Reply #3: Here are some good comments on what Obama was saying:

[Pirate Smile]

Michael wrote on January 16, 2008 3:23 PM:
Well...he's right. Reagan did far more for the GOP than Clinton did for the Dems. And the electorate is more primed for a realignment of that scale (only the mirror image)...much like Reagan used an uplifting vision of the country to draw indies and "Reagan Dems" into the GOP base, so too could Obama's uplifting message potentially win him the lionshare of independent support and create his own "Obama Republicans"

That's nothing but good for progressive causes, and it's not clear it's something Hillary can do. I've actually been working on a blog post about this.

Geek, Esq. wrote on January 16, 2008 3:27 PM:
It's absolutely correct.

Under Clinton, the progressive movement and Democratic party were deal severe setbacks.

We lost 48 Seats in Congress.

We lost 8 Seats in the Senate.

We lost a ton of governorships and state legislatures.

Reagan brought about real change. It was BAD change, but it was very, very real change that quite frankly didn't lose steam until 2006.

jbentley wrote on January 16, 2008 3:29 PM:
As usual, everything Obama says is true, but I'm virtually certain that the Clinonistas will take it out of context and saturate the media with claims that he thinks Reagan was a better president than Bill and/or this proves that Barack is not really progressive and that he's a closet Reaganite.

Greg wrote on January 16, 2008 3:30 PM:
I don't know how the Clinton people will present it, but I don't think that Obama was saying that Reagan was a better president than Clinton here.

Jeremy wrote on January 16, 2008 3:34 PM:
Anyone who's read Obama's books knows what he's talking about here. It's not praise for Reagan's policies, but his style of leadership. I think that Obama is right that if we want to truly change the direction of the country we need more than just a competent beurocrat.

Ben wrote on January 16, 2008 3:34 PM:
The worst night in the history of the contemporary Democratic party was when Reagan was elected in November of 1980. Not only did he take power but the Senate went Republican as well and we lost a whole generation of leadership including McGovern, Bayh, Culver and more.

This election in 2008 can be our transformational moment. The Clinton Admin was a bridge back, but a short one that left us with little in the way of permanent change. The next President needs to be a Democrat willing to take that opportunity and make change that will last for generations. While I appreciate Barack Obama's feelings on this historical perspective, these are the reasons I am supporting John Edwards.

ihatebeets wrote on January 16, 2008 3:35 PM:
Absolutely correct. Regardless of what you think about Roinald Reagan's presidency, he did bring about a huge change in America and became a Republican icon. Look at how Giuliani, Romney, et al paint themselves as the one who can best carry the mantle of St. Ronnie. I twice voted for Bill Clinton, but I don't believe he was a Progressive. This country is definitely ready for change and I think Barack Obama can do for the Democrats what Ronald Reagan did for Republicans.

Thomas McDonald, New York, NY wrote on January 16, 2008 3:38 PM:
Good Arguments

frankly0, the point is that if Reagan was an agent of transformation who inspired the country - the political cutlure as a whole - to turn in a conservative direction, Obama can be a similar kind of figure who inspires the entire country - the political culture as a whole - to move in a progressive direction. He contrasts this to Bill Clinton, who although himself a progressive at heart, did not shift the political culture of the country away from a generally conservative paradigm.

As someone still open-minded to both Hillary and Obama, I find this a very strong argument from Obama. While Hillary's contention that Obama's seemingly admitted 'hands off' style reminds too much Bush's is also a good argument. Hopefully this substantive conversation will overtake the silly and tired identity issues that have been dominating.

edit to add more

grover_rover wrote on January 16, 2008 3:39 PM:
It is actually a brilliant point he is making, Reagan really ushered in the neoconservative era, which has had the most drastic impact on our society and the world of any presidency in modern history. He is also right about Bill Clinton, because he wasn't much more than a hickup in the conservative movement. If you look at his economic policies, his support of NAFTA and globalization, and his butchering of our social assistance programs ("welfare reform"), and corporate deregulation, they are all very much in line with Reagan's agenda. I've been saying this for a long time, change does NOT mean going back to the Clinton years because even though the 90s were better than the last 7 years, Clinton was no progressive, and he did not take us in the right direction as a country.

And for those idiots, who will undoubtedly come here and say crap like "Obama wants to be the next Reagan, that is horrible, why would we want that??" I'd just like to say first, quit being stupid. Secondly, we need someone in our party to be OUR Reagan, the person who can inspire the country in OUR direction, not the opposite direction. Right now all our party has is Bill Clinton, that is the best we have managed in the last couple decades, and neither him nor Hillary can inspire, and neither him nor Hillary represent real change. The best thing the Clintons are good for is serving as placeholders, not to undo the damage of the conservatives, not to head in a fundamentally new direction, but to just slow down the fall. We need a president who can be our Reagan, someone who can be the face of change and inspire and energize our cause even after leaving the White House. Obama is the only one in this race who has a shot at being that person. He has everything going for him, whereas the Clintons have nearly everything proving that they are not the answer.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 16, 2008 3:39 PM:
This dove-tails nicely with the comment I made over on the Clinton-hand-on thread. Some folks will regard this as a "mistake," but I think that this is a smart move for Obama, just as Clinton's "hands-on" argument is a smart move for her. Clinton is running as the technocrat in this race, while Obama is running as the big-vision candidate. There are advantages to each approach, and neither candidate is necessarily stupid for taking the approach which s/he takes. We will see in a few more weeks whether more voters prefer a technocrat or a vision-guy, but given that it is not a foregone conclusion that the electorate prefers the one to the other, so it is perfectly sensible for each candidate to make a pitch that suits what each considers his/her strong points.