Obama's Man-Crush?

I understand what Barack Obama was saying. What I don't understand is why he didn't underscore the obvious within, which is always advisable in the cheap-shot atmosphere of rancid party politics.

The "what" of what he said to the Reno Gazette-Journal was so bloody straightforward and indisputable:

"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."

On its face, absolutely true. Warren G. Harding also changed the trajectory of America in a way that Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt did not. And the latter two changed it in ways that William McKinley did not. Neither observation does injury to partisan sensibilities -- not sober ones, anyway. They're just historical facts.

"He put us on a fundamentally different path," Obama continued, "because the country was ready for it."

Here, the only modifier to "different path" was "fundamentally," and only the most fiery-eyed of over-imbibing French deconstructionists would seriously contend that somehow buried in Obama's modifier was the deeper, subtextual meaning of a "righteously" different path. As for the "country being ready for it," some slight but factual evidence does exist, after all -- say, in the whopping 489 to 49 electoral vote of 1980?

Is such a recognition an endorsement? If I were to write that Hitler took Germany on a fundamentally different path in 1933 because the country -- omit value judgment here -- was ready for it, would that make me a Nazi propagandist? Or if I observed that Lenin did the same with Russia in 1917, am I therefore a closet Bolshevik? Get a life, as they say.

Obama went further still, with his head precariously in hand: "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."

Again, point out one singular syllable in that innocuous survey that intellectually insults the actual political circumstances of 1980. America had undergone an emotionally charged cultural revolution and the shame of a savage, protracted, imperialistic war. The economy was on the brink and we were helplessly tied down by a third-rate power. Consequently Americans were suffering from what one presidential pollster and advisor -- Pat Caddell -- identified as "malaise." There was resistance to it, a yearning to shake it off, Q.E.D.

Now, what I just said is all that Obama said. Nothing more, just marginally reworded. And I'm no more of a Ronald Reagan apologist than the Illinois senator. I'll go to my grave believing devoutly that the Gipper was a tawdry, narrow-minded, God-exploiting flag-waver whose executed vision of America set us back decades. He offered "clarity," all right, along with "optimism" and "dynamism" -- of the Gilded Age.

I have no doubt, nor does his voting record indicate to any degree, that Obama concurs. But he didn't add the commentary. He just stated the historical record as it was, circa 1980. And woe to the pol who droppeth nuggets of objectivity.

John Edwards pounced, as one would expect, and Obama should have. "I can promise you this," bellowed Edwards, "this president will never use Ronald Reagan as an example for change." Which of course Obama didn't, certainly not along the lines Edwards was suggesting. But it was a rousing crowd pleaser, however shamefully opportunistic.

But John, let me ask you this, since we're celebrating distortion. As I recall, last year you attended the Jefferson-Jackson Day event in Iowa. How could you, John? For let us take a historical peek at just old Andy Jackson alone.

Here was a man who fraudulently dispossessed the rightful owners of Native-American lands, defended the "peculiar institution" with every fiber of his thoroughly racist body, openly defied the Supreme Court and the rule of law, foolishly retarded America's economic development and, from time to time, acted as a virtual military dictator.

Yet you attended an event in his honor? You endorse those acts -- that history?

Of course not. You understand that he was a man of his times, who, objectively speaking, merely capitalized on the contemporary yearning for national optimism and dynamism. And in doing so he wisely broadened the powers of the presidency and thereby made possible our Roosevelts and Lincolns.

Facts are facts. Let's leave the tawdry distorting of them to Republicans. OK?

Comments

[Linda Timbs]

I can only remember that anytime I heard Ronald Reagan speak, all I seem to hear was, "Follow the Yellow Brick Road" no questions asked, stop by the church, let them eat cake, I don't seem to see him as anyone I would want to refer back to as a visionary, He was an actor on stage and in the white house. As I recall the wife seemed to have the power. I wouldn't be running for President and ever want someone to think I would be the person Ronald Reagan was, remember the economy???? We are already there, we can't afford more Reagan politics.

[Mykiel]

The more I investigate how Obama has ACTED and compare that with the endless NEW AGEY *just think positive and everything will be ok* rhetoric...the more concerned I become. Beacause, although he gives a great speech....ad nauseum I might add, his actions do not seem to follow. He has made a point of not voting when there were controversial votes...he is certainly NOT an anti war activist...when he HAS voted it is almost identical to Hillary but is more to the right with a lot of his proposals and has a team of old warmongers for his foreign affairs advisers. The other day he said something to the effect that he would be a president of ideas and hope and not concerned with buracracy. Sounds good...EXCEPT...the US government is the biggest buracracy in the world and the President is the one who is in charge of it. You can have all the lofty feel good ideas in the world....but inless you have the knowledge and enthusiasm to actually put those ideas into action....they are only ideas. The president has to actually enjoy the game...ala Bill Clinton...and not just be a delegater/decider and pawn everyting off on his underlings...ala *the name that shall not be spoken"...In short...my stomach turned when I heard him bring up Reagan...what a cheap ploy to try to get that bunch mindless *Reagan democrats* on his side by invoking that hideous sock puppet. Obama is all talk and no backup. To me hes a bigger snake oil salesman and a TYPICAL old style politician. Hes just studied the republican playbook and knows that if you repeat something enough people will believe it.

[Keith Blevins]

Well stated Mykiel. Its as if you were reading the post I was preparing to write. Regardless of the text or context of Senator Obama's remarks, his mention of Reagan was a transparent attempt to appeal to both "Reagan Democrats" and "Rockefeller Republicans". Part of his "can't we all get along" Unity theme.

This bogus bipartisanship is exactly what the right wing is hoping for. After years of their way or the highway, now that they look like potential losers on election night - outside the margin of L(D)iebold - NOW, they want to play nice and sing Kumbaya. NO THANKS!

We need a fierce partisan fighter to start undoing the damage of the past 30 years. We NEED President Edwards with a large electoral mandate for change.

[laura]

I agree 100% with Mykiel. Obama voted for the Republican/ credit card companies' bankruptcy bill that is causing a lot of pain now and will cause even more in the next couple of years. He voted to fund the war every time.

He is seriously midleading people about the resistance any meaningful health care reform will face from pharma and insurance companies. - This feel good stuff makes sense only if paired with clarity on what we are up against.

When the United Farm Workers chanted, Yes We Can, they knew what they were up against. When Obama chants it, he is pretending electing him will be enough.

Lastly: without campaigning on specifics, he would not have a mandate for anything specific if he is elected.

Among those three, Edwards is by far the best choice for the middle class. Which is why he is getting no play from the media.

[laura]

I agree 100% with Mykiel. Obama voted for the Republican/ credit card companies' bankruptcy bill that is causing a lot of pain now and will cause even more in the next couple of years. He voted to fund the war every time.

He is seriously midleading people about the resistance any meaningful health care reform will face from pharma and insurance companies. - This feel good stuff makes sense only if paired with clarity on what we are up against.

When the United Farm Workers chanted, Yes We Can, they knew what they were up against. When Obama chants it, he is pretending electing him will be enough.

Lastly: without campaigning on specifics, he would not have a mandate for anything specific if he is elected.

Among those three, Edwards is by far the best choice for the middle class. Which is why he is getting no play from the media.

[laura]

I agree 100% with Mykiel. Obama voted for the Republican/ credit card companies' bankruptcy bill that is causing a lot of pain now and will cause even more in the next couple of years. He voted to fund the war every time.

He is seriously midleading people about the resistance any meaningful health care reform will face from pharma and insurance companies. - This feel good stuff makes sense only if paired with clarity on what we are up against.

When the United Farm Workers chanted, Yes We Can, they knew what they were up against. When Obama chants it, he is pretending electing him will be enough.

Lastly: without campaigning on specifics, he would not have a mandate for anything specific if he is elected.

Among those three, Edwards is by far the best choice for the middle class. Which is why he is getting no play from the media.

[Skeeter Sanders]

Excuse me, but are you people so blinded by partisan rage that you've forgotten Barack Obama's clear declaration when he began his presidential run 11 months ago that he was sick of the hyperpartisanship between Democrats and Republicans and vowed to dedicate his campaign to bringing an end to this poison?

In case you've forgotten, Barack Obama is the first major presidential candidate from Generation X -- who's wasted no opportunity to heap scorn on the Baby Boomers who now dominate political discourse in this country and who grew up never knowing the meaning of the word "compromise."

After all, the Baby Boomers -- a generation which, at 54, I'm a part of -- cut their political teeth on the three most polarizing events in our nation's history since the Civil War: the civil rights movement, the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal. This is a generation that's more interested in demonizing each other's political beliefs than in reaching common ground in spite of our differences. Obama's invocation of Ronald Reagan was the clearest signal yet that he's serious about reaching out across the political divide.

Look at what hyperpartisanship has gotten us -- nothing but stalemate. Frankly, this is one Baby Boomer who's sick of it. It's time to pass the torch to the next generation.

[Keith Blevins]

So Skeeter, you're also old enough to remember when America was truly a land of middle class prosperity. Where "the American Dream" could be realized by working hard and playing by the rules. That America is long gone, and it is because of people like Ronald Reagan. They have distorted the story and manipulated the process to the point where most Americans live in daily paranoia of losing their jobs, their health, and their homes.

This is not going to be remedied by playing along with the people who brought us to this point. Obama is FAR too indebted to Corporate America to ever be OUR champion. In this case, Bipartisanship is just another word for surrender to the status quo.

[Zee]

The man-crush headline was dead on. With no commentary to dispel the odious Reagan myth, Obamappeaser had no call to invoke him as an agent of change. But this is nothing new for Obama. He has been pandering to the thugs and the "independents" (aka thugs too embarrassed to admit they're thugs) from the get-go.

All you need to know is that Obama promoted his "good friend" Lieberman after the CT Dems kicked his sorry butt to the curb and elected Lamont. If Obama wants to run as a Lieberman independent let him do so already and butt out of the Dem party.
----
And kudos to Mykiel and the others who recognized his dead-on comments:

"In short...my stomach turned when I heard him bring up Reagan...what a cheap ploy to try to get that bunch mindless *Reagan democrats* on his side by invoking that hideous sock puppet. Obama is all talk and no backup. To me hes a bigger snake oil salesman and a TYPICAL old style politician. "

A. We don't need no stinking Reagan "democrats"
The grassroots Dems, thanks to Dean and others, have been out in force.

B. Krugman is right. Krugman is always right. And he's been warning us about Obamappeaser for a while now.

C. Speaking of man-crushes, doesn't Mark Karlin of Buzzflash make you want to vomit with his mancrush on Liebercrat Obamappeaser?

[Hotrod]

PM,
What is with all this complaining? We have incredible good fortune as we are able to choose from a female corporate stooge, a black corporate stooge, a Mormon corporate stooge, a Viet Nam vet corporate stooge, and if Bloomberg enters the race, a Jewish corporate stooge. Whats not to like with a selection like this?????????

[beamer]

at the very least,we gotta celebrate the End of Bush-that i like!