It’s as if Democratic and Republican partisans think our country is made of feathers.

What’s most important has been left largely unexamined: if one of these candidates actually becomes president and advances his or her policies, what would be the consequences for the nation? – What If Obama Loses?

Every election season we hear about the dire consequences if one side or the other isn’t elected, but yet, we seem to muddle through. The problem is we never learn and keep voting for the same two parties, without a hint of irony that doing the same thing every election and expecting different results is the very definition of insanity.

The Democratic and Republican parties are bought and paid for and squealing partisans are their bankers.

For the first time, looking at all this as a recovering partisan, I finally know a bit about how and what independents must see and feel when looking at partisan squealers. So now when I read or hear the hair on fire protestations about the consequences of one side or the other getting “power,” I understand the disdain people feel for both political parties.

See Rick Santorum’s comment today about good economic news, when he said that it’s all about “optimism that Republicans will take the White House.” At least Mitt Romney acknowledged reality, which is that the economy is weak, but trends are in the right direction.

I was doing interviews all day yesterday, including for the UK Guardian, publicizing my book, but also because I was a go-to gal on Michele Bachmann getting out of the race. The Hillary Effect, got lots of attention and a nice mention on Al Jazeera today.

One interview reminded me again of the state of our political culture when a right wing amateur and wannabe radio host called me a liar several times after our interview had concluded. It was like the old days when I used to do radio “shoot outs” back during Pres. Bill Clinton’s 2nd term and into the Gore v. Bush contest. It’s also one reason I quit doing radio interviews.

It’s what happens on Twitter regularly, vitriol unleashed whenever anything revealing is written about Pres. Obama, but also in the comments around here. When squealing partisans don’t approve of what I write, their reactions are so extreme they target the messenger, moi, when I even dare to post a news item. It happened yet again last night on a post I did about Michael Hastings new book, because I found the interchange with the author on “Morning Joe” interesting. Obama supporters took aim at me, as usual, even invoking Hillary Clinton in the mother of all non sequitar burps, instead of taking issue with Hastings.

People can’t get their heads around the fact that this site is not about Democratic or progressive cheerleading anymore. Today’s economy and jobs report was written about fairly, as is the criticism aimed in Pres. Obama’s direction, but also at Republicans. Obama Fan Boyz and Girlz can’t seem to digest the concept of a liberal, that would be me, declaring my sympathies, while also being capable of delivering fair political analysis, including credit when Republicans or conservatives earn it. That’s the editorial policy around here, folks, which will send partisans scattering, but I’ve never written what’s popular so I don’t know why anyone is surprised.

I am still waiting for Obama Fan Man “solo,” who I mention because he is representative of a lot of the incoming I receive, to prove his (false) charge that I write “almost daily Obama is going to lose articles.” Tick, tock, Obama fan. The problem is I’ve never written an “Obama is going to lose article,” because there is absolutely no proof that he is. Like I wrote in my book, Pres. Obama is indeed beatable, but the current second tier class of Republican and conservative candidates, with their extreme positions on everything from war to civil liberties to immigration, aren’t going to be able to do it.

On their side, it’s just politicians squealing.

“And so I’m prepared if the NAACP invites me, I’ll go to their convention and talk about why the African American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps,” Gingrich said earlier today in Plymouth, N.H. – ABC News

“Are we saying everyone should have the right to marry? So anyone can marry anyone else?” Santorum asked, according to a video by NBC News. “So anybody can marry several people?” – LA Times

Rush Limbaugh sounded like a stuffed wart hog yesterday over an article from the American Enterprise attempting to make gullible Republicans start building bunkers for economic war. It all revolves around the smart move by Pres. Obama to make a recess appointment of Richard Cordray, and quit thinking Republicans intend to let him be president.

The explosion started with James Pethokoukis at AEI:

January Surprise: Is Obama preparing a trillion-dollar, mass refinancing of mortgages?

This could be just the beginning. If President Barack Obama’s legally dodgy appointment of Richard Cordray to head the consumer finance agency should stick, it may open the door to more such actions. Here’s Jaret Seiberg of the Washington Research Group:

To us, the most important takeaway from a recess appointment of Cordray is that the President could use this same maneuver to put a housing advocate in charge of FHFA.

And why is that important? The Federal Housing Finance Agency is the regulator and conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And the FHFA currently has an acting director, Edward DeMarco. If Obama replaces him with a “housing advocate” via the same recess appointment process, here’s what might happen next, according to Seiberg:

That could lead to a mass refinancing program for agency-backed mortgages that would go well beyond the existing HARP program. That could hurt agency MBS pricing and result in higher financing costs going forward. Yet it also could be a big boost for the economy and housing going into the election.

Indeed, my sources tell me the Obama administration has been eager to implement just such a plan, but needs to have its own man heading the FHFA to make it happen. The plan would be modeled after one originally devised by Columbia University economists Glenn Hubbard (a campaign adviser to Mitt Romney and AEI visiting scholar)

Reading the article and listening to Rush in between interviews, I couldn’t tell if they were freaked at Pres. Obama winning, telegraphing that Romney = Obama, or have just run out of things to catch people’s attention.

Meanwhile, the rest of us are simply sick of watching and playing our part in the United States two party soap opera that is getting us absolutely nowhere.

Last time I looked, the big banks were doing just fine and Wall Street is humming along.

The cause worth joining isn’t fighting over two corporate party heads who are a lot more worried about their own futures than ours. It’s refusing to play the rigged game or argue whether there’s much difference between them at all.

It all begins with getting money out of politics or at the very least, making the process transparent.