I have never understood why reporters think so highly of Rahm Emanuel--as Helleman clearly does. When he ran the DCCC, something like 2/3 of the congressional candidates he backed tanked--some in the primaries! The new Democratic majority in the House was elected despite Emanuel, not because of him. Many of the winners were candidates he ran against in the primaries. Yet Helleman quotes him over and over again as "one of the shrewdest, savviest, toughest Democratic pols of his generation." Other than retaining his own seat, I fail to see what he's accomplished to rate that accolade. As a consequence, he's deeply unpopular with rank and file Democratic activists. I truly hope Obama will not follow any reform agenda he advances. Other than annoying subplot, there are some sloppy assumptions like the one about Obama's "near universal healthcare" proposal. It is no such thing. It is expanded insurance, and that's it. I wish it were more, but it's not. However, the thing I found most interesting is the blatant assumption that Obama will win. While this isn't the only article I've read lately to do that, I still find it interesting. I do think he's right that Obama will need to be prepared to move fast--making the FDR comparisons apt.