I'll agree that Hillary did well in that interview (with the oh-so-willing help of Fox News, IMNSHO), but your comparison of it to the debate debacle makes some mistakes. First, O'Reilly was clearly gushing over Clinton from the beginning. It's easy to be composed when the "attack" questions are attacking your opponent. Don't get me wrong, she handled it fairly well, giving off a good appearance that she'd rather not talk about Wright. It was very well orchestrated and came off well. Score one for Hillary.

That is why Hillary can win in November and Obama can't. Obama won't get those Reagan democrats (or most working class democrats) and we can't win without them.

For everyone like your father, there are two who feel the exact opposite. I know several Republicans who don't like McCain, but can't stand Hillary. These nominal Republicans will likely vote for Obama in the general. I have a friend who's a financial adviser, who has always voted Republican, but who has not only said he favors Obama but has also contributed to his campaign. This guy is an economics junkie, and it's his opinion that Obama is the person who's best for our country's economy—and he's told me that he's been telling his clients this as well.

Then there's my father. He's lukewarm towards McCain, but will almost definitely vote for him in the general, regardless of who the Democratic candidate is. However, my dad has told me that if Clinton is the Democratic nominee (or is even anywhere on the ticket), he'll go from being lukewarm towards McCain to donating to his campaign and going door-to-door to help him win the election. He hates Hillary that much. He can't tell me why, but he really can't stand her. (For one thing, he's told me that he thinks of her as this ultra-liberal. I told him that she's actually one of the more conservative Democrats, but he'll have none of that.)

I will only address the narrow question raised by the OP (see, with a little practice, I CAN get some of this blog lingo - Just HAD to get that in). I do not know whether or not this helps or hurts Sen. Clinton with respect to her immediate election prospects.

I DO think the O'Reilly interview was an ENORMOUS win-win for both Sen. Clinton and Democrats in general, in terms of the big picture. It crosses a divide that we need to keep persistently TRYING to cross. I won't repeat the specifics of the interview here (most of us saw it, anyway), but it seems to me virtually the consensus across the broad central political spectrum that the Senator "won", besting the Right's top TV boogy-man on his home ground.

I'm sure the right-wingers think so, because it seems to me they've spent most of the time since then using people like Dick Morris and Laura Ingraham to try to "explain" the outcome in terms more favorable to Mr. O'Reilly (translation: give hin an alibi).

I think this was a good moment for ALL Democrats, really. It showed how to take Democratic ideas into an arena like this and hold your own - and perhaps even get a little grudging respect for it from discriminating friend and foe alike.

I emphatically REJECT the notion promoted by Mr. Marshall and some other (mostly liberal) commentators and thinkers, that this sort of thing is somehow beneath the dignity of a truly progressive politician. O'Reilly represents a legitimate segment of public opinion. He has adherents and followers. They take these things seriously. They VOTE.

If we don't have the nerve to get in the ring with them and at least TRY to make our case, we leave ourselves forever open to the "out-of-touch", "elitism" charges that have de-railed so many promising Democratic candidates. The public will sort it out. They LIKE tough, fair fighters on ANY side. If we're not treated with decent sportsmanship in those encounters, most people will make an honest judgement about it. We win to to some degree just by trying, and we make some sort of a start toward HONESTLY "bringing people together". Beyond a certain point, you can't do that with speeches, policy papers, seminars, learned articles, and punditry. You need a lot more than the college-professor vote to win.

You do that by going straight at them and TALKING, even if you take some lumps.

You don't understand what's been going on, do you? The Republicans haven't been attacking Hillary because she is doing their work for them. If she is successful in securing the nomination, you will be rendered speechless by the ferocity of the Republican attacks against her. The damage she is doing to Obama is nothing compared to the damage she has done to herself during this campaign. She has legitimized McCain by endorsing his credentials, she has outdone him in the violence of her calls to attack Iran, and she has proven herself his equal in pandering stupidity in calling for a gas tax moratorium. She has already fatally wounded herself. Let's hope the Party leaders find a way to drive her out of the race before she does any more damage to Obama.

There is one more point I want to address here. (It may not particularly fit with the "Fox" theme, but this is as good a place as any):

Democrats have to stop worrying all the time about what Republicans are going to do. When you frame your entire strategy upon a mindset of "dodging" attacks, or being afraid of "giving them (Republicans) ideas", you're half whipped before you start.

When was the last time you heard Karl Rove worry about something he OTHERWISE thought was a good idea, on the grounds that he was afraid of what "the Democrats" would say about it?

You either believe in your cause, or you don't. If you DO believe in it, you have no choice except to accept on faith that you can go out into the free-for-all marketplace of ideas, and convince a majority that the weight of the argument falls your way.