About the fact that Obama is handling the day to day of dealing with Congress in much the same way he handled the campaign: by not worrying about the daily ups and downs, but rather by sticking with his strategy and keeping the long view.

The hardline strategy would have been to force the Republicans to filibuster the stimulus package, but I tend to think that the stimulus package was an issue where there weren't too many things that couldn't be compromised on (mostly because no one is quite sure what will work and what won't), and that the White House's conclusion was that the most important thing was to get something passed. It will be interesting to see whether and where President Obama draws the "line in the sand" on matters of principle on other issues, such as health care. My hope is that by listening to the Republican Senators he needs to get legislation passed, they will feel comfortable voting with him again, knowing that they will get something that they can say they accomplished by being part of the process.

Let's aim for a filibuster-proof Senate in '10.

Joan, I think you showed courage, did pretty well in a ridiculous situation, and shouldn't second-guess your decision.

But I was a bit surprised at some of the confusion I find evident in your comments to O'Reilly and in your post.

Isn't the answer to the question of whether you believe fetuses "have rights" after 21 weeks, "Yes, Bill, but I believe that the people in the best position to weigh those rights against the rights of the mother are her and her doctor. You believe that the Federal Government should determine how to resolve that balance. That's where we disagree--you are in favor of having Government dictate to women what they must do with their bodies, while I think that decision should be left to them."

I think it's fine to tell the stories of the woman with cancer, the 9 year old rape victim, etc.--but doesn't that beg the question just a bit? Are you saying that abortions after 21 weeks should only be legal and available under such circumstances, or are you saying that the decision should be left to the mother and her doctor and that the government should stay out of it completely? I couldn't tell.

I think that telling O'Reilly to fight to change the laws is a bit disingenuous and dangerous. It was the Supreme Court, after all, that legalized abortion in the face of laws passed by democratically elected legislatures in virtually all the atates that made it illegal. Abortion opponents have a pretty good argument that this was not a "democratic" decision. If Roe v. Wade is reversed, it is likely that some states will ban abortions while others won't--that would be the democratic solution, but not one that you or I favor, I assume.

I think it is just so refreshing and wonderful to have a President who realized that he had made a mistake and acted promptly and responsibility to deal with it. Classy, smart politically, just all around a good guy. My guess is that you have to go back to Jimmy Carter to find a President who would have done the same.

@ ddeagler:

You say: "Whenever a politician, like the president at his press conference, states that black men are more likely to be stopped by police, or arrested or incarcerated, often he manages to omit saying that the reason for this is not just blatant racism but that, statistically speaking, black men commit a vastly disproportionate amount of the crime. This is not pleasant or pretty or PC. But it's true.

But it's not true. According to Gabbidon and Greene, "Race and Crime (2d ed.) a preview of which is available at Google Books http://books.google.com/books?id=Ye77D9jgtOwC&pg=PA177&lpg=PA177&dq=who+is+convicted+of+a+felony+by+race&source=bl&ots=9fuBkRH_Wo&sig=fKNc1e1vBgt_l-ZT4DWV5XdkPEg&hl=en&ei=BhdqSpCSHo7SMtWerM8M&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4,

in 2006, 7,270,214 white people were arrested (70% of the total), while 2,924,724 black people were arrested (28% of the total). While this is a higher percentage than their representation in the population, the facts are that (1) white people commit more crime; and (2) the percentage of crime committed by black people, while higher, is not "vastly disproportionate" to their percentage of the population.

@McKay

You are correct, but actually it's less than half as many.

According to Gabbidon and Greene, "Race and Crime (2d ed.) a preview of which is available at Google Books http://books.google.com/books?id=Ye77D9jgtOwC&pg=PA177&lpg=PA177&dq=who+is+convicted+of+a+felony+by+race&source=bl&ots=9fuBkRH_Wo&sig=fKNc1e1vBgt_l-ZT4DWV5XdkPEg&hl=en&ei=BhdqSpCSHo7SMtWerM8M&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4,

in 2006, 7,270,214 white people were arrested (70% of the total), while 2,924,724 black people were arrested (28% of the total). While this is a higher percentage of total arrests than their percentage of the population, the facts are that (1) white people commit more crime; and (2) the percentage of crime committed by black people, while higher than their percentage of the population, is not "vastly disproportionate" to their percentage of the population, particularly when you account for poverty, as you rightly point out.