The debate was a continuation of the standard mud-slinging that we’ve seen in the past. I thought this was a time of opportunity! George Bush with an approval rating in the gutter. Republicans indicted nationally for all sorts of odd/criminal/ironic behavior.
I’m still undecided but last night really pushed me toward Edwards. He seemed to have legitimate, issue based concerns about the other two.
Please share widely!
Clinton really seemed to want to brawl, launching nasty attack after attack. Does anyone really believe that Obama thinks Reagan was a great president? It made her seem tough, dishonest, and not very presidential. And to me, very very unlikeable.
<
p>Obama didn’t seem to be able to defend himself well, either by directly answering Clinton’s distortions, or by shifting the debate back to the issues that matter. I want a president who can defend himself and our platform, and he seemed a little off-balance.
<
p>FWIW, I’m an Edwards supporter. I’d have liked to see him take on the bickering more directly, but I was glad to see him steer the debate back to issues that matter, like health care.
about Reagan.
<
p>
<
p>If he’s going to say stuff like that, he’d better be ready to defend it, because any Reagan-worshiping Republican could have said those exact words. He wasn’t ready, and it showed last night.
<
p>And BHO could have noted the change in direction under Reagan without seeming to praise it, and without including Clinton which muddies the message. Maybe something like:
<
p>”Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not, and in a way that George HW Bush did not,” Mr. Obama told the newspaper. “He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. He tapped into what people were already feeling, which is, we want clarity, we want optimism.”
<
p>Nobody can deny that Reagan’s tone was optimistic, and that coming off of the Carter days, this was a huge boost in national morale. But, no reason to kick Clinton, and no reason to chime in on the dynamism and entrepreneurship. It’s not nearly so universally agreed on, and it won’t sit well with people who weren’t thrilled with Reagan: Dems who are over 40-45 years old.
He also might’ve added something like this:
<
p>”Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that, you know, Richard Nixon did not, — and not necessarily for the better …”
<
p>In the debate last night, he sort of claimed that that was obviously implied. But the words on the page don’t imply it to me.
<
p>High stakes, but a Democratic presidential nominee running against a dead Reagan might do as well as they did running against a live one.
i.e., that the strategy was to praise Reagan to bring in Reagan voters who might vote Democratic — the problem is that then, in the debate, he goes off on how bad Reagan was for the country. So he just lost all those voters. He can’t have it both ways. That’s basically my point — in this kind of race, you’re stuck with what you say, so you need to pay attention.
that electing a dead Ronald Reagan would be the best way to beat radical Islam and North Korea.
Please — If anyone has one shred of evidence that Obama has a Reagan-esque vision of society, let’s hear it. Otherwise, give the guy the benefit of the doubt — or at least put it in the context of his career.
<
p>His meaning was utterly crystal-clear to me: He wants a paradigm-shifting presidency, one that gets people to change their assumptions about what’s possible.
<
p>Furthermore, I don’t actually think there’s any question that the economy of the 80’s was significantly different from that of the 70’s. We can talk about whether Reagan was responsible for that (I doubt it, but I’m not an economist), but to say there was a sense of “entrepreneurship and dynamism” missing from the 70’s seems plainly true.
The more Democrats talk about what a great guy Reagan is, the harder it is for us to win. For God’s sake, have you listened to the Republican debates? That’s all they can talk about — they want to go back to the glory days of Ronald Reagan. If Democrats talk uncritically about Reagan too, what chance do we have?
<
p>Haven’t you heard what Obama says? Words matter!
Did Obama really talk about what a great guy Reagan was? Or was he making another point entirely?
<
p>Look, if remarks like Obama’s continually get distorted and turned against him, then what we end up with is political baby-talk and brickbats — the kind of simplistic, black/white stuff that you and I both detest.
<
p>Reagan got elected with 60% of the vote in 1984. At the very least, Dems ought to think about why, and copy what they feel they can. If you think Reagan’s creation of the Cult Of Ignorance is why he got elected so handily, then no, we shouldn’t copy that. OTOH, if you think that his sunny optimism was why he was so successful and ideologically influential, then I think that’s completely compatible with a progressive ideology.
But that’s not what Obama said. I’ll stand by my original point: Obama’s comments, as reported in the NYT and quoted in my comment above, could have been said by the most Reagan-lovin’ Republican running for president this year. That, IMHO, is stupid politics on Obama’s part.
<
p>And yes, I get the point about Reagan creating new coalitions that were very beneficial for the GOP. But would it have killed Obama to drop in a little criticism here or there in the course of talking about that? He’s talking to a newspaper editorial board, for God’s sake — this was not a 30-second answer in a debate.
<
p>If Obama doesn’t want his remarks “distorted” and “turned against him,” he shouldn’t make such thoughtless remarks. This ain’t some pissant state legislative race, nor is he running against Alan Keyes this time. This is the big leagues, and he’s got to be ready.
I agree that Obama’s point was that Reagan’s presidency shifted the paradigm. In bringing that point across, Obama did go a bit far in praising Reagan’s fit to the times. This seems to be part of Obama’s attempt to be disarming to conservatives.
<
p>Me? I’d prefer that he egg on the Avenging Worms of Goodness sent out to eat holes in Reagan’s reputation.
<
p>(text and video http://weblogs.baltimoresun.co… )
<
p>Not in the transcript on that link, he goes on and give examples of why those ideas aren’t good ideas and aren’t even interesting anymore in the public debate. That all they propose on the economy is more tax cuts, which has been tried and failed, etc..
<
p>David, you are correct in your analysis of that last sentence, as he was speaking for the general view of those who were won over by Reagan in 1980. It was a reflection of neutral historical fact, but clearly the text can be taken out of context, especially with out all the rest of the discussion. The audio of the quote I think it’s clear, but adding positive adjectives to the text, as the Clintons did, was clearly to mislead.
<
p>And that said, I think Barack rebutted their accusations strongly during the debate.
From CBS News:
<
p>
<
p>Edwards did the best a this particular debate, he also looked horrible in the NH debate attacking Hillary. But that was fine with all the Edwards supporters. David makes a good point with the Reagan comments. Obama needs to be ready defend his statements, if they are misleading tell us why in a convincing way. What troubled me the most is Obama not taking about his votes when questioned. Edwards even chimed in when he was explaining why he voted for credit cards to have not limit on interest charges. Then when Obama was discussing health care, Edwards again came in with the best line of the night when he compared Obama’s plan with privatizing social security.
<
p>The reason why those were both good? That’s the question I was asking myself when he was talking. Edwards pointed out some obvious issues. Can any Obama supporter explain his health care proposal and why is make sense to them. He wants to leave out 15 million of the most needy because all people want health care but it’s too expensive? Do I have that right?
I thought Clinton’s attacks implied that Obama is a supporter of Reagan, which is a knowing distortion or expansion of the quote.
<
p>I think Edwards’ attack correctly took Obama to task for using Reagan as an example in any positive way, and also used it as a great opportunity to contrast what Democrats stand for versus Republican nostalgia.
<
p>But maybe I’m parsing too finely. In a sound-bite world, Obama shouldn’t have referenced Reagan except as part of an example like Edwards gave. Let’s hope Obama gets more media savvy as he goes.
It was Obama that brought on that whole barrage in the beginnning of the debate by complaining about Bill Clinton.
<
p>Obama was treated as the frontrunner in that debate and did a very poor job as one.
“Maaaaa! Hillary’s hitting me!”
<
p>”He started it!!”
Isn’t it? We’re all turning this into a he-said she-said. Does it matter who started it or can we come up with a better response? Rather than coming back and saying “but you started it by saying I’m a big poopy-head” wouldn’t it be better to say
<
p>”You know, we all are better served looking at where America is right now, what are our needs, what do we want to accomplish and how will we do so? America has already lost the respect of the world and by attacking each other tonight we run the risk of losing the respect of the voters. The net result of that is that we make each other look bad and send the message to voters that we’re no better than the current administration. You can continue to attack me and help the GOP but the American public has a limited amount of time to know where we truly stand on issues like health care, the environment, global warming, the economy and more. This is a debate, not a schoolyard, and I want to tell voters where I stand and let’s save the bickering for another time and another place.”
<
p>I would then personally emphaisize this with “Dammit!”
First of, I’m an Obama supporter. So maybe it’s because I so ardently believe he’s the best choice that I also think that performances in debates, especially debates of the sort that transpired last night in SC, shouldn’t be used as predictors of suitability to be president. Sure, if you are nose-to-nose with Khrushchev and he’s about to whack you with his shoe, you’d be better be ready to stand your ground. But, really, decisions that affect the course of the nation and that affect our lives are made in times of thoughtful consideration, when one has time to reflect on his/her values and beliefs, the promises you made to the people who trust you; not when you are being asked to defend your life’s history, moment-by-moment, knowing a misstep that’s met by just the right sort of smirk by your opponent can, however unfairly, cost you big time. I wish that he were doing better (and I jumped off my seat and pumped my fist in the air when he said that thing about her being on the Board at Wal-Mart when he was a community organizer) in the debates, but because he’s confoundingly inarticulate on stage only means winning is a little tougher. It doesn’t change the fact that we do not need 20-24 years of Bush/Clinton. It doesn’t mean that he is not the sort of person who can appropriately place America in the 21st century world of competition and cooperation. It doesn’t mean much that really matters.
<
p>That being said, I’d gladly give Edwards my vote, if it comes to that. Last night convinced me of that.
that this was all started by one of the panelists saying to Obama, essentially, “Hillary said something mean about you. What do you say to that?”
<
p>I’d love it if candidates, instead of jumping at the bait every time one of these nitwit panelist types asks a question like that, would basically refuse to answer — at least in the way that the panelist wants. Big media loves — needs — a brawl. They all nearly wet themselves over the Hillary/Barack dustup last night. It’s exactly what they’ve been begging for all along. Notably, in the NV debate, Russert and Williams did their best to generate a similar response, but none of the candidates would bite.
<
p>It’s really up to the candidates to prevent this from happening. They’ve got to refuse to maul each other at these events — CNN & Co. will try to get them to do it every time, because that’s what generates ratings. If they play into it, they play right into media’s — and the GOP’s — hands.
He wasn’t baited, he was able to avoid conflict before but this time he thought it was necessary to attack. That in my opinion was a campaign decision. It’s not CNN’s fault or any media, candidates know what’s going on. In NV they thought that the MLK reference and the race issue was bad for their campaigns (Hillary and Obama) so they played nice. Hillary’s attack on Reagan and Republicans on Obama in some ways were working, so it was a conscious decision for Obama to attack. How he did it was the problem, it also set an very bad tone. CNN asked the question, but he took it and ran with it.
In 2004 Kerry was able to win the genuine and mostly enthusiastic backing of most of the supporters of other Democratic primary candiates. In 2008 that does not seem to be happening at all.
<
p>Imagine the following impossible experiment: Clinton, Edwards, and Obama all drop out; the names of Biden, Dodd,and Richardson are put in a hat; one name is selected. Would that create a greater chance of success than the process we are now seeing? Who would Clinton, Edewards and Obama supporters back more enthusaistically? One of the “big three” from 2008 or the randomly chosen name?
<
p>Are you serious? I didn’t know too many people who had any level of enthusiasm for Kerry other than “Well, he’s not George Bush and he’s our best/only hope.” People were slightly more enthusiastic about John Kerry than they are about ham sandwiches… only slightly.
Though I do love a good ham sandwich… with swiss cheese… and brown mustard… on rye… mmmmm…
Is the level of animosity betweeen Clinton, Edwards and Obama supporters significantly lower, the same or much higher than the level of animosity between Dean, Edwards, Gephardt, and Kerry supporters in 2004?
I think that is indeed an interesting question but the problem isn’t so much teh animosity between supporters of various candidates but the animosity of the candidates between themselves.
<
p>Quite frankly I don’t care all that much whether the three Dems like going out for drinks together as much as I care that in public they don’t beat each other to a bloody pulp.
-and keep it civil when we disagree on other threads. It appears that when the going gets hot, so does word choice, and I can be as guilty of THAT as anyone. No one likes to feel attacked, discounted, or disrespected and whether on a debate stage or in a blog thread, feeling attacked brings out the worst, don’t you agree?
I may be stomping too loud in response to your posts. I have found your repeated plugs for Mr. Garballey, shall we say, excessive. I’ll tone it down. That doesn’t mean I won’t respond to your posts, but I’ll tone it down.
It does appear we agree at least on John Edwards as the Democratic Candidate who differs most from “business as usual.” Well said!
I agree with Charley and others that Obama was alluding to Reagan building a winning coalition that could reasonably govern and not just win bare majorities in elections. Dems did really well in 2006 but this Congress has failed to govern because of an obstructionist White House and the lack of guidance and direction from a truly innovative party leadership. President Obama as leader of his party would give that Congress a mission and assemble a truly governing coalition.
<
p>In my view Clinton would be unable to win over any Republicans to her cause because they detest her and her husband, in fact Clinton could endanger house pickups this year and turn out Republicans against her. Look at her vs McCain we are looking at another Dukakis-Bush election map quite literally.
<
p>I think we can talk all we want about wanting purity from our candidates but the vast majority of Americans think Reagan was a good President, I vehemently disagree, but to rewage that fight and instead simply say well the Reagan coalition was quite powerful and got a lot of (bad) done, lets emulate the Gippers ability to build a truly national and effective governing coalition that will do things he would despise but we want.
<
p>The Reagan coalition is going to die, either with this election or the next one, its time not to go back to Clintonian centrism which has been historically proven to be ineffective at creating lasting change and instead build a new, post ideological post racial post partisan post political even governing coalition that can get things done.
<
p>
Both resulted from deliberate work by that same Reagan colation. Unfortunately. See: http://www.demos.org/page2.cfm
<
p>As a practical matter, only John Edwards is addressing the need for government to focus on the best interest of the governed rather than the profits of a corporate elite.
Obama would be – there is nothing usual about his candidacy.
<
p>Edwards talks a real good game and I genuinely think he cares about poverty and inequality and wants to make a difference – and I pleased he made this issues paramount in his campaign. But, when he was in office, he didn’t really make a difference on those issues. And just being pissed off and blaming corporations and lobbyists (when he worked for a Hedge Fund, etc..) is not really convincing. I’m sick of pols who point a lot of fingers but don’t necessarily do something substantive about it.