The question posed was originally what portraits would you hang in the White House if you were President and as the dialogue progressed, who are the presidents you admire most?

The goal in these exchanges is to turn the discussion to the other candidate's weaknesses and force them to explain.

To resolve this dispute, I have assembled a chronology of Obama and Clinton statements and actions on Iraq with the help of Emily Freifeld, a producer at washingtonpost.com. Several points emerge from this chronology:

   1. Obama has been consistent in his opposition to the Iraq war. His Oct. 2, 2002, speech opposing the war stands in clear contrast to Clinton's vote later that same month to authorize military action.

   2. Once the U.S. went into Iraq, Obama's position became much more nuanced. While he still opposed the war, he was not in favor of an early pullout. In 2004, he even talked about sending more U.S. troops to Iraq in order to stabilize the country as a prelude to an eventual withdrawal.

   3. His Senate voting record on Iraq is quite similar to that of Hillary Clinton. Both senators waited until May 2007 before they finally voted to cut off funds for the war, on the grounds that the administration had not agreed to a firm timetable for withdrawal. They both voted against a June 2006 amendment proposed by John Kerry (D-Mass.) for the redeployment of U.S. troops. A list of votes compiled by the Clinton campaign is available here. See here for the TalkingPointsMemo version.

And Obama's camp completely misses the point, throwing out Iraq, triangulation and all their usual talking points that everyone's heard a million times (it's the equivalent of the Clinton campaign overusing "whatever happened to the politics of hope" a few months back at a certain point nobody hears you anymore.)

I'd feel bad for Obama since Clinton is playing a bit with his words, but any Democrat so quick to regurgitate vapid MSM and Republican talking points about Ronald Reagan and the alleged Republican revolution deserves to be knocked about the head (in a political sense).

When he told me that about Ronald Reagan, I said , what?" Nesbitt told me. "I was like every other Democrat. But Barack told me, no, he really had something that inspired the company and brought it together. I may disagree with him on policy, but he was what American needed at that moment in history.

What American needed at that moment?  Ugh!

And, you know what, I totally blame the MSM and Obama for HRC including Reagan and Bush Sr. on her list of fave presidents to a NH newspaper.  Because, honestly, all this talk about unifying and the media lapping it up puts pressure on the "polarizing" candidates to do the same (it's why I think John Edwards promised a Republican in his cabinet).  I don't for one minute believe that the woman who reportedly told Bill Clinton not to sign the independent counsel act because William Rehnquist was essentially still the same Republican fixer he'd always been, chief justice or not, and would screw the Clintons over, suddenly has warm feelings about Ronald Reagan.

I've come to the conclusion that Obama really does admire Reagan and wasn't just saying that to win over the Reno paper (although he might've chosen to talk about his admiration for that purpose).  However, if Clinton admires Reagan at all, I suspect it's for his partisan ruthlessness.  But reading her list, I find it impossible to believe she holds Reagan or HW on the same level as the rest - they seem like a pander to independents and moderate Republicans to me.

We can say that Reagan was this, or that, or stood for the other.  But let's put this into some context (for the younger crowd here).  He came on the heels of Carter, for crying out loud.  There is the key parallel between Reagan and Obama.

My rationale:  when this country is coming off a failed presidency (Bush, Carter, eg) it is, almost by definition, a dispirited and pessimistic public.  It (we) are likely to elect NEXT a magnetic and optimistic person as President.  It could be a liberal or it could be a conservative, depending on the circumstances, but it needs to be someone who has the personality and sense of purpose/vision that attracts people to this promise of a "new beginning".

It seems to me that Barack is merely observing, without endorsing the substantive policy aspects, that Reagan offered that vision of hope and strength and purpose. Reagan was the anti-Carter, just as Obama is positioning to be the anit-Bush. There WERE Reagan Democrats, you know, just as now there could be some Obama Republicans.  Now, if you assume all Republicans are evil, greedy, unpatriotic hatchet-wielding people, you won't buy what Obama is saying or "selling".  Obviously that's your prerogative and who am I to try to change that mindset?

My take is that Obama is saying:  The way to marginalize the far right is to create a pragmatic  and collaborative approach such that 70%+ of the country will reject the confrontational and impractical "extremes" (on both sides) and just say to those on the far right (and far left), "Are you kidding? We have to get this figured out, and we are making some headway, so please just go sit in the corner and shut up (please)".

If you don't agree that the federal government is essentially broken, then I think you're wrong about that.  And the remedy is NOT more name calling and political one-upsmanship.  If the Republicans were smart enough to nominate a person who would stand "above the fray" in terms of political monkey business, they'd win the 2008 Presidential election going away.  If neither party does that, then we'll have a continuing slugfest and "dirty pool".  

I don't think it's a better idea to undercut health benefits and to give drug companies the right to make billions of dollars by providing prescription drugs to Medicare recipients.

If Medicare Rx insurance did not exist our drug costs last year would have been in the $10,000 range.

And Obama has had some kind words for Bush himself, including stating in 2004 that he basically agreed with Bush on how to conduct the Iraq war.

Obama's response to this Hillary talking point (from the same link):

"Senator Clinton started off trying to make history and now she's trying to rewrite it. She's trying to rewrite it about my record and hers," the Illinois senator said. He said Mrs. Clinton was taking "a half a sentence" from 2004 out of context in what he called a "ludicrous" attempt to assert that he and she were in agreement.