You do realize that there is a third alternative? He may well be intent on exactly what he wants to do, but be utterly convinced its the right thing to do. That would make him intelligent but grievously mistaken.
I think that is the direction Medved is hinting we should go and I think it is sensible. It accords respect to the man, which minimizes the possibility of offending those on the fence and maximizing the possibility of communicating with them. It focuses the discussion on the policies, which must ultimately be a constructive discussion and bring up truths which can be held and properly understood, if analyzed clearly and without resort to calumny.
I am extremely angry at the president and the congress. I in no way intend to vote for any Democrat, no matter how reasonable-sounding that person might be nor how nice they might look. But I believe that most people have not thought through anything economic and are easy prey for economic demogogues (the total population of the Democratic party leadership).
We need to speak simply and clearly about real consequences, not jump up and down about the problems with the man.
Actually, no. That would be my description of Hillary, I think. I had a discussion with someone during the primaries and when Rush was screwing around with them, and I told someone I wanted no part of the game. I remember thinking Hillary would be a better "leader" of the two, if only because the damage she would do to this country would be by design, whereas 0bama's would be from mistakes (and partially by design).