Knowing everything you say will be scrutinized and making a statement that could be taken as pro republican showed poor primary presidential judgement IMHO.
Premature pandering for the general election and trying to bring down Bill Clinton a notch must have seemed like a good idea to him at the time. It wasn't.
Posted by TIKI AL at January 25, 2008 05:08 AMA few points:
(1) I completely agree that Obama's statement was a stab in the back to the progressive movement and seriously calls into question his commitment to liberal values. It was completely idiotic for him to make that statement.
(2) That being said, being a popular President and being a "transformative" one are not the same thing. Eisenhower was a popular two-term President. But most historian's recognize that he was a Republican who essentially ran and governed as a Democrat, the majority party at the time. His lasting domestic legacy, the national highway system, is right out of the FDR playbook.
(2) Ronald Reagan was transformative (in a terrible, divisive way) in that his administration expressly repudiated liberalism. And the country, for the most part, bought into it. Yes, Iran-Contra may have made him unpopular. But the GOP under Reagan fundamentally (for the worse) changed the debate in this country.
(3) Bill Clinton was the flip side of Eisenhower; a Democratic President sandwiched between Republicans who governed as a Republican-lite. There was no repudiation of conservatism. If anything, there was a repudiation of liberalism.
(4) Ironically, Barack Obama is running a campaign that implicitly promises to return America to the "glory days" of the Clinton '90s. My take on Obama is that he is far more reminiscent of Bill Clinton (who similarly promoted himself over the party) than Hillary is.
(5) Hillary's rhetoric, in the primaries, has been unquestionably more progressive than Obama's (truly surprising for many Democrats). But many Democrats who tuly pine for a "transformative" Democratic President (that is one who actually transforms America back to being a liberal Democratic majority nation), can't help but question Hillary's ability or interest in filling that role when she is married to Bill Clinton, has never repudiated his governing style, and surrounds herself with architects of triangulation like Terry McAuliffe...and her husband.
(6) I personally have no "certainty" that either Hillary or Obama will be a disappointment, but it takes more than some happy talk in a primary to convince me of Hillary's commitment, no manner how awful Obama may be.
Posted by space at January 25, 2008 05:34 AMActually, thinking about the history, which I lived through, the truly transformative era (and president) was the late 1960s and early 1970s, which was the culmination of the civil rights movement. LBJ (pushed by a wave of activism throughout the early 20th century, led at the end by MLK) passed the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts, which moved tradition Southern Democrats, part of the FDR coalition, to the Republican party. Reagan capitalized on that coalition of the racist south and the pro-business, pro-laissez faire wing of the GOP.
This wasn't post-partisan, as much as it was a realignment.
I think in the future historians may be able to argue that Bill Clinton's presidency forcefully countered that GOP post-Civil Rights Bill coalition and made the domestic economy an issue around which moderates and liberals could rally.
That's one reason the right hates Bill Clinton more than any other Democratic figure -- he has the ability to shatter that Reagan coalition.
If HRC wins the primaries and the GE, we'll see if she is able to complete this realignment.
Posted by coral at January 25, 2008 06:00 AMWhat?! Eriposte has an entry on Obama that doesn't have his ubiquitous TMs?
Posted by the professor at January 25, 2008 06:16 AMWithout expanding on Obama's comments as you have so nicely done, Jon Stewart put a "FUN FACE" on this crap about the FIGHT between the Obama/Clinton camps. Bill has been COMPLETELY correct (and never exploded from what I've been shown) in putting most of this on the media for wanting to ratchet up a cockfight! And the MSM so hates it when someone doesn't just kiss their A--! There is much that is positive about each candidate but they MUST begin to resist being pulled into this stupidity with every inane baiting question and repetition (almost) of their remarks...BTW I completely agree with your assessment of Obama's position and comments...happily for him, I guess, they are seldom represented accurately by the press.
Posted by Dancer at January 25, 2008 06:29 AMI also found this bit of Obama's comments telling;
So some of it’s the times, and some of it I do think there’s a – there’s maybe a generational element to this partly, in the sense that I didn’t come of age in the battles of the 60’s. I’m not as invested in it. So I think I talk differently about issues and I think I talk differently about values and that’s why I think we’ve been resonating with the American people.
This from the man who took such umbrage at a perceived slight directed at Martin Luther King Jr.? Is Obama not invested in maintaining the Civil Rights gains of the 60's? Is he not invested in maintaining the reproductive rights gains of the 60's?
He continues;
And by the way, when I say this sometimes it’s interpreted as I don’t think anybody who’s a baby boomer should be president. That’s not what I’m saying. But what I’m saying is, is that I think the average baby boomer has moved beyond a lot of the arguments of the 60s but our politicians haven’t. We’re still having the same arguments. You know, it’s all around culture wars...
So it's not about who should or shouldn't be president. It's about the arguments over the issues. The problem, Barack, is that a very large segment of our society HAS NOT MOVED BEYOND THE ARGUMENTS OF THE SIXTIES. And most of them are on the side of the issue that wants the advancements in civil and reproductive rights gains from this period overturned and thrown backwards. Where's he been for the last 7 years? How can these comments be read as anything other than a statement by Obama that he's willing to cede these 'arguments of the 60's' to the right wing in the interest of....of...God knows what? Does he think acquiescing to the demands of the right wing with regard to civil rights and abortion (since he's not invested in them) is gonna get him leverage with the Republicans on energy reform?
Posted by snark at January 25, 2008 06:43 AMI think Obamarama did a nice job of explaining what he meant. It's not as much fun as armchair quarterbacking and telling us what he meant, or Ray-gun's approval rating -which is a ridiculous point considering that there is not a single republi-con or neo-con who doesn't think Ray-gun was some con-servative god come to earth.
So, Obama said Ray-gun was transformative. Boogie, boogie, boogie! I'm a little more worried about Billary and her admiration of Margaret Thatcher's politics. The only political figure farther right than Ray-gun and Billary admires her. Wonder how you guys missed that? Go figure.
Posted by phidipides at January 25, 2008 07:35 AMWhat? Intelligent commentary in response to another eriposte post? Say it ain't so! There's been so much froth and santorum in these comments it's been worse then reading DK recently.
I think what becomes apparent in these posts and commentaries across the Internet is how desperate these contributors are to make themselves heard by a campaign that's already been dismissive of the Internet roots and the liberals that make up the bulk of the roots. We want to like Obama - a number of us already do despite our objections. The problem is that we see these arguments and have legitimate criticism. But the campaign and supporters for Obama are aggressively defensive in reply and quite vicious in their attacks on the other candidates, and Sen. Clinton in particular.
I'm reminded a bit of a certain segment of Dean's support in 2004.
Clinton has her own partisans who are just as vicious and defensive - and in this I include eriposte because of the cutting rhetoric they use while making substantially researched opinions.
All in all - we have a problem.
Posted by idiosynchronic at January 25, 2008 07:41 AMphidipides,
Thanks for the link to the Obama explaination.
Perhaps you could dig up one to Hillary Clinton expressing "her admiration for Margaret Thatchers politics".
Thanks in advance.
Posted by snark at January 25, 2008 07:53 AMI would be more interested in the Clinton camp dissecting Obama talking about privatizing Social Security in his book than the daily interpretation of his Reagan comments. I'm sure we can find warm fuzzies by the Clintons on Reagan if we look hard enough.
So why doesn't Clinton (or eriposte) go at Obama on Social Security? I apologize if I missed it, what with all these race and gender-baiting dialogues going on.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at January 25, 2008 08:00 AMidiosynchronic:
I agree that Clinton certainly has her share of partisans. What I like about this site is that her supporters argue her case (and attack Obama) from a progress perspective. I might not agree with eriposte's conclusions, but at least we are on the same side with regard to the fundamental goals. Most of Hillary's supporter at dKos tend to defend her from a DLC/pseudo-centrist perspective, which I blame, in part, for a lot of the acrimony over there.
The way I see it is that if you are a progressive and want to see a progressive agenda enacted, each candidate has given critics ammunition to argue against their credibility.
If you want, you can dismiss Obama's strong progressive background and accomplishments, as well as his prescience on Iraq, because of the way he has run to the right in the primaries and echoes RW talking points.
If you want, you can dismiss Hillary's progressive Senatorial voting record because of Bill's triangulating administration, Hillary's lack of confrontation while a Senator, her stances on Iran and Iraq, and her ties to corporatist advisors and lobbyists.
If you want, you can dismiss Edwards' current progressive, "populist", and pro-netroots rhetoric because of his Senatorial voting record, his Iraq war vote, and his own professional career as a successful plaintiffs' lawyer.
Personally, I buy Edwards the most because I prefer someone who is talking like a progressive now to someone who used to talk like one (Obama). And I don't trust someone who surrounds themselves with, and is supported by, the least progressive elements of the Party.
But there is no right answer. As a progressive, who to support will be a personal decision based on what is most or least important: What someone has done, what someone has said, or who someone associated with.
Posted by space at January 25, 2008 08:35 AMWhat? Intelligent commentary in response to another eriposte post?
OMG! We'll have to do something about that! Obama's a big poopy-head! Phew, that's better.
But seriously, shouldn't we be overrun with crowing Obamites about today's coordinated release of the Rezko pic? One would think they'd have splooted on one these threads by now...
I don't have a dog in the Obama-Hillary fight. But I think calling what Obama said as historical "gibberish" is incorrect. True, invoking Reagan as a model for change (whether conservative or liberal) is a dicey thing. But I believe he is essentially right on how the people perceive Reagan to this day and why they also think he moved America away from the image of the radical 60's. Recall Reagan as Governor of California during that period. He was the antithesis of "liberal" anything and that image is well-stuck to the minds of many centrist voters of both parties (Just as Jerry Brown represents much the opposite). Obama's comments being received better on the ground than they are in the blog-world.
Posted by gtash at January 25, 2008 08:48 AMExcellent post. More on Obama's divisive, petulant narcissism, particularly his threat to not support Hillary if she's the nominee, at http://roadkillrefugee.wordpress.com. Axelrod is making a series of tactical mistakes that will backfire, including (1) having Michelle Obama go negative on Hillary before she's introduced the public, and while Obama was critical of Bill Clinton's involvement in her campaign, (2) going negative on Bill Clinton before most Americans really know who Obama is or much about his record, (3) praising Reagan's legacy and, in the same breath, criticizing Clinton's presidency, while running for the Democratic Party's nomination, and (4) forfeiting Obama's "above partisan politics" status by having him go negative. Look for closer than expected results in South Carolina as a result.
Posted by Roadkill Refugee at January 25, 2008 09:49 AMGtash, you're missing the point! Reagan is perceived in a certain light because of deliberate distortions of his record and policies. Obama may be speaking a conventional theory, but not an accurate one.
Posted by MarkL at January 25, 2008 10:40 AMTrue, invoking Reagan as a model for change (whether conservative or liberal) is a dicey thing.
gtash, Seems no one bothers to go back to the beginning of Obama's statement.
Obama was explaining that Ray-gun's election and his ideas are what made him "transformative" and "changed the trajectory" by uniting the conservative movement.
One just has to look at how long the freaks held power.
Also, a consvervative movement that brought about the twisted minds of PNAC.
And really, I seem to remember a lot of kow-towing by Clinton to the rebuli-con congress after they swept into power in '94'. How many of those politicians got elected in '94' because they were 'Ray-gun-nites'?
Eventually, these greedy, corrupt republi-con politicians let all that power go to their pin-sized heads. And poof!
"Ray-gun" = 'transformative', you betcha' ya! A 'visionary uniter', yes (for the evil politicians) and his idiotic followers!
...really tapped into the public and transformatively rallied them around his vision more broadly and more effectively...
Christ, that's why we have such political division today! It's why my sister's and I disagree so much on the course this country is taking!
I can't understand how Obama was taken so out of context. I even understood it. And I ain't no brainiac!
Posted by Seven of Six at January 25, 2008 12:57 PMI think I get Obama's pitch to the electorate as being in tune with their perceptions. I hated Reagan and understood well-enough. His transformative power was to move policies (which I hated) to be accepted by an already receptive public. I don't parse transformative to mean anything but altering the political landscape in Government to be in tune with the public desire for tall-in-the-saddle "diplomacy" and "city on the hill" nationalism instead of era of malaise, energy conservation,fear of muscular intervention abroad--the Anti-anti-Vietnam sentiment.
Posted by gtash at January 25, 2008 02:17 PMMy posting is getting chopped up (on my end). Sorry.
The word I am looking for is "coalesce". Reagan managed to transform government by coalescing the frustrations of the mass of voters with some basic shifts in government policy. That some of these shifts were destructive or contradictory is not going to be disputed by me; but the electorate was transformed; we became pre-dominantly a Red-State nation across all levels of government. Obama doesn't seem to be making an historically detailed argument; more about "movements in history". The "ideas" he addresses are very broad---and the main one is America's idea of itself changed from Carter/Pre-Carter to Reagan.
Posted by gtash at January 25, 2008 02:35 PMAt the end of the day, Obama said something stupid while pandering to get an endorsement from a Republican organization during the Democratic primaries. Not smart.
What I don't think Obama gets is that, to the extent Reagan was a "transformative" President, he wasn't simply a "positive, feel good" President. He transformed the political landscape by moving the Overton Window and mainstreaming conservative ideas. It was a very ideological transformation.
In contrast, Obama seems to be arguing (at least to the Republicans) that he will be transformative, not by ushering in a new (or formerly popular) political ideology, but by rising above ideology. A sort of post-liberal, post-conservative President. In any case, it is nonsense.
The only debate within the Democratic Party is whether Obama is spreading progressivism using a trojan horse gambit against Republicans and independents or whether he is just a fool.
Posted by space at January 25, 2008 02:40 PMPlain and simple Obama was being a politician while (trying to sound all academic about ray-gun) pandering for votes. Name one politician who doesn't.
But for him to be continually attacked by clintonites is almost sickening. I was hoping for something more refined from my party (and the liberal blogs).
Shit, when the 'pukes' make us look uncivil it's pretty fucking bad!
Posted by Seven of Six at January 25, 2008 03:06 PMSoS, the whole idea of calling for civility in politics comes from right wing pundits who use the accusation of incivility to overshadow any point someone on the left is trying to make. That Obama has picked it up and his supporters are running with it shows how savvy he really is. His greatest strength is being able to stand in his pulpit preaching unity and civility while his surrogates work behind the scenes on the dirty side of politics. And yes, all politicians do that to some extent, but Obama's whole campaign is about that, because he's damn good at it. It also helps that the media hates Hillary more than anything, so they've been a big help in getting Obama's narrative out there. Clinton needs to watch him, he's no greenhorn when it comes to shivving the opponent in the back while kissing them on the cheek.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 25, 2008 03:19 PMSoS, the whole idea of calling for civility in politics comes from right wing pundits who use the accusation of incivility to overshadow any point someone on the left is trying to make.
Yeah, I know, I'm just a little nauseated by it all. From both sides.
His greatest strength is being able to stand in his pulpit preaching unity and civility while his surrogates work behind the scenes on the dirty side of politics.
How I wish John Kerry would have done this in '04'.
Posted by Seven of Six at January 25, 2008 05:15 PMI agree on both counts, SoS! Kerry just didn't have it in him, but if Obama's our candidate, I think he'd be formidable. He knows how to work the media, that's for sure. I'd have no trouble voting for him.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 25, 2008 05:54 PMJesus Christ, did any of you look at the comments of Peter Daou's diary at Daily Kos? Those people are fucking crazy! Unity and Civility indeed...
Posted by Voodoo Chile at January 25, 2008 06:02 PMThis is poorly argued. Challenging conventional wisdom doesn't neccessarily mean the changes were good or that people liked them. It's a strawman argument you set up for yourself to knock down.
Posted by Eli Boulton at November 18, 2008 11:51 PM