Who Will Win the Obama/Clinton Death Match? The GOP!

 

Since this whole "Barack Obama invoked Ronald Reagan" meme started, it seems to be just getting bigger and bigger [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, etc. ] with no end in sight, I think maybe the public and the MSM should dig a little deeper into the story rather than merely repeat what other's might be saying. This is only my opinion, and this is not a black and white issue. I can only give my own perspective on this.

Let me also say that though I favor Obama at this time, I would have no trouble voting for Hillary Clinton or John Edwards as the Democratic presidential candidate. I do find these tactics on the Clinton's part sort of sleazy, and these tactics do nothing to endear me to their campaign. If their motive was to get gain votes by attacking Obama, then I feel that it is a foolish endeavour.

I also feel that perhaps the issue is not being looked at from all of the angles, nor is the story being repeated accurately.

For starters, despite what Hillary Clinton supporter Paul Krugman said, Barack Obama never said that Reagan "had it right." And although I can find many faults in the Reagan presidency, I think it was entirely fair for Obama to say that he was very popular with both Republicans and Democrats, which is what Obama was really talking about. He was also making a dig at Bill Clinton's presidency. (Heaven forbid that he stoop to politics during an election!)

This whole "Obama invoked Ronald Reagan" issue really hit the fan after the recent Democratic debate on CNN, where this exchange took place:

CLINTON: Now, I just -- I just want to be clear about this. In an editorial board with the Reno newspaper, you said two different things, because I have read the transcript. You talked about Ronald Reagan being a transformative political leader. I did not mention his name.

OBAMA: Your husband did.

CLINTON: Well, I'm here. He's not. And...

OBAMA: OK. Well, I can't tell who I'm running against sometimes.

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: Well, you know, I think we both have very passionate and committed spouses who stand up for us. And I'm proud of that.

But you also talked about the Republicans having ideas over the last 10 to 15 years.

OBAMA: I didn't say they were good ones.

CLINTON: Well, you can read the context of it.

OBAMA: Well, I didn't say they were good ones.

CLINTON: Well, it certainly...

OBAMA: All right, Wolf.

CLINTON: It certainly came across in the way that it was presented, as though the Republicans had been standing up against the conventional wisdom with their ideas. I'm just reacting to the fact, yes, they did have ideas, and they were bad ideas.

OBAMA: I agree.

CNN          

So listen to exactly what Hillary Clinton is saying:

CLINTON: You talked about Ronald Reagan being a transformative political leader. I did not mention his name.

OBAMA: Your husband did.

CLINTON: Well, I'm here. He's not.

So Hillary Clinton is saying that she and her campaign are separate from whatever Bill Clinton says. Hillary Clinton is saying that Obama is not allowed to bring up what her husband says on the campaign trail, because he is not in the room, he is separate in some way. Hillary Clinton says, "I did not mention [Ronald Reagan's] name," thus saying that Obama cannot bring up the subject with her, only with Bill Clinton.

This is not a valid argument. Either Bill Clinton is part of the campaign, and is thus as accountable as his wife for statements made, or he should not be talking to the press. There is no middle ground.

Obama responds, "OK. Well, I can't tell who I'm running against sometimes," to which Hillary Clinton says, "Well, you know, I think we both have very passionate and committed spouses who stand up for us. And I'm proud of that."

This is not a valid argument either. The only way it could be a valid argument is if Barack Obama's wife, Michelle were:

1.) Saying things about Hillary Clinton's ability to lead the nation as President of the United States to the press.

2.) If the press treated her as some kind of expert on politics, like say how an ex-President of the United States would be treated.

3.) If the press actually gave her an equal amount of time to speak about politics on the air.

The press does not even give equal time to John Edwards, a viable presidential candidate. (Or at least he was, before the press started to all but completely ignore him.) The idea that Michelle Obama is able to speak at the same table as Bill Clinton is ridiculous. The last time I saw Michelle Obama on the news was well over a month ago.

Although I would support Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate, I find her use of this kind of rhetoric rather vapid and disappointing.

This kind of mud slinging seems especially hypocritical when compared to Hillary Clinton's own comments about Ronald Reagan, which might be considered equally disturbing:

Former President Bill Clinton and his wife, Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, issued a statement that praised the former president for his optimistic outlook.

"Hillary and I will always remember President Ronald Reagan for the way he personified the indomitable optimism of the American people, and for keeping America at the forefront of the fight for freedom for people everywhere," their statement said. CNN, via Daily Kos

The Blog Liberal Values points out this:

It appears that at the moment any mention of Ronald Reagan is a thought crime in much of the liberal blogosphere, as well as in the Clinton and Edwards camps. In reviewing the recent smears on Obama based upon misrepresenting his statement on Ronald Reagan, I noted that Hillary Clinton’s own campaign web site contains a statement in which Clinton lists Reagan among her favorite presidents. Perhaps that comes from being an old Goldwater Girl herself.
Clinton supporters now say that she only said that she included Reagan among a list of presidents whose pictures she would hang up at the White House. Even that would be far more of an act of support for Ronald Reagan than anything Barack Obama actually said. I guess at least that excuse would be better than a Clintonian discussion over what the meaning of "favorite" is.

Other bloggers debunking these attacks include Steve Benen (here and here), Daily Kos, and Matthew Yglesias. Liberal Values

And if we are going to continue to discuss what Obama said about Ronald Reagan, shouldn't we remember a few things about the man that is pushing this meme so hard on the evening news - I am speaking of course about Bill Clinton.

Remember that both Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and Michael Moore feel that Bill Clinton is the best Republican president of the last century.

"Abandoning the traditional Democratic role of improving life for the working stiff, Clinton did things that Reagan and Bush could only dream of. Twelve years of a Republican in the White House couldn't make NAFTA a reality. It took Bill Clinton to push through a trade bill that guaranteed the loss of hundreds of thousands good-paying American jobs and did nothing to raise the standard of living for the Mexican worker."

"As loud as Reagan and Bush complained about lazy welfare queens, it was Bill Clinton who got Congress to eliminate the federal welfare program. And he threw in a bonus -- he INCREASED welfare for the rich in the form of tax breaks, incentives for business and overseas development."

"Ronnie & George the First never could have gotten away with this. The Democrats in Congress would have been all over them in an attempt to look like they were sticking up for 'the little guy.'" Michael Moore

OK, so who would you listen to, the guy who mentioned Ronald Reagan's popularity in a positive light, or the guy who enacted NAFTA, reduced social programs for the poor and increased welfare for the rich?

The truth is that it is not that simple an argument to make, but this "Obama invoked Ronald Reagan" meme is increasingly trying to reduce the issue into a single slice of baloney. My comparison is at least as fair as the slice of baloney I am confronted with.

Comrade Kevin also had an interesting post about the Clintons.

There is also some false material floating around the internet about what Obama actually said. This is what Obama said:

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 was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that 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. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.

And this the false quote that is being plastered all over the internet and attributed to Obama, although he actually never said it:

"When the country was so sick of a blue state president, Carter, Reagan was able to tap into it by being 100% red-state," said Obama. "Reagan knew the electorate was so sick of a blue-state president and blue-state policies, they we're willing to go 100% red. Reagan didn't mince words. He ran on a 100% red-state message. When Reagan won with a 100% red state message, Reagan had a 100% red-state mandate. Reagan knew transformation was all about mandate. Reagan ran a clear red-issue campaign. He never reached out to blue. Reagan was able to bowl over any resistance in Congress because he had a clear 100% red-state mandate. When you have a 100% red-state mandate, no one is surprised by what you do. Reagan, therefore, was able to get all the changes he wanted. Reagan was for those reasons...transformational."

Gee, I wonder who would spread this false quote around? Hmm... I wonder...