and other cultural white-bread. We're trained that the geek, the egghead, the smarty-pants, is the unsympathetic character. How many times have we seen stories about our schools - where there are legions of kids who have come to regard making good grades and doing well and following the rules as a bad thing. The "teacher's pet" or the "goodie two-shoes" is resented and derided, and probably targeted for a lot of black eyes and bloody noses on the playground. The dumb-ass bully is the hero. The nasty punk is the one looked up to. The rogue, the lone gunslinger, the outsider who doesn't follow the rules and doesn't make the grade is the one admired. Somehow we like the lone cowboy or outlaw and his solo swagger. Dumb blondes are far less threatening than the smart girl. Homer Simpson is lovable even if STOOOOOOpid.

Getting back to Obama, ALL HE HAD TO DO to avoid looking like a reagan fan was to add two words to what sounded like a praise of reagan's approach - "BAD IDEAS." He never did. Therefore, it could EASILY be inferred that he approved of those ideas or thought they were a good, positive, beneficial thing. I hope he gets the subtlety thing. I hope to God he does! The bad guys know it in their bones. They speak in code, and they know all about inferring other meanings. Evidently it's a lesson Obama still has to learn.

Believe me, I like Obama. I'm still undecided with California's primary still to come, and I could easily see myself voting for him. I believe he's better than ANY republi-CON the bad guys can throw at us. I'd like to see him succeed for many reasons. But when I heard that soundbite of his, about reagan coming along at a time when the country was allegedly ready for him and how the republi-CONS were "the party of ideas," my IMMEDIATE reaction was one of revulsion. It pissed me off. I got the immediate message that, because he did not specify those were BAD IDEAS, then they must, by process of elimination, be good ideas. He should have clarified that IMMEDIATELY. And he didn't. And if I'M favorably predisposed toward him and I hear that and get pissed off, then that reaction can happen to other people, too. Maybe a LOT of other people.

And it frustrates me and makes me awfully nervous. I think, ESPECIALLY now when we're talking to OUR OWN, NO Democrat has ANY business whatsoever of speaking about ronald reagan and the republi-CONS in ANYTHING other than the most derisive and negative of terms. Those terms can be stated diplomatically, but they still need to be stated. And FLAT OUT, too, so there's absolutely NO wiggle-room for misinterpretation. Because at the heart of it, what we should be about, as Democrats, is UN-reagan. OVERTURNING the "reagan revolution." DISMANTLING the house that reagan built. NEUTRALIZING any positive effect reagan had. REVERSING the reagan trends. And MOST IMPORTANT, REFRAMING all the reagan achievements in a bad light so they become defacto negatives. We need to do the "demonizing liberals" treatment on reagan and the republi-CONS, so their very name becomes a dirty word - JUST LIKE THEY DID TO US. And Obama did not do that. In fact, he inadvertently added further luster to it because he DID leave lots of room for interpretation, and a mushy message. NOT GOOD.

Besides, all the ratchet-jawing and rhetoric after the fact to correct a misinterpreted statement is so much bullshit. The problem should have been diffused THEN AND THERE, IMMEDIATELY, and not allowed to sit and fester (like the swiftboat attacks on Kerry that Kerry sat on his ass and did nothing about and let metastasize like a cancer). Nobody has time to agonize through a lot of explanatory and presumably mitigating rhetoric later on, long after the first impression was made and was allowed to sink in. It's too late. The damage was already done. The message was already delivered, the first time. Besides, the people you need to reach to correct the record already got pissed off and may not even be around anymore to hear the days-later corrections.

I found it most disappointing. Obama should have known better. I hope TO GOD he knows better by now.

He framed Reagan in a way that legitimized him. Reagan was an evil awful man. Just as you could say Hitler helped give the Germans self-respect and improved economy, you can say Reagan served a constructive purpose. But, the constructive purpose is far and away overshadowed by his many, many misdeeds.

He didn't say any such thing. He said Reagan seized on a seismic shift in American thought and used it to get crossover votes. He in no way said it was constructive.

Sure, on an intellectual level he has a point, but clearly saying that Reagan brought about a new direction, was part of the party of ideas, and challenged conventional wisdom are all appealing traits. Not only that, he didn't even say the tax cuts were wrong. He said, basically, we have different issues. There is a place for an objective evaluation of Reagan, but not in a campaign, not when Reagan truly hurt so many people.

He could easily have made a value judgment on what Reagan did, but he conveniently left that out, because his intention was to win favor with independents who liked Reagan and crossover Republicans.

I sense he is trying to inject the concept that there are many ways of doing things and that is no such thing as the only one correct way or answer about anything. Becoming stale and rigid in our thinking is what often gets us in trouble. Accepting other peoples ideas as other peoples ideas even when we had maybe even the same idea is how we make progress.

Obama doesn't seem so dimwitted to me because whoever wins the nod will need a wide consensus to get anything done. He is just sowing seeds :-)

They were simply taken in. Personally, I'm glad that Obama is trying to bring them back to the Dem party, the party that actually represents their interests.

Reagan was awful for this country, but I'm glad that we're talking more openly about healing and moving on from his mistakes.

Jesse Helms was the major reason Reagan contended in 1976 and was elected in 1980. Helms and many of his followers were and still are evil.

was he trying to finally bring our country together? He senses that most Americans are tired of partisan bickering and they want the politicians in Washingtoin to work together to get our country's many problems solved.

Only time will tell if Obama's politcal instincts are on the money or not. But as a partisan Democrat I must say that I have mixed feelings about working with the other side. Nevertheless, I fell that Obama is best for our country right now.

without value judgment on the Reagan administration. Now that he has been challenged and sees how offensive his comments were to many Democrats, he's backing away from his ambiguous statement. He's having it both ways---he's pleased the independents and crossover Republicans and also his Democratic supporters, or potential supporters.

...Most Americans have lost the ability/confidence to read and interpret for themselves. They need someone to digest it for them. So they're easily misled.

It's a tragedy for our Democracy and I'm really disappointed to see Democrats taking advantage of it.

We live in a television democracy now, where any position or idea that doesn't fit on a bumper sticker will be distorted until it does. This is really part of the same argument Gore made in "The Assault on Reason", and it so sad to see happening in our own party. Watching Hillary actually engage in that process profoundly changed the way I thought of her.

Lather.
Rinse.
Repeat.

Of course he's expanding on his original message because he received so much flak on it.

Go to your local bookstore. Find his book. Go to the index. Find "Reagan, Ronald." Read the truth, especially pages 156-157.

And he also criticizes Reagan's policies as President. It should have been obvious to anyone who read the similar point made in Obama's book that he wasn't claiming Reagan was a good President.

say something entirely different than the smear job painted up by the Clinton mob.

Imagine my surprise.

is Obamas opinions , not fact or precise history and for many people to continue to lay out what Obama said is nothing more than a lame attempt to turn what Obamas opinions were into fact .

This tells me you were as well as many others were not around during those times , Obama was 22 then .

His second attempt to clarify his first drivel does not explain a thing , it's backing up with an attempt to make this go away .

I would suggest you and Obamas followers go back and read what happened before Reagan came along and how Reagan got the election and what Reagan did after and you must include what the people were feeling at that time . It is nothing at all like Obama makes it sound , this is the problem that no one looks at , you look at the surface and that's all .

Perhaps if you understood the reality of that time you would not be so quick to defend Obama and see how insane his rantings are .

The only thing he proves is that democrats try to get along and republicans are for the top cats and nobody else, Where would Obama be without the same democrats that helped Reagan...food for thought

republicans and party of ideas in the same sentence no matter what if you're a Democrat.

You'd rather move to Albania and apply for citizenship.

obama said paraphrasing that the GOP has been the party of ideas for the last ten to fifteen years? Here is the actual quote from your post and tell me the difference? "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, 15 years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom.

Really, Mr. Obama? The Republicans have been the party of ideas for the past ten to fifteen years? Really, Mr. Obama? Since the economy is the hot topic these days, let’s just look at what President Clinton did for minorities in terms of economic gains — even though Obama dismisses those achievements.

Unemployment Rate for African Americans and Hispanics Remains Historically Low. Under President Clinton, the Hispanic unemployment rate has dropped from 11.3 percent in January 1993 to a record low of 5.8 percent in 1999. The unemployment rate for African Americans has fallen from 14.1 percent in January 1993 to 8.1 percent in 1999–one of the lowest levels on record for African Americans.

Listen, Mr. Obama. If you think that President Clinton accomplished those amazing turnarounds for the economy and for minorities by singing “Kumbayah” with Republicans, you’ve just shown how naive you are.President Clinton signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, which passed Congress without a single Republican vote.

It is further evidence that not only does Obama have no sense of the history of the last half of the 20th century, but also that he really is as conservative as his weak health care plan and far weaker economic stimulus plan have hinted. Then there’s his use of GOP scare-tactic talking points on Social Security, and how he has been embraced by the right — including George Will who last year compared Obama to Ronald Reagan.

It is extremely disturbing to hear, not that Obama admires Reagan, but why he does so. Reagan was not a sunny optimist pushing dynamic entrepreneurship, but a savvy politician using a civil rights backlash to catapult conservatives to power.

Obama and his supporters here in DU,you’ve exposed how uninformed you are about the brutal history of U.S. politics where every progressive step is spattered with the blood, sweat and tears of all who fought so hard for those gains.

This will be my last on reagan and obama cause obama now is linked forever with reagan a known racist and Reagan was a racially divisive and socially regressive president. Ronald Reagan will go down in history as a President who sought actively to set back the cause of civil rights and if that is the president you all want to be associated with, then go for it.....

I do thank you....

Shalom,
Ben David

that means more of us will die.

Oh yeah, that makes me really want to rush right out and vote for him.

:puke:

Read it again. He's talking about the historical context that brought about the "Reagan Revolution." He's not in any way advocating downsizing gov't programs. Please read the actual quote.

So, when it happens for real, remember REAL people like me who are already dangling on the edge, getting pushed off that edge by the likes of him.

Does it matter?

There were a bunch of threads examining Obama's rhetoric that were on the greatest pages before NH. They did not mention the Clintons.

Audacity of Hope page 31:

"That Reagan's message found such a receptive audience spoke not only to his skills as a communicator; it also spoke to the failures of liberal government, during a period of economic stagnation, to give middle-class voters any sense that it was fighting for them. For the fact was government at every level had become to cavalier about spending taxpayer money. Too often bureaucracies were oblivious to the cost of their mandates. A lot of liberal rhetoric did seem to value rights and entitlements over duties and responsibilities. Reagan may have exaggerated the sins of the welfare state, and certainly liberals were right to complain that his domestic policies tilted heavily toward elites, with corporate raiders making tidy profits throughout the eighties while unions were busted and the income for the average working stiff flatlined.

Nevertheless, 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."

Pages 156-157

"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."

What really gets me about that Reagan quote is the "ready for it."
Generally, people don't read sentences like "He was ready" "She was ready" "We were ready" to be neutral with respect to the nature of what subject is ready for. Generally, people are "ready" for good or necessary things.

Even "He was ready to face his death" implies something positive - coming to an inner peace or acceptance about death.

And so that particular unfortunate word colors the entire passage, due to the absence of a repudiation of RR in the passage.

After hearing Obama in the last debate I'm willing to take him at his word that he doesn't find Reagan's policies to have been "good." What we have here is just some unfortunate poor writing.

unless you were looking for something to pick apart.