Seems kind of late but I'm surprised there wasn't a thread. So far everything has seemed to go better than anyone could have predicted, I'm just wondering what effect it has on the polls stateside.

Nothing. Americans are suspicious of people that foreigners like.

He made a great speech today. The big thing about this trip was his trip to Iraq.

Maliki was a political wonder on two legs.

I think the speech was a mistake, as will be the stadium acceptance speech. He's acting too grandiose, and Joe Average American likes people like that to be brought down a notch.

But the stuff leading up to the speech, all the Iraq/Afghanistan/Jordan/Israel stuff was gold.

Average Joe likes to vote for an Average Joe, someone he can down a beer with. It's un-American to be able to point out Iraq on a map. I used to pride myself on being optimistic, but there's nothing like four months of campaign work to realize how stupid most people are.

The thing is, we've had Bush for 8 years acting like he's Making History. I think a lot of people would like a humble normal president for a change, instead of yet another one full of grandeur.

The difference for Obama is that he is making history, though I think your main point is correct.

Speak grandly, act humbly.

He HAS made history. He's the worst president in the history of the US.

I don't think the problem with Bush was his arrogance. Bill Clinton had that in spades. It is Bush's incredible incompetence and stupidity that people don't like.

That said, I really don't think his speeches overseas will have that much sway either way. People care about what's going on at home. It's a trip he had to make, but I think people really want to know about how he's going to fix the economy.

Bush still needs to topple Wilson's ignoring of influenza. Though, I suppose his ignoring of energy problems and being in bed with big oil is just as bad.

I think Katrina and "heckuva job Brownie" more than qualify, considering Bush's other failures and Wilson's relative successes.

New Orleans was a disaster, but google Philadelphia around 1918-1922.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate that the flu epidemic was devastating. I'm just saying that you have to weigh the other failures and successes as well in determining the worst president of all time.

Katrina is nothing compared to influenza. No need to score political points on such a small disaster.

However, when comparing relative levels of scientific advancement, Bush's ignorance of climate change rivals Wilson's ignorance of the flu pandemic. Over the long haul, 8 years of climate apathy may kill far more than a few million people. Rising sea levels may displace a number of people greater than the population of the United States, within the 21st century alone. Let's not even get to famine.

Katrina was not a small disaster.



In this case, they did far worse than ignore the problem. They actively and deliberately suppressed information and launched a disinformation campaign to create doubts in the public opinion about whether or not the problem even existed. They repeatedly redacted and rewrote EPA and NASA warnings. Bush even joked about it at the G8 summit in Japan.

Relativity, my friend. If 50 million people die, that's a Katrina every week for 1,000 years. We're looking at the majority of coastal cities across continents being flooded.

Ignorance need not be passive. Ask Copernicus.

they were successful in creating doubt about climate change.

As do all forces of ignorance. Copernicus was murdered in 1543; when Galileo died in 1642, he was under house arrest, following a forced apology, for his belief in the solar system.

Let's hope we don't take over a century this time around.

The stupid, it hurts!

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/? ... U5MGM3Y2Y=

Just Curious [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

If Obama could go to Germany and give a speech in English and be not only understood but well-received, why does he say we all need to learn another language?

This moron is the EDITOR of National Review Online.

I will steal a joke from a blogger who said, "At this rate, I expect the Republican Party’s platform will soon degenerate into a collection of grunting sounds and vaguely menacing snorts. Anything more than that will be too much for their intellects to handle."

I don't much care for KJL either, but why does that make her a moron? Her sentence is poorly structured but I don't see how her reasoning leads you to conclude that she is a moron.

KJL's idea is odd, but her logic isn't wrong. In her world, everybody knows English.

Of course you don't.

Her question is stupid because it is a non sequitor that also inartfully incorporates the moronic attacks on Obama over suggesting that, gasp, Americans would be better off if they learned a second language.

And my assessment of her intelligence overall is based on more than just this dumb comment. They aren't all stupid at NRO. But K-lo is a moron.

If we are comparing her to them, than I have to agree. She really just posts links to other stories. If your not into abortion related matters (which I could care less about) she really has nothing interesting to say. In fact, I skip her comments.

I think her main point was that English is the lingua franca of international business. Still, I don't get the conservative dislike of learning different languages. I also disagreed with Obama's point, but nobody can seriously argue that learning a different language is a bad thing. In fact, I submit that it helps you better understand your native language. My poor Spanish has only helped me.

Um, that WAS Obama's point. And Republicans ARE seriously arguing that learning a different language is a bad thing.