And the usual suspects are there trying to explain it away. Ugh.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 16, 2008 03:25 PMat daily kos, the parsing is already under way. i'm sure some of the usual will try to come here and do it, too.
Posted by Turkana at January 16, 2008 03:27 PMRecover our greatness? By the end of the Reagan presidency, Reagan's defenders were protecting him from the implications of Iran-Contra by insisting that he was out to lunch, perhaps senile. And Nancy had been caught on tape at the podium whispering to him how he should answer journalists' questions.
What Reagan ushered in that was transformative was the use of a wholly modern propaganda operation that gobbled up the press and corrupted it on its path to the pathetic bunch of scriveners it has become. Credit should go to Michael Deaver.
Obama could've used someone like FDR or Teddy Roosevelt to make his point. That he chose Reagan instead, to me, is a dog whistle to the Village designed to underscore Obama's portrayal of himself as Mr. Bi-Partisan.
It will be interesting to see if the Village buys it. I suspect some of them will. On the other hand, if the columns of Richard Cohen are any indication, Obama's bi-partisan genuflecting will probably be in vain once the Village has used him to get its collective hate object -- HRC -- out of the way.
If so, Obama will be a victim of the real transformation Reagan wrought -- turning the post-Watergate mainstream press into a propaganda arm of the Republican Party.
Posted by kaleidescope at January 16, 2008 03:39 PMThe parsing is already everywhere. The blind devotion is scary. Just plain scary. If Hillary or Edwards were openly and specifically praising Reagan in those terms, especially in contrast to dismissing the Carter admin, they would be crucified.
Obama does not care about the Democratic party. Or anything we have fought for. At all.
With his supporters, it has officially reached the point where Obama can do no wrong. That reminds me of "Bush devotion" so much that it creeps me out entirely.
Posted by WMCB at January 16, 2008 03:39 PMI find his comments somewhat presumptuous from time to time. He brings up anybody from MLK to Reagan, seemingly to prove that his style of politics will be successful. I assume that means "change through inspiration". Or bipartisanship. Or.. I'm not quite sure.
In any case, by making those comments, he (certainly indirectly) compares himself to those past figures, and gives off an air of "I will be just as successful because I am an inspiration".
Also, his poo-pooing of Bill Clinton, and the "battles of the 90s" in general, come across as arrogant. Not to mention his 60s and 70s comments.
Go back to the Senate. Take the initiative on some important issues, and then come back. Because only then will you have some right of speaking, and some evidence that your magical form of politics works.
Until then, you've got nothing on Bill Clinton. He walked the walk. You have not done much of anything yet.
fwiw- the same clueless wonkette clown has linked to this with this framing of what i wrote:
Barry Obama understands how the American political landscape has changed over the past 40 years and there’s just no excuse for that. You simply can’t rationalize away his articulating what a college freshman learns in a basic political science class. [Left Coaster]
i want to think him for revealing his college freshman understanding of hagiography.
Posted by Turkana at January 16, 2008 03:48 PMObama is such a better candidate than Hillary. It isn't even close. Hillary would be a return to the 90's. Political gridlock in the extreme, nothing being done, another 8 years wasted on health care, alternative energy, climate change, and continued gain by the wealthy at the expense of the poor.
Obama would have the heart of America, like Reagan did in the 80's. He would arise above the gridlock that would completely waste a Hillary administration.
frank,
i think it's even worse than that. he's using republican and corporate media frames. he's saying he disagreed with reagan on some things (about as tepid as his response to mcclurkin), while tacitly accepting the hagiography of reagan's "optimism," "dyanism," etc.
the obamabots are already in full rationalization mode, but this is absolutely inexcusable. had hillary said something like this, she'd be excoriated as dino.
Posted by Turkana at January 16, 2008 03:57 PMburt,
thanks for proving my point. obama can keep reagan's "heart of america." i'll take something real. and fwiw- bill clinton left office with approval ratings in the 60s. reagan left office with approval ratings in the 30s.
Posted by Turkana at January 16, 2008 03:59 PMAll I got to say - WTF???
I expected a 15 second clip from 10 or 20 years ago taken out of context. But, noooo, this is 2 days old . .
Posted by idiosynchronic at January 16, 2008 04:00 PMYup, I played the clip several times and have read commentary on it elsewhere. But unless there's something else there I'm not seeing or hearing...I could only come up with the same explanation you did...that he meant Ray-gun was "successful" as a preznit in that incurious George Bush leadership kind of way.... most notably with favorable and fawning media coverage and a press that was so enamored and mesmerized with the personality they totally refused to accurately portray or even investigate the policies.
Turkana - yeah, "personal responsibility" is an often used euphemism for social darwinism. It is disturbing to see Obama use that in reference to Reagan, who cut into social programs like there was no tomorrow.
So Obama admires the total fakery of Reagan and his worshippers? Governance by delusion?
Posted by Sharon at January 16, 2008 04:45 PMTurkana, is this site hoping that the Republicans win in November so that you can keep blogging against "the machine?" That's all I can figure. Hillary won't win. It has to be Obama. He captures the young vote and the middle vote. Hillary is going to be crucified against the Republicans, and she already used up her "tear" card.
Gore wouldn't even campaign with Bill Clinton in 2000. Nobody wanted near Bill then. The economy was tanking in 2000.
Posted by Burt at January 16, 2008 04:52 PMTurkana sez...
"This site is sometimes criticized for being hard on Senator Obama..."
Maybe because it is dominated by bloggers who have become simple schills for Hillary, and thus, the DLC. The same DLC, by the way, that Obama is a member of.
Doesn't hurt my feelings any though....Obama and Clinton are just different colored and gendered packages for DLC soft-neoliberal militarism.
By the way, did anyone notice that the Democratic state and national party organizations just disqualified the entire votership of the state of Michigan? Wasn't it 'we' Democrats that were slinging around the 'D' word (Disenfranchisement) back around 2000? Hmm...
Posted by Tampa Student at January 16, 2008 04:55 PMAfter listening to this Karl Rove must be laughing out loud. He predicted that Republicans would keep the White house in 2008, and if Obama wins he'll be right!
Every time Obama says something like this, and he does it often, he proves just how illiberal and unprogressive he really is underneath the feel-good rhetoric. I'm not saying he isn't ready to be president, but he sure isn't ready to be a Democratic president.
Posted by clio at January 16, 2008 05:00 PMI understand the concept, however I think he should have used another individual as many have suggested. I lived though Rapin Ronnie and he left the country mucked up. Remember "aids is a homosexual disease", Ollie North and Iran-Contra and WEDTECH and "let them eat cake"? As usual with the rich got richer under his administration. And remember the record level of homeless families in Los Angles, Chicago and New York? Ronnie even scrapped the efforts by Jimmy to implement steps to get us off foreign oil.
burt & tampa,
um, actually, the problem is that obama's too accomodating to republicans. i want an unapologetically partisan democrat to win.
and tampa- i don't think obama actually is dlc. and the michigan decision has to do with their having moved their primary date, against dnc wishes. it's an old story, and, of course, florida's in the same boat. and finally, i'm not supporting hillary. but other than that, you're spot on.
Posted by Turkana at January 16, 2008 05:07 PMWhat's the problem here? Ronald Reagen DID put us on a fundamentally different course. Whether you agree with the direction of that course or not, that's just a fact. Reading the outrage, I thought this was going to be something serious.
Feigned indignation is a sad sight, indeed.
Posted by Mark at January 16, 2008 05:14 PMYes, let's watch our friends at Kos and TPM twist themselves into pretzels to justify their continued support for this man. I understand that they're batshit crazy for him (and, dude, he's, like, not a chick!) but really...they are kinda starting to look a little ridiculous, especially given all that Joe Lieberman rage from a couple of years ago.
I want to know specifically what excesses he means. Drug experimentation (ooops!)? Civil rights? The sexual revolution? Woodstock? Rock and roll?
Posted by xjt at January 16, 2008 05:15 PMWell, you're spot off.
Michigan and Florida Democrats were disenfranchised by Democrats, not Republicans. I'm not interested in hearing excuses.
Obama is a DLC Democrat. Go check it out for yourself. He was all over NDOL.org's email bulletins after the 2004 convention. Additionally, you may reference his votes to fund the Iraq war. I actually agree with Bill Clinton's statement that Obama's opposition to the Iraq War is something of a fairy tale.
If you watch the video critically, it shouldn't be too difficult to comprehend that Obama said that a large number of Americans wanted to embrace Reagan's conservatism in 1980 based on their view of the previous 20 years; he didn't say that their perception of that 20 years was correct nor did he say that he agreed that America should have become conservative; he said a large number of Americans were ready to embrace Reagan's message....and he was right, much to the detriment of this nation ever since then.
Neither Obama or Hillary are progressive. Edwards' voting record in the Senate wasn't all that progressive either, but at least he's saying the right things lately. Kucinich is a side-show, lauded by the party, probably because of his ability to act as a lighting rod of derision for true liberal viewpoints in this country.
Now back to "all Hillary, all the time" courtesy of the bloggers at The "Left" Coaster.
Posted by Tampa Student at January 16, 2008 05:20 PMtransfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the wealthy then ever known?
Huh? That is just plain silly.
But you already know that.
Posted by jj at January 16, 2008 05:23 PMmark,
if you like seeing democrats use corporate media and right wing framings, that's fine. it's not just about changing direction, it's about "optimism," "dynamism," "individual responsibility and personal responsibility," and the "excesses" of the '60s and '70s. if those phrases don't tell you something seriously disturbing about obama's mindset, you need to research who uses them, and why.
Posted by Turkana at January 16, 2008 05:35 PMNow back to "all Hillary, all the time"
Actually, the post and most of the comments are about Obama.
Seems to me he's trying - some say cynically, some say sincerely - to entice Republicans into joining him in an historic new era of bipartisanship by invoking the name of St. Ronnie. Call it the Lieberman Gambit. And why not? Joe's riding pretty high right now, isn't he? Obama just needs to remember that the word "bipartisanship" has a totally different meaning on the other side of the aisle.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 16, 2008 05:45 PMtampa,
the party did that to assert some control over the schedule of the primaries. if they hadn't, we would have had iowa and new hampshire in december. after this year, i hope the entire process will be revamped.
as for the dlc- show me a link that proves obama is a member. as for this statement, again, if you don't understand the meaning of the specific phrases he was using, you need to do a little more homework.
Posted by Turkana at January 16, 2008 05:49 PMHillary is the machine. She represents what is wrong with government I prefer change. If she wins, I can't vote for her. In CA it won't matter because the Democrat will carry the state, so I can vote for somebody I really think deserves it. I don't know who that is yet if Obama doesn't get the top spot on the ticket.
Posted by Burt at January 16, 2008 06:09 PMTurkana:
Did you see this comment by Senator "Present" on reproductive choice?
"You know, this is not just about family planning or contraceptives, it’s not even just about politics, it’s about the kind of country we believe in, what kind of obligations we owe one another. We have a very high value placed on individual choice and individual responsibility. But we don’t often empower people to be able to make those choices in a responsible way."
Talk about Republican framing. I can't trust anyone who talks like this to protect women's rights. Can you?
Posted by Novangla at January 16, 2008 06:18 PMnovangla,
he gets 100% ratings from pro-choice organizations, and 0% ratings from anti-choice organizations.
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=9490
burt,
i love the substance: "change." i don't think that word means what you think it means.
Posted by Turkana at January 16, 2008 06:58 PMWell, so did Joe Lieberman.
Also, with his Republican rhetoric and 'present' votes, you can be sure he'd sell women out once in office. Just like he sold gay people out with McClurkin.
Posted by Novangla at January 16, 2008 07:02 PMAre you kidding me? Your blurb makes it sound like he's speaking in his own voice about excesses, etc. He's clearly speaking as a 1980 voter. Hello? The one Reagan won by a 489 to 49 electoral vote? 51% to 41% of the popular vote? Of course to these voters Reagan represented a fundamental shift! Why do we lefties always have to eat each other alive!
Posted by damien at January 16, 2008 07:23 PMum, damien.
i didn't know obama spoke in other voices. maybe he was actually channeling tweety, or something, because he sure sounded like him.
Posted by Turkana at January 16, 2008 07:29 PMNice ad hominem Turkana! Also nice equivocation on 'voice'. You know very well what I mean and you didn't address my point. He was looking at Reagan through the eyes of what must have been going on in the voters' heads in 1980. Looking at the results of the election is excellent evidence that his analysis is correct. You can also do a little reading on how Jimmy Carter tried to attack Reagan.
Or you can make fun of fellow liberals who disagree with you. Your choice.
Posted by Damien at January 16, 2008 07:36 PMDamien,
I don't think it's as clear cut as you present either. He's not obviously speaking in the voice of the 80's at the end of his comment. But the comments don't bother me as much as they seem to bother many others. I think the entire context of the conversation is important to understand. And that's not presented here. There is something a bit off about the remarks though. They certainly don't do anything to increase my confidence in his liberal/progressive bona fides.
Posted by snark at January 16, 2008 07:36 PMsorry, damien. he used the typical phrases and framing of the corporate media. he did now, in any way, give any indication of why that framing was wrong. he presented it as if it were an objective reality. he didn't even hint at all the pain and suffering reagan caused. he could have.
when i first saw the clip, i didn't want to post it, because i thought maybe obama would have segued into a critique of reagan. when i saw the full clip, and that all obama did was then go on to talk about jfk, leaving the hagiographic words about reagan unchallenged, it was too much. using those frames is inexcusable.
Posted by Turkana at January 16, 2008 08:04 PMAhem...
The DLC Website Archive from 2003: 100 New Democrats to Watch
Note: "New Democrats" is not 'new' to the scene, but "New Democrats" (i.e. the Blue Dog centrist coalition, you know, the ones that voted for the war, the Patriot Act, etc).
1. Democrats disenfranchised Democrats in Michigan.
2. Obama is a DLC Democrat and thus, not very progressive.
3. Obama was talking about the viewpoint of 1980 voters, so let's be fair, listen critically, talk rationally and truthfully about the myriad of non-Progressive viewpoints of Mr. Obama, and, most importantly, remember to equally apply them to his ideological colleague, Ms. Clinton.
Thus: (A) our primary votes aren't going to count and (B) we're really not missing out on that much anyway, since there is pretty much no ideological difference between the two leading candidates.
Posted by Tampa Student at January 16, 2008 08:11 PM"individual responsibility and personal responsibility"
Oops, you guys gave me a scare! I thought it was 2000 all over again.
Posted by Judith at January 16, 2008 08:13 PMtampa,
that link says the dlc thought obama was one to watch, but it doesn't say he was a member. i agree that obama and hillary are very similar on the issues, which is one of the reasons i often defend hillary from the relentless blog attacks by obama supporters- their critiques often strike me as pure hypocrisy. that similarity is also why i was for dodd, and am now for edwards.
Posted by Turkana at January 16, 2008 08:18 PMTurkana,
That isn't the only datapoint on the site regarding Obama; additionally, I have a hard time viewing Ms. Clinton as a victim by any stretch of the imagination.
I would probably vote for John Edwards, if my vote in Florida was going to actually count. But, even then, it would be based solely on his message, not his DLC track record. But in this country, today, it seems no force -- including the Democratic Party -- is willing to entertain any seriously Progressive candidate, say, on par with Progressive candidates in Canada, England, or France. The debate is being narrowed...and I want to make sure we lay the blame at the feet of everyone responsible...including Democrats.
Posted by Tampa Student at January 16, 2008 08:26 PMtampa,
you hit on an important point. we all want change, and some of us want radical change. that's why obama's message resonates with so many people. of course, many of us think that message is all talk. the types of changes we need are not going to come easily, and they are not going to come quickly. al gore talks about the need for a change in consciousness. what's important is that we keep pushing forward, bury the current version of the repug party, and try to reinvent the democratic party. certainly, liberalism i this country is a joke, compared to liberalism in other countries.
Posted by Turkana at January 16, 2008 08:30 PMHe's saying what he needs to get elected. Insincere and political? Sure, but it still beats what other candidates are offering.
Posted by Brian Bell at January 16, 2008 09:10 PM"Insincere and political" beats what other candidates are offering? Thanks for that ringing endorsement.
Sheesh. If that is the degree you will go to rationalize your support for the man, well then, that speaks volumes.
Posted by Steve Soto at January 16, 2008 10:24 PMWow, Brian, thanks for that refreshing bit of honesty. Good to see you finally catching up!
Posted by iamcoyote at January 17, 2008 05:32 AMBarack Obama in solving today's problems, is approaching it from another direction. There are many good intentions and ideas being held up in the Senate and Congress and cannot get passed because there is no working majority and because of party division. He realizes that one can offer all the ideas and solutions in the world, but without this working majority, it will come to nill and nothing will get accomplished. He further understands that although we need a revolution in economic, health-care, globalization, education, and voting reforms, among others, very little will get accomplished (the same old results) unless we have a coming together -- a unity of red states, blue states and independents. And he also realizes that though we have had this vision to solve our problems for sometime, however, now is the time to materialize it, the urgency of now!
The people need things accomplished, not just brought to the Senate floor and argued over, only to languish there for years. They want real change. We cannot continue this same cycle of a do-nothing Congress. We cannot continue to offer bread to a hungry nation, only to snatch it back because of party bickering and division. Barack Obama is trying to establish a do-something Congress, instead of the do-nothing Congress.
It is ironic that an earlier Senator from Illinois, Lincoln, came to heal the nation when it was divided by slavery, and now we have another Senator from Illinois in Barack Obama who has come to heal a nation divided by a false sense of separatism and fear by offering a vision of hope and bringing people and this nation together -- as there is more that unites us than that which divides us. And a house divided cannot long stand, let alone get something done. Let us remember that it was a 33 year-old Thomas Jefferson who wrote, When the people fear the government you have tyranny. When the government fears the people you have liberty."
Barack Obama, in establishing a "People's Coalition" will harness the power of the people to capitulate our government officials to work for them and not the special interest groups, wealthy and corporations.
After all, a true leader has to be a leader of all the people, not just some. We have great ideas and no will. That will, however, will come from the people united in a common cause.
bacaangel,
Barack Obama is no Lincoln and I won't argue about the merits of that man either. A century and a half of hagiography have effectively stifled any of his bad traits quite effectively.
The majority you requested will come with this year's elections. If it doesn't, no magical personality will save the republic. The only two reasons our "simple majority" is so effectively stifled is:
1 The Republics are malevolently, clanishly venal and I say that with no touch of irony, and
2, the "oppostion party" has surrendered on almost every critical struggle, claiming the desire to be bi-partisan and "compromise" in the name of comity. The actual reason for such behavior remains highly suspect.
Never before in American history, (and please research away if you think I'm wrong) has a political party operated in such a mechanically unified fashion. The voting "discipline" of any Representative with an R after the name is, to me, inexplicable. The damage they've done to our economic welfare, national security and the rule of law are simply staggering and sickening.
Grover Norquist charmingly explained the Republican view of "bi-partisanship, it's "date rape". The entire party message consists of fear, bigotry and greed. Obama is a fine and inspiring orator, but we will not heal this aggrieved nation with words.
You may attribute all of the transcendent powers you want to Mr. Obama. Until the rabid selfishness of ONE SIDE of this dispute is beaten back and expunged from the body politic, we will not be HEALED by inspiration alone.
Posted by DeminNewJ at January 17, 2008 08:59 AMDeminNewJ, that was a mighty fine post! Kudos.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 17, 2008 09:17 AMThe question is, Iamcoyote and even Steve, when are you guys going to get honest about Hillary's climbing, clawing personal character.
Posted by Brian Bell at January 17, 2008 09:34 AMwhen are you guys going to get honest about Hillary's climbing, clawing personal character.
Sorry, but the current topic is Obama's climbing, clawing personal character.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 17, 2008 10:00 AMI'll take Hillary's character over a supposed Democrat humping the corpse of Reagan, any day.
Posted by WMCB at January 17, 2008 11:16 AMCoyote: OH SNAP!!!
I'm really enjoying this thread. But I'm still trying to figure out what "soft-neoliberal militarism" is, or whether "illiberal" is really a word.
bacaangel, I'm offended you paraphrased Jefferson when talking about Obama.
When the people fear the government you have tyranny. When the government fears the people you have liberty."
Fuckin' A. But I don't see how Obama is going to strike fear into the hearts of the establishment on behalf of the people. He's not that guy.
By the way, Jefferson also said:
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
And:
"Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now."
I don't think he'd be a big fan of Obama.
And Turk, please stop using the term "hagiography". You know you've already over done it. 8)
Although I'm sure dictionary.com is thankful for the couple hundred extra hits today.
Posted by MaskedVigilante at January 17, 2008 11:46 AMCome on - in spite of Reagan having some horrible policies, he was politically transformational. He presided over and to some extend directed a rightward drift of US politics. That's fabulous success for an ideological politician, more or less definitionally.
And hte Dems had best start trying to own the term "personal responsibility," because it's not going away and, in the end, the concept can be useful to inform some of our social and economic programs.
Posted by Irond Will at January 17, 2008 12:52 PM"I'm really enjoying this thread. But I'm still trying to figure out what "soft-neoliberal militarism" is...
Read Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine and you'll be well on your way to learning the definition.
Posted by Tampa Student at January 17, 2008 05:18 PMtampa-
re klein: the most important political book in a generation.
Posted by Turkana at January 17, 2008 07:09 PM