Everyone who is reading this knows this story by now.Barack Obama told a Nevada editorial board that he thought that Ronald Reagan changed the nation “in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not.” He also noted that the Republican Party was “the party of ideas” over the past decade or so.These statements were roundly condemned by the Clinton campaign, including local Clinton boosters Mark Dayton and Rick Stafford.I’m more than a little annoyed by this little distraction. First of all, these attacks are misleading and false. Look at the full “party of ideas quote”.
“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.”
Obama goes pretty far out of his way to make clear that he disagrees with the GOP ideas. As he pointed out during the CNN debate tonight, he never said they were good ideas.More to the point, the attacks from the Clinton camp are completely hypocritical.On her own website Hillary notes that Ronald Reagan is one of her favorite Presidents. But thats not all. Lets play a little game of guess the speaker. I’ll provide the quote, you tell me who said it.
“Democrats have to have ideas to win,” he said. “We were missing in action in national security and we had no positive plan for America’s domestic future.”
Well, if you listen to Mark Dayton and Rick Stafford, you might think that was Barack Obama. But it was Bill Clinton.How about this one.
Going back to Barry Goldwater, he said, conservatives “built up institutions with a lot of influence, a lot of ideas. And they generated a lot of money to get out those ideas. It didn’t happen by accident. And I think it’s had a substantial effect on why we have a conservative party that controls the White House and the Congress and is making substantial efforts to control the judiciary.
Well, thats got to be Obama, right? Nope. Its former Clinton Chief of Staff (and fellow Knox alum) John Podesta.Ok, one more.
“We do have to do a better job to compete in the arena with the ideas we already have,” she told me. “But it’s also clear to me that we need some new intellectual capital. There has to be some thought given as to how we build the 21st-century policies that reflect the Democratic Party’s values.”
The pronoun she gives away that its not Barack, but maybe its Michelle? Nope. Its Hillary Clinton.
Loading ...
Wow…tonight’s debate was a brutal slugfest.
I agree with Publius. Unfortunately, it looks like the Clinton slime-machine is going to defeat Obama.
Okay, I’m confused. What did Obama say about Reagan? That he was full of ideas that changed the nation in ways Bill Clinton didn’t? And he’s also saying that they were bad ideas? But that Bill Clinton didn’t have ideas that changed the nation, even if they were bad ideas? Is he condemning Reagan? Is he chastising Bill Clinton for not having big, unrealistic, ultimately damaging to the nation ideas? Hillary saying we need new intellectual capital that reflects Democrat party ideals is hypocritical? I am having a hard time following the thread here…
Not taking sides, mind you. It all seems like a tempest in a teapot.
Zack, you gotta post this on Kos and Mydd. These are very good point that I have not seen elsewhere.
I like Hillary listing Reagan as one of her fav presidents.
Where the heck have you been for the last fifteen years? You just now are realizing the Clintons play dirty pool when their quest for power is on the line?
You mean like implying John McCain is mentally unfit for the presidency because of his treatment in a POW camp? Or implying that he fathered a mixed race child out of wedlock? That kind of dirty pool? Bottom line if any Democrat mentions Ronald Reagan in any other context then saying he should’ve died in the same jail cell Richard Nixon should’ve died in, he should be thrown out of the building and soundly beaten. Raygun still holds the record for most corrupt, most murderous administration in US history.
Bill has been making quite the show of it as well. I saw him on CNN claiming that a culinary union boss was intimidating voters who wanted to vote for his wife. A link to an article with a transcript.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Bill_Clinton_claims_he_witnessed_voter_suppression.html
The Clinton machine is every bit as nasty and dishonest as there has ever been. About as bad as Bushco. How anybody thinks they can trust a word that comes out of their mouths is beyond me. I was never bothered by the Monica affair but the sale of pardons, Hillary refusing to release White House documents regarding time she is using to claim her “experience” and now these disgusting attacks on Obama is another story.
The Clintons will do or say absolutely anything to get elected. So remeber, if they say something you like it doesn’t mean they believe it or won’t change their tune the minute they get elected. Hillary getting the nomination for the Democrats would do the same thing to that party that GW did for the Republicans.
I wasn’t too excited when Obama credited Reagan for stopping the excesses of the 60s and 70s, which is basically Republican code for civil rights legislation. Its one thing to credit Republican stragegy, but Obama blew it.
Clinton is going to win this thing because Obama is an inept campaigner.
Clinton will win this because the Clinton’s haven’t got an ethical bone in their collective body and will do anything to win. What is becoming more and more obvious with each passing election is that the party loyalists who pick the candidates don’t care about policy or ethics as long as they can be on the winning team. It is the ultimate example of mortgaging our future for short term gains. The very sin of which many Democrats accuse business interests.
I wonder that since both Hillary and Obama have given faint praise to Reagan if Richard’s head is going to explode the minute he fills in the bubble for whichever one he is told to vote for.
The candidate of sweetness and light better be prepared to get dirty because HRC has no problem playing dirty pool: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video_log/2008/01/clinton_attacks_obama_record_o.html
Zach and Matt,
I have been faithful visitor of this site ever since that fateful lunch we all had back in 2005, when you guys really decided to get in to this site (I think Matt had already created it but only tooled around for a couple months), and I got to say, I’m gettin tired of the Obama lovefest. I’m not sayin your wrong here, we all know how the game is played, just stop pretending that Obama somehow is above it all. We all know how his crew, yourselves included, has spun HRC’s comments just the same. I guess my point is, I really come to you guys for Minnesota news, as I am no longer a resident there, but still care deeply about it, and that won’t change. But HRC is still the person I want to see in the WH, and all the Obama loving from my age-group is really getting annoying. Paul
Paul from DC — why shouldn’t Zack and Matt have a favorite? This is their blog; they’re free to support whatever candidates they like, both in MN and nationally. If you can’t read selectively — say, use the tags on the right? — then that’s your problem, not theirs.
I come here for the same reason you do. And while I’m not sure who I’m voting for on Super Tuesday, I find the idea that the web site should cater to you (& your support of HRC) more than a little ridiculous. What a sense of entitlement!
This was a very helpful post. It’s not Clinton-bashing; it’s clarifying a certain point of contention between the two campaigns.
So Paul, which comments has Obama spun? Were they the same types of outright lies that Bill has been spewing? The points about Hillary’s more supportive comments on Reagan and her sitting on the board of Wal•Mart while he was a community activist just happen to be true. Something Clinton supporters have never cared about. Nobody has to spin Hillary’s comments because there is enough there to show who she is. A pro-war hypocrite that has been in bed with business interests for years and has more or less the same foreign policy as Bush.
I’m not even that big a fan of Obama but in this case having SOME chance of having a moderately honest leader is better than the zero chance Clinton provides.
Say, KH?
Ya want to know what my favorite Slicster one-liner is?
No?
Well, too (cheney)in’ bad; I’m gonna tell ya anyway!!!
“Bill Clinton never broke a promise he didn’t intend to.”
That’s the fact.
And the thing that I find most ironic, is that out of all the folk that started campaigning for the Oval Office with a “D” behind their names, ol’ Shrillerie is BY FAR the most conservative of the bunch.
Add to the fact that she’s far more willing to toss “personal convictions” (as if she really has any) out the window to get a deal done, the strong argument can be made that of all the “D” candidates, Shrillerie is the one the GOPers would really, Really, REALLY rather have there.
Actually, IMNSHO, Shrillerie is arguably more conservative than any of the psuedo-cons running on the GOPer side.
But GOPers want to knock her out of the race, now?
“Ready, FIRE! Aim…” seems to be the GOPer M.O., again.
Traditional definitions of Liberal and Conservative have very little to do with the Presidential race. Republicans don’t like the Clintons because they are affective. Not at being Liberal but at controlling power, much in the way that Bush has not been good at being a conservative but has been able to keep a lock on power despite low approval rating. In both cases their policy positions are only playing pieces for getting and holding power.
Ya know, KH, a Professor of Political Science, told the whole (cheney)in’ class, in a “Presidential Elections” Seminar:
“Ya vote for the SOB that says the exact opposite of what ya believe, ‘cause they’re all a bunch of liars that have to lie in order to get the nomination, and then lie in order to govern.”
Boy, this whole commenting thing is pretty fun.
Ella, let me assure you, the comments I made were made with a smile. I was actually trying to get a rise out of these guys who I used to work with (long time ago.) I know they are well within their rights to support a candidate, even one different than mine, and even though I do feel a little annoyed, I’m ok with them choosing Obama. That’s what doe-eyed idealism is for right?
And as for the fuel soaked cap, while thread arguments can occasionally be fun to read, for the most part I find them inane. I’m not going to go out and find “evidence” only for you to come back and refute it and present counter “evidence” and so on. We both know how the (election) game is played. I think the real decision-makers see through it. I do enjoy your frequent posting however, especially when responding to our GOP friends, so keep it up!