The YouTube Generation is turning the tables on the Reagan Youth of my day:

I keep seeing comments like this made by pundits who wallow in conflict and controversy:

All the king's horses and all the king's men can't put this rainbow back together again. What was once an embarrassment of riches is now, in many ways, just an embarrassment.

Sorry, but these "divided Democrats" stories are just bunk. Yes, there is a very competitive race between Obama and Hillary. Yes, there are some attacks going on on each side.

But people keep forgetting that there is little if any philosophical difference between the Democratic candidates. There are no high-profile Democrats threatening not to support the nominee if their person doesn't win. In the end, there will be a very unified party.

But they say, what about all the racial divisions? Obama won only 30 percent of the white vote in Louisiana!

These same writers keep forgetting that Obama is winning mostly white states like Kansas, Idaho and Alaska by huge margins. To say he can't attract white voters is just BS. All of those white Democrats who aren't voting for Obama in the primary will be voting for him in the general. The Clinton campaign has succeeded in spinning the media with this fairy tale.

If you want divisions, take a look at the GOP. When you have major party leaders and media figures publically dissing presumptive nominee John McCain, even threatening to campaign for Hillary Clinton, now that is some division.

Media organizations like controversy, and they will drum up fake controversies when there are no real ones to exploit.

This is one of many recent posts banging the Dems for not taking on Bush.

There are those who contend that there is no real difference between the two parties, and they do have a point. There is some difference, but when it comes down to it, they limit the spectrum of what they feel is legitimate, no matter what the people have to say about it. So even though there is overwhelming support to de-fund the war, the Democrats won't. They get their money from the same people the Republicans do.

The headlines this week said the Democrats are split, in disarray, because there was a battle over who would take the second spot in the House behind Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Yet, the same headlines claimed the Republicans were being united by their leadership decisions.

Huh? Do I smell the stentch of bias here?

Look at the facts. Pelosi was unanimously elected to lead the Democrats in the House. On the Republican side, there was a failed push to remove John Boehner as their new leader, to replace Dennis Hastert. Both men were tainted due to the Mark Foley sex scandal and subsequent fallout. There were 28 votes against Boehner's leadership among the caucus. Gee, that doesn't look like unity to me. Roy Blunt had 57 votes against him for the number two spot. Does that look like unity?

Then move over to the Senate, where Trent Lott makes a comeback as minority whip after being ousted for his Strom Thurmond comments. He won the position by one vote. Does that sound like unity to you?

How much more blantantly biased can you get?

Your supposedly liberal media at work.

There's a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking going on as Democrats seek to find out why they won so big. The prevailing view seems to be that Democrats purposefully moved to the right, and ditched more progressive candidates in order to win.

I think there is some truth to that, but it's also clear that some of these candidates who won were your classic liberals.

Before Dems go off and start all trying to sound like moderates, I think it bears pointing out that what mattered most was honesty, not ideology. A progressive who is passionate about his or her stands on the issues, and honest about them, will beat those who try to change their views to appeal to the voters.

This has been the trap the Democrats have been stuck in for years, thanks to the DLC. People want honest politicians, not ones who just say what they think you want to hear. Elections are more about character than issues. Any candidate who tries to straddle the fence for votes will just end up getting tangled in barbed wire.

Forget the positioning. Just show who you are. That's what wins elections.

I have been reading accounts of President Bush's last-minute barnstorming tour, trying to save the Republican majority in congress. He warns that if Democrats win, they will raise your taxes and do all sorts of unsavory things.

Maybe Bush doesn't get how a veto works since he has used it so little, but even if both the House and Senate flip for the Dems, no legislation will pass unless he approves it.

It really is disgusting. Bush knows the things he is saying are flat out lies.

What Dems taking over really means is that the ugly extremism and partisanship that ruled the Hill for several years will be curtailed. Republicans were able to ignore the Democrats for years, which made everything partisan. With divided government, both parties need to come together to get things done.