We've written previously about Bill Clinton's questionable claims about Iraq and voting in Las Vegas. But with Obama now making an issue of the ex-president's truthfulness, it's worth catching up with the latest subject of disagreement -- Obama's comments last week about Ronald Reagan.
In Buffalo last night, Clinton said Obama “said President Reagan was the engine of innovation and did more, had a more lasting impact on America than I did. And then the next day he said, 'In the 90s the good ideas came out from the Republicans.' Which it'll be costly maybe down the road for him because it's factually not accurate.”
The real problem for Obama, however, may be that he ticked off Bill by putting him in the same category as Richard Nixon, and that as a result ex-president Clinton is spreading a version of what Obama said that is itself "factually not accurate." Here are Obama's actual quotes, via MSNBC:
"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."
And: "I think Kennedy, twenty years earlier, moved the country in a fundamentally different direction. So I think a lot of it just has to do with the times. I think we’re in one of those times right now. Where people feel like things as they are going aren’t working. We’re bogged down in the same arguments that we’ve been having, and they’re not useful. And, you know, the Republican approach, I think, has played itself out. I think it’s fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last ten, fifteen years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom."
Notice that Obama does not say the Republicans had "good ideas," he just says they had ideas that were "challenging conventional wisdom." Bill Clinton just made up the word "good" because it made what Obama actually said sound worse, and at the same time he left out the comment that the "Republican approach, I think, has played itself out."
If there's a real political problem with the Obama quote it's the time frame of "ten, fifteen" years, which post-dates Reagan; if he had said 30 years, he would just be providing the same explanation dozens of scholars and Democrats have posited for why the GOP has won 5 of 7 presidential elections since 1980.
See here: Republicans "organized their approach to politics around ideas: big concepts, ambitious goals, principles, a real public philosophy.Liberals and Democrats, on the other hand, often spoke in a language of government programs..."
Comments (3)
Thank you for setting the record straight. With Bill's accusations concerning Senator Obama's consistent position on the war, Bill leaves out the LAST sentence of Obama's statement to the NY Times:"I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don't know.WHAT I KNOW IS THAT FROM MY VANTAGE POINT, THE CASE WAS NOT MADE." To further support his argument Bill criticizes Obama for voting to fund the war when Hillary did the same.
When you exaggerate the facts to the point of being mis-leading it becomes dishonesty. Senator Obama does not do this because it violates his principles.Show me one specific example where he "cherry picks" one sentence out of an entire statement to mislead.
Someone needs to remind Bill Clinton he lost his credibility when he was impeached for LYING to congress.I still believe that cost Al Gore the election.This was an embarrassment to our country and the Democratic Party. My Republican friends still rub it in.If we want honesty, why is the media afraid to discuss this
The Clinton's behavior creates voter apathy.I know George Bush is incompetent, but do we have to replace one dishonest administration for another dishonest administration? Is there an alternative?
We're seeing large-mindedness vs. small-mindedness here. Arguments can be made out of anything if one wishes, often merely for the sake of argument. Or one can choose to consider context and work off of ones owns merits.
Let's be clear. Both Obama and Hilary are hitting under the belt at this point. Does it really matter whether Obama said Republicans had good ideas or whether they "were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last ten, fifteen years.". It's strange to me that it's reported that Ted Kennedy has accused Bill Clinton of being divisive to the party when Obama is afraid to associate himself to any modern democrat. I know, Hilary has her flaws to, but it seems that there are enough people out there to remind us all of those. I'm just weary about the fact that no one seems to be willing to call out Obama's faults. And btw - am I missing something? What are the specifics of his campaign anyway......waxing philosophic about wanting vague change, is opportunistic and easy. What specifc change is the man promising to focus on? At least with Hilary, I know specifically what she wants to accomplish. And based on her track record, a real track record, in Washington, I can surmise her odds at getting something done. I just can't say the same for Obama. And you know, I'd like to. I want to love him and jump on the bandwagon too. But I just need more facts.