It iz so sad that she ever bred.

Let's take a look at this scenerio... Obama wins the presidency and takes office, but the whole birth certificate conspiracy theory turns out to be true and impeachment soon follows. Then we have President Joe Biden, which isn't exactly making me jump for joy either. Biden dies from... I don't know an aneurism or something. Then we have... hide the kids eyes... President Nancy Pelosi.

There's a Stephen King book in there somewhere. 

Polarizing? Not really. Mind numbingly stupid...absolutely.

Certainly irritating and polarizing. . .but also gets flak for simply existing ("she killed the first bank-rescue vote!"  Really now. . .)  Also polarizes for something that isn't her fault- I can't stand her voice.  But indeed, she is a left-of-center demo from Cally whose bills would get 'no' votes from dubya-whores if they offered the cure for cancer.

Pelosi is indeed a very polarizing leader. The House Speaker has historically acted as a mediator which assisted in getting business done in the Congress. Generally speaking the people who were selected to this post were practical politicians whose aim was to pass legislation in a spirit of compromise with ALL members. Yes, the Speaker leads their party in the Congress, and they exercise the priorities of the majority party by utilizing their power to determine when each bill reaches the floor for a vote. But the first priority of the Speaker was maintaining the procedural functions of the House. In today's hyper-partisaned atmosphere, we get factional leaders who, instead of managing the business of the Congress as a whole manage the business of their political party first. In that respect, you simply can't compare Nancy Pelosi to House Speakers of old like Sam Rayburn or even Tip O'Neill. She neither has the same political skills or abilities of the above two to hold together the House of Representatives as a functional unit. That's why in the final analysis the approval ratings for the Congress are at historic lows.

Her "leadership" has ushered in the lowest approval ratings for Congress in history.  Now compare the coverage she receives to that received by Newt Gingrich during the Clinton years.  Nancy would kill for Newt's approval ratings, even though the press at the time villified him and his "Contract with America" which they hated more than they today hate George W. Bush. 

An objective press would relentlessly ask "San Fran Nan" about those approval ratings daily, how they got there, what was being done to begin to do the will of the American people and how their quagmire of inaction is in some way benefitting America.  That's what they did to Newt Gingrich.  But, don't hold your breath.  They got her in and to criticise her would be tantamount to admitting a mistake and American journalists have no such capacity, jointly or severally.

This woman has to be the worst Speaker of the House in our nation's history. Her continual inflammatory comments have done nothing but further anger and divide this country down party lines. Maybe it should also be noted that the economy, prior to her ascension, was doing quite well as the Dow Jones continued to climb to record numbers and unemployment remained low. It wasn't until around mid 2007 (under a Democrat controlled Congress) we began to see the economy become unstable and begin it's slide downward. Funny that we point our fingers at the President and no one else.