RECENT POSTS
- Oprah, Health Care Lobbyists, Among Recent Visitors to White House
- An Obama Thanksgiving Menu, with an Extra Serving of Pie
- White House Thanksgiving Traditions: Broken and Observed
- Obama, GOP Air Differences Over Jobs, Economy In Thanksgiving Addresses
- White House State Dinner Party Crashers
- Obama to Lay Out Emissions Goals in Copenhagen
- Free Bird
- The "Good" War
- The Presidential Planner
- Under the Stars, Obama Toasts India’s Prime Minister
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Clinton Twists, Obama Flips
January 18, 2008 5:33 PM
Here's the full context of what Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, told the editorial board of the Reno Gazette-Journal, in which he had the temerity to assert that Republicans don't necessarily have cloven hooves.
Asked how his being the nominee might help down-ballot candidates, such as Senators and Congressmen, get elected, he said: "If I'm the nominee, one thing I'm convinced about, I will have a better chance of bringing in people of like mind. One of the things I'm very proud of in this campaign is I think we've already changed the political dialogue. I mean, you think about it, you know, when Mitt Romney starts talking like me. Right? Which wasn't the case when he started off. But suddenly everyone's ...'Change.' And you have someone like a Huckabee who is doing very well, basically taking a similar tone of, 'Well, we can disagree without being disagreeable.'
"I think that we're shifting the political paradigm here. And if I'm the nominee, I think I can bring a lot of folks along on my coattails. You know, there's a reason why in 2006, I made the most appearances for members of Congress. I was the most requested surrogate to come in and campaign for people in districts that were swing districts, Republican districts where they wouldn't have any other Democrat.
"That was based on their read of the fact that, you know what, this is somebody who can reach out to independents and Republicans in a way that doesn't offend people…I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what's different are the times.
"I do think that, for example, the 1980 election was different. I mean, I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that, you know, Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. They felt like, you know, with all the excesses of the 60's and the 70's and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating and he tapped into what people were already feeling. Which is, people wanted clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamic and entrepreneurship that had been missing, alright? I think Kennedy, twenty years earlier, moved the country in a fundamentally different direction. So I think a lot of it just has to do with the times.
"I think we're in one of those times right now. Where people feel like things as they are going aren't working. We're bogged down in the same arguments that we've been having, and they're not useful. And, you know, the Republican approach, I think, has played itself out. I think it's fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last ten, fifteen years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom. Now, you've heard it all before. You look at the economic policies when they're being debated among the Presidential candidates and it's all tax cuts. Well, you know, we've done that, we tried it. That's not really going to solve our energy problems, for example. So, some of it's the times. And some of it's, I think, there's maybe a generation element to this, partly. In the sense that there's a, I didn't did come of age in the battles of the 60's. I'm not as invested in them.
"And so I think I talk differently about issues. And I think I talk differently about values. And that's why, I think we've been resonating with the American people."
You can watch the whole thing HERE.
Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, has taken one section of this and totally mischaracterized it to say that Obama was saying Republicans had "better" ideas.
"I have to say, you know, my leading opponent the other day said that he thought the Republicans had better ideas than Democrats the last ten to fifteen years," she said. "That's not the way I remember the last ten to fifteen years."
One can argue that Obama, during a heated primary, shouldn't give his opponents such easy opportunities to twist his words. And maybe that's a rookie mistake - as with his attempt to actually answer the question at the Vegas debate when asked his greatest weakness.
But that doesn't mean we should let the twisters of his words off the hook. Because that's being complicit in dishonesty.
Turning from dishonesty to hypocrisy, it's the height of the latter for Obama to continue to remain mum on the nasty Spanish-language anti-Clinton radio ads being run by the Obama-backing union UNITE Here. In the closing days of the Iowa caucus, he was quite outspoken about a Clinton-backing union assailing his health care plan, and a mysterious group running $750,000 worth of TV ads promoting former Sen. John Edwards, D-NC.
Now el gato got his tongue? Pretty lame.
- jpt
January 18, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (32)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
I'm starting to wonder if Obama might not get more support because of his comments. Let's not forget that anyone can vote in the Nevada caucuses regardless of their party affiliation entering the site.
Posted by: Tom | Jan 18, 2008 9:22:37 PM
i sure want our country to get on a different path, but crediting ronald reagan in a speech re this issue, is that the kind of candidate i want? no way, i have no clue what he was thinking in bringing up reagan years, i voted for carter and never regretted it. go edwards-- clear mind, vision and values--
media, don't be afraid of him-really, edwards will help us ALL. are the big media generals ruling the foot soldiers on what they can report? why so much fear of reporting on edwards--
Posted by: lori | Jan 18, 2008 6:57:35 PM
So Stephanie, if your arguement is weak, is your theory just to post it three times in hopes it will gain credibility? Anyone notice that Obama is the only one on either side of the aisle who says maybe the other party isn't the devil? Maybe it's time for that in America. Maybe Obama actually deserves a fair shake...
Posted by: thinkinstraight | Jan 18, 2008 6:39:32 PM
Obama said Reagan changed the trajectory of the country. He didn't say he agreed with Regans policy.
Obama plans to change the trajectory of the country, but not in same directions as Reagan.
He already has changed the trajectory of other political candidates to the point were they mimicking things he said months ago.
Posted by: Mr. Unite Us | Jan 18, 2008 6:36:14 PM
If you read what he SAID , he's talking about the ATTITUDE of those days, the OPITMSIM, not the POLOCIES!
This is ALL more Clinton SPIN. Get ready your going to be DIZZY for 4 years if Hillary wins! But she won't win in a General. Watch.
Posted by: Sue | Jan 18, 2008 6:31:59 PM
Seems pretty obvious he was talking about the years from Reagan 1 to Clinton. Yes, he said ten to fifteen instead of twelve, and could've been more explicit to avoid confusion, but to an objective observer (I'm pretty indifferent about Obama), there's nothing here to cause alarm. Course, most of us remember the Reagan era quite differently and Obama's obviously trying to appeal to the other side of the aisle, but that's to be expected.
Not that Hilary needs justification to attack of course. And then complain how she's the only one who gets attacked. But that's a separate issue...
Posted by: BDA | Jan 18, 2008 6:24:28 PM
Barack Obama just doesn't get it! His public praising of the Reagan Revolution has made me feel ill! The Reagan legacy on America's social structure was appalling!
Anti-union, anti-minorities, anti-women's rights, anti-environment, anti-working, middle and lower class. I am happy to say that five work colleagues today have told me that they have switched from Obama to Clinton because this man is scary!
Posted by: Stephanie | Jan 18, 2008 6:20:37 PM
Thanks for your points, Asianmalesmoker. I was born in 1980 and remember only parts of that time, but the poverty was a big one (growing up in Appalachia, I was suprised when people in cities were poorer than the already broke people I knew at home). I wish that Clinton (who has the experience) would be less of a left-wing and controversial figure, though. It maybe hard to get her in office.
Posted by: WVkid | Jan 18, 2008 6:16:22 PM
Senator Clinton just one month ago was praising President Reagan as one of her favorite presidents in a meeting with a NH newspaper editorial board. In their endorsement they mentioned it and her campaign post it on their website.
Posted by: joelle | Jan 18, 2008 6:13:48 PM
Very poignant Mr. Tapper. I agree 100%. I think Obama's words were dynamic and surprisingly apolitcal, in the sense that he would not ignore historical fact because of partisan pressure.
However, I also wish he would speak against the negative ads UNITE Here has launched. I must say though, in the race of negativity Obama is on step 2, Clinton step 100 and Edwards step 150 for riding Obama's coat after Iowa.
Posted by: Brando | Jan 18, 2008 6:06:36 PM
I am about Senator Obama age and remember the Reagan era well. By all account, I should worship Reagan. I was a Communist Refugee. However, I can't say that is how I remembered about the 80. The economy was in bad shape, ordinary people feel discouraged, especially the poor and the union. In my opinion, the 80' was a darker time than any recent time. I remembered, I just graduate from University.I was lucky to get a job, most my classmate didn't.
I agree with the senator that Reagan change the course of our country much more drastic then Clinton, but change can be tough, there are winner and loser. There are change to make thing better but also change to make big mistakes. Reagan build up the defend, in retrospect, a waste of resource, since the communist were bankrupted themselve sooner or later.
That is why we need leader which have extensive experiences to guide the country through tumulus time of drastic change.
The Chinese have a curse. " May you live an interesting time". They understood the uncertainty of change. Good deed may still bring some unintended consequences.
May I ask the senator one question. What make you think you have the ability to make the big change in our country without making unintended mistakes ? Goo d intention is not enough. It required experiences, skill too.
Posted by: asianmalesmoker | Jan 18, 2008 6:04:11 PM
I agree with all your points here. Hillary is obviously completely twisting his words around.
And Obama really should be calling off the union ads. I'm surprised he hasn't. Maybe he doesn't want to offend them, but I think it would be worth it.
Posted by: Tom | Jan 18, 2008 5:49:34 PM
Post a comment
