It gets confusing. Is Hillary Clinton saying this is a restoration of the same White House team from 1992 - 2000. Or is she not? Was she a co-president, or not? Will her husband be able to say "we" about her term of office the way she now uses "we" to describe his? Just listen:

CLINTON: Well, John, I think it depends upon what you think the fights were really about. You know, I never thought they were personal; I thought they were about the positions we took.

You know, standing up and fighting for universal health care drew a lot of incoming fire. Taking on the NRA over the assault weapons ban and, you know, the Brady bill, that was certainly not a popular thing to do.

Standing up and fighting for fiscal responsibility and getting the deficit down, you know, trying to get a balanced budget and a surplus, I mean, there's a big difference between infighting fights over nothing, you know, just for the sake of fighting, as the Republicans have often done to score political points, you know, to really get that partisan advantage, and taking on the fights that are worth fighting over.

You know, it is important that we cooperate whenever we can. But there are a lot of principles and values at stake here.

You know, when President Bush, coming off his '04 win, came in and said, We're going to privatize Social Security, I'm really proud that I was one of the leaders who said, No, we're not going to let that happen. You may have this new capital because you're now the re- elected president, but this is a fight worth having. We're not going to let this occur.

So when I hear Senator Obama talk about that, I wonder which fights he wouldn't fight. Would he have not fought to get to a balanced budget and a surplus and help create 22 million new jobs? Would he have not fought to get assault weapons off the street and get them out of the hands of, you know, criminals and gang members?


We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.