Everything Obama's been doing so far has been brilliant.
Equating Limbaugh as the alternative to his sensible leadership is a stroke of genius.
And today's trip to Capitol Hill is one tactic from that TV show West Wing. In fact, the episode that Bravo re-ran this morning was about Jeb Bartlett going to the office of the Republican House Speaker to negotiate a budget-- the great effort to reach agreement by the most powerful man in the world, to take a trip across town without the trappings of the White House, won the day.
Of course, Obama's trip was less dramatic and less telegenic, but the same idea holds: this sensible president, with a huge approval rating and widespread goodwill, and with safe majorities in both houses of congress, is still willing to "descend" to the snakepit to invite Republicans to join in his effort-- in my opinion, is both a stunning tactical move, both in style and substance.
Obama is "meeting them halfway", but the other side ain't doing the same. Who do you think will the public, long tired of partisanship, side with?
How will public sentiment, which is currently solidly behind Obama and his efforts to reverse the direction of the economy, react to Republican opposition?
My sense is that the public in general is quite desperate for SOME action, ANY action, so that any effort by anyone to stop action will be viewed negatively. The ideological battle between big government, spending, and tax cuts is out the window for another reason: the Republicans simply do not have any credibility regarding economic matters.
If it's really his uncle's health that she's concerned about, then I expect her to run for some kind of office (whether Hillary's senate seat in 2010 or a House seat or something) once those concerns are resolved.
Because if she really believes that she can make a difference in elected government, she ought to run for office, in the light of day, and face voters' judgment.
Otherwise, she's withdrawing because she was told (or found out somehow) she won't be Patterson's pick. To save herself from humiliation, in other words.
If, say, JFK (from 40 years ago!) presided over the worst decline in the economy since the Depression, stood by as the global financial system melted, ignored the devastation of a major American city, started one huge war of choice (costing billions of dollars and thousands of lives), appointed incompetence at all levels of government, broke many laws, approved the use of torture (with pride!), weakened America's international reputation significantly, etc., etc., if JFK did all that, it would be sooooooooo easy for us to declare that JFK is among the worst president, if not the worst president, in American history.
The (incomplete) list above will NOT change today, tomorrow, a year from now, ten years from now, a hundred years from now. I don't know what kinds of things we'll "discover" in the years to come to counterbalance such a horrendous record.
He chattered so much about the ethics of having the Clinton Global Initiative operate while Hillary is Secretary of State as if he's such a paragon of ethics. At one point, he didn't even seem to understand the details of the memorandum of understanding. He's a joke.
One good spending suggestion: expand the NIH and the NSF, increase their budgets, increase the number of scientific grants, fortify our universities, keep America the leader in scientific and technical innovation.
Short term result: provides support to state colleges and private universities that have budgets diminished due to decreased state support and plummeting endowments.
The AP report said: "Another note of levity in the otherwise formal and scripted ceremony came as teller Rep. Robert Brady, D-Pa., drew some laughs when he read that the vote from Ohio, a focus of voter disputes in recent elections, "appears to be regular in form and authentic.""
Actually, if you look at the YouTube, it's the fact that the certificate from Ohio was gigantic compared to the certificates of other states that provided the levity. (Watch Brady raise the thing up for people to see.)
You say: "For days, the rec list has been glutted by fakes and phonies, who claim to have been offended by Rick Warren's five minute invocation at the inaugural, that it shows Obama has turned his back on the GLBT community."
Please stop misrepresenting the reality: that while there may be some who are using Rick Warren to attack Obama, there are others, like me, who deeply disagree with Obama's decision.
But I, and I'm sure many others, don't for a second claim that, by this one act alone, Obama has turned his back on the LGBT community by this one act.
There are disagreements, and there are dramatic flourishes. I always aim (though sometimes for naught) for the former; you seem to be doing the latter here.
I just love that we're all about throwing bones at some group who believes I'm a genetic defect (an unnatural creature, queer in every respect), and that I'm at par with pedophiles, polygamists, and incestuous people if I've even dreamed of getting married to my partner.