You've said that for him to be considered brilliant in the context of a leader, he must first be doing his unique, clever thing for entirely selfless, altruistic reasons. Which means charity work is the only thing that might be in with a chance of qualifying, and even then that may be dubious depending on where you stand on human psychology.

What you seem to have done is create extremely difficult criteria seemingly for the sole purpose of making it impossible to refute your argument that he's not brilliant.

Now that's what I call brilliant.

Of course you haven't had any examples (apart from the ones I gave in my first post) because you've made the definition so unusually specific.

Interesting you say that - I've never seen much point in differentiating the two. If the original actually cared about their media appearance, they would change it. But if they don't, then that's acceptance.

I think it's quite remarkable how easily he's become a symbol and not simply an individual. Americans rarely go for demigods in the political arena, but that's what they have with Obama. It takes one of several kinds of people to pull it off. Whether he's passive, submissive, devious or simply has a good understanding of the psychology of the group is something we're only going to see with time. Assuming he's not assassinated, of course.

Whoever put the caption there is clearly a fool - if you were engaged in a circle jerk, why would your hands form a circle? Clearly it's saying "my dick is shaped like a coke bottle". On a complete sidetrack, I'm digging the Russian-inspired art that Obama seems to be depicted in. Everything looks like a revolutionary propaganda poster drawn with blood and crayons by some unfortunate 1920s gulag attendee. It's very now.

Actually, there's something else remarkable - he's inspiring the revival of an old and pretty cool school of art.

I don't find the "definition" so unusually specific.

I know many a politician who has done or said something brilliant, something that would justify celebrating him, something that make him a good leader. It's only when Obama is the object of the question that it becomes "unusually specific"; it's like questioning him is a big taboo, as if the question creates a paradox that must be fought, must not be thought about.

Even you yourself, in that first comment you refer to, said that it is "too early to know" what he will do or say to justify the celebrations.

And that's why they celebrate him like the Messiah? He won an election?

Wow. Conservatives have much higher standards, don't they.

I have no idea; I've never been involved in one, but I guess I've always assumed that was the case. I've never seen the point in not going all out - if you want homoeroticism, why stop at looking?

Leauki:

Not what, but whether he'll do anything deserving. I think I've been fairly clear about that so far, particularly in the article I wrote. I'm not sure why you want me to be an Obama fan so badly, but just because you want it doesn't mean it's true.

I still think any definition of brilliant that requires selflessness is unusually specific, and you won't budge me from that.

goodness!  looks like an attempted b&e to me.

while i have no firsthand (heh) evidence to provide, it appears you may be confusing a circle jerk with 'cum on a cookie'.