but maybe Obama chose Reagan (and Nixon and Clinton) in his comment because many voters personally lived through and experienced what he is talking about (whether the point that a message of "optimism" appeals to voters be valid or not), while many people would have to resort to what they learned from books about similar experiences from FDR and TR and Lincoln and Jackson (and so forth)?

Not many took US History AP or Government AP in high school, not to mention further classes in college, to have developed much of a knowledge base about these other Presidents, and few people will go hit Wikipedia upon seeing Obama's comments should he referred to something they did not know. I certainly understand why Obama used the example, and what he said does not differ much from how the standard high school level textbooks (whether you agree with them or not) are written either.

He wants to attract the republicans and indeps who are extremely fond of Reagan so that he can offset votes he is not getting from actual democrats (not the DINOs who are defending his statements). Because as he found out in IA and NH, actual partisan democrats are not exactly his constituency and dont want the kind of bipartisanship that he wants.

And of course in the process diss Bill C and diminish his stature while he is campaigning for hillary.

looking for Presidents to compare himself to.  He didn't go shopping Presidents.  He has always admired RR.  He wrote it in his book --- The Audacity of Hope.  He is speaking from the heart here.

This was my point in another diary about his desire to "unite" republican and democrats.  

I used the analogy of a batterer in a marriage. There is a time for reconciliation but not right after being battered. And sometimes maybe "never". Bottom line is that that since the Reagan years there has been a shadow government led by the likes of Cheney and Hadley. They have, during republican lead administration, worked to get more power, to take advantage of the middle class, to make the rich more wealthy, and specifically to make money off the oil cartels. They push military solutions and violate our constitution and laws. (watergate, Iran Contra, Plamegate, Fisa, torture). These people have caused the deaths of many. They have no remorse. That's about as "batterer" in behavior as you can get. Sociopathic.

You don't negotiate with sociopaths. No, not all republicans are, but first, before we can sort that out we have to focus on accountability. While we are focusing on accountability we will find many republicans (Specter) who may have abetted and enabled illegal behavior.

Right after you get beaten by an abusive spouse is not the time to focus on reconciliation. The focus should be boundaries. Enforcing boundaries, and accountability. THEN reconciliation with those folks who are clean of the criminal behavior or who help to prosecute the criminal behavior.

Obama is picking the wrong message at the wrong time. That shows a lack of judgment to me. Do I think he's the anti christ? No, I think he's naive and that he does need more experience before he serves as MY pres. I think he will get there, but he's not there...today.

George W. Bush and pretending he brought us together and fought the "evil-doers" in Iraq.  Reinforcing a prenicious and evil Republican frame.

When you rewrite history to cover up the crimes of Reagan, you commit an immoral act.

Silcence is Betrayal.  We must speak up.

Obama was either being cynical or ignorant of history.  Take yer pick.

Maybe I read this too fast, but the diarist claims:

And in the middle of all of this the economy boomed, I went to high school and then college and I have to say, even for the eighties I had really big hair. And skin tight jeans. (Ah, to have my pre-mommy body back again).

Must have been nice to "boom" under Ronnie, but the 80's weren't boom-time for working class Americans.  My husband grew up in Iowa during the 80's and can tell you about getting a pair of glasses for his birthday because that is all his working-class, union dad could afford. My family was eating government cheese at the time.

So it might be o.k. for a Nabraskan lucky enough to go to an ivy league university and travel to Russia during the 80's to claim the economy was booming at the time, but for the majority of working class Americans, those were hard fucking times.

To claim otherwise is to buy into the same traditional media bullshit narative I thought this website strived to debunk.

if he had spoken about reagan -'80 being the consequence of Proposition 13, (which saved the state of California's property owners over seven billion dollars in the first year of its enactment alone), he could have gotten away with it, but for millions of us it was not simply change but personal disaster.

btw granny points out what obama missed and mario como understood clearly in his 1984 democratic party convention keynote speech called

"a tale of two cities."

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/...

those of us who saw cuomo live understand how awful obama's reagan qua change remark actually is to those who lived through those years.

Just as Eisenhower represented the Republican Party's (temporary, it turned out) acceptance of the legacy of the New Deal, so Clinton's presidency indicated the Democratic acceptance of the legacy of Reagan. But so far at least, that acceptance seems to be longer lasting than the Republican acceptance of the New Deal.

Clinton prioritized budget balancing (long a conservative goal, if one generally honored in the breech) and did as much, if not more, to dismantle the legacy of the New Deal than Reagan did: destroying our modest welfare safety net, putting Social Security privatization on the table, overturning the Glass-Steagall laws that limited the ability of banks to speculate, and so forth.

Clinton moved the Democratic Party decisively rightward.

Obama's statement is simply confirming a basic fact about the leadership of the Democratic Party for at least the last fifteen years.  For all the nitpicking about which of the big two (or even big three) Democratic candidates is the more progressive, they are all heirs to the legacy of Bill Clinton. And the one presidential candidate who represents the remaining progressive rump of the Democratic Party, Dennis Kucinich, is getting nowhere, even among progressive Democrats.

Obama's statement is only surprising for its candor about these things. And it's only wrong in that it explains the success of Reaganism entirely in terms of the desires of the American people. In fact, the transformation of US politics over the last couple generations involve not simply popular feelings, but also the desires and power of political elites.

With few exceptions, every national politician is compelled to genuflect before the memory of Reagan. Obama could have spun gold from even this legacy, however. It wasn't just Reagan's policies that were void of compassion. Reagan's zeigiest was the ethics of the old west: every man for himself, rugged self reliance, don't feel guilty for your affluence while your fellow man is suffering. Obama could have pointed out Reagan's excesses in ethics. I know he could have done this without pissing on Reagan. He missed his opportunity and sounded like another joe trying to grab the gold ring.

I was in Jr. High when Reagan took office.

We spent several years expecting Dad to lose his job at any point in time as the friends left...relocated to NM and other parts as he chopped apart the DOEnergy and sent parents hither and yon.

However, he did come across as this sunny, pleasant guy who could get things done.

It was just truly awful what he got done. But most people don't remember it that way. I see it kind of like how a lot of White people, straight people, anyone who fit the image of the all American family, thought the 1950's were great. Well, they were, IF you were White and straight. But if you were Black or Native American or Hispanic or Gay or any kind of different your life pretty much sucked in a lot of ways.

The same with the Reagan years. They were great for a lot of (mostly White) people. And the media and a whole lot of everyday people still act like it was so wonderful for everyone. Most people still see it as this great new world he created.

So I don't blame Obama a bit for playing on that. He got totally fucked over on the race thing this past week. Most white people don't want to see that racism is still a problem here in this country. They want to believe that things are so much better now. Most of the people on Kos are the exception. I have probably taked with 10 people about the Clinton race thing and not one of them sees it as her attempting to use race baiting to win the election. In their minds it was either those Black people being oversensitive or the media making stuff up. And they are all frikkin White. Obama has to appeal to these people. And I'm not so sure people of color see the Reagan years as much worse or better than other Presidents. I don't think a lot of us think about the Reagan years at all. So I don't think Obama bringing them up with the voters is going to hurt him in the minority communities. Sure we all remember the welfare queen shit, but Clinton played that game too. It's not like we didn't know that that is what a whole lot of white people thought of us. After the race baiting the Clinton campaign got away with, as far as I am concerned Obama can say whatever the hell he wants about Reagan. Let him say what he has too. From my point of view he earned that right after the bullshit that happened this past week and how the media and Clinton got away with it. Let Obama play now.