Login Here
I made this comment in Pach's earlier post about Obama's Reagan comments, but it could have applied to any candidate.
The temptation is to think that criticism of Obama benefits Clinton or Edwards and vice versa when viewed through the lens of their supporters, but it isn’t a zero sum game. Speaking for myself I can say that our allegiance is to a counternarrative which we hope will create the possibility of progressive change no matter who gets elected.
From that standpoint, if one candidate sees another receiving negative feedback for something they are less likely to engage in it themselves. The likelihood that Clinton or Edwards is going to step in it now and start praising St. Ronnie in the next few days is remote. We win.
That seems to be a schema that is almost impossible for people whose allegiance is to a particular candidate to understand, and thus we’re accused of being agents of a candidate who isn’t on the receiving end of a particular critique. We’re not. We’re trying to shift the whole dialog by shifting all the candidates, using one to pressure the rest.
It may not be what some people are looking to hear, but it is nonetheless both true and necessary in the world of less-than-perfect candidates.
Share This 
Spotlight
Jane!
Jane!!
Rats, thought for a minute I had firsties! These AZ folks are too speedy!
So true, Jane. I agree completely with the premise.
Ann, I seem to remember this 0ne-Two combination not very long ago. *g*
Hi Jane!
How is Katie?
Boy, I so totally agree with you on this.
Jane’s still in transit, gang, but she wanted to get this message out. She put it in the queue for publication while she had access on the road.
Obama’s idolizing of Reagan really burns me.
Hi, Jane! Great post!
I hope your dog is feeling better.
Wow - participation as behavioral modification, rather than a bit part in a the hagiography choral group.
I like it.
Amen. It reeks of triangulation.
More of which we do not need.
Lahoma and I will support the nominee of our party to become the next Democratic president of the United States.
What’s wrong with Kobe?
And we are not pleased with Senator Obama’s comments on Ronald Reagan.
lahoma
I have heard it said that Obama’s Reagan remarks were made with the California primary in mind, as it is said that Californians by and large think more highly of Reagan than other parts of the country. One, I would question whether that is true, and two, if that was his motivation, it disgusts me as the worst kind of pandering without regard to its impact on the Democratic Party or the progressive movement. He could talk about Roosevelt, Truman, JFK, RFK, Carter, Bill Clinton, even LBJ without giving a boost to Reaganism. Why isn’t he?
So if Edwards is acting as a progressive modifier to the H & O RR, is it because he has more popular appeal than Kucinich, or is Kucinich marginalized as a modifier because of the press that ignores him?
Was it…yesterday? How ya doin’, Matt?
Not the Californians of my aquaintance. ‘Course, I used to live in the Bay Area, so YMMV — especially if you live in Southern CA.
The most important thing would be to get Matt Stoller onto Olbermann tomorrow night to explain what happened to Obama in Nevada. Better yet, get him onto Hardball. The word has to get out to the campaigns that Obama blew by praising Reagan, and that cost him Nevada.
Trying to stay warm up here in the north. It must of been up in the 40’s today which felt warm after last week.
I’m fascinated with the intense focus on Obama’s Reagan comment but the lack of concern for Hillary’s DLC foundations and Edwards really horrid comments to A*P*C.
We have problems with all of them but it does seem that one is currently drawing progressive ire while the other two get a pass.
Let’s be equal opportunity critics and cheerleaders …
Jane, you’re absolutely right. I support a particular candidate, but I don’t get my knickers in a knot if he’s criticized. If feet stray from the path we would like to see them tread those feet need to be held to the fire, no matter whose ankles they’re attached to.
Yep. Southern Californians love Reagan.
Well I think Jane’s comment tied with Julia’s question (EPU’d) and Glenn’s response.. make for a very worthwhile approach.
Hmmm. Obama was born on August 4, 1961. He was 19 when Reagan was elected and 27 when Reagan left office. Certainly old enough to have “gotten it” about the damage the reaganites did to our country. He should know better.
RR won the Cold War, proved the Laffer Curve works, invented the Internet and cured cancer.
Smart Democrats will praise him.
I sometimes wonder whether the entire American political process is
a game that Karl Rove plays for his own amusement.
That’s one interpretation.
I would argue that by causing such a stink about essentially nothing, the media and a lot of bloggers helped the least progressive candidate win, and is unhelpful in our attempt to shift the frame in the direction we would like it to go.
It’s a proven tactic. the Pukes have been doing it for years.
Peer pressure, behavior modification, coercion,bullying, whatever you want to call it, to a certain degree it can be quite effective.
One of the first things toddlers learn is not to touch things that are hot.
My peeved attitude for each come in waves. However I do harbor a continous steaming pit of contempt for George W. Bush continues unabated.
I know that there are fewer Democrats in So. Cal., but is your statement true of Democrats and independents there as well as of Rethugs?
Would love to see someone take down Reagan- maybe a movie that gets the truth out- but it should not be a dem presidential candidate who does it.
My lady is absolutely incensed about the recent Obama comments about Reagan. Whew!
Yup!
Many of us who support Barack Obama object to the way his comments about Ronald Reagan have been deliberately used to insinuate that he was praising the Repubican ideas generated during the Reagan Era. What he was affirming is that the Reaganites generated IDEAS…nowhere does he suggest that any of these ideas were GOOD ideas. Unfortunately a lot of people don’t seem capable of comprehending what he was saying…or they choose to deliberatley misconstrue what he said for their own sinister purposes.
I’ve been meaning to mention this for days, so while I’m thinking about it, and since it seems to be on topic: remember that situation where Obama was first to answer what are his biggest faults. So he talked about losing paper if they give it to him any substantial length of time before he needs it. Granted he made it thru law school, etc., so he can’t be that bad. But I gotta say, anyone who has ever been thru a course where they teach you how to interview, specifically, for a job (and that is essentially what they’re doing, after all) knows that they teach you to take a negative and make it a positive. Exactly what both Edwards and Hillary did, yet they’ve been criticized for it, and Obama has been given credit for telling the truth.
Yet if he were interviewing with a professional headhunter, his answer would have shown a certain unpreparedness. It’s not that I think he’s bad, but I think his staff should be preparing him better and not playing up the fact that he’s essentially “not ready for prime time.”
No point in having knicker-knots. It is frustrating to watch them whack each other when it is pointless. There are some differences but you don’t need to go after the other person with a straight razor. I rather they each play to the strenghts they have. And whack the Rethugs for all they are worth.
The love for Saint Ronnie is primarily a gooper pastime I believe- they love to name things after the silly bastard.
Read How to Rig an Election. People play to win.
-G
I think it was just plain a stupid mistake!
Uhhhh….
In Arcadia (solid Rethug) - maybe
In Santa Monica….not so much.
With 10.25 million in LA County alone - not to mention the spread of media markets from Santa Barbara through LA and (via OC or the “Inland Empire”) to San Diego County (Ocean Beach vs say, Fallbook) - I’m quite daunted by the diversity and complexity of So Cal poltical opinion.
Is there any emprical data on the presence of absence of So Cal voters’ current affinity for someone who left office in 1988?
What about HRC and the AUMF? It seems to me that should be a little more troubling than any comments that Obama has made about a dead president from 20 years ago.
It’s not Kobe, it’s Katie, one of her others (she has 3 standard bred poodles). she just mentioned early on Pach’s Reagan/Obama thread that Katie had an upset tummy and was in doggie hospital.
He apparently didn’t say it well at all, but he could have talked about lots of Dems who have generated ideas. It was a foolish and naive thing to do and I hope he won’t make the same error again. It makes me think he is a DLC Dem inside and out.
The problem is that what he said has been so easily misconstrued, and he should have recognized that.
Richard Nixon (Watergate, etc.). Ronald Reagan (Iran-Contra, etc.). George W. Bush (war crimes, etc.). Now there’s a line-up.
Yes! And, as I noted a while ago, unless we elect someone who is going to be able to speak to the population in a broad way, we are going to end up in the same impossible situation that we were in during the Clinton era, when the opposition was able to clobber him at every turn. This, plus to get elected, we need to have someone who can attract numbers of independents.
btw I have no sinister purposes.
eddevy, I understand what Obama was saying but it would have been sooo much better if he used FDR as an example of a pres who changed the nation’s thinking. The goal is to change repubs into dems, not to validate repub thinking.
Yep. That too… ;0)
“presence or absence”
(sorry - “presence of absence” refers to Reagun’s cognition, not his poll numbers…)
He couldn’t think of a Democrat who “generated ideas?” He couldn’t even have thought of a less odious Republican? Cripes — doesn’t he realize that the mere name “Ronald Reagan” is like a red rag to a bull to any minimally progressive Democrat who’s old enough to remember him? Puhleeze.
I went out in my jammies for about a half hour or so with my kitties this morning. Not sure of the temperature, but it couldn’t have been that bad.
Alas, if he (or Hillary) were to bring in FDR at this point, it would cue in all the pundits to say, big government democrats. At this point, sadly FDR has been very vilified by the right.
Don’t forget that he was idolized by TV for several days surrounding his funeral. That may be all some younger voters know about him.
Sounds like a Bill Clinton did it too argument.
-G
I voted for Obama, I read his comments and they sickened me.
Also, I didn’t vote for Hillary largely because of that vote, but it doesn’t innoculate Obama from saying stupid things.
You realize of course, that the Clintons have also praised Reagan. I like what Siun said earlier, if one is going to go after one, you ought to go after the other.
If you don’t care for Obama. And you smile less than favorably on Senator Clinton, but will vote to oust the Republicans next November, then I see we are on the same page.
Which is what I’ve been saying since yesterday morning, and it seems a lot of people can’t or won’t accept the validity of it.
Why anyone who claims to be progressive would prefer Clinton over Obama is beyond me.
Agree in principle. At the same time, it is incumbent upon us in the blogosphere to vet what has been said by a candidate or politician before jumping the gun. Obama’s Reagan comment was taped, so there was never any question as to the exact words he used. However, at an earlier moment, a number of blogosphere writers jumped on John Edwards because of the way a particular reporter had described a reaction. Once the reports of some other journalists were examined, it was clear that the blogosphere had jumped the gun
My suggestion is that, before we leap to criticize a candidate or politician, we do two things:
1) Ask ourselves if the report we’re hearing/reading squares with what we know about prior actions or positions of the candidate/politician; and
2) Be extra alert to adjectives and modifiers used by the reporter, especially when there is no audio or video of the comment for verification. Too many media types are trying to create a story rather than report a story, and when we fall into this trap we do ourselves and our politicians a disservice.
Hillary hasn’t done it in the heat of a Democratic primary.
-G
Maybe so, Richmond, but I fear very shortly, we’re going to need someone with FDR-like ideas.
Siun, I’ve already taken more than my share of swats at all three. But, what’re ya gonna do? Can’t live with ‘em, can’t shoot ‘em. One way or the other we need to choose a candidate and we’re limited by those who are running voluntarily.
The Clintons have been cozy with George Bush Sr. and Rupert Murdoch too. And they love them some DLC.
Thank you.
Link?
If Sen. Clinton said anything on par with what Obama said about Reagan, then my criticism applies to her equally.
Sadly (because people are/will be suffering because of this Rethug-caused mess) - you are very right.
Jane says;
“From that standpoint, if one candidate sees another receiving negative feedback for something they are less likely to engage in it themselves. The likelihood that Clinton or Edwards is going to step in it now and start praising St. Ronnie in the next few days is remote. We win.”
Jane since you believe the blogs have so much power over the candidates rhetoric.”
How about a post about BigDog’s lies and telling him to STFU?
This is what the nation thirsts for. ;0)
He wants someone to believe he will emulate Ronald Reagan. Well, if that’s what he wants me to believe…
Yet? She is VERY careful, you know. Pink suits in some states, blue in others, green and rust in N.H. (Her hairdo changes subtly too!)
Swatting with equal attention seems right to me … and acknowledging who each is and what they have shown us with their actions. It’s not a pretty picture and I have a feeling everyone is trying to find a way to swallow one or the other … but that’s not supposed to be what we’re fighting for.
And, isn’t it a sad fact that repubs villify him, dems are afraid to mention him but NOBODY speaks harshly of Reagan.
You should have heard me cursing when Bill said he’d yank Poppy Bush out of his adirondack chair to run around the world on a goodwill tour to fix his Chimp like sons disastrous results.
I was livid……..Bill, leave the old coot to blubber in Kennebunkport with his Quaker Oats Guy wife. Take Jimmy Carter and rebuild our reputation.
-G
Kiddo and lahoma are wise folks. Our house agrees with their house. Off to tend things on the stove, and I’ll check back later.
Apparently Obama has essentially said to Big Dog STFU (per Drudge/Kos). About time!
By this logic an appeal to Speer’s visionary architecture and Rand’s enthusiasm for social chang will be part of Obama’s stump speech.
Was Obama this tone-deaf as a law professor, or was he just saving the incompetence til it would do the greatest possible damage?
Even swathed in Armani, Chicag machine tool Obama shows less aptitude for self-preservation than do many of my suicidal patients.
Of course, he does excel in his cosmetic dentistry.
Just for the record, here are Haaretz’s Israel Factor ratings of U.S. presidential candidates:
8.37 Guiliani
7.62 Clinton
7.25 Bloomberg
7.12 McCain
6.50 Romney
6.00 Huckabee
5.87 Edwards
5.00 Obama
They have also rated all other current and former candidates, except Ron Paul, see http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/p.....Page.jhtml
Regarding Clinton, one of her top fund raisers is Haim Saban, an Israeli billionaire who founded the Saban Center for Mideast Policy. Per Saban, “I’m a one-issue guy and my issue is Israel.” Among Clinton’s foreign policy advisors are Martin Indyk, Director of the Saban Center and Michael O’Hanlon, an affiliate of the Saban
Center.
IMHO, I don’t see daylight between Clinton and the neocons of the Bush administration on matters of foreign policy, especially in the middle east. Israel and her A*P*C supporters will insist on long-term U.S. presence in that region. And, I must note, our mideast policy was much more even handed under George H. W. Bush than under William Jefferson Clinton.
Great point, Jane! We need some air in here.
Let’s throw open some (Overton) windows — after we’ve shoved them as far to the left as we can, natch!
Didn’t have time to read earlier threads today, so knowing Pups as I do, y’all probably have heard about Obama’s speech today at Ebeneezer Baptist Church.
On the off chance you missed it, here’s a link to a full copy of the speech:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyo.....343/440020
It’s an amazing speech. I admit to looking at Obama with a somewhat wary eye, fearing that what he means by “unity” will amount to compromising with the GOP gangsters and thugs.
OTOH, if what he means by “unity” is what he talks about in the afore-linked-to speech, then a progressive approach to problem-solving would look to be in the works on his watch.
For those who have read this speech (or seen it on C-Span — I first heard feedback that someone who saw it there today, a far more hardened, cynical type, burst into tears upon seeing/hearing Obama deliver these words; would love to know if it will be rebroadcast…) —
— what do you all think about it? Does he mean what he says here?
If this is the type of “unity” he means, which he defines, among other things, as being our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers, and hence morally responsible to help the least amongst us in material, concrete ways, then that’s a type of “unity” I can sign up for.
I like the idea mentioned above about someone putting out a Reagan film. I think “his time will come.”
Perhaps Michael Moore?
While I will vote for the nominee of my party for president, I just don’t think that Obama and Clinton “get it”. If either of these are the nominee, my lady will be dragging me kicking and yelling to the polls come next November. ;0)
“Quaker Oats Guy wife.”
Too funny. All she needs is the hat.
It’s a filthy job, but somebody’s got to do it. ;)
Hi MsK8! Great to see yuo here.
He can’t be all things to everyone. I detested Ronnie when he was governor of California and even more when he was prez. His policies are still ahve a negativeimpact on this country and it citizens. Obama needs to wake up and smell the coffee.
Angry, much? I think your comment is way off base. Did you see his speech this morning in Atlanta. I think he has real courage (he addressed anti-semitism and homophobia speaking in a black church). Frankly, I find refreshing someone who speaks with candor - and intelligence, rather than push polling every phrase to see if it will “work” as a concept.
People are so ready for another FDR right now.
We won’t get one, but that is what to aim for, dear candidates. Not “it’s morning in America!”
It’s a cold gray dawn and milk is five dollars a gallon, the kids are sick, you don’t have insurance, and no one seems to care.
No one can spare some time to listen, either.
I hope it’s better than “Nixon”.
We are keeping our eyes on the prize. The White House.
Hmmmm. Yes, YES!!!!
The Californians I hang out with don’t think too highly of Ronald Reagan. We wonder how long he had Alzhiemers before it was reported. First he screwed up California, then went on to ruin the USA.
completely OT: the editor for la times was just fired for refusing to institute deep budget cuts. this is the second editor fired in 15 months for refusing to institute cuts dictated by the publisher.
http://www.latimes.com/busines.....ome-center
This whole Reagan thing reminds me of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s admiration of Hitler (for being a little guy and coming into power and for his public speaking skills.)
Looks as if it’s either Obama or Clinton on the dem side and either Romney or McCain for the goops. Clinton/McCain most likely in my opinion- although many are sayin that Romney will take it for the goops cause he’s got more money. If goops start dropping out- it could change things. If Edwards drops- I don’t know where his support will go.
Justice Stevens deserves to retire with a clear conscience.
-G
We badly need a dem prez to replace the aging “liberal” wing of the supreme court- and a conservative if the possibility arises. A lot can happen in eight years.
Oh no!
Sending a prayer/good thoughts for Jane’s sweet pup!
Oh, Please… enough with the Karl as bogeyman meme.
The only time I want to hear that name again is when he’s doing the perp walk or dying of brain cancer like Bush Sr’s shill (what was his name?) who ginned-up the Willie Horton story.
I’ve watched the video of Obama’s comments about Reagan at least a half dozen times. What I object to is reference to “the excesses of the 60’s and 70’s” that caused people to vote for Reagan.
I was 27 yo in 1980. The hot-button issues that motivated suckers to vote for Ronald Reagan in 1980 included the civil rights movement, the War on Poverty, the anti-war movement, women’s liberation, gay rights, and environmental regulation.
Perhaps Mr. Obama can explain why he would categorize these things as “the excesses of the ’60’s and 70’s.” And go back and watch the video before telling me that he was just referring to how the Reagan crowd saw it. This is how He referred to it.
I am glad you brought this up, and I would love to have it as the subject of a whole blog. The fact that this small group of neo-cons would have Guillani up as their number one pro-Israel guy is beyond the pale (pail?). Their list seems to be all about red blood ME war yelling, not thoughtful engagement by any means. It reminds me of something I read a while back that the ueber right wing of all the major religions (Jews, Christians, Moslems) actually have more in common with each other than with the more liberal sects of their own religion. I was really heartened the other day both with the Jewish leaders who came out against the Obama email - and then the Jewish Senate leaders. Just because there are a signifiant number of the more nutsy neo-cons (Addington, Wolfowitz, Perle, Kristol, Lieberman) who are red blood ME war mongers, doesn’t mean that this is the view of all or even a majority of Jews. Alas, those more middle of the road types are often clobbered for speaking out in a more reasoned way.
Even after being universally “misunderstood,” he has yet to say that he was talking about BAD ideas.
*waving to Mrs. K8*
By this logic an appeal to Speer’s visionary architecture and Rand’s enthusiasm for social chang will be part of Obama’s stump speech.
By your logic Armstrong and Moulitsas wrote “Crashing the Gate” in praise of the Republican Machine.
Oh yeah….now I remember….yeah:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....38;search=
Sorry, but you can’t put Hitler and Reagan in the same basket. Even though I hate what Reagan did, I would not go that far.
So true.
Given Obama’s record, that should be self-evident.
I was thinking about Orange County, which is overwhelmingly Republican.
Which kinda (once again) puts the lie to Lawrence O’Donnell’s assertion that Edwards needs to get out of the race because the Cali folks don’t want to hear bad things about Reagan and most voters are too young to remember him as a union buster/anti-labor president (after he busted one of the few unions to actually endorse him in ‘80).
You know what the problem is when you pressure candidates to act a certain way to your liking?? —You don’t really change the candidate, you just push them to become more manipulative and hide the way they really feel. (And you wonder why it’s hard to get a straight answer out of them.) When a politician, or anyone for that matter, says something politically incorrect, and we pounce on them for it—rest assured, we didn’t change their true feelings, their morals, or their minds. We just made them hide it better. It reminds me of a man who is telling his girlfriend everything she wants to hear—but is cheating on her the entire time.
As I’m sure you all know I loathe Barack Obama.
And if you want more details as to why, HERE The more he talks up Ronnie Ray-Gun, the clearer it becomes that what he wants are white “conservatives.” As for the African-Americans he supposedly has in his pocket, forget it. Talking Ray-Gun is a big “FUCK YOU!” to them all (which of course includes me.)
Nah. I was talking out my ass. You caught me!