Excellent job, JD. You exposed Timmy boy as an ignorant, loud mouthed cretin who writes before he thinks. He is probably totally humiliated at this point.
Another point to make about our President is that he waited 4 years before going to law school. It is a fact that students who don't stay with their class and wait several years have an advantage over younger students who keep up with their class. I know it would have been easier if I had waited 4 years after college to go to law school - the additional maturity and experience is probably an unfair advantage and should be discouraged.
Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer
Well, before you knuckleheads start sucking each others' dicks, explain to all of us where what I said was incorrect?
I'll repeat what I posted so you dumbasses can go back and start over. You don't get elected to be President of the Harvard Law Review due to affirmative action policies. The article the professor posted up explains how he got the position....he was elected to it by his fellow law review editors. Put your reading comprehension glasses on, there is not one word in that article that supports the assertion that Obama got the job due to affirmative action.
By the way, why are you all assuming he got on to the law review via the write-on route as opposed to grading on? He graduated
magna cum laude from Harvard Law School. That's a matter of public record. I know it's latin and over your pointy little heads but maybe the professor can field that one for us and tell us what it means since I presume he has attended a few graduation ceremonies?
Let me help: with great distinction.
Here's an article from Commentary that contains some relevant....well...commentary that you halfwits might find interesting. I'm certain none of you idiots has ever heard of Commentary but let's just say that the folks that write for it are not Obama fans. But, unlike you, they're not blithering idiots. Note the part about graduating
magna cum laude....puts him in the top 15% to 20% of his graduating class at Harvard Law.
Blow me.
Is Obama Not So Smart? Check Your Facts
John Steele Gordon |
@steelegordon 05.25.2012 - 12:37 PM
Real Clear Politics this morning linked to a
column by Jack Kelly of the
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette entitled “Obama Is Not That Bright.” In it he wrote,
Could it be that Mr. Obama’s “superior intellect” is a myth created by journalists to mask what may be the thinnest resume of anyone ever elected president? An example of puffery is the description of Mr. Obama as a former “professor of constitutional law.” Mr. Obama was a part time instructor at the University of Chicago Law School, without the title or status of professor. And, according to blogger Doug Ross, he wasn’t very popular with the real professors.
“I spent some time with the highest tenured faculty member at Chicago Law a few months back,” Mr. Ross wrote in March 2010. “According to my professor friend, [Obama] had the lowest intellectual capacity in the building. … The other professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified.”
As readers of this blog have probably noticed, I’m not the national president of the Obama Fan Club, so this was music to my ears. But was it true? It’s the oldest dictum in journalism that, “if your mother says she loves you, check it out,” a splendid idea all too often honored in the breach. So I checked it out.
Fortunately for me, that was easy because the Harry A. Bigelow Distinguished Service Professor of Law at the University of Chicago Law School, Douglas G. Baird, is my first cousin (the “G” stands for Gordon). So I asked him about the quote and about the possibility that the reason Obama has refused to release his academic records was that his grades weren’t all that good. Here’s what he wrote back:
… The idea that Obama had lousy grades is demonstrably untrue. He graduated magna from Harvard Law, which means that he was at least in the top 15 or 20 percent of his class at HLS. Most of the exams are blindly graded. I don’t want to argue about the relevance of grades, but the idea that they weren’t very good is just not right.
It also mischaracterizes his position at Chicago to say that he was only a part-time instructor. Not being full-time was a matter of his choosing. (He wanted to pursue a political career. Our efforts to persuade him to teach fulltime at Chicago didn’t succeed. With respect to this, I should emphasize that I’m not speaking with second-hand knowledge. As dean at the time, I was the relevant decision maker.) Moreover, he was a “senior lecturer.” This is not your typical part-time instructor. At the time, it was a position reserved for people who would otherwise be full-time faculty, but who choose not to. (He got full medical benefits, large office, secretary, and faculty-type perks that were given only to [Richard] Posner and [Frank] Easterbrook [who are vastly distinguished appellate federal judges as well as senior lecturers at the law school], and not any other adjuncts.)
To say that some professors hated him because he was unqualified is mystifying. His credentials (president of HLR and magna) are completely traditional law professor credentials. His classes were consistently popular. He spent relatively little time schmoozing with faculty or hanging out with them (and this, at least in retrospect, has made at least one conservative colleague speak ill of him), but this is different from him being unqualified.
Someone who says Obama is not smart is someone who hasn’t met him. I’m completely confident you wouldn’t like him if you met him and you would think him ideological and not warm and fuzzy, but I would be stunned if you didn’t think he was smart.
Doug is undoubtedly right that I wouldn’t like Obama if I met him, which I haven’t (White House invitations have been notably sparse the last three years for some mysterious reason). And his ideological mindset is a big reason for that. A rigid ideology, after all, can make very bright people act stupidly.