Like Reagan

Barack Obama tosses off a vague comparison between himself and Ronald Regan and Matt Stoller gets really pissed. I don't really get it. Obama is pretty unambiguously claiming that much as Reagan was a friendly, popular face of a much more conservative governing agenda than the country had seen before, he thinks he can be the friendly, popular face of a much more liberal governing agenda than the country has seen before.

Obama thinks -- as do a lot of people -- that the country may be primed for big change in 2008 the way it was in 1980 and that he's the kind of person who can sell the country on that sort of big change. He may be wrong, either in his assessment of the times or in his assessment of himself, but those are exactly the sort of claims you want to see a leader make on behalf of itself. Those who read the comments section here will know that strong John Edwards partisans like "Petey" frequently compare their man to Reagan, not because they're closet right-wingers but because they think Edwards can dramatically expand the popularity of progressive ideas.

Comments

There's very little Obama could say or do that wouldn't piss Matt Stoller off. He views everything about the guy through a pre-determined negative lens.

Posted by Dan | January 17, 2008 9:29 AM

Well put. In addition, Paul Krugman's protestations aside, the wide popularity of Reagan was only partly due to jingoism, and much more to do with his public speaking skills, understanding of the tremendous importance of reinforcing background images, etc.

It's true that from a liberal perspective, Reagan was an awful President, especially when it comes to union-busting but also on a number of other issues such as the right to choose, affordable housing, etc. But none of this was really appealing; it was much more Reagan's sunny disposition and stories about the pipefitter and so forth.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | January 17, 2008 9:32 AM

Exactly, Matt. This is, I think, the best and most important argument for Obama's candidacy.

You need to claim to be above partisanship -- and offer something genuinely new, both symbolically and substantively -- in order to produce a durable partisan realignment. Neither of the other candidates are likely to produce much realignment. I think Obama might.

Posted by Ted | January 17, 2008 9:32 AM

I think a lot of it is that there is a rump faction of progressives who understandably kind of resent the fact that Ronald Reagan made "liberal" a dirty word. But there's more to it: Since the case that Reagan was some kind of ideological intellectual—the Mikhail Suslov of American Gemeinschaft-nostalgia reaction—is patently ridiculous, defenders of Reagan's world-historical significance tend to fall back on the formulation that Reagan was a "talented" politician. But here's the thing--when you map his skill-set of "talents," you arrive at an inevitable conclusion:

Ronald Reagan was a sociopathic demagogue.

Now, maybe it's fine to compare oneself with a sociopathic demagogue--someone capable of preaching states' rights on the killing field of Goodman, Schwerner, and Chaney; someone who could tell Menachem Begin that he was at Auschwitz when he was on a Hollywood studio lot; someone who could persuade millions that the Sandinistas were coming for us through Harlingen, TX, so we could go kill us some Nicaraguan peasants; someone who said he thought it would be a great time for an outbreak of botulism when poor people in Oakland were being handed out food by the Hearst family; someone who preached small government while blowing the budget and growing the federal bureaucracy.

But I beg to differ. This Reagan-to-Rushmore insanity has got to stop.

Posted by elle loco | January 17, 2008 9:37 AM

No matter what anyone on the left thinks, Reagan was a popular president. For Obama to use that imagery is damn smart politics.

Posted by Rich | January 17, 2008 9:37 AM

I think Stoller is misinterpreting Obama's remarks. In my opinion, Obama described accurately what Reagan voters said at the time. Obama didn't say he agreed with their reasons for electing Reagan.

And in October 2006, Obama said on the same topic,

when I think about great presidents, I think about those who transform how we think about ourselves as a country in fundamental ways...And, you know, there are circumstances in which, I would argue, Ronald Reagan was a very successful president, even though I did not agree with him on many issues,

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/obama_reagan_changed_direction_of_country_in_way_bill_clinton_didnt.php

Posted by Gary Sugar | January 17, 2008 9:38 AM

Stoller has made it perfectly clear he loathes Obama and will jump on the slimmest evidence to proclaim that Barack is the reincarnation of Barry Goldwater. Stoller like a lot of the liberal blogosphere would rather lose elections forever with angry, sharply partisan candidates like Edwards than have a chance to win with a likeable uniting candidate like Obama who not only can get independents and even some Republicans to vote for him one time but could make them part of the Democratic coalition for a long time.

Posted by Ron | January 17, 2008 9:38 AM

"those are exactly the sort of claims you want to see a leader make on behalf of ITself"

Hmm, are you comparing Obama to an android? Or is he now a leading newspaper article - a good solid "it"? Anyway, I am sure we can expect the Hillaroids to jump up and down and howl, in the graceless style of Taylor Marsh, while pretending the Obama wants to "be" Reagan.

Posted by basilbrush | January 17, 2008 9:40 AM

"Stoller like a lot of the liberal blogosphere would rather lose elections forever with angry, sharply partisan candidates like Edwards than have a chance to win with a likeable uniting candidate"

I don't know. I think Edwards supporters are just really gullible about primary season campaign promises.

Posted by Gary Sugar | January 17, 2008 9:43 AM

> I think Stoller is misinterpreting Obama's
> remarks.

It is odd how often Obama's remarks are misinterpreted by people who aren't his ardent supporters. Once the ardent supporters chime in to correct things the remarks always become clear. Of course, those corrections always match up with the supporters' desires and don't bear much relationship to the actual words that Obama uses, but that's OK I guess 'cause Obama is just lying to all the Republicans to get elected.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | January 17, 2008 9:50 AM

Edwards's campaign is an explicit critique of everything Reagan stood for, as Reagan's campaigns were explicit critiques of everything we stand for. Obama's campaign is neither.

Posted by tib | January 17, 2008 9:53 AM

Obama: 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.

That gives Reagan way too much credit. There are much better ways that Obama could have made his point.

People say he's just playing a sly game, but at some point you're going to have to confront and defeat the Republicans, rather than splitting the difference and co-opting them. If Obama slimes his way into the Presidency on centrism, he won't have prepared the nation for dramatic change, and the Republicans will resist him just as viciously as if he'd been straightforwardly left. Give em an inch and they take a mile.

Posted by John Emerson | January 17, 2008 9:56 AM

You reduced clarity when you turned Krugman's reasonable critiques into an apparent personal grudge match because Krugman and Obama, and you reduce clarity when you do the same here. Read my post. There are good reasons for being concerned about the way he talks about Reagan, ones that Rick Perlstein notes.

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/perlsteins-greatest-hits-5-miscasting-reagan-optimistic

I doubt you'd say that Perlstein is 'really pissed' at Obama. You shouldn't say the same about this argument. If you disagree, take me on the merits of the argument.

Posted by Matt Stoller | January 17, 2008 9:58 AM

Agree with your comments, Ron.

tib, I don't think Obama's talking about the substance of the ideas that RWR ran on (and for his part, Obama said he disagrees with Reagan on the issues) but rather just shifting the playing field. Which is important. What's funny here is the reaction people are having so reflexively against a liberal/Dem/Progressive even mentioning Reagan's name. It's almost like we're revisiting last week's race debate (last week: "He said WHAT? That's racial!"; this week: "He said what? He's no Democrat!") He was simply using Reagan, who, like him or not (and I have no love for the man) shifted the direction of the country. Digby acknowledged this in her post, but I think she's still skeptical of the comparison, which is obviously her right.

Posted by Mike P | January 17, 2008 10:01 AM

But Matt (Stoller), it's rather clear that Obama is talking about the ability of Reagan to wield together a new governing majority, which including siphoning off many Democrats in the process. To suggest Obama admires the reasons Reagan ran or the issues he pushed is to be so divorced from reality, it's staggering.

Posted by Jmac | January 17, 2008 10:08 AM

Hey, just out of curiosity, when Reagan sunnily promised to address the gloom and stuff people felt, and finally turn back the damn welfare cheats and beat back the divisive hippies and shrink the parasite gubmit bureaucrats, what actually happened?

Did he actually improve the lives of those who believed he might? Because, you know, that might be important, too. Or maybe not, maybe it was about all that he said he was doing, and all that his admirers said he did, so maybe there's no reason for us bitter fringe extremist sour grapes nutballs to ever want to point out any potential disconnects between manipulation and inspiration.

Posted by El Cid | January 17, 2008 10:08 AM

Stoller's right, Matt; you're not doing his argument justice. See also Digby whose critique is similar. The point seems to be that Obama is embracing a particular version of history (or, at best, *presenting* that version of history and leaving it fuzzy whether he embraces it) about what the 1980 election was about -- a version whose perpetuations serves the purposes of an entirely unrepentant conservative movement.

A black man, waxing about the "excesses" of the 1960s (long-time GOP code for uppity blacks among other things), is a little sickening, I have to say.

Posted by Ryan | January 17, 2008 10:12 AM

Its a pretty difficult path Obama is treading here. The nuances in hearkening back to Reagan can be parsed by the likes of Digby or others who spend the time and have the background to understand the underlying theme, but at face value he is saying Reagan was successful. I can't really think of any major thing Reagan did in his presidency that I would call 'successful' as a Democrat. I am sure he wasn't all bad and when presented with this or that piece of evidence I would agree, but overall Reagan was a horrible president and was successful only in leading us on the road to ruin.

This is also what frustrates me about people who look at the candidates from their ability to accomplish things without even considering what they are trying to accomplish. I have little faith that Obama or Clinton will accomplish much that will help create a lasting or effective progressive majority in this country. So now I am looking at which of the two will be least capable of effecting the worst parts of their agenda on our country. Which candidate is least likely to get "good" Congressional Democrats on board when their bad policies come for vote?

Posted by Ricky | January 17, 2008 10:16 AM

I agree, Matt.

Sadly, Digby had a negative reaction, too, like Stoller.

I think these are uncharitable misreadings. Reagan was a game-changer. Obama believe he can be a game-changer too.

I doubt many people seriously argue that Hillary Clinton will lead any kind of flowering of the Democratic party. Obama may not do that, but he could.

Apart from the fact that Hillary is viewd far as far more liberal than her DLC positions. She may ramp up anti-Republican rhetoric, and she'll be better than any Republican, but she's not going to go as far as her primary rhetoric may make people think.

Posted by riffle | January 17, 2008 10:16 AM

No, I think Obama talks in a not subtle code, and I really believe that Obama as President would look much more like Reagan than FDR. Obama would increase efficiency in the Federal Gov't by cutting spending and streamlining. Any new liberal programs will be at the expense of old programs. This is really why Republicans like Obama and why they will be his allies as President.

I am not sure Matt & Ezra are not attracted to such an ideology, as long as Obama stops wars, Ronald Reagan, Obama's role model, didn't fight many wars.

Posted by bob mcmanus | January 17, 2008 10:18 AM

I think we've seen in the current Congress and Senate exactly how many Democrats are up for a real head-on fight with the Republicans. Honor to Chris Dodd - but look at how Harry Reid and Jay Rockefeller are whoring for Bush and telecom money with the FISA bill. Obama's point is that you need to split off the more reasonable "Republicans" both in the Presidential election, and then in the Senate/House races. That's a realistic strategy, although it means the wilder left-wing partisans will have to lament the party's "lost purity" yet again. Well, tough. Their left-wing purity hasn't made them stand up to Bush in any significant or successful way, and if they can't do that, they should let people with realistic policies try and get us out of the swamp into which Bush and Cheney have led us. Purity without power is ultimately more about self-indulgence than benefiting others.

Posted by nickzi | January 17, 2008 10:18 AM

I can't speak to exactly what Obama meant, but the comparison is obvious and has been for a long time. Reagan, for all his faults, was optimistic, was hopeful, was persuasive, was effective and was interested in dramatically changing the country. I fail to see how these are bad things in a president.

Posted by Bud | January 17, 2008 10:21 AM

Jmac, that's probably what Obama is referring to. The problem is that Reagan didn't build an election coalition by preaching optimism and hope. He preached hatred, resentment, and revenge. His entire political persona in 1980, as it had been since the 1960s, was about being the guy who was angry enough to get back at the blacks, the women's libbers, the homosexuals, the DFHs, the liberal elitists, the agitatin' troublemakers, and the commies.

Reagan's strategy, as he clearly signaled in Philadelphia, Mississippi, was to build a national lynch mob.

He only turned sunny and happy later on in his presidency, after getting shot, overseeing the disastrous recession of 1982 (unemployment over 10%), and starting to lose his marbles.

Posted by Pesto | January 17, 2008 10:22 AM

I think we could agree that there is a difference between the historical Reagan (mediocre, but lucky president), and the mythical Reagan (smiles, won the Cold War, made the US proud again). Personally, I think Reagan was an appalling example of ineptitude and conflict, but the legend of Reagan remains potent.

Posted by kallikanzaros | January 17, 2008 10:29 AM

I tend to agree with the liberal critiques of what Obama is doing here. I think it is possible to talk about Reagan's ability to take advantage of "the moment" - to capitalize on perceived need for political change in the country - without buying into the GOP's "optimism" myth. Reagan was a transformative president because he took advantage of political anger in way that didn't, on its surface, seem angry. He capitalized on the anger of the partisans on his side without totally enraging the partisans on the other side. Obama could do the same; arguably, Hillary could not. And he is eloquent enough to explain this without playing into the right's Reagan mythology.

Posted by owens | January 17, 2008 10:29 AM

"Look, I know this is weedy stuff and probably doesn't matter to the average voter under the age of 45. But to long time liberals who lived through this period as an adult, it's like waving a red flag in our faces. Reagan ran explicitly against the left(and in the process normalized the kind of indecent talk that made Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter millionaires.) Because he won big in 1984, leaders in both parties accepted this omnipotent Reagan myth and have run against liberalism ever since --- and have ended up, through both commission and omission, advancing the destructive conservative policies that brought us to a place where we are debating things like torture. It would be helpful if ending the era of Democrats running against the liberal base could be part of this new progressive "trajectory." ...digby

With his Reagan-worship, Obama has spit in my face and insulted everything I admire and value. I do not accept it as a tricky electoral ploy because I am not going to be there for him if elected. I presume he means it and would rather have the Reaganites on his side than me. And that new colation that excludes all liberals over 30 will be worse for Democrats and liberals and progressives than 8 years of Romney.

Fuck Reagan. Fuck Obama.

Posted by bob mcmanus | January 17, 2008 10:33 AM

I think Obama's comments on Reagan don't exclude Stoller's comments on Reagan. Reagan's optimism, and Reagan's appeal to fear, were consistent with each other, parts of the singular politics of the man. The Star Wars Defense initiative is a perfect example of this. The fear that we would all be annihilated by the Soviets was, of course, one of the big conservative cards during the late seventies and early eighties. So much for the fear - the unique Reagan touch is that the anti-missile system is going to give us this 'optimistic' solution - nuclear war will no longer work. Our magic rays in the sky will knock down missiles, as the magic in the marketplace makes us all rich. It was this combination of fear and optimism that made Reagan such a different politician than Nixon, say. And Obama is also right that, under Reagan, there were fundamental changes, which created the pattern within which all presidents since Reagan have operated. Whatever combination of qualities contributed to Reagan's success, he broke the drive to greater equality - the wilder and wilder inequality since the Reagan years has shaped every domestic policy initiative - and he returned us to the traditional 'predatory' model in foreign policy, after a rare and short period of relative peacefulness under Carter. Carter, of course, by helping the rebels in Afghanistan and declaring the Persian Gulf an American lake, had already made it easy for Reagan there. And the wholly unnecessary Reagan military buildup had already been projected in Carter's last budget - both parties were converging on the tried and true tactic of military keynesianism to fight the recession. If the government sets out to waste a couple of trillion dollars, it does have to justify it somehow.

Posted by roger | January 17, 2008 10:33 AM

Two things:

1. Reagan some will recall, liked to invoke FDR's legacy in weird ways that didn't indicate anything about actual policy.
2. Obama '08 is positioning himself the way Clinton '92 did - a moderate guy with charisma and broad appeal who can win one from the Republicans.

I'll leave it as an exercise for other commenters as to whether No. 2 is a good thing.

Posted by politicalfootball | January 17, 2008 10:33 AM

Ricky:

I can't really think of any major thing Reagan did in his presidency that I would call 'successful' as a Democrat.

In his defense, Reagan nearly managed to negotiate total nuclear disarmament with Gorbachev at the Reykjavik summit in 1986. He seemed genuinely to want to get rid of nukes by that time, too.

Posted by Pesto | January 17, 2008 10:36 AM

Bobby dear, your meds are on the table.

Posted by bob mcmanus' mom | January 17, 2008 10:38 AM

If Obama had only talked about the image of Reagan I might have some hope left. But Obama went out of his way to describe the policies of Reagan in Reaganite framing:

"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" ...Obama

That was no accident.

Posted by bob mcmanus | January 17, 2008 10:38 AM

Maybe Barack Obama is too young to remember how Reagan fucked this nation up with his "new direction," but I sure as hell damn well ain't!

He seemed genuinely to want to get rid of nukes by that time, too.

Posted by Pesto

WRONG!

He wanted the Soviets to give up their arms. He was forced into a mutual agreement when Gorbachev made sure American weapons had to be on the table, and even then, he was grudging about it.

Posted by actor212 | January 17, 2008 10:40 AM

Reagan was a game-changer. Obama believe he can be a game-changer too.

That's certainly the most charitable reading and maybe it's all he meant.

But Reagan also offered a set of reasons for why the game *needed* to be changed, and Obama (as I read him) seems to be saying that he was correct. I.e. that Reagan's diagnosis of what was wrong with America in 1980 was correct. And that's offensive.

Or maybe he's just saying that those reasons (whether they were correct or not in 1980) *do* apply today. Except in a different way. A different direction -- now we face conservative excesses and unaccountability of a conservative government. It's all very fuzzy.

In general, with Obama, fuzziness seems to be the point. You make vague gestures toward the middle in order to get elected. Then, once you're in, you hope the right continues to be so dazzled by your triangulating and transcendent rhetoric that you are able to get progressive things done. Or at least things that will get you reelected.

It's all pretty Clintonian. And I'm not sure it will work any better than it did the last time.

Then again it probably has a marginally better shot of working for Obama than it would for Clinton.

Posted by Ryan | January 17, 2008 10:42 AM

Matt Stoller: You and Perlstein apparently think think it's worth the time and energy to re-fight the fights that took place two decades ago. That's fighting on their turf. If you think to get anything accomplished you have to reverse the general impression the country has about the state of the nation and the word in 1979, well good luck with those windmills. Besides, who gives a shit? It's 2008, we have new problems and new solutions and, yes, new fights. But the fights we have today are big enough without trying to re-fight the fights we already lost in the 80's.

To put it another way, a large number of voters who are vaguely in favor of democratic proposals have fond memories of Reagan that have nothing to do with his policies. I'd like to make sure those voters vote for a Democrat in 2008.

Posted by Led | January 17, 2008 10:42 AM

angry, sharply partisan candidates...

Hearing Edwards described as such is fairly amusing

Posted by Xanthippas | January 17, 2008 10:43 AM

angry, sharply partisan candidates...

Hearing Edwards described as such is fairly amusing

Well, must be because he was forced to grow up in a mill.. or was he forced to work there? Well, something about mills, anyway.

Posted by basilbrush | January 17, 2008 10:44 AM

Those guys over at Open Left and MyDD are in hyperventilation mode over Obama. I'm not sure why because his chances of getting the nomination are pretty slim. Even with wins in Nevada and South Carolina, he just has no time or the Mt. Everest of cash needed to break through in places like California, New York, New Jersey, or any of the large mid-western states other than Illinois.

And I see Matt Stoller pipes in to cite Krugman. I'm a decades long fan of Krugman but I have no problem disagreeing with him like I do on Obama's economic package. But Stoller and the gang have apparently built some kind of personality cult around the guy.

It's sad to see the Dem left crack-up at a time when the generic ballot is so much in our favor.

Posted by MikeKC | January 17, 2008 10:46 AM

He is talking about creating Obama Republicans and Obama independents the same way Reagan was able to get Reagan Democrats. You know create a new coalition. He always talks about a new PROGRESSIVE MAJORITY. Good god it's not that hard to figure out. Some folks are just flat out slow... I suggest some try hooked on phonics....

Posted by Ann | January 17, 2008 10:48 AM

I am not sure sure that Obama can't win this thing. The national polls have been tightening steadily, with him hunting down Clinton pretty consistently over the last 6 weeks. Remember that if McCain is obviously screwed by SuperTuesday (which looks very likely), the odds are that the Independents will go heavily for Obama - and that might well make the big difference. Add to that the possibility of Edwards as kingmaker, and I think Clinton should be the more worried of the two right now.

Posted by maximin | January 17, 2008 10:52 AM

i read through all 37 comments just to see if someone would make the obvious point: the country was NOT primed for change in 1980.

if it had been, reagan would have rolled to the same kind of big win he had in 1984. instead, the election was rather close (partly because of john anderson as a third party candidate) until the final week, when the polls showed a decisive shift to reagan, who nonetheless only won 50.7% of the vote (although he had a dominant margin in the electoral college, of course: i remember well walking into an election eve party at 7:59 eastern with a large bottle of wild turkey that i - and others - had finished by 8:30 once it was clear the scale of reagan's win).

now, reagan and the republican party were ready to give the country a major change, but that's not the same.

as for obama talking about the government excesses of the 1960s and 1970s, i'm with ryan and bob mcmanus: utterly disgusting and disgraceful and sickening. that doesn't mean i won't end up voting for him if he wins the nomination, but i'll never trust his rhetorical skills again if that's how he's going to employ them.

Posted by howard | January 17, 2008 10:53 AM

Matt Stoller has been miffed at Obama from early on because the Obama campaign did not "reach out" sufficiently to bloggers. Matt represents the 2004 vision of the left political blogosphere leading a new progressive movement rooted in blogospheric activism and fund-raising promoted with an edgier, more sharply partisan political rhetoric.

Obama partly subverted that model by hitting on an entirely new approach: packaging progressive policy inside an optimistic unity-based national appeal, while intentionally standing off a bit from personal engagement blogospheric ranting and rancor, while still making use of its fund-raising and message-spreading abilities. Obama imbues progressive themes with an uplifting rhetoric which is helping to produce a renaissance of the progressive spirit by reminding people of the most ennobling, universal and traditionally American aspects of that spirit. The approach has been remarkably successful, as Obama's consistent out-polling of Edwards has shown. This success is, I suspect, an affront to Matt Stoller personally, because it tends to diminish somewhat the role he envisioned for himself and his own version of the progressive movement.

Perlstein doesn't really get it about Reagan. Of course it is true that Reagan's movement represented at its core a crew of of hard core, selfish, anti-government, anti-worker, pro-corporate conservatives. And it's right that that was the policy substance of the Reagan revolution. But the point is, how did Reagan sell this to the public? And in that case, there is no question that Reagan imbued this substance with a sunny and optimistic patriotic message. He created a whole class of (mainly white middle class) voters now called "Reagan Democrats" who were motivated by economic self-interest to reject the welfare state, but were also turned off by what they perceived as the cultural left's anti-Americanism, by what Agnew had called the "nattering nabobs of negativism". Probably the most memorable line from Reagan's 1980 campaign was his "there he goes again" jab at Carter which summed up the spirit of the campaign perfectly. Reagan was the original "Teflon president" because the hard-ass substance was dressed up in a sunny and bouyant optimism that made it hard for Reagan's critics to win the battle of personal charm.

If Obama can create a new coalition of "Obama Republicans", turned off by the Republican degeneration into a fractious and radicalized coalition of rabid anti-government nuts, religious fanatics preaching a gospel of ignorance and anti-American rejection of the Constitution, and out of control spendthrift war mongers, then I say great for Obama. Bring on the Obama Revolution.

Posted by Dan Kervick | January 17, 2008 10:56 AM

Ann:

He is talking about creating Obama Republicans and Obama independents the same way Reagan was able to get Reagan Democrats.

Ann, the whole point is to discuss how Reagan got the "Reagan democrats" to support him. The mythology is that it was by being sunny and optimistic and positive. The reality is that it was by being angry, nasty, and hateful to all the right-wing's favorite scapegoats.

Reagan won support by selling the line that America had fallen from Greatness by being too wishy-washy and "permissive" -- what the country (or, at least, certain "elements" in the country) needed was a damn good beating, and Reagan was the one to deliver it.

Reagan's 1980 campaign sounded a lot more like Tancredo '08 than Obama '08.

Posted by Pesto | January 17, 2008 10:56 AM

Why be so nice to Stoller. He isn't "misinterpreting"; he deliberately lying when he says that Obama "admires" Reagan.

If Obama was a small businessman instead of a popular politician, and Stoller lies hurt his business, he could be sued for libel. Where's the responsibility part of journalism?

Posted by converse | January 17, 2008 10:59 AM

But Reagan also offered a set of reasons for why the game *needed* to be changed, and Obama (as I read him) seems to be saying that he was correct. I.e. that Reagan's diagnosis of what was wrong with America in 1980 was correct. And that's offensive.

Actually, he didn't. Instead he was making a historical observation about the political climate of 1980 (referring to them as 'they'), in which large numbers of Democrats and independents flocked to Reagan and built the conservative majority.

One could look at, say, the political and social conditions in Russia in the late 1910s and make the observation that the time was right for a drastic change in governance, but that doesn't mean you endorse Communist dictatorships.

Listen, the freaking out of folks over this is almost comical. If you look at Obama's record and his past comments, it's rather obvious that he had very strong disagreements with Reagan's political agenda (since it proved to be a train-wreck for the U.S. economy), but there's not doubting the fact that he fashioned a mythos about him and delivered the basis of a new Republican majority.

Why wouldn't you want a Democrat to do the same, but only with a progressive political agenda which Obama has (contrary to Krugman's hit pieces).

Those guys over at Open Left and MyDD are in hyperventilation mode over Obama.

Those guys? Overreact? Knee-jerk? Shocking.

Posted by Jmac | January 17, 2008 10:59 AM

If there is a DLC trojan horse in this race, it isn't Hillary, but Obama. Using the same sound political judgement that caused him to back going to war in Iraq, Matt is determined to see no evil where Obama is concerned.

I was for Gore, Clark, and then Edwards, but at this point, looking at Obama, I can only say, Go Hillary!

Posted by tdraicer | January 17, 2008 11:02 AM

Well-freaking-said Dan Kervick.

Posted by Jmac | January 17, 2008 11:05 AM

One question that needs to be asked: who the hell cares about Matt Stoller? How did this idiot become a top-rank blogger whose views other bloggers need to address? This is truly one of the enduring mysteries of the liberal blogosphere.

Posted by Ryan | January 17, 2008 11:08 AM

I think that for Obama to win the nomination he has to fight back against the Clintons, and that is largely what this comment about Reagan is about. I don't fault him one bit, considering the kind of campaign the Clintons have run against him. I think he's basically talking about a time in American politics where people were ready to embrace the concepts of hope and change. He is not endorsing Reagan's enactment of those ideals. The guy was a community organizer in Chicago while Reagan was in power, and has commented that he saw firsthand the effects of his administration on the most vulnerable people. Now, the Clintons have repeatedly run down his work as an organizer (and how can this not offend liberals?), but the fact is he paid his dues and has shown himself to be generally on the side of progressive politics throughout his adult life. Let's give the guy the benefit of the doubt.

Posted by Mark | January 17, 2008 11:09 AM

I can't really think of any major thing Reagan did in his presidency that I would call 'successful' as a Democrat.

Well of course not. That's the point. But still he got a bunch of independents and former Democrats to vote for him.

If in 2030, we can have can have the current crop of fools at the National Review look back in anger at two terms of an Obama presidency, and say, "I can't think of any major thing Obama did in his presidency that I would call 'successful' as a Republican", then I will say "mission accomplished."

To acknowledge Reagan was a successful politician is not to say that he was a success in some transcendent moral sense. The point is that he was a political success because he won twiceand achieved major parts his own agenda. Some of us hope that Obama can also win using the Reagan model for political success in order to achieve major parts of the progressive agenda.

Posted by Dan Kervick | January 17, 2008 11:11 AM

I took Obama's statements to mean that he wants to be a "game changer" and is trying to compare his plan to change the landscape with Clinton's failure to do so in the 90s.

If Obama really was running a campaign that traded on the public resentment to republican policies and whipped up resentment towards years of right-wing mismanagement in government and then praised Reagan for his campaign of sunny optimism and hope, then I'd be able to take his political posturing a bit more seriously. I always worry that Obama takes this "happy talk" stuff a bit too seriously and doesn't realize how campaigns are really won.

This is what's so frustrating about Obama-- so much of it depends on trying to explain what he really meant and how his background as a community organizer means that he's really a down-on-the-ground two-fisted political brawler. I'd like to have a bit more in-your-face evidence of this as opposed to just the "hope" that it might be for real.

Posted by Tyro | January 17, 2008 11:11 AM

Bob McManus
I am going to take this statement and change it so that perhaps you can understand what Obama is saying. Reagan is being lauded for a method not his objectives. For instance when Digby says:

" Reagan ran explicitly against the left(and in the process normalized the kind of indecent talk that made Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter millionaires.) Because he won big in 1984, leaders in both parties accepted this omnipotent Reagan myth and have run against liberalism ever since --- and have ended up, through both commission and omission, advancing the destructive conservative policies that brought us to a place where we are debating things like torture"

In terms of what Obama meant you should read:

Obama ran explicitly against the right (and in the process normalized the kind of decent tolerance that made MLK and JFK great leaders). Because Obama won big in 2008 leaders in both parties accepted this omnipotent Obama myth and have run against neoconservatism ever since ---and have ended up, through both commission and ommission advancing the constitutional principles this country was founded and brung constructive governance by the people as a democracy that has brought us to the place where we are discussing things like how America is a global leader at home and abroad once again setting the tone on humaitarian issues and democracy principles.

THAT is what Obama is saying he is talking about a shift in the very paradigm of how politics is conducted in this country a FUNDAMENTAL change just as REagan brought a FUNDAMENTAL change.

The difference is the direction, Obama is saying just as the mood of the country was ready for the era of conservatism that Reagan ushered in, right now at this time in this moment America is ready for the era of progressivism that Obama can usher in.

We can swing the pendulum back to our interests with the right leader, just as it swung agaisnt our interests with Reagan...because

this is our DEFINING moment...the moment is NOW.

Obama understands that and that is what he means when he says he is running because of the fierce urgency of now.

Where folks like you get lost is that Obama fails to go into all the specifics because he believes based on his LEGISLATIVE track record, you will KNOW which way he is swinging the pendulum. Obama has nothing but a legislative record progressives can be proud of whether the issue is war, foreign policy, healthcare, education, abortion, DOMA....his votes all show a progressive agenda.

Obama thinks this is IMPLICIT to his statement.

But I guess for SOME folks they want to separate what he says from his RECORD. That is the only way they can go off on tangents and speculate about Regan and what HIS POLICIES were as being what Obama meant DESPITE Obama's legislative record being the anti-thesis of Reagan's policy.

C'mon people look at the FACtS...stop with the false speculation, conjectuare and innuendo

Posted by vicissitudes | January 17, 2008 11:13 AM

Dan Kervick gets it exactly right. The left bloggers have been in a tizzy over Obama from day one because his success would greatly undermine the role these bloggers -- and an insurgent left -- would play in national politics. This leads them to consistently see conservatism where Obama's supporters see pragmatism, a pragmatism intent on delivering achievable, progressive policy.

The hysterics of people like bob mcmanus show exactly the kind of politics that cannot deliver a progressive agenda. I am strangely heartened to see these attacks in the comments on a daily basis because it means Obama is really on to something, and if his rhetoric marginalizes those who would rather pick a fight over the Reagan legacy rather then deliver real results, so much the better.

Posted by dan | January 17, 2008 11:14 AM

Jmac:

Instead he was making a historical observation about the political climate of 1980 (referring to them as 'they'), in which large numbers of Democrats and independents flocked to Reagan and built the conservative majority.

But it's an inaccurate historical observation that buys into reactionary mythologies about the political movement that's been ruining this country (and much of the world) for generations.

You want to bring the country together? It might help to talk openly about one of our nation's prime avatars of hatred, division, and the politics of revenge and resentment.

Posted by Pesto | January 17, 2008 11:15 AM

But it's an inaccurate historical observation that buys into reactionary mythologies about the political movement that's been ruining this country (and much of the world) for generations.

OK, but the myth has almost become fact now, hasn't it? If Obama wants to run a campaign that discusses a new kind of politics and seeks to build the base, as the myth of Reagan claims to have done, then what's the big deal? We're arguing about semantics?

You want to bring the country together? It might help to talk openly about one of our nation's prime avatars of hatred, division, and the politics of revenge and resentment.

Reagan's been out of office for 20 years (and, of course, is now dead), and I think the fact the Obama is pushing a progressive agenda is doing just that.

Posted by Jmac | January 17, 2008 11:18 AM

Obama would have served himself and his party much better had he not taken the swipe at Bill Clinton's presidency in the same interview.
That litttle zinger made the whole thing come off more like pandering to the right (again) than truth-telling to me.

Posted by magisterludi | January 17, 2008 11:20 AM

"C'mon people look at the FACtS...stop with the false speculation, conjectuare and innuendo"

If Obama had Brad DeLong or Paul Krugman or Jaime Galbraith on his economic team instead of Austan Goolsbee and Jeffrey Liebman I might be listening to the Reagan worship differently. Obama is not a progressive.

Posted by bob mcmanus | January 17, 2008 11:22 AM

Pesto: are you saying Reagan *didn't* win because the electorate decided there were "excesses" to the 60s and 70s? Reagan mobilized dissatisfaction and created a coalition to govern. How can you dispute this?

The only question is whether the left wishes to do the same now. It would be so typical of the "left," which hasn't delivered a policy success in 30 years, to fail to understand this conversation is about successful strategy, separate and apart from the policies that strategy achieved.

Posted by dan | January 17, 2008 11:24 AM

Reagan was a putz. I saw his central American policies first-hand. They were brought to us, by the way, by some of the same people who gave us the Iraq War.

I'm torqued at Obama for saying this. He's reinforcing Republican memes, such as out-of-control government. That's what the Republicans said in response to the 60's, Watergate, and Vietnam--as if "big government" was the reason for those things.

Matthew is clueless on this one--blinded by his love for Obama. I like Obama too, but he stepped in it on this one, and clear-eyed observers should be able to see it.

Posted by John Petty | January 17, 2008 11:24 AM

Obama thinks -- as do a lot of people -- that the country may be primed for big change in 2008 the way it was in 1980 and that he's the kind of person who can sell the country on that sort of big change.

Yes.

The Democratic frontrunners are appropriating this theme, social security, and taxes, which leaves the Republicans blathering about what kind of theocracy is acceptable.

Nice. Even if the GOP gets back on-message, they'll look like a bunch of johnny-come-latelies.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | January 17, 2008 11:26 AM

Stoller and Digby are acting like speech police on this one. Thanks for the common sense Matt Y.

Posted by john o. | January 17, 2008 11:31 AM

dan, i can't speak for anyone else, but yes, i'm saying that the public did not elect reagan because of government "excesses" of the 1960s and 1970s.

the public elected reagan because it couldn't stand jimmy carter, because of stagflation, and, of course, because racist whites were migrating to vote republican.

reagan was not elected because the public hated medicare, or food stamps, or head start, or the peace corps, or even, for that matter, nixon's wage-and-price controls, the ultimate government excess of the period.

Posted by howard | January 17, 2008 11:32 AM

dan, i might add that certainly significant components of the public elected reagan because it hated long hair on men, hippies, drugs, free love, rising divorce rates, women's liberation, and a number of other ultimately dominant social trends, but that's not government excess, which is the term obama used.

Posted by howard | January 17, 2008 11:34 AM

Dan,

Read my comments above. Reagan did in fact get support from people who believed that the country was done in by "excesses" in the 60s and 70s. He won in 1980 by promising to exact revenge on the various right-wing scapegoats who were to blame for the country's decline.

In my first comment above, I described Reagan as organizing a national lynch mob in 1980. I stand by that description.

People might think it was all just a big, happy, red-white-and-blue optimism party in 1980 turning out for Reagan, but the fact was that the point of the party was to string up the blacks, the feminists, the DFHs, the troublemakers, the godless liberal elitists, the welfare queens, the fags, and commies, and party under the corpses.

Appealing to some fantasized version of what the Reagan coalition was really about in 1980 is a foolishly short-sighted, cynical attempt to win votes.

Posted by Pesto | January 17, 2008 11:35 AM

I think that if Obama had mentioned FDR AND Reagan or only the former, then I think that more people would have been open to the idea that Clinton did not fundamentally change American politics. Although I have to admit that Reagan did change American politics but not in the kind of change I would have wanted.

Posted by MGJ | January 17, 2008 11:36 AM

I think the point that Perlstein and Digby are making (perhaps because they're aware of the history here) is that Reagan did not win in '80 based on content-less sunny uplift. He had been running since the Cow Palace convention in '64 as a hard-line Goldwater conservative and updated his cred through the years by gassing the Berkeley students and dumping on African American activists in addition to subtly celebrating the murderers of the Mississippi activists in Neshoba County by opening his campaign there. No one should forget that or contribute to the air-brushing of Saint Ron by saying that he won by being such a sunny guy, just like me. No liberal or Democrat making the case to Democrats, particularly. As others have noted, Obama likes to make these indirect dog-whistle references to conservative memes but never seems to find it advantageous to make similar appeals to folks in his own party. That's odd and disturbing. If he wanted to make the point that he prefers this election to be a realigning one, he could have done it far more smoothly and with a considerably less superficial treatment of our history.

Posted by scott | January 17, 2008 11:37 AM

I don't want to be lectured to by people trying to explain what Obama meant. I am plenty smart enough to understand what he said. He said: 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. Obama didn't say that Reagan was wrong when he said that. What he didn't say was that it was Nixon's government that had grown and grown and prolonged the war and thwarted civil rights and used the IRS and CIA to terrorize and spy on Americans. And Obama used Reagan, an even more hideous figure in American history in that he was a self-identified traitor, as some sort of guide or person to emulate or something. I mean Jesus Christ it makes you wonder what he was trying to do, But it does not make me wonder what he meant, his words are clear. Its the thought that is terrible.

Posted by Peter Driscoll | January 17, 2008 11:46 AM

Obama would have served himself and his party much better had he not taken the swipe at Bill Clinton's presidency in the same interview.
That litttle zinger made the whole thing come off more like pandering to the right (again) than truth-telling to me.

But Obama's chief competition in the primary is Bill Clinton's wife, who is building her argument around her connection to her husband's presidency. It would appear to be a sound political strategy to draw contrasts in your vision and experiences and your opponent's.

Posted by Jmac | January 17, 2008 11:49 AM

Please note that the Ryan who commented at 11:08 is not me, i.e. the Ryan who commented twice further up the thread. Unlike that guy I think Matt Stoller's often worth listening to, and certainly is on this issue.

Posted by Ryan | January 17, 2008 11:50 AM

Peter, goodness that's misguided.

- Obama didn't say Reagan was wrong in that instance, though he has repeatedly noted that his policies were, well, flat-out awful in this campaign and prior to it.

- Uh, if you acknowledge that government had grown with little to no accountability, then what is false about Obama's observation? It was a train wreck of a bureaucracy that wasn't doing the job it needed to do either well or efficiently (in fact, one could argue this helps Clinton since her husband streamlined government, boosted revenues and expanded services in a way Reagan wasn't able to).

- If you're smart enough to not be lectured, then quit reading brainiac.

Posted by Jmac | January 17, 2008 11:56 AM

Ok, people, let's try a new strategy. We shall tell the uncommitted electorate to vote Democrat because we are angry. Enraged, Furious. And we all grew up in mills as well. Or worked there, or something. I like John Edwards - but can't you see that anger turns most voters off? Obama is on record as criticizing Reagan's policies, but when it comes to offering an optimistic alternative to Dem-Repub MAD, you can bet that this "Reaganesque" approach will play better than another round of Revenge II: Return of the Disgruntled Democrats. You may dislike Reagan's policies - as I do - you may think he was a mediocre moron who got lucky on the Cold War - as I do - you may think he was a senile old fraud by the end - as I do - BUT you can't deny that he was very effective with the sunny optimism message. That's why his legend lasted - and it's that legend that Obama wants to take over. If you don't get the political analogy, ask yourself who you would want to associate with - the guy who hates the world and wants to punish it, or the guy who is hopeful of making things better.

Posted by basilbrush | January 17, 2008 11:57 AM

Since the Obama claque has been accusing Obama's Democratic opponents of all kinds of silly personal motives, let me play that game too, and suggest that the Ivy Dweeb Youth Vote goes to Obama because he's cute, snappily-dressed, and slender.

The intensity of this youthful passion is offputting -- but then, we're dealing with hormonal people not too far out of high school.

Back to you, dweebs! Show me your worst!

Posted by John Emerson | January 17, 2008 11:59 AM

Since the Obama claque has been accusing Obama's Democratic opponents of all kinds of silly personal motives, let me play that game too, and suggest that the Ivy Dweeb Youth Vote goes to Obama because he's cute, snappily-dressed, and slender.

The intensity of this youthful passion is offputting -- but then, we're dealing with hormonal people not too far out of high school.

Back to you, dweebs! Show me your worst!

Posted by John Emerson

That's ok, John. We don't mind the fact that you are ugly, dressed in a paper bag and grotesquely overweight. We are about change - and given your circumstances we think it might be good for you too.

Posted by basilbrush | January 17, 2008 12:01 PM

can't you see that anger turns most voters off?

Actually, no. It worked quite well for Reagan.

It wasn't Reagan's "sunny optimism message." It was his complaints about "young bucks" buying steak with food stamps and welfare queens in cadillacs that swept him into the presidency, along with demands that the Berkeley students be expelled that propelled him into the governor's office.

And when the heck has Edwards ever been "angry"?

Posted by Tyro | January 17, 2008 12:04 PM

Howard: I think you have a legitimate point. I think Obama's rejoinder is that (a) he is arguing image-ology, that is, the received view of Reagan and his accomplishments, and (b) I think "government excess" -- rightly or wrongly -- has become a fully legitimized view of of the post-civil rights era, thanks in very large part to the husband of his main competitor. Obama has to take the terrain as he finds it.

Pesto: but the point is that Reagan had a functioning coalition to make change/"exact revenge" -- his statements are meant to show that that was the necessary precursor. I don't accept your terms, but what if I did for a moment: would it be so bad to have a "national lynch mob" out to get gaybashing evangelicals, warmongers, oil companies, etc.?

Posted by dan | January 17, 2008 12:06 PM

I've been listening to right wing dogwhistles from the Bush administration and the Conservative Movement generally for over 5 years of daily blogging and thousands of posts.

I know one when I hear one.

Obama's dogwhistling to the right started at least as early as putting Social Security in play as a "problem," and keeps on going. You could argue that it's implicit in the Unity message, as well. There's a reason why Kristol, Brooks, Sullivan and Broder are all Obama fans, and Krugman calls bullshit. And if you care about track records, that data point should tell you something. (And the fact that the Obama fan base goes after Krugman, while blithely treating endorsements by stone Conservative operatives like Kristol as just Obama's due should also tell you something.)

I wish it weren't that way, and I didn't expect it to be, but that's where the data leads me.

At best, Obama looks like a Clintonian triangulator to me, and heck, why not vote for a real Clinton?

[Stands back, waits for avalanche of Hillary Hatred.]

Posted by lambert strether | January 17, 2008 12:09 PM

And when the heck has Edwards ever been "angry"?

The last alleged tally, delivered in a ferocious bellow, was "54 years". Or so I understand.... There are those who extend the total back by 9 months, to accomodate his uterine fury.

Posted by basilbrush | January 17, 2008 12:09 PM

Liberals hate him for this, but Reagan transformed the face of conservatism from the province of country-club stuffed suits with Roman numerals in their names, to something that all the "cool kids" wanted to be.

Hillary Clinton would be a perfectly fine President, but I really don't think her message of practical experience and incremental changes is going to bring Liberalism to a new generation of "cool kids."

That's the contrast I think Obama is drawing, and I don't find it objectionable at all.

Posted by Jalmari | January 17, 2008 12:09 PM

By the way, I don't think candidates who are "angry" seem to turn people off at all.

It all has to do with at whom you appear to be angry. Reagan's fans never minded him seeming to be really angry at all those welfare queens and invisible bureaucrats who were ruining the country.

Posted by El Cid | January 17, 2008 12:12 PM

lambert strether, could you tell us what a "real" Clinton looks like? Does it support Bush's war on Iraq? Does it support bills that let credit card companies screw normal people? Does it endorse racial equality and then surround itself with racist surrogates? Does it endorse voter-suppression in Nevada?

Posted by basilbrush | January 17, 2008 12:13 PM

No, Driscoll, you don't understand what Obama said. By your own admission, you understand what he "didn't say" and what he "thought". Nice trick.

Posted by converse | January 17, 2008 12:17 PM

And the fact that the Obama fan base goes after Krugman, while blithely treating endorsements by stone Conservative operatives like Kristol as just Obama's due should also tell you something.

Krugman's rational, of course, seems terribly off to me, as does his affection for Clinton when he's spent a large portion of the past few years railing against the War in Iraq, yet he's more than willing to lambast the only candidate who actually opposed it. This seems to me to be an actual worthy disagreement, doesn't it?

If Kristol likes Obama ... so what? He's a bit nutty, but if likes (or dislikes) Obama, why should I care?

Posted by Jmac | January 17, 2008 12:18 PM

This quote:

I am going to take this statement and change it so that perhaps you can understand what Obama is saying.

is a fine example of a tactic that has got to be in the Obama Fan Handbook; I've seen it over and over and over again at Big Orange, though this is an elegantly worded variant.

The tactic is explaining what Obama "really means."

What never seems to occur to the Obama fan using this tactic is that people who don't necessarily make Obama their #1 choice -- who may even have come to this position through a process of reasoning -- may have examined Obama's words quite carefully, and feel that they understand all too well what Obama really means.

At this point, I hear Obama's oratory as almost entirely vacuous, except for the right wing talking points floating about it in.

The beauty part is that people can project all their hopes and dreams onto the vacuity -- while low information voters and Republicans pick up on the dogwhistles.

Genius, really.

Posted by lambert strether | January 17, 2008 12:19 PM

lambertstrether - still trying to come up witha real Clinton? Let's hear your pitch.

Posted by basilbrush | January 17, 2008 12:21 PM

From TPM:

Leahy Endorses Obama, Likens Him To Bobby Kennedy
By Eric Kleefeld - January 17, 2008, 11:30AM
As expected, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) just formally endorsed Barack Obama in a conference call with reporters. "We need a president who can reintroduce America to the world, and reintroduce America to ourselves," Leahy said, later adding, "Barack Obama represents the America we once were and want to be again."

Leahy likened his support of Obama to the 1968 presidential campaign, when as a young prosecutor he endorsed Robert Kennedy over Hubert Humphrey. "He was bringing us a sense of hope, bringing us together," Leahy said. "I know those are intangibles, but it encouraged me to go against the establishment in my own state, and go with Bobby Kennedy."

Leahy also came out strongly against the ongoing lawsuit in Nevada, where the state teachers union and some Clinton backers are trying to shut down the special caucus locations for Las Vegas Strip workers. "If you're shutting people out from the nominating process, you're going to be discouraging people all the way down," Leahy said. "And that's not the approach we want to take in the United

Posted by maximin | January 17, 2008 12:28 PM

Dan:

But the point is that Reagan had a functioning coalition to make change/"exact revenge" -- his statements are meant to show that that was the necessary precursor. I don't accept your terms, but what if I did for a moment: would it be so bad to have a "national lynch mob" out to get gaybashing evangelicals, warmongers, oil companies, etc.

Obama certainly seems to think it would be bad. His big campaign themes are unity and hope, and other than a few references to special interests in DC, the only enemies he mentions regularly are partisanship and thinking too small about our politics. In fact, the campaign seems to me to be predicated on not going after anyone in that way, since that's the hallmark of status quo, partisan politics. It's exactly what Obama is against. And here he is, praising Reagan for his ability to build "unity" -- which Reagan did by engaging in exactly the kind of politics that Obama says are so destructive!

What bothers me is that Obama is smart enough, and old enough, to know what really happened in 1980, and what it really represented. My question is why he's rather repeat the myth, and not deal with the reality. And repeating the myth in this case strikes me as incredibly cynical, which again is kinda the opposite of what his campaign is about.

Posted by Pesto | January 17, 2008 12:31 PM

Well, I am not sure that anyone uses the Reagan legacy in a very sober way. The key point is that Obama does not want to BE Reagan, but that he wants to create the same sense of optimism and will to change that he believes Reagan symbolizes. You can argue that historically Reagan was not a figure of sweetness and light - but the dominant mainstream memory of him does remain this rather gilded figure of sunny optimism. That's what Obama wants to evoke, and I don't think it's cynical for him to do so.

Posted by basilbrush | January 17, 2008 12:35 PM

Enough already! And I thought I was the cynic. Can't someone open his/her mouth and utter a sentence (in this case a silly one IMHO) without the troops rushing to do battle? People are acting like voting for one candidate over the other would bring about the Apocalypse. This election is ours (i.e. Dems) to loose, and unfortunately it seems we might just find a way to do it.

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | January 17, 2008 12:37 PM

At the end of the day, running for President is not quite the same thing as writing a term paper in college. Politics is an impressionistic business, and the Reagan "impression" in many areas is one of can-do optimism and belief in America. Sure, it's a bit of a cornball reference to popular history, but using the Reagan mythos is a reasonable as using the Kennedy myth, or the TR myth. Obama is not endorsing Reaganesque policies, he simply wants the "magic" of the Reagan name. That's not a bad thing when you are trying to bring in the more moderate Republicans and Independents. That's where the potential lies for the big coalition - not in the Clinton "use the Party base and hope that the Republicans pick someone loathsome". That might deliver one term, but its longer potential is pretty limited.

Posted by maraschion | January 17, 2008 12:41 PM

I would have agreed, 2cynical, and suggested that your comment should be taken seriously by folks like Stoller. But then, despite your own warning, you had to throw in "a silly one IMHO". In order to work, a truce has to be honored by both sides.

Posted by converse | January 17, 2008 12:45 PM

"If in 2030, we can have can have the current crop of fools at the National Review look back in anger at two terms of an Obama presidency, and say, "I can't think of any major thing Obama did in his presidency that I would call 'successful' as a Republican", then I will say "mission accomplished."

By the same token I can then ask, why after 27 years of conservatism in ascendency, the right still brays about how far they have to go and how little the movement has achieved? I could care less if the Republicans don't get what they want over the next 5 years, especially if I am not getting what I want either. Obama's platform looks decidedly weak and Republican-lite on too many fronts. Everytime Obama invokes the right, be it Reagan or calling Social Security in crisis, I worry that he becomes the pox on both your houses president and our opportunity at forging a progressive majority gets thrown out by labeling this guy a progressive.

I would actually be more inclined to vote for him if he was saying he is trying to run a completely moderate, centrist campaign. We had to drop 'liberal' because it got tied to anyone who had D after their name even if they were anti-abortion or anti-gay, now we have politicians saying they are progressives even as they push pro-corporate health insurance plans and support hedge-fund tax breaks.

I could also give a damn about our host and his colleagues' feelings. They don't seem to dislike Obama as much as they look at his platform and wonder how the hell this guy says he is a progressive (you can add Clinton into this and Edwards was treated the same way until it became apparent he was the only one with a foot in the progressive camp). Most of the bloggers seem to have gone from saying this is a great group of candidates and they won't muddy things by endorsing one of them, to realizing they can't endorse any of them because they poorly represent what the bloggers have been in support of these past 7 years.

Posted by Ricky | January 17, 2008 12:53 PM

Obama certainly seems to think it would be bad. His big campaign themes are unity and hope, and other than a few references to special interests in DC, the only enemies he mentions regularly are partisanship and thinking too small about our politics. In fact, the campaign seems to me to be predicated on not going after anyone in that way, since that's the hallmark of status quo, partisan politics. It's exactly what Obama is against. And here he is, praising Reagan for his ability to build "unity" -- which Reagan did by engaging in exactly the kind of politics that Obama says are so destructive!

Here's how I understand Obama. (Full disclosure: I'm a supporter.) He recognizes that we're in a unique moment in American politics. There's a rump of about 30% of the country that's going to support the GOP, no matter what, etc. Most of this is confined to the southeast and some of the mountain west. But the rest of the country, even those who traditionally identify Republican, are more-or-less up for grabs. That's the analogy that Obama sees between now and Reagan's time, when a fair number of all but the most die-hard Democrats were up-for-grabs, and famously became Reagan Democrats.

The problem, of course, is that while he has alluded to this, he can't just go out and say, "I'm going to convince a bunch of Republicans to support progressive policies." Instead, he understands that you basically have to attract them the way Reagan attracted Democrats, by showing *qualities* that the other side seems to lack. I agree with folks here that, to the extent that Reagan was a happy warrior, Obama could stand a little less happy and a little more warrior. That said, the focus on unity, togetherness, post-partisanship, etc. is more or less understandable in that light.

Posted by Daniel Munz | January 17, 2008 12:53 PM

Obama's "spiritual advisor" turns out to be into "black liberation theology" and to think that Louis Farakhan is truly great man. People jump to Obama's defense and pooh-pooh the importance of the issue.

Obama says something qualifedly nice about Ronald Reagan, the guy who carried 49 states, and people jump all over him for it.

I hope this isn't the way to victory in the primary, as it is *not* the way to victory in November.

Posted by Ralph Phelan | January 17, 2008 12:54 PM

Far too many comments to read them all, let me just say,

"This leads them to consistently see conservatism where Obama's supporters see pragmatism, a pragmatism intent on delivering achievable, progressive policy"

is exactly right...

Posted by Rihilism | January 17, 2008 12:55 PM

"In order to work, a truce has to be honored by both sides."

converse, who is the truce between? 2cynicalbyhalf seems to think this is a battle between Obama and Clinton, but I see this as a battle between progressives and the two leading candidates for the Democratic nomination. How am I suppose to forge a truce with a candidate who wants to invoke Reagan and wants to tell people that Social Security is in crisis? Just because Obama or Clinton might be the lesser of two evils it doesn't make it right. What you are seeing now is us progressive going apeshit that the party continues is move to the right and we are supposed to somehow be pleased about this just because the next president has a "D" after their name?

Posted by Ricky | January 17, 2008 1:02 PM

Ricky: "What you are seeing now is us progressive going apeshit that the party continues is move to the right and we are supposed to somehow be pleased about this just because the next president has a "D" after their name?"

No, you're right. You should only support the most electable candidate if you actually want someone with ""D" after their name" to win in November.

We should all support that candidate with the "P" after their name. Oh, forgot, you guys don't really have your own party; you just want to act like you do.

Posted by converse | January 17, 2008 1:12 PM

Pesto says:

"You want to bring the country together? It might help to talk openly about one of our nation's prime avatars of hatred, division, and the politics of revenge and resentment."

Yes, that's definitely the way to bring the country together - spewing vitriol at one of the the most popular presidents in recent history, one who is still fondly remembered by many. That's a great way to unify America and put an end to partisan rancor.

Look, if Obama really wants to be "A uniter, not a divider" or however it is he puts it, that means he's going to have to be nice to moderates and conservatives, not just liberals. Live with that fact, or explicitly admit (as some above have done) that you believe partisan warfare is superior to national unity, but you can't have it both ways.

Posted by Ralph Phelan | January 17, 2008 1:14 PM

Perlstein:

... accepting the right's successful fantasy-frame about what Reagan was all about surrenders to one of their most successful strategies: affecting innocence about the terrible consequences of their own ideology in the here and now—helping conservatism, as an ideology, survive to fight another day...

This kind of thing would not cause me to vote against Obama in the general, nor do I think it means he couldn't be a good president, but Perstein is on to something, as usual.

It's a mistake to accept and therefore legitimize the GOP Reagan narrative, particularly when you're doing it simply because you lack anything else. But Obama and Perlstein both are at least grappling with something very real here: most people, *especially* people under about 45, have internalized the idea that what happened the 80s was inevitable - not tax legislation, etc, so much as the *cultural* shift, to a more libertarian/social darwinian, supposedly individualistic (actually atomistic, if that's a word), more puritanical (but 'dirty') view of the world and of justice. It's why Democrats should have been voting for Edwards, IMO (you big fools!), because he's a little more clear on this than Obama seems to be.

The modern Republican party has abandoned both conservatism (in the American sense of the word) and liberalism, and Edwards and Obama are trying to synthesize a new combination of the two (HRC, to be fair, is too, but hers is kind of a retread). I like Edwards' synthesis better: take care of health care now; fix the tax code now; get out of Iraq now; reform campaign finance radically... and then see about our other problems. In other words, try to unrig the system, and take care of, especially, our middle class economic problems - then let people figure things out, culturally, for themselves. In this he's picking out a conservative idea which is quite appealing in a bedrock American kind of way. It's fine that you are proud of your country and culture, and fine if your leaders inspire you, but: politics is not life. Life is life, and government is a steward.

Obama's is more a mixture of cultural symbolism and liberal policy ideas. And I think he's genuinely a more conservative person - more austere, more stern, more opaque, more of a scold. I prefer the former approach. But I'll take Obama if we have to.

Posted by jonnybutter | January 17, 2008 1:16 PM

I don't pay any attention to Matt Stoller on the subject of Obama.

It appeared to me was that Obama was merely acknowledging the Reagan presidency as consequential, not saying that he approved of what he did. I don't have any problem with that. A lot of what people say today about Reagan's campaigns for office and his administration do not square with my memories, but that's another post.

Posted by ChuckE | January 17, 2008 1:18 PM

Daniel Munz:

The problem, of course, is that while he has alluded to this, he can't just go out and say, "I'm going to convince a bunch of Republicans to support progressive policies."

Why not, if he admires Reagan so much? It's exactly that Reagan did for his side -- he convinced lots of working-class whites to support a reactionary vision of politics.

(Having raised the question, I'll give a short answer: because Reagan ran with the support of a huge number of powerful, openly-ideological right-wing institutions, and was appealing to an electorate that had been exposed to lots of right-wing propaganda and not much from the left, for years. No such context exists now for the left.)

Reagan told white, working-class voters, "The Democrats are traitors to us and our kind. They've sold out to the blacks, the feminists, the DFHs, et al. Vote for me, and together we'll get back everything those f**kers have taken that was rightly ours, put ourselves back in charge of this country, and give them such a beating that they'll never challenge our authority again."

That sounds, to me, exactly like the kind of politics Obama speaks against at every opportunity. It's the status quo that he wants to change.

Yet the result of Reagan's politics, his scapegoating, hate-mongering, and divisiveness, has been, paradoxically, the "St. Ronnie" myth, whose aura of unity and hope Obama says is appealing to him.

Sure, he may win some Independent votes by saying nice things about Reagan, but that strikes me as incredibly cynical. And if Obama is that cynical, what exactly is his candidacy about?

Posted by Pesto | January 17, 2008 1:21 PM

"Why not, if he admires Reagan so much?"

Stoller is the only one who said Obama "admires" Reagan. Obama clearly did not. Please stop using a Stoller's intentional lie to set-up a ridiculous argument.

Posted by converse | January 17, 2008 1:26 PM

Er, um:

Live with that fact, or explicitly admit (as some above have done) that you believe partisan warfare is superior to national unity, but you can't have it both ways.

Admit that the Magical Pony Of National Unity is superior to....

Oh, wait...

Posted by lambert strether | January 17, 2008 1:27 PM

But then, despite your own warning, you had to throw in "a silly one IMHO". In order to work, a truce has to be honored by both sides

Well, I'm prefer Obama myself. But I do think the statement (not the sentiment) was poorly framed.

What you are seeing now is us progressive going apeshit that the party continues is move to the right and we are supposed to somehow be pleased about this just because the next president has a "D" after their name?

I'd prefer a "D" president to an 'R" even if the D were not my ideal choice (i.e. either Hillary or Edwards). The problem with the "all or nothing" approach is that in the end you usually end up with nothing.

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | January 17, 2008 1:38 PM

Pesto:

Sure, he may win some Independent votes by saying nice things about Reagan, but that strikes me as incredibly cynical. And if Obama is that cynical, what exactly is his candidacy about?

I know! The Magical Unity Pony!

converse:

... Stoller's intentional lie...

For the Party of Magical Unity Ponies, the Obama Fan Base reverts to charging "lie" pretty freely when people disagree or have differing interpretations, and when snark and irony are used as well. I've seen this over and over again on the Kos threads. I'm not sure whether they're emulating Republican tactics, or whether it's a lack of analytical tools, or whether it's just fighting dirty. Paradoxically, I find the latter explanation most reassuring, since the idea that the Republicans are going to sing kumbaya with an Obama administration is airy moonshine, so they'll need to fight dirty, and they might as well try their moves out on progressives. After all, it's always open season on progessives, inside the Village or out. But I do know that none of this has anything to do with "new politics," let alone "hope" or "change," and at some point you figure the people who are doing the representation... Well, represent.

Posted by lambert strether | January 17, 2008 1:42 PM

Nothing contraditory about "new politics", "hope", "change", and "it's not okay to lie". They're all about treating other people decently.

Posted by converse | January 17, 2008 1:48 PM

Converse:

Nothing contraditory about "new politics", "hope", "change", and "it's not okay to lie". They're all about treating other people decently.

Which is why I think Obama should try telling the truth about Reagan.

Posted by Pesto | January 17, 2008 1:53 PM

Not saying what you want him to say is not the same as lying, Pesto. He made his point to most people who have ears to hear.

Posted by converse | January 17, 2008 2:02 PM

People say he's just playing a sly game, but at some point you're going to have to confront and defeat the Republicans, rather than splitting the difference and co-opting them. If Obama slimes his way into the Presidency on centrism, he won't have prepared the nation for dramatic change, and the Republicans will resist him just as viciously as if he'd been straightforwardly left. Give em an inch and they take a mile.

Posted by John Emerson | January 17, 2008 9:56 AM

This is exactly right. Clinton played this same game, and I think it bought him the election but pushed the country way farther to the right than anyone anticipated. I'd hate to see a Clinton do-over with Obama.

Posted by slag | January 17, 2008 2:11 PM

I was young but lived through Reagan and the historian in me cringes whenever this vile "sociopathic demagogue"'s disgusting role in American history gets mythologized. That part is extremely uncomfortable when Democratic candidates nod in the prick's direction. Obama is far from the only one; it's become a standard for Democrats in office to speak admiringly of Reagan. If anything Obama is one of the view, who seems to be touching on the fact that Reagan was a figurehead, rather than a great man.
I think the problem is,as noted by others above, people want Obama to finish the lecture and discuss all the vile things Reagan stood for,enabled and accomplished. The MSM and the general public will not sit still for the lecture and, arguably, should not have to. That's what schools and social networks are for. It makes me uncomfortable to mention the man and not finish the lecture, but realistically that's a loser on a number of levels.

Posted by idabw | January 17, 2008 2:11 PM

What are the policy positions where Obama has moved to the center, Slag?

Posted by converse | January 17, 2008 2:15 PM

I'm also amused by the people who are "disgusted" by a black man referring to the excesses of the 60's and 70's. I submit that a 46 year old African-american man knows damn well what the benefits came out of the civil rights movement (although some choose to ignore that knowledge). Does it occur to any of these commenters that what they deem "excesses" to stand for isn't universal. Black Anmerica was sick and frustrated in the early 80s as well; a number of blacks were tired of great profusions of generosity and support that ultimately fell by the wayside when push came to economic shove. The seventies, foe example, contained great steps forward,, but also a lot of talk and no action from so-called allies, who nonethless expected accolades and gratitude. The brutality and explosiveness of the previous decades took a toll on black America as well.

It seems to me that even the nuanced version of Reagan's role in America, simplifies the context in untenable ways.

Posted by idabw | January 17, 2008 2:21 PM

Whoops, by "any of these commenters", I mean to say "any of these commenters above who are disgusted by a black man referring to the excesses of the 60s and 70s." All done.

Posted by idabw | January 17, 2008 2:25 PM

This apoplexy regarding Obama's mention of Reagan is stupid on so many levels. The knee-jerk reaction it engenders from some liberal partisans is indicative of a group of people who want revenge, not a governing majority. "But Reagan was a bad president!" Yes, we all know that, but many in this country do not and the point of this election isn't to disabuse the populace of its antiquated ignorance. The point of this election is to seize a once-in-a-generational opportunity to remake the political landscape. I know this is terribly difficult for Clinton and Edwards supporters to understand, but not everyone in the country is a card-carrying liberal and die-hard Democratic partisan. The fact that Obama is capable of winning Independents and even some Republicans with a very liberal agenda (notice I said "liberal", not "progressive", you latte-sipping weenies) ought to elicit enthusiasm, not the back-biting purity police. And the fear that Obama is some kind of Trojan-horse moderate or even conserative is especially comical emanating from the Clinton and Edwards' camps. The fact that Obama's legislative record is consistently more liberal than Hillary Clinton's is not even debatable. Likewise, the majority of Edward's supporters seem to have conveniently forgotten the fact that he was Mr. DLC during his tenure in the Senate. Instead, they appear to be banking on the word of an extremely wealthy trial lawyer who cares very deeply about the poor but was still willing to support the MBNA-authored bankruptcy bill so long as it helped him stay in office; If he mentions the mill or Natalie Sarkisyan one more time I'm going to vomit.

The reality is that Obama makes some Democratic partisans uncomfortable because he doesn't buy into their cherished myths. No, protectionism isn't a winning economic strategy. No, we aren't going to curb greenhouse gas emissions without nuclear power. And no, we aren't going to build a working Democratic majority with either Hillary Clinton or John Edwards at the top of the ticket.

Posted by R.P. McMurphy | January 17, 2008 2:34 PM

The bile directed here at Reagan sounds no less infantile or crazy than the right wing hate-mongering directed at Bill Clinton during the 1990s. If you want to know what's driving Obama's popularity, most of you should have a look in the mirror. Those of us in the broad political center are sick and tired of the loudmouths and wing nuts of the left and the right taking control of the national debate. (I'm looking at you, Matt Stoller.) Like it or not, it's time to move on and stop demonizing your political rivals.

That, ultimately, is the Obama message.

Posted by Howard B | January 17, 2008 2:38 PM

Welll, from a cosmic view, it looks like Obama just delivered an overview of how he intends to change of the dynamics of the past 25-30 years, to secure and use a counter mandate to undo the agenda set into motion and power by the Reagan years, upon which has been based the divided power that has sidelined progressivism.

In one pretty masterful stroke, he brilliantly diluted all the Republican nominees 'exclusive' use of the Reagan 'image' while simultaneously placing history into a new perspective, i.e., a couple of words which gives one pause to reflect that the eight year Clinton presidency did not in fact make much of a dent against Reagan's initial influence and continuing image.

Posted by Donna | January 17, 2008 2:46 PM

... cosmic ... masterful ... brilliant ...

Hot in here? Or just me?

Posted by Lambert Strether, Philadelphia, PA | January 17, 2008 2:58 PM

What R.P.Mc. said.

Posted by john o. | January 17, 2008 3:06 PM

And no, we aren't going to build a working Democratic majority with either Hillary Clinton or John Edwards at the top of the ticket.

I don't actually believe that, but face it, people: neither Hillary Clinton nor even John Edwards are going to be the fiery angel of vengeance we're hearkening for. You gotta find somebody else to play the bad cop. It's not gonna be the president.

Posted by brandon | January 17, 2008 3:08 PM

"But Reagan was a bad president!" Yes, we all know that, but many in this country do not and the point of this election isn't to disabuse the populace of its antiquated ignorance. The point of this election is to seize a once-in-a-generational opportunity to remake the political landscape.

But don't you have to make the argument, RP? How do you 'remake the political landscape' without offering a counter-argument? The answer is, you don't, not really - you're still living in and reacting to the Reagan/GOP worldview. Seems to me that you'd want to use a once in a generation chance like this to supplant it. Durable political change is durable for a reason - not always a *good* reason, but there always is one.

I think there is some overreaction to this stuff Obama said, but I still have a fundamental problem with it. The problem with both HRC and Obama is that they punch under their effective weight. If this is a once-in-a-generation chance, why don't the two leading candidates act as if it were, rather than just say that it is?

Your comments about Edwards are, essentially, extra-rational (that is, we can't prove or disprove them) so I won't even try to change your mind, except to say that plenty of DLC types changed their minds in the last few years, like Gore, and I don't automatically assume they are fake, and you probably don't either. Oh well.

Posted by jonnybutter | January 17, 2008 3:15 PM

> Those of us in the broad political center are
> sick and tired of the loudmouths and wing nuts
> of the left and the right taking control of the
> national debate.

Then why did you vote for George W. Bush in 2004? 2000, OK, I can give you that one, but 2004? Dick Cheney? What was your excuse that time?

Perhaps you aren't quite so upset by wing nuts when they wear a Republican cloak?

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | January 17, 2008 3:32 PM

I still haven't seen any Obama supporter tell my how he going to create a progressive majority when he has no progressive policies!

Like I said, let him talk about being a moderate and centrist. The status quo centrists can have Obama and I would vote for him, but please don't sully progressivism with policies that aren't progressive.

This is the primary season and its our time to scream about the direction our party is going to take in the next election. Those who say we should should shut up because it might hurt our election chances are the same type of people who told us to shut about the Iraq debacle in 2002 and 2004. If we lose the election it won't be because progressives called out Clinton or Obama, remember we have no power its the "D" party, we don't have "P" party.

Posted by Ricky | January 17, 2008 3:37 PM

This comment thread is just unbelievable.

If you ever want to know why Democrats can't get out of their own way and manage to find ways to lose even the most un-lose-able elections - see the vitriol in this thread.

The more you pile on Obama for deigning to mention Ronald Reagan and his ability to build coalitions (those Reagan Democrats still exist you know, and they still swing elections), the more you show you just don't get it.

(Not to mention that the piling on here is almost 100% dishonest, as half of you monkeys are trying to rehash debate on Reagan's policies which weren't even what Obama was talking about - rehashing them as if Obama somehow agreed with them, after he specficially said he didn't - the subject was optimism, and how to build a majority, something a lot of people clearly don't understand or care about)

Obama is playing chess and all you wingnuts are playing checkers.

Posted by Anybody but Slick Hilly | January 17, 2008 3:42 PM

Didn't say you didn't have power, just said you just don't have your own party. Work cooperatively within the party to get a president elected and you'll build your power. Don't, and you won't. May be too simple for the progressive intellectual set.

Posted by converse | January 17, 2008 3:52 PM

Reagan didn't win the 1980 campaign through optimism, but through hatred and the promise of revenge against all the groups who were allegedly ruining the country.

I suspect that a lot of the mythologizing has to do with people's (natural) desire not to remember themselves that way. They'd rather think they were supporting optimism and entrepreneurship, rather than racist reactionism.

Admiring or praising Reagan's ability to build a coalition in 1980 on optimism and hope is like admiring Bob Dole's ability to secure the 1996 GOP nomination through his youth and vigor.

Posted by Pesto | January 17, 2008 4:00 PM

Anybody But had me up until 'half of you monkeys'. Way to make the rest of us in the Obama camp look good, champ.

He/she has a point though: If you think 'Our Way Or The Highway - REVENGE WILL BE OURS' is a winning Dem campaign slogan, then I hope you're ready for President Romney / McCain / Huckabee.

Posted by Doug H. | January 17, 2008 4:00 PM

I liked this statement by Edwards not because of anything about Obama, but just how good it is to hear a major Democratic candidate clearly recognized what an awful effect Reagan had on the nation.

Edwards Jabs Obama and Clinton

CBS News

HENDERSON, NEV. -- John Edwards ripped Barack Obama for praising the way Ronald Reagan brought about change when he was President of the United States.

“When you think about what Ronald Reagan did to the American people, to the middle class to the working people,” said Edwards.

“He was openly – openly – intolerant of unions and the right to organize. He openly fought against the union and the organized labor movement in this country. He openly did extraordinary damage to the middle class and working people, created a tax structure that favored the very wealthiest Americans and caused the middle class and working people to struggle every single day. The destruction of the environment, you know, eliminating regulation of companies that were polluting and doing extraordinary damage to the environment.”

“I can promise you this: this president will never use Ronald Reagan as an example for change.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/01/17/politics/fromtheroad/entry3724550.shtml

And unrelated to anything Obama said -- because I could see that it was largely about bringing people together etc. -- all you people who think it's somehow fringe-y or extremest or wacko liberal to talk honestly about the nasty record of Reagan, you're wrong.

Posted by El Cid | January 17, 2008 4:00 PM

Admire, Praise, Hope, Optimism.

Obama used none of these words when talking about Reagan. Why do you people keep making stuff up to put in his mouth, and then think you're clever when you attack it?

Posted by converse | January 17, 2008 4:05 PM

Barack Obama: "I want to make government "cool" again."

Wow, what a Reaganite.

Posted by Doug H. | January 17, 2008 4:10 PM

I was wrong. Obama did say "optimism". Said people wanted it, not that Reagan delivered it.

Posted by converse | January 17, 2008 4:13 PM

Converse, yes, I am characterizing Obama's statement as expressing admiration for Reagan's ability to tap "into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism," and praising him for his ability to build that coalition.

He certainly wasn't denouncing it. Or (and this is more important) accurately describing how Reagan actually built his governing coalition in the 1980 election (or, for that matter, in his gubernatorial elections in California).

And Doug, this statement by Obama does't make me think he's a Reaganite. But it sure makes him look very, very cynical to me.

Posted by Pesto | January 17, 2008 4:19 PM

It's amusing. For all the talk of how Obama is a cloaked neo-Reaganite, no one has provided any evidence yet of that. He wasn't talking about Reagan as policy-maker, he was talking about Reagan as politician. And, like it or not, he remade the landscape, one that we've inherited from Bush Sr to Clinton to W.

Do you seriously expect us to believe that a person involved in the anti-apartheid movement in college, community organizer in a black community ravaged by the economic policies of the 1980's, the editor-in-chief of the Harvard Law Review, and the candidate whose legislative record is more liberal than any other contender seriously is a Manchurian agent for Reaganism? Please.

Obama's offended a proportion of the blogosphere for not sufficiently kowtowing to it. Which is fine to hate him for, but don't pretend that it's based on anything but bitterness for being only a precursor to the actual revival of liberalism.

Posted by Zephyrus | January 17, 2008 4:22 PM

Ricky: "I still haven't seen any Obama supporter tell my how he going to create a progressive majority when he has no progressive policies!"

Too stupid to even comment on.

Ricky: "Like I said, let him talk about being a moderate and centrist. The status quo centrists can have Obama and I would vote for him, but please don't sully progressivism with policies that aren't progressive."

Barack Obama would be the most liberal candidate to ever win the presidency -- as would Hillary and Edwards, for that matter. This is pure hyperbole emanating from, I suspect, a Kucinich or Edwards supporter. Well, Kucinich will NEVER win the presidency, and Edwards is a late-convert who found liberalism on the altar of political power.

Ricky: "This is the primary season and its our time to scream about the direction our party is going to take in the next election. Those who say we should should shut up because it might hurt our election chances are the same type of people who told us to shut about the Iraq debacle in 2002 and 2004."

Well, luckily for you, you have a chance to support the only credible Democratic candidate who opposed the war when it counted.

Ricky: "If we lose the election it won't be because progressives called out Clinton or Obama, remember we have no power its the "D" party, we don't have "P" party."

Does "P" stand for purity? Because we'll have that when we have an electorate of one -- namely, you.

Posted by R.P. McMurphy | January 17, 2008 4:22 PM

"Didn't say you didn't have power, just said you just don't have your own party. Work cooperatively within the party to get a president elected and you'll build your power. Don't, and you won't. May be too simple for the progressive intellectual set."

Exactly. I am saying tell your candidate to cooperate and not call his policies progressive and I am willing to vote for him if he is the party's nominee. Is that too hard for you to understand?

Posted by Ricky | January 17, 2008 4:24 PM

If we want to recapture Reagan's popularity, we should run Martin Sheen (West Wing) for president.

Once upon a time, Reagan had been a Democrat; that surely contributed to his ability to make right-wing conservatism palatable. Obama and the youthful bloggers who support him don't seem to understand that speaking well of Reagan now, is like speaking well of George Bush jr. 20 years from now.

I thought Obama wanted to appeal to older voters, the ones who came of age in the 1960s. Occasionally, we are prey to delusions that Obama is the new Bobby, but comments about Reagan crush that delusion to bits.

Too often Obama sounds like a political scientist rathe than a politician. Candidates best save their political science for their presidential memoirs and libraries.

Posted by Redstocking | January 17, 2008 4:25 PM

"Does "P" stand for purity? Because we'll have that when we have an electorate of one -- namely, you."

*golf claps*

Posted by Zephyrus | January 17, 2008 4:26 PM

Actually, if you want real cooperation on my part, let Obama talk Reagan all he wants, but if he takes Kuchinich's platform as his own and successfully sells it to Independents and Republicans I will support him entirely.

Posted by Ricky | January 17, 2008 4:33 PM

I get it! I had to read "itself" about 3 times before it hit me - Matt is introducing it as the gender-neutral pronoun we've all been waiting for! Without resorting to the ungrammatical plural "their" or the awkward "his or her"!!

Go MATT!

Posted by Phoebe | January 17, 2008 4:37 PM

No, no! Any leading "it" can only refer to the RomneyDroid (now available in an exciting South Carolina limited edition, with multiple pander-sockets). Coming soon to a state near you!

** Viewers are advised that the RomneyDroid you receive may not exactly match the one illustrated in this commercial. This is not unusual, and there is no need to return the merchandise. RomneyDroid is a strong and reliable domestic fun-machine, which will provide endless hours of happy, fluffy waffles for you and your family.

Posted by nickzi | January 17, 2008 4:42 PM

Obama has chosen bi-partisanship and unity over progressive change.

Posted by skcus amabo | January 17, 2008 4:54 PM

JB: "But don't you have to make the argument, RP? How do you 'remake the political landscape' without offering a counter-argument?"

A counter-argument to Reagan? That was twenty years ago, for christsakes, and we alreadly have our counter-argument: George W. Bush. People know they don't like Bush, we simply have to offer them a positive alternative.

JB: "I think there is some overreaction to this stuff Obama said, but I still have a fundamental problem with it. The problem with both HRC and Obama is that they punch under their effective weight."

Well, considering they're punching at fellow Democrats right now, I think that's a good thing.

JB: "If this is a once-in-a-generation chance, why don't the two leading candidates act as if it were, rather than just say that it is?"

And that would entail what, exactly? Viciously attacking the Republicans so that they might circle the wagons? Nominating one of their hated stereotypes (populist demagogue, overly-ambitious bitch) in order to provoke them to action?

JB: "Your comments about Edwards are, essentially, extra-rational (that is, we can't prove or disprove them) so I won't even try to change your mind..."

That Edwards was a centrist Democrat from North Carolina is not in question. The only non-rational fact worth considering is whether Edward's conversion is genuine. And I'd argue that when political power is at stake, skepticism is the prudent response.

JB: "...except to say that plenty of DLC types changed their minds in the last few years, like Gore, and I don't automatically assume they are fake, and you probably don't either. Oh well."

Gore was always strong on his defining issue -- the environment. But his waxing liberalism in other areas of public policy only manifested itself when he abandoned politics -- not in the process of campaigning for higher office. Edwards' liberal conversion may be genuine, but what does it say about a person's temperament when he revises his political outlook in his mid-fifties? We need a president with a core so solid that he or she isn't afraid to stand against the prevailing-winds in order to do what's right. Barack Obama has demonstrated an inkling of this; Hillary and Edwards are habitual panderers who've shifted positions considerably in the past eight years.

Posted by R.P. McMurphy | January 17, 2008 4:56 PM

Obama's role in the progressive movement is a little different than that of your average blogger or blog commenter, yet so many bloggers and blog commenters seem not to realize that.

If all you want is pandering, partisan red meat, a 50-49 election, and 8 years of gridlock and Senate filibusters, there are other candidates out there for you.

Posted by bob | January 17, 2008 6:23 PM

Matt Stoller is pretty transparent.

Obama:

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.

Stoller:

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.

Again, Obama:

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.

Stoller:

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.

Like I said, Matt Stoller is pretty transparent. What Stoller says Obama said is just not what Obama said.

Posted by bob | January 17, 2008 6:29 PM

Obama:

"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."

This is beyond tolerating. I have tried to excuse Obama on Social Security attacks and health care foolishness and Pakistan threats and 100,000 more soldiers, and the rest of the right wing shilling, but no more. I will never vote for such a person.

Posted by Jennifer | January 17, 2008 6:40 PM

Jennifer, are you objecting to dynamism and entrepreneurship? Or do you want to defend unaccountable and ineffective government? Obama has a perfectly workable health plan, and many commentators have expressed anxiety about social security. Enlarging the army is not irrational, given its possible commitments - commitments created largely by Bush - but which can't be ignored. As for being willing to go after al-Qaeda in Pakistan, well, sometimes you have to break eggs to make omelettes, and the alternative is waiting for Musharraf to break with the more fundamentalist elements in the Pakistan army and intelligence agencies. That may well never happen.

Posted by jacinth | January 17, 2008 6:58 PM

Here's the full quote -- I transcribed it. Read the last two paragraphs. Stoller, et al., are wrong.

"I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. Part of what's different are the times. I do think, for example, that the 1980 election was different. I think that 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 that they felt like, with all the excesses of the 60s and 70s [he's referring to financial, not cultural, excesses -- this is part of the next clause], government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating -- people 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.

I think Kennedy, twenty years earlier, moved the country in a fundamentally different direction. So I think a lot of it just has to do with the times. I think we're in one of those times right now, where people feel like things as they are going aren't working, that we're bogged down in the same arguments that we've been having, and they're not useful.

And the Republican approach has, I think, played itself out. I think it's fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there, for the last 10, 15 years. There was a sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom. Now you've heard it all before -- you look at the economic policies that are being debated among the [Republican?] Presidential candidates, it's all... tax cuts. You know, we've done that. We've tried it. that's not really gonna solve, you know, our energy problem, for example."

Posted by Adam | January 17, 2008 7:06 PM

It is easy to see Reagan as George Wallace. George Wallace, however, was not elected to the presidency, and if that was all there was to Reagan, he wouldn't have been elected president. One has to remember that in 79, the real incomes of people in the middle class went down something like 4 percent. It was quite painful. Although in actuality, the poor did worse, due to the inflation, and the middle class turned out to do much better, during the seventies, than they did in the eighties (and the wealthy did much poorer in the seventies than they did in the eighties) there was definitely a perception, nurtured in the press, that the poor were getting all the breaks from the government. It was the delusion of the time.

Still, Carter would have won against George Wallace. Reagan made it to the presidency because he claimed to have the key to solving the problem that the middle class was supposedly jammed in. Those who think any angry conservative would have beat Carter in 1980 are kidding themselves. Obama is simply right to point out that Reagan traded in his mix of bigotry, conservatism, and optimism. Here's a James Barber op ed piece from the Times, published during the 1980 presidential campaign. I think he is a good witness of the vibes the Reagan campaign gave out, being pretty immune to thinking well of Reagan:

"DURHAM, N.C. -- The country already knows how to worry about Jimmy Carter and is not sure yet whether it needs to worry about John B. Anderson. But Ronald Reagan is in danger of being worried about for the wrong reasons. That is distracting and could be dangerous for the rest of us.

Mr. Carter and Mr. Anderson attack Mr. Reagan for, of all things, what he has said. How easy and obvious! Mr. Reagan's shoe is never far from his mouth. Charitably considered, he illustrates the perils of public speculation in the tape-recorder age. The only intelligent way to view the imaginary particulars he cites, from Taiwan to Cuba, from evolution to Mr. Carter and the Klan, is to suppose they represent attitudes, not intentions; in that light, it is not surprising that he so quickly disowns statements that turn out (to his surprise) to be unreal.

Similarly it is folly to try to patch together a Reaganism - a conservative or revolutionary ideology - from the varied postures he has assumed over the years. Other than a broad yearning, like Warren Harding's, for some imaginary bygone normalcy, there is no ideological fare there. His philosophy is that of ''Little House on the Prairie''; his data base is the airline magazine and the daily horoscope.

People frightened by Mr. Reagan's rhetoric should take comfort from the fact that he doesn't mean it. His staff is so accustomed to that fact that they hardly seem to try to ''de-gaffe'' his presentations anymore. Leaving aside the yawning gulf between his say and his do as a private person, Mr. Reagan, the public man, demonstrated in his two terms as Governor of California how little his ''conservative'' principles came to mean in the actual practice of his government, with respect to taxes, welfare, education and the rest. Therefore, to fight against his words is to swat at smoke rings.

Worse, setting him up as the Mad Bomber of modern rhetoric makes him seem so surprisingly cool and comfortable when he saunters onto the screen. For Ronald Reagan is one of those politicians who always gets credit for not being as bad as he is made out to be, like George Wallace acting polite to the New York reporters. And he would be easily dismissable had he not proved himself one of the century's most effective political dramatists - a second-rate movie actor but a first-rate political one. That makes him an electoral threat, not his so-called principles.

The right reason to worry about Mr. Reagan as President is his passive-positive character. He is no Darth Vader, he's a jelly bean, ''an old softie,'' as one of his daughters called him. The passivity is clear enough: Compared to other politicians in the Presidential arena, he takes it easy loping along toward the White House. That leisurely pace has been his lifetime practice, well before he reached retirement age.

The positive side is clear, too. Mr. Reagan comes on as a hopeful, cheerful, most-happy fellow, exuding optimism, collecting enthusiasm. This combination of passivity and positivity identifies a political character attuned to seeking public affection through politics. Nothing there of Calvin Coolidge's remoteness; not much of Dwight D. Eisenhower's irritability. Instead, Reagan-in-person and Reagan-onthe-stump communicates a friendliness and good-guy charm in marked contrast to Jimmy Carter's self-conscious crinkle-eyed tooth-flash."

Posted by roger | January 17, 2008 7:16 PM

Jennifer: "This is beyond tolerating."

A mild appeal to a popular Republican president of yesteryear is beyond tolerating? At some point in this race, you people are going to have to wise-up and decide if want to win or if you want revenge.

Jennifer: "I have tried to excuse Obama on Social Security attacks..."

I agree with you that the system will be solvent for quite a while. But is raising the payroll cap really so heinous?

Jennifer: "...and health care foolishness..."

Quit being so dramatic. Obama's healthcare plan isn't much different from Hillary's or Edward's. Now, it isn't mandatory -- which is probably good from a pragmatic political point of view and bad from a policy point of view. But that's reality. And if Hillary is the nominee, there's a very good chance she won't even get to impliment her superior plan -- there's a very good chance she won't win the election and an even better chance she'll hurt down-ballet Democrats.

Jennifer: "...and Pakistan threats and 100,000 more soldiers, and the rest of the right wing shilling, but no more. I will never vote for such a person."

Well, here's the distictive conundrum that Hillary and Edwards' supporters find themselves in -- and I assume, if you have any sense whatsoever, you're in one of those two camps. Did Obama advocate an aggressive policy toward Pakistan with regard to the elimination of Osama bin Laden? Yes. Did he advocate increasing the size of the U.S. military after the Iraq debacle? Yes. Did he support the invasion of Iraq, the greatest foreign policy mistake of our lifetime, responsible for the deaths and dislocations of millions of people and the needless expense of trillions of dollars that might better have been spent aiding the people of this country? NO. Hillary and Edwards both have blood on their hands, and your objections to minor policy differences you have with Obama will do nothing to hide that fact.

Posted by R.P. McMurphy | January 17, 2008 7:31 PM

I think Jennifer is now a Hill shill, so she's just looking for whatever excuse she can find to not vote for the other candidates.

Posted by gerontion | January 17, 2008 7:43 PM

I lived through but don't remember anything about the 1980 campaign, but didn't Carter lead Reagan until well towards the end? From what I've read, for most of 1980 Reagan was considered a states'-rights nuclear cowboy by most Americans, who wouldn't trust him over even the deeply unpopular president. Towards the end, from the "there you go again" debate onwards, Reagan tried to reposition himself as a charming-but-feisty grandfather type - an image he built on throughout his presidency, I guess because it was more successful than the "angry B-movie bigot" look.

This is just what I've read, neither here nor there I guess.

Posted by sweaty guy | January 17, 2008 7:58 PM

Obama, quoted above:

Presidential candidates, it's all... tax cuts. You know, we've done that.

R-i-i-i-i-g-h-t. Too bad that Obama's top economic advisor advocates exactly that Republican panacea (WSJ) and right wing talking point as a fiscal stimulus. Krugman calls bullshit on this, and rightly so.

Sometimes the oratory just catches up with you...

OFB PROPHYLACTIC Ooooh, I quoted Krugman, who rightly called bullshit on Bush, based on the numbers, instead of Republican operatives Kristol, Brooks, Sullivan, and Broderella, all of whom, for some strange reason, have endorsed Obama. Sorry. I'm going with the man who's got a track record.

Posted by lambert strether | January 17, 2008 8:01 PM

Also, didn't Bill Clinton meet Reagan when he was president-elect, and praise his "communication skills"? I have a lot of problems with the Clintons, and am finished voting for them, but praising the strengths of your political opponents (especially if you wish they were yours) is a somewhat honest stance for a politician to take.

ALL of our presidents have had admirable qualities, otherwise they would never have become president. Obama should also aspire to having Nixon's instinct for the jugular and the luck of George W. Bush.

Posted by sweaty guy | January 17, 2008 8:04 PM

By the end of today's discussions, I may have been convinced that all of our 3 major Democratic candidates are phonies who are posing to have opinions they don't have and / or are semi-openly signaling they have views which may be dangerous.

Which is to say, I'm pretty much back to where I began, which is to choose what I think is the best option offered by the actual political system, rather than to expect any major politicians to have political views as honest and progressive as I possess personally.

Posted by El Cid | January 17, 2008 8:42 PM

Lambert--

FYI--appeals to authority are generally considered to be among the weakest forms of argument. Ditto guilt by association.

So if you want to actually convince people that you have something to say . . . maybe you should say it instead of alternately 1) invoking "Krugman" and parroting Atrios (on ponies), and 2) crying "Kristol."

Just saying, if you want to win an argument, it might help to actually make one.

Posted by marcj | January 17, 2008 8:55 PM

marcj, if you wait for lambert to come with an argument, we may be some time. It does take a while to find the right talkingpoint and then to copy and paste.

Posted by jacinth | January 17, 2008 9:03 PM

Well, you need to realize that lambert is finding his own voice. Doubtless there will soon be tears and a frenzied assault on Russert.

Posted by nickzi | January 17, 2008 9:05 PM

I don't want to hear about the excesses of the 60s and 70s and how Reagan returned America to a shining age of sunnily optimistic entrepreneurship, and I don't care if it's a strategic quadruple double triple triangulation sowkow deluxe.

In case anybody has forgotten, the argument about Reagan is NOT a history argument. Watched any Republican debates this year? It's Reagan Reagan Reagan Jesus Reagan General Petraeus Reagan. Those guys want to rename every state Reagan 1 through Reagan 50 and all the capitals will be Reagan City. They still call themselves the Reagan Revolution and they propel themselves forward by repetitive invocations of that great, barrel-chested, eternally smiling patriot with all the right ideas.

The truth would be a good start in busting that crap up. And that sure wasn't truth Obama was telling.

Posted by Trickster | January 18, 2008 1:23 AM

People who argue that saying complimentary things about Reagan, or repeating Reagan's arguments even if you make it clear that you disagree with them, make you unfit for decent company in liberal circles might want to consider these:

Mr. President, today I pay my respects to a beloved leader who, with grace, wit, and charisma, led our country through some of the great challenges of the twentieth century. President Ronald Wilson Reagan was a dedicated public servant whose confidence and optimism reinvigorated the American people and made him one of the most honored and respected Presidents in our Nation's history…

In foreign affairs, it is impossible to separate President Reagan's legacy from the astounding change in world affairs that began while he was in office: the collapse of the U.S.S.R. and the end of the Cold War. President Reagan spoke frankly and frequently about the bankruptcy--both moral and economic--of the Soviet regime. His words and actions energized dissidents and activists struggling for change and for justice in the face of Communist repression and tyranny. His optimism helped to give them confidence that they were, indeed, on the right side of history.

President Reagan not only recognized the monstrous nature of Communist totalitarianism, but he also understood the horror of a geopolitical reality that made the entire world hostage to the threat of nuclear annihilation. He had the courage to act, to reach out to the Soviet leadership and to craft landmark arms control agreements, including one that, for the first time, eliminated a class of nuclear weapons.

On the domestic front, it was under the leadership of President Reagan that the solvency of the Social Security program was extended through reforms to the existing program. Although modest in their overall scope, those reforms were seen by many as politically risky, and President Reagan provided critical leadership that helped assure both a reluctant Congress and an uncertain public. Today, we should build on the Reagan reforms, and strengthen the existing program, as he did.

Another significant domestic policy challenge that President Reagan tackled was the simplification of our tax code. In the face of special interest pressures, and under the leadership of his Secretary of Treasury, Donald Regan, as well as a bipartisan group of members of the House and Senate, President Reagan was able to push through the last significant reforms to our increasingly complex tax code in 1986.

Russ Feingold June 8, 2004, Senate Floor speech

Well, I think especially, probably, in the ‘80s, you know, during the Reagan years, there was – President Reagan and others did a pretty good job of equating “liberal” – I mean, Nixon tried to do it as well – “liberal” sort of identified as being elitist, not being connected to the concerns of ordinary people, as being arrogant, as being identified with, uh, you know, uh, issues that were completely not connected to people’s lives. All of that and more. All of that and more.

Paul Wellstone July 16, 2001, Charlie Rose

Posted by Another Chris | January 18, 2008 3:54 AM

The Obama campaign and his supporters do not seem to understand why Reagan was a game changer. It was not that he was a sunny optimist who said nice things about FDR. Reagan was a game changer because he ran as the leader of the conservative movement and advocated policies that were to the extreme right.

Reagan's supply-side tax policy was so far out of the mainstream, his leading Republican challenger, George Bush, labeled it voodoo economics. Reagan knew the 1980 election was a golden opportunity with a very unpopular president and advocated a massive increase in military spending, government deregulation, states' rights, and significant cuts to Great Society programs..

In terms of rhetoric, in 1980 Reagan attacked government bureaucrats, welfare recipients, and impotent Democrats. You will be hard pressed to find unity or bi-partisanship in any of Reagan stump speeches from 1980. You will find lines like this, "First the Democrats gave us the New Deal, then the Fair Deal and now the Misdeal."

For Obama to be a game changer like Reagan he would need to be out front running on Kucinich's, or at the very least, Edwards' policy proposals.

The National Review on why Reagan won in 1980
But let us never forget that the core of his attraction was what he said. Reagan's success cannot be appreciated apart from understanding the background of the Seventies, and the Seventies were awful. (snip)

We needed an optimist, someone who knew that the right should, and would, prevail. Even more, we needed someone who knew what the right was. We needed someone who believed, not because he had learned it at the University of Chicago, but because it made sense to him, that lower taxes and fewer regulations would stimulate economic growth. We needed someone who knew, not because a geopolitical map-folder suspected it was true, but because he felt it in his bones, that Communism was evil and dangerous and inhuman.

That is what Ronald Reagan had been saying for years, before he said it again in St. Paul. Even if he didn't make the case in detail, which he usually didn't, he could allude to the case as his fulcrum, his political point of vantage. He had been saying such things at least since his speech for Goldwater in 1964. In 1980, when America needed him most, it turned to him. He won New Hampshire, the election, an intellectual argument, and a world war. He was probably not surprised--which was one of the reasons he ultimately won.

Posted by uncharitable misreadings | January 18, 2008 7:01 AM

Trickster et al - Obama wasn't going ga ga for what Reagan did as president, never did he say. He just noted that Reagan tapped into a desire that Americans had in 1980. Did he deliver on his promise? Doesn't say. Did he make the country better? Doesn't say. Isn't speaking to that. Obviously has differences policywise if you look. Don't freak - Obama isn't trying to be Reagan in any other way than to feel the pulse of Americans, feel his own pulse, see if they match and if they do - he thinks they do - run with it and go.

The time is now: Obama for President.

That was Reagan's slogan, for you wee ones. Except ...it said "Reagan" instead of "Obama". ok the melatonin's kicking in, thank the lard and goodnight.

Posted by Phoebe | January 18, 2008 7:20 AM

Cranky Observer says:
"> Those of us in the broad political center are
> sick and tired of the loudmouths and wing nuts
> of the left and the right taking control of the
> national debate.

Then why did you vote for George W. Bush in 2004?"

You're going to have to start crankily observing the Republicans a little more closely, as you appear unaware that to many of them, George Bush is annoyingly centrist. The "winguts" are much, much farther right.

Posted by Ralph Phelan | January 18, 2008 8:15 AM

Watched any Republican debates this year? It's Reagan Reagan Reagan Jesus Reagan General Petraeus Reagan. Those guys want to rename every state Reagan 1 through Reagan 50 and all the capitals will be Reagan City.

Funniest moment of the thread.

Posted by El Cid | January 18, 2008 8:55 AM

The only non-rational fact worth considering is whether Edward's conversion is genuine. And I'd argue that when political power is at stake, skepticism is the prudent response.

You aren't skeptical, you're sure. I can't prove you're wrong and you can't prove I'm wrong. You have an opinion, not an argument. You're saying that when power is at stake (which it always is), politicians always lie. That's obviously not true.

Gore was always strong on his defining issue -- the environment. But his waxing liberalism in other areas of public policy only manifested itself when he abandoned politics -- not in the process of campaigning for higher office. Edwards' liberal conversion may be genuine, but what does it say about a person's temperament when he revises his political outlook in his mid-fifties?

Gore was a centerist Democrat for a lot more years than Edwards was, and had many issues, not just the environment. You're still saying that politicians must lie in a fundamental way if they're running for office. That is just dumb. What *does* it say about someone changing their political outlook in their mid 50s? It depends on several things, RP. It might say that they are a cheap opportunist (Romney, Zell Miller); it might say that they are a nut, if they change 180 degrees (David Horowitz, Hitchens - not pols, but still in the arena) or it might mean they are intelligent and competent politicians (Gore, Edwards).

Sorry for the rant, but the case against Edwards is almost always like the one Murphy presents, and it just drives me nuts. It's not an argument, just an opinion. Big mistake, IMO. sigh.

Posted by jonnybutter | January 18, 2008 12:15 PM

BTW, there's a nice short word for people who are incapable of changing their minds: idiot (or dipshit). As a matter of fact, I can think of a prominent national pol who almost never changes his mind: Dubya. Of course, Dubya never lies, does he?....

Posted by jonnybutter | January 18, 2008 12:19 PM