Over at Frameshop, Jeff Feldman sees rights through:
"the problem with Obama's comment about Reagan was less that he praised the icon of the Republican Party than the inability of anyone to understand what Obama meant.
When questioned by Clinton on his Reagan comment, Obama clarified by saying that Reagan should be noted for his ability to convince Democrats to vote for policies they did not think initially that they would support. The clarification only made the original statement more vague."
Exactly why Obama's self-comparison to Reagan was bogus. He's a great orator, but he's not a Great Communicator. Voters (both for and against the Gipper) knew exactly what Reagan meant ('welfare queens, evil empires') -- which is why so many bloggers saw through Obama's doe-eyed distortion of what Reagan stood for.
And if no one understands what Obama means, how would this 'vision' thing work out in his figurehead presidency? He gives a vision (doe-eyed platitude) to his advisors (the Democratic equivalents of Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz --ambitious much?). Then the advisors execute his incomprehensible vision according to their own ambitions and agendas.