Bill Clinton, with relatively little experience when he took the job, turned out to be an excellent president, mostly by virtue of brainpower and political skills.

The resume don't mean a heck of a lot.

I'm not saying there's no point in the general direction you are swinging, but when you talk so disrespectfully about Obama (who needs not my attempt at answering your question to establish his credentials as a very impressive dude), no one whose vote is up for grabs this year will listen for 2 seconds.

I supported the guy in 1980 who had less experience. I think that turned out pretty well.

Well, duh. I think of their remarks as the bullets folks like you use - as evidenced by this post.

As I said, pretty weak ammo, dude.

If this is a measure of the ammo on the right, then it's going to be a lot more fun than I thought.

I don't think either Milbank or Lang are "the right."

the action of an empty suit, so it fits Obama perfectly

The stupidity of the "empty suit" line is self-evident. Whatever you may think of Obama, there is no debate that he just took the vaunted Clinton political machine apart in a contest that began with Hillary holding every advantage.

Yes, the same Clinton machine that beat the GOP like a drum with great frequency not that long ago...

What they are saying is that we need to have options other that "we won't talk to you" and "we will bomb the crap out of you". McCain may think that singing little diddies about blowing up other human beings is amusing, but I for one do not.

The tragic thing is that the government of Iran enjoys little support, and a lot of Iranians still like and admire the US in spite of the fact that we pretty much screwed them over.

WHY?

It's something a super-slickster con man would do, the action of an empty suit, so it fits Obama perfectly!

But haven't the Iranians repeatedly violated their obligations under the NNPT?

As has the US. Read Article VI, which we signed 40 years ago next month: "Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."

So say you are Iran. The biggest nuclear power in the world just invaded your next door neighbor without provocation, their President calls you part of the "axis of evil" and the guy with 50-50 chance of being the next President sings "bomb bomb Iran." Obviously, none of us would run Iran they way they do, but if I were them, I could see wanting a nuke in my back pocket.

A big and obviously growing percentage of Iranians were born after the Revolution and don't like their government, they like NBA basketball and video games. When they eventually take charge of the country Iran could turn into an important US ally. But we risk messing that up with the elitist antagonism we throw at them, it turns their Millenials away from US and toward their government. And yes, there are risks as we wait, but what real choice do we have? If we can't control Iraq we certainly can't control Iran.

Oh well... I guess there are no perfect candidates, and he's still the best one out there for me.