… the Presidency will not humble Obama. Quite the contrary he will remain arrogant and the country will suffer for it mightily.

My guess is the rest of the world will figure out that the “Emperor Has No Clothes” before the rest of the U.S. accepts it as reality, but when Obama’s Icarus gets his wings burned, his crash is going to be unlike any we’ve seen in our lifetimes.

There is also a pattern of Presidents getting elected on one issue, and a completely different one becoming the prevailing theme of their presidency.

While the economy may be the top issue for most voters this election, the day we wake up and hear that either Iran tested a nuclear weapon, or that Israel has launched a pre-emptive bombing campaign against Iran to prevent this from happening, our lives will be forever changed in ways we can’t begin to understand at present.

That is why I truly do support the idea of General David Petraeus for President in 2012.

Without knowing or predicting what the next four years holds in store, I deeply suspect that national security will become a more grave and immediate concern by 2012.

1) My historical memory is that Carter started out humble and became more arrogant as time went on. It’s even worse since he left the Presidency.

2) Your argument is that Obama will be humbled by challenges of the Presidency, which he will prove unable to rise to, gravely damaging our country.

3) However, I see Obama as a pathologically insecure individual who is constitutionally unable to admit a mistake because this will bring down his whole psychological house of cards. He seems to be equipped with the ability to erase the past and recreate a new position, but will still insist he was always right (case in point: the Surge)

4) He has always relied on goons and political assassins to smooth the path for him by leveling any opposition to him.

In light of these observable quantities, the comments by Obama’s collegues that “Obama is almost completely averse to hearing alternative points of view and never really engaged people intellectually” become scary, because fits in so well with his current behavior and indicts him as unable to abide dissent.

Give this man access to the executive powers of the Federal government (e.g. the Attorney General) along with his established structure of lawyers and brownshirt netroots, and we are going to see a Chavez type of subversion lauched as he destroys our civic structures in pursuit of his constitutional necessity to silence the opposition.

never gets properly investigated or prosecuted.
That alone is reason to not vote for him.
That this fly weight is where he is simply the logical perversion of race-based hiring and educational practices.
If Obama was not able to play the ethnic card, he would not have made it out of Iowa. His association with criminals, terrorists and racist religious fanatics would have destroyed the possibility of the candidacy of anyone else.
His complete lack of accomplishment- even an article under his own name- would have gotten him laughed out of any interview about being a senior educator.
BHO is much worse than Jimmuh.
Carter at least actually ran for an office in a competitive election and and did serve in the Navy, prior to running for Prez.
Think on the implications of someone worse than Carter.
And then try to sleep at night.

I agree that this comparison is very apt.

In fact Jimmy Carter also thought he was superior to others. The precise tone was a bit different.

Where Carter only felt MORALLY superior, I think Obama feels TOTALLY superior.

Put another way, Carter thought he sat at the right hand of God.

Obama thinks he IS God.

There is a profound difference but just as surely as Carter was brought up short and humbled, I know Obama will also pay a heavy price for his egotism and arrogance.

Arrogance is what led Obama to the absurd presidential summit in the first year without precondition stance.

Before that debate, his position had been fairly standard stuff: that the United States diplomats should engage in discussions with enemies and allies. He was making a mild point of comparison to Bush on N. Korea and emphasizing his “can’t we all just get along and then everyone will stop hating us” meme. A little simple-minded, but nothing outlandishly shocking from a Democratic candidate.

Then, he got asked a very specific debate question in the YouTube debate about personal meetings in the first year without precondition with the group of dictators. You could see that Obama was just in such a hurry to get to his comfortable talking point that he started his answer with a thoughtless “I would” and dove into his campaign spiel.

It was an obvious mistake in the heat of the moment to anyone with a passing interest in foreign affairs. No President is going to commit to a first-year Presidential summit with Ahmadinejhad.

Obama’s campaign issued a correction even before the debate ended. The obvious correction saying that Obama didn’t mean Presidential level meetings, but that his State Department would hold discussions with Iran during his first year. Fine. No harm. No foul. A minor dustup. Every candidate says things they take back. No big deal.

Until Obama’s arrogance came into play. Unable to admit even a simple slip of the tongue, the candidate CORRECTED his campaign’s correction. He proclaimed that, yes, he actually meant what he said. Presidential summits within the first year, without precondition. And then, he began to bash Senator Clinton because she would not make the same insane commitment, that she was hopelessly rooted in the tired old diplomacy of the past.

It was at that moment that I first realized this guy had a level of arrogance that was breathtaking even in a national political scene dominated by arrogance. The unwillingness to even consider a mistake is a very frightening quality in a President.

Clinton as part of the DLC attempted to moderate the Democratic party as a national party.

Obama, will have no such luck–he will be run over by the progressive/liberal wing of the Democratic party.

Carter had trouble with likes of Ted Kennedy and the left wing of the Democratic party. Obama lacks the political skill of bi-partisanship.

1. Free trade: Bill Clinton supported and worked to pass the North American Free Trade Agreement–Free trade was an essential component of his economic policy.

2. Balanced budget: The Clintonians are associated with restraining the growth of federal spending, in order to allow lower interest rates and freer monetary policy.

3. Compromise on social issues such as abortion.

4. Reform or reduction of some government programs, exemplified by the ending of Aid to Families with Dependent Children as part of welfare reform.

The key to governance, absent a mandate(see 1932, 1964, 1980 and 1984 and conceivably 1988) is bi-partisanship. Moreover, Clinton, attempted with moderate success on bi-partisanship in his first term—1993-95. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, Family and Medical Leave Act, NAFTA and Earned Income Tax Credit are examples with some bi-partisanship assistance.

Again, the key is that *unless *there is a political mandate in the general election (mandates–1932, 1964, 1980 or 1984), governing as an ideologue will have to be sacrificed. Obama’s inexperience and lack of challenging his OWN party will be his downfall, in my opinion.

Barack Obama opposed the DLC – in 2003, he discussed why his positions against parts of NAFTA, the War in Iraq, and in support of universal healthcare were at odds with the DLC, saying that “.. these positions make me an unlikely candidate for membership in the DLC. That is why I am not currently, nor have I ever been, a member of the DLC.”

Obama’s lack of experience in bi-partisanship will make him hostage of the Left—he has no backbone to challenge them.