It's worth pointing out that in his memoirs, Clinton considers the lack of DC experience to have been one of his key errors during the first two years of his presidency.

Part of what I like about Obama is that he's not a Clinton, or a Reagan, or a Carter. I understand the urge to try to guess at the future by examining the past, but I think it's what's new about Obama that is the most interesting.

It appears that Obamas campaign theme his staff is going to learn this fall is ..."that's not what he meant to say".

Compared to Bush or McCain, he is a great orator, but some of his thoughts aren't going to go over too well in a general campaign.

Compared to Bush or McCain, he is a great orator, but some of his thoughts aren't going to go over too well in a general campaign.

Such as...?

It's so easy to try to categorize people as someone else. "Is he a Reagan or a Carter." It just seems so simplistic. He is neither. He is a completely different person in a completely different time and place. Why is there this need to categorize and label everything. Let's create some new ideas.

Like Clinton, Obama has fairly little Washington experience, and is running as a charismatic, post-ideological uniter helped along by a moment of intense economic anxiety.

There are problems with that comparison too, though. Clinton was running against an incumbent who was popular, at least at the start of the race. The Gulf War was over and had been a success. Both 1992 primaries were easier on the nominees than the 2008 primaries have been.

Perhaps we shouldn't try to draw too many conclusions about the presidency from comparison to previous instances, since there have only been 55 elections spread out over more than two centuries. Just a thought.

the patrician George W. Bush

I think you are missing an H.

For the reasons you stated, if Obama doesn't fuck this up we at least ought to be able to get universal health care passed, probably a lot more. I'll be very disappointed if we do not.

""Such as...?""

Well, I don't carry them around in my back pocket but he's said he'd raise tax rates even if it meant less revenue because that was 'fair'

He said the world isn't going to let us drive SUVs, eat alot or have thermostats at 72 degrees.

He's said all that stuff about clinging to God and guns and hatred for other races.

He's said white women are typically racist.

He's said you prove your patriotism by saying what's wrong with the country.

he's said he will meet without pre-conditions in his first year with all kinds of terrorists and tyrants.

If he ever gets questioned by an unfriendly reporter, he'll get taken apart.

the entire Wright affair.

So in a historic moment of conservative implosion why is Obama running as centrist? If you asked some random person what Obama stands for you are likely to get change, hope or unity as an answer. Not exactly the stuff of Democratic revolution.

Anonymous wrote: "If Obama ever gets questioned by an unfriendly reporter, he'll get taken apart."
--------------------
i thought he already did an interview on fox.

If he ever gets questioned by an unfriendly reporter, he'll get taken apart.

That's just silly. Didn't you see the Philly debate? I'd say those guys were pretty unfriendly. And while he didn't have his best performance, he had coherent responses to everything. The main place he ran into trouble was his obvious irritation at the asinine substance-free questions he was being asked.

"post-ideological uniter"

If Obama is anything special, he is definitely not post-ideological or a uniter. None of his policy proposals or experience would lead me to believe he can see beyond ideology. Actually every single position he supports is fundamentally liberal. If you need an example of someone post-ideological look at Bill Clinton (not Hillary) or Bloomberg. For me he is simply another Adlai Stevenson with a lot more charisma. And like Stevenson his support comes from intellectuals, progressives, the urban poor, and blacks.

I hate to keep banging the drum on this, but Ezra, you are dead wrong about 60 votes in the Senate.

What we need is a Democratic president who can convince a Democratic caucus (probably an enlarged one) to round up 51 votes to pass reform legislation as an un-filibusterable budget reconciliation bill. 60 votes is simply not necessary if you have the same political will that the GOP majority did to ram through legislation with this tactic.

Obama is a new Michael Dukakis.

All this wondering what kind of president he would be is just a truckload of wasted brainpower. We will never know.

There was a great and growing backlash against government, against welfare, against "elite" liberalism that manifested in 1994

Ezra, I think you write very well and I'm a big admirer, but I have to say it again, this intransitive use of the verb "manifest" is totally bogus and you shouldn't use it. "Manifested itself".

Republican trolls: your candidate is going down in flames. I am extremely confident about what will happen in the fall. Obama will destroy McCain; congressional republicans are in free fall; and Bush will slink out of town on a river of pardons.

Can we all stop talking about the "60 votes needed in the Senate" as if it's self-evident?
The actual requirement is 50 votes (assuming a Democratic VP).
If Republicans really want to filibuster every single piece of legislation, let them stand up and do it (and expose their vicious obstructionism to the American people), instead of caving in advance.

Obama is a new Michael Dukakis.

The establishment candidate from the northeast who was able to get the nomination by raising money from big-money party fundraisers and fought off challenges from the dual forces of a young, up-and-coming senator and a prominent african-american?

The Dukakis comparison works better for someone else in a world in which the race turned out a bit differently.

Can we all stop talking about the "60 votes needed in the Senate" as if it's self-evident?
The actual requirement is 50 votes (assuming a Democratic VP).
If Republicans really want to filibuster every single piece of legislation, let them stand up and do it (and expose their vicious obstructionism to the American people), instead of caving in advance.

Thank you. I've said this in previous threads but it really bears repeating as much as possible until it seeps into the mainstream pundit consciousness. 60 votes are needed for a cloture vote. However, Democrats need to force Republicans to defend their unpopular positions publicly, in the true spirit that the filibuster was intended. Gentlemanly comity should be abandonded when one party refuses to behave in a gentlemanly manner.

"The Dukakis comparison works better for someone else in a world in which the race turned out a bit differently."

The comparison works well for a candidate who for about five minutes looks formidable, then goes on to lose in a landslide. The comparison will be very apt come November. And Democrats will pay the price for nominating a vanity candidate.

The comparison works well for a candidate who for about five minutes looks formidable, then goes on to lose in a landslide. The comparison will be very apt come November.

As I said, the comparison is completely inapt, particularly as one could say that Clinton modeled her primary campaign on the Dukakis/Mondale model. The problem with the Democratic party is that, almost invariably, its primary process picks the "safe" candidate. Mondale and Dukakis were "safe" choices. Didn't get the party very far. There's even a big parallel with Hillary Clinton to Jimmy Carter: she's the one whose very message is, "I'm the candidate who will keep the liberals at bay."

Those of us who grew up in the 80s and then saw the party go down the same wrong path against by nominating Kerry who used the exact same appeal-to-the-safe-minded-instincts of the establishment in his primary campaign as Dukakis, Mondale, and Hillary Clinton are finally willing to do something else. Particularly when Clinton said, "vote for another candidate if you don't like my stance on the Iraq war and Kyl-Lieberman." You might not think Obama is "all that," but don't even joke about claiming that Hillary Clinton is a better alternative.

i don't give a crap about Hillary Clinton, or who is more like Michael Dukakis between her and Obama.

Obama reminds me of Dukakis because he, like Dukakis, will get trounced in November despite looking strong early on. He and his horrorshow wife exude smugness and elitism and people will not like it and they will embrace McCain because they perceive him as a moderate and anti-Bush.

Democrats got cute and nominated someone who set their hearts aflutter because they thought they couldn't lose. Problem is, Democratic primary voters' hearts get set aflutter by candidates who most people are indifferent to or actively dislike. They are the same Democrats who actually thought Mario Cuomo would be a dream candidate.

Democrats got cute and nominated someone who set their hearts aflutter

I'm pretty sure this wasn't going through anyone's head when Dukakis got nominated.

I have an Obama Moment for you:

With 91% of Kentucky's precincts reporting, it's Clinton 65%, Obama 30%.

That's one hell of an electoral performance by the presumptive Democratic nominee, don'tcha think?

If Barack Obama is in fact the nominee, he won't win a single state south of the Mason-Dixon line and east of the Rio Grande.

"So in a historic moment of conservative implosion why is Obama running as centrist? If you asked some random person what Obama stands for you are likely to get change, hope or unity as an answer. Not exactly the stuff of Democratic revolution.

Posted by: skeptic | May 20, 2008 6:34 PM"

When does the average person actually vote on policy papers? Beyond wedge issues like abortion and the general state of the economy, people tend not to vote on policy. Only wonks vote on whose cap-and-trade or detailed health care policy is better.

Tyro I think you're missing the point. Which was not that Obama is a Dukakis clone. Your insistence on coming up with differences between Obama and Dukakis is bizarre. Obviously there are many differences, as there are between Obama and Carter, and Obama and Clinton, and Clinton and Carter, and George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush and any other set of two people you want to identify.

The point is that Obama's defeat in November will resemble Dukakis's twenty years ago as middle America rejects a candidate who represents, in their minds, unpatriotic, ivory-tower elitism.

Since you're so eager to point out differences between Obama and Dukakis, here's another one. At least in 1988, Democrats had an excuse for nominating a loser candidate like Dukakis, since the most promising candidate flamed out. This time around, we had a full slate of candidates who could actually win, except for Kucinich and Obama. And who did we nominate?

Once again snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. At least McCain will probably croak before he has a chance to serve two terms.

Actually, probably the biggest of the many differences between the Dukakis candidacy and the presumed Obama candidacy is this: in 1988, in spite of everything, Americans largely felt positive things about Ronald Reagan and wished he could have a third term. Which current president is held in high esteem? The Republicans in 1988 came up with a dreadful candidate, and the Democrats trumped them by picking someone even worse.

Barack Obama is a politician of considerable gifts running against the heir to the George W. Bush presidency. Although I think Obama is a policy light-weight, his only real handicap as a candidate is the residual racism that will keep some people from voting for him. Most people motivated by such things wouldn't vote for the Democrat anyway.

Watch Obama carry Virginia. Just watch.

It's not clear to me why some people are so convinced Obama is unelectable, or the corollary, that Hillary Clinton is more electable than Obama. There is almost no evidence for either of these assertions, and indeed quite a lot of evidence to the opposite effect.

Lmao, Jeebus do you have any actual evidence that Obama is unelectable, or is it just going to break down to Hillary Clinton's 'He's black'.

Maybe 1 in 10 polls has him losing. It would take a minor miracle for Obama to lose Pennsylvania, and he can put a whole lot of western states into play. I'm getting kind of sick and tired of repeatedly resting all of our hopes on Florida, which has been trending ever-redder for the last decade and a half.

Hillary Clinton wants to execute the same strategy that has lost us the last 2 elections. Thats pretty unelectable in my eyes.

Korha: Look at his skin. Thats pretty much all there is to it.

yawn

This statement is not true:

"Americans largely felt positive things about Ronald Reagan and wished he could have a third term."

False, by the time Reagan left the public had soured on him. Had the Democrats put forth a winner we'd would be face a radicalized supreme court...a court by the way, that appointed the current occupant

I want to be clear that I'm not saying that Jeebus is a racist (unlike certain other people) just that fear of racism is really the only thing that makes people like him believe that Obama isn't electable.

These are people who grew up in a different time, when white people made up 90% of the electorate and only winning 38% of the white vote was a real handicap. They grew up in a time when Republicans were on the rise and so many people had a disdain for the Democratic party. They haven't adjusted to the fact that this is a different world now. They can't let go of the reality in their heads, so they ignore the actual polls.

in 1988, in spite of everything, Americans largely felt positive things about Ronald Reagan and wished he could have a third term

No.

Bejeebus and "Anonymoose" (Again not even man/woman, enough to give a name to your hairbrained postings.).The reason that Obama will win more than any one thing is that essentially, the American people have seen the fallacy of regressivism parading as "Conservatism". The American people have finally, though not necessarily, willfully, finally understood that the Republican party and their championing of the economic royalty with an agenda of rolling back the Civil Rights Movement and the New Deal is just not for Us. Yes they have been able to confuse Us with the greatest marketing machine that mankind has ever known, and through "messaging", but after a forty year effort, it just ain't flying anymore. The reason Obama will win in November is because he represents, finally, a negating of the "Southern Strategy" and an awakening of the American people that the Regressive party has been playing on their resentments for forty years, and all it's gotten is Us screwed.

Bejeebus and "Anonymoose" (Again not even man/woman, enough to give a name to your hairbrained postings.).The reason that Obama will win more than any one thing is that essentially, the American people have seen the fallacy of regressivism parading as "Conservatism". The American people have finally, though not necessarily, willfully, finally understood that the Republican party and their championing of the economic royalty with an agenda of rolling back the Civil Rights Movement and the New Deal is just not for Us. Yes they have been able to confuse Us with the greatest marketing machine that mankind has ever known, and through "messaging", but after a forty year effort, it just ain't flying anymore. The reason Obama will win in November is because he represents, finally, a negating of the "Southern Strategy" and an awakening of the American people that the Regressive party has been playing on their resentments for forty years, and all it's gotten is Us screwed.

Those of you disputing my assertion that Reagan was popular at the end of his presidency, which gave a huge advantage to his Vice President, as compared with the would-be successor to the current president, you're just wrong. Reagan ended his presidency almost as popular as Clinton did, with approval ratings in the low to mid 60s (merited or not...and I think not). If you don't think that's a big difference for the Democrat running against the Republican successor now, you're just nuts.

I agree with skeptic. This has been one of my biggest problems with Obama.

Also, he has not running against Bush. He's running against the past - the Bush Clinton years go hand in hand in Obama's speeches. He's been running against Sen. Clinton. He's also running against partisanship, and divisiveness. Now it seems he's finally running against McCain - and by proxy, finally, Bush.

Bill Clinton was a experienced governor from the South that knew how to deal with tough opposition. Obama is a two, four year senator from a very liberal state.

He reminds me the defeated candidates from the Democratic party in general elections, not Clinton.

Redstar-Clintonism is right-wing Centrism. Reaganism is simply right wing. Running against them, even as a left-wing centrist, is a move to the left.

It's better than the Clinton play-book, which is say a lot of nice things about social issues and then govern with a right-wing economic style.

Lmao, Jeebus do you have any actual evidence that Obama is unelectable, or is it just going to break down to Hillary Clinton's 'He's black'.

Do the math. There is no poll showing that Obama can win any state in the south, with the exception of Maryland and Delaware, that aren´t really Southern.

Ohio not only is very linked to the South, but it also has a very large Catholic population, group where Obama has poor showing. Obama has also bad numbers among Hispanics.

I doubt that he is able to capture Florida and in fact it´s very difficult to believe that he can do that. His numbers among rural voters are so bad that it´s very difficult to believe that he can win Missouri and Virginia.

Take out Red states like Idaho and Wyoming and there are only something like 40 electoral votes in play in the West. And Obama has poor chances of getting many of these votes(Ex, North Dakota and Nebraska).

Obama may not be unelectable. But he faces an uphill battle to win.

If Barack Obama is in fact the nominee, he won't win a single state south of the Mason-Dixon line and east of the Rio Grande.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii | May 20, 2008 9:02 PM

So you're saying he can't win the former Confederate States of America? Well, knock me over with a feather.

Bill Clinton was a experienced governor from the South that knew how to deal with tough opposition. Obama is a two, four year senator from a very liberal state.

If only Chicago politicians had experience dealing with tough opposition!

In any case, I don't think any of us are going to find the "a candidate has to win in the south" argument compelling. I'm fairly confident that Obama can keep the Republicans pinned down in places like Virginia, and a democralized Republican base will also help him in midwest states like Ohio and provide a lot of openings in the Rocky Mountain states, which are areas of expansion for Dems in future elections.

We've been trying to draw from the ewll of southern votes as a path to victory for a long time, when those aren't really "battlegrounds" anymore.

The best analogy is Carter who got in because he was a charming "outsider."

There's a similar dynamic now: lots of progressives (and others) identify "outsider" status with leftward politics. Exhibit A: Ideologically, Clinton and Obama are almost indistinguishable: both are centrists. But Obama is perceived as further to the left because he's perceived as an "outsider," someone who appeals to independents, etc. Exhibit B: McCain is a conservative, but is perceived as a moderate because he's misperceived as a "maverick."

There are two independent scales: Left-Right and Outsider-Establishment so there are 4 boxes, not one continuum with Left-Outsider at one end and Right-Establishment at the other. And there are Left-Establishment politicians, e.g. Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey and, currently Teddy Kennedy. And there are Right-Outsiders, e.g. Libertarians. Right now Americans are looking for an Outsider, not necessarily on the Left, and Obama fills the bill.

I'm fairly confident that Obama can keep the Republicans pinned down in places like Virginia, and a democralized Republican base will also help him in midwest states like Ohio and provide a lot of openings in the Rocky Mountain states, which are areas of expansion for Dems in future elections.

But Democrats did win in Virginia not because the state became more liberal but because they managed to keep down their losses in the countryside. It´s the Saint Louis/Kansas City/The space between equation.

The problem is that Obama is not Mark Warner/James Webb and his winnings in Northern Virginia is not enough to upset his results in the rest of the state. The same for Ohio and Southern Ohio.

And considering that he is not the tough progun Democrat his advantage in the Rocky Mountains is wishful thinking. He may have chance in Colorado, he sure can win New Mexico and Iowa, but looking close his chances are thin.

soullite, you don't consider Obama to be another centrist like Clinton? If he and Sen. Clinton have such similar policy positions, and she's an extension of her husband's politics, how is it possible that Obama is not an extension of Clintonian-bi-partisan-centrist politics as well? Especially given how he looks to Bill Clinton as a model in The Audacity of Hope, IIRC.

Redstar, only in rhetoric. Clinton governed significantly to the right of where Obama is indicating he will govern. On those few issues Clinton made any attempt at all to implement a liberal agenda, he failed miserably or tried in an extremely half assed fashioned. He was more interested in being liked than getting shit done.

Obama may talk like a centrist, but his policies are as liberal as I've seen in the last 5 elections. compared to Clinton's right-wing fake populism, He's a breath of fresh air.

Clinton's 'centrism' wasn't centrism at all. It was corporatism. I'm not terribly worried that Obama's entire purpose for being is to serve the corporate masters. He'd have lived a different life and run a different campaign if that were true.

He's not as far left as I'd like, but he's not going to spend his entire presidency deregulating and selling off the public sphere like Bill Clinton did and Hillary Clinton has indicated she will do. I would prefer an entirely different set of reforms to the ones Obama has put forth. All the same, things are so bad I don't see a point and not giving his ideas a go.

If nothing else, he seems to be dedicated to media reform and that is something our country is in desperate need oh. A little government transparency can't hurt either, I just don't think it will lead automatically to everyone adopting the purest goals and methods the way others do.

a corporate lawyer with a billionaire finance chair, a coterie of neoliberal domestic policy advisers and a ton of Wall Street and Silicon Valley money is not exactly anti-corporate.

Obama doesn't have a chance against McCain. I mean, just look at the latest polls.

The meme of "Obama will be Jimmy Carter's second term" has been formulating in the desperate far right for a while. Today I heard Rush repeating it again. Watch as the usual parade of nattering conservative pundits repeat it again and again. (Pay no attention to the idiocy of the idea."

Donalda from Hawaii,

(1) The Mason-Dixon line divides Pennsylvania from Delaware and Maryland.

I'm pretty sure that Obama will win Delaware and Maryland (Virgina is a good question, though).

(2) The Rio Grande is the southern border of U.S. (at least on the Texas side, which surely is what you meant).

Technically, no state is to the East of the Rio Grande (at least no state which does not abut the Rio Grande), except for the southernrmost parts of Florida.....

>>>>He did not say most of these things

""Such as...?""

Well, I don't carry them around in my back pocket but he's said he'd raise tax rates even if it meant less revenue because that was 'fair'

>>>>>He said he wouldn't perpetuate the Bush tax cuts. Those tax cuts benefited the wealthiest trust fund people the most, not working people.

He said the world isn't going to let us drive SUVs, eat alot or have thermostats at 72 degrees.

>>>>>Its the economy stupid.

He's said all that stuff about clinging to God and guns and hatred for other races.

>>>>>>>No, he didn't say "all that stuff". He said that people in Pennsylvania were skeptical of his message of hope and change because they were bitter about the promises made to them and not kept every 4 years.

He's said white women are typically racist.

>>>>>No he didn't. He said his grandmother made racist comments. So did my grandfather. To think that people two generations older than Obama didn't routinely and matter of factly state racist things is out of touch with reality. Or too young to remember.

He's said you prove your patriotism by saying what's wrong with the country.

>>>>>No he didn't. He said that wearing a flag pin doesn't prove patriotism, patriotism is in your heart.

he's said he will meet without pre-conditions in his first year with all kinds of terrorists and tyrants.

>>>>No he didn't. He said that he would not meet with terrorists, but he would not be afraid to meet with our enemies if it was in our interest to do so. Just like Reagan, Nixon and Kennedy did.

If he ever gets questioned by an unfriendly reporter, he'll get taken apart.

>>>>>hahahahaha

the entire Wright affair.

>>>>>Everything he has said about the Wright affair has been spot on. Hagee said that the catholic church was "the great whore". McCain doesn't get any grief about that. You don't see that on CNN 24 hours a day. Giulani's priest is a pedophile. This is only an issue because of pigment and racial (not racist) fear.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 6:31 PM

Media Advisory

Reagan: Media Myth and Reality

6/9/04

June 9, 2004
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1832

As the media spend the week memorializing Ronald Reagan, journalists are redefining the former president's life and accomplishments with a stream of hagiographies that frequently skew the facts and gloss over scandal and criticism.

Reagan's Popularity

"Ronald Reagan was the most popular president ever to leave office," explained ABC anchor Elizabeth Vargas (6/6/04). "His approval ratings were higher than any other at the end of his second term." Though the claim was repeated by many news outlets, it is not true; Bill Clinton's approval ratings when he left office were actually higher than Reagan's, at 66 percent versus Reagan's 63 percent (Gallup, 1/10-14-01). Franklin Delano Roosevelt also topped Reagan with a 66 percent approval rating at the time of his death in office after three and a half terms.

In general, Reagan's popularity during his two terms tends to be overstated. The Washington Post 's lead article on June 6 began by declaring him "one of the most popular presidents of the 20th Century," while ABC 's Sam Donaldson announced, "Through travesty, triumph and tragedy, the president enjoyed unprecedented popularity." The Chicago Tribune (6/6/04) wrote that "his popularity with the electorate was deep and personal... rarely did his popularity dip below 50 percent; it often exceeded 70 percent, an extraordinarily high mark."

But a look at Gallup polling data brings a different perspective. Through most of his presidency, Reagan did not rate much higher than other post-World War II presidents. And during his first two years, Reagan's approval ratings were quite low. His 52 percent average approval rating for his presidency places him sixth out of the past ten presidents, behind Kennedy (70 percent), Eisenhower (66 percent), George H.W. Bush (61 percent), Clinton (55 percent), and Johnson (55 percent). His popularity frequently dipped below 50 percent during his first term, plummeted to 46 percent during the Iran-Contra scandal, and never exceeded 68 percent. (By contrast, Clinton's maximum approval rating hit 71 percent.)

Some in the media similarly emphasized Reagan's likeability. CBS anchor Bob Schieffer asserted, "You could hate his policies, but it was hard not to like Ronald Reagan (6/6/04). But Reagan's "likeability" numbers did not score much higher than other modern presidents, including Jimmy Carter. (For more on Reagan polling myths, see: Extra! , 3-4/89 )

No Time for Critical Voices

Mainstream media have relied heavily on Republicans and former Reagan officials to tell the story of Reagan and his accomplishments, which results in a decidedly one-sided version of events. A June 7 article in the New York Times on Reagan's impact claimed that Reagan "was almost always popular and, many now say, usually right." The article stated that "Reagan lived long enough to enable many of his old lieutenants, and some more dispassionate chroniclers as well, to argue that he had also been right on some of the bigger questions of his time."

Six of the eight sources the article quoted were former Reagan staffers or Republicans, one was longtime Reagan devotee Margaret Thatcher, and one was University of Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein, who gave no argument that Reagan was "right" about anything. No other "dispassionate chroniclers" were quoted. Should readers be surprised that Reagan's friends and former colleagues still think he was right?

Television news has displayed an even more pronounced reliance on Reagan's Republican admirers. The Sunday morning shows (6/6/04) almost exclusively featured Republicans; former Reagan chief of staff James Baker appeared on all three networks, as well as Fox and CNN . Fox News Sunday (6/6/04) featured, in addition to Baker, current national security advisor Condoleezza Rice, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and Sheila Tate, former press secretary for Nancy Reagan. MSNBC 's June 6 Hardball program featured Republican Sen. Elizabeth Dole, Republican representatives David Dreier and Chris Cox, and Reagan strategist Richard Wirthlin.

Interviewing Reagan's admirers may have provided an intimate view of the former president, but it yielded virtually no acknowledgment of his flaws. Former Secretary of State Alexander Haig, when questioned by CNN 's Anderson Cooper (6/6/04) to name Reagan's greatest weakness or failing, responded, "I'm not going to criticize the President. And even if I wanted to, I would never do it on an occasion such as this. We should be grateful that the world was a better place because of Ronald Reagan's presidency."

Even when potentially critical voices were included, the tendency was to soften any disagreements over Reagan's policy. On NPR 's Morning Edition (6/7/04), Susan Stamberg interviewed Republican congressman Dana Rohrabacher along with Democratic strategist Paul Begala. Clearly, though, this was no time for disagreement, as evidenced by one of Stamberg's questions to Begala: "You once famously said that politics is show business for ugly people. Ronald Reagan makes a liar out of you. He was an extremely handsome, attractive man." Begala's response: "Boy, was he."

Reagan's Legacy

Reagan's influence over world politics and the direction of the Republican Party were important aspects of the media's Reagan tributes. But more often than not, the more controversial aspects of Reagan's legacy were either downplayed or recast as footnotes.

Time magazine (6/14/04) cheered that "the Reagan years were another of those hinges upon which history sometimes turns. On one side, a wounded but still vigorous liberalism with its faith in government as the answer to almost every question. On the other, a free market so triumphant-- even after the tech bubble burst-- that we look first to 'growth,' not government, to solve most problems." As NBC 's John Hockenberry put it (6/5/04), "The Reagan revolution imagined the unimaginable. When poverty and welfare were at crisis levels in the 1980s, Reagan declared war on government and turned his back on the welfare state." The long-term impact of cuts in social spending, gutted environmental protections and other casualties of Reagan's "war on government" were relegated to passing mentions.

Reagan's fervent support for right-wing governments in Central America was one of the defining foreign policies of his administration, and the fact that death squads associated with those governments murdered tens of thousands of civilians surely must be included in any reckoning of Reagan's successes and failures.

But a search of major U.S. newspapers in the Nexis news database turns up the phrase "death squad" only five times in connection with Reagan in the days following his death--twice in commentaries (Philadelphia Inquirer , 6/6/04; Chicago Tribune , 6/8/04) and twice in letters to the editor (San Francisco Chronicle , 6/8/04; L.A. Times , 6/8/04). Only one news article found in the search (L.A. Times , 6/6/04) considered the death squads an important enough part of Reagan's legacy to be worth mentioning. The three broadcast networks, CNN and Fox didn't mention death squads at all, according to Nexis. Nor were any references found in the transcripts of the broadcast networks to the fact that Reagan's policy of supporting Islamicist insurgents against the Soviet-backed government of Afghanistan led to the rise of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

The Reagan administration's friendly policy towards Saddam Hussein was also a neglected media topic. During the Reagan years, the U.S. offered significant support to Iraq, including weapons components, military intelligence, and even some of the ingredients for manufacturing biological weapons like anthrax (Newsweek , 9/23/02).

The rare opportunities for critical reflection about Reagan's policies were turned into additional evidence of his strength, as when Time magazine (6/14/04) suggested, "Even when his views were most intransigent-- when he wondered out loud whether Martin Luther King Jr. was a communist or failed for nearly all of his presidency to speak the word AIDS even once-- Reagan gave Reaganism a human face." Time followed that strange assessment with a comment from Bush adviser Karl Rove: "He made us sunny optimists... His was a conservatism of laughter and openness and community."

Journalists seemed determined to show that any criticisms of Reagan could be turned upside down. As Dan Rather explained on CBS 's 60 Minutes (6/6/04), "The literal-minded were forever troubled by his tendency to sometimes confuse life with the movies. But he understood, like very few leaders before or since, the power of myth and storytelling. In his films and his political life, Ronald Reagan stood at the intersection where dreams and reality meet, and with a wink and a one-liner, always held out hope for a happy ending."

Even Reagan's contradictions were somehow construed as strong points. As Time put it (6/14/04), "So great was Reagan's victory in making his preoccupations into enduring themes of the national conversation that it may not matter that his record didn't always match his rhetoric. He insisted, for instance, that a balanced budget was one of his priorities. But by the time Reagan left office, a combination of lower tax revenues and sharply higher spending for defense had sent the deficit through the roof."

The Iran-Contra scandal, which loomed too large to ignore, was often written off by journalists. "As we look back today, it's like just a speck in the eight years of his presidency," explained CNN 's Judy Woodruff (6/7/04). Meet the Press host Tim Russert (6/6/04) showed a clip of Reagan's famous response to the scandal, in which he stated, "A few months ago, I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true. But the facts and the evidence tell me it is not." Russert described this tortured evasion of culpability as "very believable."

Whatever reporters made of Iran-Contra, though, Reagan's triumph over such problems was more important than the incidents themselves. CBS reporter Anthony Mason (6/6/04) explained: "The deficit doubled during the Reagan years. His second term was scarred by the Iran Contra scandal, but he never lost that common touch.... Ronald Reagan had an uncanny ability to make Americans feel good about themselves." That bond with American citizens remained front-and-center throughout the media. As CBS anchor Dan Rather put it (6/5/04), Reagan "was the great communicator, yes. But he was also a master at communicating greatness. He understood that, as he once put it, 'History is a ribbon always unfurling,' and managed to convey his vision in terms both simple and poetic. And so he was able to act as a conduit to connect us to who we had been and who we could be."

Reagan and the Media

The overwhelmingly positive coverage of Reagan struck some as a significant change. As Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz noted (6/7/04): "The uplifting tone with which journalists are eulogizing Ronald Reagan is obscuring a central fact of his presidency: He had a very contentious relationship with the press." Others would certainly disagree with Kurtz's assessment-- Mark Heertsgaard's 1988 book, "On Bended Knee: The Press & the Reagan Presidency," for example, characterizes the press corps as being basically uncritical during the Reagan years.

In any event, it would be hard to argue that current coverage of Reagan carries any lingering traces of that formerly "contentious" relationship. If anything, some reporters now seem to think that the main lesson learned from the Reagan years was not to be critical. As ABC 's Sam Donaldson put it (6/4/04), "Reporters over the years made the mistake of saying, 'Well, he made this mistake, he made this mistake. He got that fact wrong.' The American public got it right. It didn't matter."

Finally, Tom Rosenstiel of the Project for Excellence in Journalism (USA Today , 6/7/04) gave an interesting take on what he acknowledged were "almost completely uncritical" media reports on Reagan: "For networks that are accused of being liberal, this is a way for them to show that they are fair." One would hope that such an overwhelmingly uncritical assessment of important political and historical matters would not meet anyone's definition of "fair" journalism.

Obama as Carter? Reagan? Early Clinton? These are the choices?

Nah, Obama is a liberal, Democratic Barry Goldwater: he will make being a Democrat sexy again, as opposed to just not being a Republican.

If he looses, he is Goldwater II. If he wins, he is the New and Improved Goldwater.

"I mean, just look at the latest polls."

Polls means nothing at this point of the race. And the problem is not general election polls, but polls in crucial states like Ohio and Florida.

Ezra,

What I think you (and Matt) miss here is that Obama has an advantage that Carter and Clinton didn't, in that, as a Senator, he is already familiar to members of Congress. He's already won over a lot influential senators, which is something that Carter couldn't do, and he knows the procedures. He is at once outsider AND insider.

You libs are so cute the way you fawn over Obama, just like 14yr old girls w/their first crushes. Here's a little cold hard truth for you nuts though: BHO is a know nothing, done nothing, say anything far left lib. I know it, you know it but you desperately pray that Americans won't see it until it's too late. If this country has one ounce of common sense left though, he'll go down in defeat just like McGovern, or Dukakis or Mondale.

Ishur wish yu smart peeple will tak kare of poor dumb rednex like me. maybe the obamessiah will show us some mercy and let us keep sum of are hard erned pay to by booz and cigs with. Of course you lefties love this guy. He's as arrogant as all of you.

Obama's big problem is that so far he hasn't discovered that he needs a lot of white people to vote for him. He'll have to jettison a lot more of the "Sharpton/Wright wing" or suffer a defeat of McGovern proportions. McCain offers a safe alternative since he's more democrat than republican anyway.

That poster of Obama makes me think I should have him autograph my copy of Liberal Facism if I ever get the chance. That is, the poster and his patronizing attitude and obvious feeling that government can take care of everything. Everything people feared would happen because of the Patriot Act will happen under an Obama administration but it will be okay because it's for our own good.

I do believe with very little effort and some good will Obama can get a general war going in the Middle East.

Historic Democrat unity?? Are you serious?

"I understand the urge to try to guess at the future by examining the past, but I think it's what's new about Obama that is the most interesting."

Which is what? What's new about Obama that isn't a one-word "HOPE" or "CHANGE" bumber sticker?

Interesting race this year...three Democrats vying for two nomination spots.

Of the three, McCain has the widest appeal to the parts of the country that aren't on the silly edges.

Lots can happen yet of course, but one side or the other is going to repeat the refrain...

"I can't believe we lost to those guys."

Chances are, that loser will be Obama.