Barack Obama is the best major political candidate to lead the United States starting in 2009.

No problem, I enjoy friendly debate! Considering that this argument has three rounds, I assumed it made the most sense to address your argument point by point and therefore, express my opinion of Barack Obama before I said why another candidate would be better. In doing this I recognized the logical opportunity in the three part argument. I apologize for any confusion this might have caused. Having said that I would be glad to contribute my opinion of why Romney is a better candidate then Barack Obama. Without starting a side debate on Conservatism v Liberalism, I would like to first suggest that Conservatism is at the true hearts and minds of the majority of American citizens. Evidence for this lies in the last mid-term election in 2006, in which most of the conservatives that lost there seats ran as liberals and most of the Liberals elected, ran with conservative principles at the heart of their campaign. I don't think either of us needs direct proof to show Obama's extreme lean to the left. Using terms such as Re-deployment instead of retreating, and fair and affordable health care instead of socialized medicine, when describing his policies does not change this fact. In support of Mitt Romney, he holds more formal education than Barack Obama, holding a MBA and a Juris doctorate in law, both from Harvard. Mitt Romney has also held many direct executive offices including Governor of Massachusetts, CEO of Bain & Company, and Co founder of Bain Capital, both very successful firms. He has degrees at the highest level in two fundamental aspects of American politics, Business and Law, and has shown a superior knowledge of both. As Governor of Massachusetts he worked with the state legislature to achieve many great things, an attribute essential for a successful executive. In his tenure as Governor he improved Education so much so that in two major national exams, Massachusetts was ranked number one in education in English and math, the first state in history to do so in both categories. ThIs was done through an incentive system which rewarded teachers for being better assets to the school systems: A conservative Idea. This displays leadership and an ability to work in non-partisan efforts to improve conditions in his state. Barack Obama is by no means a non-partisan individual; I don't think I need to go any further into arguing that fact, anyone that disagrees here obviously hasn't read his policies. As an example of Romney's integrity, when a Man's daughter was lost in New York city after running away, Romney shut down his office and commissioned his employees to break the city into sections and look for the missing girl. By his efforts she was found, when she could have been killed. This sort of "above and beyond" action by Romney shows his personal integrity and sense of moral responsibility. Finally, Romney's tough stance on two main issues affecting the security of America make him not only a far superior choice than Barack Obama, they make him a better choice than any other candidate. Romney recognizes and has a strong interest in resolving the threat Iran poses to international security. If he is elected he will keep pressure on Iran that Barack Obama, or any other liberal for that matter, will not be willing to maintain, which may allow Iran to become even more dangerous and possibly obtain the nuclear devices they desire. The second issue Romney is stronger on than Barack Obama is that of immigration. So long as illegal immigration is allowed and perpetuated in this country we will continue to see an increase in all the problems it causes. Romney's plan will crack down on immigration by hitting it at the source: Employment. Romney's plan is to assign a simple worker identification number to every person legally allowed to work in the United States, who is not a Citizen. If they do not have the card with that number on it, they don't work. And any business who does hire them will suffer harsh penalties up to and including loss of business licenses. A Nation without borders is not a nation. Romney will secure our borders and our future; I do not have the same confidence in Barack Obama. For the record all of these accomplishments Romney has achieved took place outside of the "Alice in wonderland" politics of Washington. Finally, on the issue of the Iraq war. I am actually quite surprised that you are not only a former naval officer, but one that actually believes that our motivation for this war was for oil. I have done extensive research on the Iraqi war and by extension its oil infrastructure. Based on this research allow me to offer you the following model: All information was obtained from the energy information administration. In the year 2003 the United States imported over eleven million barrels of crude oil per day from countries other than Iraq. Of those eleven million barrels over three million of them were imported from Canada and Mexico alone. Iraq produces 2 million barrels of crude oil a day. This amount is less than the amount of oil the United States can import from countries on its borders, peacefully without utilizing any military resources or fuel for shipping the crude oil across the Atlantic Ocean. In the year 2003, the United States exported more than one million barrels of oil to other countries every day. That is half of what Iraq produces! If the United States was so concerned about oil that it would go to war for it, why would it be exporting over a million barrels a day to other countries? Furthermore, that same year the United States was importing four-hundred eighty one thousand barrels of oil from Iraq per day. Assuming the United States went to war with Iraq, consumed no fossil fuels while mobilizing, and seized the entire Iraqi Oil infrastructure, we would only gain an additional one and a half million barrels per day in oil resources by controlling Iraq's oil. In a single day the United States consumes over twenty million barrels of oil. Waging a war to obtain one twentieth of our daily consumption is not only improbable, it's absurd. With that argument refuted I would like to move on your assumptions about my lack of Military association. I live and grew up next to the largest Navy base in the world, Norfolk, Virginia. Most of my friend base consists of Marines and Naval personnel, fighter pilots, Navy Seals, and people from the intelligence community, all of which who are not only offended by men like Barack Obama and their comments on the war, they are disgusted by it. Some of these people served on the GROUND in Iraq and SAW friends blown apart, and even they believe in what they are doing in Iraq to this day! My father worked for almost a decade, directly with the Admiralty in Naval intelligence under SINKLANT jurisdiction, particularly with the Iraq Iran conflict in the 80's. Furthermore I am currently Studying Law at the University of Virginia to prepare for a career as either a Naval Aviator or a JAG corps officer. I assure you my information is good and my association with the Military is strong. With the common rhetoric on the war refuted and my military association confirmed, we can move on to a few more important points. It doesn't take a political Genius to assume that the liberal electorate voting in the Mid-term elections would be anti-war. Obama's vote against the war did not exemplify any sort of superior judgment, if anything it was good planning for political credibility. These candidates didn't just wake some morning and decide they wanted to run for president. they have been planning these things for years. Obama was running in a largely liberal district which already opposed the war. He knew that a vote in the senate against the war wouldn't change the outcome given the overwhelming majority that supported it. By doing this he could claim a strong stance for the next election, or even the presidential race. Not good judgement, just good politics.