...someone with your weight...

Are you saying Jerome is fat?  How many time have you been banned anyway, for you know, being 'frank'?

I never bought the hype either and was a very strong Hillary supporter throughout the primaries. However, I am also a very strong Democrat and Obama is my President. I will support him.

I am much more appalled at the House and Senate Democrats who are pulling the same spineless song and dance we all know and hate. Oh and bullshit bloggers who will whine and bitch without doing anything useful, except try to pull down the best chance we have had for our country in my lifetime.

At least repugnants know how to support their president.

What does it say for our party when a lone Representative (Grayson) finally has the balls to call out the pugs on the floor of the House?

Either get on board or do something else. You are getting in our way.

but he won and he deserves the support and well-wishing of members of his party.

And if you can't deal with that, you're free to leave the party.

Interesting coming from a support of STAUNCH Progressive Mark Warner...   A man who makes Obama look like a far leftist.  

Where is this ire directed at the biggest culprit - the Democratic controlled senate?  All these years, I have seen Democratic party members blame Bush for the country's problems while I haven't seen them really offering any concrete alternatives. While OBama has to take a lot of the blame(and I was one of his fiercest critics for the whole Bushian bank bailout), I really don't see the Democratic Senate holding a think tank and getting together to come up with  concrete plans to take advantage of a Democratic white house. When Obama was doing his bailout of the banks, most of the Dem senators didn't offer any resistance. But when it comes ot healthcare bailout, they find their independent minds all of a sudden?  The thing is the senate had EIGHT years to think of some good plans. Whenever there is a new issue, you see DEmocratic senators come up with different answers when they should hash out any differences and debate what is the POV the party needs to go with in Obama's first term. I see very few powerr structures in the Congress coming up with a coherent education plan that works, not enough of the Dem senate is putting any kind of pressure on Obama to scale back on military spending.

Unfortunately Obama is a little soft as a leader and he doesn't have the guts to put the senators in their place and shame them into giving him at least a short term chance.

The party structure has been corrupt for many years.  I have been angry for years now because I feel all Bush did was make a do nothing Democratic Party seem good by comparison. All a weak crazy republican party does is put no pressure on our party to improve itself.  

Hello Kettle... This is the Pot... Your Black!

Dude, No one cares if you dislike Obama, think he's over hyped (ironic coming from a supporter of the insanely overhyped Mark Warner, the most disappointing of the Freshmen Senators), etc.  Its the way you express yourself.  You're like the guy trying to pick a fight in a bar.   Posts like this one were to rile people up.  

Obama doesn't vote for anything. He signs things other people (congresspeople) vote for.

I know George W. Bush took the balance of power away, but sheesh, bash the guy for his lack of liberal voting record as President when he won't have any.

would have won us every Olympics for the next 10,000 years!!!!!

that indicates the govt was trying to make them but the local people didn't want to pay for a major chunk of the NY Olympics bill.

Both Tokyo and Chicago, last and second to last in the current bidding, had about 55% of their local residents backing the bid. Very weak on the enthusiasm front. I know in Chicago the reason for lack of enthusiasm was that many of us didn't trust the financing and believed we'd get stuck with a huge bill. The lack of enthusiasm in NY, Chicago, and Tokyo played a major role in their poor showings, in my humble opinion (suggest you add IMHO to your opinion unless and until you have a direct line to the voters).

This is correct.  Its been a major source of contention in the area...   It also took a LONG time fore Daley to agree to cover overruns... in fact the IOC report had that a as a negative connotation.   That may have hurt Chicago in the bid process.

that's why he didn't want to go until he was pressured to.

ugh, here;

Id prefer to not have my name published if you post any of this, but I wanted to give you some inside perspective on the Olympic planning as I had the privilege to work and help with some of the architecture and planning proposal for Chicago's Bid.

Mainly, this is just an email to say that regardless of the headline on Drudge, and your comment that the IOC might not enjoy being "big-footed" by Obama, that is not the case. In fact, it was probably helpful, even though we were voted out in the first round. Almost every other country has their leader making personal appearances in support of major international architecture and planning endeavors, but the American president. There have been a number of projects, New Mariinsky Theater in St Petersberg, Russia (for example), where all the finalists, were supported by the leader of their country in having a call placed to the committee, however, the US architect/planner never receives that level of support or interest from the President. So it can only be refreshing to have the President support its country in these types of selections.

A few months ago, (getting back to the Olympic selection) it was made clear to us that Chicago was going to have some difficulty in gaining the selection for a number of reasons including that we have had a large percentage of games hosted here, but most importantly, that we do not have the best international reputation at this time, and it well known that it is a frustrating and difficult process compared to the other host countries for travelers to gain admittance into the US. There was not a lot that could be done with our planning about this, but it was still brought up as an unofficial "official" concern of the IOC. I think Obama's visit was prob in some effort to help remove this concern from the selection committee. I would say from knowledge of work on this bid, as well as having produced work to assist with London's planning effort for Foreign Office Architects in London (before starting my own practice in Chicago) that there was little chance that the decision would be able to be changed this late in the game, and that at this point (the last week), most of the IOC already knows their rankings, and are just discussing the top two. So, again, regardless of Obama's influence (or lack of), at best, all he would have been able to do was help push over the top, or slightly hurt, but not much more. The decision was most likely already made that Chicago would not host it a few weeks ago by the IOC.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archive s/2009/10/not_their_kinda_town.php#more? ref=fpblg

If he didn't go, he'd be blamed for the bid's failure, so he chose to make the trip, knowing it would likely fail.

the monarchs ARE the heads of state.

Prime Ministers are head of government.

Obama is both.

No, he's more like the random Larouchite who's politically rightist but cheers Jane Fonda for some reason that nobody can detect.  In my bizarro analogy.

It doesn't have to make sense.

Some of you sycophants can't seem to handle a little jab.

What exactly is so terrible about Jerome's post that would make "Rush look better?"

"Obama gets last place for Chicago."  

That's it.  Did he post that Obama is a complete and utter arrogant failure who thought his "charm offensive" would make the members of the IOC swoon over him and handle Chicago the Olympics 2016?  No.  A mere headline is all that was needed to get the sycophants riled up.

If you're political animal, grow a thick skin.  It's politics and Obama is President.  If you can't handle something as light as this, will your head explode in the next 4-8 years.