How many people in public life today can follow and understand both sides of an argument?

To this day so many of them behave as if they've never read material we've read such as that well-done New Yorker article about Obama's past. They're too busy still throwing strange tantrums (for any outraged reaction is strange) and making silly criticism about the cover illustration. (Is the solution Obama comic books?)

You should run for office.

That may be Obama's dilemma. People want to whittle him down to their wanting intellectual level. He can understnd them, but are they up to understanding him?

Sounds like you have been reading too much Soren Kierkegaard. Not enough “Leap of Faith:” from the non believers.

Tsk, tsk. Incorrect and illogical again.

Unlike you, I can seize the moment.

There are certain (most) pundits and commenters who rush in with judgmental answers without the capacity to comprehend the questions.
Therein lie the dangers of democracy and grass roots politics. So much depends on the quality of leaders,and their intellectual abilities, at every level from Washington to the tiniest municipality.

They are in short supply these days. Whatever inellectual abilities exist are usually used to market pre-dermined personal preferences rather than seek conclusions from empirical evidence.

I was thrilled to read about Obama's teaching experience. You can't defend any solution without understanding all the counterarguments.
What we have instead is an attitude of operating with horse blinders on. The prospect of taking blinders off is scary to the intellectually meek and exhilerating to those open to intellectual inquiry.

That may be Obama's dilemma. People want to whittle him down to their wanting intellectual level. He can understnd them, but are they up to understanding him?

Btw DLS, your comment to runasim suggests that a little self-examination is overdue. Consider that a friendly tip if you like.

You sure disguise that on this site! Or you just let your politics override that.

* * *

“I wouldn't read too much into this stuff from Obama's past.”

I don't see him as a Sixties radical McGovernite invader of academia and legal education (which is notoriously riven with such politics in place of education).

Even his wife's “woman-and-family-centered” laundry list of typical eye-rolling Democratic agenda items from the past (which the nation cannot afford to see implemented) isn't radical.

When Obama advocates nationalization of the oil companies, then I'll worry.