Clinton Radio Ad On Obama's "GOP Party Of Ideas" Remark

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 01:01:43 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

TPM again distorts this critique of Obama. Here is the text of the ad:

VOICE-OVER: “Listen to Barack Obama last week talking about Republicans.

BARACK OBAMA: “The Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10, 15 years.”

VO: “Really? Aren’t those the ideas that got us into the economic mess we’re in today? Ideas like special tax breaks for Wall Street. Running up a $9 trillion debt. Refusing to raise the minimum wage or deal with the housing crisis. Are those the ideas Barack Obama’s talking about?”

BO: “The Republicans were the party of ideas.”

VO: Hillary Clinton thinks this election is about replacing disastrous Republican ideas with new ones, like jump-starting the economy. Putting an immediate freeze on foreclosures and mortgages. Cutting taxes for the middle class. And creating millions of new jobs. With the economy in crisis, we need a president with the ideas, the solutions that get our economy working for all of us. Hillary Clinton. Solutions for America.

TPM says Clinton implies Obama supported these GOP policies. TPM is wrong. The ad properly points out that Obama did not express any criticism of the GOP ideas. That is the problem. Obama's failure to speak out against these ideas. And this is not new. Obama has been a unity schtick candidate the entire campaign. The reason this ad works is precisely because Obama's has not been a partisan Dem campaign. Will he speak out now? Yes, because the Clintons are scoring points on him. That, my friends, is politics. TPM continues to distort this issue.

< Jose Padilla's Co-Defendant Also Gets Sentencing Break | 15 Inmates Freed Due to Drug Informant's Lies >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Clinton Radio Ad On Obama's "GOP Party Of Ideas" Remark | 91 comments (91 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

It is a distortion (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by seanwright on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 01:45:51 PM EST

Here is the full quote from the interviev: "The Republican approach has played itself out. 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, you've heard it all before. You look at the economic policies when they're being debated among the presidential candidates, it's all tax cuts. Well, we know, we've done that; we've tried it. That's not really going to solve our energy problems, for example."

Your going to tell me that just excerpting the portion of that statement where he says: "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" is a fair representation of his remarks? I call BS.

Um (none / 0) (#28)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 01:49:43 PM EST

Can you explain where you got that quote from?


A fact check article in Newsweek. (none / 0) (#30)
by seanwright on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 01:50:50 PM EST

Here's the link (none / 0) (#35)
by seanwright on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 01:58:36 PM EST

A Clinton-Obama Slugfest


Here's the link (none / 0) (#40)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:02:00 PM EST

Newsweek

I think the one line in the beginning does somewhat ameliorate it. I have not heard that and I watched the video.

I will watch it again.

That said, his language REMAINS to unity schtickish.


Watching now (none / 0) (#41)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:03:33 PM EST

Can not hear it (none / 0) (#50)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:14:59 PM EST

The Reno video has a terrible video that I can not hear.


The reno link works OK for me (none / 0) (#61)
by Satya1 on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:34:21 PM EST

IMHO, I think you may have an important point about Sen. Obama not criticizing GOP "ideas" more. I understand your preference for a hard, confrontational style of campaigning.

However, I think you have missed the context of the quote. The quote used in the Clinton ad does not even include the full sentence.

The ad clearly distorts what Sen. Obama was saying in his remarks. The text is available on the web. The video is available here

Once you get a video link, the place to start is by 18:45. But a fuller context is available by starting at 17:00 or even 14:55.

Listen up to 22:00 and you will find a statement that clarifies his remarks about washington politics being stuck in language of baby boomer generation.

It's a good interview.


Do you have text of the interview? (none / 0) (#63)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:38:40 PM EST

I would like to add the full context if i can get it.


This isn't the full interview (5.00 / 1) (#64)
by seanwright on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:44:16 PM EST

But, in a sidebar to the fact check article you linked to earlier, they posted this longer portion of his statement that includes all of the stuff about Ronald Reagan "changing the trajectory" and all of the "party of ideas" stuff.

Obama's Reagan Remarks to Reno Gazette-Journal, Jan. 14, 2008

Obama: 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. I think they felt like, you know, with all the excesses of the '60s and the '70s, you know government had grown and grown, but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating, and I think people just tapped into - he tapped into what people were already feeling, which is we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism, and, and, you know, entrepreneurship that had been missing.I think Kennedy, 20 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 feels like things as they are going right now aren't working, that we're bogged down in the same arguments that we've been having, and they're not useful. And the Republican approach, I think, has played itself out. 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, you've heard it all before. You look at the economic policies when they're being debated among the presidential candidates, it's all tax cuts. Well, we know, we've done that; we've tried it. That's not really going to solve our energy problems, for example.


: Thanks (none / 0) (#68)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:54:16 PM EST

It really is too tepid Buuuut, there is a point there for Obama.
I'll revist this issue tonight.

: Add this paragraph (none / 0) (#75)
by standingup on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:13:36 PM EST

to the end for a complete transcription of his answer, covering 18:47 - 22:22 of the video:

So some of its the times and some of it I do think, there is a, there's maybe a generational element to this partly in the sense that I didn't come of age the battles of the sixties. 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. And by the way, when I say this sometimes it's interpreted as I don't think that anybody who is a baby boomer should be president. That's not what I'm saying. But what I'm saying is that I think the average baby boomer has moved beyond a lot of the arguments of the sixties, but our politicians haven't, we're still having the same arguments. It's all around culture wars and it's all you know even when you discuss war you know the frame of reference is all Viet Nam. Well that's not my frame of reference. My frame of reference is what works. And even when I first apposed the war in Iraq my first line was "I don't oppose all wars." You know specifically to make clear this is not just a anti-military you know seventies love in kind of approach. It was rather that I thought strategically it was a mistake for us to go in.

Sorry, I could not find text for the (none / 0) (#74)
by Satya1 on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:11:02 PM EST

whole interview. If you find partial versions on the web take care in that apparently a bogus version has been circulated (and then taken down) by CBS News. Their source was Daily Kos:

Story from Sam Stein at Huffington Post.

Also if you're interested there are many people who looked at Sen. Obama's comments in detail and come to some conclusions:

Jake Tapper

Chicago Tribune

Doris Goodwin on MTP:

You know, it's a sad point in our history when a presidential candidate cannot look back over the course of our history and show admiration for a president who did what he said. He didn't really say that he had better ideas, he said that he had transformed the country, created a conservative movement. Now, I can understand why Edwards and Hillary take that point up, but I think what's happening here is that Hillary has a sense of playing to the base, as Edwards was, and the base doesn't like Ronald Reagan. They don't like Bush. But what Obama was trying to say was, if you want a transformative presidency, if you want somebody who is going to be able, as Teddy Roosevelt was, as FDR was, as perhaps John Kennedy was, to inspire and move the country forward, you've got to have those skills that Ronald Reagan had. It's an historical fact! There was nothing wrong with saying that.

Link? (none / 0) (#36)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 01:58:50 PM EST

I tried to do a proper link and screwed it up (none / 0) (#38)
by seanwright on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:00:27 PM EST

http://www.newsweek.com/id/98083


: your link was correct before (none / 0) (#52)
by Jgarza on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:16:29 PM EST

i have had trouble getting audio on things linked off this site before.

in proper form (none / 0) (#51)
by Jgarza on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:15:30 PM EST

here


TPM and DKos (5.00 / 3) (#32)
by magster on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 01:51:01 PM EST

TPM Muckraker has numerous stories on FISA capitulation.

DKos has a front page action alert on contacting all candidates to do something.

While you had a front page post on what Obama should say in his victory speech, it wasn't very much a call to action.

Get the Clinton lovers here to call her to do something to show the rest of us why she's the better candidate.

I'll tell you why I did it that way (none / 0) (#46)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:11:09 PM EST

Because Obama is the better person for this. He is the one who needs to do it.

I was trying to present a pragmatic rationale for doing it.

They are both pols and will not do it just to do something good.

What's in it for them? is their perspective.

There is more for Obama to gain here. Therefore Obama was my target.


Well (5.00 / 1) (#53)
by magster on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:18:58 PM EST

I agree with that, but I'd sure like Clinton and her supporters to jump in too. I've called and e-mailed Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Salazar (waste of a good 3 minutes) and, after reading the 12:01 pm post on Crooks and Liars (I can't figure out how to link on this site) Harry Reid.

The nomination has taken the blogs' eye off the ball. Now telecom immunity is imminent.


: "blogs' eye off the ball" (none / 0) (#58)
by magster on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:27:45 PM EST

was meant to include, me, other commenters, and lurkers.

: Well (none / 0) (#62)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:37:49 PM EST

Eye off the ball seems a bit strong.
Greenwald has been on it.

Will see how much Miss (none / 0) (#82)
by jondee on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:25:38 PM EST

Wallyworld works to raise the minimum wage.

"Therefore Obama was my target." When, pray tell, ISNT he?


BTD I Just Listened To The Whole Video Again (5.00 / 1) (#69)
by MO Blue on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:54:22 PM EST

seanwright's quote below is accurate.

"The Republican approach has played itself out. 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, you've heard it all before. You look at the economic policies when they're being debated among the presidential candidates, it's all tax cuts. Well, we know, we've done that; we've tried it. That's not really going to solve our energy problems, for example."

O/T but relevant (5.00 / 1) (#76)
by jen on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:15:08 PM EST

Another example of the fact that Obama is nothing more and nothing less than a typical politician. And perhaps why Team Obama never brings up Hsu's fundraising for Clinton?

Hsu Steered Major Fundraiser to Obama

: jen (5.00 / 1) (#78)
by Kathy on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:03:06 PM EST

they bring up Obama's Hsu connection, but only to explain that it wasn't as much as Clinton and he gave it to a charity, which makes him better than her because she gave her funds to a charity, too. And then they scream, "Monica! Monica! Monica!"
There is a Brady Bunch joke in there somewhere, but I just can't make it work.

Clintons are shameless liars (5.00 / 1) (#87)
by Tano on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:48:11 PM EST

We overlook it when it is done on our behalf, because we know that the Republicans are even worse.

Now we see it turned against one of our own, and it is pretty ugly.

Hillary starts out with half the country passionatly against her. Now she will have half her own party supporting her only with extreme relutance and bitterness, and unwilling to do anything for her beyond casting that vote against the Republican.

What a miserable next chapter we are facing, when it could be so different.

: Obama is also a shameless liar (none / 0) (#89)
by RalphB on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:54:13 PM EST

He's a politician and his lips move. This is a primary and they're all one of our own, unless you've drank the Oborg kool-aid.

Congratulations to BTD (4.00 / 4) (#15)
by GOPmurderedconscience on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 01:34:00 PM EST

As someone who will support any Dem in the GE, I truly want to congratulate BTD for reporting the facts and for being fair to ALL candidates, although he is not soft on ANY of them. I like the fact that he criticizes anyone of them when he sees fit and defends them when warranted.

To my knowledge he is one of the very very few in the left blogosphere.

To my knowledge this is the only site (3.66 / 3) (#19)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 01:39:43 PM EST

where Obama has been criticized for not being partisan enough, defended on Rezko, his attacking Al Qaida in Pakistan comments, praised for his support of DLs for undocumenteds, criticized for his SS crisis comment, questioned about his statements about mandates AND where

Hillary was criticized for K-L, Mark Penn, Bill Clinton's reamrks on Dems and people of faith AND where

Edwards was praised for his FIGHTING Dems style, criticized for his stance on trade, immigration and his failure to understand that he had to go after Obama if he wanted to win.

We call them as we see them.


: Not exactly "defended on Rezko." (none / 0) (#31)
by oculus on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 01:50:51 PM EST

Urged readers to ignore Rezko connection to Obama.

and isnt that really sad (none / 0) (#17)
by athyrio on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 01:37:12 PM EST

when you think of how the bloggosphere has ranted on and on about msm being in the pocket of the right....What on earth do they think they are displaying now??? Slanted journalism tracks both ways....


How Dare Clinton Quote Obama (3.66 / 3) (#5)
by MO Blue on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 01:23:55 PM EST

in a political ad.

Of Course, Obama Could Show A Clip (none / 0) (#7)
by MO Blue on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 01:26:23 PM EST

of that interview where he said the Republican's ideas were bad ideas and dispute what is being said. {snark}


Yep (5.00 / 3) (#9)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 01:27:57 PM EST

And in essence that is what he si doing - screaming howmuch he hates Republicans now.

And that is GOOD!!!!

Why so called liberal blogs are biotching because the campaign is making him do what he should have been doing all along is beyond me.

TPM is jumping the shark quickly.


: Seems to me Hillary Clinton's (none / 0) (#26)
by oculus on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 01:46:38 PM EST

political instincts are much closer to yours than Obama's.

Bill and Hillary (3.00 / 2) (#13)
by athyrio on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 01:32:05 PM EST

are the only democrats with the skills politically to beat the republican machine...Like it or not, they are good and the republicans know it...thats why they fear them....

I want my candidate (3.00 / 2) (#22)
by tnthorpe on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 01:42:11 PM EST

to go after the corrupt and incompetent repubs hammer and tongs. I don't want postpartisanship: I want the loonytoon right to be pushed off of the political map. I want an agenda with health care reform, educational support programs, environmental progress, energy independence, and above all a quick exit from Iraq, an end to this GWOT with its endless gov't pillage by the military-industrial complex, and some serious reform at the amazingly ineffective dept of homeland pork, I mean, security. I want the populist appeal of a dangerous theocon like Huckabee to be outflanked by better ideas and better communication from the left. So far, that's not Obama much, though Clinton has her moments and Edwards generally has the positions.

TPM and more (1.00 / 1) (#33)
by koshembos on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 01:52:49 PM EST

The problem of TPM and its many fallow Obama fans is the clear appearance of the cult of personality. Obama admiration of St. Reagan is equal only to their admiration for St. Obama.

More important than being killed in the GE is the fact that Obama gets a free ride to the GE without any review or evaluation.

Here is a great article (5.00 / 2) (#37)
by athyrio on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 01:59:14 PM EST

that really breaks down alot of this mess....


: Fantastic Article (none / 0) (#42)
by Stellaaa on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:05:45 PM EST

Thanks...so much work and thought.

That is one fantastic ad. (none / 0) (#1)
by MarkL on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 01:06:53 PM EST

Actually I'm only reading the transcript now, but that's enough.
I just wrote over at TPM that Obama's campaign will be pushing up "Daisies" because of this ad.
Between this one, the ad on UHC, and a likely ad on the interest rate issue, Obama's really being battered.

Rovian (none / 0) (#2)
by Stellaaa on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 01:09:01 PM EST

TPM and some of the others were so enamored with Rovian tactics. They do not believe that parties should be different. They think parties have to pander just for the win. Well, Rovian tactics did not work. Look at the Republican party now? Where is all the sophistry?

This is (1.00 / 1) (#3)
by Jgarza on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 01:22:02 PM EST

a Rovian tactic


Fweel free to insult jgarza (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 01:26:22 PM EST

for this comment.

That is out of bounds.


Whatever (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by Molly Bloom on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:08:54 PM EST

Obama should be distancing himself from Reagan.

Rovian would be saying Obama is a child predator or lying about Obama being a secret Muslim. Making him eat his words about Reagan is not Rovian.


: I was refering (none / 0) (#47)
by Jgarza on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:11:40 PM EST

to the above comment. not the ad

Progressive hypocrites (none / 0) (#4)
by lily15 on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 01:23:54 PM EST

TPM and many of the so called liberal pundits and bloggers are weak hypocrites. No one stood up when Al Gore was being trashed by the Republicans with ideas (ideas on destroying Democrats). Now they act just like their right wing brethren in distorting and misrepresenting facts. I hope all of this truthiness bites them in the ass. Weak, sycophants...who don't even have the balls to tell the truth...and some call that progressive?

riiiiight (3.66 / 3) (#18)
by Jgarza on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 01:38:58 PM EST

TPM and many of the so called liberal pundits and bloggers are weak hypocrites.

I know Hillary deserves the this office, it is her turn, if you don't try to destroy anyone that gets in her way, you are a bad democrat!

No one stood up when Al Gore was being trashed by the Republicans with ideas (ideas on destroying Democrats).

How dare anyone defend Barack Obama now, he should have used all his power as a Illinois state senator to get Al gore elected 8 years ago, how could anyone have expected poor powerless sitting president, and poor powerless sitting first lady to be helpful. Obama and Josh Marshall, they had all the electoral power back then.

Now they act just like their right wing brethren in distorting and misrepresenting facts.

Completely we all know that saying republicans are the party of ideas in the last 10-15 years is dog whistle language for: I'm going to support unprovoced invasions of foreign countries, support bills that make it harder for people to file for bankruptcy, support DOMA, escalate conflict with Iran, push more cuts in welfare.

We know this code


Crossing the line again (2.33 / 3) (#21)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 01:40:58 PM EST

That5 is not at all responsive to the comment.

I have stopped peopel from attacking you.

You stop attacking.


when peoples (none / 0) (#23)
by Jgarza on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 01:44:18 PM EST

comments attack everyone who disagrees with them, and i'm one of those people. I feel the need to respond.


: Sorry (none / 0) (#60)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:29:06 PM EST

You were not attacked by that comment.
You did the attacking.
Pull it back.

just a thought here! (none / 0) (#39)
by hellothere on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:01:46 PM EST

i am wondering if they are sidelining themselves in regards to access and power if the dems win congress and the white house. i don't mean being left out in the cold. but heck they are just now getting a speaking voice note kos's recent columns. maddow is seen more on msnbc(note she is not a blogger that is part of this discussion). they are becoming more main stream and now seem to be acting more like sideline players.


As for Rachel (none / 0) (#48)
by Molly Bloom on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:11:44 PM EST

She started the Tweety Effect ball rolling. She is not mainstream yet.


: rachel doesn't have her own show (5.00 / 1) (#56)
by hellothere on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:24:48 PM EST

and no she isn't yet mainstream. more's the pity! but she is getting foothold. i was using her as an example of the left getting more of a voice on cable. thanks

Rachel Maddow (none / 0) (#49)
by Jgarza on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:14:34 PM EST

was on MSNBC last night defending the Clinton's and their intenrtonal mis characterization of Obama.

SO yeah I'd agree, she was being very MSM.


: Nonsense (5.00 / 2) (#59)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:28:24 PM EST

Defense of the Clintons in the Media is practically nonexistent.

Amen!!! (none / 0) (#45)
by Stellaaa on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:09:39 PM EST

lily, I agree...with reservations (none / 0) (#79)
by Kathy on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:09:33 PM EST

I think we all were a bit stunned by how low the republicans went in the 2000/2004 campaigns. There was a bit of shock that people would behave that way--and I say this coming from the great state of Max Cleland. It was disgusting and horrible, and we knew people would see that it was, but they never did. Or maybe it was too late. And then we spent five years being made to feel that we should hide the fact that we were dems (think Dixie Chicks, but without the tour bus) and now, I think, some of us are actually seeing that with Hillary we can push them back and WIN and get the good guys back in. As she said, she's been dealing with them for sixteen years and she is still standing.

So, I agree that we let it happen to Al Gore and Kerry, but I think we were all just human, and the typical voters. We did not realize until it was too late that our shock and apathy were nails in our own coffins.

But now, resurrection! Hope--but real hope. Change--but real change. I will vote for any dem in the general election, but I hope it is Hillary.


Remind me again. . . (none / 0) (#8)
by LarryInNYC on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 01:27:16 PM EST

what's so bad about being "calculating". This seems to be one of the things Clinton haters hate most about Clinton -- that she's "controlled" and "calculating" and never seems to speak extemporaneously.

OK. What's actually wrong with that? If one speaks carefully and with deliberation one is less likely to open lines of attack for your opponents.

Because some people (none / 0) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 01:29:16 PM EST

think politicians shouldnot practice politics.

If Obama can not get better, and this campaign is making him better imo, then he will get killed in the GE.

This is so obvious it is astounding to me that TPM does not get it.


: And Some People Ignore The Fact That (none / 0) (#20)
by MO Blue on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 01:40:22 PM EST

Obama plays politics every bit as much as Clinton. He just tells you that he doesn't. He has since the beginning of his political career. You don't rise within the Daly political machine without playing hard ball politics.

: Even aside from politics. . . (none / 0) (#44)
by LarryInNYC on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:09:13 PM EST

I wonder what's wrong with thinking twice about what's going to come out of your mouth? Trust me on this, it can avoid all kinds of complications.

: TPM, post debate (none / 0) (#90)
by Eva on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 06:24:11 PM EST

"One observation stands out to me from this debate. Hillary can be relentless and like a sledgehammer delivering tendentious but probably effective attacks. But whatever you think of those attacks, Obama isn't very good at defending himself. And that's hard for me to ignore when thinking of him as a general election candidate.
In most of these cases -- such as the Reagan issue -- I think Obama's remarks have been unobjectionable but ambiguous and certainly susceptible to both misunderstanding and intentional misrepresentation. And if you're going to talk like that -- nuance, as we used to say -- be able to defend it when people play with your words. And I don't see it."

WSJ republican comment thats funny (none / 0) (#11)
by athyrio on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 01:29:56 PM EST

love this comment


: That is funny in light of swift-boating. (none / 0) (#27)
by oculus on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 01:48:16 PM EST

Any takes on a new topography of the liberal... (none / 0) (#12)
by rhbrandon on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 01:31:01 PM EST

blogophere? Who's for whom et al.

I feel like I'm living in the middle of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire while it's breaking up and I need a new roadmap.

(Use any metaphor you want: Ottoman Empire, the Soviet Union, etc.)

I'm hanging out here because of the sanity.

I am a tepid Obama supporter (none / 0) (#16)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 01:35:38 PM EST

who realizes his campaign MUST become more partisan.

This is an old refrain for me.


I'm a stoic Edwards supporter (none / 0) (#25)
by rhbrandon on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 01:46:10 PM EST

who realizes that, at best, his delegate count is a bargaining chip at a brokered convention.


: At this point (none / 0) (#29)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 01:50:44 PM EST

his campaing is for his message and ideas, and that is worth a lot.

: I'm a nervous, nail-biting (none / 0) (#34)
by oldpro on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 01:53:52 PM EST

Hillary supporter...unless she's in jail for killing Vince Foster.

ugh (none / 0) (#77)
by diplomatic on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:46:39 PM EST

Continuing to support Obama at this point is making you look a little ridiculous considering the arguments you've been making against him and his prospects in a general election.

I am a Hillary Clinton supporter now and I'm not ashamed to say so. Going to the mattresses now.


It's not exactly rocket science (none / 0) (#14)
by oldpro on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 01:32:33 PM EST

so why in Hell don't people get this - "Obama's has not been a partisan Dem campaign." And there's the problem in a Democratic primary race. Unlike BTD, no faith-based candidates for me...not unless he's the last one standing. Then, any D port in a storm.

In your post (none / 0) (#54)
by Jgarza on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:20:27 PM EST

you say:

That is the problem. Obama's failure to speak out against these ideas.

But the rest of the Obama quote is:

I think it is fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time over the last 10, 15 years, in the sense 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.

In the last sentence he clearly critisizes the republican ideas.

So it is (none / 0) (#55)
by Jgarza on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:22:36 PM EST

clear he is saying the ideas won't work, so her ad is misleading.


Link? (none / 0) (#57)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:26:07 PM EST

here (none / 0) (#65)
by Jgarza on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:44:37 PM EST

ok in two places

in the video at 3:15

then in athyrio's link it actually has it transcribed


Their ideas on energy problems (none / 0) (#67)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:52:11 PM EST

I get that.

Let me put it this way, not much in the way of full throated critique there.

But I'll update my post tonight with this info.


it was an example (none / 0) (#70)
by Jgarza on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:57:55 PM EST

of how republicans are to quote another Hillary (Duff)
so yesterday


He said (none / 0) (#71)
by Jgarza on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:01:23 PM EST

they were the party of ideas, he concedes they beat us and the Clinton's but says that now "you have heard it all before."

It is the truth, i think it makes the Clintons mad because they don't like to admit we lost a lot in the 90's


I disagree (none / 0) (#72)
by athyrio on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:09:05 PM EST

and for a brief list of what we lost and gained during that time I refer you to this article


Yes (none / 0) (#73)
by TheRealFrank on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:10:01 PM EST

He says that the Republicans were the party of ideas in the 90s, but aren't anymore now, and that their ideas don't work now.

So clearly, he criticizes what the Republicans are doing now, but not what they were doing in the 90s (in fact, he seems to be praising what they did in the 90s).


: Clinton (none / 0) (#85)
by Jgarza on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:34:12 PM EST

adopted a ot of their ideas, cutting spending tax cuts ETC. so yeah they get lumped.

: Unlike Hillary, right? (none / 0) (#88)
by DA in LA on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:50:26 PM EST

Hillary Clinton (in Tom Brokaw book, "Boom! Voices of the Sixties"):
When he had those big tax cuts and they went too far, he oversaw the largest tax increase. He could call the Soviet Union the Evil Empire and then negotiate arms-control agreements. He played the balance and the music beautifully.
Or Bill?:

Bill Clinton (May 5, 1998): The only thing that could make this day more special is if President Reagan could be here himself. But if you look at this atrium, I think we feel the essence of his presence: his unflagging optimism, his proud patriotism, his unabashed faith in the American people. I think every American who walks through this incredible space and lifts his or her eyes to the sky will feel that.

The problem is Obama (none / 0) (#81)
by ding7777 on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:25:26 PM EST

lumps the last 10 to 15 years (the Clinton Presidency) in with the Republican party of ideas, negating Clinton's era of stability and budget surpluses.


the only reason (none / 0) (#66)
by athyrio on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:47:51 PM EST

big media is afraid of Clinton is she can beat their butts with her political skills thanks to her husband....why else would they put her down in favor in Obama...It is plain as day to me....

You are the one distorting. (none / 0) (#80)
by DA in LA on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:18:50 PM EST

As I said upthread (none / 0) (#83)
by ding7777 on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:29:14 PM EST

Obama lumps, by omission, the Clinton Presidency of stabilty and budget surpluses with the Republican ideas of tax cuts that don't work

so your (none / 0) (#84)
by Jgarza on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:32:38 PM EST

problem is that Obama doesn't praise Clinton? So this has nothing to do with Reagan, the Clinton's got their feelings hurt?


: I think it should be every Democrat's problem (5.00 / 1) (#86)
by ding7777 on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:42:34 PM EST

when Obama can't remember it was a Democratic President who balanced the budget in the past 15 years.

Although Obama's website states he was a (none / 0) (#92)
by oculus on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:43:39 PM EST

civil rights lawyer, apparently the firm did legal work on behalf of Rezko's business, which involved renovating lower income housing with public entity dollars and then managing the finished housing projects; so, I'm wondering how much of the firm's work and Obama's work was devoted to a traditional civil rights legal practice.