November 1st 2010, the eve of what can be the most historic mid-term drubbing delivered to any sitting president. Why did this happen? Could this been avoided? What went wrong? These questions are being debated and will be discussed ad nauseum after tomorrow.

Let me tell you what I think. This happened because the opposition decided that they would rather embark on a tried and true policy of non-cooperation and passive resistance. They wanted this President to fail and they exploited the alarming naïvete of this President. Could this been avoided? Yes, by a strong President willing to fight for the middle class this could have been avoided. What went wrong? Surrounded by beltway mavens this President stuck his head in the sand, and sadly even now he has his head in the sand.

What really irks me are two exchanges from the recent discussion this President had with liberal bloggers.

Q Mr. President, you've said that you want to work with Republicans after the election, but there's probably a pretty good chance that they're not going to advance with you. Is there sort of a breaking point you have of where you try to work with them and they just refuse to budge, which they've indicated so far? Is there a breaking point for you just like you're going to have to go off on your own and find a way around them?

THE PRESIDENT: Look, the -- I'm a pretty stubborn guy when it comes to, on the one hand, trying to get cooperation. I don't give up just because I didn't get cooperation on this issue; I'll try the next issue. If the Republicans don't agree with me on fiscal policy, maybe they'll agree with me on infrastructure. If they don't agree with me on infrastructure, I'll try to see if they agree with me on education.

So I'm just going to keep on trying to see where they want to move the country forward.

In that sense, there's not a breaking point for me. There are some core principles that I think are important for not just me to stick with but for the country to stick with. So if the Republicans say we need to cut our investments in education, at a time when we know that our success as a nation is largely going to depend on how well trained our workforce is, I'm going to say no. And there are going to be areas where, after working very hard, we just can't find compromise and I'm going to be standing my ground, then essentially we debate it before the American people.

But I don't go into the next two years assuming that there's just going to be gridlock. We're going to keep on working to make sure that we can get as much done as possible because folks are hurting out there. What they're looking for is help on jobs, help on keeping their homes, help on sending their kids to college. And if I can find ways for us to work with Republicans to advance those issues, then that's going to be my priority.

Say what? Did the last two years did not happen? Isn't the drubbing he is about to receive not good enough to drill some sense into him? Did he not hear what Mitch McConell, Mike Pence, or Darrell Issa have been saying?

Just before the August recess of 2009, I posted a diary asking "How's the bipartisan thingy working out for you?". Some idiots here accused me of making personal attacks on Obama because bipartisanship was his platform. Maybe it was, but bipartisanship at the expense of the middle class and for personal glory is dangerous and delusional. To those people I say, hear that flushing sound? That's the Democratic party going down the drain to satisfy the vanity of this president. He now seems to be both dangerously naïve and delusional.

But then again this President thought himself to be above party politics. He does not believe in endorsing loyal Democrats, when he would rather endorse Republican friends; he does not believe in making a stand on civil rights for gays when all he sees is a trajectory; he does not believe in fighting for Main Street, but he does believe in writing a blank check to Wall Street. Why else will he internalize the most pathetic excuse for his inactions?

I'm President and not king. And so I've got to get a majority in the House and I've got to get 60 votes in the Senate to move any legislative initiative forward.

Now, during the course -- the 21 months of my presidency so far, I think we had 60 votes in the Senate for seven months, six? I mean, it was after Franken finally got seated and Arlen had flipped, but before Scott Brown won in Massachusetts. So that's a fairly narrow window.

By all accounts he had a historic mandate, yet he squandered it, only to say later, rather ironically, "Larry Summers did a heckuva job". Oy.

Maureen Dowd finally goes where the professional left has been for these two years:

At first it was exciting that Obama was the sort of brainy, cultivated Democrat who would be at home in a “West Wing” episode.

But now he acts like he really thinks he’s on “West Wing,” gliding through an imaginary, amber-lit set where his righteous self-regard is bound to be rewarded by the end of the hour.

Hey, dude, you’re a politician. Act like one.

But the lofty words (or rhetorical Rorsasch tests) that defined the candidate in 2008, has been tempered today by a man more intent on a re-election campaign based on personality. The words "hope", "change" and "audacity" have lost their lustre. The slogan defining the Presidency has been replaced from "YES WE CAN" to "yes we can BUT". In the end, due to an alarming lack of principled leadership, we all suffered, the middle class suffered, the Democratic party suffered.