Edwards lays Reagan bare and admonishes Obama
Barack Obama was interviewed by the Reno Gazzette-Journal. He praised Ronald Reagan’s way of changing the “trajectory” of America. He stated that Reagan had changed the country in a way that neither Richard Nixon did (thankfully) nor Bill Clinton did (and I would take exception to that).
John Edwards took him to task for that.
From CBS News “On the Road” piece, by Aaron Lewis;
“When you think about what Ronald Reagan did to the American people, to the middle class to the working people,†said Edwards.
“He was openly – openly – intolerant of unions and the right to organize. He openly fought against the union and the organized labor movement in this country. He openly did extraordinary damage to the middle class and working people, created a tax structure that favored the very wealthiest Americans and caused the middle class and working people to struggle every single day. The destruction of the environment, you know, eliminating regulation of companies that were polluting and doing extraordinary damage to the environment.â€
John Edwards has the courage to expose Ronald Reagan as another “Emperor with no clothes”. Why would a Democratic presidential hopeful site Reagan as a paragon of change?
Edwards went on to say:
“I can promise you this: this president will never use Ronald Reagan as an example for change.â€
Well, thank goodness someone is operating on all 4 cylinders!
(In case you want to watch the actual video of Obama’s comments, here it is):
[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/rP1esS0AEzk" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]
Related posts:
From what I’ve read here I know some of you are die-hard Edwards supporters. I have an honest question for you. How many more primaries that he finishes third in will it be before he finally admits his candidacy isn’t going to gain any more traction than it already has? Is there an upcoming state that he is expected to win?
I never heard about this Barack Obama quote before…very interesting.
I think it’s make or break time for Edwards in South Carolina. It was the state he won last time around wasn’t it?
I just looked and yes, he did. In fact, it’s the only state he won in the 2004 primaries.
That’s accurate. I do know, that whatever happens, he plans on going all the way to the convention.
And yes, I, in particular am a die-hard.
Well, he’s going to get beaten over the head with this comment, and it was probably a stupid observation to have made in a political race, but that was not “praise.”
What he is saying is that sometimes elections reflect a larger change in our culture, and some presidents have the good fortune of riding that wave. Reagan had the right message for the right time, and that same message would probably work as well in this election, for example. What he’s saying is historically accurate from a certain point of view.
Not to take away from what President Bill Clinton did in his term, but he inherited an economy that had been down so long that going back up was inevitable; he inherited a PC/Networking environment which was under development for forty previous years and just at that moment, about to burst into fruition; he inherited a post-Cold War landscape which - while more dangerous than most of us realized - didn’t have the domestic political ramifications precisely because we were ignorant of the dangers. In short, most of the things that get Republicans elected were non-issues during the Clinton years, and even if he did things we like and even if he’s a Democrat, that fact alone probably contributed to his invincibly high approval ratings more than any other.
To forestall the argument, George the Younger inherited a budget surplus and a booming economy, then screwed it up. Inheriting good things does not mean you use them wisely, and Clinton deserves A LOT of credit for that, by and large.
Nixon was mired in the thick of the cultural revolution that was the Hippy thang, and all he could do as a Conservative was get in the way. He was born on and elected by the wrong side of history. It took almost twenty years and a considerably more affable man (Reagan) to make that same message of Conservative values palatable to the American public. So there you go: same message, different place in history, different results.
And Barack Obama is saying that his success so far has not had so much to do with him but with this same force in electoral history. It’s a bit self-effacingly egotistical for him to say such a thing, when you think about it. But in many ways, I agree.
Reagan had the right message at the right time? Depends on which definition of “right” you mean. I’ll never say Reagan had the right message if “right” means good for you.
I found the latest polling numbers for S. Carolina & Nevada. He’s trailing in each state and depending on the poll, badly in some cases. He has a better chance in Nevada. He’s behind but close enough he could catch up. In S. Carolina, he’s behind by 20 or 30 points. What does it serve those who really want change to continuously split the “change” vote and potentially give the nomination to Senator Clinton.
Not good for me, good for the majority of Americans. Don’t forget: McDonalds is hugely popular in this country, so what sounds right and what is right don’t necessarily need to be the same things.
So, dood: who you betting on in this horse race?
i like the courage to stand up to reagan. why do people love this guy? do we forget deregulation, iran-contra, s & l scandals, his hatred of gays and to end on a lighter note, ketchup as a vegetable? good for edwards. i hope obama was just pandering to whitey because reagan’s record on race ain’t so hot either.
I like Senator Obama’s message the best. I believe he could be this generation’s JFK. Senator Edwards pounding class warfare all the time doesn’t resonate with me, especially when in reality he is one of “them”. The entire population of a small country could live in his house. Senator Clinton is too power hungry. She’s been eyeing 1800 Pennsylvania Ave for a very long time and is willing to say and do whatever it takes to get there. Why else would she decide to become our US Senator?. Illinois or Arkansas I can see but she had no altruistic reason to run here other than the election loopholes that allowed it. Stay waiting on those 200,000 jobs she promised.
Courage? The dude’s like, dead and stuff. . .
Absolutely right — Obama was making a subtle point about history and change, and using Reagan as an example as DFE notes. Now, progressives who are constantly getting bashed when they make subtle points have decided to do the same to Obama.
Obama’s underlying point is that he can do for Democrats what Reagan did for Republicans - change the game. Reagan was a powerful unifying force for Republicans and he appealed to centrist voters. Obama can do the same for Democrats.
That’s certainly debatable, but let’s debate on the substance of his remarks. Getting hung up on Obama’s comments because he said the word “Reagan” without immediately saying that Reagan was a bad, bad man is the worst kind of petty partisan politics.
exactly, so people are afraid to criticize him. after all, he must be a saint he’s got an airport named after him. the point is, if obama wants to be the agent of change, there are better examples to use. and as edwards wisely pointed out, there are even better republican examples to use.
So Obama’s your guy, huh?
Why? To continue to give people a choice. To continue to work for the middle class American and fight against corporate ownership of the presidency. To try to keep issues forefront, and since we don’t have Dennis anymore, this is our last, best chance to do so.
Besides comparing his potential to be a “transformational” president in the style of Reagan, Mr. Obama also went on to say that RR matched the mood of a nation tired of, among other things, “excesses.” Since those excesses included things like feminism, civil rights, etc., I find that offensive beyond what my visceral dislike of Reagan would normally prompt. For a “transformational” figure, Obama sure runs to the right when he gets a chance. And I say this a true agnostic in this race. I keep coming close to Obama, and then he does something like this that makes me back off in a hurry.
Then keep checking out Edwards, I’m sure you won’t be disappointed. He’s no Howard, but his message is closest.
Thank you, DFE — You took the words right out of my mouth.
To me, Obama sounded more like a political science professor in that clip, rather than a man running for President. I did not take his point so much as praise for Reagan’s policies as a simple acknowledgment of the sea change that took place in the American political landscape at that time. Perhaps if he had prefaced his comment with “Like it or not,” his point might not have been so easily misconstrued.
I did not hear him comparing the Nixon and Clinton legacies either. I think Obama’s point was only that neither of those 2 Presidents represented “a new trajectory” in the American journey. Will political historians disagree with Obama? I don’t know. All I know is I’m pretty sure Bill Clinton will find some way to take offense, and then he’ll be out there on the stump, defending his … trajectory … and he’ll find some way to spin it to Hillary’s benefit.
I have to say I’m a little disappointed in Edwards for pulling this comment so out of context. By now, he knows Obama very well. He knows there is no basis for suggesting that Obama supported Reagan’s policies or is an apologist for Reagan’s legacy, but he had to find some way to redirect the national attention his way and take Obama down a notch or two… It was a cheap shot, in my opinion, but the whole episode could ultimately be a good thing for Obama, as it gives him an opportunity to expand on his views with respect to the “fierce urgency of now.”
If you listen closely to what Obama says and take his comments in the context of the whole interview (and in the context of his entire campaign), I think its pretty clear that he was speaking about the zeitgeist. “Like it or not,” Reagan was able to respond to the Cold War / post-Vietnam / Watergate zeitgeist and convince Americans that he could lead the country in a new direction and make Americans feel good about themselves again. Yes, that new direction gave us “Reaganomics” and the “Reagan Revolution,” and people can dispute the positive or negative impacts those results had on the country as a whole, but there’s no disputing the zeitgeist.
Obama has been talking and writing about a new zeitgeist for years, and that, I believe, is the key difference between him and any of his rivals, Democrat or Republican. He talks about our “collective responsibilities.” “National commitment.” He’s saying it’s not just up to the politicians to change the status quo; he challenges every voter to have the political will to demand change of their politicians. He challenges people who haven’t ever participated to get in the fight. (Don’t forget, he got his start in the neighborhood, burning through a lot of shoe leather getting disenfranchised folks to register to vote…) Make no mistake - he knows no President can do it alone. Not even a majority of Democrats in Congress can do it alone. Bill Clinton had a Democratic majority in the House and Senate during his first 2 years, but they lacked the backing of a national commitment or political will of the majority of America to move the agenda forward. This dynamic we loosely refer to as “change” happens when the people change, when the people demand different policies and laws. Policies change and laws change when the trajectory changes — and that starts with the will of the people. That’s why Obama continually refers to our capacity as individuals to affect change (see “One Voice” (December, 2007):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmUUYo9o9eg
Obama knows that progress is not possible without consensus. This is where his grassroots are showing, and therein lies his distinctive difference. A Democrat or a Republican will win this election - that is a fact. The difference with Obama is that he offers an alternative style of leadership that contrasts substantially from the others. One of Obama’s grassroots role models, Saul Alinsky described it this way:
“Dostoevsky said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution. To bring on this reformation requires that the organizer work inside the system, among not only the middle class but the 40 per cent of American families - more than seventy million people - whose income range from $5,000 to $10,000 a year [in 1971]. They cannot be dismissed by labeling them blue collar or hard hat. They will not continue to be relatively passive and slightly challenging. If we fail to communicate with them, if we don’t encourage them to form alliances with us, they will move to the right. Maybe they will anyway, but let’s not let it happen by default.”
I would encourage everyone to hear more from Obama himself. Watch his Commencement Address to the Class of 2005 at Knox College:
http://www.knox.edu/x9683.xml#
(To read the transcript, go here: http://www.knox.edu/x9803.xml)
I also recommend William Finnegan’s May, 2004 article in the New Yorker, which profiled Obama after he won the Democratic primary in Illinois during his run for the Senate (before he spoke at the Democratic National Convention): “The Candidate: How the son of a Kenyan economist became an Illinois Everyman” http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/05/31/040531fa_fact1
And yes, I am an unabashed, Clinton-defecting, Obama supporter. My 14 year old convinced me to rethink my position; Obama convinced me that he would win in the general. With Hillary, we not only risk losing, we risk another 4 years of the Great Divide where little, if any, positive change can take place.
Edwards is a strong possibility for me. I had my heart set on Gore, and Edwards seems to be the only one out there who is at all similar. However, I’m worried about contributing to a split anti-HRC vote. Is giving Edwards the role of kingmaker worth that risk?
And then I get truly insane, when I watch HRC and how prepared and competent she appears to be at times.
I guess calling myself agnostic doesn’t really describe it anymore. From someone who went to Iowa for Dean (I was present at the scream — and we couldn’t hear him!), this is an uncomfortable place to be.
Yep.
Let’s not get hung up on poll numbers; Edwards has every right to continue as long as he desires, even if he has no real chance of winning (and he doesn’t).
Instead, let’s focus on the blinders we put on when we support a candidate. Lad is an Edwards supporter. Edwards took the cheap, easy road here: Dumb down the argument and try to fool voters into thinking that Obama is a Reagan disciple. If Lad could view such comments with more clarity, he’d see it.
Blind devotion is a dangerous force in politics. Apparatchiks are plentiful on both sides. I like John Edwards, but any person thinking clearly would condemn the petty attack that Edwards has leveled. Lad, sadly, is more ready to write the hageography.
I agree he can run as long as he wishes (and has the financial backing to do so), but if he truly has no chance of winning (and I don’t believe he does), doesn’t that beg the question, why? Is it purely a matter of a big ego or does he have alterior motives and if the latter is the case, wouldn’t he be better served in other ways such as throwing his support to another candidate. I believe that is the eventuality so why drag it out?
Obama said that Reagan restored “accountability.” Huh? It’s one thing to restore optimism but it was a facade if you look at the outcome of Reagan’s policies. Reaganomics is the equivalent of Stockholm Syndrome, identifying with your captors. The rich got richer under Reagan and our debt was exploding. Blind optimism is as dangerous as revisionist history.
Your argument, with all due respect DFE, is that the majority makes it right. There are many examples in history where what the majority did or believed in was atrocious for the people.
It is widely known that Bill Clinton planned to moved to NY after his presidency so it makes sense Hillary would run from here. Don’t forget this is also what Bobby Kennedy did prior to his presidential bid.
Edwards was from a blue collar family and he has not forgotten his roots. I don’t blame him for his success. It’s not like he’s out there touting tax cuts for the richest 1%.
Can you contrast Obama’s views with Edwards’ and tell me why you prefer him over Edwards in delineated points?
I picked up on that “excesses” too. Reagan is the definition of excess. The 1980s are known for their excess.
A good photo op does not make you a good leader. Why would Obama set himself up as a comparison to that?
The glaring point is that Obama is so badly misguided on what Reagan did and what he represented.
Well, look at it this way:
Imagine you are running for president. You have deep pockets and a steadfast belief that you are the singular candidate who can bring this country to glory. You know you won’t win, and you have two choices:
1) Drop out and support a candidate whom you feel is clearly inferior, or
2) Continue to spread your message, knowing that while you won’t win, you will reach new people who may be inspired to great things in the future.
Why wouldn’t you go with the latter?
Great point, Jeremy. Also, the notion that Edwards won’t win is a bit premature. Look at Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_presidential_campaign,_1992
Even if Obama is right, he worded this horribly. It seems even worse than Hillary’s MLK statement that Obama supporters seemed happy to misconstrue. To say that Republican ideas have dominated discussion for the last 10 to 15 years is to almost beg to be misquoted. And mentioning Ronald Reagan during the primaries, without slamming him somehow, is ill-advised. I understand what DFE and Rotten and others are saying, but this was not Obama’s most eloquent moment.
The comparison to the 1992 primaries isn’t valid. John Edwards is running against two very strong candidates, neither of which is going anywhere. He’s also got the problem of competing against an African-American and a woman, something else Bill Clinton didn’t have to deal with at the time.
It is a bit unfair for Obama to say that Bill Clinton didn’t change the geopolitical landscape to the degree that Reagan did.
How’s everyone enjoying NAFTA?
You seem to be intentionally missing the point for the sake of politics. It’s not about what’s morally right, that’s not the conversation at all. All I’m saying, and all that Obama said, is that Reagan represented something to the American public that they wanted at a time when they wanted change.
And whether or not Reagan actually affected the change or the accountability that he projected is, again, beside the point. We’re not talking about administrations, necessarily, we’re talking about politics in the raw sense of electoral push and pull.
Obama did not say anywhere in that piece that Reagan “Restored” accountability. He said that people were looking for accountability to be restored and believed that he could do it. That’s not the same thing at all, as anybody who bought a used car thinking it had value and finding out otherwise would know.
One big one is that I don’t believe the “big ticket” items we need to have changed, like health care, will happen when people want to be antagonistic and combative like John Edwards is. I appreciate his stand and his message, but I don’t really give a crap about message, I care about results.
John Edwards will only accomplish what he can rip out of the hands of the wealthy. Much though I do appreciate this sentiment, it only sets up a situation where the wealthy go out of their way to get it back in the next sympathetic administration. Health care is bleeding American companies at least as dry as American people, we need someone who can make reform seem in the best interest of the widest variety of people, thereby ensuring it’s safety for future generations. Try as they might, Republicans will never take Social Security away for that reason.
Yeah, it was the ineloquence that was my first sentence referred to. He’s setting himself up, in what appears to be a moment of over-thinking, to be misquoted in someone’s negative ad campaign. As for comparing the two misquotes, I’d say they’re about even and both candidates deserve to have gotten smacked upside the head with them. But in the final analysis, I don’t think either candidate will be much hurt by them, either.
All this feather-ruffling about the historical precident is just silliness for the wings to argue over.
I agree that Obama’s comment in an hour-long interview with an editorial board could have been better expressed.
The difference between the MLK quote and this one is that Obama’s opponents are attacking him directly. Obama didn’t attack Clinton for her quote. Small difference, but still meaningful.
DFE, I’m not intentionally missing the point, I just differ on how I think the statement will play and what it implies.
It’s interesting to see you think that is a negative for Edwards to be running against an African-American and a woman. In some parts of the country that difference will actually help Edwards. People may not poll that way but I think voting is different. Look at NH for evidence of this.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s a negative for Edwards but it certainly is a challenge. How does New Hampshire prove your point? Edwards finished a distant third. I’m watching the Nevada returns at the moment. He’s a distant third there as well.
How about a couple of thoughts- (and to state up front, I like what Edwards has to say, and I have nothing against lawyers)
1. Although Edwards claims he has worked for the middle class for so long, being a trial lawyer suing companies, though it may benefit those in the middle class and the poor, is not necessarily reflective of that type of life long commitment. Look at Obama over the years - fighting for civil rights, getting a law passed in Illinois to require videotaping of confessions, speaking out for Genarlow Wilson and the Jena 6 - he takes these positions even though they may not be popular among the general electorate. His actions speak louder than Edwards’ words and
2. At this point I think Obama’s campaign has momentum, and Edwards has none. Although Edwards has contributed tremendously to the debate, and pushed everyone to more progressive positions, at this point will he have a Nader effect?
3. Obama’s manner and history reflect his ability to bring differing parties together to promote an agenda that helps the poor and people of color. Edwards’ manner is likely to polarize those whose support will be necessary to bring change. Which isn’t to say that we’re not already polarized, but from those who knew Obama as a law professor or as a state legislator, that seems to be a quality that enabled him to communicate effectively with all sides.
Just a few thoughts….
My point about NH is that the polls showed something different than the actual outcome. People may poll one way and vote another.
I understand that but Edwards isn’t gaining any noticeable voter support due to underlying sexist or racist views. He pulled 5% yesterday in Nevada.
None of this matters - the delegates matter and Edwards has delegates- if he can pull delegates - he can influence the platform.
Clinton currently has a commanding delegate lead.
Edwards has about 10 percent of the delegates- If he gives them all to Obama - Obama is still behind Clinton.
After February 5th. These delegates and any he earns may have an affect on the race.
That of course assumes he earns delegates.