Barack Obama and the Harvard Law Review
Given our twin obsessions with the Harvard Law Review and Barack Obama, we are compelled to draw your attention to this interesting article, from the Politico (via a commenter). Summarizing Obama's tenure as HLR president, Jeffrey Ressner and Ben Smith write:
The eight dense volumes produced during his time in charge there -- 2,083 pages in all -- show the Review to have been a decidedly liberal institution, albeit one in transition as its focus on race and gender was contested by liberals and conservatives alike. Under his tenure, the Review published calls to expand the powers of women, African-Americans and the elderly to sue for discrimination.But Obama, who this March referred to "identity politics" as "an enormous distraction," was not so easily pinned down. He published a searing attack on affirmative action, written by a former Reagan administration official. And when, in an unusual move, he selected a young woman from a non-Ivy League law school to fill one of the Review's most prestigious slots, she produced an essay focused on individual responsibilities as much as on liberties, criticizing both conservative judges and feminist scholars.
"I was very surprised and honored to receive the invitation, of course, as I was teaching at Maryland Law School at the time, and the Foreword typically is extended to more established scholars at 'top' law schools," Robin West, now a professor and associate dean at Georgetown Law Center, wrote in an e-mail to Politico.
For more on Professor West and her Harvard Law Review foreword, see the Volokh Conspiracy, where David Bernstein describes Professor West as "an inspired choice."
Discussion continues, after the jump.
From later on in the Politico piece:
"He was as much a traditionalist as anything," recalled Susan Estrich, the USC School of Law professor who served as Michael Dukakis' campaign manager in 1988 -- and who broke ground as the first female president of the Harvard Law Review 14 years before Obama took the reins. "It was a big deal that he got the presidency. He was selected because of merit, and he believed in the institution and its history. There are some years [at the Review] that are radical and others that are traditional."
(Obama's year was fairly traditional, it seems. The year just ended may have been among the more radical. See here.)
Why should we care about what goes on at the Harvard Law Review?
In Obama's time, as it is today, the Harvard Law Review was one of the most important and distinguished legal publications in the world. Founded in 1887, it is the rare self-supporting legal publication compiled and edited completely by students, typically those attending their second and third year at the prestigious school.
And it churns out future leaders like Barack Obama, which is another reason the Review merits scrutiny.
The anonymity of student contributions to the Harvard Law Review, such as Notes and Case Comments, sometimes leads to speculation about who wrote what. In Obama's case, however, his campaign denies that he wrote anything for the HLR that year:
One thing Obama did not do while with the review was publish any of his own work. Campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt said Obama didn't write any articles for the Review, though his two semesters at the helm did produce a wide range of edited case analyses and unsigned "notes" from Harvard students.Estrich believes that Obama must have had something published that year, even if his campaign says otherwise. "They probably don't want [to] have you [reporters] going back" to examine the Review.
Interesting speculation, Professor Estrich.
Not everyone is enamored of Obama's HLR presidency:
In recent months, Obama's stewardship of the Review has generated a small dust-up in the blogosphere, with some critics insisting that "Obama's Vol. 104 is the least-cited volume of the Harvard Law Review in the last 20 years." The claim has methodological problems, however, including the fact that Obama oversaw only the first four issues of that volume. Review veterans said he would have an increasing influence -- as well as a final read -- over the latter half of Volume 103, then a diminishing influence over the second half of Volume 104, produced after he left the presidency.
For more on that citation-count controversy, see TaxProf Blog (and links collected therein).
What's the overarching takeaway from reviewing Obama's leadership of the Harvard Law Review? Here's how the Politico piece concludes:
Obama's time on the review mirrored other aspects of his life. Even in the staunchly liberal milieus in which he has spent his entire adult life, Obama has managed to lead without leaving a clear ideological stamp, and to respect -- and even at times to embrace -- opposing views. To his critics, that's a sign of a lack of core beliefs. To his admirers, it's the root of his appeal."To understand what someone else is trying to say isn't just an editorial skill," said [Tenth Circuit Judge Michael] McConnell. "It's a life skill."
Obama kept Law Review balanced [Politico]
(168) Comments
Uno!
dos
Impressive. Running the Harvard Law Review (without pissing off any major constituency) is a harder job than being U.S. president.
The more I hear about Obama, the more comfortable I am voting for him in November.
If Judge McConnell, a well-respected conservative judge, likes Obama, he can't be that bad, can he?
Guys at my high school used to lead without leaving a clear ideological stamp all the time, it was no big deal.
"Obama has managed to lead without leaving a clear ideological stamp"
So, what are we to make of the fact that he was the most liberal senator of 2007? Apparently that wasn't a clear enough ideological stamp.
that's what she said
ocho
1:53: You moron. His record as senator shows that he has a clear personal ideological view, while his tenure as EIC shows that, as a leader, he believes that other views should still be professed to enrich the public discourse.
Also, those polls are highly dubious. Campaign finance reform is not "liberal," but is one of the factors they deem so.
Wow, the most liberal member of a body that was designed to be conservative. That sure says a lot.
Harvard LR is a TTT!
1:58, nice try. If you bothered to read the article, you would note that the quoted text came from this section:
Obama's time on the review mirrored other aspects of his life. Even in the staunchly liberal milieus in which he has spent his entire adult life, Obama has managed to lead without leaving a clear ideological stamp, and to respect -- and even at times to embrace -- opposing views.
In other words, it's talking about his leadership apart from his time as president of HLR.
1:53 - that dubious assertion aside, Senators don't lead. They are not executives; they are advocates. The two jobs are fundamentally different. To the extent there exists an internal Senate "leadership," I'm not sure I'd include Obama in that group; in any case, a Senate leader does not do so through his legislative votes, but instead leads through his interactions with the other Senators. Obama may be very liberal, but the evidence suggests he tempers that while fulfilling an executive role.
1:45 - Obama probably is a nice guy, once yiou get past his racist religious leaders, criminal/terrorist friends, ignorant c**t of a wife and typical white woman grandmother - but how does any of that remotely qualify him to be president??
you know 2:02, if someone as obviously intelligent as you can question his qualifications, there must be something to it. way to go.
@2:01: What s/he said.
@2:02: What qualifies someone to be president? Being a POW?
Robin West, by the way, is the shit.
2:02- what has his wife done? (Asking serious question, not snarking, because all the sudden I have heard people expressing anger against her, but I somehow missed whatever it was she did.)
1:45, According to Senator McCain, it is his wife who is the "c**t."
2:02 is a not-so-subtle Ted Hagee troll.
(Will be called a fierce, gay, jewish antichrist in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1)
I think 2:02 is auditioning for Comment of the Day! Pretty exemplary of the ignorant electorate that chooses to emphasize irrelevant and false sensationalized personal elements of a candidate to make voting decisions. GDub LOOKED like such a nice guy...gosh that turned out well.
2:05 -
not just being a POW. it also helps to go to expensive prep schools on your family's money, get into the Naval Academy based on your family name, graduate last in your class, and divorce your first wife and marry your second 30 days later. it also really helps when that second wife is (coincidentally) extremely wealthy, and her (also coincidentally) politically-connected father gets you your own political career. getting shot down really only allows you to imply that the millions of americans who weren't are somehow not "real" americans.
running up hundreds of thousands of dollars of 20+% interest credit card debt is a big advantage as well, given the way the current administration spends money. you want experience you can trust? there you go.
@2:05: But I ask you THIS. Is it not 100% rock and roll to bag a rich wife with a politically-connected father?
Guys at my high school used to congratulate people for having their aircraft shot down by making them President all the time, it was no big deal.
Jesus H Christ, Barama is an ugly man. Damn.
2:15 - Obama is promising to give money to anyone and everyone as fast as it can be printed.
2:21 - she owns a beer distributor - nuff said
Guys at my high school used to useless comments on pointless blogs all the time. It was no big deal.
Everybody! Hot tip! Obama is a Marxist who wants to give away free money! He's been planning it since his days as a Muslim Luo tribesman.
Can someone please confirm whether the "Barack Obama" you are all talking about is the same guy as "Barack HUSSEIN Obama," the guy running for president?
TYIA.
holy crap -- SHUT THE HELL UP with the fratstud meme. it's so unfunny.
Baramma ramma fo famma ...
There is no evidence that he is a Luo tribesman, as far as I know....
I can only imagine that none of the people thinking that this article means anything were ever on a major Law Review. Unless the HLR works differently than mine did, the editorial staffs are picked by the outgoing editorial staff for a variety of reasons, including political diversity. There is an expectation that the articles will reflect this diversity, and the articles are picked by agreement of the editorial staff. The Editor-in-Chief/President is, therefore, first among many in the article choosing process. I'd guess that any major journal you'd look at would have the same basic mix: left-leaning with some right-leaning stuff mixed in...
With that in mind, I guess I don't think it means diddly what Obama "published" unless he wrote it himself. It's also, to my mind, a sign of how skimpy Obama's record is that we have journalists even looking into this issue in order to tease out something about what he might actually do if he were elected president.
@2:38: Absolutely. It's very unusual for the media to look up presidential candidates' histories. It almost never happens.
2:33 - ther eis no evidence that Obama has any experience either, but that doesn't seem to matter to many here.
2:02 is a troll, do not feed the troll.
University of Maryland Law = turd floating in the toilet
@2:33: I think the point is that few experiences are tailor-made to qualify someone for the office of president, so the best we can do is pick someone who we think would do a great job based on a variety of factors. Experience is but one of those factors, and serves only to tell us how the person thinks and what he intends to do. There's no standard preparation like the 1L year or something (although, with the amount of lawyers being president...)
I, for one, support Obama because he constantly espouses nuanced and introspective thinking, and that's very unusual for a presidential candidate. Then again, I am brought back down to Earth when he says things like "Jerusalem should not be divided." He's a mortal, but a really smart one who would definitely lead in line with my ideals.
The fact that people are pouring over his time as HLR EIC simply means that there is scant other experience to look into. People who have been on a law review board will tell you just how little this experience should mean in terms of presidential prepatory experience.
Whats a troll?
2:45: Obama is a turd floating in a toilet?
2:50: I couldn't agree more.
2:38 is correct.
2:38 is correct.
2:50 - you mean "scant experience" as opposed to, say, the hundreds of years' worth of collective experience contained within the inner circle of the current administration? As opposed to the considerable executive experience W had when he ran for president?
I'll take Obama's character, intelligence, honesty, and integrity over "experience" (especially Senate experience) any time. And based on what I've read on both candidates' leadership styles, I feel good about that choice.
Bottom line: neither of these candidates has any experience being President of the United States, and there is no job that can "prepare" you to be POTUS.
I just want a candidate who fully embraces "change"
OBAMA SMOKES WEED....
Obama's the guy at the country club holding a martini making snide comments about everyone else.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6R2pOZuBd_U&feature=related
Can he lead? Dunno...but at least he has rythm!
Obama's blue lips make him look he has been swimming in a pool of ice for an hour. Brrrrrr.....
We truly live in a world of diminished expectations when a mediocrity like Obama is held up as a paragon of intelligence and accomplishment. I weep for this country.
i weep for your overinflated sense of self-worth and twisted worldview. I suppose he'd be less of a mediocrity if he had spent the past decade knocking out those 2800-hour years?
"The more I hear about Obama, the more comfortable I am voting for him in November."
Aparently Obama's "paid staff in all 50 states" reads ATL.
Guys in my high school espoused nuanced and introspective thinking all the time. It was no big deal.
Guys in my HS were held up as paragons of intelligence and accomplishment all the time, and no one wept for our country. It was no big deal.
Michele Obama will wup yo ass if you act a fool like dat, son!
I'm voting for Obama because, presently, too much of money goes to my family and not enough goes to the federal government. Changing *that* is something I can believe in.
Please remove the Fried Frank from your Cravath. It is vulgar and insensitive.
3:30, I think you mean Obama's 57 states.
Honest question from an undecided voter:
Will an Obama presidency really mean less take-home pay for Biglaw associates? If so, is there any way in which an Obama presidency would positively affect my life so as to offset that?
So, the story here is that NOTHING happened when Obama was president of the Law Review?
WTF? Unless he wrote an unbelievably well-quoted piece or a horrible piece or r the Law Review just plain sucked or he didn't deserve the job and got it anyway, there is no story.
As none of those things are presented here, there is therefore no story.
This is just a mild puff piece on how great Obama was in law school. Yawn.
3:46, Obama wants to severely raise taxes on those making more than $250k, which is most biglaw associates after a few years of working, after taking bonus and inflation into account.
Expect to pay 60 cents to the government for every additional dollar you make at that point.
And you'll hit the $250k point even more easily if you are married to anyone who makes any decent amount of money.
3:46 - we could not be hated by the rest of the world, and in turn avoid unnecessary wars
3:46,
I'm sure there are many nuanced and varied responses to your question.
In my view, one approach would be: Obama may take a little more of your money (which, supposedly, will go toward reducing poverty and thus hunger and crime, reducing the chances that you'll be mugged, etc.), but the offset is the hope that under Obama, the chances of someone flying their plane into your office will be less than they would be under McCain.
Plus fewer teen pregnancies (less crime and poverty), a stabilizing of the divorce rate, blah blah blah.
4:16 and 4:24 belong to Obama's internet task force. It's either that or the work for Mr. Roarke.
4:29 works for McCain! OMG! I'm so funny.
"I'll take Obama's character, intelligence, honesty, and integrity". LOL. If you can find any, it's all yours.
Close, 3:45, but it's 58 states.
4:38, It's 57. Check the clip on YouTube. He says they've got one state left to go aside from Hawai'i and Alaska, and clearly meant to say 47 but accidentally said 57 instead. Just like McCain mixes up Iran with various other countries and holds his microphone upside down. Campaigns are exhausting, and even Senators are only human.
4:24, your naivete is cute. Obama will give the money to the corn lobby for ethanol production, and give free insurance to free-riders who purposely chose not to buy insurance (actual poor people who can't afford insurance can already get it through Medicaid and numerous state programs). He will also give a subsidy to seniors, who don't have to pay taxes on up to $50k of income (while a regular person would have paid $7k).
More Taxes We Can Believe In.
4:41 - I'm not 4:38, but if you're going to be a stupid-as-shit worshiper of the Dali Obama (1) don't cite YouTube as a credible source and (2) go back to second grade math:
The Dali Obama stated that he had visited 57 states and had 1 left to go - Thus,
visited 57
need to visit: 1
total 58
Obama has started to sell Michele's booty juice online.
4:41 - I've seen the tape. He said "I've now been in 57 states, I think one left to go." That would be 58 states.
4:38
Though in this context there is no reason to exclude Alaska and Hawaii so it would be the full 60 states.
I didn't realize the RNC and Fox's Fair and Balanced News had dispensed its little lackies to blogs as remote as this one.
From Politico:
Is he a Muslim, a Christian with a crazy pastor or a Communist atheist with a hippie mom?
Is he ruthless and overly ambitious or naive and weak?
Is an outsider who is "foreign" to our values or the country club goer?
Is he too South Side, too "black" or too Hyde Park and elitist ? Does he resent white people or is he part of the elite that sneers at blue-collars?
Does he not care about "little people" or is a socialist who will redistribute hard-earned money to everyone?
C'mon McCainophiles, let's get your story straight.
God, you people suck.
Does anyone NOTICE that deficits happen during REPUBLICAN PRESIDENCIES because of THEIR SPENDING?
No, I'm not a big fan of tax and spend. But I am even less of a fan of spend us into a deeper and deeper deficit, while not taxing.
Hello! The dollar is falling! Does anyone care?
Regardless of what number he was thinking, I am disturbed by the "I think" part of the quote. If he's been to 47, then he needs to visit 3 more, or 1 more other than Alaska and Hawaii. A fecking senator should know how many states there are.
If you called your (Irish Catholic) mother up and she said "i've just visited 5 of your brothers, I think just 2 more to go", wouldn't you feel compelled to say Woman, what do you mean "think", either you have 2 more sons or you don't.
5:08, you miss the genius of the Republicans. He is all bad things to all people. Whatever you hate, he represents. Doublethink, 2008 edition.
As much as Obama is tripping all over himself in his campaign I'll be shocked if he can find his way from the Capitol Building to the White House if he's inaugurated.
5:08, if you pull out your copy of the constitution you will see that the power of the purse resides with Congress. And if you look at the basic economic numbers, you will see that lower taxes actually increase government revenue because they increase economic activity and the government is taxing economic activity. Obama himself admitted this when he admitted in a debate that raising the capital gains tax will result in lower revenue but that we should do it anyway out of "fairness".
Interesting how Obama supporters convince themselves that any dissenting opinion is the product of the RNC or Fox News sending out their "lackies." It certainly couldn't be that regular folks are critical of Obama, could it?
Interesting how McCain supporters lump all Obama supporters with those who say that any dissenting opinion is the product of the RNC or Fox News sending out their "lackies." It certainly couldn't be just one or two morons, could it?
4:56,
I cited YouTube as a way to easily obtain video of the quote in question, asshat. If you'd prefer that I link to the same exact video on CNN or the Washington Post's website, whatever.
4:56/4:58,
As much fun as it is for people who dislike Obama to seize on this quote (as if there were no legitimate grounds for criticism), you ignore the fact that he clearly meant 48, as he stated he was not counting Alaska and Hawai'i, since the campaigns do not go there.
Nice of you to assume that I'm some rabid Obama supporter, though. I'm just a fence-sitter who likes to get his facts straight rather than parrot some talking-heads over completely meaningless slips.
"I'll take Obama's character, intelligence, honesty, and integrity over "experience" (especially Senate experience) any time. "
It amazes me that such intelligent people buy into this crap. Here's a tip: he would not be in office if he didn't throw off all his principles and whore himself day and night to get there.
The other question about deficits taht no one ever asks is whether they are even bad to begin with. The fderal government's "leverage" compared to an average corporation, even a successful one, is relatively low. From an economic perspective, the government should continue to borrow more money as long as it can put the money to use in a way that the marginal return on the money in the form of GDP is higher than the interest rate. You could easily argue that the government is under-leveraged.
4:45, your ignorance is cute. Those who choose not to buy health insurance will not be given health insurance under Obama's plan -- that was Hillary's plan. Learn the difference.
Also, I bet you'll change your tune about senior taxes when you're ready to retire. It's a completely different fiscal scenario.
Politicians (left, right, middle) are all scum. Quit deluding yourselves into thinking this guy is above that.
5:23: And he wouldn't be the nominee if he were just an empty suit. Whether people want to admit it or not, he's intelligent, has a nuanced understanding of issues, and is a heck of a strategist.
5:16, that's probably a curve, right? in other words, if we lower certain taxes from our current level, revenues would increase, but lowering them further would cause revenues to decrease again (even at a level below zero or similarly insignificant)?
This is ridiculous. Obama was EIC. The EIC does not select the articles published. It's like judging a chef's cooking by the wait staff's attitude or the bus boy's responsiveness.
5:27, politics is a marketplace just like any other. They're only scum because we keep electing scum. Vote for somebody you like and convince others to do the same, that's supposedly the point of democracy.
No, 5:32. Politicians are scum because only scum choose to become politicians.
5:28 PM said: And he wouldn't be the nominee if he were just an empty suit. Whether people want to admit it or not, he's intelligent, has a nuanced understanding of issues, and is a heck of a strategist.
Possibly. But, even leaving aside his misguided ideas about policy (the legacy of being educated by the hypocrites who occupy most Ivy League chairs), Hitler was pretty intelligent, nuanced, and gifted at strategy (humping votes, anyway)--but he sure turned out a sonofabitch, didn't he?
Bottom line, who in their right mind would trust a Chicago politician to run the country?! Jesus, didn' t this country learn enough about getting screwed when it elected Clinton *and then* Bush?
~5:23
Politicians killed 5:36's parents.
2:15 -
You missed a point. It also helps to divorce your first wife after she's horribly disfigured in an accident. Stand-up guy that McCain. There were plenty of guys in my high school just like W and McW and they all ended up the same way -- f**king and drinking liquor. McW has gone W one better; he married the brewer.
running up hundreds of thousands of dollars of 20+% interest credit card debt is a big advantage as well, given the way the current administration spends money. you want experience you can trust? there you go.
5:44: You're invoking Hilter for why we shouldn't elect Obama? Really?
5:44--
Watch the Hitler references.
You obviously don't follow the news. A number of modern day politicians have had to apologize after comparing a contemporary person or event to Hitler or the Holocaust.
Intelligent, savvypeople, therefore, refrain from comparing people like Obama to Hitler, even if their instincts tell them to do so; your point gets distorted because the focus becomes your inovcation of Hitler, rather than the actual point you were making.
5:17: I agree. "Regular folks" are critical of Obama.
Fox News and Republican operatives (like the Swift Boat people who are about to publich a similar book on Obama) influence regular folks, who frankly are not very intelligent in this country, and are easily swayed by propoganda.
How surprising that an Obama supporter holds the folks in contempt.
How surprising a McCain supporter wouldn't understand that folks could support Obama.
How surprising that an Obama supporter (a) assumes anyone critical of Obama is a "McCain supporter" and (b) misrepresents what the critic actually said.
How surprising that a McCain supporter (a) assumes anyone critical of an Obama detractor is an "Obama supporter" and (b) writes ambiguously.
About 1/3 of the way through, the Politico article makes a significant error in stating:
"Her [Eleanor Kerlow's] book was set in the following year, when Obama's successor circulated a parody of an article by a feminist legal scholar who had been murdered, igniting a crippling ideological power struggle at the Review."
This strikes me as possibly libeling David Ellen, the president after Obama. Ellen had virtually nothing to do with the Harvard Law Revue "parody" issue of the Review which was circulated at the annual Review banquet in April, 1992, and which brutally attacked the memory of Mary Joe Frug exactly one year, almost to the minute, after her brutal murder. One point of the Revue tradition was to poke fun at the outgoing president, so although Ellen read it before it was printed and ultimately apologized for not quashing some of its content, at the time it was being put together he was reluctant to get heavily involved (also, I believe he was out of town), so he was one of the persons LEAST responsible for this outrage.
In reality, the person who headed up this parody issue was Paul Clement, who chaired the Supreme Court office of the Review, which typically headed up production of the Revue "parody" issue. Clement authored (I believe with Andrew Fish, though I'm not positive) a parody of Charles Ogletree's case comment on Arizona v. Fulminante, in which Clement took the opportunity to portray Ogletree as an intellectual fraud, and to portray members of the Senate Judiciary Committee as sexual perverts -- as obsessed by the sexual details of the Clarence Thomas hearing, concerning Anita Hill's attacks on Thomas (I wonder whether anyone brought that up when some of the same Senators reviewed his nomination to be Solicitor General). Reflecting Clement's authorship, the piece bore a "law and economics" theme matching one of Clement's main interests.
Clement's attack on Ogletree probably would have triggered significant criticism if it had not been for the even more outrageous attack made on Mary Joe Frug and her article. For example, the purported author of the piece parodying Frug's article was "Mary Doe," a "Rigor-Mortis Professor of Law." That piece was authored by Craig Coben and Ken Fenyo, but edited by Clement. Somehow, Clement managed to avoid accepting responsibility for the piece attacking Frug, even though he was in charge of the Revue issue, approved the attack on Frug, and actually edited it.
Only Coben and Fenyo explicitly admitted a role in the Frug piece, though a total of 10 editors, including Coben and Fenyo and Clement, publicly admitted (but only after pressure being applied by other editors) to some sort of role in producing the Revue "parody" issue. Clement never publicly admitted to having headed up the production of the Revue, and having edited the piece attacking Frug.
For the record, the editors who either instigated this outrage or who failed to take appropriate steps to block its publication, who might appropriately be called "The Revue 10," are as follows (alphabetical order):
1. Paul D. Clement
2. Craig B. Coben
3. David Ellen
4. Kenneth M. Fenyo
5. Andrew L. Fish
6. Mark David Harris
7. Janis C. Kestenbaum
8. Sean A. Lev
9. Robert K. Niewyk
10. Edith Ramirez
How surprising that an Obama supporter didn't correct that assumption the first time it was made and needs everything spelled out in big block letters.
"How surprising that an Obama supporter holds the folks in contempt."
Stop with you simplified, politicized statements. I am not holding the "folks" (as the elitist O'Reilly says) "in contempt." Rather, I'm giving an honest analysis as to how Republicans get so many people to vote against their interests. As someone interested in politics, I applaud these right-wingers. I wish Democrats could find a way to manipulate more people and get them to vote Democratic.
You call O'Reilly an elitist, but he's looking out for the folks. Meanwhile, your hero BHO is the guy at the country club with the hot date, holding a martini and leaning against the wall making fun of everyone else.
6:02 and 6:03, neither one of you are advancing the debate.
-Obama supporter.
5:48/5:55
"Watch the Hitler references. "
Surely--heaven forfend that you might not take some random person's opinion on a blog devoted to claptrap seriously.
But first, in defense: reductio ad Hitlerum is the only argument one can raise with our brothers and sisters to the Left of the aisle that they won't simply answer with "that's just your opinion, man." And second--thankfully--on an anonymous blog one can dispense with the BS pandering to political correctness and speak freely, misunderstanding be damned.
Of course, making the comparison is a stretch worthy of the finest yogi, but in all seriousness, there are substantial parallels between Obama and Hitler--they're both extraordinarily charismatic, they both get a hard-on from centralizing power, and they both don't know shit about running a country, for instance--so it's not just hyperbole. A serious joke, if you prefer.
~5:44
Yeah, we need another "regular guy" to be President. That always works out so well. Remember when JFK had martinis at the country club with hot dates? What a horrible time for our country.
JFK sucked.
6:23: I think you have a massive inferiority complex. Not sure why I get that impression from your posts, but I'd wager big bucks on it.
With the Hitler thing, it is not needed in this context. Your point is that electing someone based only on Charisma and overlooking any real experience. You do not need to go back to the 1930s. How about 2000.
Hard to believe and/or remember but Bush II was funny, personable and more fluid than Gore. People took to him and the conservatives were enthused about his compasionate conservative sticht. The country (not a majority but close) overlooked his failed business career, and that his only real experience in public life was Gov. of Texas for less than 8 years. (Job skills: ability to kill mentally retarded criminals, Grin and say "don't mess with Texas").
The argument against obama si we tried that Koolaid in 2000, it didn't work out so well.
6:23: I think you have a massive inferiority complex.
Luckily I masturbate frequently enough that it doesn't show outside of blog comment boxes.
FREE COPY OF OBAMA'S VOLUME OF HARVARD LAW REVIEW!
The Politico article says Obama's Volume 104 isn't "available for free online . . . ." Hey, this is America in 2008! EVERYTHING is available for free online, right?
E.g., something like a 100MB file available here:
http://depositfiles.com/files/6169670
Volume cut into two pieces, available here:
http://www.mediafire.com/?lzjevzjce1j
http://www.mediafire.com/?0fmrgvg4ise
Now, you can evaluate Obama's work product without having to walk your lazy ass to a library. Isn't America great? "Yes, we can!"
6:33: "With the Hitler thing, it is not needed in this context. Your point is that electing someone based only on Charisma and overlooking any real experience. You do not need to go back to the 1930s. How about 2000."
I regret making the point. Still, it *is* needed because Obama is not some bumblefuck like Bush. He's got a seriousness and gravity (like, 17 Cha or something--that's a lot of henchmen) that allow him to make big policy decisions, or, more likely, sell big policy decisions to the people. That is *more dangerous* than incompetence (see Bush).
Hitler was dangerous because he was the most powerful orator of his generation, not just because he was a fucking loony...loonies are everywhere (we can smell our own), but only people who can move the masses can crash the ship into a reef. And here comes Obama, the perfect storm--dumb in only the way that the inexperienced can be, but gifted in conveying his ideas to the people and making them excited about it.
Comparing Obama to W based on experience is ridiculous. It assumes that Bush has been a horrible president because of his lack of experience rather than the other myriad reasons. Where Bush is weak, Obama is strong. Obama is intellectually inquisitive, nuanced, hard-working. He has good judgment, makes strategic decisions well. He's not perfect, but no one is. He's a good option, and a significantly better option than McCain.
6:42: Is that a joke? Are you aware of Iraq and what's been going on over there?
6:21:
You're right--O'R'eilly's looking out for the folks, Fox is Fair and Balanced and Colmes is a competent liberal who can hold is own. Don't try pulling that shit on me. I watch Fox News incessantly because it'slike watching a train wreck. It's awful, but it's such a disaster I can't take my eyes off of it. So don't pretend like O'Reilly is some sort of populist. He's an elite asshole who lives in a mansion on Long Island, works in one of the most liberal cities in America (NYC) and is manipulating simple-minded people to become a 100 millionaire.
5:59 Obama supporters are so funny. If a regular folk supports McCain, it must be:
1. they are not very intelligent, i.e., they're idiots
2. they are easily swayed by Fox News and Republican operatives
3. they are obviously voting against their interests
4. all of the above
Guess what people, many regular folks believe in abstract notions of fundamental fairness. Some people don't believe that people making $500,000 a year should pay 60% of that to the government in taxes, or the government should take half of anybody's estate at death, even if they themselves will never expect to have that much money. They might also realize that heavily taxing capital wealth reduces capital stock and job creation, which is basic Economics 101 that liberals never seem to get.
Keep on telling yourselves that the regular folks are simpletons who don't know any better and just blindly follow Republican operatives, who must be real busy these days. Keep on insulting the middle majority of the country, and wonder why Democrats have lost seven out of the last ten Presidential elections.