by D. Cupples | Without solid campaign finance reform, our politicians will likely continue making public policy that doesn't serve the public. That's why I was glad to hear Hillary Clinton say during last night's CNN debate that she favors public funding for elections -- though, she did not state the extent of funding. (Transcript)
Edwards and Obama rightly blamed NAFTA for some current troubles facing us ordinary Americans. Clinton was silent on NAFTA. Obama accused Clinton of saying that NAFTA had been a "boon" to the economy. Politico said that paraphrasing journalists, not Clinton, had said that.
As expected, Obama's comment about the GOP came up. Here's Obama's original comment:
"'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 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 to 15 years in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom.'" (Associated Press)
When Hillary Clinton brought this up during last night's debate, Obama's replied: "I never said they were good ideas." True, he didn't.
On the other hand, the "party of ideas" label does sound like praise for Republicans' from 10-15 years ago, which encompasses the Gingrich "revolution" and the so-called "Contract with America."
And did Gingrich and his group really challenge "conventional wisdom"? In some respects, they seemed to merely continue what Ronald Reagan had started: e.g., supply-side (or "voodoo") economics, heavy reliance on privatization, and reduced resources for the middle-class. Speaking of the Reagan Administration, let's not forget about Iran-Contra.
I seriously doubt that Obama agreed with Gingrich, et. al. Some have speculated that Obama was likely just trying to stroke a Republican-leaning Nevada newspaper's editorial board. That's how candidates get newspaper endorsements.
On the other hand, Obama is a well trained lawyer and an experienced campaigner. He should have known that such broad comments might work on the conservative editorial board but might also be reasonably misinterpreted by Democrats who remember the policy agendas of Reagan and the GOP as harmful to us ordinary Americans.
Next time Obama wants to "reach across the aisle," his aides should spend a bit more time on editing -- and with a focus on the much bigger audience that sits outside the editorial board's conference room.
Memeorandum has other bloggers' reactions.
Other BN-Politics Posts:
* Iran-Contra Scandal Overview
Obama is correct, but is a fool for saying telling the truth the way he did. It is unfortunate that Reagan did so much to define the direction of politics over the past few decades, but it is true. Alas, it is also true that Democrats have offered relatively few cogent ideas around which the political battle lines can be drawn. Rather, they have been the reactionaries--responding to Republican ideas.
Hillary Clinton is correct that Republican ideas are bad ideas, but it remains to be seen whether she or Obama can put forth any positive proposals that will be embraced by a majority of the people. Right now opposition to bad ideas is all that drives the Democrats towards probable victory.
We know that the ideas Republicans put forth sell well, and sell us short. They destroy our civil liberties, wreck our economy, and isolate us as a bully in foreign affairs. But, until Democrats offer something the "vast unwashed" can comprehend, they will struggle even against the likes of Mike Huckabee and Arnold Schwarzenegger. As things are going now, the Democrats should win in November, but the margin will likely prove unconvincing.
Posted by: James Stripes | January 22, 2008 at 12:37 PM
What Obama meant notwithstanding, the intensity of the flap over this sort of 'affinity' for Reagan, the charges and countercharges about which candidate sat on which corporate board, or whose law firm worked for the partner of a slumlord client, obscured a lack of interest on the part of both major candidates in discussing real issues during the CNN debate.
Both Clinton and Obama appeared petty and superficial by fighting insanely over opposition research topics. Most of CNN's test audience thought Edwards actually won the debate. He actually discussed policy positions in detail, without getting personal. Unfortunately, 99.9% of Democrats will never know that, because the horserace phenomenon has long since kicked in. It's now all about 'he said-she said' (and what Bubba said) in the mainstream media.
It's unfortunate that we're left with only the scraps the two frontrunners' handlers will leave us to understand the real differences between them.
Posted by: billkav | January 23, 2008 at 07:35 AM
Bill, I was glad that they sparred over those non-issues at the debate, because I think the effect will be a sense that the non-issues have been played out. Maybe now, we can move on to real issues, like Iraq, the economy, healthcare, FISA....
James, I hear ya!
Posted by: D. Cupples | January 24, 2008 at 12:42 AM