The problem with "So you think you're smarter than Obama?"

The question accepts 'smart' as a distinct trait and accepts that it can be ranked hierarchically.

So if the question (usually meant rhetorically as if nobody could possibly be smarter) is useful only if we accept that whatever Obama thinks is dismiss-able if someone smarter than he disagrees. That is, one could just as meaningfully dismiss Obama by questioning whether he is smarter than John Q. Genius.

And the question suggests that if John Q. Genius is smarter than Obama then he should be Emperor, instead of Obama being Emperor.

This is like my stance on hitting people. If hitting people is a legitimate mode of discourse then someone even bigger hitting you is legitimate and everyone should just do whatever Vladimir Klitscho says.

I know of no reliable measure to say who is smarter of Carter, Clinton and Obama. They're all very smart. We know that Carter and Clinton made big mistakes along the way so we know that very smart people are not immune to presidential error and it's bizarre to assume that Obama is beyond error or criticism because he's a smart guy.

Barack Obama is not the child Jesus lecturing the pharisees. It is all but certain that he was not even the smartest person in his law school class. (The smartest person in any Harvard law class is a "read Latin at three, does cube roots in his head" freak who will keep effortlessly picking up advanced degrees just to avoid leaving college. They eventually end up as either professors or homeless people playing grand-master level chess in central park for cigarettes.)

So... Fucking... What?

We can either make Stephen Hawking president (a terrible idea) or drop this "smarter than" mode of argument.

my TI-89 :)

You can criticize Obama, but do it intelligently. Assuming that Obama doesn't know what he is doing or is just being naive isn't constructive criticism.

Part of the reason Obama is so "smart" is that he is not afraid to admit he is wrong and is willing to listen to the advice of other intelligent people.

Anything?

Or was it more of the nature that "mistakes were made by this campaign, we won't make the same error in the future."

I see a difference between the two.

He said it was a bone-headed decision.

Not a very encouraging one :evilfrown::
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/3/17/225516/066

admitting, "I was wrong." Vocalizing "I was wrong" involves humility.

and then reversed his position. Fulfills the criterion for "wrong" in my eyes. There need not necessarily be humility in admitting one is wrong, where do you get that from? :crazy:

not sure what you're driving at here, at any rate...

What I'm getting at is we've just gone through 8 years with a president who could NEVER admit he was wrong about ANYTHING.

I don't want President-Elect Obama to share the same malady. Humility is a good thing.

I think that he's wily enough to not let those exact words get onto paper, he's a consummate political wrangler for what it's worth. There are certainly times that he has been called on being wrong, and when faced with bald facts, he has hemmed and hawed about being wrong, but it's never been about "major" issues.

In essence, I agree with you.

That sounds like he admitted he was wrong.

assuming people will criticize bush intelligently.

Some will and some won't.

And how do you define "intelligently?" Do you mean based on your opinion? Or my opinion? Or if there there comment gets deleted?



I have to say, I don't know anyone who has posited that Obama is stupid, except perhaps that 12 year old kid on the doorstep last June who's parents were voting McCain. But he doesn't post here or write ltte.

As for naive, there were a bunch of Hill supporters during the primaries who were sure that was the case, but time has proven them mistaken. And who cares any way? It doesn't bother me that someone else might believe Obama is naive. I would argue that and win i think. I think it can be shown that Obama isn't what most people would consider naive. But would that change the other person's mind? Not likely. But i don't know Obama, maybe there are things that he is naive about. So if someone posted that Obama is naive about some obscure issue, would that be an attack, or a criticism, or could it just be the truth?

Since Obama is human I'm sure he will find his own way and his own reasons to fuck up. My bet is he does really well on most things and he fucks up other things.

And when someone thinks he's fucking up, it's the patriotic and American citizen thing to do to speak up. When that happens, some will listen, analyze and respond with feed back, and some will assume that DU has gone to hell and everybody except them is part of a conspiracy to get Obama.

Such is life.

But you're smarter than me, therefore my assention means nothing.

:sarcasm:

There are many kinds of intelligence, Obama certainly has a few kinds in spades, but that doesn't make him "smarter than anyone I know".

:eyes:

One time he thought he was wrong, but he was wrong!

Gingrich is very bright, Nixon was very intelligent, hell Darths Cheney and Rumsfeld have decent noodles but "smarts" doesn't mean that the person's brain is being used correctly and wisely processing accurate information.

Brains are crucial but are far from being everything.