Obama's Strategy: Emulate Reagan

Awash in money and publicity but behind in the polls, Barack Obama, advisers say, is planning a classic insurgent's campaign to wrest the Democratic nomination from Hillary Rodham Clinton — one that relies on a surge of momentum from early-state victories and faces a make-or-break test in the South Carolina primary.

Obama is touting a new and unconventional brand of grass-roots politics, but his strategy borrows from precedents set by a previous generation of Democrats such as Jimmy Carter and Gary Hart. His advisers also invoke as inspiration a surprising Republican: Ronald Reagan.

"Now, it is blasphemy for Democrats," Obama pollster Cornell Belcher said of Reagan, "but that hope and optimism that was Ronald Reagan" allowed him to "transcend" ideological divisions within his own party and the general electorate.

The upbeat message, Obama advisers say, won't prevent the candidate from stepping up both veiled and explicit contrasts with Clinton, who he hopes to portray as an old-hat conventional politician whose varied positions on the Iraq war reflect calculation rather than leadership.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/25/politics/politico/main3095922.shtml

This isn't the media doing it. This is the campaign's full fledged embrace and I think it is a mistake to do so in the primaries. You can run on Obama's ability to bring about bipartisan compromise without invoking Reagan.

But the question is will this hurt him with Dem primary voters?

:rofl:

=="Now, it is blasphemy for Democrats," Obama pollster Cornell Belcher said of Reagan, "but that hope and optimism that was Ronald Reagan" allowed him to "transcend" ideological divisions within his own party and the general electorate.==

:rofl:

Those who would skewer Obama's overtures to moderate Republicans by invoking Reagan periodically have their heads firmly planted in the sand. Fact is, Reagan was to the left of the current neocon crowd, and many voters who still have fond memories of him are up for grabs in 2008. Want to create a new Democratic majority? That's where the gold is.

I agree with the OP that Reagan is a loathsome figure for many, many primary voters (particularly black voters), and Obama shouldn't plant any wet kisses on a bust of the Gipper for the cameras. But, in taking that risk, Obama is also showing his willingness to play by unorthodox rules, which fits with his call for change and to move away from polarization by party.

for an occasional nod to Reagan? Doubtful. She has her eye on the GE as well.

and when the 2007-08 campaign season goes by without Hillary saying nary a negative word about Ronald Reagan, you'll know that her polling said there's no market in that.

But I do think that it is an unwise talking point. One that if Hillary doesn't useagainst him, will certainly be brought up by others(Edwards being a likely attacker).

The truth is that Obama cannot govern as a progressive if he truly seeks "unity" (remember, a certain candidate in 2000 used "changing the tone in Washington" and "unity" to win too). Who would we have to "unite" with anyway? Republicans. He will have to go beyond mere rhetorical nods to the Republicans and surrender some progressive ideas in order to achieve consensus on legislation. It is a shame there is no discussion of what achieving a semblance of "unity" (there has never been real "unity" in the U.S. since Lexington and Concord...) will actually require.

In short, "unity" will require splitting the difference between progressives and conservatives on issues. Sound familiar? ;)

:hi:

And ripping Ronnie is risky business with a lot of those folks. Remember the Helms comparison Elizabeth floated? Doubtful.

Edwards' support among Latinos (12%) mirrors his support among the general population except that he is doing this with 40% name ID, not the 81% name ID he has with the general public (meaning that his Latino support will rise by default as his name ID rises). A recent poll of Arabs had Edwards at 10%, on par with his national average. I have yet to see how he is doing among Asians and Native Americans but he presumably is doing as well among them as he is among whites, Latinos, and Arabs. Only among African-Americans is he struggling right now.

But I'm not sure that Edwards thinks in those tactical terms.

After all he went after Obama in the 1st debate about the funding giving Obama a meatball to smack out of the park.

In fact many Edwards moves are just plain strange.

You have a candidate who is lampooned as girly and the campaign decides to have his wife come out and call him the feminist candidate.

Yeah, I know, it was an oversight...

I think Edwards is a good man and will work hard for him should he secure the nomination.

But sometimes his campaign just makes me shake my head.

For every good idea like the Small Change for Big Change fundraising events, you have your share of stinkers.

==Fact is, Reagan was to the left of the current neocon crowd==

Reagan was a disaster. Reagan turned the country to the right. He was the conservative version of FDR. We are still paying the price for the damage Reagan did.

==Obama is also showing his willingness to play by unorthodox rules, which fits with his call for change and to move away from polarization by party.==

Playing for the general election is about as orthodox as it gets. ;)

I reject this sacred notion that we need to stop being Democrats, stop seeing why the Republicans are wrong and join hands with them and sing Kumbaya. We are Democrats. We have fundamental differences with Republicans. We should not sacrifice our principles on the altar of compromise because of any obsession with consensus.

some things right on foreign policy. No reason not to take those lessons and run with them. The thing I like best about Obama is that he's pragmatic, and won't dismiss good ideas or lessons just because they might have come from a Republican. That's the kind of open-minded, non-hyperpartisan, outside-the-box thinking that we need.

The summit meetings were carried out under brinkmanship conditions...which Reagan himself created.

Beirut, Nicaragua, Grenada, Iraq, Iran etc etc

You want to talk about speaking with your enemies, invoke JFK.

"The thing I like best about Obama is that he's pragmatic, and won't dismiss good ideas or lessons just because they might have come from a Republican."

I like that about him too. There are just far better ways to illustrate that.

have called the Soviet Union "the evil empire", but was willing to talk with them directly. He was calling out the Bush administration for refusing to do the same with Syria and Iran. Reagan played that aspect right--talked tough, but always kept the willingness to communicate.

:rofl:

He's not as divisive as the Goldwater Girl.

you know, that "golden city on the hill" crap. Not his policies.

Makes my job easier. :rofl:

Evil wrapped in the guise of chuckling elder uncle. Someone who said and did some of the most painful and meanest things, but did it with a smile and a chuckle.

Obama will NEVER win the primary if he continues to wax nostalgic about Reagan. Perhaps too much University of Chicago has warped his brain. Christ he would be run out of his neighborhood on the south side of Chicago on a rail if he keeps invoking Reagan.

I don't like Obama at all. Having grown up in Chicago and watched his career since the early 90's, I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him. He has no chance of getting the nomination and even less of a chance of winning the general election.

I think anyone who wants the White House should emulate a guy who ran and won, convincingly, in two national elections. Regardless of his ideology or how he actually governed while in office.

Democrats. Obama is NOT emulating Reagan. He used a damn example of Reagan talking to the Soviet Union.