Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
Reddit"The genius of American democracy has somehow done it again. George Bush is the right president at the right time."
So declared the consistently-conservative Las Vegas Review-Journal newspaper on the eve of the 2004 election.
The Review-Journal warmly endorsed Bush in 2000, as well.
If there is a Nevada newspaper that offers an unadulterated conservative line, it is the Review-Journal.
And who does this newspaper urge Nevada Democrats to support when they caucus Saturday?
Barack Obama.
In truth, the paper's editorial on the Democratic contest is more an attack on Hillary Clinton than an enthusiastic embrace of Obama. In dismissing Clinton, the paper's editors detail a bizarre list of particulars that begins with, "For starters, imagine Sen. Clinton and 'co-president' Bill Clinton invited onto a 'This is Your Life' talk show where they're joined by Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky."
It's merely predictable right-wing Hillary-hate that underpins the rejection of Clinton.
John Edwards, on the other hand, is slammed for representing the Democratic wing of the Democratic party.
"Meanwhile," the editorial grumbles, "John Edwards' anti-capitalist populism is not in this country's long-term best interests."
Obama, on the other hand, is championed as "a good politician" who "knows how to speak to individual Americans and give them the feeling he cares about their concerns."
The old maxim that says "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" holds true here. Conservatives hate Hillary Clinton for who she is. They hate John Edwards for what he says. And they can live with Barack Obama, who could finish off the Clintons, who eschews edgy populism for "hope" and who this week said of a certain conservative: "I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. 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."
The soundest response to Obama's insights regarding Reagan comes from the man whose populism so unsettled the Review-Journal.
"When you think about what Ronald Reagan did to the American people, to the middle class to the working people," said John 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," the former senator from North Carolina concluded, "this president will never use Ronald Reagan as an example for change."
Clinton got trashed.
Obama got the endorsement.
But this round goes to Edwards.
Share this article
John Nichols
Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
what in the hell was obama thinking! does he think this reagan worship is going to play well for him in california? i'm really at a loss on this one. good for edwards and his salient reply.
Posted by loveloki at 01/18/2008 @ 01:16am
"I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. 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 a TRUE statement about Ronald Reagan. But you should not confuse this true statement with the kind of change Obama will usher in with his presidency.
The only similarity Obama has to Reagan is that he recognizes the opportunity to shift the political dynamic, and that making people feel good about America aids in this shift.
But the shift itself is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT!!! Obama is shifting the political dynamic to the left, whereas Reagan shifted it to the right. Obama sees an electorate that has grown tired of the excesses of conservative polices of the post-Reagan era, which has made us less safe with a "perpetual" war on terror, and has taken enormous sums of money from the taxpayer to pay for the enormous profits of defense contractors and oil companies. Obama also recognizes that the electorate has become tired of the corruption of Washington by the special interests, but unlike Edwards, Obama has actually succeeded in reducing the influence of these interests by bringing Republicans and Democrats together.
Therefore, the fact that this newspaper is "conservative" and endorses Obama does not mean that Obama is a conservative. In fact, a thorough examination of Obama's record in the Illinois senate and the US Senate puts him to the left of all of the Democratic contenders except Kucinich. And even in the very few areas where Obama has been a little moderate, it was based on pragmatism, not ideology.
Posted by Metteyya at 01/18/2008 @ 01:17am
METTEYYA, give it up, once those black voters at SC get a hold of this he's going to lose. He should have asked his buddy Harold Ford, Jr. what happened when citing Ronald Reagan as some model when he ran for the senate in TN: it turned black Democrats off! That RNC ad wasn't the only thing that sunk his campaign. TRUST!
Posted by Preston-P at 01/18/2008 @ 01:34am
Oh, by the way, hi everyone! I know I'm new posting here but I've been reading this message board for years. It seems like Mask, Frankgrits, Frosty, John Maarsh, Rio, etc., are like old debating buddies of mine even though this is my first time posting. :)
Posted by Preston-P at 01/18/2008 @ 01:39am
Posted by PRESTON-P 01/18/2008 @ 01:34am
It's amazing that some posters think they know how a "black" voter will react to some particular fact. First it was said that black voters would blame Obama for allegedly distorting Hillary's MLK statement, but the results in Michigan showed just the opposite.
Here, you are suggesting that Obama's comment about what Reagan "could" do in terms of shifting the political dynamic and recognizing and appealing to broad voter sentiment in terms of his own values, is anything other than keen political insight.
If you believe black voters are not capable of distinguishing between Obama's recognition of how Reagan shifted the political dynamics from an endorsement of Reagan's policies and ideology, you either haven't studied Obama's long record of reversing the adverse consequences of Reagan policies through progressive legislation, community organizing, and civil rights litigation, or you have not had much exposure to black people, or you are attempting to insult the intelligence of the black voter.
You cannot influence the black voter with distortions or smears of Obama's comments, and if there is a sense that this is what you are doing, these voters will completely turn off to the candidate pushing the smears.
Posted by Metteyya at 01/18/2008 @ 02:16am
METTEYYA, I'm black, so don't get it twisted. I'm stating the truth, and the truth is many black folks carry this ambivalence towards Obama -- his fawning over Reagan will not help. I guess he didn't get the memo that running a weak, neoliberal campaign backfired on his buddy Harold Ford, Jr. a few years ago. Obviously you don't know too much Glen Ford, Paul Street and Bruce Dixon. Those writers have been very critical of Obama and exposed him to be the political twin of Hillary Clinton. It's embarrassing to see an intelligent brother such as yourself groveling over Obama – remind me of that other fool, Michael Eric Dyson.
If you want to know more about the REAL Obama, read Glen Ford, Bruce Dixon and Paul Street. Hell, even Paul Krugman said that Obama's domestic agenda is the least progressive out of Edwards' and Clinton's. And that's a feat itself to out-conservative two DLC members! It's not surprising that he's bowing down at the legacy of Ronald Reagan!
Posted by Preston-P at 01/18/2008 @ 03:20am
While oldstyle, baby-booming liberals are still stuck in their old rhetoric, Obama thinks ahead and transcends the populist whining we heard for so long, whining that never wins elections (don't forget, Clinton won in 92 because he convinced REAGAN republicans to become REAGAN Democrats).
It's amazing how stupid and backwards thinking hillary and edwards supporters are, its awesome to see that Obama is not aiming to be a liberal president but an American president.
Out with the old, in with the new. Let's escape from the Bush/Clinton groundhog day we're stuck in and wake up in a new America thats grown out of its petty hippy-style rhetoric of the 70-ies.
Vote Obama or accept the fact we will be having a republican whit house for the next 8 years. Independents will NEVER EVER side with Hillary!
Posted by BlackIsBack at 01/18/2008 @ 05:27am
"I'm stating the truth, and the truth is many black folks carry this ambivalence towards Obama -- his fawning over Reagan will not help."
I'm black as well. I'm expat now but my i'm still in touch with many friends and family at home. They are all going CRAZY about Obama and are loving him every bit as much as I am. Don't think your ambivalence is shared by our community. Theres a reason 79% of black voters voted "unconcerned" in Michigan.
Oh and here's another funny fact. All my Obama-loving friends and neighbours live in Harlem, in the middle of CLINTON COUNTRY. She's going down together with her old fashioned hippy-style rhetoric.
Gotta love Obama. Everyone knows that in the primaries you're suppose to pander to the left of your party and save "the shift to the right" for the general elections. And here he is complementing Reagan and proving that not everyone is a whining conservative hating-liberal who only respects people that agree with him.
That is guts, that is character. America must rise up to the opportunity thats before us and move ahead with Obama. Leave the old-style hippy crap to the historians to wonder about.
Gogo Obama 2008!
Posted by BlackIsBack at 01/18/2008 @ 05:47am
"what in the hell was obama thinking! does he think this reagan worship is going to play well for him in california? i'm really at a loss on this one. good for edwards and his salient reply."
Ain't going to be hardcore Reagan-hating liberals that will win our general elections. It will be independents that decide wether we will face another 4/8 years of repubican rule or not.
And I tell you, independents look at that remark and will think "wow, are thats a change of rhetoric we didn't expect, maybe this guy really is serious about 1 UNITED States of America".
They will take that over Edwards "2 Americas" and Clintons neverending "conservative conspiracy whining" anyday.
Posted by BlackIsBack at 01/18/2008 @ 05:55am
"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."
The fact that old liberals like Mr Nichols have NEVER admitted that there were any excesses and failures of the 60s and 70s liberalism...
is a key reason that liberals have been on the outs for over 30 years.
That egotistic failure to admit errors in THEIR OWN ideology...is a reason that guys like Reagan and Gingrich and Limbaugh and Fox News, were able to capitalize on those failures and turn the country to the Right.
It wasn't Reagan, it surely isn't Obama mentioning it....you done it to yourselves, Mr Nichols.
BO is merely pointing that out.
Posted by Mask at 01/18/2008 @ 07:31am
"I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. 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."
I can just imagine the heat Edwards or Clinton would have gotten for saying this. Is he challenging Romney, McCain, Guliani and Co. to be the Republican nominee...because they've only channeled Ronnie about 57,000 times in their debates.
I was inspired by Obama in 2004 at the DNC Convention, but since then I've become less and less impressed. Just as with his platform, this interview illustrates how he gets away with not having to provide specifics", in this case " 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." What's he talking about? When he does provide specifics...1. no mandates for his health insurance plan (even Romney realized these were needed-liberals, conservatives and independents realize this is what makes car insurance work and realize you can't even get a home loan without having insurance, that we need it in any viable health care plan to provide coverage AND accountabililty) and 2. supporting "liquified coal", which has been slammed as being about the worst idea ever, he comes off as being a sellout (pandering for votes) or extremely ignorant of the issues)... If you consider yourself a minority voter, pro-union, liberal, progressive and/or lower to middle income, you should be voting for Edwards as your first choice and Clinton as you second (as hard as that last part is for me to say).
But I'm to the point of giving up on less-informed voters because at the end of the day: "Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve." George Bernard Shaw
I'll probably support Bloomberg's bid if Obama's the nominee now...because if Reagan's one of Obama's heroes, I'll at least vote for the guy who seems to value facts, details and math!
Posted by KCMORyan at 01/18/2008 @ 09:08am
wow.
obama sure wants that job. good thing strom thurmond's dead or we would have,
"Unity Ticket '08".
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/18/2008 @ 09:22am
Mask-You forget that conservatives never admit to failure,but they do fail and people vote them anyway so I never can figure out why you say that only liberals never admit to failure and that's why they can't be POTUS.Maybe conservatives get away with failure because so many are braindead enough to listen to the likes of Rush and Newt..
Posted by i'm nobody at 01/18/2008 @ 09:47am
Edwards is right. How many dead Salvadorans does it take to get people in this country to stop calling Reagan great?
I picked up Obama's book, found this sort of thing in it, and put it back down. Not interested in the "reasonable people can disagree" rhetoric about some of these cultural issues. However, I assume that, as with Bill Clinton in 1992, much of it is just a strategy to pierce the wall of the Reagan Republicanism default setting of American political discourse, as mediated by the MSM.
Posted by RLawrence at 01/18/2008 @ 10:26am
When you really break this newspaper's endorsement down to its core, it is like Nichols said - conservatives HATE the Clintons because of the hyper-partisan environment when Bill was in office. They are therefore backing the only candidate that has a chance of preventing the Clintons from getting back in the White House.
Impeachment along partisan lines, is the ultimate partisan act, and the fact that conservatives impeached Bill should give you some indication of the deep partisan divide that still lingers with respect to the Clintons.
Posted by Metteyya at 01/18/2008 @ 10:32am
What liberals are you speaking of mask? The usual strawmen that are so easy to set up and knock down with one fell swoop? The unreflecting type of finger pointers that want great society programs and nothing else?
I am amazed at the blind faith in Obama and those that have come to his defense in light of his very support of the ideology that has, and is, ravaging the globe and the u.s., a new gilded age of neoliberal economic policy that makes the colonialism of the 19th century look provincial. Oh yeh, Obama's understanding of wall street in support of the ever crumbling "safety nets" for the working poor, 'ask them to help.' I feel soooooo hopeful!
FZ has it right. Newt is available for a running mate.
Posted by steve foster at 01/18/2008 @ 10:35am
The "excesses" of the 1960s and 1970s were the excesses of killing based on lies in Vietnam.
Obama, turn yourself in for the pot you smoked. How dare you. You engaged in excess yourself. If not for the "excess" of the 60s, you would still be drinking from the coloreds-only water fountain.
Posted by conshame at 01/18/2008 @ 10:38am
I have to say I was suprised by Obama's comments. However, if you look closely, he's not necessarily saying what Reagan did was right. He's just saying that Reagan tapped into what people were feeling. I wished Obama would have followed up with saying that Reagan ultimatly took adavantage of the nation's collective hope, but if he would have said that, it would have been fodder for the GOP in the general election when Obama is the Dem nominee.
Obama threw that comment out there to undermine old the Ronnie Raygun talk the GOP candidates are going to use.
Posted by BlueTexan at 01/18/2008 @ 10:47am
Posted by CONSHAME 01/18/2008 @ 10:38am
You guys are over-stating what Obama has actually said. It was the AMERICAN VOTER in 1980 who thought there was "government excess from the 60s and the 70s", and Reagan merely tapped into this voter sentiment.
Like Reagan, Obama recognizes that the AMERICAN VOTER in 2008 thinks that "there is excess from the post-Reagan conservative policies (i.e., corruption, war-mongering, selfishness and individualism) that could bankrupt our economy and keep us in a state of perpetual fear". Obama is merely tapping into this voter sentiment in an effort to shift the political dynamic back to the left.
Posted by Metteyya at 01/18/2008 @ 10:48am
Now Obama claims to be the resurrected Ronald Raygoon along with all the Republican candiates. Reagoon was the greatest con man in world history. Is this why they admire him? He convinced American that debt was prosperity and he is still believed to this day. He convinced America that the Nicaraguan Sandinista army was going to march through Mexico, invade Texas and capture Wash., DC, a good idea, it turns out.He was believed despite the total absurdity of this.During his last term as president he had Alzheimer's disease which turn out is contagious only to Republicans, Republican Alzheimer's the symptoms are: I don't remember; I don't know; I don''t recall; I don't....This proved that the USA could have a president without a mind and a brain. Is this what the politicians admire? He did all the things Edward said. Reagoon used his attempted assassination for political advantage. I mean an outstanding con man, like Reagoon,is supposed to be charming and possess the con man qualities that Reagoon so adeptly displayed. He should be awarded a posthumous Academy Award. I lived in Calif., when he was governor, fortunately before he totally destroyed the education system because the students demanded Democracy. So my education was basically free, for which I am grateful. Before Reagoon I paid no State income tax. My income went down while I attended University and under Reagoon I paid State income tax. He's the one that started the war on education, we were getting to smart as a citizenry. That's Reagoon.
Posted by bogi666 at 01/18/2008 @ 10:56am
Obama, let me tell you son, I dont really like you that much. I certainly prefer you to Clinton. This is really a reminder to Americans that we really are just choosing from crap. In a better informed society I wouldnt give you the time of day Obama. I happen to believe that in a Democratic society of intentionally un-informed voters, that choosing the lesser evil is always a must.
Obama, the "excess" of the 1960s was an excess of Vietnam, the "Iraq" of the 60s. Obama, the "excess" of the 60s, what the hell are you talking about??? What "excess"???? When I look at the 60s, I see alot of Authoritarian excess, I see Cointelpro, Vietnham, Vietnam, Nixon and Vietnam. What the fucck are you talking about. Obama, what you have done is attack your own side, culturally.
What a disgrace.
Posted by conshame at 01/18/2008 @ 11:01am
BLUE, the problem is that most voters today won't look closer. They make their minds up by listening to soundbites the media provides, advice given by Limbaugh and others, or by fake tears shed to play on their sympathies. Obama's a smart guy but he really should know this. If he's pandering to the intelligent voter, then he's going to loose this election as the ratio of intelligence to sheep is far too great for him to overcome.
That's why the Clinton machine is so effective. They don't cater to intelligence, they cater to sheep. Bill was a master at this. Very charismatic and smart, he knew just what to say and when to swoon his voters. Look at FRANKGRITS as a prime example. He blindly, and I do mean blindly, follows every little thing Hillary does and she can do no wrong in his mind. She never has done wrong and never will. If it weren't so pathetic it would be sad. However, even with all of FRANK's fawning over Hillary, he's still a more intelligent voter than 80% of the voting pool.
Posted by FritztheCat at 01/18/2008 @ 11:02am
Obama, if you don't like the "excess" of the 60s, then bail some hay boy, stay away from the white drinking fountain - you go over here and drink from the trough. Obama, you sound like a KKK wearing blackface. What a shame.
Posted by conshame at 01/18/2008 @ 11:03am
Posted by BOGI666 01/18/2008 @ 10:56am
Again, you keep confusing REAGAN'S POLITICAL TACTICS with his CONSERVATIVE POLICIES.
You can admire Reagan's political tactics of shifting the political dynamic WITHOUT agreeing with "any" of his conservative policies. This is all Barack has done, and therefore to pretend that he is actually endorsing "conservatism" is quite a distortion given Obama's history as a community organizer, civil rights lawyer, and progressive legislator.
Posted by Metteyya at 01/18/2008 @ 11:05am
Posted by METTEYYA 01/18/2008 @ 11:05am
After weeks and weeks of this, I have to wonder what exactly it will take to convince you that Obama is not going to usher in some sort of new progressive era. Perhaps two years in office?
p.s. Obama may end up with my vote, so save me the hard sell and paste of his 2005 speech.
Posted by Hman23 at 01/18/2008 @ 12:30pm
Posted by HMAN23 01/18/2008 @ 12:30pm
I wish we could talk two years from now so you can eat those words.
Obama has studied from the same top-drawer political science professors as I have, some who were the "architects" of the Reagan Revolution and the shift in the political dynamic to the right. When you consider the tactics and strategy these professors pursued, it is EXACTLY the same as Obama's, EXCEPT OBAMA WANTS TO SHIFT THE POLITICAL DYNAMIC TO THE LEFT!
Like Obama, I want to see the Republicans scramble to try to compete for the disaffected voter by forming a Republican Leadership Council (RLC) or progressive Republicans, who will align with the Democrats to usher in a new era in progressive politics.
Posted by Metteyya at 01/18/2008 @ 12:44pm
METTEYYA, Obama did not simply say that Reagan changed politics, he mentioned the excesses of the 60's and 70s. The 60s evoke a very clear image in conservative minds, especially when linked with the governor who attacked hippies in California. This is all code for conservatives with emphasis on large government or, as they like to say, "entitlement" programs. Obama mentioned specifically the unaccountable government and he again directed a sweet kiss to conservatives by talking about entrepreneurship (not saying Democrats are not for that, just saying what rhetorically appeals to whom). This IS a rhetoric addressed to the right and it is wrong. It may be good politics if you want republicans to vote for you but no if you desire change because it is in fact a throwback to those same policies that have the US (and soon us above the border) in the current trouble. I have been ready to feel comfortable with the Obama solution as the way to avoid AIPAC/Walmart Hilary but things do not look good on his side either. Pity Edwards has no traction.
Posted by dimik72 at 01/18/2008 @ 12:45pm
Posted by DIMIK72 01/18/2008 @ 12:45pm
That's NOT TRUE!
Read the quote again:
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.
"THEY", are the disaffected voter of 1980, NOT Obama!
Posted by Metteyya at 01/18/2008 @ 1:04pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/18/2008 @ 09:22am | ignore this person
Frosty that's the first thing you've said that I can consider lacking in (how to say) "due intellectual diligence ..."
"FZ has it right. Newt is available for a running mate."
Posted by STEVE FOSTER 01/18/2008 @ 10:35am | ignore this person
Bullshit. Coming from someone who is, last I checked, going to vote for Ron Paul makes your subsequent analysis regarding Obama in particular and things political in general, more than laughable. (Ditto for someone sufficiently void so as to gush over the Bloomberg-Hagel farce, take the nonsense title of this thread for a prime example*)
"Obama threw that comment out there to undermine old the Ronnie Raygun talk the GOP candidates are going to use."
Posted by BLUETEXAN 01/18/2008 @ 10:47am | ignore this person
* And there you have it. Trying to take anything else from this is simply a matter of lacking some parts reading and comprehension, and being charitable here, or, I.Q. ... not only in relation to politics, either.
The absolute zero nuances ... level of analysis, tending toward the mineral state of comprehension, masks something else. Most benignly that of being, that Obama is not your choice for candidate.
"BLUE, the problem is that most voters today won't look closer. They make their minds up by listening to soundbites the media provides, advice given by Limbaugh and others, or by fake tears shed to play on their sympathies. Obama's a smart guy but he really should know this. If he's pandering to the intelligent voter, then he's going to loose this election as the ratio of intelligence to sheep is far too great for him to overcome."
Posted by FRITZTHECAT 01/18/2008 @ 11:02am | ignore this person
It was worth repeating. Because the people for whom the above was not obvious, will repeat (I notice it's started already, in fact) the contrary nonsense view over and over and over again despite a more cogent analysis and more importantly ... history, logic, and facts to the contrary
Posted by V at 01/18/2008 @ 1:12pm
Posted by I'M NOBODY 01/18/2008 @ 09:47am
I include BOTH ideologues, I'M. We just happened to be discussing what Obama rightfully noted about what Reagan tapped into...which were the failings of the Left.
Posted by Mask at 01/18/2008 @ 1:18pm
Posted by STEVE FOSTER 01/18/2008 @ 10:35am
So knock it down, STEVE.
Tell us 4-5 mistakes that 60s and 70s liberalism made.
and no, "We didn't spend ENOUGH!" is not one.
Posted by Mask at 01/18/2008 @ 1:19pm
Posted by METTEYYA 01/18/2008 @ 12:44pm
I'll probably still be hanging 'round here, METT, so if Obama can close, we will indeed see who is eating what in a couple of years.
Posted by Hman23 at 01/18/2008 @ 1:33pm
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.
"THEY", are the disaffected voter of 1980, NOT Obama!
Posted by METTEYYA 01/18/2008 @ 1:04pm | ignore this person
Give us a break, METT. Yours is a poor explanation of the quote. Obama is clearly speculating as to what the voters FELT, but it was not that they felt "THERE WERE" excesses in the 60s and 70s or that those voters believed that the government had grown and grown. He said "WITH." Thus, the remainder of the quote was something Obama appears to be putting forth as HIS characterization of that period.
Posted by Hman23 at 01/18/2008 @ 1:39pm
Posted by DIMIK72 01/18/2008 @ 12:45pm
On the money.
Posted by Hman23 at 01/18/2008 @ 1:40pm
Posted by V 01/18/2008 @ 1:12pm
c'mon dude, i know obama's your pick,
but a week ago if someone had mentioned obama and reagan on the same page, you woulda decked 'em with a barrage of commas.
was your initial reaction,
World Tae kwon do Federation?
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/18/2008 @ 1:42pm
wasn't
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/18/2008 @ 1:43pm
Posted by HMAN23 01/18/2008 @ 1:39pm
What?
Not following you on this one. What do you mean by saying the use of the word "WITH" means that Obama agrees with the disaffected voter of 1980?
The only thing I WILL acknowledge, HMAN23, is that Obama is trying to appeal to Reagan Democrats WITHOUT changing his progressive values. That's just smart politics, and when this finally becomes a done deal, astute political observers will be hailing Obama's political genius in doing what Clinton failed to do - shift the rightward post-Reagan political dynamic back to the left!
Clinton was a by-product of the Reagan Revolution - a DLC Centrist that was mimicking conservative policies. The Obama Revolution will create a different byproduct - a group of progressive Republicans that mimic progressive policies to stay politically competitive.
At some point we need to face the fact that Obama has a much higher political IQ than the Clintons or Edwards, and has matched this high intelligence with extraordinary political skill.
Posted by Metteyya at 01/18/2008 @ 1:59pm
Edwards, at least , talks the talk, but I don't think he has a clue about how to develop an economy. This so called stimulus will, at best, get them through the general election, but it will have little or no effect creating jobs. Any stimulus should go into repairing our infrastructure, like collapsing brides and levees, which would create jobs. Job creation, I repeat, job creation is what the American people are looking for in the economy. This is the Keynesian micro aspect of recovery from a recession ot depression. The macro side of the equation is pulling out of the WTO ,along with various "Free Trade Agreement, and the impositions of tariffs to recreate our internal market which is being destroyed. The same methods should have been used in Iraq, to restart their economy. This means, in both countries, using small local companies and not Halliburton. They have had enough corporate welfare. We have done these things before, and they work!
Posted by P. J. Casey at 01/18/2008 @ 2:02pm
Posted by METTEYYA 01/18/2008 @ 01:17am
Your analysis begs the question: Why is Obama, the true "progressive" candidate, being endorsed by a conservative newspaper?
Were they too fooled by his invoking of the name of Ronald Reagan? Not making this distinction between tactics and political philosophy?
Or could it be that they see that his stated objective of bringing Democrats and Republicans together ultimately means the most conservative candidate of the bunch?
Posted by srjenkins at 01/18/2008 @ 2:03pm
What Obama is talking about is having a vision for the country. He wants to appeal to our better angels, just like Reagan, so that we can move forward together. Now after saying that I don't agree with where he wants to take us, but how he wants to get there is right out of the Ronnie Reagan playbook---a very, very successful playbook. God I do miss him so.
Posted by Len Mosse at 01/18/2008 @ 2:15pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 01/18/2008 @ 2:03pm
SR,
That is a fair question, and I think I answered it in one of my post above.
Here it is again:
When you really break this newspaper's endorsement down to its core, it is like Nichols said - conservatives HATE the Clintons because of the hyper-partisan environment when Bill was in office. They are therefore backing the only candidate that has a chance of preventing the Clintons from getting back in the White House.
Impeachment along partisan lines, is the ultimate partisan act, and the fact that conservatives impeached Bill should give you some indication of the deep partisan divide that still lingers with respect to the Clintons.
It is an ANTI-CLINTON endorsement, not an endorsement of who they think is the most conservative Democrat. But rather than take my word for it, go look at Obama's "consistently progressive" voting record from Illinois and the US Senate, and his 100% ratings from "all" of the key progressive groups.
With a 10-year progressive record like that, the only way you can call Obama a conservative is if you are listening to pundits rather than doing your own research.
One of the best sites for capturing Obama's "consistently progressive" voting record can be found here [ontheissues.org].
Posted by Metteyya at 01/18/2008 @ 2:19pm
Reading comprehension METT,
Obama 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."
Not: "I think they felt THAT THERE WERE excesses in 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."
In the latter version, you would be right.
Posted by Hman23 at 01/18/2008 @ 2:42pm
No, no, no, no, no, .... it is not because Obama's my "pick" in all honesty, it is not. I've stated it before actually, when Kucinich endorsed Obama I believe, and there was pretty much the same moaning and gnashing of teeth then too. You can be excused as you cannot, at least not at this time vote.
If there was a candidate who should have, could have won by saying all the right things (and of course meaning them), it was Kucinich. What happened to him? How many of the people now parsing rhetoric, actually did work for Kucinich? Let me come at it from another tack.
Who could BlackIsBack, say, read ... not only regarding the founding of this country, but most subjects past through to present, from the right or the left, subjects effecting and affecting our contemporary life without applying a "read between the lines" clause? None of the founders (right?), and perhaps two (maybe) historians ... The "straightforward" (no nuance, from certain viewpoints, therefore, non-critical ...) no reading between the lines "but a week ago if someone had mentioned obama and reagan on the same page, you woulda decked 'em with a barrage of commas." is an un-recognized luxury on your part. It would take much more (rather insulting actually, the insinuation that I could or would be so linear ... ugghh), than merely "mentioned obama and reagan on the same page" to garner a barrage of commas or anything else from yours truly.
Because I read between the lines.
Posted by V at 01/18/2008 @ 2:52pm
Posted by HMAN23 01/18/2008 @ 2:42pm
Go look at his "consistently progressive" record in the link in my last post above, and then tell me if you honestly think Obama agrees with the "ideology" of Ronald Reagan?
And your "with" argument would have more currency if Obama's quote was written text rather than free flowing conversation with "like with" bridges in speech.
If someone recorded my speech, rather than some edited text that I wrote, I'm sure there would be wiggle room to misinterpret my comments as well.
Posted by Metteyya at 01/18/2008 @ 2:55pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/18/2008 @ 1:42pm | ignore this person
C above sinuator ...
Posted by V at 01/18/2008 @ 2:57pm
Because I read between the lines.
Posted by V 01/18/2008 @ 2:52pm
nonetheless, it's still icky.
i wonder what gil scott-heron is thinking?
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/18/2008 @ 3:05pm
.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/18/2008 @ 3:06pm
"i wonder what gil scott-heron is thinking?"
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/18/2008 @ 3:05pm | ignore this person
No need to wonder ... as it's probably the same thing as BlackIsBack is thinking.
And then there's this (Over at Huff-Post, with Erica Jong attempting the same misread as Nichols) ...
"Arg (See profile | I'm a fan of Arg)
A much more insightful piece can be found in The Guardian, Remembering Reagan by Richard Adams. Summary: "In making historical parallels, Barack Obama came not to praise Ronald Reagan but to bury the Clintons."
It also contains this, as a matter of interest: "Ronald Reagan of course died in 2004. And when he did, he was praised "for the way he personified the indomitable optimism of the American people", a statement issued by - you guessed it - Bill and Hillary Clinton."
Posted by V at 01/18/2008 @ 3:11pm
One more time for the money ... "Ronald Reagan of course died in 2004. And when he did, he was praised "for the way he personified the indomitable optimism of the American people", a statement issued by - you guessed it - Bill and Hillary Clinton."
Posted by V at 01/18/2008 @ 3:13pm
Posted by METTEYYA 01/18/2008 @ 2:55pm
No, I do not think Obama = Reagan.
I think Obama panders like all the rest.
Posted by Hman23 at 01/18/2008 @ 3:13pm
and what has obama done for telecom immunity? everything.
same with edwards and clinton.
Posted by darladoon at 01/18/2008 @ 3:34pm
Posted by HMAN23 01/18/2008 @ 3:13pm
Like Obama said: "Politics, at its highest level, is about addition, not subtraction or breaking even."
If the only voters you can persuade to vote for you are bitter partisans, then you really don't have much chance of winning a general election for President of the United States.
It is on this issue that both Hillary and Edward's candidacy fails, as their only hope of winning is in another divisive partisan squeaker where Rovian dirty tricks determine the election outcome.
Posted by Metteyya at 01/18/2008 @ 3:50pm
and what has obama done for telecom immunity? everything.
same with edwards and clinton.
Obviously, Edwards can't do anything about this issue but run his mouth since he is no longer in the senate. When he was in the senate, and had a chance to stand up against illegal wiretaps, he sided with Bush and voted for the original Patirot Act in 2001, just like Hillary.
It was Obama who led the fight "immediately" upon entering the senate, to curb the civil rights abuses of the Patriot Act, particularly the illegal wiretaps that were not subject to judicial oversight.
So whether we are talking about FISA or the Patriot Act, Obama has been the one "consistent" voice demanding judicial oversight and authorization of orders to tap phones for terrorist investigations.
Posted by Metteyya at 01/18/2008 @ 3:58pm
Posted by METTEYYA 01/18/2008 @ 2:19pm
Tell me if I'm not being fair here, but your argument is essentially that a conservative newspaper is endorsing the most "progressive" candidate, out of spite?
We've covered the problems with looking at Obama's record before. It's not a trivial task. You also not to get a new line, my pundit exposure - and I include you in the class - is quite limited.
Interesting little site. According to their quiz, I'm Libertarian-Leaning Liberal and should be voting for Kucinich, Gravel, McKinney, Clinton, THEN Obama. Looks like he sits pretty deep on my bench.
Also, it looks like both Clinton and Obama get the same rating from Friends National Service Committee, which is my lobbyist benchmark of choice.
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?r_id=3438
Posted by srjenkins at 01/18/2008 @ 4:12pm
If Obama is pandering (said consideration at least in this case ... I disagree with, and for the record, again, in this case consider what he is doing smart. With the person from my point of view, with the most legitimate rights to bitching being Kucinich, who endorsed him) then what is this?
"Huckabee Embraces Confederate Flag To Woo White Evangelicals"
"Columbia, S. Car. -- The populist campaign of Mike Huckabee, seeking to mobilize an insurgency of white evangelicals against the Republican establishment, took an abrupt turn today after the former Arkansas governor directly appealed to voters on the issue of race, summoning his fellow candidates to stop calling for the removal of the Confederate flag from government offices.
"You don't like people from outside the state coming in and telling you what to do with your flag. ... If somebody came to Arkansas and told us what to do with our flag, we'd tell them what to do with the pole. That's what we'd do," he declared to applause at a campaign rally in Myrtle Beach Thursday."
Link [tinyurl.com]
Posted by V at 01/18/2008 @ 4:13pm
Posted by V 01/18/2008 @ 4:13pm
He's just joining a long line of Republicans, that includes John McCain. No need to even read between the lines on this one.
Obama, on the other hand, made a rather astute move. My main concern is what kind of abomination his reaching out to Republicans will result in if he were to win POTUS. No need to guess with Huckabee - the freak show is right out there for all to see. But Obama, care to read between the lines on that because I'm having some difficulties piecing it together - just faint whiffs of something unsavory every now and again.
Posted by srjenkins at 01/18/2008 @ 4:21pm
Posted by V 01/18/2008 @ 3:11pm
dunno, the whole thing seems so focus-grouped...............
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/18/2008 @ 4:25pm
Tell me if I'm not being fair here, but your argument is essentially that a conservative newspaper is endorsing the most "progressive" candidate, out of spite?
It is more than just spite, SR. The conservatives HATE the Clintons, and therefore endorsed the only guy who can beat her - Barack Obama
When I took the same "OnTheIssues" quiz, they had Kucinich first, and then Obama, and rated me as a "hard-core liberal" like they did Obama.
Posted by Metteyya at 01/18/2008 @ 4:26pm
Sen. Obama's point seems to be that he is the new Reagan, someone who is likeable and can best take advantage of the current, natural political pendulum swing (from a revolution past its prime, with accrued bad outcomes) because he doesn't have the in-place partisan reputation of Senator Clinton or the divisive message of class warfare of Senator Edwards. Reagan Democrats were swung by stories of welfare queens and flag burners as well as stories about morning in America composed of sunshine and other clarities. Senator Obama has the Reagan hope speech but apparently wants purple, not blue, solutions, DLC-style compromise rather than confrontation with Republicans and conservative Democrats. Do Senator Obama and the GOP agree that Bush's government is excessively large, that the Iraq occupation is more mismanaged than malign and that entrepreneurship unhampered by big government is the way forward? Where is the nonnegotiable disagreement with the GOP; or, is the idea that Bush was personally so poor that Senator Obama with all Democrats, independents and moderate Republicans will win with a consensus mandate to enact bipartisan policies on health care, taxation, trade, business regulation and the environment, the current Congress could propose but couldn't pass? This is not too different from the Clinton strategy then and now (even to candidate Bill Clinton's jellybean moment with ex-President Reagan at his ranch). Senator Edwards seems to be the only Democrat of the top three who would use present voter discontent and the desire for change to get power to try to significantly tax the rich, strengthen the unions, re-regulate business and enact some form of protectionism. Senator Gore went left and lost the Reagan Democrats in Ohio, and elsewhere. If Senator Obama can win with only a sunny side, the opportunity cost may be significant for progressives. Reagan Democrats and DLC Democrats might re-establish the Tweedledum-Tweedledee parties GOP neocons see as their best hope for the near future to save the Reagan Revolution. Unfortunately, the future is full of simple and convoluted might-have-beens and we have to vote now.
Posted by MN8 at 01/18/2008 @ 5:09pm
"No need to guess with Huckabee"
Posted by SRJENKINS 01/18/2008 @ 4:21pm | ignore this person
You, I, and Frosty too, castigate them (republicans, in the myriad forms they are known to take) all the time. I, honestly, do not know how one becomes a republican, maybe they don't live a clean enough life, or eat the right kid of foods, whatever ... They have their place, and as the brunt of jokes they're priceless.
I do think howsoever unlikely the case may actually be ... that there are some of the rank and file who are not inherently evil. And that giving them, really, not much more than an rhetorical acknowledgment ... does not, cannot, do irreparable harm to a functional progressive agenda, if Obama makes it to the white house.
That's really where the work will begin, not for Obama, but for us. We have to formulate, configure then actually and finally deliver, a mandate. No "upon the king" infantilism(s) this time. This is the real issue of this time. I am not looking for a proxy for my father ... how many, are as I am, in this? Will the American people finally take on the mantle of their responsibility(?) being the real question.
So, see to me it really doesn't matter, after a fashion (! ...) who becomes president. It's simply that I see Obama after saying this is what he wanted, input from the American people, making an orders of magnitude harder statement, promise, taking an orders of magnitude harder position, to in the end ... back away from, than the usual as in typical, campaign promise(s).
The issue for me? To whom is it best to deliver a mandate?
Posted by V at 01/18/2008 @ 5:23pm
V -
Huckabee's pandering in SC is even worse. No dispute there.
Posted by Hman23 at 01/18/2008 @ 5:23pm
Senator Obama has the Reagan hope speech but apparently wants purple, not blue, solutions, DLC-style compromise rather than confrontation with Republicans and conservative Democrats.
Not true! Obama is pretty much all-blue with purple rhetoric.
Here is a pre-presidential discussion from Obama that makes the case for "progressive trans-partinsanship" as opposed to bi-partisan dilution and compromise:
I do think a broader question remains on the table. What is the best strategy for building majority support for a progressive agenda, and for reversing the rightward drift of this country?
One important part of that strategy - and on this I think we agree - is for progressives within the Democratic Party to describe our core values (e.g. racial justice, civil liberties, opportunity for the many, and not just the few) in clear, unambiguous terms.
A second part of that strategy - and again, I think we agree here - is to stake out clear positions on issues that put those values into action (e.g. the need for universal health care), and to stand up for those values when they are under assault (e.g. opposition to the Patriot Act).
But the third part of this part of the equation – and on this we may disagree – must be to gain converts to our positions. My job, as a candidate for the U.S. Senate, isn't to scold people for their lack of ideological purity. It's to persuade as many people as I can, across the ideological spectrum, that my vision of the future is compatible with their values, and can make their lives a little bit better. Thus, while I may favor common-sense gun control laws, that doesn't keep me from reaching out to NRA members who are worried about their lack of health insurance. I favor affirmative action, but I'm still going after the votes of white union members who oppose affirmative action, because I think I can convince them that it's Bush's economic agenda, and not affirmative action, that is eroding their job security and stagnating their wages. And while I may object to the misogyny and materialism of much of rap culture, I'm still going to spend the time reaching out to a hip-hop generation in search of a future.
In other words, I believe that politics in any democracy is a game of addition, not subtraction. And I believe deeply enough in the decency of the American people to think that progressives can build a winning majority in this country, so long as we're not afraid to speak the truth, and so long as we don't write off big chunks of the electorate just because they don't agree with us on every issue.
All of which explains why I'm not likely to launch blanket denunciations of the DLC or any other faction within the Democratic Party. I intend to engage DLC members, just like I intend to engage everybody else that I can during the next year of campaigning, in a conversation about the direction our country needs to take to give ordinary working families a fair shake. In some instances, I may even agree with DLC positions: their insistence on the value of national service, or the need to harden domestic targets like chemical plants from potential terrorist attack, to cite a few examples I just pulled from the DLC web-site, make sense to me. Where I disagree with them – and, as we have already discussed, I disagree with them strongly on a lot of major issues - I intend to let them know, firmly and without equivocation, just why I think they are wrong.
To some, this approach may appear naïve; to others, it may appear that I'm headed down a path of dangerous compromise. All I can tell you is that in my twenty years as an organizer, civil rights lawyer, and state senator, I've always trusted my moral compass, and have thus far avoided compromising my core values for the sake of ambition or expedience. - Barack Obama
Posted by Metteyya at 01/18/2008 @ 5:38pm
Posted by HMAN23 01/18/2008 @ 5:23pm | ignore this person
That's your point of view, fine ... I respect it. After reading your posts there is no reason not to take you at your word, or think you post out of childish spite.
Who has not pandered? Or if they all have, then who has pandered least? What about a mandate? What do you think about that?
Though I will be voting for Obama, an Obama - Edwards, or an Edwards - Obama ticket are both fine with me.
But, again ... now what?
Posted by V at 01/18/2008 @ 5:39pm
Lord, Magic is becoming more likable everyday!
Obama will embarrass the Ex-POTUS' wife.....the one Chris Matthews seemingly `attacked' due to leaving out a key adjective--"political"--leading some fanatics to think he was attacking her as a WOMAN.....
Rivals Blast Obama's Praise for Reagan
Jan 18 05:12 PM US/Eastern
By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer
RENO, Nev. (AP) - John Edwards and Hillary Rodham Clinton criticized Barack Obama's praise of the Republican Party and Ronald Reagan--an anathema for many Democrats, particularly union members considered crucial to winning Nevada's Democratic caucuses Saturday.
Obama responded by suggesting Clinton would be a "president whose plans change with the politics of the moment"--one of his most direct critiques of the New York senator yet.
The intensity reflects what polls suggest could be a tight contest Saturday as Nevada plays its most prominent role ever in a presidential nominating campaign. Nevada was granted a coveted spot right after Iowa and New Hampshire in an attempt to bring more racial and geographic diversity into the selection.
The novelty means there isn't a reliable way to determine who is likely to turn out at caucuses across the state. In addition, nine caucuses are to be held in casinos for the first time to allow shift workers to participate on a busy holiday weekend--making the result even more unpredictable.
Obama got a boost when he won the endorsement of the Culinary Workers Union that represents 60,000 housekeepers, bartenders, waiters and other employees on the Las Vegas Strip. Then a judge dismissed an attempt to eliminate the casino caucus sites. But Clinton still holds an edge in most polls.....
Posted by Happy at 01/18/2008 @ 5:43pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/18/2008 @ 4:25pm | ignore this person
Click me
Posted by V at 01/18/2008 @ 5:49pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/18/2008 @ 4:25pm | ignore this person
Click me instead [tinyurl.com]
Posted by V at 01/18/2008 @ 5:52pm
This is great!
By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 5 minutes ago
LAS VEGAS - The White House campaign has brought a new act to Vegas. ADVERTISEMENT
Democrat Barack Obama tried to use humor to cut down rival Hillary Rodham Clinton before Saturday's presidential caucus. His "Iowa nice" approach gone, Obama debuted a biting political standup routine Thursday night that mocked his rival, and employed it again on Friday.
Obama began by recalling a moment in Tuesday night's debate when he and his rivals were asked to name their biggest weakness. Obama answered first, saying he has a messy desk and needs help managing paperwork -- something his opponents have since used to suggest he's not up to managing the country. John Edwards said his biggest weakness is that he has a powerful response to seeing pain in others, and Clinton said she gets impatient to bring change to America.
"Because I'm an ordinary person, I thought that they meant, 'What's your biggest weakness?'" Obama said to laughter from a packed house at Rancho High School. "If I had gone last I would have known what the game was. And then I could have said, `Well, ya know, I like to help old ladies across the street. Sometimes they don't want to be helped. It's terrible.'"
"Folks, they don't tell you what they mean!" he said. Obama chuckled at his own joke before riffing on another Clinton answer in the debate, when she said that she is happy that the bankruptcy bill she voted for in 2001 never became law.
"She says, 'I voted for it but I was glad to see that it didn't pass.' What does that mean?" he asked, again drawing laughter from the crowd and himself. "No seriously, what does that mean? If you didn't want to see it passed, then you can vote against it! People don't say what they mean.
"You know what I'm saying is true," he said, then addressed his routine directly at audience members who don't know who they will vote for yet. "Undecideds, remember now, remember what I'm saying."
He continued by responding to a new Clinton radio ad that accused him of having financial ties to supporters of the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site that most Nevadans are loath to come to their state.
"I have said over and over again I'm against Yucca," Obama said. "I'm against Yucca Mountain. I think the science is not there. I've never, I've never been for Yucca. Never been for it. Never said I was for it.
"Suddenly you've got the Clinton camp out there saying, `He's for Yucca.' What part of I'm not for Yucca do you not understand?" he said, then laughed along with his audience.
As the laughter subsided, Obama drove home the broader point he's been trying to make against Clinton the entire campaign.
"Those kinds of tricks, that kind of approach to politics is what has to stop because what happens is then nobody believes anything," Obama said. "The voters don't believe what politicians say. They get cynical. Folks in Congress, they'll tell you they're looking out for you -- they're looking out for somebody else. We have to change that politics and that's why I'm running for president."
Posted by Metteyya at 01/18/2008 @ 5:58pm
Posted by V 01/18/2008 @ 5:39pm
I take no issue with Obama. I think he is a good candidate and he may even earn my vote on Feb. 5. Certainly in November if he wins the nomination.
I do take issue with the over-the-top adoration some posters here seem to hoist on Obama (METTEYYA ceratinly gets a lot of my attention on this point) as if he is a perfect candidate with no flaws.
But please, do not confuse my jabs at METT with an attack on Obama per se.
Posted by Hman23 at 01/18/2008 @ 6:02pm
Posted by V 01/18/2008 @ 5:23pm
Not only do I not know what makes one a Republican, I'm not sure I can identify them all as a genus, and perhaps that is a sign they are moving from monoculture to a bit more variation. Or in other words, they are becoming like Democrats.
I agree that it's a smart move to try to broaden appeal by using cultural icons like Reagan - even though I couldn't do it. I think of Ronald Reagan, I think of death squads and the first war of terror.
I also agree that life is so much more than electoral politics and that ultimately, representatives should be executing the will of their constituents. But I think there is a larger problem in the fact that we don't have good democratic institutions that promote critical thinking and dialogue - and the sound bite culture and punditry is a sad substitute used by those whose interests are served by making sure they never get built.
So, practically, how will a mandate come to pass? And doesn't framing in this way suggest Obama - as far as I can tell, he is the only one making a believable pitch that he is leaving things open because he wants input from people?
Posted by srjenkins at 01/18/2008 @ 6:06pm
Posted by V 01/18/2008 @ 5:52pm
hey thanks! great way to start a friday night.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/18/2008 @ 7:24pm
In all the years I've watched Bill, I never thought this day would come..He got stuck on the tar baby (and took John Edwards with him). And it was Clinton who practically invented this form of baiting in politics.
Result: Now Clinton has gone ahead and alienated those independents of the Republican bent AND insulted the critical thinking crowd who understood well what Obama was saying. Obama is not in support of Reagan's policies but is commenting on the tides of change.
I think this alone is evidence of Obama's stature in this race as well as his brilliance.
"Don't touch that tar baby!"
Full disclosure: Brer Rabbit was written by my relative Joel Chandler Harris. Those who know the man and his work well do not call him rascist today as was the fashion for a period of time in the sixties when the origin of his stories was unknown.
Posted by hrayovac at 01/18/2008 @ 8:39pm
Basically the pandering mentioned by Metteyya is exactly our problem. Krugman has repeatedly noted this in the Times. As long as we continue to pay lip service to conservative icons and try to create a big tent in their terms we lose. Because we compromise on our essential ideas. When the current version of the conservative movement started in the late sixties they did not start with pandering to the ideas of the welfare state and redistribution, they did not say yes but... They blasted the hell out of liberals. They did not create a big tent, they just pitched one and by changing the discourse they filled it (incidentally bringing the theocons in the equasion). Liberals need to change the discourse and to a great degree they are succeeding. Only the people who will truly benefit the liberal cause are not going to be the big tent types like Obama, who may win the nomination and the presidency, but the barking dogs whom the media dislikes like Edwards and the bloggers whom Fox likes to describe as communist and un-patriotic, who tirelessly repeat the populist message and create a broader consensus, already more or less present, about the pitfalls of globalization, the need for fair trade, the call for universal health-care and so on.
Posted by dimik72 at 01/18/2008 @ 8:46pm
"Krugman has repeatedly noted this in the Times."
Posted by DIMIK72 01/18/2008 @ 8:46pm | ignore this person
Yes he has, almost every chance he gets in fact. The only problem being that at no point in time has anyone ever verified to anything remotely resembling certainty ... Krugman's mouth becoming like unto a prayer book. I hardly consider him a non-biased reference, on Obama, obviously. I wonder if you consciously experienced label creep, if you did it was because of this; "They did not create a big tent" versus "create a broader consensus." I wonder if you had to choose between words and ideas (yes, there is a difference), labels and human beings which you'd prefer. You have square pegs, star shaped pegs, and your rounds pegs ... nicely labeled along with concomitant holes for all. How are you so certain we indeed fit? Everyone, so, neatly placed ...
But never mind the chain of ideation above, cancel that, there is something, a more succinct way to the point ... when exactly was the real world (I say such because you give the aroma of the over labeled, and I, lets us say ... "harbor no true affection," for them), when was loss at the national level shown to be due to the "big tent," thesis? Without an example said thesis is found lacking. And Feingold has cogently "outed" Edward's recent populist based campaign message epiphany, elsewhere on this very site.
You had what you wanted in Kucinich, cept for maybe the UFO thing (which was ok, I was down with that ...), what did you do about it (not the UFO thing ... but his run for president)?
Posted by V at 01/18/2008 @ 11:04pm
I think alot of self-proclaimed "liberals" miss the fact that this country is more "conservative" than they wish it to be. This is not to judge whether this is good or bad, but just to point out that, like it or not, over the last 27 years conservatives have basically controlled US politics.
While I believe Kucinich would be the best person for the presidency, the problem is that the majority of the country doesn't seem to agree. That is political reality today - like it or not.
Further, Obama is working in the world of discourse - not policy - when he invokes Reagan. He's speaking about uniting a majority of americans, not supply-side economics. Obama is not Kucinich, but he's not Reagan either. He's simply a person trying to win a nomination, and an election, by inspiring as many people as possible to vote for him. That is what politics is all about - policy is something else entirely.
And for those of you wanting a fundamental shift in US government policy - stop whining about the democratic or republican party when its the entire political system that needs overhauled. wake up and join or start a social movement that pressures both parties, wall street, and beyond. stop waiting for a broken system to solve your problems, because it can't - especially when you see the system as divided between "us" and "them."
Posted by pmarlier at 01/18/2008 @ 11:07pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 01/18/2008 @ 6:06pm | ignore this person
"So, practically, how will a mandate come to pass?"
I've been thinking a long deep (IMHO "-) wine tasters sip of a thought, about exactly that. Take one case; The deliberate marginalization of Kucinich. Which both should have been, and should still be, a wake up call to all "progressives," (or humans, take your pick ...). A majority of Americans want the not for profit (so much more coherent a term and to the point than the innocuous and effete "single payer") healthcare system he proposed. By Kucinich's marginalization the wishes of a majority of the electorate were, and subsequently, are to be ... effectively and functionally dismissed.
What's needed is a movement organized around the concept of a continuous in process, and ongoing, system of mandates. Mandates not focused on us, but on our children's children. I have neither seen, nor have I heard of another way. And simply doing what was done before, thinking what was thought before, acting from the paradigm the same script our grandparents read from has only brought us to the point where we now stand.
That's my two cents for the who and the what, and the why, for how, all I have is the intuition that it could, or better should, be web based ...
"And doesn't framing in this way suggest Obama - as far as I can tell, he is the only one making a believable pitch that he is leaving things open because he wants input from people?"
Pretty much, though whoever is picked must be made do ...
Posted by V at 01/19/2008 @ 01:09am
Check this out -decidedly off topic (pun intended)-
"Psychoanalyst describes Bush as "paranoid megalomaniac," "untreated alcoholic""
"A new book by a prominent Washington psychoanalyst says President George W. Bush is a "paranoid meglomaniac" as well as a sadist and "untreated alcoholic." The doctor's analysis appears to confirm earlier reports the President may be emotionally unstable.
Dr. Justin Frank, writing in Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President, also says the President has a "lifelong streak of sadism, ranging from childhood pranks (using firecrackers to explode frogs) to insulting journalists, gloating over state executions ... [and] pumping his fist gleefully before the bombing of Baghdad."
Even worse, Dr. Frank concludes, the President's years of heavy drinking "may have affected his brain function -- and his decision to quit drinking without the help of a 12-step program [puts] him at far higher risk of relapse.""
Link [unknownnews.net]
Posted by V at 01/19/2008 @ 01:15am
The republicans & democrats have a LOT to think about this campaign. For more info, I found an awesome article called "Reagan Babies" at www.SAVAGEPOLITICS.com. Here is an excerpt:
""A baby is an alimentary canal with a laud voice at one end and no responsibility at the other" Ronald Reagan
Last Tuesday was a big day for Republican Candidate Mitt Romney for he came out ahead of all others in Michigan's Primary election. To many this was not a surprise since his father was elected thrice Governor of Michigan in the 60's and, by many citizens' standards, was good for the State. This of course creates a very interesting power struggle within the Grand Old Party since Huckabee and McCain had already won their own primaries, making this race, as of Today, a three-way race. Of course, we have Thompson looking to catch South Carolina's ticket and Rudy Giuliani aiming to do the same in Florida. This last candidate has basically bet all his chips on winning Florida, if he does not win said State, he might as well never had run for the nomination. For many conservatives, this situation within the Republican pool of candidates is both embarrassing and aggravating. Here we have a process which basically tends to eliminate their most ideologically consonant candidates right from the beginning, since they depend on primaries and caucuses in predominantly "blue" states which, to make matters even worse, usually allow independents to participate. In this year's election though, it seems that all this does not matter since none of the participants seems to fulfill their base's expectations. Can any of these candidates face off against Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or John Edwards in a general election?
Since the birth of the Reagan Coalition, the era which brought to the Republican Party the juncture of both Social Conservatism and Economic Conservatism, the Grand Old Party has been unable to keep track of their own ideology, usually loosing itself to divergent group interests and in the process becoming a massive political tent that caters to both corporate and institutional fluctuations. Instead of assuming the responsibility of admitting to itself that Economic Conservatism, a belief..."
Find the rest of the article at www.SAVAGEPOLITICS.com
Posted by elsylee at 01/19/2008 @ 3:20pm