Now that you got the name calling out of the way maybe you can go into detail about how many presidents act significantly differently than anyone else put in their position in the same political climate of their time. As an aside I'd also like to say I don't believe in the Great Man theory of History for the same reasons. That's impossible which is exactly my point - how do you believe that you can accurately say what McCain would have done had he won over Obama? You said something along the lines of - or maybe someone else did, to be honest I can't be arsed to go back and check so I'm rolling off memory - that a Republican president would have entangled us in the same dilemmas regarding Libya, Syria, etc. What information could you possibly base that on? You could base it on their previous voting track record or statements they made during or before their campaign, but by your own admission those things don't hold water - after all, how many promises did Obama bend or break by doing what you claim (or what the other guy claimed, I really should check but I won't because I'm lazy) to be the same as what any Republican candidate would have done? Obama fought in Libya, that's exactly what McCain would have done so he's no different - who's to say McCain wouldn't have done more, or done less, or perhaps not done anything at all? Or perhaps joined other fights in other places? Democrats said X, Democrats did Y, Republicans always do or say they'll do Y so they're all the same! Don't you see? If you follow that logic then why would you expect Republicans to not behave the same way and do entirely different things from what they said or promised or you believed they would do? The attitude that all candidates will behave the same way in a certain political climate is based on nothing and is an inherently lazy worldview because it can never be challenged with real evidence - the only person who ever was or will be President of the US in 2011 is Obama, and talking about what someone else would or would not do once they were privy to all the intelligence, secrets, and briefings that come with that position is 100% conjecture. It also ignores the differences in opinions and world views that exist across the (somewhat) broad spectrum of backgrounds that Presidential candidates come from. Doesn't the existence of two parties with such massive followings suggest that two people on opposing sides would do different things if they had the choice?