In any event, I agree with you about Conrad being right about the $3000 credit. It seems to me, however, that this is a time when being right is perhaps less important than being speedy.

I guess her health must be up to it, because it seems that she is signaling her intention to run and the scuttlebutt floating around is that Nixon is behind her.

If I might make bold to disagree, I actually think that there is (or at least could be) an important distinction between your stand and that of these Congress members. It seems to me that when the country is facing a real crisis (as at present) need to be relaxed. It will do us no good if we spend so long hammering out the perfect stimulus package that the economy dives into another great depression in the meanwhile.

On the other hand, when the country is on essentially sound footing (as it was at the time when the second round of Bush tax cuts were being debated) then there is no excuse not to employ the sort of healthy skepticism we are suddenly seeing emerge. In other words, the Congress is being reckless at the times when caution is in order and cautious at the times that call for more bold approaches. I think that you are entirely right to find yourself thinking annoyed thoughts when faced with such Congressional behavior.

Please, we bow to the masters. Democrats have nothing on Republicans when it comes to over-the-top dramatics ("we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" anyone?). I will grant you that KY Yellow Dog may be laying it on a little thick, but only a little. Given that you have admitted to listening with enjoyment to Rush Limbaugh, I am afraid that I will not be able to take any criticisms you might voice on this matter at all seriously.

Come on, kids, you can do it. I have confidence in you. Please do not show this confidence (once again) to have been a shallow illusion.

That said, I have to say that while I have long thought the Bush tax cuts to be bad public policy, and therefore think that their rescission would be good public policy, that I cannot expect you are going to find a lot of enthusiasm in your ranks for this measure. That said, the mark of a real leader is that s/he makes such hard changes occur, so here's hoping you that you pull this off.

It's a generational thing. Younger women are, in many respects, like the younger generation of African Americans who take many of the gains made in the Civil Rights era for granted because they have never lived in a time when they couldn't eat in a restaurant or use a public restroom.

Hm, I guess that your explanation could be part of it, but it seems to me that it cannot be the whole story. After all, there may be younger blacks who are apathetic about the civil rights struggles of their parents, but I doubt that you could find any more than a handful who think that black folks ought to have to go back to drinking from separate fountains, or suchlike. By contrast, as you note yourself, there are young women who think that abortion should be re-criminalized. That is not mere apathy; that is active antipathy.

How does it leave anyone out. This seems to my mind a willful misinterpretation of the gesture. Certain gay people do not like certain evangelical Christians and certain evangelical Christians do not like certain gay people. But (and this is the really insightful element of StillIdealistic's post), both of those groups are Americans. Barack Obama is going to be the President of both the gay Americans and of the evangelical Americans. Neither group is going away, so both should be included. Obama is not trying to push his gay constituents off the dias to make room for the evangelicals; there is room enough for both groups.

To say that inviting the evangelicals is, ipso facto, to disinvite the gays is to say that Obama was wrong to say that there is only one America. It is to say that there really is a red America and a blue America and never the twain shall meet. If you really believe that, why were you ever on board with Obama in the first place?