Obama may be perceived as the top Democrat, but that doesn't mean that he dictates to all the other elected officials who are also Democrats. You seem to be suggesting that he should be able to make Democrats in Congress do what he wants them to do, which is ridiculous.

The purpose of creating separation of powers and checks and balances was to insure that each branch of government operates independently. They can certainly work together, negotiate with each other and influence one another in other ways but they have to operate independently.

Obama has offered his support to Democrats seeking re-election and I believe he's assembled his own campaign team to assist if needed. That's a shrewd move, in my opinion. Congress operates on the 'you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours' principle and he's offering a whole lot of back scratching in making his fabled team available to these folks.

Obama's a Washington outsider, as were Bush and Clinton, so he has little political capital in a notoriously insular town. This could give him what he needs to make members of Congress more trusting and more receptive to his message. The message he gave both parties in his meetings with them was that they need to continue legislating even though they're also campaigning. Maybe some of the Democrats will be more willing to risk alienating some voters if they know they have help.

Meanwhile, Bush may have been perceived as the top Republican at some point in his career but not at the end of his term. I think it's telling that Rush Limbaugh (an entertainer), Dick Cheney (former VP), Newt Gingrich (former Speaker of the House), and John McCain (failed presidential candidate) were all perceived as more powerful than the previous, two term President. If Bush was the great leader many of you seem to believe he was, why do you think that people see his VP as being more powerful?

This discussion is pointless, Zephyr. You're talking about perception, not fact. My perception is that Obama, Pelosi, and Reid each has his or her own opinion and even though they may be similar, there's nothing in the governmental rule book that says they have to be the same. I really don't know how you can argue with something as obvious and as logical as that. This isn't a dictatorship.

One indisputable fact is that the President, a majority of Representatives, and a majority of Senators favor specific healthcare reform measures that may not be enacted because Republican Senators are threatening to use a legislative trick to block passage of the bill. The threat is being taken seriously because Republicans have been using such tricks more and more to hold appointments and legislation hostage.

With regard to Bush bashing....you opened the door when you posted a Gallup poll showing that Bush is low on the list of party leaders and then talked about how Bush was the party leader when he was President. Now you're arguing that all presidents lose power once they leave office. So if that's true, how come Bush's VP, a former House Speaker, and the loser of the last election are all perceived as more powerful than Bush? Bush lost power, but not his former VP? Your entire argument is based on the presumption that presidents are their parties' leaders, but this doesn't seem to have been true with Bush.

So, you think that if Obama just tells Nancy Pelosi that she has to do things his way or else, she'll crumble and he'll magically get everything he wants? And how would it help his cause if he humiliated her in public?

Obama doesn't have anything to do with leading or instructing Pelosi. She's the duly elected Speaker of the House and there's nothing he can do about it. That's the way it is. That's the way it should be.

I said that poorly. I didn't mean to say that Obama is Pelosi's boss (like he is Holder's boss). Wouldn't it be refreshing for Obama to say ANYTHING about Pelosi's conduct as Speaker that he found questionable or just plain wrong? The junket that she organized for the trip for all those Dems (and Sensenbrenner) to have an all-expense paid trip to Copenhagen would have been the perfect opportunity for him to open that door.

Suggestions that Obama should be telling Pelosi and Reid what to do smack of dictatorship. Separation of powers is the essence of our government, which is not a dictatorship. The fact that Congress is not in total sync with the President is healthy as is the fact that Obama is making clear efforts to work with both parties on the issues that he considers to be most critical. Complaints that he's a weak leader because he can't make Congress dance to his tune are disingenuous, particularly coming from people who would be the first to complain if he used strong arm tactics to get them to go along.

Obama did meet with Republicans privately at the beginning of the healthcare reform process and that approach did not really pay off. I like the new approach better. Now, he'll be doing his negotiating in the light of TV cameras and the process will be beamed into living rooms all over the world so people won't have to speculate about who's doing what.

Whatever you're proffering can't be an olive branch if it leaves its recipients scratched and bleeding. You've taken your argument 180 degrees and twisted mine in the process.

You started with a pretty strong statement, highlighted above, to the effect that there is really little separation between the President and Congress and went on to list the ways in which Obama's failure to get Congress to do his bidding demonstrates weak leadership. You were talking about Obama, right? I argued that there is, and should be, a separation and that I think Obama's doing fine and somehow you interpret this to mean that I think he's a dictator and I want him to use strong arm tactics with members of Congress?

Where, on earth, are you getting this from?

Okay, perhaps we can end by agreeing. My writing may indicate taking sides but I don't really feel that way. Unfortunately, the current senate rules allow for the Republican tactics. That's just a reality that doesn't appear to be changing any time soon. Therefore, give and take by both parties is necessary to get some type of reform bill passed. And I do think it is important to enact meaningful reforms.

Nobody twisted your words. You need to clarify your thinking before you post and stop blaming other people if your failure to do that leads you to make a misstatement. Your "olive branch" was clearly nothing of the sort.

I'm laughing out loud . . . how you say that . . . LOL??

Please forgive me, Nancy, for the left handed compliment, but that is a completely effective debating tool if you can get away with it. I hear Mark Belling do it all the time -- which is why I would never call his show in a million years. You call in. You're a liberal. Therefore, you absolutely must adhere to his preconceptions about liberals . . . I think zephyr caught you doing the same thing. Congratulations to both of you!!

I'm laughing out loud . . . how you say that . . . LOL??

Please forgive me, Nancy, for the left handed compliment, but that is a completely effective debating tool if you can get away with it. I hear Mark Belling do it all the time -- which is why I would never call his show in a million years. You call in. You're a liberal. Therefore, you absolutely must adhere to his preconceptions about liberals . . . I think zephyr caught you doing the same thing. Congratulations to both of you!!