Thanks, Deber, for wanting to get real, and I’m not being ironic or sarcastic. I’m a geek for political history and strategy so here’s the way I see it.

The mistake you are making is that you are applying Republican psychodynamics to Democrats. Republicans are hierarchical, bow to their leaders and jostle and squabble with each other to move up the line of pecking order.

Democratic infighting is a messy, illogical free for all — like amoebas battling it out. Whoever forms the coalition with the most votes, most influence, most star appeal or wins the last argument — or whatever factors are in the atmosphere that day — wins.

Will Rogers had it exactly right: "I belong to no organized party. I am a Democrat."

Bill Clinton summed it up perfectly: "Republicans fall in line. Democrats fall in love."

I understand why you mistakenly believe Obama could oust Speaker Pelosi. You’re probably remembering how Karl Rove had Sen. Majority Leader Trent Lott replaced after Lott opined at Strom Thurmond’s 100th birthday that the country would be better if segregation hadn’t ended. But it wasn’t the remark itself — Rove wouldn’t object to a racist remark because racism is useful because it energizes the party’s base — it was because Trent Lott did not obey orders from the White House. Karl preferred Bill Frist, who he knew he could control. As leader, Frist was a lapdog to the Bush White House.

The Bush White House role in forcing Hastert out is more oblique. The rumor from inside the GOP congressional leadership staff was that Hastert, the former wrestling coach, let the Foley scandal get out of hand because he was, well, sympathetic with Foley’s plight. I have no idea and really could not care less if those rumors were true or just political spin coming from staffers for House Republican leaders hoping to replace Hastert.

But you will not find a similar instance in Democratic Party history where the Dem White House successfully exerted control over who served in the Dem congressional leadership. I don’t say that because we’re "better" than Gops. It’s a difference in the way we think — the way we work on an organizational level. If a Dem White House tried to meddle in Dem Congressional leadership appointments, all hell would break out, and the president — no matter how popular he was — would lose that battle.

Remember "triangulation?" That was Clinton pitting the Dem leadership in Congress against the GOP. Sometimes he would side with the GOP (example: welfare reform) against his own party. But Clinton had zero influence on who served in the Congressional Dem leadership. He was lucky that the Dems knew the GOP investigations into the Clintons were nothing but craven political games — an egregious abuse of power by Gingrich, Dan Burton, Henry Hyde and the rest — because if there was a sense among the Dems that Clinton had actually done something wrong, they would have voted guilty on the impeachment charges in a heartbeat.

Going back into the history of the Dems, you may or may not recall that even when Carter’s approval was in the 60s, he had nothing but problems for Congress, including particularly the new speaker, Tip O’Neill. A senator, Ted Kennedy, ran against Carter in the 1980 campaign, and thus weakened him and paved the way for the horrendous debacle of the Reagan/Bush, Bush/Quayle and Bush/Cheney years. Most people have forgotten that Carter led Reagan in the polls well into October in that cycle, and it’s arguably likely he could have won had he not been wounded by Kennedy. If Carter had won, we’d have been energy independent of Mideast oil by 2000 and so wouldn’t have invaded Iraq in 1992 or 2003, just for starters.

Going back even farther — remember how the GOP was, as Gingrich put it, "in the wilderness for 40 years" before 1994? (Because around 1954, the public sent the GOP into the wilderness in disgust with Republican Sen. McCarthy’s communist witch hunts.) Well, during the 40 years of (mostly) Democratic one-party rule in Congress, during the presidencies of Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan and Bush, the Congressional Dems fought the presidents tooth and nail, no matter what party they were in.

So back to today — you’re wrong, of course, that "Pelosi wasn’t elected Speaker of the House." Please, please, please tell me you know that’s not true. Pelosi was elected by the House, with all the Dems voting for her and all the Gops voting for Boehner. (And her home district is basically the city limits of San Francisco, so she is safe for a 13th term in 2010.)

Congressional approval ratings are always low. Since 1990, Congress has only been above 50 percent one time. But since the inauguration, congressional approval has risen 20 points, to 39. Approval of Democrats in Congress is around 45 pecent, while approval of Republicans is 30 percent. (As I’ve noted, the message of "No, no, no. Hate, hate, hate" simply is not working.)

 As long as Pelosi holds her power base among the Dems, starting with Steny Hoyer and on down, there is nothing — NOTHING — Obama can do to get rid of her. She will oppose him on key issues, as will powerful Dems in the Senate like Feinstein. But there is nothing he can do about changing the Dem congressional leadership.

Your side likes to say Pres. Carter was "weak" and the perceived wisdom was that he got that reputation because of foreign affairs. That’s not really the whole story. Carter had bad relations with the Dems who controlled Congress and was opposed and steamrolled by Speaker Tip O’Neill and Sen. Majority Leader Robert Byrd.

That’s the most likely way Obama could fail — if Pelosi and Reid turn on him. That’s where your side should pin its hopes. The difference is, Carter never served in Congress and had no ties. Obama recognized that. Not only did he, his vice president and secretary of state serve as senators, he also brought in Rahm Emmanuel from the House to be his chief of staff, a.k.a. the assistant president.

One reason you and I are having this conversation is because over the 15 years the Republicans have been in power, we have been studying your side very, very carefully, while at the same time, your leaders have used their propaganda apparatus, Fox and hate radio, to paint us as one-dimensional cartoon characters. We hear your side describe us as the Fox News cariacatures every day, and it sends the signal loud and clear: it’s not just teabagging that the right is clueless about.

This also illustrates that you are leaderless. Karl Rove based his political skullduggery, in part, on ancient techniques described in Sun Tzu’s "The Art of War." One of those principles is this:

Know your enemy.

If you ever figure out who you’re really up against, the tide against you will change. If and when you ever take the time to really understand who you’re up against, you’ll see why the bottom line answer to your question about Obama and Pelosi should have been clear from the start: History proves that if Obama gets into political fight with Pelosi, as long as Pelosi holds her base in the House, he can never win.

He knows this, and so does she.