Maybe Mark Kirk took a page out of Obama's political play book.

Mark Kirk, the gift of gaffe.

America is at war and we all need to remain patriotic and support our soldiers who are fighting for the safety of this country. Let us pray for them and their families and our country. Let us support the commander in chief at this time of war.

We should always support our troops and I believe most do, but we are not at war, we are trying to build nations to our specifications, and it won't be successful, the people of Iraq and Afghanistan should seek out their destiny however they see fit, and they will in the end after we leave, Obama should man up and bring our kids home, and take care of another nation that desperately needs help, the United States of America.

Ron, I think it will lead to more polarization within the LEFT wing of the electorate. However, if the center-left will talk to and convince the extreme left to play nice in the sandbox, we can all move forward.

The trick will be to get the extreme left to play nice.

Pietro: I like your assessment! We will have to see what happens.

President Obama worked to earn the support of the left (O.K., didn't require much work) then campaigned as a bipartisan centrist who would change the way Washington operated in order to attract the independent and moderate vote. Once elected, he went hard left again. He is now recognized as the most divisive and polarizing President in Gallup history.

Just wondering?

Our country is the third most populous on the planet. It is also respectively the most culturally and ethnically diverse comprising so many people with diverging beliefs, values and interests. Our system is supposed to a representative form of government that provides a voice for all these diverse individuals.

Wouldn't it be nice that instead of working to earn the support of the left, (or right) our politicians listened and earned the support of their constituents and that once elected, they honestly represented those constituents and dispense with all the tricks.

Just wondering.

LouisJ, I think that President Obama is trying to get the 'adults' in the electorate to pay attention. The 'circus' atmosphere that surrounds politcs today is mainly stirred up by the party that is NOT in power. Unfortunately, a good portion of the electorate is falling for the theatrics. I submit that President Obama is betting that his message will get to the MAJORITY of the electorate - the QUIET thoughful thinkers out there - will outweigh and overwhelm the 'noise makers'. Although many on the left are not happy with this President's accomplishments, many in the center - center-left and center-right - ARE happy with the accomplishments and still DO support this President.

I guess we will see if President Obama's instinct is correct.

True Pietro. But we also have to look at the danger that was faced with such a short time in office. The long curve of disaster aversion has taken its toll on the vehicle of change. The tires on one side are worn out from so much traction on the pavement that the passengers (the American people) feel like the bus is going to tip over the cliff, when in reality we are almost around the bend.

Democrats need to push the message that change is taking place and that big legislative efforts are out of the way and that a new era in America is shaping up where its dreams are becoming reality and that liberty has never been any stronger.

I am sure the loss of seats could be limited. But I am sure that they could also gain some if we drive positive messages home.

As I see it, the biggest challenge will be trying to convince voters that going against the will of the people was the right thing to do. When 60 - 70% of people object to something like the Health Care bill and you use parliamentary procedures to force it through, it leaves a bad taste in peoples mouths.

After that, seeking endorsements from the far left doesn't necessarily seem like the best move. It just gives the opposition something else to point to at election time. It is much harder to convince people that you are a centrist when you are courting the fringe.

I think the populace democrats already know what's going on, believe me, I don't think for a minute that they are not going to get out the vote; but until those in the Senate and the House can get out there and speak as loudly and clearly and proudly about their message as the do-nothing Repubs get out there, back their crazies, never say anything to denounce the hate, in fact, condone it. We seem to be just way too gracious, way too nice. This is actually a war within our country and the do-nothings seem to be winning it. Unless those in charge can change the media message, the media (yes, I surely do blame the media including some of those on MSNBC) is driving the election.

I even note just the wording of some of the stuff even on here that denotes sort of a negativity in reporting:

"told the Netroots Nation candidate cattle call in Las Vegas"

"(Which made one wonder about former Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. In 2004 Obama's Senate campaign did take $1.2 million in money from PACs including those of BP, Boeing, Pfizer, and the American Federation of Teachers. )"

"I am running against one of the most vulnerable Republicans in the Senate," Sen. Richard Burr. But Burr had $6.2 million in cash in his campaign treasury as of June 30, compared to Marshall's $163,000."

"Hodes' party loyalty record as a House member is strong. But if he wins while other Democrats are losing, New Hampshire voters may show that they're independent of national trends."

"Halter, the loser of the year's most hotly contested Democratic primary, looked down pensively."

All these comments, and if you look in the other threads, the connotations there also have a lot of negativity, while right now the Republicans "have the momentum"; never mind they're a bunch of crazy whackos that should be called out, but that's the story that the country is hearing. As I heard on MTP by someone (don't remember who) the 24/7 media is trying to fill in time and of course they want the ratings, and that is based on controvery and negativity, far more than on what the President has done and accomplished. It's "poll this and poll that". I like to give them all a poll. I have never in my many many years been contacted by a pollster.

However, since we're not getting help from the media, the leadership needs to do a stronger job of getting their message out. They can't just depend on Ed and Keith and Rachel to do it when so many others are giving credence to the Republicans and pessimism to the Democrats.

I agree Cathy. I have always thought the they could use Rachel either in communications or as a candidate herself. But she makes way to much money doing what she does right now. Besides, her broadcasts make a world of difference.

JC - I don't see it that way. We are STILL hearing that the HCR law was 'against the will of the people', but that sounds like 'sour grapes' from the right side of the aisle. The fact of the matter is that although we didn't get everything we wanted from HCR, we got enough FOUNDATION that we can build upon for years to come. The mere fact that the 'Public Option' talk has come up again is a testament to that. The fact is that all it would take is legislation - built on the foundation of the HCR law - to make a Public Option a reality.

the second reality is that the HCR law is in effect changing the game when it comes to health insurance. Unfortunately, the insurance companies are going to gouge everyone as much as possible, as ifthey are daring the electorate to put forth a Public option. I sincerely believe that the insurance companies don't believe that it will happen.

Unfortunately, this 'message' hasn't gotten to the electorate because of all of the 'noise' out there about racism and the President not being 'angry' enough about BP.

JC:

Although true it appears most polls showed that people were not behind the final Bill coming out of Congress the fact is the majority of people wanted some type of HCR. Let's also keep in mind that a certain percentage of those opposed to the final Bill were progressives who wanted either a single payer plan or a at least public option. Also, it appears that more recent polls show that a majority are now willing to give the new HCR Bill a try. My gut feeling is that Dems should not be afraid to run on passage of the Bill. They should contiunue explaining the benefits as well as reminding the public that if the Republicans had their choice there would be no HCR at all, and that the Bill can always be improved as the major portions are implemented and as needed, just as was the Social Security program. The Dems also need to tie the HCR Bill in with Medicare and Social Security and hammer home to the voters that if the Republicans are allowed to regain power that they intend to repeal the HCR Bill and would shortly follow up with elimnation of Social Security and Medicare.

I'm not certain that comparing HCR to Social Security would make sense. Everyone knows that Social Security is almost bankrupt and anyone currenly under the age of 40 is questioning whether they will ever see any benefit from it.

Also, given the report I heard on the radio this morning that the U.K. is looking into decentralizing their healthcare because it is failing - it will make it awfully difficult to convince people to move towards a public option.

Throw on top of that the fact that the CBO has revised the cost estimate upward and it seems very unlikely that it is likely to be a strong platform item.

JC:

I'm not saying that tying HCR in with the potential destruction of SS and Medicare may make sense. In fact, although the republicans may want to repeal the HCR Bill they may not want to mess with Social Security and Medicare. But that is not how I would present it as Dems. Republicans are darn good at playing these kinds of scare tactics against Dems. It's time the Dems learn a few pointers here and do the same. It makes no sense that some republicans are saying that Obama wants to hand the U.S. over to the socialists of the world, or to terrorists, but they say it anyway. It's time the Dems tie in the potential destruction and elimination of Social Security and Medicare with the republican's desire to repeal HCR and to put the republicans on the defensive.

So, the idea would be "win at any cost" forget about integrity and truth. I don't think that is a good approach, regardless of which side does it.

As for scare tactics, that seems to be all that politics is about anymore - who can scare the other side more. The right paints the left as socialists that want to tax and spend us into oblivion, while the left paints the right as greedy corporate puppets that want everyone to work for nothing as slaves.

The only real way to change minds is with the truth. Unfortunately, it is not always easy to find and most people are too invested in their preconceived ideas to recognize it when they do.

We must all ask ourselves this: Have I really looked at the arguments the other side is raising with an open mind, or is my first reaction to assume that there is no merit because it came from them.

I for one am tired of the mindless devotion of so many people.

JC:

Your sentiments are correct JC and I agree with you.

But you pose some very good questions.

Naturally, it is best to remain honest and to hold on to one's intgrity, but at what point does the other side say enough is enough. Is it ok to let others take the country down the path of deceitful destruction while one maintains their honesty and integrity, or is there a point where one has to wrestle control from those who are deceitful and dishonest, even if that means initially using their tactics against them?

CA,

The age old question - Does the end justify the means?

The first and foremost question to ask is which side is which in your statement. And the answer for many would be that it depends on which side you are on. If you are on the right you believe the left is leading us down the path of deceitful destruction on the road to socialism and if you are on the left you believe the right is leading us down the path of deceitful destruction on the road to corporate domination.

Personally, I think the problem lies with our representatives (on both sides of the aisle) who continually ignore their constituents and worry more about re-election than doing their job. It is impossible to make progress on any real issues when our representatives are intellectually dishonest.

w bush:

Wanting and being able to pass through Congress a HCR Bill with a public option is two different things. There was no way any conervsatives (versus that of progressives) were going to vote for a HCR Bill with a public option, and that includes conservative Dems. As to whether Obama should have vetoed a Bill without the public option is a matter for another debate. But to say that support for the public option was present from those congressional members other than progressives I believe is an error. In the voting for the final version the republicans were irrlevant. But the Dems would not have had enough votes among themselves using the procedure they did to pass the Bill if it had incoporated a public option. Too many conservative/moderate Dems would not have supported the Bill if the public option had been included.

One can argue it was better to have no Bill at all if a public option was not included, but is this truly the case? Perhaps it was best to pass what they could, to open the door to HCR and then to amend and revise the Bill in the future after we see that the private insurance firms are not going to cooperate and that they will continue to take advantage of people. Might it not be easier to add a public option to a HCR Billl that already exist once people see how the insurance firms are not going to cooperate in lowering costs than it would have been to pass the entire recent HCR Bill with the public option?