Well, if it's a dog whistle, I'd say that a lot of people on our side are deaf in the upper ranges. I happen to agree with him, but I also tend to look at the narrative rather than policy laundry lists-- narrative is where the GOP beats us consistently, after all-- and Obama certainly understand the current potential for a tectonic shift.

I've been at a conference this week, so my online time has been limited, but I posted this with an excerpt at dKos:

http://ajr.org/article.asp?id=1444

Basically it's late cartoonist Doug Marlette talking about his business, and one of his examples was how hard it was to come up with an effective (meaning an intuitively recognizable) caricature of Reagan based on his harsh policies. That so many on our side don't seem to understand what Obama was saying doesn't speak well of our longer-term prospects as a party, though.

You would almost think that Obama was attempting to bridge the ever increasing bi-partisan gap in this country by leading the nation. Does anyone remember leaders? We used to have them, we called them Presidents and they did cool things like rallied the ENTIRE country around common goals. Maybe this leadership fad is making a comeback and we could fix the economy, end our clusterfuck policies and war in the middle east (not just Irag, but the whole region), and attempt to gain some standing in the international community!

Odd how it is always necessary to explain what Obama "really" meant, eh?

Cranky

> You would almost think that
> Obama was attempting to bridge
> the ever increasing
> bi-partisan gap in this
> country by leading the nation.
> Does anyone remember leaders?
> We used to have them, we
> called them Presidents and
> they did cool things like
> rallied the ENTIRE country
> around common goals.

So tell me: is Obama planning on providing some leadership on the FISA/telecomm immunity bill, or capitulating to the Cheney Doctrine?

Cranky

We've really gotten to the point where simply saying nice things about a dead member of the other party makes you a terrible person, but actually voting like a member of the other party is perfectly find as long as you say mean things about them at the same time.

In historical terms, there's no question that the Nixon and Clinton administrations had political similarities: both won office by a third-party-aided minority vote -- an outcome which indicated the splintering of an old coalition but not necessarily the formation of a new one. Each moved the country somewhat but not dramatically away from the old coalition's politics and toward his own.

I believe Obama is correct in thinking whichever Dem wins the presidency this November (and it will be a Dem) will have an opportunity to push further than the Nixon/Clinton model allowed -- building on what those earlier administrations achieved, and emphasizing the complete failure of the interim president, to move the electorate solidly leftward. The possibility of creating a new, far more progressive majority is right there in front of us.

I agree that Clinton, locked into her belief that Bill's way is still the best way, is least likely to make the most of that moment. But I'm not persuaded Obama really grasps all the policy (rather than rhetorical) possibilities open to the next president, either.

Maybe I'll be surprised if he's elected -- either his progressive roots, or simply the dire circumstances of the times, may force him further left than his current chatter suggests. But, in the meantime, I'm still with Edwards, as the candidate who seems to see the potential most clearly and isn't afraid of articulating it -- which makes him, for me, the most like Reagan in this analogy.

what Obama is doing is what Norquist most wants to avoid: He's homogenizing Reagan's political legacy.

The question is whether he leaves himself vulnerable to those in the Village and beyond who want to separate the milk from the cream.

That so many on our side don't seem to understand what Obama was saying doesn't speak well of our longer-term prospects as a party, though.

You don't just have to feel wary about what the packaging is indicating. You have to worry that when there's so much packaging, you get with Obama something that can be defined by others in ways that don't particularly benefit the Democratic base.

Any more unifying inspiration and he'll end up in the frackin' stratosphere.

I hear echoes of Tony Blair.

Big Tent Dem correctly gets it here:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/1/16/17740/1269

The money section is as follows:

"Obama simply misunderstands how Reagan achieved that transformational change - to the detriment of the country I must add - he ran a partisan, ideological divisive campaign that excoriated Democratic values and trumpeted GOP values. He also race baited.

Obama is running a post-partisan, nonideological campaign that is bereft of defenses of Democratic values and ideas. He is running an anti-Reagan campaign. His argument is simply ahistorical. It is precisely BECAUSE he refuses to try and make this a transformational campaign, a campaign to fight for Dem values, to persuade the country that the Dems are right, that his campaign is a promise unfulfilled."

The resulting danger is increasely there all to many Obamaniacs, at least online, who seem to think they are smarter than everyone else. That they are talking something new.

You are not as bright as you think you are. No one is that bright or that gifted.

You are trying what the Clinton's tried in 1992, and failed, resulting in triangulation which resulted in Bush-- because politics is about define or be defined. The Clinton's failed to define the middle so Bush did it for him.

Obama is failing to define post partisan, and therefore the GOP almost certainly will do it for him. They are smart enough to know this chess game even if you are not.

Post partisan and other open ended definitions in which you accept the connotations of Reagan (regardless of how smart you think you are) is where the right wins the definitional war.

You aren't breaking the connotations. Only a group of people who are too smart for their own good ignores this reality. With Reagan you take the good with the bad.

Why is this the case in your brilliance you ask?

Because most voters are not going to sit there and parse the way you do here about what you mean. They will come to simple black/white easy to understand conclusions. This is why Big Tent Democrat is right, and this post like Stoller's miss the point. Too smart by half. If you keep it simple- and remember politics is about define or be defined, you understand the critique a lot better.

Cranky is two-for-two. And I might add that despite Obama's rhetoric against the Credit card industry, he has yet to explain his vote against the Dayton amendment (putting a 30% cap on interest rates for Credit Card debt).

I don't know whether Perlstein left out the part where Obama explains that the trajectory Reagan sent the country was a downward one, but that's what I'm looking for. Why is Obama is afraid to vocally repudiate the Conservative movement that Reagan was so responsible for jump-starting?

Latts wrote: "Well, if it's a dog whistle, I'd say that a lot of people on our side are deaf in the upper ranges." Perfectly said. I myself hated Obama's reference to Reagan. Your post has changed my outlook on it, though. And if it works, if we can truly change the name "Ronald Reagan" into a weapon we can use rather than one we have to deflect, then I'll be thrilled. I'm listening to the audio version of Krugman's book, "The Conscience of a Liberal," and I'm struck by how conservatives have twisted the meanings of so many terms over the course of these last 6 decades. Words/terms like "taxes," "socialized," "organized labor," (or "Hillary") have come to mean everything horrid and bad. Why is that? Just because they say so? I read this week that now Glenn Beck is spouting off that FDR was an evil, evil man. Well, it's time for liberals to start setting the definitions and shining a light on America's real history. Like the fact that this country was not founded on a Southern Baptist platform.

Odd how it is always necessary to explain what Obama "really" meant, eh?

A year ago, I wouldn't have thought it necessary, but I also used to think that liberals were a bit more rational and able to recognize nuance, given that 'doing nuance' had become a slur against us. And of course Clinton & Edwards supporters have a great deal of emotional investment in not understanding what Obama's saying, or why he's saying it.

Which is to say that today's Democratic Party, including (maybe especially) the blogosphere, apparently don't recognize a realignment opportunity-- not a certain realignment, just an opportunity-- when it bites them on the ass.

The Republican presidential candidates are practically tripping over themselves to claim the mantle of Ronald Reagan. In reconstructing Reagan's legacy as you mention above, I think Obama just beat them to it.

Ooh, you're good. I had figured out half of that by myself. But the point about repositioning, redefining Reagan hadn't occurred to me. If you're right on that Obama is even smarter than I had hoped. Why vilify Reagan if we can re-empt him?

"also used to think that liberals were a bit more rational and able to recognize nuance."

Exhibit A of an I am smarting than you post. No you aren't. You have simply convinced yourself of things without proving them.

Your analysis also is the conventional, if you disagree with me, it's because of what's presently going on whether it be Edwards or Clinton.

Politics didn't begin in 2007 or 2008. It won't end here either. That you frame your conversation in such terms betrays the shallowness of your analysis.

Reconstructing Ronny? A lot of the Democrats that Ronny brought into the Republican fold were evangelical racists who had a hidden ideological kinship with him. If Mitt Romney says he's more like Reagan, it's because he's willing to cut taxes. If Mike Huckabee says he's more like Reagan, it's because he believes in the Apocalypse. If Rudy Giuliani says he's more like Reagan, it's because he's striking fear in the hearts of people who are afraid of Muslims taking over the world, and if John McCain says he's more like Reagan, it's because he's a pro-military hawk. What does Obama have? Optimism? Puh-lease. Conservatives will laugh and Progressives will retch at the suggestion that Obama is like St. Ronny.

So who is left - I guess that is the $64000 question...But from where I sit, if you want to change America, you have the change the Campaign and provide substance. I'm not suggesting that Sen. Obama hasn't provided any - it's just that the sound bites end up too dreamy and not specific enough.

Actually, I didn't say we're smarter than you-- although devoting oneself to someone who remains in the mid-teens after running for four solid years doesn't seem all that logical-- but I do think that the non-cheerleading-kid Obama supporters are both more attuned to subtlety and braver than a lot of other Dems, because accepting his analogies and mild criticisms is a risk we're willing to take for the possible reward of a paradigm shift in politics. We won't get it with Edwards, because he would be blocked at every turn by his own party in the highly unlikely even he became president (and no, he's not going to be borne to victory in some sort of New Populist movement; if that was going to happen, we'd see it already), and we certainly won't get it from the Clintonian middle-management, conservatism-accepting factions.

None of you guys have 'proved' anything about Edwards either, btw, except that he's an earnest-seeming demagogue. Few political allies and a smallish movement do not a national realignment make.

Ah, nearly midday, and yes, akaison is out there, using the strawman argument with gusto. Politics, akaison, is not the art of being as dumb as possible. It is the art of the possible. There is a big difference, and it is one you urgently need to learn.

Big Tent Dem is such a hack, I just ignore everything he says. He's a conservative, and if the party starts listening to those voices any more than they already do this party is just going to get smaller, not larger.

Ironic that someone who believes in 90% of what Reagan did would criticize Obama for this. But so long as it helps the real conservative in the race (Hillary Clinton), I'm sure BTD will find a way to justify it to himself.

"Politics, akaison, is not the art of being as dumb as possible."

Exhibit B

It's not me you have to convince. It's the American public. They may buy into Obama, the personality, but not for the definitions you dream up. Too smart by half. And you misused the word strawman.

Actually, what Obama is doing is similar to what Reagan did when he referenced FDR in his speeches. Drain away the politics and leave the "inspiration." If it works, it works.

Cranky said:
So tell me: is Obama planning on providing some leadership on the FISA/telecomm immunity bill, or capitulating to the Cheney Doctrine?

I say:
So tell me: is Hillary planning on providing some leadership on the FISA/telecomm immunity bill, or capitulating to the Cheney Doctrine?

"Big Tent Dem is such a hack, I just ignore everything he says."

Exhibit C.

With a corrolary- Once the assumption is made that one is smarter than everyone else, then attack everyone else as rightwingers.

Just today on TalkLEft, Big Tent Democrat is STILL trying to pin the racism on Obama.

He's a hack. I don't ignore him because he's an idiot. I ignore him because he's dishonest and he has nothing useful to listen to.

I suppose you think George Will is a hell of a source for information?

I completely agree. Way too many people showed that they didn't have the intellectual capacity to understand such a "complex" (it wasn't all that hard to get actually..) argument. If Obama doesn't get the nomination, it won't be because he wasn't good enough, it will be because far too many Democratic voters were either too lazy or too incompetent to understand what he says, what his positions are, and how great of an opportunity we have now to change the course of this country. We lost an election in 2004 because too many people were too stupid to understand Kerry, and flocked to the ignorant simplicity of Bush...we don't need to make the same mistake again.

Basically I'm saying people need to wake up, learn and think.

Well there you have it. If one disagrees with Obama one is per se a far rightwinger who agrees with 90 percent of what Reagan says. Another poster wrote a diary on this subject- wherein the Obama supporters are doing what you are doing. Progressivism is suppose to ba set of values independent of a candidate, and yet, it's clear for many of you progressivism is whatever Obama says it is or whatever you think he says it is.

Actually, what Obama is doing is similar to what Reagan did when he referenced FDR in his speeches. Drain away the politics and leave the "inspiration." If it works, it works.
Posted by: The Peachfish | January 17, 2008 11:45 AM

Very good point.
Kudos to Obama.

Ezra: "What he's saying is that Reagan effectively understood the ideological currents in the country and used that mastery of public opinion to drive popular sentiment."

What Reagan did was manipulate public sentiments to achieve a harmful, right-wing agenda. How is that admirable?

But actually, Obama went a step further:

"But I think, when I think about great presidents, I think about those who transform how we think about ourselves as a country in fundamental ways...And, you know, there are circumstances in which, I would argue, Ronald Reagan was a very successful president, even though I did not agree with him on many issues, partly because at the end of his presidency, people, I think, said, "You know what? We can regain our greatness. Individual responsibility and personal responsibility are important." And they transformed the culture and not simply promoted one or two particular issues."

In these statements he's endorsing some positions with a very nasty track record. Individual and personal responsibility is right wing code for let them sink or swim, cut entitlements, bust unions, and privatize programs. Obama just bought into that whole ball of wax.

Now, I don't think Obama will be like Reagan in all of his proposals if he is elected, but I do think he will be very moderate, not the progressive that I think we need, or what I hear supporters saying he will be.

Is he homogenizing or legitimizing, as ever with Obama it's a rorschach test. It think the excesses line could and will be interepretted both ways, and as such, it veers more to triangulation in its effect than anything else.

He also does seem to greatly underestimate how partisan Reagan was, he was never shy about a villifying Democratic politicians, tree huggers, hippies, or in coded language of 'welfare queens,' minorities, he just did it with a smile on his face. So overall, Ezra's just wrong on this one.

I think that Obama's statement is anything but naive. The fact that he campaign ended up getting drawn out on the race issue almost certainly caused some unrest among older white voters. One great way to assure those voters that they can trust you is to espouse admiration for Reagan. People keep saying Obama is giving Reagan all this credit for high-mindedness. He is not! He's describing what public perceptions were and are of Reagan, and trying to make the point that HOW a president approaches their tasks as leader can cause seismic shifts in the political landscape. Reagan moved the entire country to the right, only a short 8 years after Watergate. If people would read between the lines a bit, Obama is basically saying he wants to shift the entire country to the left, and do it the way Reagan did it back then. This is actually in stark contrast to the Clinton approach which generally includes fiery rhetoric and red meat, and then selling out completely when the going gets tough.

"Way too many people showed that they didn't have the intellectual capacity to understand such a "complex" (it wasn't all that hard to get actually..) argument. If Obama doesn't get the nomination, it won't be because he wasn't good enough, it will be because far too many Democratic voters were either too lazy or too incompetent to understand what he says."

Exhibit D

Which proves the point-- if your goal is to win why use a strategy that a) doesn't advance progressive values substantively and b) as you say people are too lazy and stupid to get your parsing. In all of your brilliance, can you explain why even go there since according to your own formulation it requires the people you are trying to convince (the voters) to parse it as you do? What does this say of the strategy? What does this say of your political brilliance? Since here one would assume that brilliance is about achieving your goals rather than merely worship of the figure.

I was watching the interview that Ken Mehlman the former chairman of the RNC gave yesterday to Charlie Rose. Guess who he was comparing to Ronald Reagan, not a republican candidate but Senator Obama. Basically, he was saying that he had the same capacity that President Reagan had to connect with people. I was shocked. Here is a high-ranking republican, denying the mantle of Reagan to all republican candidates just to give it to a democratic candidate.
If Senator Obama is able to shift the center of this country to the left, just as Reagan did it for the right.
I'm all for it!!!

Akaison, Big Tent Democrat was a reaganite long before he was against Obama. He is a conservative Democrat, that's not something I pulled out of my ass. BTD has been a DLC shill since he made his debut on the internet.

Even if that wasn't true, which it is, he is still someone with a long record of bashing Obama and propping up Hillary. There is a reason he restricts himself to sites like Talk Left and MyDD. He is simply not really a welcome voice outside of the 'I hate Obama-sphere'.

"In a Straw Man argument, the arguer argues to a conclusion that denies the "straw man" he has set up, but misses the target."

This, akaison, sums up your efforts at sliming opponents quite perfectly. You may amuse us, occasionally you may irritate us - but you will certainly never convince us.

Oncelor, I agree with what you said completely.

The choice is between someone who says what he needs to in order to get accomplished what we want accomplished, and someone who says what we want to hear and then promises to sell us out to her corporate friends the moment she's elected.

Some people here would clearly much rather have their asses kissed than actually accomplish something.

I have to say that I think this is an incredibly charitable interpretation of what Obama intended to convey with his comments. Firstly, we want "clarity?" Maybe he was alluding to clarity in government (that is not AT ALL clear if you watch the video), or, more likely, maybe he was alluding to a moral clarity that he thought the country had lost because of the excesses of the 60s and 70s. If so, this certainly doesn't strike me as compatible with any liberal world-view. Secondly, regarding his mention of "dynamism and entrepreneurship", this could be construed as an attack on what conservatives clearly saw as excessive government regulation. But their subsequent deregulatory zeal led to a collapse of corporate accountability. I fail to see how any of these three words used by Barack redefined "Reaganism" in a way that is consistent with the way liberals/progressives see the world. You, Ezra, have made extrapolations, placed modifiers in front of Obama's "dog whistles" in order to bolster an interpretation that I think is unlikely at best. Your argument, Ezra, hinges on how Reagan Democrats/Republicans will interpret these statements, and for them "clarity, dynamism, entrepreneurship" are buzzwords that allude to moral excess and loathsome government regulation. This CONFIRMS their interpretation, it does not alter in a way to make them see history through a progressive prism.

To Cranky:

I think to a lot of us, no explanation was necessary, at least until others seemed to purposefully misconstrue what was IMO an obvious interpretation.

I mean, right after he praises Reagan, he compares him to JFK...and I don't think anyone considers those two idealogical bedfellows. But of course, cut that part out, get a little loose with what you take to be the subject of certain clauses, and-BOOM-Obama is a triangulating ass hat.

Only, of course, that's dishonest demagoguery.

To akaison--um, actually, people being lazy is precisely the point. Most people aren't parsing the language like Stoller did, they're hearing "Obama wants to be more like Reagan & JFK than Nixon and Clinton" and thinking "yeah that sounds about right to me"

You can't shift the center to the left by sitting down and slowly explaining every little bit of electoral history and policy detail to every voter. You do it with broad statements that tap into the general feeling of malaise in the country and then affirm what values we need to honor in order to move forward from those feelings. That's precisely what Obama is doing.

And WTF are you talking about him not affirming liberal/progressive values? His entire campaign is predicated on the idea that America is too individualistic, and that we need to be more socially engaged, we need to take the mind-set of "I am my brother's /sister's keeper", and invest in our time and money in improving our community, both nationally and the international community.

That's the philosophical foundation of American political liberalism.

I mean, at times it seems like his critics are willfully ignoring or misconstruing everything he says and does, and then using that ignorance/distortion as evidence against him.

It's bizarre.

"Your argument, Ezra, hinges on how Reagan Democrats/Republicans will interpret these statements, and for them "clarity, dynamism, entrepreneurship" are buzzwords that allude to moral excess and loathsome government regulation. This CONFIRMS their interpretation, it does not alter in a way to make them see history through a progressive prism. "

This gets it right. THis isn't about how liberals interpret this. It's about how the voters who maybe swayed by this will interpret this. Why would they understand it as a liberal does? This is the question that you must ask yourself rather than see the world through your own lense.

"Your argument, Ezra, hinges on how Reagan Democrats/Republicans will interpret these statements, and for them "clarity, dynamism, entrepreneurship" are buzzwords that allude to moral excess and loathsome government regulation. This CONFIRMS their interpretation, it does not alter in a way to make them see history through a progressive prism. "

This gets it right. THis isn't about how liberals interpret this. It's about how the voters who maybe swayed by this will interpret this. Why would they understand it as a liberal does? This is the question that you must ask yourself rather than see the world through your own lense.

Michael said:

"And WTF are you talking about him not affirming liberal/progressive values? His entire campaign is predicated on the idea that America is too individualistic, and that we need to be more socially engaged, we need to take the mind-set of "I am my brother's /sister's keeper", and invest in our time and money in improving our community, both nationally and the international community."

How does that reconcile with Obama channelling Reagan's personal responsibility code?

It really doesn't.

Michael said:

"And WTF are you talking about him not affirming liberal/progressive values? His entire campaign is predicated on the idea that America is too individualistic, and that we need to be more socially engaged, we need to take the mind-set of "I am my brother's /sister's keeper", and invest in our time and money in improving our community, both nationally and the international community."

How does that reconcile with Obama channelling Reagan's personal responsibility code?

It really doesn't.

michael,

as read all my posts. I am not making an arguement based on stoller. stoller's argument is the red meat for folks like you. the better arguments are made a) by Big Tent Democrat and now I would add by john on here at 1229pm. The core problem with your argument is that it does require the voter to parse your meaning. This is why people keep calling Obama's actions a Rorschach test. Because depending on the viewer people see what they want to see. The problem is not now, but in the long term.

by the way- cranky gets at the real world problem with this. this theorectical shit is all nice, but in actual application what has this meant on FISA, the war funding, trade, and any number of other liberal issues? What makes you think this same straight jacket will not apply once he's in office?

akaison, my son, theoretical NOT theorectical. Theorectical means "god's ass" if it means anything. And straitjacket, NOT straight jacket. Most folks want a straight jacket, as opposed to a nice white coat at the funny farm. And if you want to go off on a laundry list of issues against Obama, you might as well get it into your head that Hillary and Edwards don't emerge looking any more liberal.

Older baby bloomers might not hear the high pitch of Obama's current dog whistle. I think I understand what Obama is trying to do because I have four grown daughters translating his remarks. His strategy is backfiring with me and probably too many Edwards supporters. I agree with Paul Krugman; this is one election where nonpartisanship is a mistake.

Reagan was all Hollywood smoke and mirrors and letting his advisors run the show and the conservatives and fundamentalists hijack the Republican party. He was a racist who made base appeals to fear. He was an actor who used to be a strong Democrat so he could talk out of both sides of his mouth. My English husband says the UK impression of him, even before he became senile in office, was that he regarded the presidency as a 9 to 5 job and was the laziest president in history. He just got lucky in international affairs.

Younger progressives might have been deceived by the sickening veneration of dead President Reagan. My generation of progressives hated Reagan as much as we all hate Bush. Obama needs to appeal to my generation to win the primaries, so he should talk JFK and RFK, not Reagan. He might be better advised to rehabilitate Nixon:) than say anything appreciative about Reagan.

Why not compare himself to JFK? I fear JFK's greatest contribution to the great society was getting shot, but few younger people are that cynical. JFK was spectacularly successful at drawing young people into politics, including many people now supporting Edwards and Obama.

I briefly fell in love with Obama the night of the Iowa primary. He felt like Bobby reincarnated. Obama should make more JFK and RFK comparisons, quote from their eloquent speeches, use them in his ads. He should avoid attacking Hillary and Edwards, just prove he is the exciting, inspiring candidate, Attacking HIllary as the agent of the status quo infuriates women who believe a women president is the most radical change of all.

The Jesse Jackson Jr. attack on Hillary was stupid. Obama should run as a feminist, complaining about the media's absurd sexism, proposing policies that would make it more possible for men and women to combine child care and elder care with rewarding careers, tackling the ticking time bomb of long-term care.

Obama's later mention of JFK is really irrelevant to the discussion. I don't think anyone here is suggesting that the entirety of Obama's statement to the editorial board is beyond the pale, I think we're focusing on comments he made regarding Reagan and, as I've said, even with Ezra's unlikely, too-clever-by-half Lakoffian theory, I still believe that Obama's sentiments reinforce, rather than alter, the Republican interpretation of the 1980 election. What happened here is that we had a Democratic presidential candidate trying to pander to a conservative newspaper. Fine. I understand the nature of the game. But please, let's not canonize every misstep by Obama as some sort of brilliant, post-partisan political strategy. The man is not beyond criticism, and here that critique is legitimate.

Funny stuff. I wonder if the front-runners are having some kind of private contest to see which one can self-destruct in the most spectacularly tortured way.

More seriously, I heard Amy Goodman say that his Reagan comment was somehow a slight to the women's and civil rights' movement in a teaser to the actual clip -- then later talk about how he didn't specify what he thought the "excesses" of the sixties were. I have huge respect for Amy but I really wanted to kick her right at that moment.

Anyway, we seem to have great fun eating our own. I'm sure the Republican party is loving the spectacle.

Changing the subject isn't an answer. Correcting my spelling errors isn't an answer. Correcting my grammatical errors isn't an answer. Attacking others isn't an answer. It's avoidance of uncomfortable questions about the candidate you support.

Hwdy, redstocking, are you visiting from Ob Wings today? I think you are wrong about what younger progressives take from Reagan being bad. Yes, objectively Reagan was like Clinton - a mediocre president - but for independents and moderate republicans he enjoys a cult status. Getting some of the magic for Obama is not a bad thing in my opinion. JFK is now remembered for being shot, and sex with multiple women. This is not a nice fact - but it is more his legacy than inspiring the young. I tend to agree that attacks don't look good, although I think the Obama Edwards fight has not been especially bloody. I think there is a place for using Michelle Obama more to emphasize Obama's credentials as an honest, decent family man, while leaving the contrast with the Clinton menage to the voters. That would play well with educated and self-made women, in my opinion.

akaison, if someone helps you to present your case by correcting your atrocious English, I would suggest a little gratitude and courtesy would not go amiss. You might also invest in spell-check. Finally, make a case, rather than throwing out random points and hoping you might find a connection somewhere. It's an oldfashioned idea, and we calling it "rational argument".

One of the many things dogmatic liberals and dogmatic conservatives have in common is that they are utterly incapable of differentienting between an empirical observation and a normative statement.

Obama is a political science major and, in this case, he was talking like a political science major and began his argument with a simple, indisputable empirical observation: Reagan pulled of a realignment. Clinton did what people from the party that lost the last realignment have to do to get elected, he accepted the basic governing assumptions of the realignment, but said "I can govern better within those assumptions." If you need an analogy, Clinton was to Reagan as Eisenhower was to FDR.

Obama did make a normative observation: it would be better for Democrats to pull of a realignment of their own and shift the policy paradigm in our favor than it would be to have another president governing within the old policy assumptions. It would be better to have a Reagan or an FDR style realignment than another Clinton I or Eisenhower.

And, he made a political observation. We have a chance to pull off a realignment but Hillary can't get it done. I can.

Sadly, however, almost by definition, the dogma blind (*cough*Matt Stoller*cough*) are incapable of even comprehending empirical observations as such. Because everything they say, do, or believe is dictated by their dogma, they necessarily assume that everyone else operates the same way. To them, everything everyone in politics says is always a normative statement. Mere empircal observations are as incomprehensible to them as science is to a religious fanatic.

Thus, to the dogmatic liberal, if Obama says Reagan was a transformational political figure, he must mean that he approves of Reagan's policies and, in fact, wants to be just like Reagan.

What's really depressing to me about this is that this kind of thinking is one of the symptoms of a party that's about to lose a realignment election. As the old policy assumptions make less and less sense, and render increasingly bad policy outcomes, empiricism becomes increasingly inconvenient and dogmatism is their natural refuge. This is what Bush II and Tom Delay were all about. This is why the current Republican presidential candidates are all insisting that the reason the deficit is so high is because Bush II didn't cut taxes enough.

The Reagan realignment is on the brink of collapse. Unfortunately, it often seems to me that there are a lot of Democrats who are so invested in their angry opposition to the Reagan Revolution, and so fearful of what their world might look like without it, that they instinctively seek to prop up the old order that they so hate.

Compare:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And if you want to go off on a laundry list of issues against Obama, you might as well get it into your head that Hillary and Edwards don't emerge looking any more liberal. - Posted by: marcusaurelius | January 17, 2008 12:50 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When Russert turned the discussion to the war in Iraq, Edwards noted that Obama and Clinton were voicing similar ideas about when and how to pull U.S. troops out of combat. He said his commitment to a U.S. withdrawal was stronger.

"I think there are real differences here, and they’re not subtle," Edwards said, vowing to "have all combat troops out in the first year that I’m president of the United States."

"I will end combat missions," he said. "And while I'm president, there will be no permanent military bases in Iraq."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I can only guess that people who are getting worked up about this are intentionally misinterpreting Obama's words and also intentionally ignoring the entire conversation.

I love how this is a 'dogwhistle' but HRC's racially coded statements weren't.

Looking more and more like the GOP every day. Pure knee-jerk thoughtless tribalism.

Since when did the DLC become so popular on the internets anyway?

For the record I'm a JRE supporter.

Yes I have wandered over from OW. Reagan was a terrible president, not just a mediocre one. I was brutally disillusioned by JFK, but I don't know what past glories we are going to cite if we disown the Clintons. FDR is a stretch, though Krugman's book almost succeeds. LBJ's domestic policy, perhaps?

Why does Obama say the baby boomer generation has passed? It reflects misunderstanding of a basic fact of American history. According to Wikipedia, "Baby boomer is an American-English term to describe a person born between 1946 and 1964." That makes Obama, Hillary, and Edwards baby boomers.

I'll take akaison's spelling and grammatical errors any day over the pseudo-do-intellectual Barak "stay in Iraq" Obamabot's explanations of what Barak "really meant"

Yeah, Obama's a uniter!

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/17/john_edwardss_changing_tune_on_the_iraq_vote/

ahttp://www.liveleak.com/view?i=47c_1200355058

Which version is John Edwards pushing lately?
Can you be sure you are with the real Edwards on this one?

JFK was a drug/sex addict who never should have been allowed with 100 yards of the White House. No matter what boomers believe, JFK is in now way a figure that is actually worthy of emulation.

That so many here insist he is, while insisting that Reagan is a terrible man propped up bu hagiography, is both hilarious and troublesome.

SBrennan, given that you can't even spell Obama's first name, I don't think you have much credibility debating his policies.

Obama is a baby boomer, almost 48 years old...better bs please

...not you grandma...Barak "stay in Iraq" Obama.

Why does Obama say the baby boomer generation has passed? It reflects misunderstanding of a basic fact of American history. According to Wikipedia, "Baby boomer is an American-English term to describe a person born between 1946 and 1964." That makes Obama, Hillary, and Edwards baby boomers.Posted by: Redstocking Grandma | January 17, 2008 1:22 PM

I was a political science major, as were several of my children. I am fascinated by Obama's political science. But presidential candidates are well advised to save political science for their presidential histories and libraries.

Drain away the politics and leave the "inspiration." If it works, it works.

Until people start filling up the hole by themselves, and demanding that it looks like what was there before.

I understand the 're-definition' argument. I just think it's incredibly vulnerable to being co-opted itself, particularly when you run a campaign, like Obama, that's heavy on the aspiration.

Thus, to the dogmatic liberal, if Obama says Reagan was a transformational political figure, he must mean that he approves of Reagan's policies and, in fact, wants to be just like Reagan.

Oh, for fuck's sake.

To the pragmatic liberal, when Obama says that Reagan was a transformational poltiical figure and runs a campaign on transformational politics, it opens the door for others to barricade Obama into a policy framework where he will be judged on whether he emulates Reagan.

Welll isn't Barak "stay in Iraq" Obamabot marcusaurelius special...

He can spell well!

Compare:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And if you want to go off on a laundry list of issues against Obama, you might as well get it into your head that Hillary and Edwards don't emerge looking any more liberal. - Posted by: marcusaurelius | January 17, 2008 12:50 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When Russert turned the discussion to the war in Iraq, Edwards noted that Obama and Clinton were voicing similar ideas about when and how to pull U.S. troops out of combat. He said his commitment to a U.S. withdrawal was stronger.

"I think there are real differences here, and they’re not subtle," Edwards said, vowing to "have all combat troops out in the first year that I’m president of the United States."

"I will end combat missions," he said. "And while I'm president, there will be no permanent military bases in Iraq."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Posted by: S Brennan | January 17, 2008 1:14 PM

As I pointed out before, Obamabots will lose the election for Obama.

The problem is that the glories of the Clinton era are actually pretty hard to find. Domestic policy was hardly stellar, and the idiocy in Somalia didn't look great. He had a fairly good economy, but that's more luck than judgment in many ways. Then we have the hypocrisy of Don't Ask Don't Tell, the Healthcare fiasco, and of, course, the Woman Who We Do Not Name. I think we would be better off finding coherent policies, emphasizing a new direction, and setting a new compass, rather than clinging to the rather ragged past.

I was born the day after Trinity, the first atom bomb test, which was 6 months too early to be a baby boomer.

There seems to be little positive correlation between marital fidelity and presidential excellence; in fact there might be an inverse one.

Let me put it as clearly as possible: when Obama makes comparisons to Reagan, he is implicitly asking to have his candidacy judged by the likes of Peggy Noonan and George Will on those terms.

If he pulls it off, more power to him. But I think it's very, very risky. It empowers people whose raison d'être is the triumph of the GOP.

SBrennan - don't you get tired of yipping out the latest idiocy and scurrying off for cover? Frankly, you look more like a lowgrade Republican trying to taint the Edwards campaign by association with your arrogance, ignorance and illiteracy.

Redstocking, it might be true in the last 40 years, that unfaithful men have been better presidents than faithful ones, but I am not sure I can see that as a campaign slogan. It might be interesting to watch the rush to board the infidelity bus, but somehow, I fear this is one entertainment we shall be denied, although I would be amused to hear how John Edwards has 54 years of infidelity for the middleclass, as opposed to Obama's measly 46... but then, Clinton can pull out the 60 year ace - and get Bill as well! There's a twofer for you *grin*

Ezra, are you saying that Obama is succeeding in running the sort of bifurcated, fool some of the voters all of the time candidacy that you see Edwards failing at? Obama does seem to have two tracks -- a policy platform that more or less appeals to self-described liberals, if not hardcore wonks, and a dogwhistle campaign of catchphrases that Republicans and Independents can hear as evidence that he's actually a fellow-traveller (praising Reagan, nodding to the SS cris, talking about personal responsibility, arguing against "forcing" people to get health insurance, etc.). Just wondering if it is in fact possible to fool some of the people all of the time...

It's this part by Pseudo which accurately captures the irony for me in reading the Obama apologists here:

"To the pragmatic liberal, when Obama says that Reagan was a transformational poltiical figure and runs a campaign on transformational politics, it opens the door for others to barricade Obama into a policy framework where he will be judged on whether he emulates Reagan."

I am not some wild eyed liberal, and, yet, many of you need that formulation in order to justify your defense of Obama, don't you?

Those of us with a problem with Obama's strategy here are not asking how we view Reagan. It's a pragmatic question about how others view him. Ironically, you depend on your analysis is the analysis that depends on parsing Reagan for your own ends. I and others are asking how voters view Reagan. This is the central flaw in all of the apologies. You must deny the point we are making, and argue against the pragmatic look at the strategy in favor of attacks on the messenger.

elizabethschoenberg,

Have some more of Barak "stay in Iraq's Obama's sweet Kool-Aid.

If I can't stay to hold your hand, it's because I have to work.

That so many here insist he is, while insisting that Reagan is a terrible man propped up bu hagiography, is both hilarious and troublesome.

This from soullite, born after Reagan's election. Perhaps Obama is appealing to two groups of people: those too young to remember Reagan's election, and those who have the same troublesome memory issues as Reagan did in the days of Iran-Contra.

Wandering About @ 1:41 re "Just wondering if it is in fact possible to fool some of the people all of the time..."

I seem to remember a campaign of "compassionate conservatism" that fooled a whole hell of a lot of moderates just long enough.

I stress moderates, to signal that I'm not actually talking about anyone here.

@akaison

but what data do you have about how voters view Reagan? And anyway, Obama is not saying he wants to be Reagan, or follow his policies. The argument is that Reagan brought together a big coalition, and changed politics. Obama wants to do the same - but not by being Reagan. This is not a complex idea, and there are several good reasons for thinking that it is a realistic strategy. Most people assume that in the primaries the Hillary base would reject Obama if he ran as Bill Clinton, likewise the Edwards people. Primaries work like that - the hardcore base stays loyal to the end. The question is about looking beyond the Democratic voters to independents and moderate Republicans. Those are the swing voters, who are more likely to be receptive. That's the point - not trying to convert the committed Hillary or Edwards supporters.

elizabethschoenberg,

Have some more of Barak "stay in Iraq's Obama's sweet Kool-Aid.

If I can't stay to hold your hand, it's because I have to work.

Posted by: S Brennan | January 17, 2008 1:45 PM

And you think I want your paws all over me, you miserable Republican? You seriously overrate your charm, boy.

It should be absolutely none of the electorate's business what candidates do in or out of the bedroom with anyone of either sex. Europeans seem more sophisticated about this. It was far better when the press keep quiet about what they knew.

I took "grandmother"off my blog to avoid false advertising.

I am frustrated at Obama because if he were running a better campaign, I would probably be supporting him, not debating and alienating my daughters and sons-in-law. This is the first time we have ever disagreed about a presidential candidate. If my feminist mom were still alive, she might have been able to intimidate them in voting for Hillary. My brothers are afraid she will smite them if they don't elect a woman to the White House.

what data do I have about who Reagan was? Are you serious with this question? Look it up if you dont know.

This will be my last time saying this- this isn't about what policies Obama thinks he will enact. It is about how the GOP will use the definitional minefield that Obama walks into (probably because like his supporter he thinks he is just that good) against him when he tries to govern, and how this will affect the ability of the Democrats to transform politics. There isn't anything new here. Same issue, different face. The issue being accepting right wing frames but thinking you are 'tricking' the voters. You aren't. You are just tricking yourselves by ignoring how your language creates a space for the GOP to then manipulate the debate. I don't assume the right is dumb like you do. I suppose this comes down to whether you accept the fact that just because someone disagrees doesn't mean they don't know how to win using your own tactics against you. I am asking pragmatically how can the GOP use this against us, not what Obama intends.

elizabethschoenberg,

So many Barak "stay in Iraq" Obamabots faithful accuse anybody who does not worship Barak "stay in Iraq" Obama of being Republican, I have a standard reply:

I've used my name, the same name, on all the blogs for six years.

Since you imply I am pro-administration, why not find just one comment that supports your contention that I am pro administration.

Surely, you've learned to google. Good luck!

Now run along...Barak "stay in iraq" Obamabot

Obama seems to be running in the general election now. The more (or his supporters)he speaks of unifying the parties, the further he alienates me. He was weakest in the last debate too.

and akaison is on the money today.

"but what data do you have about how voters view Reagan?"

Akaison, you know full well that this is NOT THE SAME as asking about who Reagan was. Either put up some data, or shut up. And if this is your last time saying anything as stupid as your latest post, good riddance.

jj, from what I see here of akaison's weaselling and general refusal to engage in honest debate, the only thing he is on is his dishonest Republican ass.

I think you're not quite right about akaison's goals or affiliaton, contra..., but I've only been reading here for a while.

jj, not disrespect to you - but what can you call it when someone blatantly twists a request for hard data about how popular Reagan is, into a wikipedia style "who was Reagan" question? That's totally dishonest, and doing it on here, rather than debating Democrats honestly is just another way of being a nickle-and-dime Karl Rove surrogate.

It's telling they need to believe I am either far left or a far right plant to make justify essentially an argument against tactic. Notice, that's what this is about. Not what Obama believes- tactics. It's quite sad when you can't admit errors. None of these candidates, by the way, is perfect. Not one. None of them walks on water. Whoever is the nominee, and becomes President we should be prepared to hold their feet to the fire. Regardless of who they are, their biography or whatever. The real problem I have here is when you can't admit to an obvious error in judgement. It doesn't bode well for more complicated situations.

Akaison is refusing to drink the Barak "stay in Iraq" Obama Kool-Aid...

And so the Obamabots attack with personal insults.

Obama is the most polarizing Democrat EVER.

...and wait until his Chicago slumlord ties come up after he's sown-up the nomination.

I think he might win, but Barak "stay in Iraq" Obama is going to turn a watershed year into a trickle.

This is where the young smart bloggers lke Ezra shoot themselves in the foot by coming up with wonkish, faux-pragmatic justifications for Obama propping up a despisd President like Reagan who implemented cruel, disastrous policis his whole poitical tenure.

Go watch how Reagan responded to student protests at Berkeley --- he sent in the military to encite and actualy kill. He cut the budgets for hospitals releasing a flood of the crazy people you can still find in the streets of California. He dismantled one of the best education systems in the world. He appointed wacko Christian James Watt, who didn't think the environment mattered because we'd all be in heaven anyway. He sold arms to Iran and illegally funded death squads that raped, tortured and killed. Plus, he quoted Dirty Harry.

Smug idiots like Kos and BTD worship Reagan because he was a bully capitalist actor. Ezra and the Obama-maniacs should do a little more research into why Obama bringing up Reagan is the height of cynicism and more proof that I don't want this man as president.

contraindicated

The relevant question is who Reagan was, not how popular he was since that's the discussion I've been having since my first post. If you are going to argue against the postion I actually made fine. but wasting my time by discussing popularity means you are just attempting to talk pass what people are saying to you. That's been the problem throughouot this thread. You and others don't listen. You come on here telling us what we are, and what we think, and then don't bother to actual read what we have written. Grow the fuck up. Learn to read, and then criticize me for twisting your words.

actually- who Reagan was and what he meant to voters was the point of my posts to fully flesh out the last post. Ignoring how voters viewed Reagan and just focusing in on 'he was popular' is plainly bad tactical thinking. At this poinst, I must assume you are deliberately ignoring what I've been saying this entired thread.

akaison, anyone who read the post by michael robards can see that he asked you a real, substantive question, which you ducked and then have tried to lie about. This is the sort of behavior we expect in junior high, not on a political discussion board. Grow up, leanr to debate responsibly, and stop yelling abuse when people point out your various acts of laziness or dishonesty.

It seems akaison really just doesn't know how to handle polite discussion, or how to argue in a civil way. Funny really, when you think how self-righteous he is. I propose we treat him as a Republican troll, and ignore him until he shows evidence of improvement.

It's funny, that akaison now thinks he should dictate the whole thread, while everyone else thinks he's just a distraction, and a tedious little creature to boot. I second the trolling of akaison motion.

...what data do you have about how voters view Reagan? - michaelrobards.

Is a:

"a real, substantive question, which you ducked and then have tried to lie about." - redstateliberal.

What BS redstateliberal.

I repeat:

Akaison is refusing to drink the Barak "stay in Iraq" Obama Kool-Aid...

And so the Obamabots attack with personal insults.

Obama is the most polarizing Democrat EVER.

...and wait until his Chicago slumlord ties come up after he's sown-up the nomination.

I think he might win, but Barak "stay in Iraq" Obama is going to turn a watershed year into a trickle.

Posted by: S Brennan | January 17, 2008 2:18 PM

Yup, I'll third the aka-trolling motion! Now, we were talking about Obama and Reagan, as I recall. Shall we return to it?

That the obamabots are lashing out at akaison here shows that they really do have the mentality of seven-year-olds.

Does it have to be repeated?

When you compare yourself to Reagan, you set yourself up -- regardless of frame or dog-whistle or whatever -- to be judged by Peggy Noonan, Magic Dolphin Lady and Reagan hagiographer.

I wish it were not so. But it is. There are enough Reagan fluffers with tenured media positions that, should Obama give them the opportunity, will either scupper his candidacy or scupper his ability to govern.

Should Obama get the nomination, the months that follow will see a massive campaign to define, reduce and suffocate the progressive elements of his platform. Should he win the presidency, his campaign rhetoric will be a chief weapon in attempts to cripple him.

I propose we treat him as a Republican troll, and ignore him until he shows evidence of improvement.

I'd propose you go fuck yourself, but Obamabot purity trolls lack orifices.

Obama is the most polarizing Democrat EVER.

I'm remaining agnostic about Obama's exact placement on most polarizing list, but you do have to wonder how someone has not managed to transcend divisiveness within his own party, i.e. with people who basically agree with him about almost everything, can plausibly talk about being a "unifying" force in the general election.

his question had nothing to do with the conversation that i was having or with what others have posted.

i dont care if you personally think it was relevant to my point. i looked at the logic of what he was asking, and found the logic in connection to the discussion that everyone else was having wanting.

multiple other posters, including john, etc have made the exact same points i've made- that its about how Reagan brings into question in the minds of voters that Obama means, even if thats not his intent, what Reagan meant.

the response has consistently been, and now it continues with the latest post, to personalize it or change the subject. That's how the How popular reagan post did. It's an apple and orange discussion. No one is questioning whether reagan was popular. they are questioning what forces are you regardless of your intend aiding and abetting. hence my conversation earlier about how bright you all think you are that you think you can avoid this conversation.

does a far better job than I did explaining why Obama shouldn't be blowing dog whistles about Reagan.

pseudonymous - first, people running for president are not exclusively judged by Peggy Noonan, secondly, campaign positions generally don't constrain the executive very much, third, the massive campaign you mention is already underway, and shows no sign of succeeding. As for lashing out at akaison, you can surely not be defending his/her ridiculous behavior on this board. Calling people Obama bots for demanding a reasonable debate is hardly logical r cnstructive.

by the way, while i appreciate otehrs defending me against the obamabots, please don't waste your time. these peo aren't logical thinkers. its clear from their own posts this isn't about what we are discussing. all of it in fact a Rovian use of language. Accuse the other guy of what you are guilty of. They must accuse me of being rightwing even as they compare themselves to the granddaddy of all rightwingers. That says it all.

Well, pseudonymous, with your searing logic and weighty arguments, I can't wait to see what sort of dazzing insight you are abut to deliver next. What can you possibly offer to follw up crude sexual innuendo? A few threats of physical violence, perhaps? How.. subtle!

The important thing is that Andrew Sullivan believes Obama is a "liberal Reagan."

You know, there really should be a new fallacy, called the akaison. Total self-refutation combined with a vulgar triumphalism.

"You know, there really should be a new fallacy, called the akaison. Total self-refutation combined with a vulgar triumphalism."

Yeap, got to love the irony. Personal attacks without posting anything else against an argument you don't like isn't a fallacy at all.

I had no idea that a simple request for data was going to set off such a storm. I still want to hear from akaison what data he has on reagan's popularity. That is the crux of the matter when it comes to winning over independents and republicans. It seemed like a pretty obvious point to make, really.

Seems like akaison just doesn't understand your question, Michael.

I am humiliated at my html foulup. I've been a reference librarian 20 years longer than I've been a grandma. Safari hates Ezra, and I need a preview function. I was trying to link to Melissa McEwan at Shakesville (formerly known as Shakespeare's Sister, one of my favorite blogs.

If it wasn't sure a good post, I would have just relurked to hide my shame.

> this isn't about what
> policies Obama thinks he
> will enact. It is about how
> the GOP will use the
> definitional minefield that
> Obama walks into (probably
> because like his supporter
> he thinks he is just that
> good) against him when he
> tries to govern, and how
> this will affect the ability
> of the Democrats to
> transform politics. There
> isn't anything new here.
> Same issue, different face.
> The issue being accepting
> right wing frames but '
> thinking you are 'tricking'
> the voters. You aren't. You > are just tricking yourselves
> by ignoring how your
> language creates a space for
> the GOP to then manipulate
> the debate.

Agreed. I read a lot of claims about the "30% rump" of die-hard Bush-supporting Republicans, but the Radical Right seems to be able to manipulate the public discourse and the Senate whenever the need arises. I haven't heard anything from Obama or Obama's supporters about what he will do in June 2009 when the Radicals come roaring at him with Fox news and Scaife billions behind them. They _aren't going to give up_ people.

Cranky

redstocking - I wouldn't feel bad about it. *s* Thanks for the link.

Here is a discussion on Reagan's popularity. It doesn't reach the conclusion you prefer however so I am sure all the data therein is wrong or biased.

Cranky

Cranky, I asked for data. Don't remember expressing much of a preference. But thanks anyway.

basilbrush,

From your post 2:42 PM, I thought you might find this amusing. It show how Obama is getting his Union support:

Culinary Union Intimidating Members to Vote for Obama
Reported from Las Vegas, Nevada

There's nothing dainty about Las Vegas but things are getting rough.

Intimidation. Pledges demanded. People to vote for Obama or stay away from the caucus.

Call this union vs. the casino workers.

I just did an interview with a Culinary union member who was intimidated while eating lunch in the cafeteria at work. She didn't want to give her name, but she wanted to tell her story. The connection is rough, but her story tells the tale. It's below in a podcast:

Culinary Union pressures members to vote for Obama

Pamela over at Democratic Daily posted on a tip she received about the intimidation.

Jon Ralston talked about it this morning on MSNBC.

I just got off the phone with a unimpeachable source that there has been more than one confrontation between union reps and members.

This is not an indictment against unions, especially considering I joined my first union when I was in my teens, totaling four eventually. Unions are the backbone of the middle class. But in every good group there lies opportunistic cretins. Obama's supporters are obviously applying Chicago style politics in Sin City and they've got three days to get the job done.

Meanwhile, you've got big shots like John Kerry talking about "let the people vote" doing so within a stacked system titled towards the Culinary union, with many of their members who'd much rather vote for someone other than Obama being intimidated and forced to sign pledge cards. Some will fight back, but most will not. From what I'm hearing, this is getting ugly. It's the opposite side, with the story actually being "make the people vote for me."

UPDATE II: After you listen to the tape, think about this. How do the union members get out for the caucus? It's during working hours so they have to get permission to be let out of their shift. So they have to sign cards, as the woman on the tape said. But according to her, if you don't sign the pledge card specifically for Obama you can't go to the caucus. That's because the company won't have a record of your intention to caucus. It's the very definition of coercion.

the crux of the matter is what you are winning them over with michael. i suppose if you don't care what reagans message was then yes the crux is his popularity. but please tell me how that differs from triangulation other than in obama's benefience he isn't? what happens when the GOP pushes back? see my question just moves on from the obviousness of your statement by not wasting time with the irrelevant. the question isn't whetheer reagan was popular, but for what reason?

Cranky, this is old data, from when Reagan was in office. It doesn't tell us anything about how popular he is now, which is the point. Thanks again.

A trenchant analysis, Ezra.

akaison, the question about WHY reagan is/was popular is hard to quantify, and probably not relevant. most voters probably could not give you a historically defensible answer on this, but "know how they feel". I am not sure why you feel using moderate voters to achieve a coalition is the same as triangulation, which is generally more about targeting small achievements when you do not have a majority, as Clinton did, with very mixed success. As for GOP push back, they are bound to push back against any democratic president - that's the nature of politics, and to expect them not to for Clinton or Edwards is not realistic. You can't make policy or pitch voters if you run scared of a future that you should be trying to shape. If a pushback comes, a narrow governing base is more vulnerable than a broad coalition, since it will take less to peel off a couple of key votes (Lieberman etc). The best strategy is a pragmatic, broadbased get the country on track one, aimed at strengthening your hand as you go, and winning big in the second term. It may not be idealistic or hardcore liberal - but it will probably achieve more, and generate more support over time. The pendulum has swung a long way right over the past 20 years, and you can't reverse that in one presidential term.

SBrennan - first, you should credit Taylor Marsh, who is an extreme Hillaryite. Second, prove the tape genuine. Third, show that this is more than an isolated case - IF genuine. Fourth, it does not change the basic point about the Nevada situation, which is that everyone agreed, and only after Obama got an endorsement did Hillary and friends try their famous lawsuit, which is now opposed by the DNC.

> kaison, the question about WHY
> reagan is/was popular is hard
> to quantify, and probably not
> relevant.

It is actually very relevant, since the reason Ronald Reagan has a halo today is because the Radical Right (and its cash station Grover Norquist) worked very very hard to make it so. That is how they win: they "shape the battlefield" years in advance by creating perceptions, frames, and memes that can be used against the Democrats when needed without the victims or the public knowing what is happening. That is /exactly/ what I suspect Obama will face.

Cranky

By the way, for the first time in my life my primary vote will count this year. I had been planning to vote for Edwards but was recently considering going Obama instead in preference to HRC. The Obamaramaites aren't doing much to convince me that is a good idea; just the opposite.

basilbrush,

Is this untrue too?

Not On My Shift!
by izarradar, Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 10:00:25 PM EST

I'm a card carrying union gal, a proud member of the striking WGA ("We write. You wrong"). I learned about
respecting the power of the rank and file from my father who taught me never to cross a picket line, and from my own days of walking a line I learned to love the rank and file as brothers and sisters. So every time a union endorses a candidate I pay special attention because I value the voices of union members.

Senator Obama received an important endorsement the day after he lost the New Hamphire primary. The Culinary Workers Local 226 in Nevada announced that he was their candidate of choice. I was impressed by the endorsement, and respectful of the 60,000 hard-working men and women who voted for it. The rank and file had spoken, and Obama was their man, I thought.

Turns out I was wrong.

Unions use various ways to decide upon an endorsement. Sometimes it's a questionnaire, or maybe a ballot. Other times it evolves out of meetings. In most unions, the leadership will have the final say, but not before consulting with the rank and file. This isn't the process the Culinary Workers Local 226 used to make its endorsement of Senator Obama. The rank and file wasn't involved in the decision at all.

And now members are pissed.

Channel 8, Eyewitness Now reported from Las Vegas, NV (1/11/08):

Eve Berkstresser is one of more than 60,000 culinary union members statewide. She and a handful of others picketing said they disagree with how the union leaders chose to endorse Senator Barack Obama for president.

"They shouldn't be endorsing anyone unless the members have a chance to speak. But they haven't done that. They did it on their own," said Berkstresser.

The statement from Culinary Staff Director Ted Pappageorge was this:

"Our members have always had their favorites -- we all do. But in the end our members understand about division and weakness and unity and strength," said Pappageorge.

I'm not sure exactly what that means, are you? More importantly, I'm not sure the rank and file understands what that means. But did Pappageorge include the membership in this decision by taking a vote?

While the union leadership says they believe their members are unified in the decision, they told us they did not poll their membership.

So excuse me, I don't want to jump to conclusions (unlike Pappageorge jumping to conclusions about his rank and file), but are they basing this endorsement on what? Some crystal ball? Tea leaves perhaps? Tossing a coin? Call me old-fashioned, but when you want to know what your membership is thinking on something as important as who should be President, shouldn't you simply print up ballots and let EVERYONE have a voice?

What's the big deal, you might ask? The union leadership can't force a member to honor the endorsement of Senator Obama. If a member wants to vote for John Edwards, or Senator Clinton, they're free to do so. This is a democracy, right? The secret ballot protects our identity and our choice.

Well, that's a problem.

This is an open caucus. Union members will be standing in the same room with other union members. Or maybe even their shop steward. Or their foreman. Or possibly even a union official. Everyone will know which candidate you're backing. And if you're a member of Culinary Workers Local 226, and you don't caucus for Senator Obama???

That could make for a long shift on Monday.

If it were my union, I'd be pissed. And I'd use my voice to let the union officials know it. You don't pay union dues for this kind of forced intimidation. I'd let my brothers and sisters of the rank and file know this: I won't tolerate political bullying.

Not on my shift.

SBrennan.. so, you have a couple of grumpy or self-advertising union members? Is that your case? Well, that's a new one!

Please know I am former member of both the Laborers & Carpenters Union. I am PRO-UNION.

I've never heard of the complete bullshit pulled by the Culinary Workers Local 226 used to make its endorsement.

How many unions have you belonged to basilbrush?

SBrennan, 3 unions so far, and counting. Want to try rock-paper-scissors next? And the judge tossed out the Hillary-tries-to-suppress-thevote-again lawsuit. Sorry, dude, but you really are barking up the wrong tree here.

pseudonymous - first, people running for president are not exclusively judged by Peggy Noonan,

People running for president who make explicit comparisons to Reagan are implicitly asking for Peggy Noonan to pass judgement.

How hard is this to understand?

When you compare your campaign to Reagan, you implicitly privilege Reaganites in politics and media, and you make it possible for Reaganites to define what that means, in ways that you cannot control and that may not work to your advantage.

We've seen this when Noonan discusses the GOP side. It applies tenfold on the Dem side. An Obama candidacy or presidency that's subject to the judgement of Peggy frackin' Noonan is something only personality cultists could celebrate.

And basilbrush? Amusing that you take your name from a puppet. Boom boom, indeed.

No union names huh?

Where did you apprentice? Or just internet bullshit?

I would add basilbrush,

The total indifference shown by your remark:

"...so, you have a couple of grumpy or self-advertising union members? Is that your case?" - basilbrush

Is emblematic of the elites in Democrat party, I see similar remarks directed towards US Army Soldiers of which I was once.

Here's an example:

"well, soldiers voted overwhelmingly for Bush, so their being stuck in Iraq is their fault"

This attitude has helped rightwingers for some time.

You don't come off as blue collar, so show me I'm wrong

Laborers' International Union, Chicago
General Carpenter and Joiner, Chicago

By the way, Piuma over at mydd.com (an avid) Obama supporter says this isn't what Obama said. That the quote is wrong. If true, I find it telling that many here were defending this based solely on their support of the candidate rather than first finding out if this is indeed what he said. I can only hope Piuma is right rather than the folks along this thread. You frighten me with your level of endorsing candidate over common sense.

S Brennan, first you try and generalize two allegations into a general story, then, when someone calls you on it, you get all pissy and start telling me YOU the grand S Brennan are a union member. First up, you MAY be a union member, but that doesn't give you any special insight into Nevada. As for being blue collar, if having attitude and writing poor English is blue collar, sorry to have picked up some education. I don't see why I have to answer to you, or prove anything to you. I've been a member of two unions in Boston, one in New Haven, and I am not sharing my affiliation with someone I don't know and don't trust. I am happy being who I am, and some self-appointed bully doesn't impress me in the least. So, now you know where I draw the line, and that I am not going to be intimidated by you. Quit the mudslinging, and get wise to the fact that two isolated stories don't prove much of anything.

Can we take the union discussion somewhere else please? It is not on-topic for this thread. Thanks.

Cranky

That's what thought, you are a bullshitter, here's an example:

I say:

"I am former member of both the Laborers & Carpenters Union. I am PRO-UNION. 3:41 PM

You say:

"start telling me YOU the grand S Brennan are a union member"

So right there within two posts you're caught lying.

What bullshitter you are basilbush!

SBrennan - I see, so, you find his skepticism about your claims to be an indication that he must be lying? Quite brilliant, Mr Brennan, quite brilliant. Totally illogical and distorted - but that never stops you, does it? Now, would you please grow up and talk about a different topic?

Obamabots, Local 11

Sycophants and Fabulists,Cambridge Chapter

Graduate Employees and Students Organization at Yale

http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/early-line/2008/jan/16/incident-paris-las-vegas/

This ought to dispose of the latest Clinton smear about voter intimidation. Of course, expecting the Hilldroids to recognize the truth is always a bit hopeful.

@basilbrush's memberships

those aren't unions, jerk

no shit

I thought he was the douchebag but maybe it is you.

One of the pro repub talking heads on Olberman just said the reason Obama mentioned Reagan was to gather primary votes from independent voters there who still worship the ex-president.

How hopefully symbolic of unity and change. Gimme a break.

p.s. same talking head had to throw in that, sure Edwards got some mileage out of the comparison "but then, Edwards doesn't count." Do they get paid every time they say that?

I think the interpretation that Obama alluded to Reagan in reference to moving the country by offering a vision, and using it to lead, rather than due to some ideological affinity while preparing to triangulate to the right again, has some merit when you consider that HRC's relentless attack has been based on the experience/vision and action/rhetoric dichotomies.

He was defending himself on that again.

OTOH, you *do* have to wonder whether, having appealed to moderates and independents, he doesn't end up trangulating to right anyway, especially with the heavy handed push in that direction in DC.

Not that it makes him any worse than HRC, in that case. The Clinton record on this seems clear-- yell a lot about the right in public and capitulate to them behind closed doors.

"And WTF are you talking about him not affirming liberal/progressive values? His entire campaign is predicated on the idea that America is too individualistic, and that we need to be more socially engaged, we need to take the mind-set of "I am my brother's /sister's keeper", and invest in our time and money in improving our community, both nationally and the international community.

That's the philosophical foundation of American political liberalism."

Maybe, but that *is* also how social conservatives view society and social involvment, and the money wing of *that* party uses their sentiments about it to defund the public sphere and redefine "responsibility" in social darwinian terms as someone else pointed out.

And, it worked on Clinton, too.

Who is this 10 per cent support Senor Edwards anyway? Does he have some idea of impeding my path to world tyranny? You know, my little Bill once was too big for his britches, and now he carries his little peanuts in a special glass jar. Be careful, senor Johnny!

"You know, my little Bill once was too big for his britches, and now he carries his little peanuts in a special glass jar."

Yeah, well. I don't think the castrating bitch thing will work either. Frankly, Bill was an empty suit who took dictation from the same high finance that is melting down today, this very day, because it can't keep its own criminality in check.

Hillary is *all set* from *day one* to play secretary for them-- only she calls it the "hands on executive."

Although, I have noticed a tendency among babyboom women who are not from the business world to dive for the lowest, most mundane tasks the second you say the word "administration." It's quite astounding, actually. And, yes, they do bitch and complain at the product of their own (mis?)understandings.

By the way, Piuma over at mydd.com (an avid) Obama supporter says this isn't what Obama said. That the quote is wrong. If true, I find it telling that many here were defending this based solely on their support of the candidate rather than first finding out if this is indeed what he said. I can only hope Piuma is right rather than the folks along this thread. You frighten me with your level of endorsing candidate over common sense."

That's an odd interpretation. You're assuming that people here would have had a problem with the quote if another candidate had said it, and only thought it was ok because they thought Obama did. I find it telling that you just assume Obama supporters are dishonest, rather than actually disagree with you.

This whole argument is odd. Reagan used to talk about FDR all the time, and conservatieves didn't hold it against him.

Reagan talked about FDR to highlight how "modern" Democrats had gone wrong especially in fighting communism. To follow the same pattern, Obama would need to
contrast today's Republican leadership with Nixon in terms of economic policy or Eisenhower and military spending.

Reagan in September 1984
Reagan's smooth brow furrowed. A shadow crossed his eyes. "I know that this is oversimplification," he said, "but it's the only way to answer the question. Basically the Democratic Party has said, 'We'll take care of you. We'll see that you have food and shelter.' But then what is he? He is as beholden to that Government institution as he was beholden in slavery to the fellow who lived in the big house on the hill.

The article also has Reagan saying he did not seek out Democrats they found him because they believed what he said about government.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,951271-1,00.html

Stan Greenberg coined the phrase "Reagan Democrat" after the 1984 election not the 1980 election. He stated, "Reagan Democrats" no longer saw Democrats as champions of their middle-class aspirations, but instead saw them as working primarily for the benefit of others: the very poor, the unemployed, African Americans, and other political pressure groups. Reagan and the conservative movement spent years talking about the evils of the welfare state and public disorder.

If Obama is trying to create Obama Republicans he needs to highlight where the Republican party went wrong. He can't run the 1984 "Morning in America" campaign until after he wins the 1980 "Are you better off now" campaign.

Obama should also stop wearing that "Viva La Reagan Revolucion" t-shirt.

I had never heard of Stoller before today. After looking at his site, I know why.

Because a)you only read blogs that share your love for Obama
b)you got involved in politics in December 2007

like most of the blogoshpere, the hatred of Obama turns once bright people, like Matt, into morons.

Obama didn't kiss Matt's ass like Edwards, so he has to attack him.

Karl Rove would be proud of Matt Stoller.

"pseudonymous - first, people running for president are not exclusively judged by Peggy Noonan,

People running for president who make explicit comparisons to Reagan are implicitly asking for Peggy Noonan to pass judgement.

How hard is this to understand?

When you compare your campaign to Reagan, you implicitly privilege Reaganites in politics and media, and you make it possible for Reaganites to define what that means, in ways that you cannot control and that may not work to your advantage.

We've seen this when Noonan discusses the GOP side. It applies tenfold on the Dem side. An Obama candidacy or presidency that's subject to the judgement of Peggy frackin' Noonan is something only personality cultists could celebrate.

And basilbrush? Amusing that you take your name from a puppet. Boom boom, indeed.

Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | January 17, 2008 4:00 PM"

Most Americans aren't political scientists or DC insiders. Most Americans don't remember key details of the 1980 election, especially those that don't read blogs. What I've found most frustrating about talking about elections with fellow social science majors is that they forget how to put themselves in the shoes of a non-social science major. Most Americans aren't really that politically active. However, they were willing in the end to follow Reagen and gave him a huge landslide in 1984. As some have mentioned earlier, the right has changed the meaning of the words liberal, progressive, patriotic, union, etc. It is revealing that the arguments against Obama using the term individualism hinge on what that term means in context. However, the average voter doesn't have as deep a political understanding of the meaning of the term as someone who chooses to spend their free time commenting on blogs do. If politics was their hobby, they wouldn't be independents. We liberals have wasted much of the past 40 years trying to use our politicians to educate the populace at large on certain issues and then get confused when people outside the base tune out or think we're talking down to them. Do most Americans even know who Peggy Noonan even is? Tom Friedman had the bestselling non-fiction book for like a year and I doubt most Americans have any real idea who he is. If we want to move the center significantly to the left, we have to stop selling the American people liberal ideas in the packaging we think they should want and put that same liberalism in packaging they actually do want. Racism played a huge part of the reason that Middle America sees liberals as elitist snobs, but it wasn't the only reason. We can use the language of purity and preach only to our fellow converts and then take our ball and go home or we can actually get the electoral support to get something done.

"you got involved in politics in December 2007

Posted by: so do I | January 18, 2008 5:30 AM"

Getting new people involved in politics is part of building a new coalition.

Matt Stoller is a jack ass who thinks politics in this country exist solely to entertain him. He was happy when Hillary won NH, not because he liked Hillary, but because he wants a brokered convention. I don't find it shocking someone would think he's an fool.

These people hate Obama, but refuse to offer anything but tepid criticisms of Clinton. That's because they think Clinton will be the eventual nominee and don't want to damage her. These are the kind of false equivalence that drove many of us away from the mainstream media in the first place. Hillary is clearly the enemy of progress in this race. She was the least likely to win a general election BEFORE she gave all of us who didn't want to vote for her plenty of cover to do so.

I just hope that after Hillary loses we all decide to actually try and RESOLVE the racial and ideological differences within the coalition instead of papering them over and trying guilt trip whoever lost into voting for the eventual nominee.

"We can use the language of purity and preach only to our fellow converts and then take our ball and go home or we can actually get the electoral support to get something done."

I don't see the difference between Obama's wooing of the right and Bill Clinton's years ago. Why is one better than the other?

"I don't see the difference between Obama's wooing of the right and Bill Clinton's years ago. Why is one better than the other?

Posted by: jj | January 18, 2008 1:20 PM"

A few things:

Clinton never was able to get much cross-partisan appeal. There is already evidence that Obama may be able to pick up the Reagan Democrats while being to the left of where Clinton was in 1992 overall. As someone mentioned above, Clinton accepted the Reagenesque framework. His policy initiatives were along the lines of welfare reform and balanced budgets. His major liberal economic policy, healthcare, was a failure politically. As such, he had already given up the center to the right wing on policy issues. With healthcare dead, he capitulated to the right on issue after issue, such as DOMA, the Iraq Liberation Act, etc. Clinton's waving to the right was saying "I'll take your ideas - and your boundaries of what are acceptable ideas - and tweak them a little bit to make them sorta liberal." Obama's is more along the lines of "I'll take your idea of 'Morning in America' and use it to push a progressive policy agenda." After all, we self-identified liberals are not even 45% of the electorate. The left-wing segment of liberals that are on the left on economics, social issues and foreign policy is even smaller. Nobody can win with just us. We can demand to have our asses rhetorically kissed the entire time and laugh as we piss off the right over whatever non-story is dominating the headlines on FoxNews (War on Christmas reaches new heights!) and go with the candidate who calls Cheney Darth Vader while basically agreeing with the theory of preventive warfare or we can get the guy who actually has the message that the average American actually wants (unity, national optimism, a belief in America and change) and thus make them open to his overall more progressive policy agenda.

I guess I'm not seeing the "overall more progressive policy agenda" yet, just the capitulation to repubs and the homage to an ex-president who put us on the road to ruin we've been on for close to 30 years now

Hillary is on record stating that Reagan (and Bush Sr.) are on her list of favorite presidents:

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

"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. As expected, Bill Clinton was also included on the aforementioned list."

Look, he mentioned Reagan to appeal to CA indies. Can we call it shameless pandering and move on?