I don't see why Pelosi should not run for President in 2016. She will be no more older than Ron Paul when he ran, and her acuity is greater than any of the 30 and 40 somethings running around the House in "leadership" positions.

I am very curious about which GOP House member might cross the aisle and vote with Pelosi's block on budget bills. She doesn't need many defections to move things forward. Boehner has the gavel and enormous power to control which bills get voted on, but if he wants to do something good for the country and sees dysfunction in his caucus, then he could turn a blind eye to it and still have plausible deniability.

This sort of thing requires a great deal of delicacy and trust between opponents. Hmmm I don't know if you call it trust. It's something like they believe in each other's good will and concern for the health of the country.

But... are there any moderates left with the guts needed to cross the aisle?

Conservatives are very happy to see Ms. Pelosi return.

I am surprised that so far no one has mentioned the age-ism evident in Luke Russert's question about whether it is time for leadership to make way for younger blood.

Russert's question was premised on the observation about the age of the Dem leadership. But here is the trap of identity politics. Pelosi can be acceptable in several categories that define identity for some members of the coalition, but no one can satisfy all categories. Each category has some negative connotation. Age has the connotation of calcification. In his inexperience, Russert had no idea of the age bigotry he was giving voice to.

The real answer is one that Pelosi cannot give, but her supporters can. It is that she is far far younger in spirit than the cynics populating the House ranks- her own caucus included. Her youth is eternal, and she will carry it forward to her dieing breath.

God bless you Nancy.

No one on MSNBC is going to mention that idiot Russert's insulting

question to Ms. Pelosi. I'm still waiting for him to ask that question

of all the men in leadership positions on the Hill.

But for the accident of his birth, Luke Russert would likely be a failure at building a residence out of a cardboard box under a freeway overpass.

Let's not pile on Russert. If the question was about some concrete example of calcification or resistance to change that the current Dem leadership exhibits, that would be fair.

Objectively determinable attributes define the sets that journalists and Archie Bunkers tend to focus on. The person's age, religion, gender, ethnicity- the demographics define who they are and what their intentions are.

Hayes's thought piece of the week points out that the GOP's reliance on white identity politics doomed their chances in 2012 (link). The trouble with this formulation is that he sees nothing wrong with using identity politics- it is just that the GOP chose to focus the wrong one or ones. What I am saying is that the reliance on identifying sets of the "young vote" "black vote", "latino vote" sews the seeds of destruction if our identities and basis for compromise with others is defined solely in terms of these categories.

Is this about the young challenging the old? No. The struggle is between those representing the dynamic forces of progressive change versus those who represent calcified entrenched autocrats unwilling to change. The shorthand is that youth is associated with the former, and advanced age is associated with the latter. But these are superficial associations that work well for an easily digested narrative in a news cycle and simple sound bites projected from a political campaign. But every group identity sees an Other whose attributes demonize and distort the humanity. We become bigots.

What is important is the essential character of who Pelosi is, and the forces in society she represents. This transcends her gender, ethnicity, age, and sexual orientation. That is her true identity.

And that is the supreme irony isn't it.

Identity politics has nothing to do with the true identity of individuals.

"...Senate Democratic majority. In the next Congress, the party will have a 55-45 advantage over Republicans..."

That makes little difference if the senate fails to get rid of the filibuster rule which republicans have abused to make sure the minority rules and it takes 60 votes to pass anything.

You mean Maine, that voted overwhelmingly for Democratic candidates and Progressive causes? That district?

He's a senator. Not a representative. Senators don't have districts.

Thanks for the daily demonstration of public celebration of cretin ignorance you morons love so much. Go pee on the fire hydrants of WackoWorld, you worthless POS.

Also free to get a plum committee assignment which is the power of the majority. This is not a criticism of his choice, just the reality of the situation.

You'll notice they're both from California. :-)

Has anyone ever mentioned to you that you are a drooling moron?

Has anyone ever mentioned to you that you're an idiot? Please tell me you're a concern troll from the other side, not that you're a lefty moron. Buit thanks for the4 demonstration of what "political education" you products of "Whole Language" education received.