What would they debate?  Can Obama really make an argument that he is for the middle class and Romney only the rich?  How?  Romney could simply tell Obama "how can you say I only care about the rich but you don't?  You nationalized my health care plan.  You gave Wall Street trillions, I did not give them anything, etc. etc."

Most longterm decisions on the military cultural policies are decided at this time on implementing what keeps the force strong in mind and body and spirit.  That is where being all volunteer keeps the focus too.  Our politicians can more easily brush off the things you need to be strong in mind, body, and spirit than it can those who must stand on the wall because they need the protection first.  They rely strongly on the perception of strength too to deter attacks.

One thing I do ask myself though is what role did Bradley Mannings leak play in the repeal of DADT.  When I heard the repeal argued prior to Manning, the scenario where DADT made us very weak and vulnerable was always that someone in intel would be caught "being gay" and would be bribed by our enemies.

That's a serious question, ABG.  And as I consider what the possible answers are, I can't help but look back on the repeal of DADT, and remember that Obama did not really lead on it - he responded to persistent, focused, and often angry, pressure from the gay community and advocacy groups, but he wasn't out in front of it, willing to take whatever criticism came his way - he left that to others.  He bided his time, took the country's and the military' political temperature on a regular basis, and when it hit that sweet spot where he felt it was safe, he got out of the way.  Is that leadership?  Probably to you it is, but I think some of us would not call it that.  

On Plan B, come on now; you can't tell me that if Obama had objected to the decision that he says was made by Sebelius - I have my doubts, actually - he would not have shut her down and moved ahead with the FDA's recommendation.  And what did we hear from our leader on this issue?  That, as Sasha and Malia's dad, he agreed with it.  Obama-the-president, and Obama-the-candidate said he wanted his administration to make policy and decisions on the basis of science, but when the science said something he - as a parent - couldn't accept, he gave his blessing to the decision not to implement the FDA's recommendation.

Given that this was not the first time Obama has made decisions, or gone along with decisions, that went  against the women's health interests,  I see two problems: one is a lack of leadership based on what he keeps saying he believes in - women's rights and science - and the other is a willingness to side with anti-choice groups and  religious leaders and organizations that seem to hold more sway with him than the women affected by him going along with these groups.

I know you believe Obama to be a wonderful leader, but my definition of "leader" isn't someone who waits to see where the majority is headed before he acts - or before he gets someone else to act in case there is political blowback he wants to be a safe distance from.

Do I believe a Republican president would have a SOS who had permission to make the kind of video Hillary did?  Of course not.  But as I and others have said on more than one occasion, this not-as-bad-as-the-other-guy metric is one that ensures that the quality of candidates we have to choose from - and the governance that results - will just continue to decline.

I think it's very clear that there are a lot of people who really like Obama.  I mean cripes how many times have people whined about the Obama "fan boys" or whatever, not to mention all the rallies in 2008 with people crying, etc...