JamieWeinstein.com

The morning after last week's Massachusetts massacre, I wrote that Evan Bayh may very well be in trouble in Indiana despite the consensus view among experts that he was safe. My thoughts were that his seat was especially in play if Rep. Mike Pence entered the race, but even Pence didn't run, a threat existed simply due to the fact that Bayh is a Democratic Senator in a fundamentally conservative state.

Well, it turns out I was right and the experts were wrong. Check out this poll. It shows that right now Pence is leading Bayh in a theoretical match-up. Even the other already declared contenders for the Republican nomination, especially former Rep. John Hostettler, are polling very well against Bayh.

It once seemed inconceivable that Republicans could retake the Senate in 2010. With Scott Brown's victory, who really knows?

With the one-year anniversary of President Barack Obama’s presidency upon us, pundits are deluging op-ed pages and cable news shows with their analysis of year one in the Age of Obama. But whose opinion can we trust? What analyst can we turn to for unfiltered truth?

Well, why not America’s most trusted politician? You know, indicted former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich.

With an anniversary of his own just recently passed in December (the one-year anniversary of his arrest, that is), I thought I would see what the man who governed Illinois when Obama was making his meteoric rise in politics, first in Illinois and then nationwide, thought of how his former constituent has done in the White House.

To see what he said about Obama, and about the pay offs to Democratic Senators in the Senate Healthcare bill, you’ll have to check out my latest column.

The political earthquake that shook the country Tuesday, when Republican Scott Brown trounced Democrat Martha Coakley in a special election for Ted Kennedy’s old Senate seat, raises a scary question for Democratic senators scheduled to face voters in November: If a Democrat can’t even win in Massachusetts, who else might be in jeopardy that is not currently on the political radar?

Before Brown was declared the victor Tuesday night, Indiana Democratic Senator Evan Bayh was warning of a “catastrophe” for Democrats in November if party officials didn’t draw the right lessons from what was happening in Massachusetts.

“If you lose Massachusetts and that’s not a wake-up call, there’s no hope of waking up,” Bayh told ABC News. “Whenever you have just the furthest left elements of the Dem party attempting to impose their will on the rest of the country – that’s not going to work too well.”

Is Bayh concerned because he feels he may be vulnerable in November?

To find out, check out my latest column

UPDATE: The Politico is reporting that Indiana Congressman Mike Pence is seriously considering a run against Bayh in the wake of Tuesday's election results. This is very big.

In Connecticut, former Rep. Rob Simmons is embroiled in a tough primary for the Republican Senate nomination. His opponent is none other than Linda McMahon, wife of Vince McMahon and former CEO of World Wresting Entertainment (formerly known as the World Wresting Federation).

The WWE has faced harsh criticism in the past. Some critics see it as lewd, others see it is as glorifying violence. Naturally, McMahon’s affiliation with the WWE demands that she answer some serious questions for Connecticut’s voters about this association. Here within are 10 questions she can start with:

1) How close is Linda McMahon to the Iron Sheik and how will that affect her position on Iran?

2) Was the Ultimate Warrior really the ultimate warrior? If so, does candidate McMahon support sending him to single handedly hunt down Osama Bin Laden?

3) When did Mrs. McMahon know Sgt. Slaughter was a Benedict Arnold? With him no longer under Saddam Hussein’s protection, will she proactively push for bringing the traitor to justice?

4) Is it candidate McMahon’s contention that Hulk Hogan knows, or has ever known, best?

To see the rest, you just have to go to my North Star Column

I was on MSNBC on Tuesday debating The Huffington Posts’ Ryan Grim on whether the Democrats are soft on terrorism (you can watch it here). The debate turned out to really focus on whether or not Barack Obama has been soft on terrorism.

My point was simple: when compared to the previous Bush administration, Obama comes off less favorably.

This doesn’t necessarily mean he is soft on terrorism. Compared to Mike Tyson, Manny Pacquiao is soft at punching. But Manny isn’t objectively soft at punching. He is just a softer puncher than the former heavyweight champion.

As I mentioned on air, Obama has taken some important steps to protect the country. He has kept in place much of Bush’s anti-terrorism policies, many of which he railed against on the campaign trail. He surged in Afghanistan. And he has increased drone attacks against terrorist leaders dramatically. All of this is admirable, even politically courageous considering they are policies that much of his base abhors.

But Obama has also made some critical errors, including treating the Christmas Day bomber like a common criminal instead of a war on terror detainee, reopening investigations into CIA operatives who protected this country by using enhanced interrogation methods on terrorists that were approved by the Bush administration, and revealing the enhanced interrogation memos which gave the terrorists an insight into what to expect if they were captured by the United States. All these moves harmed America’s fight against terrorism.

Obama has not been as soft on terrorism as some on the right have suggested. However, he has made some crucial errors, errors that have negatively affected America’s security.