Yeah, well...besides the complete lack of experience in leadership, yes.

Yeah, cuz experience equals success. For instance Richard Nixon. And GWB. Their experience really put them over the top.

When you're running on a platform of change it would be pretty impossible to be intellectually honest if you're an experienced DC insider. But hey, intellectual honesty and consistency have never been the hallmarks of American politics and certainly not on this little corner of the intertubes.

Pop quiz time - which remaining campaign never ran out of cash? Being able to manage a national campaign can be a nice little canary in a our little coal mine. It's a view of a candidate's management ability of a large organization. Granted not nearly as big as the executive branch but the biggest org any of the remaining candidates have ever managed. Only one ran a campaign without running out of cash. I think that's a good sign. Your mileage will no doubt be exactly opposite of mine and I'll soon learn why that's a terrible thing.

A simple majority will not be able to get much passed if the Republicans don't wish to let it pass (think judges). Unless the Democrats can get more than 60 in the Senate, don't count on much being accomplished without a lot of compromise.

My knee jerk reaction is to lol at this statement. I wish the search function on this site didn't blow so hard so I could link the hundreds of shrill whines posted here about the horrors of an obstructionist Congress. I promise the DNC will use all those sound bites against the GOP in 2010 if the GOP goes down this path. And I will laugh at the self righteous fauxffednedness of both sides.

My knee jerk reaction is not the right reaction though. A couple points.

Obama is running on a platform of change and unity. He needs to deliver compromise. I suspect he will. I suspect this will quickly burn his goodwill with the Congressional dems. And then things get ugly.

I also think having an adversarial relationship between Congress and the executive branch is a good thing. Look at Bush's first 6 years. Anyone wanna step up and try to claim it wasn't bad for the country? Anyone? Look at Clinton's final years - the years that the budget turned to a surplus. Why? Cuz the only thing Congress would pass were absolute must fuckin have right this fuckin minute items. Yeah, I'd be fine with that.

The founding fathers designed our government so that the branches of government are supposed to check each other. We seem to have forgotten that. If we get back to how we're supposed to run I think it's a net win for the country.