Mark Halperin published another one of his lists in which he offers reasons for why something seems to be happening.  The latest version is 16 Reasons Why He's Dominating.  (At least he counted correctly in this edition).

Obama's dominating?  I thought he was The Most Polarizing President in The History Of The Human Race.  How can you dominate if you're so polarizing?  (Stupid question: George W. Bush).

I check in with Halperin, because I like to be aware of what the so-called "conventional wisdom" is these days among the Villagers, if for no other reason than to laugh at how out of touch many in the media seem to be.  But I have to admit.  This edition worries me.  It's not this perplexing reason:

12. He talks to his constituents as if they are adults who are willing and able to deal with complexity-- which is intellectually and practically satisfying to him, pleasing to elites, and gratifying to many citizens.

(Why wouldn't this be pleasing to everyone?  Elites or otherwise?  Hello?)

What worries me is Halperin's track record: In December, Mitch McConnell was one of the 5 (sic) most important people in Washington not named Barack Obama?

So does this mean Obama isn't dominating?  That the Republicans really are?  Texas isn't going to secede?  Michele Bachmann makes sense?

I'm all confused at this point.