I’ve known people all my life who interpret American history as Obama does. It has never been my experience that they know the history – what they know is their interpretation. They don’t consider, for example, that the U.S. from the beginning assumed any territories annexed, bought, etc. would come in as equal states. This makes American “colonialism” different from the categories he is likely to use.

This may not be stupid but it does mean interpretations weren’t tried by the bracing world of fact – or, too often, were set in stone with too little sense of historical context. How much we judge people’s intelligence on their ability to accommodate fact is, of course, a matter of opinion.

I can be arrogant, so would like to cut Obama sone slack. Still, arrogance about economic cycles, science, others’ motives, huge health care plans, his role as president can (and does) betray a lack of understanding how much humility is appropriate in such circumstances.

As to Gov. Palin, the issue is not whether she is qualified to be VP. The question is the abusive way she was treated, and the ridiculous cocoon of non-investigation and non-reporting that smoothed Mr. Obama’s path to the White House.

Mr. Obama has zero credentials to be president. The only thing Obama has is a soothing speaking voice and diplomas from two schools which are considered to be good, though we do not have his academic records from either place. I am not particularly impressed with someone for the mere fact that they graduated from Columbia or Harvard Law School. He was the head of the law journal, and was well-liked, but did not write an article but wrote an autobiography instead. Weird. Why was that tolerated? He never practiced law. He had one job ever as a community organizer and he was not good at it. He was a popular lecturer at U of C law school, which is not hard to do. He did no research and published nothing. He was involved in politics unsuccessfully at first, then he let himself be coopted by the Machine. He had a lot of luck in his Senate run, when his opponent imploded due to the revelation of supposedly confidential records locked in a court file — how did the Tribune get that stuff, anyway? What did David Axelrod have to do with it? Then he spent his time in the Senate running for President.

It is not overstating the case to say the guy has never done anything, and he has certainly never run anything and been responsible for results, except get elected president.

Gov. Palin actually has superior credentials.

Everything you say about Palin can be and should have been said about Obama.

In fact there are a ton of fascinating angles on Obama that a reasonably unbiased or even simply money-driven media would have investigated.

Mr. Biden is has repeatedly shown himself to be ignorant and to have poor judgment. He is no better than Gov. Palin, from what I can see, and on the substance of his views, far worse.

Obama was not “hammered” by McCain. McCain barely touched Obama, for reasons known only to himself. Hillary ran much harder against him. McCain should have been attacking Obama all along. It was one of his many failures.

I have never said anyone needs to have encyclopedic knowledge to be CiC. (I am sure I never said that. Where do you think I said that?) It would be nice to see, but I don’t think it has ever happened. The best prepared Commanders in Chief in the 20th C have been Eisenhower, for obvious reasons, and FDR who was Asst. Sec. Navy, and actually (largely) ran the department, for eight years. Truman, a combat veteran, and the head of the Truman committee that investigated and policed corruption and fraud in the war mobilization during WWII was probably just behind them in experience and knowledge.

We had our three best CiCs when it mattered most: WWII and the early Cold War. Thanks be to God.

She certainly has not demonstrated the encylopedic knowledge that you, yourself, claim is necessary to be CiC. What military history/theory has she read? What ecomonic theory has she read? For that matter, what books has she even claimed to have read? If we can assume Obama hasn’t read anything he hasn’t mentioned in an interview, why should we assume that Palin has some vast knowledge that she has still not displayed? She can now give as many interviews as she wants and I still haven’t seen the evidence. The point is, the onus was on her to prove that she was ready to be president and she did not and still has not demonstrated that. Obama had the same onus, was hammered hard by Clinton and McCain on that point for two years, and clearly passed that test to the satisfaction of most Americans.

You are not paying attention. Obama is not an idiot. He is much, much worse than an idiot.

I am saying that the exact same things that Obama does would have been seized upon by the media to discredit and mock a Republican, and the mockery would have been repeated and drummed out until it became conventional wisdom.

Actually, sorry, no, Biden’s repeated errors of fact and common sense show that he does not belong anywhere near serious power.

I do agree that Palin was poorly prepped, and I think the people in McCain’s organization were either negligent or more likely malicious — they saw McCain was going to fail and wanted an excuse to protect their resumes.

It may be inaccurate or unfair, but it’s the unfairness of the power of first impressions. It’s the fault of a shallow media, perhaps, but not of a partisan media.

I just don’t think your attempt to paint Obama as an idiot because of his gaffes is going to be successful. Nobody (who is not blinded by partisan hatred) believes that Obama does not actually know there are 50 states in the US. The American people have already formed their first impression of Obama as intelligent, thoughtful, and well-educated and will see any gaffe from that framework. He took two years on the campaign trail very artfully building that image and it’s going to take more than a few misstatements on his part to tear it down. Likewise, although Biden’s gaffes are worse and more frequent than Obama’s, the fact of his 35 years in the senate–as the senator with the most bipartisan respect from his colleagues–means that his gaffes are seen as gaffes and not as indications of his basic intelligence and understanding. Sorry.

I’d say you could look at my original post, but they seem to have cut it. Why??? I was not obscene, offensive, or off topic, I just disagreed with the prevailing point on the board. I thought it was interesting that people were ripping into Obama for things when Bush had done, in my opinion, worse, without a similar reaction. my point was that your/our/people’s reactions, if you stop and think about them, might say more about your on thought processes and emotions than about either man.

but I guess introspection and or thinking out of step with the norm are frowned upon here? And given the sensitivity I’ll let pass with but little comment this irony: that expunging the record of posts offering differing thought is a little, um, soviet…

Not a problem. It’s your post and your decision. I’m probably to lenient.

I have zero tolerance for off-point comments from my ideological opponents: Engage what I have written or go elsewhere.

I know I have a heavy hand in this regard.

Dang, I was going to key a post off of it.

From observing Republican reaction, I think Obama’s real fault in the eyes of many is that he’ simply too good – too smart, too irenic, too dispassionate, too well-spoken, and too well liked by many all across the world.

You do realize that your basically making a variant of the old, “Don’t hate because I’m so beautiful,” don’t you? Do you really believe that non-leftist dislike a political figures out of jealousy instead of disagreement with his political views. Are you so wrapped up in your own self-righteousness that you cannot conceive of anyone disagreeing from any motive save base emotion?

Beyond the opposition to his policies, there is intense resentment over the very palpable sense elitist entitlement that Obama and people who support him exude. Look at your description of Obama. He’s smart. He’s dedicated to peace (presumably at any price). He’s to dispassionate (presumably to “rational”.) He’s to well-spoken. He’s too popular.

None of these are attributes of an accomplished and proficient individual in any field of endeavor. Instead, they are the superficial attributes of the members of a particular subculture in America. Before becoming President, Obama had no accomplishments of any note to his name. He has never proven himself accomplished at anything beyond running political campaigns. He made his personal fortune by writing two books about himself even though he had never accomplished anything beyond having a mildly unusual background.

Yet, people like you fawned over him to such a degree that it evoked comparisons to religion. You believe that Obama deserves to be president because he is from the correct subculture and looks like it. It is the same as pre-industrial societies selecting leaders first and for most based on the membership in the aristocracy. Such leaders not only had to belong to right social class but also to look, speak and act like an aristocrat. They could be blithering idiots as long they had the right pedigree. At the same time, they hated people who rose owning to merit. They undercut them and destroyed the meritorious because the aristocrats knew that they kept power only if most people believed that who the aristocrats were was more important than what they could do.

After the 60’s, the American left stopped being the party of the people and started to think of themselves as the party of the elite complete with the all trappings of elitism. Prior to the 60’s, Democrats reveled in the humble roots of their political figures. They loved to trumpet contrast such Harry Truman, a failed haberdasher with a high school education, against the old money, ivy league educated Dewey. Today, leftist savage a Truman-like figure like Palin and idolize a Dewey-like figure like Obama.

Ever since the 60’s, the left has increasing become the party of money and privilege yet they have had zero accomplishments since that time. Unable to point to their own successes or to promote new ideas, they instead fall back on the emblems of privilege as their claim to power. They say, “look at us, we look like leaders! We went to the right schools. We have the right speech patterns. We have the right backgrounds. Similar elites in other countries approve of us. Clearly we look like what a true leader should look like.”

The quayle-o-meter is a powerful concept because it demonstrates the vast gulf between a position earned by merit versus a position granted by membership in a class. Just like his utter lack of accomplishments, Obama’s many, many gaffes and misjudgments are papered over just like the aristocrats of old used to paper over the failures of an idiot king.

Here is complete quote you are referring to,

“I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy and we had a very good dialogue.

“I was able to get a sense of his soul.

“He’s a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country and I appreciate very much the frank dialogue and that’s the beginning of a very constructive relationship,”

Where did Bush call Putin a “good man”?

He called him trustworthy and openly commited to Russia’s interests. Russia’s interests may not be good for the US, but Putin was open about it.

I’m not sure what you meant, though thanks for the resonse. I did not mean Medvedev. I meant that in 2001, Bush referred to Putin as a good man because Bush could see Putin’s soul. I thought that made Bush like a fool in Putin’s eyes. I do not recall any criticism on conservative blogs back then, just the opposite, I noticed people being a little embarrassed but insisting bush was right. Liberal blogs thought he was a fool too, but then they would.

With obama I was not referring to Medvedev either. I did not really refer to Medvedev and obama or Putin and obama mich at all. I’m not sure what it matters what medvedev thinks, maybe it does, maybe not, my impression has been that Putin matters.

I am a little curious, since you seem to be russian as to whether you think Obama spending a night alone instead of going out was a deliberate snub, and whether that’s effective or offensive. I’m not sure whether he meant it delibaerately, but he surely does not seem to be sucking up to Russia.

and tk4212 is not so much a machine, but rather a reference to Star Wars. Tk421 is the number of one of the stormtroopers. Somebody else had tha, I added a 2 at the end of it. And no, I do not identify with a storm trooper, I just like the movie.