Even when she lies.

Obama needs to be tougher. He can't keep saying that his critics are being too harsh or unfair, etc. In the general election, no one is going to call the Republicans to tell them to dial back the criticisms, or if Emanuel and Kennedy do, I think the Republican will comply about as well as the Clintons... or probably less.

Obama needs to answer these charges, not say they are unfair. That will make him the stronger candidate.

I think it's ironic that HR Clinton has tried to link Obama to Reagan, given that the Clintons are, without a doubt, the most Democrat-in-name-only candidates out there. Bill Clinton earned the ire of the GOP by outflanking them on a variety of their own issues, his oft-cited "Third Way" that rejected classic Democratic meat-and-potatoes, bricks-and-mortar politics in favor of the magic of triangulation and finger-in-the-windism, and I see no reason why HR Clinton will deviate from that formula.

So, if Obama admires Reagan's commitment to his (admittedly bad) ideas and his success in attaining them, that's sort of illuminating, relative to the cynical politics-of-the-moment, fake Democratic posturing of the Clintons. If anything, bizarrely enough, Clinton's trying to tar Obama with the Reagan-lover brush is very, well, Republican in its oversimplification and innuendo. It's a good preview of what Obama will have to go up against if he manages to win the nomination -- nothing like Republican Lite as a warm-up against the real deal, so I guess the Clintonite attacks aren't totally useless.

If Obama is able to articulate a way forward through hope, instead of through fear and despair, well, more power to him. I think it's curious that, rather than invoking some alternative hopeful vision, the Clintons have gone on the attack, whether through tears or red-faced Bill Clinton's blustering.

That's because they don't offer hope; they just offer another flavor of despair. You really see how threatening hope is to the status quo, and how much despair and fear are central to post-9/11 American thinking, and why hope even in the face of all of the problems we're saddled with really does show a way out of the despair of the 60s, when so much went so wrong (or as Peter Fonda so sagely put it in Easy Rider: "We blew it.")

Obama can't.

Here endeth the lesson.

Its taken out of context (as you stated it was tailored to a specific audience here a conservative newspaper)

The entire quote is not given (as Bill has decried about his fantasy statement)

Its hypocritical: Good or bad the republican agenda has been the dominant agenda in the country. During the Clinton's office years, before and after. In fact parts of that agenda were advanced under the Clinton white house.

So again the Clinton campaign has distorted the truth and used sly innuendo to advance their aims whats new right?

On to Obama,

He does need to stop with all the complaining and step up. Although i do not agree with this whole, "Hillary will toughen him up" mentality that seems to keep coming out up he does need to get with the program and do what he needs to do to win or sit down.

I dont think the ad is harsh tough towards Obama. It is erroneous and doesnt present the whole picture.

Obama can't have it both ways. If his campaign is "the campaign of hope and change", one can only assume the future he hopes for and the changes he promises are positive in nature. When he says "the Republican party was the party of ideas", the listener is left to assume they were good and effective ideas unless explicitly disabused of that notion. The opposite is true. As Joan points out, within the context of this interview other glowing words such as "entrepreneurship" and "dynamism" punctuate the narrative.

If Barack Obama is cynical enough to surrender this critical historical debate in order to curry an endorsement from a conservative newspaper, he deserves the firestorm of criticism coming his way. Like it or not, one of the strong points the democrats have to run on will be the 8 years of prosperity during Bill Clinton's administration. That narrative should not become a casualty in order to win the nomination.

We need to have a place where materially correct and fair information is the only type allowable. My group is starting an online debating forum for the 2008 elections on foreign policy issues--check us out at : Secureamericachallenge.org!

I'm on record as an Obama supporter & campaign contributor. I do not like his comments on Reagan & I have read the entire interview.

I wish the Senator, during one of his paens to bipartisanship, would catalog some of the ways that the other side has basically shat on & laughed at the term 'bipartisanship'.

Bipartisanship (IMO) is a two way street & I have seen NOTHING in the last 7 years where the Republicans have compromised in any meaningful way.

If Shooter or Elephantman (or some other Rep. goon) can come up with any, I'd like to hear their examples (and refraining from sending all us DFHs to Gitmo does not count).

You need the middle to win the presidency. If Hillary is the nominee, get ready for president McCain.

Of course Reagan changed the trajectory of politics, and the Dems have never had any real ideas in contrast. Just remember the campaigns of Mondale and Dukakis. Now I would also add that is when the US took the wrong turn. Clinton simply had shopping lists of things to do for State of the Union speeches, triangulated shamelessly, and had no core beliefs except to get elected. He even saw to the execution of a retarded convict to up his standing with the right in the 1992 election.

Thank you Joan. I have been beating my head about why everyone is just listening to the quotes and they did not watch the whole interview. Also, there is an interview there with Hillary. I think they make great side by side comparisons.

The part that did get to me, was the "excesses of the 60's and 70s" and the battles of that period. Yes, Senator, we are still fighting those battles if you did not notice.

Frankly, I did not like the last part where he talks about his running mate: " oh, someone with economics background, someone with military" Gee, those are called cabinet posts. This is not co presidency. I don't like the delegator, and no folks, you may think its funny, but it does matter when he loses papers, the Osama memo from the FBI was a paper, the Abu Ghirab report was a paper. I want someone who will read this stuff, no rely on someone to do it for them and then say he did not know.

Joan thank you for the clarity.