Though I personally could not be more pessimistic about his chances, Obama will have every opportunity to walk the walk. An interesting facet of history is that perception is almost always reality.

Abraham Lincoln was the greatest president we've ever had or probably will ever have. He is credited with winning the Civil War and saving the Union. We do not often speak of how awful his predecessor, James Buchanan, was or how that man's blatant inaction hastened the national crisis to an unnecessary level.

As you mentioned, MJ, FDR gets justified credit for bringing the nation back from a crippling depression. The hands-off policy of Hoover has been relegated to a mere footnote in American history.

In short, a general analysis of history shows that bad, ineffective leaders get dwarfed by their counterparts who achieve great successes. If Obama is indeed the Savior, history will remember him for it and will relegate Bush to being just another footnote. The current president, like all those who have gone before, has every opportunity to make the most of his presidency. Whatever his success or failures may be, he will indeed have to "own it."

Fox News is absolutely no different from CNN or MSNBC. All three entities are businesses attempting to make a buck through advertising. Accusing Fox News of not being a real news outlet is lying saying Michael Moore is not an investigative journalist.

And, just for the record, if you think Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity are even one inch further to the right than Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow are to the left, then you are absolutely brainwashed and have no sense of objectivity.

You know, no offense, but it's gullible morons like you that end up electing insidious shitheads like Nancy Pelosi into office. Anyone who has ever voted for that woman should be viewed as a Treasonist.

I'm pretty sure that Obama is about as far from the "Party of Lincoln" as he could possibly hope to get.

Those 5 guys worked in concert and said that Obama's pay czar would not be permitted on any of the networks unless the White House relented and allowed him to also make an appearance on Fox News.

Regardless of your opinions about FNC, that is just simply a fight the White House is not going to win simply because FNC has an overwhelming ratings lead against each and every competitor.

The craziest part of this entire debate is that during the daytime hours, FNC is indeed a legitimate news network. Then, at night in prime time, they go to a format that nearly every other 24 hour news network has mimicked. Namely, that of the 60 minute show; each with its own host.

Now, it cannot be denied that Fox News is the outlet for everything GOP. But can somebody explain to me how Keith Olbermann is legitimate and Glenn Beck isn't? Personally, I don't care for Beck's shtick, but he is absolutely positively no further to the right than Olbermann is to the left. The same could be said in a Rachel Maddow vs Sean Hannity discussion. They are the same thing only on different ends of the political spectrum.

The Democrats just need stop whining. The GOP has always controlled AM talk radio and they always will. Similarly, FNC has always had a huge ratings lead over CNN and MSNBC and it always will. This feud being instigated by the Obama administration is unwinnable and actually reeks of sour grapes. Hidden amongst the conservative drivel that permeates the content of FNC, legitimate questions are asked from time to time. Moreover, if the Obama administration is so certain that the facts reside on its side, what the hell are they afraid of? If they think FNC is making up bogus claims and implementing smear campaigns, why don't they call out FNC by going on their shows and making them look ridiculous?

It's debating 101: by avoiding Fox News, the administration will be painted as skirting the opposition and it just doesn't look good.

Part of my error resides in the fact that this whole does have more of an Obama feel to it than Bush. One thing it was hard to accuse the Bush administration of was tampering with private industry. Their strident policy of de-regulation certainly helped with the housing and banking collapses, but forced acquisitions are not the normal M.O. for Neocons.

Those are safe bets.

The system is definitely unfair by design, if you want to call it a "system" at all. In reality, our health care system is more of a disparate collection of procedures and rules than it is a system.

On a general level, the word "reform" is being thrown around as if it will create a one size fits all solution to what amounts to 2 completely separate problems.

The first problem is finding a way to provide access to the tens of millions of Americans that are uninsured or under-insured.

The second goal is to find a way to reduce the costs for everyone else who already has insurance.

Problem is, the Baucus Plan seems to be concerned primarily with the first goal while neglecting the second. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the Congressional Budget Office just said on Tuesday that based on its findings, it cannot guarantee that people who already have health insurance will "save a dime" if the Baucus Plan, or something comparable, gets passed into law.

While Baucus' Plan was in committee last week, it was decided to significantly reduce the amount of the fines that people would face should they refuse to buy insurance. The insurance industry, however deceitful, was actually correct in noting that this would allow younger and healthier people to remain uninsured at little or no penalty. Thus, when they get sick or injured and must get coverage, the new laws would require the insurance companies to cover them; thus driving up prices.

Shared responsibility is one thing, but when the American people get stuck with yet another trillion dollar price tag (this will be the 3rd trillion dollar expenditure under Obama) and discover their own costs don't go down one solitary cent, there may very well be hell to pay.

I'm guessing the 1 lone vote from Olympia Snowe is not sufficient.

The kicker, however, is that 47% of participants oppose "the president's health care plan" while 40% approve of it.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/10/08/quinnipiac-most-americans-support-public-option/

At the end of the day I'm not sure any of these findings can amplified. For one, the plans being debated in Congress are not Obama's. They were all written by Congressional Democrats. So when the survey finds that a majority disapprove of "the president's health care plan" I'm not sure exactly what plan its referring to.

The only thing I'll add is that there is a huge difference between being pro-healthcare reform and pro-public option. Those are two entirely different animals that seem to get lumped together far too often.

The reason likely has to do with their desire to get re-elected. The same reason why politicians in California have no desire to tackle the illegal immigration issue that has wrecked its economy is the same reason why certain Congressional Democrats want no part of the public option. Namely, it could come back to bite them at the polls and it runs counter to their special interest relationships.

The hilarity of the situation is that the private insurance industry is going to win this fight. If the oil lobby has taught us anything it is that our politicians can be bought.

Just today the Congressional Budget Office confirmed that it cannot guarantee that any of the impending pieces of legislation will result in Americans saving a dime when it comes to their health care costs. This seems to be one of those debates in which there will be no winner. Nobody likes the health insurance industry. Their tacit support of high penalties for younger, healthier people who fail to purchase an insurance plan is abjectly Unconstitutional. Some Democrats, meanwhile, are doing their damndest to shove through what would amount to be the largest piece of partisan legislation ever passed by the U.S. government.

There's no winners here. This will end badly.

You know that clothing line called FUBU? That's short for "For Us, By Us." The Weekly Standard's sales and marketing department could take a page from that.

Second, I don't think anyone has ever realistically thought that Obama would launch any sort of military attack against the Iranians. The only people who suggest that he should do this are Neocons as they talk amongst themselves.

Barack Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize: Milli Vanilli winning the Grammy.

OR

Barack Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize: Dewey Defeating Truman.

Can't go wrong with either...

There are many arguments that can be justly waged against the GOP in terms of a perceived strategy of obstructionism towards the current Democrat-led government. But let's be honest. The GOP would never support any kind of public option in a debate on health care reform. The disarray of their party, and the power vacuum left behind by the Bush administration, has little to do with that particular piece of opposition. Also, the GOP's insistence that Obama adhere to General McChrystal's call for 40,000 more troops for the war in Afghanistan is also something the party would wholly endorse regardless of their position of strength or weakness in Washington.

I only reference these two areas because they are the prevalent topics of discussion in the Beltway these days. My greater point is that these positions have nothing to do with Rush Limbaugh or Glen Beck. In fact, the great thing about Rush and Beck (and Sean Hannity) is that if you were to go up to one of them and ask them point blank: "if you could construct your ideal nation, what would it look like and what would it entail?"

They wouldn't be able to tell you because they don't know. Their strategy to gain viewers is to simply attack and spin whatever that particular day's talking points are. They have no grand, ideal agenda. That's why they are entertainers, not even true pundits.

His efforts at curtailing the world's stockpile of nuclear arms, improving relations with the international Muslim community, and his stance on stricter environmental controls were all referenced by the committee.

The interesting part is that the nomination process for the Nobel Peace Prize came to an end just two weeks after Obama took office (February 1st). From where I sit, this is questionable.

And, MJ, nobody can criticize Obama for winning the award. It's not as if he was able to nominate himself. Any skepticism must be placed at the feet of the committee that awarded the prize. It just seems to set an odd precedent to award someone this prize based on potential. That would be akin to a writer being awarded the Pulitzer Prize based on a great literary work that they MIGHT one day write.

If you are a Democrat, the double whammy of watered down health care reform (see Robert Reich's post) and deteriorating situations in Afghanistan and Pakistan make the party vulnerable in both domestic and foreign policy. Perhaps just as troubling is the obvious division on both of these issues between the White House and Congressional Democrats.

The Republicans, for all their problems, really don't even need to join the fight because the Democrats are cracking from within. As is the case whenever a party is completely out of power, they'll pick their fights carefully (i.e. no public option in health care), but the only saving grace for the Democrats might just be the fact that the GOP has yet to find a new face to challenge Obama in 3 years. It's a party without a voice and a face.

No truer words have ever been spoken. Like Limbaugh, George W. Bush and the Neo-Conservatives are also not true Conservatives, hence the "Neo" prefix.

In the case of Limbaugh and Glen Beck, it would be wise council to take a step back and synthesize their objective before pulling your hair out in disgust and dismay. Limbaugh and Beck are entertainers. Never forget that. In order become as popular and as celebrated as they are, you have to pick and a side and be controversial. There is no room in political television or AM talk radio for moderates or centrists; that's why nobody watches Anderson Cooper on CNN. That is also why Air America struggles to survive.

So the real problem, then, is the fact that so many people buy into the skewed sense of reality that these guys advance with fiery and well crafted rhetoric. But doesn't Jon Stewart do the same thing on the #1 rated Daily Show? Al Franken, meanwhile, was elected to the United States Senate due in large part to his liberal radio show on Air America.

My point here is that until Limbaugh or Beck actually runs for office, what are we worried about? Political radio and TV is very much akin to watching sports. There is much bravado and machismo as fans clamor for their favorite team, but in the end, it's nothing other than entertainment. Limbaugh's opinions may sway those of others, but at least his thoughts aren't turning into pieces of legislation being debated on the floors of Congress.

A more interesting question is what Obama's plans will be. McChrystal has asked for 40,000 more troops. Joe Biden, meanwhile, has subtly hinted that many U.S. forces should be withdrawn from the country and the strategy should be shifted to special operations against key targets.

Obama has all but nixed this latter proposal, but there are indications that Obama might opt to sent somewhere in the neighborhood of 10,000 more troops.

Of all his options, that seems to be the most misguided. Either give your top military commander what he says is necessary, or get together with your other advisers and come up with a different plan altogether. Maintaining the status quo while sending in a nominal amount of fresh troops seems to be the worst possible move the president could make.