For real?

Obama is not an intellectual giant and Palin isn't the dummy some would like her to be. I wouldn't vote for her but Obama's smarts and her lack of are both greatly over exaggerated.

 

Did you post a "for real?" post when Obama said he had traveled to 57 states and only had one more to go?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws

 

Obama has an Ivy League legal education. He passed the bar exam. He taught at the University of Chicago. I often question his wisdom, but I don't question his intelligence. You can't do these things without having above-average intelligence.

I honestly don't think Palin is very smart. She doesn't make a whole lot of sense much of the time, and much of her rhetoric that does make sense consists of platitudes and generic statements about patriotism, faith, etc. Moreover, she consistently makes incomprehensible statements like the one in the video in this thread.

She isn't the first politician to have questionable intelligence, and she won't be the last. She does not, however, need to be anywhere near the Oval Office.

I know that the intelligence question was often raised with George W. Bush, but he always struck me more as informal or folksy than as unintelligent. I think many people misunderstood the relaxed Texan demeanor for a lack of intelligence. He may not have been at the top of his class, but he has an MBA from Harvard Business School, and it seems that during his education he did more than his fair share of drinking. Making it through that level of education when frequently impaired cannot be done be an unintelligent individual.

Regarding demeanor, I have no problem with Sarah Palin's demeanor. I find it humorous when she speaks in folksy terms, but that is simply cultural. What she says when she speaks in folksy terms is what causes me to question her ability to govern.

 

As a comment on that video said,

There is a big difference. I don't support Obama, but fair is fair.

 

There are an awful lot of dumb folks in academia. You might not want to put so much stock in it.

 

I work in academia. You cannot be "dumb" and obtain those credentials. You can be scatterbrained, eccentric, idealistic, and disconnected from the real world, but you can't be "dumb."

Have you ever taken the GRE, GMAT, or LSAT? These examinations are not easy, especially the LSAT. A dumb person would not have a sufficient score to get into these kinds of graduate programs. For attorneys, the bar exam is also arduous.

 

I disagree

lacking intelligence or good judgment; stupid; dull-witted.

 

I agree that we need a better candidate than Palin in order to beat Obama, but that is not to say that Sarah wouldn't do a much better job as a President than Obama has. Flubs or not, her policies are better and the people she would surround herself with to run this country would be FAR and ABOVE better than what we have now.

The issue here is the double standard. You all who are old enough to remember how the media and the left in our country painted Reagan as a bumbling fool know what I'm talking about. They did it to Quayle, they did it to the Bushes and they are doing it to any conservative candidate we put forward. It doesn't matter if the candidate we put forward had a better education with a higher GPA, or even scores higher on IQ tests. They will always consider anyone who thinks like a conservative as being an idiot and will treat them as such.

 

Have You Ever Watched Leno's "Jaywalking?"

Leno has tons of college graduates and teachers (no less) on that segment, and they continue to amaze me with their inability to answer basic questions about US history.

This doesn't say too much for your argument, but, everyone is entitled to their opinion!

 

I'm not speaking of a P.E. major from Backwater State U. This is Columbia University and Harvard Law. Also, I was referencing graduate school admissions examinations. It's not that difficult to get an undergraduate degree. It is much more difficult to finish law school.

 

I love education and also work in academia, but give me a man or woman who has good old common sense over a PhD any day.

 

Did Oba-Mao really say that there are fifty-seven states? Did Joe Biden really say that President Roosevelt went on TV to speak to the American people when the Depression began?

Yes, Palin said that. So what? She was speaking off the cuff and said something unclear. In her defense (I'm not particularly a Palin fan, but I can't stand these stupid, hypocritical attacks by those of you on the left), I believe Revere's ride could be interpreted to be a kind of warning to the British, that the colonists were not willing to lay down, but would organize and fight.

Frankly, as an historian, I find it more troubling that she continued the trend of mythologizing Revere, while downplaying Dawes' contributions.

 

By the way, if you're going to call somebody else "confused and befuddled by simple questions", then perhaps you should explain what "the is not the first time" means.

 

It is a typographical error on a discussion board. It happens.

You don't have to nitpick.

 

Technically speaking Palin was right in that Revere was warning the British due to the fact that most colonial residents at the time considered themselves British as they were all legally British subjects, though it doesn't appear that is point she is making.

She seems to be trying to make the story into a political point against the liberal administration that Revere's ride, in some sense, was a warning to the British who wanted to de-arm them in the same way the tea party is warning the American public about the liberals who want to de-arm us today. That is the way I took her comments anyway, but she wasn't real clear in her intent for sure.

 

LOL

At least Obama didn't try to insist that there really ARE 57 states