Rivals Criticize Obama For Reagan Comments

Democratic Presidential Hopeful Said Ronald Reagan "Changed The Trajectory Of America"

(AP)  John Edwards and Hillary Rodham Clinton criticized Barack Obama's praise of the Republican Party and Ronald Reagan - an anathema for many Democrats, particularly union members considered crucial to winning Nevada's Democratic caucuses Saturday.

Obama responded by suggesting Clinton would be a "president whose plans change with the politics of the moment" - one of his most direct critiques of the New York senator yet.

The intensity reflects what polls suggest could be a tight contest Saturday as Nevada plays its most prominent role ever in a presidential nominating campaign. Nevada was granted a coveted spot right after Iowa and New Hampshire in an attempt to bring more racial and geographic diversity into the selection.

The novelty means there isn't a reliable way to determine who is likely to turn out at caucuses across the state. In addition, nine caucuses are to be held in casinos for the first time to allow shift workers to participate on a busy holiday weekend - making the result even more unpredictable.

Obama got a boost when he won the endorsement of the Culinary Workers Union that represents 60,000 housekeepers, bartenders, waiters and other employees on the Las Vegas Strip. Then a judge dismissed an attempt to eliminate the casino caucus sites. But Clinton still holds an edge in most polls.

Edwards, his chances for the presidency diminished by losses to Obama in Iowa and Clinton in New Hampshire, did not run television ads in the state and did not plan to stay in Nevada to wait for results. His schedule Friday had him leaving to campaign in Oklahoma, Missouri and Georgia, among the more than 20 states that vote on Super Tuesday, Feb. 5.

Edwards questioned Obama's commitment to labor in his final appeal to Nevada voters - a rally with about 100 of his precinct captains in Las Vegas.

"Ronald Reagan, the man who busted unions, the man who did everything in his power to destroy the organized labor movement, the man who created a tax structure that favored the richest Americans against middle class and working families, ... we know that Ronald Reagan is not an example of change for a presidential candidate running in the Democratic Party," Edwards said.

Reagan also "was destructive to the environment by removing a lot of the regulation that existed," Edwards added in a later telephone interview with The Associated Press. "I would never use Ronald Reagan as an example of change."

Obama told the Reno Gazette-Journal editorial board Monday that "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," Obama said.

"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," Obama told the newspaper.

On Friday in Las Vegas, Clinton, responded, "That's not the way I remember the last ten to fifteen years." She said she didn't consider it a better idea to privatize Social Security, eliminate the minimum wage, undercut health benefits, shut down the government or drive the country into debt. "I think we know what needs to be done in America. And I think we're ready to do it. I'm ready to lead on day one."

Obama questioned her claim while campaigning at the University of Nevada Reno. "Senator Clinton has said she is ready to lead from day one, but it's important on day one to get it right, whether you're talking about war or you're talking about economic proposals."

Obama said Clinton recently joined his call for a tax rebate. When she initially announced her economic stimulus plan last week, she said she would consider a tax rebate in the future if the economy worsened.

"This is a larger point that has to be made," he said. "It is easy to be for policies that help working families when it's popular on the campaign trail, but the American people don't want a president whose plans change with the politics of the moment."

The Clinton campaign said there were reports of voter intimidation and confusion among Culinary Union members who support Clinton. Some union members thought the union's endorsement of Obama meant they wouldn't be allowed to caucus for Clinton, while others feared retaliation if they chose to caucus for Clinton, Clinton aides said.

"I'm afraid some people may feel that they can't come or they shouldn't come or can't support the candidate of their choice." Clinton herself said during a campaign appearance Friday in Elko, in northeast Nevada. "We know there are some unions in the south who are telling people who to caucus for and if they're not going to caucus for who they choose, don't come at all. I don't think that's right."

[ann3332]

when all this bashing each other will stop. Hillary edward and obama.Come on that enough now that is sure not the way you are going win the white house.Im definitely not impress with all that mudslinging. its stupid and very childish

[rowdytexan2]

Posted by realpatriot1 at 11:35 PM : Jan 20, 2008

Obama has only been in the Senate TWO years! He has not has opportunity to unite anybody! He''s helped promote SIX pieces of legislation! And his voting record is really iffy!

GO READ UP!

[rowdytexan2]

Posted by realpatriot1 at 08:35 AM : Jan 20, 2008

"Can Hillary take the heat when the republicans start calling her a closet Lesbian who stayed with her cheating husband because she was getting some elsewhere?"

You forget, she''s been taking this heat for YEARS! And all of you who promite this scum with your filthy minds are doing more harm to this country than the polliticians themselves can!

"Can she stand the heat of voting to give Bush a blank check on Iraq, not reading the NIE hwile sitting on the Intelligence Committee, selling out to more lobbyists than any other candidate, pilfering the FBI files of private citizens long before Bush sought any wireless wiretaps,etc.?"

Against a republican? Sure she can! She never gave Bush a blank check. As I said last night, you need to read up! You keep putting with BUSH did onto Hillary! Where is your logic?

[realpatriot1]

maris01,

I tried to copy and paste what you posted but it wouldn''t come up. If you have something to say to us why don''t you just say it?

OBAMA SUPPORTERS VIEW THIS ARTICLE: http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/07/despite-rhetori.html?cid=97943134#comments

[realpatriot1]

Flangesqueal,

Obama has united people across party lines, something that Hillary never will be able to do. That''s why so many independents and moderate Republicans are willing to vote for him and not for Hillary.

People like you only care about keeping the division going by sticking it to the Republicans but all you''re really doing is giving the GOP new life.

[tazmjam]

pp2
Bill Clinton I guess inherited a boom economy (due to the internet)? So he was able to offer tax cuts AND (still!) balance the budget. (and all the rest)
Posted by SamTheTVCat

The economy was recovering from a recession when he took office. His tax cuts were for the middle class and poor. (These type of tax cut do end up back in the US economy) Under his administration the middle class benefited for once. During his administration 22 million jobs were created 90% of them were in the private sector. The poverty rate dropped. We had a budget surplus and the federal debt was going down.
As for NAFTA I never really decided if the good outweighs the bad. We have lost a lot of manufacturing jobs. Unfortunately we do need some manufacturing done in 3rd world countries to keep prices down. However, a lot of the companies that left was making a profit in the US and left for easy larger profits. NAFTA did not force them to leave the country, corporate greed did.
Spending money to create jobs is fine as a short-term solution. But allowing the debt to increase rapidly over the long-term as the last 3 Repub. Presidents have is not. Interest payments on our debt are mandatory just like the entitlement programs. Everyone is complaining about how much S.S. will cost in 15 years, well at this rate our interest payments will be larger.
I still don%u2019t know where Obama is coming from. Perhaps he meant to say: Republicans were the party of bad ideas over the last 10-15 years.

[tazmjam]

pp1
You dont just judge the state of the economy based on the deficit.(and all the rest)
Posted by SamTheTVCat

No you don%u2019t, but your example doesn%u2019t float. Neither administration had a balanced budget, the GNP increased under Reagan but so did our debt and not proportionally(doubled as % of GNP) Those tax cuts benefited the wealthy and big corporations much more than they did the average person. The gulf between the rich and the poor widened considerably during the Reagan years. The annual growth rate was not large enough to pay for the tax cuts so the deficit grew,a lot. Of the 16 million jobs created = were in the public sector. The country pays for public sector jobs. Inflation decreased in part because the Feds raised the interest rate at the end of Carters admin. and this threw us into a recession. A recession will lower inflation.
An across the board tax cut was needed to jump start the economy but it should have been a temporary measure, especially when it became obvious the growth rate would not pay for it. Reagan, Bush Sr. and GWB all had or have supply side economic policies.
This trickle down economic policy was stupid then and is even dumber now. The only way it really could work is if we lived in a bubble. With a worldwide economy, giving big tax breaks to big business and the rich in the hopes that they will invest and spend in the USA creating jobs etc. is unrealistic at best. They can just as easily invest in foreign interest.

[l00ker]

Barack won 80% percent of the black vote in Nevada, so he better win at least that much in South Carolina.

[l00ker]

Barack has spent more time in "the hood" helping the poor than Hillary, Bill, and O Bob "step n fetchit" Johnson has ever did.

[dmgenet]

This is not mud but good old politics. The electorate need to read all of the information to make the correct decision for themselves. Democracy is not black and white thinking nor is it as easy as a bumper sticker. Bush''s administration has, again, proven that.

[realpatriot1]

Rowdytexan,

It sounds like you''re the one who can''t take the heat!
It wasn''t Obama alone who took issue with her condescending and disrespectful remarks, it was quite a few unaffiliated democrats and even some of her own supporters.

We can take the heat of the Clinton campaign calling their opponent a closet Muslim and drug pusher and accusing him of shucking and jiving.

Can Hillary take the heat when the republicans start calling her a closet Lesbian who stayed with her cheating husband because she was getting some elsewhere? Can she stand the heat of voting to give Bush a blank check on Iraq, not reading the NIE hwile sitting on the Intelligence Committee, selling out to more lobbyists than any other candidate, pilfering the FBI files of private citizens long before Bush sought any wireless wiretaps,etc.?

johnfrost,

Obama said he used pot and coke. He did not say he SOLD drugs, you must be listening to the Clinton campaign(they lie).

[rowdytexan2]

Posted by likeitis5050 at 12:59 PM : Jan 19, 2008

Oh, horse hockey! Just last week the little street punk tried to make out like Hillary and Bill were putting down Dr. King!

If the little street punk can''t take the heat, get out of the kitchen!

Like I said, he''d make a good preacher, because all he''d have to do is preach. The little street punk hasn''t a clue about running this country, nor dealing with a world that is about ready to jump on our behinds!

[rowdytexan2]

Posted by donyang1971 at 07:38 PM : Jan 19, 2008

Good God! Go pimp yourself somewhere youngun! I''ve already left my money to the SPCA!

[elsylee28]

I found an awesome article called "Reagan Babies" at www.SAVAGEPOLITICS.com. Here is an excerpt:
"Last Tuesday was a big day for Republican Candidate Mitt Romney for he came out ahead of all others in Michigan''s Primary election. To many this was not a surprise since his father was elected thrice Governor of Michigan in the 60''s and, by many citizens'' standards, was good for the State. This of course creates a very interesting power struggle within the Grand Old Party since Huckabee and McCain had already won their own primaries, making this race, as of Today, a three-way race. Of course, we have Thompson looking to catch South Carolina''s ticket and Rudy Giuliani aiming to do the same in Florida. This last candidate has basically bet all his chips on winning Florida, if he does not win said State, he might as well never had run for the nomination. For many conservatives, this situation within the Republican pool of candidates is both embarrassing and aggravating. Here we have a process which basically tends to eliminate their most ideologically consonant candidates right from the beginning, since they depend on primaries and caucuses in predominantly "blue" ..."Find the rest of the article at www.SAVAGEPOLITICS.com

[l00ker]

Clintons, Machiavellians that they are, are making a big fuss about this spanish lanquage ad and associating it with Barack, but they are up in arms about Hillary''s campaign being associated with that teacher''s union law suit. Bill raging almost like a vein splitting slobbering mad man even.

[likeitis5050]

That''''s the meaning of what he said and Clinton & Edwards are desparately reaching to create an issue where none exists.


Posted by realpatriot1

TRUE!! And if one looks at the history of their politics they discover this is the framework for how they approach competition, in general. They deflect attention from their own dirty backyards onto the few fallen leaves in the opponent''s front yard. This is the only way they can secure wins. It''s pathetic...and now everytime anything is said, regardless the core of truth involved, about Hillary, she cries foul. Hillary is just rotten eggs. Edwards is just ''do as I say, not as I do''. Neither amounts to anything near what they claim to have to offer.

[jgriffith379]

Edwards knocking on Reagan is laughable. The statements that Reagan hurt the middle class and %u201Cnot an example of change%u201D is pathetic. America prior to Reagan:

- 7 million Americans were unemployed.
- 2 of the worst years of inflation in 60 years
- 13% inflation rate.
- Family income dropped due to the highest taxes in our history.
- Verge of a major recession.
- Our enemies did not respect us; Soviets refused to negotiate.
- Disarmament was considered nobler than protection
- %u201CProgressive%u201D values were favored & social values were dictated by a small, vocal minority.
- US losses in technology and global markets due to excessive government regulation, & high taxes that devoured capital.

Reagan Years:

- Reagan''s economic policies created 17 million new jobs. 1/4 of them were created in 68 consecutive months. Black unemployment was cut in half.
- Inflation rate decreased to 4.4%.
- Family income rose 12%.
- Longest & strongest peacetime prosperity in US history
- Best peacetime relationship with the Soviet Union in US history.
- The %u201Cline was drawn%u201D in Grenada, Libya, Afghanistan, and the Persian Gulf, - no countries fell to communism during the Reagan era.
- The U.S. military was refurbished & strengthened.
- Emphasis on a strong family unit; and the development of family-oriented public policy.

Note to John Edwards: talk about things you know, like hair care & hair care products.

[eyzwidopn]

Anyone who doesn''t recognize that the Democratic Party has been playing catch up with the Republicans since 1980 on captivating the American people''s imagination/interest with "ideas," "themes," "platform," is living in never-never-land. The party was directionless and "flat," which is why the country saw a 12-year Republican run and this most unfortunate 8-year run.

Obama was speaking to that fact and once again, he was giving a historical perspective on how the "times" when JFK and Reagan ran were ready for the "bold new ideas" message that they offered. Obama did not embrace Reagan''s policies but had the partisan-less objectivity to fairly assess why Reagan was able to successfully push them. btw, it''s funny how JFK has been left out of the comparison Obama was making.

If you have the ability to be objective, then you know that Bill Clinton ran as a centrist who adopted many Republican themes, preventing Bush Sr. from attacking him on many fronts. So, although it was a great ploy that produced 8-yearts in the WH, Clinton was hardly presenting "new ideas."

[l00ker]

You have to include alcoholics in that too, especially after what this drunk in the White House has done to the country.