It's telling that on the same day come two columns comparing in some way Obama to Ronald Reagan. First is Stephen Hayes' WSJ column arguing that Republicans underestimate Barack Obama to their peril, much as Democrats underestimated Ronald Reagan -- to a 44 state blowout. As Hayes notes, Howell Raines, then a reporter for the New York Times, wrote of Reagan before the sweep that "political critics who characterize him as banal and shallow, a mouther of right-wing platitudes, delight in recalling that he co-starred with a chimpanzee in 'Bedtime for Bonzo.'"

Writes Hayes:

Are Republicans making the same mistake with Barack Obama?

For months now, Hillary Clinton has suggested that Mr. Obama is all rhetoric, no substance. This claim, or some version of it, has been at the center of her campaign since November. One day after losing to him in Wisconsin and Hawaii -- her ninth and tenth consecutive defeats -- she rather incredibly went back to it again. "It's time we moved from good words to good works, from sound bites to sound solutions," she said -- a formulation that could be mistaken for a sound bite. [snip]

And yet, Republicans are picking it up. In just the past week, conservative commentators have accused Mr. Obama of speaking in "Sesame Street platitudes," of giving speeches that are "almost content free," of "saying nothing." He has been likened to Chance the Gardner, the clueless mope in Jerzy Koscinski's "Being There," whose banal utterances are taken as brilliant by a gullible political class. Others complain that his campaign is "messianic," too self-aggrandizing and too self-referential.

Hayes thinks there is much more to Obama than grandiose speeches. He has a firm grasp of the issues and an ability to promote a version of liberalism that doesn't automatically discount conservative complaints.

In a similar vein, Richard Reeves, who was a biographer of Reagan, writes today that a key to Reagan's success was that he fundamentally understood the power of words. "The president's job is not to run the country; it is to lead the nation. In that business, words are more important than deeds," he writes. Obama, Reeves contends, also understands this, if not as completely as Reagan did. But in the end, words will overcome "experience" because "what a president can and must do is bring out the best in the American people."

Taking both the Hayes and Reeves arguments together, Hillary fails. She has falsely assumed what a president's role is, which has thrown off her aim at knocking out Obama.

I would generally agree with both authors, even if I don't think there's enough evidence yet that Obama is more than his political prowess or that attacks on his lack of substance won't resonate in the general election. As many have noted, Hillary is crippled in attacking Obama in a way that someone like John McCain isn't. Hillary can't readily accuse Obama of bottling old wine in new bottles, because she's pretty much doing the same thing. But McCain can. And the trick isn't to show that there's no there there; it's to show that what is there the American people have seen -- and rejected -- before: Big government liberalism.

Hillary is missing the mark because she's not able to point this out. Instead, she accuses Obama of being vacuous. He's not. McCain, however, can point this out with plenty of examples of where Obama has stuck strictly to the party line. What's new in that? Where's the change in that? One need only to start with National Journal's ranking of Obama as the most liberal senator and go from there.

To tie this discussion to Reagan, Reagan did erupt on the political scene with fresh ideas that he was able to sell to the American people by the power of his rhetoric. What's more, Reagan wasn't simply a vessel for the upstart conservative movement. For over a decade, he had been deeply involved in the movement that would eventually lead him to the presidency. So, there was indeed something there for the reporters Raines described had they sought it out. Instead, they and Democrats accused him of being vacuous.

To further illustrate that point, watch this excerpt of Reagan's 1964 speech on behalf of the GOP nominee Barry Goldwater, titled "A Time For Choosing":

Powerful? Indeed. Void of substance? Hardly.