Well that’s good.  It would be futile if the person you were going to vote for was not a candidate.

You’ve fooled more here than that stunt has gotten you on other blogs.

No idea what you’re talking about there, champ. What "other blogs"? Please do tell.

Because, you see, I almost never comment on any other blog. Well, a week or two ago when Gay Patriot had all that down time, I made a couple comments on Independent Gay Forum. But that’s it.  So please spill whatever allegations you have in mind, MM.

I think a quick review of the thread (isn’t that actually YOUR role given that you think of yourself as a ThreadNanny) would show you started the insults with the little zinger I noted above… I think before you climb up on the soapbox and try preaching to your imaginary fawning crowd, you’d want to be sure you didn’t start the insults flowing.

Nice try, tho, at playing the victim.  You’ve fooled more here than that stunt has gotten you on other blogs.  Kudos for to a well played victim.

Do you think it really matters?  LOL.

"As commander in chief, I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests."

Note the twisted formulation. Not "As commander in chief, I will always look out for American interests." But rather, Obama will reserve the right to look out for American interests. You know. What he normally *won’t* be doing. But might do. If the polls  say so. Or he feels like it, one morning.

Dan and Noonan and, by your fawning fatuousness, are wrong to discount the parallels between Reagan and Obama.

And for the smear angle, I loved your little zinger of trying to tie me to "Reagan’s liberal critics" earlier… you never can stop in your one-man march, can you?

but the point I was making is simple enough for a 1st grader to get: Obama and Reagan are similar in more than a few respects… first, in the delivery of the message; second, in the optimism of the message… [etc.]…

And as I had noted: points Dan acknowledged in his original argument. Which means you, Dan and I all agree on something. Miracles!

Another miracle, MM: You didn’t just try to smear me this time!

And since you try to raise a side issue (changing the subject?) of Bush’s poll numbers: You may as well note also that Bush’s poll numbers, while "low" by your standards, are still approximately double the Democratic Congress’s.

Of the 15 bills Senator Obama sponsored or co-sponsored in 2005-7 that became law:

Two addressed foreign policy
Three addressed public health
Two addressed openness and accountability in government
Two addressed national security
One addressed the needs of the Armed Forces

Of the 570 bills Senator Obama introduced into the Senate during the 109th and 110th Congress they can be summarized as follows:

25 addressed Energy Efficiency and Climate Change
21 addressed Health Care
20 addressed Public Health
14 address Consumer Protection/Labor
13 addressed the Needs of Veterans and the Armed Forces
12 addressed Congressional Ethics and Accountability
10 addressed Foreign Policy
9 address Voting/Elections
11 addressed Education
6 addressed Hurricane Katrina
5 addressed the Environment
4 addressed Discrimination
4 addressed Homeland Security

Don’t accept the lie that Obama hasn’t accomplished anything in the Senate.  Bush didn’t really accomplish anything as Governor of Texas (besides running up a deficit).  Besides, the bar for president is so low that almost anyone seems better than what we’ve had for the last eight years.  I realize some here would disagree, but his numbers are very low and it’s the widespread opinion.  (And judging from my email, even among some of the Republicans here *cough no names* who considered voting for Kerry in 2004 because he had done such a bad job.)

It’s a question I ask about your comments often, ILC.  (wink)

Thanks for re-restating my statements but the point I was making is simple enough for a 1st grader to get: Obama and Reagan are similar in more than a few respects… first, in the delivery of the message; second, in the optimism of the message.  A third might be in the message being about change as a political therapy for what ails America (and the world, if Obama’s extension is allowed).  Fourth might be in staying focused on broad themes like hope for a better America than becoming a policy wonk and debating which percentage of the GNP should go to govt.

And, there are more.  Like the teflon coating that surrounded RonnieR seems to "suit up" (no pun) Obama with something like perfect protection from tough questions by the media or –to use pres-hopeful WallyMondale’s line against prez-hopeless GaryHart: "Where’s the Beef?" after Hart continued to toss out platitudes and warm, fuzzy rhetoric throughout Iowa and NHampshire in 84.

It’d be interesting to compare further how Obama is like RonnieR.  They aren’t the same in political philospohies, of course.  I think the McCain campaign will point out how liberalLeft Obama truly is… and how he is NOT a compromising, non-partisan, bridge-building politician when the battle ensues this fall.  But that’s for later.

I first heard Reagan speak at a CPAC meeting back in 1974 (yeah, I was a kid).  My Dad took me to introduce me to a bunch of returning POWs featured at that mtg–John McCain, Wm Lawrence and I forget the name of the other soldier.

It was a moving dinner/presentation.  My Dad and an unlce were pointing out how Reagan was working the room, deftly using the POW warriors as pawns in his own political gambit, etc.

Obama and Reagan share more than a little in common when it comes to how people perceive them or receive their message(s).  I’m sorry that Reaganauts fail to apprehend what these "great communicators" have in common because, in that understanding, lies a richer, more fully developed appreciation of the threat Obama poses and the uniqueness that was RonnieR.

It’s not the words.  It’s not the ideas.  It’s the delivery and the optimism inherent in the message that begins the comparison of Reagan and Obama.

As for whether Obama – or Hillary – will be elected President: We’re living in a strange historical moment.  Bush has been a success in protecting America from further terrorist attack – ironically making security recede as an issue.  Meanwhile, lots of Americans want something for nothing – a premise Bush has gone along with or allowed to spread, with his big-spending domestic policies – rather than challenging.  Big Government really doesn’t work, but many Americans have forgotten that, or never learned.  There is a "Bush hangover" to be gone through here – just not the one his opponents would think.  One basically-healthy constant in American politics is the alternation of parties.  After 4, 8 or 12 years, for better or worse, the other side gets a chance.  It’s healthy for the system, in the long run.  So maybe a Democrat – a female Clinton, or a young and half-African version of Jimmy Carter / Michael Dukakis- will be elected this year.  Or not.  We’ll see.

Doesnt’ say much about your character.. you brag about it?  You’re happy your family is unhappy.. just because of politics?