However, I understand this. As I mentioned before, the conservative movement raised a stink in 1994 when Bill Clinton first made a health care insurance reform program for no other reason than it would cause political problems for the Republican Party, and no doubt would be the case today.

However, I understand this. As I mentioned before, the conservative movement raised a stink in 1994 when Bill Clinton first made a health care insurance reform program for no other reason than it would cause political problems for the Republican Party, and no doubt would be the case today.

As for passive voice, I wasn't asking you to poll everyone to get their opinion, I was asking you to identify which group of people you were talking about. N Koreans? Americans? Europeans? It matters.

(By the way, have you read Michal Gerson lately or does he not count as one of Bush's people? He talks and writes a lot about the AIDS relief.)

Your non-answer about how a cooperator would have handled N. Korea says a lot too.

The Bush people and his syncophants never highlighted his work with AIDS and malaria in Africa (although several “liberal” columnists did). They wanted him to be seen as a strong and decisive leader because they were concerned about staying in power BAMN and couldn't admit that his bullheadedness often caused more problems than it solved. That's not even the fault of the media.

As for Obama, I'll repeat, there will come a time when he pursues American interests over the interests of the world – he will play the role of dominater.

I seriously doubt this because, as I've mentioned, he's a consensus-builder by nature. If he were the unilateralist you think is actually is at hear he would have already tried to push health insurance reform through without Republican help.

Your opinion.

Who you're talking about is very important.

Not when there's a general consensus, because in a news story you often don't have the time or space to gather reaction from everywhere and everyone involved.

Bush was using the internationally accepted methods for dealing with a problem – getting a group of countries together to work towards a non-violent solution and you're condemning him for using a dominating tactic.

Actually, you miss the point. Such folks (Ortega in 1980s Nicaragua was another example) want to deal with Washington directly because in that case they see the American government as pulling the strings of its neighbors. The Reagan Administration made no bones about its contempt for that regime and thus refused to engage it.

As for Obama, I'll repeat, there will come a time when he pursues American interests over the interests of the world – he will play the role of dominater. But people who love him will brush it off or ignore it and people who hate him will criticize him for it even though if their guy had done it they'd applaud.

Something else: Obama may have had good intentions when he was campaigning; however, every politician ends up having to break promises he may full well have wanted to keep because he just didn't have the whole story. I remember when Bill Clinton chided George H.W. Bush for “coddling the Chinese”; but when he actually got to the presidency he found out that they were pulling the strings.

As for Obama, I'm glad you admit that there will most likely come a time when he pursues America's interests over the world's, …

Didn't say that. The “American interests” I was referring to actually represent the private interests of certain Americans, most notably businesses where policies Obama would possibly enact would compromise their power. Why do you think, for example, they're fighting health insurance reform so hard?