From what I've seen to this point, you tend to throw out a bunch of unrelated, unsubstantiated assertions, as if quantity will somehow obscure your lack of accuracy, logic, and objectivity. Then, when rational people get bogged down by the sheer volume or frustrated with your constant shifting and skewing of the subject matter, they give up and you get to walk away with the mistaken impression that you've made some point.

It probably doesn't say much for my rationality that I keep talking to you, but I've got the time, so I'll play.

As I intend to address your claims point by point, for the ease of reading, I've interspersed my comments directly below each of yours:

Again you are talking about managing a campaign I am talking about an 8 year track record managing a country.

No, I was talking about whether or not competent management is really as high a priority for you as you had claimed.

You talk about the campaign because Obama has never managed ANYTHING else.

No, I used their campaigns as an example because I think that's a good apples-to-apples comparison of their personal management styles.

If I thought Obama was going to win the white house and then take Bill Clinton to dinner and say hey Bill can you pick my team for me it would be different.

Okay, ignoring the stupidity of the suggestion for the sake of argument, how would that make it different for you?

Axelrod actually has a record of getting people elected.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deval_Patri ck

That`s good since it's how he makes his money.

But when you look at actual record governing Deval as Obama surrogate was unable to deliver his state to Obama.

I don't believe "primary candidate surrogate" appears in the job description for Massachusetts governors, so I don't see how his performance as such affects a record of governance in any way. However, for the sake of argument, I'll follow you down the rabbit hole...

By your logic: (1) David Axelrod was a political consultant for Gov. Deval's campaign; (2) David Axelrod was a political consultant for Sen. Obama's campaign; (3) Gov. Deval endorsed Sen. Obama in the Democratic primary; and (4) Sen. Hillary Clinton won the Massachusetts Democratic primary. Your conclusion? Sen. Barack Obama would not govern well.

Really?

Why? Because Axelrod like Rove has some skill at what he does.

Again, all the better if he wants to be a successful political consultant. (How did Karl Rove get into the mix?)

But Axelrod like Rove doesn't know anything about governing a country.

I don't see how we can arrive at a conclusion about whether or not David Axelrod knows anything about governing a country because, to my knowledge, his services as a consultant have never been utilized by a governing body.  We can, however, theorize that Karl Rove knows ABOUT governing a country given his involvement in the Bush administration, but because of that administration's poor record of governance, we could also reasonably extrapolate that HE might not be very skilled at it.

Campaigning and managing are completely different skill sets.

Well, even if that statement is true, you certainly haven't proved it. You toss out this assertion as if it is logically supported by your claim that David Axelrod and Karl Rove don't know anything about governing, but it isn't. Your claim about Axelrod and Rove actually tries to illustrate that campaigning and governing are different skill sets, but you don't even try make the case for campaigning and managing being different skill sets.

Again, using your logic: (1) Axelrod and Rove have managed campaigns; and (2) neither has held a position of governance. You conclusion? "Campaigning and managing are completely different skill sets."

That makes no sense whatsoever, and I'm not sure how it relates to your larger point, which is...um...what's your larger point?

In campaigning your horizon of results is something like 2 years tops and usually more like 1-6 months. Governance doesn't have a horizon and is at least 4 years if it did.  So MASSIVE CATASTROPHIC failures during a campaign...

Wait...How exactly are you defining "horizon" here? If it means something similar in each statement, I gather that you are defining it as "the period of time in which you have to make your case for election" when it comes to campaigning and as "the period of time during which you hold office" when it comes to governing. Or are you saying that a horizon is like a "finish line" at which point your performance is assessed? Either way, I think an argument can be made that your election or re-election is the assessment of how well you campaigned or how well you governed, respectively.

At any rate, a candidate's entire history is examined over the duration of a campaign, so even though the actual campaign may last anywhere from one month to two years, everything a candidate has ever done, every person that a candidate has ever known, and every position that a candidate has ever held is open to scrutiny. Gaffes are made in every campaign, and voters decide with their votes as to whether or not the gaffes are "MASSIVE CATASTROPHIC failures."

...such as the white backlash from Obama using the Katrina tears line don't have time to catch up with you.

Can you please give me a link to Sen. Obama's quote about "Katrina tears" and offer some substantiation of your claim that there was a "white backlash" from his saying that?

Iraq took something like 2 years to catch up with Bush.

It certainly took some people that long to figure out that President Bush made a bad decision. Others, like Sen. Obama, knew before the war started that it was a mistake (or a MASSIVE CATOSTROPHIC failure, if you prefer).

Obama is daily making long term strategic mistakes.

You offer nothing that supports this claim or any of the following, but I'll play along.

Voting against a war that had a 50/50 chance of turning out ok and would have capsized his career was a strategic mistake.

So, if he were wrong, speaking the truth as he saw it would have proven to be a strategic mistake that capsized his career...but he spoke the truth anyway.  Personally, I like a truthful candidate, but that's just me. And it turned out he was right. (Oooo, bonus points!) Unfortunately, he didn't have the opportunity to vote on the issue, as he was running for office but had not yet been elected.

At any rate, if you know anything at all about the Middle East, you know that your claim of a "50/50 chance of turning out ok" is wildly optimistic to put it kindly. (Also, do you have a link to that "50/50" statistic?)  Furthermore, given that you already acknowledged that it was one of those "MASSIVE CATASTROPHIC failures" that finally caught up with President Bush, you should admire Sen. Obama's ability to foresee that it would be a "MASSIVE CATASTROPHIC failure." Seriously, do you really think you made a case AGAINST him here?

Taking a position against offshore drilling was a strategic mistake. Taking a position against drilling in Anwar when taking no strong position was an option is a strategic mistake. Taking a green energy position that allows your opponent to stake his flag on nuke power and one up you was a mistake.

I see. It's not that you think his policy positions are wrong; you just think they're not politically expedient. So, is it correct to say that they are positions that might be okay with you if he were governing instead of campaigning?

Of course, CW says that in a campaign, sometimes you have to forego speaking the unvarnished truth until you can get elected...Oh, wait. He spoke the truth anyway, even though YOU think that telling the truth during the campaign was a strategic mistake.

Being the change candidate and casting the other guy as McSame when he can then clearly be more maveric[sic] than you was a mistake.

Sen. McCain used to take positions unpopular with his Republican Party, and that earned him the moniker of "Maverick." Since he lost to President Bush in the 2000 primary, he's climbed back into bed with his party (and he's really snuggled up in the past couple of years). This link will take you to his voting record starting in July of 2006 and you can follow it forward from there.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congr ess/members/m000303/votes/page7/

Failing to lay down a detailed platform that you can defend was a mistake because it allows McCain to do the same.

You are wrong in stating that he failed to have a detailed platform, and the information is not at all hard to find.  http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlue printForChange.pdf

Running on charisma was a mistake because Palin may very well be more charismatic.

If charisma were all he offered, he might indeed need to be concerned about being "out-charismaticked" by another candidate...

Staking your claim as the next Reagan was a mistake because Palin is very clearly much more next Reagan-ey than Obama.

I ought to make you work harder, but I won't. His remarks about President Reagan had to do with the transformational nature of Ronald Reagan's campaign and Presidency and how that fundamentally changed the trajectory of the country. Here is a clip of Sen. Obama saying that himself, and you will note that in this article, it says he made the claim that President Kennedy was also a transformational leader.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0 108/Transformation_like_Reagan.html

I don`t dispute your (again, unsubstantiated) claim that Gov. Palin "is very clearly much more next Reagan-ey than Obama" because it is irrelevant when you put Sen. Obama's remarks in their proper context.

Over and Over and Over again Obama is borrowing from his future to pay for his present. That isn't good management. It will catch up with him.

If this made any sense, I would point out that you've been wrong about most everything to this point and are probably wrong again here. I won`t because I have no clue WTF you mean by this.

In campaigns there is a winner and a loser and then the slate is wiped clean and no one can ever claim that you lost if you won.

Odd that you should say that. Sen. Obama won the Democratic nomination for the Presidency, and yet every fucking day, you claim that he did not.

In governance you win but you need to be thought of as winning even years and decades after.

Um...it's certainly preferable if history views you as having been a successful President, but I can't speak as to whether or not it's "needed." I can point out that many are NOT "thought of as winning even years and decades after."

Bush won 2 elections but history will remember his first and second terms as an utter failure even though he beat Kerry on that first term.

Wha...? Okay, luckily for the planet, George W. Bush will only HAVE a first and second term. (You might be taking that John-McCain-is-running-for-George-Bush's -third-term a little too literally.)  He might have beat Kerry based on his performance in his first term as President, but it's just as likely that he won a second term because the public doesn't like to change Presidents mid-war. It didn't hurt that Sen. Kerry got dragged through the mud, medals and all, by the Swiftboaters.

Either way, Bush's re-election shows that, when it comes to governing, even a "MASSIVE CATASTROPHIC failure" does not ensure a loss.

They are totally different and your insistence that they are not speaks to not understanding what I am talking about.

Okay, I think I've done pretty well in patiently deciphering this mess that you put forth as a reasoned argument, so you can stuff that condesending tone. If I haven't made my case, I'm sure there are plenty of posters who will point out where I'm wrong.

Either way, you need to dismount from your high horse before reality causes it to rear up and throw your ass off.