I saw Obama's speech and the context of it is clearly positive about Ronald Reagan and the party of ideas. In that same sentence he managed to discount everything Bill Clinton did as president.

Obama does give beautiful speeches, but someone else is writing those for him. When he is on his own he misspeaks and Hilary has an obligation to call him on it.

Besides which, it's a defense that basically admits the attack is right.  Hey, the Republicans really were the party of ideas for the last decade and I'm not the only one who thinks so!  That is not how he wins this argument.  He'll be reduced to fighting over whether the Republican party is the party of ideas and taking the position that they are in a democratic primary.  How is that a good thing for Obama?

When the Reagan thing broke, I thought it would be a talking point for a couple of days.  Clinton would hit him for it, he'd say something that cleaned it all up, and it would be over.  The fact that it isn't is more worrisome, frankly, than the original remarks.  Why weren't he or his campaign able to cut this thing off a week ago?  It is unbelievable to me that he's still getting hit over this.

Honestly, I don't know which is worse, the inability of the Obama campaign to put to rest this entire discussion or the lame advice he's getting from progressive writers like Greg Sargent.  Because when I read stuff like the Moynihan post, I know why the Republicans have been able to paint the Democrats as whiny weak losers - Democrats fight it with lame crap like this.  

Notice how Clinton didn't even discuss Walmart at the debate.  Instead she threw Rezko back at him - changing the topic and raising the stakes.  That's how you win.    

What's happened there is similar to what's happened at KOS and Huffington: the Obama acolytes so dominate the comment threads--and spew so much anti-Clinton venom--that eventually (if not necessarily eagerly) the blog-masters, start to resemble certain politicians:  they forswear any tempatation to lead and simply reflect their constituents.

In the past few weeks, all three of those blogs have repeatedly front-paged items that encourage the trashing of Senator Clinton and the glorification of Senator Obama.   That's fine, it's a free country, but let's not pretend that it isn't happening.

As to the dispute you've been discussing here-Obama's remarks about Reagan and the Republican Party--for the clearest (and briefest) analysis, you might try the Daily Howler of 1/23/2008:

http://www.dailyhowler.com/

Senator Obama is very clever; sometimes--more often than his admirers can admit--he's too clever by half.  This was one of those times.

Then, secondly, they suggest that Obama could "use this".

Ok, so rebutt the Clinton charge that Obama called the Republicans the party of ideas (in the 90s) by saying that "well, but your predecessor said that too, in 1981". Additionally, most voters (not from NY) will go "Moynihan? Whose that?"

Apparently you haven't had enough of the GOP yet.

   Hillary Clinton (in Brokaw book): When he had those big tax cuts and they went too far, he oversaw the largest tax increase. He could call the Soviet Union the Evil Empire and then negotiate arms-control agreements. He played the balance and the music beautifully.

    Bill Clinton (May 5, 1998): The only thing that could make this day more special is if President Reagan could be here himself. But if you look at this atrium, I think we feel the essence of his presence: his unflagging optimism, his proud patriotism, his unabashed faith in the American people. I think every American who walks through this incredible space and lifts his or her eyes to the sky will feel that.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674

"And in 2002, after the Democrats lost the midterm elections, William Jefferson Clinton said, "The Democrats have to have ideas to win. We are MIA, missing ..."  when it comes to being perceived as the party of new ideas.  

TALK ABOUT HYPOCRITES !!!!!!!!!!!!