The Democrats Spar Over Reagan's Legacy

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have spent a few days sparring over over Ronald Reagan and the conservative movement.

Obama has said this before, in different words: Here's the original remark, from a meeting editorialists in Reno:

“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.”

To which John Edwards responded: "I would never use Ronald Reagan as an example of change," and Hillary Clinton said today:

"I have to say, you know, my leading opponent the other day said that he thought the Republicans had better ideas than Democrats the last ten to fifteen years. That's not the way I remember the last ten to fifteen years."

The campaigns upped the ante with dueling surrogate calls, and Bill Burton, Obama's silver-tongued spokesman, told reporters:

"“It’s hard to take Hillary Clinton’s latest attack seriously when she’s the one who supported George Bush’s war in Iraq, the most damaging Republican idea of our generation. While others were triangulating and poll-testing their positions, Senator Obama has been fighting for progressive ideals for over two decades,”

I’m reminded of a conversation I had with Obama’s best friend, Marty Nesbitt, last summer.

Nesbitt told me about a bull session a few years back where Obama told him that among the political figures he admitted was Ronald Reagan.

“When he told me that about Ronald Reagan, I said , what?” Nesbitt told me. “I was like every other Democrat. But Barack told me, no, he really had something that inspired the company and brought it together. I may disagree with him on policy, but he was what American needed at that moment in history. “

Nesbitt was using the point to illustrate why Obama decided to run so early in his political
career. Like Reagan, for Obama, “personal traits intersected with the historical moment.”

BTW: turns out that HRC thinks Reagan was a great president too.

Comments

More to do with the fact that Obama was encouraged that an ACTOR with some simple catchy lines written in extra large EASY READER fashion on a TELEPROMPTER could win the Presidency. "If he can do it, why can't I?"

Posted by robert ethan | January 18, 2008 5:57 PM

So Hillary actually listed Reagan as one of her favorite Presidents?

How is that not a million times worse than Obama simply saying Reagan was more effective than Bill Clinton or Nixon at changing the trajectory of America?

By the way, as long as we're looking at hypocrisy: Edwards said he would never use Reagan as an example of change. Nevertheless, he did use Reagan as an example of someone who "built strong alliances and deepened the world's respect for us", which is much more debatable.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901faessay86502/john-edwards/reengaging-with-the-world.html

When questioned about his lack of foreign policy experience in 2004, he used Ronald Reagan as an example of someone who also didn't have that experience but succeeded.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0301/04/rs.00.html

Posted by Mike | January 18, 2008 6:25 PM

What's so great about bringing people together to go in a wrong, often humanly vicious, direction?

If these people aren't asking that question, they are all just privileged frauds.

Posted by janinsanfran | January 18, 2008 7:08 PM

Try reading what yuo write before posting it.

"Nesbitt told me about a bull session a few years back where Obama told him that among the political figures he admitted was Ronald Reagan."

Admired - not admitted.

“When he told me that about Ronald Reagan, I said , what?” Nesbitt told me. “I was like every other Democrat. But Barack told me, no, he really had something that inspired the company and brought it together. I may disagree with him on policy, but he was what American needed at that moment in history. “

Country - not company.

Posted by slick | January 18, 2008 7:47 PM

Janinsanfran,

His point (and the point of almost any Democrat who admires Reagan's skills) was that Reagan brought the country together. Obama's argument is that those tactics can be used to serve a progressive agenda. I don't think that he (or Edwards or Clinton) really think that Reagan was a substantively great President. If that was the case, wouldn't all of them have completely different platforms and positions?

Posted by Jamaal | January 18, 2008 7:48 PM

Marc,for all the people who have been slamming Obama by misinterpting his words I too was going to post a link where Hillary says she is really an admirer of Reagan and Bush.
Heck, I'll post it anyway:
http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/18/18220/4768/238/439124

Posted by vwcat | January 18, 2008 7:51 PM

Update from Salmon Press: Okay, the author of that editorial says they screwed up:

The question posed was originally what portraits would you hang in the White House if you were President and as the dialogue progressed, who are the presidents you admire most?

She [Sen. Clinton] listed several presidents that she admired and mentioned she liked Reagan’s communication skills. She did not say Reagan was her favorite President. She didn’t say anything close to that.

So Hillary didn't say Reagan was one of her favorites either. She just praised his skills. Like someone else suddenly being attacked for doing the same.

Consider correcting your site...or leave it as it is since it provides more proof...true or not...of Clinton's true nature.

Posted by Carl Ken | January 18, 2008 11:09 PM

Who are the defenders of the status quo ? Is that you ?
Reagan did spawn a 'sea change' in American politics.
Obama hopes to spawn a new 'sea change'. Change based on the ideals of unity - not division (and certainly not modeled after Reagan's ideas)
How can anyone look at the state of modern politics and the outlook for our country guided by our current stautus quo - how can this 'sea change' of unified working government not make sense.
Anyone who has paid any attention knows what Obama is speaking of about the Republican Party being guided by 'ideas' for the past 15 years... you don't have to subscribe to those ideas but they are, none the less, ideas. The same could be said of the Democratic party of the late 50's and into the 60's - Kennedy Idealism. Both of these movements ran their course and were watered down by time. That explains the state of the Democratic Party in the 70's and 80's. It also explains the 'washed out' state of the Republican Party today.
--- Why do 'we' resent being talked to as if we had the capacity for knowledge. That is how Barack Obama is speaking to America... as if 'we can' understand. Why would we sell ourselves short and believe that we are past our zenith... that we are a declining people. Come on people... Now is the time to show some strength of character.

Barack Obama for President of the UNITED States of America.

Posted by PulSamsara | January 18, 2008 11:12 PM

I love Obama's optimism!

and that he's willing to evoke and idealogical opposite as a true agent of change (for better or worse) even if it opens him up to criticism.

I love that he trust the American people to understand the nuances of this enough to say it.

As I listened to his comments to the San Francisco Chronicle, I was struck at once how truly trusting he is of us to see the nuances, to want to own our democracy. See it at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2008/01/18/MNSNUH7GC.DTL&o=0&type=politics

The Clintons are being dis-en genuine (AGAIN) to skewer the principal of his statement as an Obama espousal of Regan's policies.

The message being broadcast to our society about our society is that we're morons and don't have the capacity, don't read, don't care, etc... If you look at Clinton's constant underhandedness in her (their) dealing with Obama, you see them treating us with that same contempt as if we couldn't see through the obvious mis characterizations of it all. It's getting a little tiring.

Here's what's obvious to me, Reagan capitalized on the mood of the nation to make sweeping changes and he did it with Optimism a wink and a smile. The American people trusted him and got behind him and Obama thinks that he has that ability in him and I think he does too.

What Reagan thought was change in 1980 is the status quo in 2008 and could hardly be considered change after 30 years. It's time to turn the page....

Hey, so that's why he keeps saying that, I get it...

Posted by mcj | January 19, 2008 1:32 AM

You know who brought this country together? Johnny Cash. I just saw a dvd of the best of his TV show. He had that show for a few years and it was great - he did whatever he wanted. He had all the country stars, but also Bob Dylan and Kris Kristofferson and Stevie Wonder - people singing raw-ass protest songs, along with Tammy Wynette and Stand by Your Man. It was thrilling. And he debuted his song "Man in Black" on the show and all these student protester types - the whole thing was live - gave him a vehement standing ovation and it was just really really cool to see. That guy was a Republican. Go figure, right?

Posted by Phoebe | January 19, 2008 3:58 AM

Clintons: LYING HYPOCRITES!

But no president can do it alone. She must break recent tradition, cast cronyism aside and fill her cabinet with the best people, not only the best Democrats, but the best Republicans as well.. We’re confident she will do that. Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan - demonstrates how she thinks.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674

"Hillary and I will always remember President Ronald Reagan for the way he personified the indomitable optimism of the American people, and for keeping America at the forefront of the fight for freedom for people everywhere...

"We will always remember his tremendous capacity to inspire and comfort us in times of tragedy, ...and we can rest assured that, as joyous a place as Heaven is, his wit and sunny disposition are making it an even brighter place to be." President Bill Clinton and Sen. Hillary Clinton.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4092735

And, not like Obama haters will accept this, even though it's true and no many time it's repeated, OBAMA NEVER SAID HE LIKED REAGAN OR HIS IDEAS. He merely stated the obvious, that Reagan seized an opportunity for change, like we have right now, and ran with it, like he intends to do as well. The idea that Obama likes Reagan's policies is beyond ridiculous, and if you believe that, I want whatever it is you're smoking. Seriously people. Take a deep breath and a step back. Slowly.

Posted by john Y. | January 19, 2008 12:32 PM

Mike, in his Jan 18 comment noted: "By the way, as long as we're looking at hypocrisy: Edwards said he would never use Reagan as an example of change. Nevertheless, he did use Reagan as an example of someone who "built strong alliances and deepened the world's respect for us", which is much more debatable.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901faessay86502/john-edwards/reengaging-with-the-world.html"

In the article cited, Edwards refers to Reagan, not as an example of change, but as one of the presidents who continued a 50 year tradition in our foreign policy. So where's the hypocrisy?

Posted by Grace | January 21, 2008 12:02 PM