I was searching for perception about skin care related blogs on Friday and…

It's not merely a matter of what you have, but what you do with it and how well.

The interesting (not really remarkable — historically, it's not that remarkable) thing is that with Obama have come not only a lot of Clinton retreads and other establishment types (“fixtures”) but a good number of younger people that to date really haven't been in the news that much, if at all. And even some Clinton people are being put in new (different) positions. They're Democratic; they're committed at least somewhat to activism; it's logical for them not to repeat the 1993-4 mistakes by lurching leftward but to take it easy at first (and to work on the economy, since they wish to intervene to improve it); they'll attempt to do more to appeal to liberals than Bush and the GOP, even if it's overreach as well as conceit to mislabel so much of it as smart. We have yet to see what smart _actions_, _deeds_ will be done by them.

As for the conceit over misusing “smart” in a more general sense, and in regard to Obama, what a laugh. Obama was elected not because he is smart — we all know that, and his speaking, even with contemporary affectations (unvoiced letter S when it should be voiced like a Z, overly long “S” sound, over-emphasis on later syllables), is a relief in contrast to Bush. He was elected mainly because he's young, because he's attractive, and because he's black (many Clinton fans wanted her because she's female — same “identity politics” at work). It has nothing to do with being smart and smart being cool.

Recall the nerds as kings on campus after Sputnik. You know, often posing not only with their ties but puffing on pipes. _That_ was when smart was cool — for a short time.