Mary, regarding Obama's statment that: "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 10, 15 years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom."
The Clintons twisted that into the allegation that Obama had said that the Republicans had all the "good ideas."
That's a huge difference and you don't see that anywhere in there, do you?
But you do a little inventive interpretation yourself, stating that Obama "insinuated" disagreement with the proposition that "the Clinton administration did a much better job managing our country than anything the Reagan or Republican administration did."
He didn't insinuate that at all. What he insinuated was that Reagan did a remarkable job of generating enthusiasm for Reagan's policies and that his policies changed the course of the country.
That's a fact and one that we ought to all take note of.
In fact Obama is trying to do the same thing that Reagan did.
Yes, I said he's trying to do the same thing that Reagan did. Is that bad?
No. He's not trying to further the Reagan policies, just the opposite, but he is trying to generate the kind of crossover support and independent support that Reagan built. If he can get that support then he can possibly push past all the special interest attuned lawmakers and create real change.
And Obama's the only candidate who could possibly pull that off. Ask your friends who are on the other side of the political divide what they think about a Clinton presidency and then ask them about an Obama presidency. Like a lot of others on this board, I've done that and it's remarkable how many of them will say, "I might even vote for Obama."
I assure you that despite his twisting, Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton knew what Obama meant and they undersand what he's trying to do but it's expedient to create a straw man by saying Obama praised Reagan and then go on and on about what a bad president Reagan was. That's what Krugman did also.
For Krugman to write an entire column on how bad the Reagan policies were and then castigate Obama with no more basis than THIS: "whatever {Obama} meant to convey, [he] seem[ed] to be saying that Reagan had it right.." is just irresponsible. In the middle of a hotly contested and critically important election you don't write a long, angry column based on a straw man argument using the thin justification the Obama "seems to be saying" the words you put in his mouth.
We've seen Limbaugh do that for years but I expected that would only work with nodding-head, non-thinkers. Evidently the Clintons and Krugman think otherwise; and evidently they're right.
But their allegations are just that, straw man allegations. Obama simply expressed admiration for Reagan's to mobilize the electorate and to use that electorate to push the country in a new direction.
Are we going to become like those on the radical right who cannot tolerate even well deserved praise for the effectiveness of any public figure they label a liberal?
If someone said that Hitler's speeches were powerful do we then assume that person must approve of Hitler's murder of millions of people?
Damn, read all of what Obama said. It's perceptive, it's accurate and it's a lesson every candidate should study if they want to create real change.
And the dirty Clinton politics serve as a warning that ethical constraints are lacking and reveal the reason why 50% of the people in this country will never give Hillary Clinton their trust. Ed |
