There you go again
EmailIn an editorial board meeting with the Reno Gazette-Journal (watch it HERE), Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, praised our nation’s 40th president.
"Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not, and a way that Bill Clinton did not," he said, per ABC News’ Sunlen Miller, describing Reagan as appealing to a sentiment that, "We want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."
Former Sen. John Edwards, D-NC, did not approve.
"Senator Obama was speaking…used Ronald Reagan – President Ronald Reagan – as an example of change. My view is I would never use Ronald Reagan as an example of change," he said, per ABC News’ Raelyn Johnson.
"When you think about what Ronald Reagan did to the American people, to the middle class to the working people. He was openly – openly – intolerant of unions and the right to organize. He openly fought against the union and the organized labor movement in this country. He openly did extraordinary damage to the middle class and working people, created a tax structure that favored the very wealthiest Americans and caused the middle class and working people to struggle every single day. The destruction of the environment, you know, eliminating regulation of companies that were polluting and doing extraordinary damage to the environment.
"Whether it was damage to the union movement and the organized labor movement. Damage to the middle class, to a tax structure that favored the wealthiest Americans and the biggest corporations in America, or the incredible devastation to the environment while he was President of the United States, I can promise you this," Edwards said, "This president will never use Ronald Reagan as an example for change."
What say you? Should Obama never praise a Republican during a Democratic primary? Or ever? Did Reagan achieve nothing positive? Should Edwards be quiet?
- jpt
CPAC: Romney Struggles to Convince Voters 
Obama Backs Off Birth Control Battle?
The important thing you left out was that the Reno Gazette-Journal endorsed Obama and even mentioned this in their endorsement, so obviously they took it as a positive. I think most Democrats will do the same.
Posted by: Mike | January 17, 2008, 10:42 pm 10:42 pm
Obama is right. Whether or not you agree with what Reagan did, there’s no question that he changed the trajectory of America. Americans were drawn to the hope of “morning in America” just as they are responding to Obama’s message of hope now. Their policies and priorities are quite different, but hope is the common denominator.
Posted by: Bob | January 17, 2008, 10:43 pm 10:43 pm
Reagan was The great President and I do not think he would want himself compared to a Socialist like Obama!
But Obama is right in what he said, Reagan Brought Greatness to this Country!
Posted by: spock | January 17, 2008, 10:43 pm 10:43 pm
Ronald Reagan is a US citizen and was a US President. There is no problem to show respect for the one who has helped america in a certain way regardless party affiliations. There were reagan democrats and reagan republicans. There will be this time Barak democrats, Barak independants and Barak republicans.
Posted by: BKMC | January 17, 2008, 10:45 pm 10:45 pm
It seems like all Edwards does is complain about things and criticize others. He seems like a different guy compared to 4 years ago, and the change is not good…
Posted by: Jim | January 17, 2008, 10:45 pm 10:45 pm
This is a perfect example of Obama doing and not just saying. During a Democratic primary when it is wildly unpopular to praise a Republican, especially one as revered by Republicans as Reagan, he stood by his general message of unity. He stood by his guns. This was not an endorsement of policy, rather a olive branch for unity.
Congrats Barack.
Posted by: Brando | January 17, 2008, 10:47 pm 10:47 pm
If you listened to the entire interview Obama did not praise Ronald Reagan. What he said was a 100% true and factual historical analysis. Ronald Reagan took office by a landslide!!! He then ran the country in that conservative direction that he managed to tap into at that time. That just a fact. He never said he agreed with his policies, hes just stating the obvious.
Posted by: James | January 17, 2008, 10:50 pm 10:50 pm
John Edwards was correct in his assessment of the Reagan era. The Age of Enlightment began around 1750 and ended, in this country, with the election of Ronald Reagan. He set the tone for all the divisive social divide issues which now dominate U.S. politics. When will the American people and Barack wake up?
Posted by: Bill Wilson | January 17, 2008, 10:59 pm 10:59 pm
James is 100% correct
Posted by: Brando | January 17, 2008, 10:59 pm 10:59 pm
Senator Edwards is just voicing the same, tired, old, discredited-by-the-record venom that didn’t work against Ronald Reagan then, and it won’t work now. Ronald Reagan brought the country out of the Carter malaise. Ronald Reagan started the largest and longest expansion in U.S. peacetime history, part of which Bill Clinton unjustly took credit for. Ronald Reagan busted the Communist monolith and the Berlin Wall. Ronald Reagan restored the military that Hillary would still like to dismantle, and he brought pride back to its soldiers. He DID bring hope back in America, and he did it with style and class. It is typical of an upstart loser to try to sully his memory. Many Democrats disagreed with some of Reagan’s ideas, but they bought into his message of hope, and the aura that was Reagan the gentleman and statesman. Many Republicans will disagree with some of Obama’s ideas, but will buy into the same. I haven’t decided yet, but I just might be one of them. Edwards can’t understand that. Too bad.
Posted by: SteveW | January 17, 2008, 11:13 pm 11:13 pm
I think Obama as a personality problem, first he was like Lincoln, later he was like JFK, later he was like Martin Luther King, now he is like Reagan…wondering what will be next? How many faces or personalities he has or pretend he has?
Posted by: Laugh of Obama | January 17, 2008, 11:47 pm 11:47 pm
John Edwards is a loser and a crybaby. Since America seems to love Obama, Edwards is now trying to exemplify that he is the “moral compass” for America and a reflection of the “blue-collar” workers’ values. He is a greedy opportunist who could care less about America. All he does is either apologize for the countless number of votes he has made as a senator, or make concession speeches for coming in third.
Obama is intelligent enough to recognize Reagan’s appeal for all Americans. Reagan is an optimist who conquered America’s heart and support. He was one of the best presidents in the US for being an inspiration, steadfast in his convictions, and gets the job done. All Edwards accomplished was being a repulse and a turn-off for the rest of America. I will caution Obama to not choose this loser for VP if he wants any chance for the presidency. Edwards is a vehement figure for republicans. No republican wants that fool anywhere near the White House.
Posted by: JennyC | January 18, 2008, 12:10 am 12:10 am
John Edwards always complains about corporate greed but he is the one living in a 26,000 square foot house. Is corporate greed bad but trial lawyer greed good? What a hypocrite!
Posted by: David | January 18, 2008, 12:36 am 12:36 am
Obama just doesn’t get it. He has only ONE item he can point to with all of his political experience – he has been RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT! Examining his record in the Illinois legislature and the U. S. Senate, there is a common theme – all show and words and NO ACTION!
There is no way that a majority of Democrats will vote for him! The Gazette-Journal have quickly regretted their decision to endorse!
Posted by: Harrison | January 18, 2008, 12:40 am 12:40 am
All what some people keep bringing again again again against Edwards is the fact he is successful now and has a big house! Like is that was a crime or something, is not to be hypocrite neither. He made his way up to school, worked hard, became a successful lawyer, made money and can afford it. So what is that a problem? People is just silly! LOL
Posted by: Mary | January 18, 2008, 12:51 am 12:51 am
The point is that people who live in 26,000 square foot glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. The greed of rich trial lawyers such as John Edwards is just as bad as the corporate greed that he condemns.
Posted by: David | January 18, 2008, 1:03 am 1:03 am
Do people really not understand that Obama was only talking about Reagan’s ability to change the direction America was going in, and his ability to appeal to members of the other party?
Obama is saying he wants to be a liberal version of Reagan. What Democrat would not want that? Even those supporting other candidates…
This is Edwards throwing crap at the wall in hopes that it sticks. Well, it sure stinks, I’ll say that much…
Posted by: John W | January 18, 2008, 1:52 am 1:52 am
Obama did not praise Reagan at all!! Don’t you see? Even today’s republican candidates want to be Regan…Obama comes to bury Regan not to praise him.
Posted by: demoforall | January 18, 2008, 1:59 am 1:59 am
For me,no matter who win the 2008 election,he(she)should do something real for us,rather than just go around and get votes.We need someone who can
leads us to a peaceful and more prosperious world.We can’t bear any more war or loss of our loved ones.In that cases,I can enjoy my spare time and visit my bestloved site,SugarmommyMeet.it gives me more fun and relax than politics! it is a service for rich women
seeking handsome and charming men.
Posted by: bob | January 18, 2008, 4:24 am 4:24 am
This isn’t new. Here’s Obama in 2006 on Meet the Press:
‘And, you know, there are circumstances in which, I would argue, Ronald Reagan was a very successful president, even though I did not agree with him on many issues, partly because at the end of his presidency, people, I think, said, “You know what? We can regain our greatness. Individual responsibility and personal responsibility are important.” And they transformed the culture and not simply promoted one or two particular issues.’
Obama has long admired Reagan’s message of hope and optimism, even as he disagreed on many policies.
Partisans on both sides need to grow up and understand that you don’t need to demonize your opponents.
Posted by: Gene L. | January 18, 2008, 4:44 am 4:44 am
This is what Obama’s campaign is all about. You can praise the other side while still disagreeing with them. You can work with the other side without vilifying them.
I for one find this refreshing.
Posted by: Mike | January 18, 2008, 6:53 am 6:53 am
“Obama Republicans” could make the difference.
Posted by: Bob, DC/USA | January 18, 2008, 7:46 am 7:46 am
Imagine, everyone not listening to the whole comment Obama made! Does it sound familiar Obama supporters. This is where you guys would now insert Hillary name calling. This really bugs you to be on the receiving end. I think I will enjoy this today, because bullys need to hit back, I’ll look forward to the Hillary bashing tomorrow. Cause it will reassure me again why Hillary must win.
Posted by: diann | January 18, 2008, 8:54 am 8:54 am
Obama thinks this is a POSITIVE statement? I’ve read his remarks, and re-read them. His statement is a foolish, and ill advised attempt to win (some) republican votes, while dismissing union voters as having short memories.
I was one of those laid off under regan’s anti-union crap, and I’ll never vote for someone who emulates that jerk.
Posted by: dectra | January 18, 2008, 8:56 am 8:56 am
I voted for Ronald Reagan-twice. Barack Obama is no Reagan. Here is a man who refuses to wear an American flag pin. President Reagan would not enter the Oval Office without a suit and tie on.
Posted by: Geevill | January 18, 2008, 9:00 am 9:00 am
Reagan fired Air Traffic controllers who were striking illegally. Reagan belonged to a union, the SAG.
Reagan did not campaign on change. He had specific goals unlike Obama and his babbling nothings.
Posted by: Geevill | January 18, 2008, 9:35 am 9:35 am
I agree with Bob and James in their comments: Sen. Obama was candidly providing a historical analysis. Sen. Edwards, on the other hand, was doing what partisan politicians do so well–misinterpreting someone else’s comments and vilifying the opposition. Sen. Obamb’s candor is refreshing and most welcome!
Posted by: chuck | January 18, 2008, 9:56 am 9:56 am
Reagan did not campaign on a platform of change. Obama is full of crap.
Posted by: geevill | January 18, 2008, 11:05 am 11:05 am
I give Obama high marks for having the maturity to acknowledge Reagan’s successes, such as they are. Continuing to demonize Reagan is not good policy. It’s backwards thinking and it just signals that Democrats are still fighting the battles of the past and not preparing for the challenges in the future.
Posted by: Howard B. | January 18, 2008, 11:16 am 11:16 am
Howard, read the comments. Obama did not say anything like that.
“We want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing”
Posted by: Geevill | January 18, 2008, 11:34 am 11:34 am
Sorry, Geevill, but I did read Obama’s comments and he was quite clear. To his great credit, he acknowledged that Reagan was a successful president in the sense that he changed the direction of America and used hope and optimism as a way to inspire those who believed in what he was doing. My point, however, remains the same: Democrats who continue to engage in partisan attacks on Reagan (and I’ve seen quite a few of these since Obama’s comments) are spending way too much time focusing on the past and not enough thinking about positive ways to deal with our future.
Posted by: Howard B. | January 18, 2008, 12:01 pm 12:01 pm