« Previous | Main | Next »

Obama Pushes Back Against the 'Democratic Status Quo'

Share

January 20, 2008 11:08 PM

ABC News' Kate Snow, Susan Kriskey, and Sunlen Miller report:  In his first campaign event in South Carolina, following a loss in Nevada, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., hit the stage and pushed back against the Clintons in a more pointed manner.

Referencing the fallout from his comments on Ronald Reagan to the Reno Gazette, which came under criticism by both Clintons for likening himself to Reagan, Obama responded, “When I see Sen. Clinton or President Clinton distort my words, say somehow, that I was saying Republicans are the only ones who had good ideas since 1980 -– then, that is not a way to move the debate forward. That is not a way to help the American people.”

Obama attempted to clarify his original remarks on Reagan, stating, “What I said was that Ronald Reagan, back in 1980, was able to tap into the discontent of the American people, and he was able to get Democrats to vote Republican –- they were called Reagan Democrats ... so, what I said was, we, as Democrats, right now, should tap into the discontent of Republicans. I want some Obama Republicans! ‘Obamacans!’”Obama said, as the crowd roared in laughter at his new coined phrase.

Getting back to point, Obama added that he didn’t say he liked Reagan’s policies, but that was the kind of working majority, he believes, America needs, in order to move a progressive agenda forward.

“Those are the kind of tricks that politics in Washington is all about,” Obama concluded about the way he believes the Clintons distorted his original remarks.

While taking up issues to clarify, Obama decided to add another one to the pot –- and reminded the Columbia, S.C., crowd to not believe e-mails that had been going around, accusing him of being a Muslim.

“I’ve been at the same church, the same Christian church, for almost 20 years. My wife and I were married in that church. Our children were dedicated in that church. I was sworn in with my hand on the family bible. Whenever I’m in the United States Senate, I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.”

Calling the e-mails “silly,” Obama told the crowd to not delete, but rather, send the e-mail back, saying, “this is all crazy ... educate, don’t hate.”

Obama said that the status quo in Washington is pushing down on him with these kinds of arguments, “and it’s not just the Republican status quo, it’s the Democratic status quo.”

January 20, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (31)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I ask the question: Who is Hillary without Bill? Hillary espouses her 35 years of experience, but those 35 years of experience were gained by riding the coattails of her husband. Hillary was the wife of the Arkansas Attorney General, the wife of the Arkansas Governor, and the wife of the President of the United States. No Arkansas resident could to into New York and win as Senator without ever having lived there unless she had the benefit and influence of the sitting President who won New York in the Presidential election. Everything that Hillary has accomplished over the past 25 to 30 years has come because her husband has paved the way for her through his position. Anybody can accomplish a lot in 35 years if the state Atty General, Governor, and President are paving the way for you. If Hillary believes that she has the experience and the right to be President, then I would like to see her do it on her own without Bill again paving the way. Again I ask: Who is Hillary without Bill?

Posted by: Gail Evans | Jan 21, 2008 8:48:39 AM

Why didn't he talk more about his church? The church that preaches Black Power and hates white people? His minister said whites were to blame for 9/11 and libels Israelis. His church named Farahkan man of the year 2007. Why no mention of that, Barack?

Posted by: Jamie | Jan 21, 2008 8:48:48 AM

I just read in the paper an article and injected was a quote from a Republican strategist saying they are fearful of the Clintons in the general election. He said the Clintons know how to win elections.

The Republicans are doomed if Hillary Clinton wins the nomination.

Posted by: TJM | Jan 21, 2008 8:59:04 AM

I see how it works with media people: If Barack Obama criticizes the Clintons, he is "pushing back," but if the Clintons criticize Obama, they are "attacking" Obama.

Well, now that we know the rules America's media people have established for the Democratic primary, maybe we will learn to disregard anything and everything these goons have to say.

Here's what Obama said:

"I think it’s fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10-15 years in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom."

Now, that sounds like he thinks more highly of Republicans than he does of Democrats.

Remind me: which political party's nomination is it that Obama is seeking, the Democratic Party's or the Republican Party's?

Maybe Obama is flirting with this country's arch conservatives for their support. Oh, yes, now I remember, that's EXACTLY what he was doing when he uttered that statement.

Posted by: Dream | Jan 21, 2008 12:12:37 PM

Victoria wrote:
"We can now see why/how Hillary is better for this game than you are. She is a tough cookie-she does not waste her time explaining what needs no explaination..."

No, she just sends our former president out to do the dirty work for her. Wake up.

Posted by: Ike | Jan 21, 2008 12:48:40 PM

How can Obama be part of the large Democratic party and then claim he is not part of the Status Quo. If Obama means what he says he should run as a Independent.

Posted by: Martin laugh | Jan 21, 2008 12:58:33 PM

What I see Obama doing now is getting some ink and some air time. I have no doubt that the Clintons would love him to be quiet--until he has to respond to one of their dirty tactics. Obama needs to take it to the Clintons--they are vulnerable as agents of the past, and they are vulnerable as dirty players. He should also play the age card, as Hillary played the race card against him. He can do it by talking about the courage to change the old ways, which is a theme that appeals to younger voters--and older voters who consider themselves 'young thinking'. He should take on some of Hillary's older supporters--Albright, for example, on an issue--just an issue. But the impression left in voters' minds will be,'tired and old versus young and visionary'. There are many women who say, in code, that they're supporting Hillary because she is a woman. He should take issue with some of them. He will never get the female chauvanist vote, but pointing out that it exists--for Hillary--will attract droves of men, and many women who don't want to be seen as biased, when the country has worked so hard to overcome bias. Then, he should force Hillary to comment on her record--she stammered badly when she was forced to explain herself. She has a dismal record of actually authoring bills in Congress. In his shorter time there, Obama has authored and passed many more relevant bills than Hillary. The response to the 'empty suit' tag is that Hillary is---as she really has been as a Senator--a 'do-nothing'. In short, Obama needs to keep up the vitality of his message, but he needs to be the 'giver', not the 'taker' of headline-grabbing statements and events for a while.

Posted by: SteveW | Jan 21, 2008 4:02:16 PM

I agree that Obama is running on empty gas & promises. I have worked in civil rights issues for almost 20 years as an activist. Obama's speeches are typical of our great civil rights leaders, yet the great difference is that our great civil rights leaders, WALKED THE WALk and not just TALKED the TALK. It is an outright insult to have heard Obama's speech in Ebnezer, hearing him preach about stopping homophobia in our community when he is openly campaigning with and endorsed by TWO anti-gay preachers, Donnie McClurkin and Kirbyjon Caldwell. Not only that, his "bipartisanship" government, Reagan admiration, his lack of reaching out to minorities on a national scale (other than a podium) is just revolting to me. And I agree with many commenters stating he should have run as a Republican or Independant. Obama is an insult to the Democratic party.

Posted by: Me | Jan 21, 2008 4:11:53 PM

All this fuss and they'll be on the same ticket. Hillarious!

Posted by: thematrixisreal | Jan 21, 2008 8:07:50 PM

It is quite interesting, the way people talk about the politicians.Barrack or Hillary are both good candidates for the democratic realm of governments for Americans. Their statements does not qualify and will not justify thier action, when they finally make it to the white house. All we need as Americans is to ask God to help us elect the right fit for us all.

Posted by: sham | Feb 8, 2008 8:24:21 PM

I am so sick and tired of Obama's empty slogans. He can fool some of the people some of the time, but he can't fool all the people all the time.
If Obama wins the Democratic nomination, the Republicans are going to tear him to shreds. They have enough material to do that : Obama's lack of any accomplishments, Obama's long relationship with Chicago's SlumLord Tony Rezko, who is scheduled to go on trial on March 3rd, Michelle's "For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of this country..." remark.
It'll be much harder fot the Republicans if Hillary Clinton is the nominee.
Unfortunately, the Democrats are going to buy into the empty slogans and hot air being sold by Obama and we'll end up with a Republican Prersident in 08

Posted by: pleaseanswer | Feb 25, 2008 5:03:28 PM

Post a comment