The Wilburys. Really?

What about Damn Yankees, Toto, The Firm and/or Audioslave.

(Ok, Toto was awesome.)

If the Nobel committee really understood American politics, they would have realized that awarding this prize to Obama would actually undermine his agenda.

The right will use this as an endless soundbite to equate Obama with Jimmy Carter, talk how "un-American" Obama is, and how Norwegians are determining foreign policy.

And, the left is kicking the crap out of him for it being undeserved in that his actions haven't matched his words.

Whatever happened to: "Congratulation!"?

... often seems to be that Republicans will flat out tell you they are working for the lobbyists. Many Democrats like Baucus use populism to get elected and then sell out to the lobbyists anyways.

So I donate to causes like Firedoglake that work to hold these Democrats feet to the fire and make them vote for what they said they would vote for.

That, and look to elect better Democrats! Not Republican-lites like Baucus.

Regardless of what they do, the corporate-sponsored media will lean critical.

If they pass poor legislation, they provide a legitimate reason for the criticism. That is, they will erode their large base.

If they pass good legislation, Republicans will cry foul. But they will cry foul anyways. Anyone who will listen to these arguments will listen anyways. It does not erode their position any more than it would anyways as the party in power.

So their negotiation position is much stronger than they realize. They simply have to say:

1. We will not pass a bill that only benefits the insurance companies (and big pharma)

2. No legislation is better than a worse system (what Obama should have said in the beginning)

The only way Democrats lose is to pass something that they don't believe in just for the sake of passing something.

As a "biased liberal," I couldn't be happier to see Cheney acting as the spokesman for the Republican party.

He's almost as good as Rush Limbaugh.

I love his snarling, out-of-touch paranoia. Seems to me he's a perfect symbol for the GOP.

The part that's funniest though is GOP members who are trying to claim liberal bias is behind polls showing Cheney is hurting the party.

This is funny because I think most liberals couldn't be happier to see Cheney center stage.

And, it shows the absurdity of their "liberal bias" claims which have come to be used so often every time someone doesn't agree with them, that these old chestnuts just sound tiresome and unbelievable.

When all you hear from a party is "liberal bias, liberal bias, liberal bias" (everyone is out to get us), even the diehard faithful will eventually start to wonder if they have anything else to say.

When someone deliberately tries to conceal something, you obviously assume that it is for a reason.

How does this not inflame anti-American sentiment?

If our government were more transparent and our media not owned by corporations, abuses like this wouldn't happen in the first place.

The Right has found that if they take extreme positions, they can move the direction of the country and set the agenda using the media outlets they own.

They have also found that if they put enough disinformation out there, it makes it hard for many people to determine what is actual news and what is propaganda.

What Obama and Democrats have done is takeover the domain of the Northeastern Republicans and made it their own.

Progressives vote for them because the alternative is really radical Conservatives.

And they've drawn off the independents and Republicans frustrated with the Neocons.

So while the Republican party is struggling, I'd say that the Rightwing base is as big as ever. They just don't seem to be getting as much traction with Independents and Eisenhower Republicans.

And, part of this is, perhaps, because they've ratcheted up the hate. Part is also because they are seen as responsible for the financial crisis (despite their attempts at disinformation).

Your comparison with Colbert is interesting but somewhat off. Colbert doesn't deliberately try to get people to hate him. Rush does. Ann Coulter does.

In fact, their main strategy is to try and pit one group of people against another.

Ann Coulter wrote that if you can get liberals angry, you win.

I've asked myself for years why this is true. The best answer I can come up with is that when angered, liberals tend to respond in kind out of anger and emotion.

"You're stupid," is the standard liberal response.

The battle then turns into a back and forth between the conservative as entertainer (who knows he's just liberal baiting) and the liberal as baitee.

Who wins? The conservative who knows this is just a game. And the people who want to create a distraction while they seize power and loot the country.

So please, Julie. You can like your cousin. But I hope you don't feel sorry for him. He chooses to bait people into hating him for money. He freely admits it when he talks about how to make millions.

The difference between him and Stephen Colbert is that Colbert doesn't deliberately insult people in order to generate anger and controversy. Rush creates division. Just like Bush. You're either with him or you're the enemy.

Quite different from Mr. Colbert. I can see Rush as human and know that family is family, but it's tough to have much sympathy for someone who is willing to stir up hatred to make a buck.