his analysis that Reagan created more change than Nixon or Clinton. Surely, Reagan was able to effect greater change from Carter (and even going back to Nixon) than Clinton was able to effect from Reagan and Bush.

Of course, making this point underscores the importance of finding out exactly what kinds of change Obama, Clinton, and Edwards want to make, and how they want to effect change. Change as a slogan doesn't tell us anything worth knowing about a candidate.

But I am troubled by Obama's (apparently approving) reference to "all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s." In the context of Reagan's election, this doesn't seem to be a reference to such things as Vietnam and Watergate. Rather, it calls to mind civil rights, the Great Society, women's liberation, and the like.

Perhaps Obama meant to refer to people's perceptions that these constituted excesses. To the extent that was true, however, the perceptions were more manufactured than real, reflected some of what is worst in America, and should have been fought rather than ridden to the White House. I wish Obama were clearer about this.