Posted on 03/26/2009 2:37:40 PM PDT by rxsid
This is an older assertion by the UK.
YO! AIN'T YOU NEVAH SEE "ROOTS, MAN? Y'KNOW...KENTA KINTE?"
Paging Dan Rather?
Actually I’ve only had a TV about one and a half years my entire adult life...and I’m closer to 60 than 55. ;-)
bttt
What do you base your opinion on? ... I would love to know why you consider him so smart.
Obama graduated from Harvard Law School magna cum laude. This honor is based entirely on grades(*1). The grades in most law school courses are based on exams. The exams at HLS are given anonymously(*2).
(Some of the upper level work at HLS is based on seminars and in-depth legal writing. But it is still necessary to take regular courses. The first year work appears to consist entirely of standard courses.) It is clear that there is no way to achieve the GPA required for a magna cum laude without being an intelligent individual who out-performs his fellow students in a series of fair competitions.
Since Obama was able to graduate near the top of his class, it is clear that the admissions committee at HLS correctly judged that he had academic merit.
Since he graduated near the top of his class at a place which is well known for being full of smart people, he must be smart himself. I don't claim that he is smarter than everyone.
______________________________________
(*1) From the Harvard Law School Handbook of Academic Policies:
"Graduation with Honors
"If a student completes the requirements for the J.D. degree with distinction, the student will receive the degree cum laude, magna cum laude, or summa cum laude. The summa cum laude is determined by the requirement of a 7.20 GPA. ... The magna cum laude will be awarded to the top 10 percent of the class, excluding the summa. The cum laude will be awarded to the students in the next 30 percent of the class."
The General Grade Point Average is the average of three separate annual averages. The three separate annual averages are calculated by assigning the following scores to letter grades:
A+ 8 A 7 A- 6
B+ 5 B 4 B- 3
C 2 D 1 F 0
(*2) Also from HLS Handbook:
"General Examination Policy ...
Law School examinations are anonymous, and self-identification of any kind is not permitted. Students should not put their name, class, program, school, or any personal comments that might identify them anywhere on their exam materials. Self-identification may result in disallowance of the exam and a failing grade for the course. Students may not discuss individual exam arrangements with faculty members.
I'm not a sycophant, but I am a contrarian. One of the things I have a contrary opinion about is the view that is becoming very widespread on FR: that Obama is merely a Chauncey-Gardner-like idiot who got where he is entirely through affirmative action and ghostwriting and is now controlled like a puppet by unseen forces.
What unites all these theories and why are they directed at Obama rather than other politicians? There is no question that a lot of the reason for more than a few people is just that they can't get their head around the fact that a black guy has gone so far and they have decided there must be alternative explanations.
I don't have a problem with criticism of Obama and I do think there are a bunch of things about his background, his political beliefs, and his attitude that are highly questionable. But now that I've spent 6 years visiting FR, which used to be a place where conservative ideas were defended in a logical manner, I just don't like the idea that it would become a haven for a racist philosophy.
Laughable that you are attempting to praise 0bama’s intellectual ability when there is absolutely nothing to go on as none of his college transcripts, papers, writings etc have surfaced other than one crappy paper about Evil Militarism that would be crappy if a 10th grade high school student wrote it.
Do you always find it necessary to view someone's college transcripts before you form an opinion about their intellectual ability?
As for Obama's lack of published writing outside of his books, I agree that is a little weird. But considering that he was at Harvard Law School at about the time of the Bork nomination, that he obviously already had formulated his plans for a political career, and had no need to "publish-or-perish" since his goal was not an academic career or a clerkship, his lack of published writing may have been a plan that served him well.
As for his "Breaking the War Mentality" article, I just looked at it again, and in my judgment it is naive and very poorly edited, but it is college-level rather than sub-tenth grade level.
If you mean his books, obviously he either didn’t write them at all or had lots of “help”.
I'm not sure this is clear. Where is Jack Cashill's promised software textual analysis that would prove Obama's writing really came from Bill Ayers? Obviously Cashill couldn't deliver the goods. And no one else has either.
One has to take into account the fact that 12 years passed between the college paper discussed above and the publication of Obama's first book.
If you mean his speeches, obviously he didn’t write them.
Not at all obvious. No doubt he has a lot of help from speechwriters. But so have many other intelligent politicians.
If you mean his reading the Teleprompter, anyone who is semi-literate can read, and you will have to have noticed that when asked a question and has to answer with the Prompter he sounds like a total fool.
I do agree that Obama is weirdly reliant on the Telepromper even for short introductions, and he does look foolish turning his head from side to side as he reads his speeches. But you seem to be saying that he actually is given answers to questions through the Teleprompter. There is no evidence for that.
Contrary to what is often expressed around here, Obama does often answer questions without a Teleprompter. He appears to give thoughtful answers that one may not agree with but are his own opinion. In three debates with McCain, where he was not being fed by a Teleprompter, Obama did not come across as a moron.
My own opinion is that Obama is not as brilliant as he is often portrayed, but he is a very smart guy.
Besides the other items I have addressed, here are some other reasons why I think Obama can objectively be considered an intelligent individual:
1. Although he did not publish any papers in the Harvard Law Review, he was apparently involved in the editing of about 600 papers. Some of the authors have described the extensive editing-comments he gave them. None of these people, nor any of his classmates, nor any of his professors have come forward with an Emperor-has-no-clothes type story that Obama is really a moron.
2. The subsequent editor of the Law Review, who is a conservative, has said that she thinks Obama is extremely intelligent.
3. When the exams and answer keys from some of Obama's University of Chicago courses were published, they were not criticized for exhibiting poor legal scholarship. None of the people who took his courses have come forward to say that he is a moron.
4. The authors of this law school casebook thanked Obama for help in putting their book together. Obama was also thanked by a professor at HLS for his assistance in research for a paper. Part of the degree requirements at HLS is legal writing of a high standard.
5. Genes: Both of Obama's parents were Ph.D. candidates. Despite the many faults of his father, he must have been an unusual individual to get from Kenya to Harvard in the early 60's. (While I don't buy the alternative-father theories, note that the other proposed candidates are also intelligent.)
6. Obama has gone into numerous meetings with intelligent people, including his political opponents and foreign leaders and none of them has come out and called him a moron. In fact the opposite is true.
7. He figured out how to become the first black president in spite of a huge number of drawbacks that would have defeated other candidates.
He has surrounded himself with Marxists, socialists and those that generally hate America (Rev. Wright comes to mind).
It's not so clear that political beliefs are directly tied to intelligence.
He clearly has no sense of economics
Obama has a left-leaning sense of economics but he clearly is able to grasp the very complex nature of the current economic crisis.
and he isn’t even admitted in Illinois to practice law!
Obviously Obama was once admitted to the bar in Illinois. He let his membership lapse since he wasn't practicing as a lawyer.
On the face of it you’ve made some points. However, you do not appear to understand how much cover affirmative action types get. The system that was put into place by left wing ideologues makes the achievement of its participants suspect.
I’ve read that to graduate magna cum laude from Harvard is not that big of a deal - affirmative action, plus everyone is graded pretty high.
Until his actual, read grades, papers and so on - as well as what courses he took - are made public, he remains a cipher. An evil, leftist cipher.
Your sycophant status is crystal clear.
______________
Indeed it is ..... and for over a year and a half. Obongo lover, no way wide can deny it.
They say that if one’s mind is too open one’s brains will fall out.
You might find it interesting.
Somehow Cashill manages to project an image that is in contrast to what people expect a nut to look and sound like. He probably makes some valid points but where are you supposed to draw the line?
I let you know what I think of Cashill when I’m through reading his book.
I will read his book as I usually read books, independently verifying the author’s statements (instead of accepting or dismissing them out of hand).
That approach works well for me.
I let you know what I think of Cashill when I’m through reading his book.
I will read his book as I usually read books, independently verifying the author’s statements (instead of accepting or dismissing them out of hand).
That approach works well for me.
Obama is lauded for having been a faculty member at U of C.
All that fact proves, is that he was a faculty member at U of C.
It doesn’t prove he is brilliant or got good grades.
I’ve just been reading about another one of U of C’s celebrity faculty members, the fraud, Bruno Bettelheim. He was on the faculty and ran the school’s Orthogenic center which treated mentally disturbed and autistic children.
He wasn’t vetted very well, it seems.
From: In the Case of Bruno Bettelheim
http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9706/articles/finn.html
” Former students accused [Bettelheim] in print of having created an atmosphere of terror in the famous school. Scholars accused him of plagiarism, and stories of falsified credentials and shoddy research emerged from several sources.”...
“he had no research design or trained observers and allowed no outsiders into the [Orthogenic] school. “
“false claims he made in the annual progress reports”
“He invented accomplishments, academic degrees, connections with people in high places, and professional training and experience that either had no basis in reality or else were gross exaggerations.”
“The fourteen years he claimed he spent at the University of Vienna, supposedly resulting in three Ph.D.s summa cum laude were actually six years and a Ph.D. (without honors) in philosophical aesthetics.”
Universities do, at least on occasion, hire frauds who have a destructive influence on some of those who are under their thumbs.
Looks like U of C did that at least 2 times.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.