I'm curious. What about being a zealous advocate for America got to do with Obama being good or bad at politics? Of course he is a skilled politician. What Obama is missing is the slightest hint of having ever put the welfare of the United States before his own. Or having ever fought for the best interest of the United States against foreign interests, world opinion or popular opinion.

My point was that anyone good at politics will do what makes his voters happy. American politicians have to pander to Americans, not Europeans, to get and hold power. Unless you think Obama is altruistic, or bad at politics, there is no reason to think he won't do what Americans want.

Given you're generally operating at the level of a child

Really bit, your not stupid. Can't you do better? I have been involved in a major presidential campaign at a sufficiently high level that some of the senior staff knew who I was. I have people on my client list that I am sure even a guy like you who lives in Pig's Knuckle or wherever you are has heard of.

Perhaps if your arguments had merit, you would not have to constantly be laying down smoke screens to obscure your inability to do any real conceptual thinking.

As it is, your ranting is beginning to draw actual international recognition for its remarkably high level of hysteria and fundamental lack of connection of reality.

Obama has not proven himself to be a zealous advocate for America. Rather his words indicate he puts America second to the world. All indications are is that Obama would subordinate America's interest to the popular opinion of Germany, France, Jordan, Palestine.

And what part of Obama's campaign so far has lead you to believe he's so terrible at politics?"

I'm curious. What about being a zealous advocate for America got to do with Obama being good or bad at politics? Of course he is a skilled politician. What Obama is missing is the slightest hint of having ever put the welfare of the United States before his own. Or having ever fought for the best interest of the United States against foreign interests, world opinion or popular opinion.

Hummm, a sitting President addressing the world regarding a real threat verses a wannabe appealing to the world to elect him President of the US.

Interesting point, Bains.

Also noteworthy that in a single post, you mention my "amazing" ability to manipulate an argument and my inability to function above the level of a child.

\

Given you're generally operating at the level of a child, yes, I do find your ability in that one area amazing.

So, who is more in touch with reality? Someone who thinks it is important that the most powerful man in the world to do a good job, or someone who is focused on the events of a previous century...

What you miss is the focus on making sure we never elect such a person again to the office.

Possibly the reason that my argument is "legit sounding" is that it has legitimacy.

To you, at least.

LOL... It's amazing how you manage to twist your BDS into something legit sounding.

I find it interesting that you would even mention "BDS". I mean, you regularly rant about Bill Clinton, a man who has been out of office for nearly a decade, but when someone has concerns about how the sitting President is doing his job, they are "deranged".

So, who is more in touch with reality? Someone who thinks it is important that the most powerful man in the world to do a good job, or someone who is focused on the events of a previous century...

The PNAC agenda, shaped by men who would soon be running the country in the Bush administration, had Iraq in their sights long before 9/11.

Possibly the reason that my argument is "legit sounding" is that it has legitimacy.

Also noteworthy that in a single post, you mention my "amazing" ability to manipulate an argument and my inability to function above the level of a child. You make so much crap up that you cannot be consistent even within a single post.

...methinks that there is some serious partisan filtering going on here.

Probably, but it is just as evident on the left (or by Obama supporters) by the scurrying about to defend or mitigate Obama's words.

I fail to see how you get that out of what's been said here.

Of course not, that would require some insight...

Obama was at a campaign event on foreign soil in his attempt to get elected president of the USA.

Hummm, a sitting President addressing the world regarding a real threat verses a wannabe appealing to the world to elect him President of the US.

The more this campaign goes on, the more I'm convinced that candidate Obama (and supporters) are the mirror image of candidate Bush (and supporters). Both horrible speakers when off teleprompter, both woefully ignorant of minutia and seemingly incurious. Both camps spinning incessantly and never admitting gaffes.

All that meant is that they considered him a better fit than Bob Dole.

Which of course means GW received no mandate in '04. Thanks for clearing that up.

The Bush administration was obsessed with Iraq before 9/11. They used 9/11 as an excuse to pursue an internal agenda (Iraq) which had nothing to do with 9/11, damaging our ability to deal with the real threat in the process. President before country.

LOL... It's amazing how you manage to twist your BDS into something legit sounding.

It's not of course, but credit for trying.

BTW, the "meds" line is so old I think a 12 year old would be embarrassed to use it.

I have found through experience that getting more adult tends to confuse you. Case in point; Given your anti-Bush screed, the 'original thought' line could be directed right back at you. Then again, you'd not know what to do with it, so I won't bother.

Enough people thought he was going in the "right course" in 1996 to get him re-elected.

Low and outside for a ball.
All that meant is that they considered him a better fit than Bob Dole.

That's some real gravitas there. So 1.4% of the bills he has sponsored or co-sponsored became law. Maybe I shouldn't be as worried about an Obama presidency as I thought.

I thought "conservatives" wanted less government activisim. Why are you upset by these numbers? I would think you would want to send him a check.

BTW, have you placed these figures in context? What is the average rate of bills sponsored or co-sponsored that become law in the Senate? The 1.4% figure only has meaning within a larger set of data...