I think that what we’ve been able to do is put together both a good group of scholars and analysts and people who aggressively want to make the case to the American public.

So I think in those circumstances, there’s some potential that you could see a big pendulum swing like 1994, which people you thought weren’t vulnerable all of the sudden get in trouble.

I think if you look at yesterday’s New York Times poll, particularly when you judge Democrats in Congress versus the Republicans in Congress, people put a little more faith, or even a little more than a little more faith in the Democrats in Congress.

If medicine was practiced in 1965 the way it’s practiced today, there’s no question that prescriptions would have been included in Medicare.

Ultimately I think what people care about, particularly on an issue like Social Security, is not really what’s right and what’s left but what’s right and what’s wrong.

So I think it’s important to communicate with the people in terms of what the real facts are on these proposals and try to have a discussion and a dialogue that gives people information. I think they’re hungry for that rather than just political rhetoric.

Public access to government information is a fundamental prerequisite to a functioning democracy. A democratic system is based on the notion that government legitimacy requires the consent of the governed. To be meaningful that consent must be informed.

If that’s your definition of the Clinton faction, then I think that that seems to be in ascendancy. That might include a guy like John Edwards, who’s just starting this new center in Chapel Hill to deal with issues of poverty and work.

The D.L.C. incident is over, and it isn't particularly meaningful. But in the long run, if you believe what Mark believes, it will get you in trouble.

all concur that Clinton pushed Abdullah hard for cooperation.