When Clinton Praised Reagan

Still more from the vault. E.J. Dionne recalls a time when an up-and-coming Democratic pol with national aspirations had some nice things to say about Ronald Reagan and his ideas:

It was a remarkable moment: A young, free-thinking presidential hopeful named Bill Clinton sat down with reporters and editors at The Post in October 1991 and started saying things most Democrats wouldn’t allow to pass their lips.

Ronald Reagan, Clinton said, deserved credit for winning the Cold War. He praised Reagan’s “rhetoric in defense of freedom” and his role in “advancing the idea that communism could be rolled back.”

“The idea that we were going to stand firm and reaffirm our containment strategy, and the fact that we forced them to spend even more when they were already producing a Cadillac defense system and a dinosaur economy, I think it hastened their undoing,” Clinton declared.

Clinton was careful to add that the Reagan military program included “a lot of wasted money and unnecessary expenditure,” but the signal had been sent: Clinton was willing to move beyond “the brain-dead politics in both parties,” as he so often put it.

His apostasy was widely noticed. The Memphis Commercial Appeal praised Clinton a few days later for daring to “set himself apart from the pack of contenders for the Democratic nomination by saying something nice about Ronald Reagan.” Clinton’s “readiness to defy his party’s prevailing Reaganphobia . . .,” the paper wrote, “is one reason he’s a candidate to watch.”

Of course, this whole flap–and what really set off Bill Clinton–has never been about what Obama said about Reagan; it has really been about what Obama suggested about Bill Clinton when he said, “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.”

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    William B. Plowman / NBC

    Why Can’t President Obama Get Surrogates You Can Believe In?

    It’s one of the great unexplained frustrations of the Obama presidency: Perhaps the most telegenic political leader of his generation has not been able to recruit a bench of top-flight, telegenic spinmeisters–called “surrogates” in the business–to fight his battles on cable and network television.

    His top two economic spokespeople during the great decline of 2009–Larry Summers and Tim Geithner–had minds that chafed at the remedial logic of televised debate and voices that mumbled through talking points. His most able economic debater, Austan Goolsbee, had some success but then gave up the White House to return to Chicago and the academy. His top political spokesmen–Robert Gibbs, David Axelrod and David Plouffe–deliver a punch as hard as anyone, but for the same reason rarely elevated the President’s case beyond the ring. His Vice President, Joe Biden, hits his marks, but only when he is on message. The DNC chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, struggles to transcend her Congressional roots. And Bill Daley, the President’s erstwhile chief of staff who was hired in large part because of his surrogate chops, faded from the scene after few unremarkable Sunday show appearances.

    Lewis Eisenberg, Major Romney Donor, Accuses Obama Of Demonizing Wall StreetHuffPost Politics

    Obama’s Health Care Box

    Alec MacGillis of the NewRepublic has been doing some fine campaign reporting this year and here he offers a smart look at what may be the most important state of all in November–Ohio. The most striking part of the piece for me, one that illuminates an essential conundrum for Barack Obama, occurs when MacGillis goes door to door with a labor-affiliated political organizer in a white working-class neighborhood in Columbus:

blog comments powered by Disqus