Yes Mig, but you are assuming one of them is a "somebody!"

Last night I watched a rerun of Cheers in which Woody runs for office. At the bar, someone advises Woody to just keep say "change. Say it about 100 times".

I wonder if candidate Obama saw that same episode?

A little plaintive and hyperbolic but worthwhile reading..


Is Barack Obama a politician whose actions should be judged soberly, or a figure from a feel-good fairytale to be revered from afar?

For two years now, most of the good and honorable people who desperately wanted him to beat John McCain -- as I did -- have watched his actions through a distorting haze of hoping for the best. So when Obama set us all up for another global crash by refusing to re-regulate the banks or stop even their riskiest practices, we looked away. When Obama set us all up for more terror attacks by trebling the troops in Afghanistan and launching a vicious air war on Pakistan that is swelling the ranks of jihadis, we didn't want to hear it. When Obama set us all up for environmental disaster by refusing to put the brakes on his country's unprecedented and unmatched emissions of climate-destabilizing gases, we switched over to watch will.i.am's YouTube rejig of the President's "Yes, We Can" speech. And when a week from now he is beaten at the midterm elections -- after having so little to show the American people -- by a group of even more irrational Republicans, we will weep for him.

As Rober D. Hodge writes in his excellent new book The Mendacity of Hope, "Obama is judged not as a man but as a fable, a tale of moral uplift that redeems the sins of America's shameful past." Our longing for him to be Martin Luther King reborn has meant good people have not pushed and pressured and opposed him, even as he endangered us.

But if you choose to see this as another fairytale -- of how one man who seemed like a Good Prince turned out to be a Traitor -- you will miss the point, and the real need for change. This is not primary a question of individual failings, but of the endemic corruption at the core of American politics. The facts are not hidden. If you want to run for national office in the US, you have to raise huge sums of money from corporations and very rich people to pay for the adverts and the mailings that get you on the ballot and into office. These corporations will only give you money if you persuade them that you will serve their interests once you are in power. If you say instead that you want to prevent anything destructive they are doing to ordinary people, or tax and regulate them, you will get no money, and can't run...

Continued at Why Obama has disappointed

538's latest forecast shows Republicans taking the House and coming within 2 seats of taking the Senate.

The Administration is trying to spin this as saying that post-election, empowered Republicans would have to work more closely with the Administration or alternatively that voters just don't understand all the great things the Administration has done or that the left wing base is too whiny and too sensitive -this is starting to look like some projection on the Administration's part.

I think there's some truth in all of that. Just some.

There's no way in Hades that a rejuvenated GOP, returned triumphant from the wilderness by saying no, would be in any mood to work with the Administration on anything. In just the past few days Republican leaders and current or would be Senators or House members have said that their top priority is to make Obama a one term president and that there will be no compromise on their part. I think, based on past actions, they mean this. Why can't the POTUS see this?

By refusing to recognize that this is hardball and by continually playing nice with his enemies while chiding his friends, the President bears some responsibility for whatever gains the Republicans make.

One thing that Republicans do very well is to put across very simple, straightforward messages. Even if the messages are bogus they help build a very easy narrative to follow. They also are masters of using emotion. Democrats shun a lot of this. They are seemingly allergic to simplicity. It seems like they've had this problem since at least the 68-72 elections.

To hear Obama tell it, he's the greatest leader in the history of Western politics.

I mean...he did save us from a second great depression and all (Those words literally came out of his mouth the other night on Jon Stewart..."WE saved this country from a SECOND GREAT DEPRESSION!!!")

If not for Barack Obama we'd be standing in lines at the soup kitchen and rationing gasoline. Hell, we should all be on our knees thanking this man; we should name our kids after him!

All sarcasm aside, he's not a bad guy and he's not at all dim. He's just extremely arrogant and disillusional IMO.

Best post about Obama ever .

You are dead on correct Lilo, and Obama needs to learn the GOP wants to take him down in 2012. They won't compromise on jack.
Obama needs to take the gloves off and go after them Harry Truman style. He should veto all the nonsense they send him, and if the DEMS hold the Senate I say whether Reid wins or loses that they give the leadership post to Schumer who knows how to talk to the cameras.

Yep, George Bush has no responsibility for this mess at all.

Researchers Find the 'Liberal Gene' By Jeremy A. Kaplan
Published October 28, 2010 | FoxNews.com

Don't hold liberals responsible for their opinion -- they can't help themselves.

A new study has concluded that ideology is not just a social thing; it's built into the DNA, borne along by a gene called DRD4. Tagged "the liberal gene," DRD4 is the first specific bit of human DNA that predisposes people to certain political views, the study's authors claim.

And the key to it all: Liberals are more open, said lead researcher James H. Fowler, a professor of both medical genetics and political science at the University of California, San Diego.

"The way openness is measured, it's really about receptivity to different lifestyles, for example, or different norms or customs," he told FoxNews.com. "We hypothesize that individuals with a genetic predisposition toward seeking out new experiences [a measure of openness] will tend to be more liberal" -- but only if they had a number of friends when growing up, Fowler cautioned.

This isn't a typical gene association study," he said. "There's a combination of genes and environment that matter."

I suppose then that there is gene out there for conservatives too?

No, but there is a treatment.

And if the Republican's do get the majority back do you think Obama will compromise? IMHO very doubtful.

I think this is indicative that compromise in the way Obama understands it is simply not possible.

Many of the opposition are simply not reasonable people.

Right now, it appears the best hope for the Democrats in 2012 is that the Republicans will nominate Sarah Palin. And this was a CNN poll, folks. Not Fox News .

Obama would lose to both Huckabee or Romney in 2012 White House race: poll

By CLEMENTE LISI

President Obama's Democratic party lost the midterm elections this week and he could very well lose his bid for a second term in 2012, according to a shocking poll released today.

Obama would lose in a hypothetical race against former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee 52 percent to 44 percent, according to CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney would also defeat Obama 50 percent to 45 percent in the race for the White House in 2012.

Neither Huckabee nor Romney have said whether they will run for president after both were defeated by Arizona Sen. John McCain in the 2008 GOP presidential primary.

While there is no clear GOP frontrunner after the Republicans swept to power in the House on Tuesday, 21 percent of Republicans said they're most likely to back Huckabee and 20 percent said they would back Romney.

Only 14 percent favored ex-Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and 12 percent said they'd back former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

In another possible showdown, Obama leads Palin 52 percent to 44 percent among all registered voters.

"Looking ahead to 2012, it may be too early to count Barack Obama out, particularly if Sarah Palin is his opponent," said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "The former Alaska governor gets a lot of attention, but she is in third place when Republicans are asked to pick a presidential nominee, and in a hypothetical matchup with Obama she is arguably the weakest candidate of the top-tier GOP hopefuls."

This comes as the poll also found that three-quarters of those who are registered Democrats said they want to see the party renominate Obama in 2012.

"No incumbent president has faced a significant primary challenge and gone on to win re-election in November," said Holland. "Contested primaries make incumbents look weak and overly-political, and prevent the incumbent from building up goodwill while the opposition party candidates are fighting among themselves."

Avoiding a primary challenge won't guarantee Obama victory in November 2012, but having the support of 73 percent of Democrats may scare off any Democrats who are contemplating a run against him.

The poll of 1,006 adult Americans, of which 921 were registered voters, was conducted by phone during the last week of October.

CNN said the sample also included 500 respondents who describe themselves as Republicans or independents who lean Republican and 453 respondents who describe themselves as Democrats or independents who lean Democratic.

The survey's overall sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/pr...L#ixzz14QZTduXj

Surprising.... I'd bet by 2012 Palin will be able to name the newspapers she reads. Hell, she may even be able to read by then!

Luckily, the election won't be held today. Trust me, today the man is vilified. Let people get a few bucks in their pockets, have unemployment drop a few points, and he'll be a god.

The best news is that the Dow is up. If people see their investments trending upwards for a few cycles, they may feel a bit more confident about spending. That's the best thing that could happen.

You're giving her waaaaaay too much credit.

More bad news.

Pelosi will seek to stay as House Dem leader

By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press

WASHINGTON – Nancy Pelosi, the nation's first female House speaker, said Friday she will try to stay on as leader of the House Democrats despite huge election losses that cost her party the majority.

Pelosi, a California liberal, rejected pressure from moderate House Democrats — and even some liberal allies — who said the widespread defeat cried out for new party leadership. Allies said they doubted Pelosi would make the bid unless she felt certain she had the votes from her colleagues, who are proportionately more liberal after many conservative and moderate Democrats lost on Tuesday.

Her decision set off a likely battle for the No. 2 Democratic leadership job, now held by Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland. The party's third-ranking leader, House Whip Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, said he will try to keep the job, which will become the second in command when Democrats become the minority.

If Clyburn — the House's highest-ranking African American — prevails, Hoyer would be forced out of the leadership ranks for the first time in many years.

Hoyer said he would make a decision after consulting with lawmakers, adding, "I have received an outpouring of support from Democratic colleagues who have told me that I should remain in our party's leadership."

Hoyer is more centrist than Pelosi, and the two have long had a cordial but somewhat wary relationship.

Pelosi, 70, will seek her colleagues' support to become House minority leader when the new Congress convenes in January. That would keep her atop the Democratic House caucus, which will number about 190 members next year. But it would mark a big drop from being speaker, which carries tremendous power to influence legislation and is second only to the vice president in the line of presidential succession.

House members elect their respective party leaders, although the entire House elects the speaker. That post is almost certain to go Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, the current minority leader.

"Our work is far from finished," Pelosi said in a letter to colleagues. "As a result of Tuesday's election, the role of Democrats in the 112th Congress will change, but our commitment to serving the American people will not. We have no intention of allowing our great achievements to be rolled back."

Pelosi said many colleagues "have called with their recommendations on how to continue our fight for the middle class, and have encouraged me to run for House Democratic Leader." Her office released letters of support from various members.

"We're in a political storm, but we don't need to adopt an 'any leader in a storm' mentality," said Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., D-Ill., in announcing his support for Pelosi.

Dozens of Republican House candidates attacked their Democratic opponents by tying them to Pelosi and suggesting they would do whatever the San Francisco liberal asked.

Several Democratic lawmakers in conservative districts vowed to oppose Pelosi as speaker, but some of them lost all the same.

One who did survive, Rep. Heath Shuler of North Carolina, had said he might challenge Pelosi because the party needs a more moderate leader. Shuler noted that he lost his job as Washington Redskins quarterback in 1997 after the team performed poorly.

As the magnitude of Tuesday's election losses sunk in, even some longtime supporters of Pelosi said she needed to step aside as the party leader.

"I voted for everything she asked me to vote for," said Rep. Albio Sires, D-N.J. "You know, sometimes in this business it's difficult to know when to move on."

"With all the losses that we had with governors and all the redistricting that's going to be done, we don't need the target," Sires said, referring to the once-a-decade House redistricting process about to begin nationwide.

Rep. John Yarmuth, D-Ky., told WHAS-TV in Louisville: "As good a leader as she has been, I don't think she's the right leader to take us forward." He said Hoyer, who lost two leadership races to Pelosi over the years, would be "a perfect spokesman for the Democratic Party in the House."

Among other moderate Democrats, Rep. Joe Donnelly, an Indiana lawmaker who survived Tuesday's Republican rout, said he was "disappointed that Speaker Pelosi is going to seek the position of Minority Leader." North Carolina Rep. Larry Kissell's office said he hopes Pelosi "will change her mind and step aside."

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele expressed delight when told of Pelosi's decision. In a meeting with reporters, Steele put his hands over his head and applauded.

"My breath is taken away by that announcement," he said, grinning.

If Pelosi remains as the Democrats' House leader, it's possible the party will absorb historic election losses without making significant leadership changes. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., will keep his post.

___

Associated Press writers Philip Elliott, Andrew Taylor, David Espo, Henry C. Jackson and Stephen Ohlemacher contributed to this report.

If you lose a fight, you need new leadership.
Any wolfpack would tell you that..

Exactly . She's an egomaniac, and she needs to go!

Yeah 70 years old this bitch needs to retire.

The New York Daily News reported Friday:

"Naming Palin makes Bush think less of McCain as a man," a Republican official familiar with Bush's thinking told the Daily News.

"He thinks McCain ran a lousy campaign with an unqualified running mate and destroyed any chance of winning by picking Palin."

Matt Lauer will sit down with George W. Bush in the former president’s first one-on-one television interview since leaving office. The interview will air Monday, Nov. 8 at 8 p.m. ET as a special primetime “Matt Lauer Reports.” President Bush will then join Lauer live on TODAY on Wednesday, Nov. 10.

Former President George W. Bush describes the love affair he once had with alcohol in a revealing new memoir, candidly discussing his drunken escapades and how he was able to kick the habit and remain sober throughout his presidency.

Far be it from me to agree with Dubya on almost anything, but he's right. I'm now of the opinion that McCain had a fear of winning. I really believe he just didn't want it. Had he picked Romney as his running mate, he might very well be sitting in the White House right now (and he'd be getting criticized just as much as Obama). You can't tell me that his people couldn't have done a better job vetting that lunatic from Alaska.

Absolutely, Babe, but that's easier said than done. People are just out of patience .

People have short memories. The first President Bush was fairly popular during the first half of his presidency. Then the economy went sour, and he became a one-term president. It's plausible that the opposite could happen here.

Never doubt the ability of a few bucks in the wallet to sway people's opinions, especially after they lived in fear of losing everything they owned. That's how Hitler rose to power.

I don't doubt it, Babe. I count on it. I'm just not sure the economy can rebound in time for the 2012 election. The DOW is up, which is great. But small, service-oriented businesses (restaurants, beauty salons, pretty much anything considered a small luxury by most people) are especially driven by the economy, and they'll surely be the last to rebound. I hope I'm wrong.

I'll be honest, my wife and I haven't been as affected by this economy as some others, but we still live in a very blue collar area, and I hear the desperation and anger every day. The truth is, at this point, Obama has lost a lot of his support. Whether or not he can garner it again will determine what happens in 2012.

Again, "it's the economy, stupid" .

Tough times just lately eh?

Over here also......

Maybe people don't want their taxes raised to pay for this increasing debt huh?

BINGO!!!!

I don't know that he actually had a 'fear' of winning, but you're right, all McCain's energy went into getting the nomination, he waited 8 years and literally HAD to have it after losing to Bush in 2000. After that, he appeared content to virtually hand the presidency to either Hillary or Obama, whoever the Dem nominee might be.

And yes again...while Palin added an excitement to the ticket, once the banking crisis hit in Sept. 2008 he would've been far better off having chosen Romney.