It seems like I've seen you say this a few times, so I'm curious as to why you feel this way. Obama has flip flopped on critical issues at least as often as Romney, is also an insincere creep, and has done nothing but spew clichés and catchphrases from day one ("YES WE CAN! HURRRRR!"). So, does it merely come down to a matter of charisma? I ask because it seems quite obvious that pretty much every president, at least in the age of mass media, has been the guy with the best stage presence and media image, and while people are generally comfortable with acknowledging that this is how the masses decide their vote, they tend to try to rationalize their own individual preference as being more intellectual or principled than that.

Yes lol

Well, that's both refreshingly honest and rather distressing. Although I guess I make my decisions based on charisma, too. The main reason I'd prefer to see a non-Paul Republican beat Obama despite my lack of enthusiasm for any of them is because they lack charisma. There's something profoundly unsettling about having a guy who orders the killing of an American citizen based on justifications in a secret memo going on late night talk shows and having the crowds (and much of the media who is supposed to be holding him to account) swooning over him and his perfect smile and his perfectly pressed pants.

I agree with everything you have said. It makes me sad too.

My point is that either you put forward a candidate that is extremely good at manipulating and playing the media game (Reagan, Clinton, Obama) or either you try with something truly genuine and original (the talented with honest heart guy, the Ron Paul type who seldom tends to get anywhere high in politics. Not "Newt original" ). The latter is nearly impossible but if you can't do that you make sure to do the former.

I don't think Paul is all that talented, honestly. He's more genuine and has a better understanding of - and more respect for - the Constitution than the average politician (which is not really saying much), but he doesn't really do all that great a job articulating why he believes what he believes. I like him and agree with him on most things, so the fact that he succeeds in making himself look like such a fucking oddball all the time makes me sad. (Although even at his absolute nuttiest, he's still the sanest man in Washington by a damn sight.)

I kind of think no Republican with an actual shot at becoming president wanted to go up against Obama because they know the media has his back and the whole thing boils down to a sort of beauty contest anyway thanks to an increasingly unsophisticated electorate, rendering Obama essentially unbeatable even in a shitty economy. Since it's just kind of Romney's "turn" after he's spent most of the past decade running for president, he's the one who gets to play Bob Dole to Obama's Clinton, and the serious contenders will try their hand in 2016, assuming the country makes it that far.

I'm still not seeing much of a difference.

Obama's been starting his own wars... it's just the nations he's picking on aren't willing to fight back.

He's killed hundreds of innocent civilians in Pakistan in drone attacks along with something like 160 children. GREATLY increasing the intensity of what Bush did.  While setting a precendent that it's ok for the US government to intentionally kill a US citizen, without a trial, just by suspecting said person may be a terrorist.  You don't even get the luxuary of a trial in absentia.

He's really shown himself if anything to be more beligerant then Bush.

Obama's been MORE agressive on the war on terror then bush ever was, violating more peoples rights more often.  He hasn't used ground forces anywhere, but we're already in the middle of two ground wars.  Switch their presidencies orders, and I'd wager we were in both Afghanistan and Pakistan right now.

Heck, combine that with the bombings in Libya... and really eveyrthing else....

I hate to say it, but you just come off woefully uninformed.

It just gets overlooked because he's a democrat, so most democrats stand behind him, and most republicans keep queit because those are reasons to support him.

The only people who really pay attention are Libretarians and then actual democrats who believe what they say, like Dennis Kucinich.

The conflicts in Libya and Pakistan is mainly just using US air power. Dropping bombs from above is so much easier than actually going into a country. We might as well drop whatever each bomb is worth in money so instead of pissing people off we might actually give them joy in receiving some of our worthless money.

Whether it's out of partisan hypocrisy or sheer ignorance, I'm not entirely sure, but the popularity of Gitmo and drone attacks is at an all time high, including among self-identified liberal Democrats. I do think there's a strong "Nixon goes to China" aspect to it, and just like Bush could massively increase the size of the regulatory apparatus without rousing conservatives, Obama can bomb the shit out of everything without Dems getting their panties in a twist.

Why shouldn't Obama try to seek out and kill terror threats to the USA? The drone bombings are a cheaper and more effective method than sending in the army, like bush did. Are you saying that less than 160 children were killed during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Ground wars cost the most money and the most damage to international relations, and are a main component of why the USA has $15tn debt.