My grandfather believed that Franklin Roosevelt gave the nation socialism and deliberately provoked the Pearl Harbor attack in order to strengthen the Soviet Union by defeating the fascists. Those views probably qualify as "hate," and they certainly weren't held by him alone.

You're always going to have irrational opposition to those in power. There have been times in our history when it's been worse than it is now.

The election was bizarre, and the district, while somewhat conservative, is a long way from Alabama or Texas. A Republican candidate somewhere between Scozzafava and Hoffman might have won.

The question is whether Republicans will learn from this. If they do, and they sponsor candidates appropriate to their locales (eg, Christie) and run the right kind of positive campaigns (eg, McDonald), they will do well next year.

Especially if Obama, Pelosi et al persist in their efforts to march the Democrats off a cliff.

Far from it -- these off-year elections and their probable results show real concern over the Democrats' insane agenda in Congress. If You don't see that, you're in denial.

One more reason to fly Southwest.

Obviously it takes discretion, but this case sounded extreme. If it helps get irresponsible parents to do a better job with their kids, all power to SWA! It's about time.

Presidents draw on their experiences: Eisenhower the manager, LBJ the deal-maker, Clinton the compromiser. Obama's experience is that of organizer in the Alinsky mode; i.e., push, push, push, push and push some more, until the opposition gives you what you want just to make you go away. Kinda like a car salesman. People don't like this approach, but that's beside the point.

Will it work? Who knows? What other president has ever tried it? Will other things get in the way? e.g., Afghanistan, Iran/Israel, whatever?

Stay tuned.

There's a cute game here, that others who disagree with you are in an "alternate reality." It is presumed that those people's reality is wrong, stupid, crazy, etc. But if that were so , it wouldn't be a reality. It would just be stupid fiction.

But it's not -- or not entirely. What "alternate reality" do you inhabit if you think Obamacare will not be an untenable budget buster? Do you even care?

Terry Jeffrey and his friends are one of the reasons the Republicans crashed and burned under Bush. That gave Obama and the Dems an unprecedented opportunity to accomplish a lot of centrist stuff, including moderate health care reform, not including the Trojan Horse public option. But like his predecessor, he interpreted his mandate to allow him to pursue his own personal wish list. And the people are challenging him, apparently to his surprise.

Obama is the obverse side of the Bush coin. Could we somehow, someday get a president to do what we need rather than what he wants?

In the meantime, I am finished listening to this guy. I'm not sorry I voted for him, given the opposition, but I wish he was more like the guy he said he was in the campaign.

David Harsanyi in the Denver Post has it just right: if we adults have to listen constantly to this hectoring, self-righteous, pompous, moralizing, in-your-face, BORING president, why not expose our kids to him? After all,they need to get used to him -- he's gonna be around for a while.

This address by itself means nothing, but look at it from the conservative, or even moderate, point of view: a gigantic stimulus bill, a gigantic auto bailout, a gigantic bank bailout, etc. etc., all leading to unbelievable deficits, and now the Dems want health reform which will make it all trillions worse. Where does this end?? Is the only thing that will stop it a global meltdown that will throw us all out of work and into poverty? And Obama's imprint is on all of this, with constant public appearances.

So now he wants to address our children. In light of the above, it can look rather Big Brotherish. The guy is everywhere! Can't we just get away from him once in a while, instead of having him in the faces of our children?

You might think these sentiments are shared only by right wing crazies, but you would be wrong.

We know that if the pro-reform person had lost his pinky, he would have engaged one of those personal injury lawyers that are all over TV and radio and gone after the other guy.

But what if the tables were turned? Will the anti-reform guy, presumably someone who hates tort lawyers, sue? A test of faith may be forthcoming.

What's Obama gonna say that hasn't already been said? The real question is, How far is he willing to go to win? Except for one other question: What exactly is it that he's trying to win?

A poll shows that two-thirds of the people don't even know what he's talking about. It's not clear to me that even he knows. It'll be a hell of a speech that solves that problem. And people are getting tired of his meaningless eloquence.

What if an anti-reform person had bitten off the finger of a pro-reform person? Rather than a ha-ha moment, it would have been further graphic evidence of the brutally fascist tendencies of the opponents.

We know he can deliver a great speech. What we also know now, but didn't know at first, is that delivering a great speech is all he's good for. This speech will make no difference, and the ratings will be horrible.