President Obama would be an Academy Award winning actor. Get him off of the script, and Bush seems articulate compared to him.
Again - did you actually watch any of the debates or press conferences? Because if you had, you cannot say what you said. It is flatly inaccurate. And as for intelligence - the man went to Harvard law and wrote two books. He is a brilliant writer by the way. Again, to say he is not smart is flatly inaccurate. I mean, lets debate, but lets debate in reality.
If you don't already know, you aren't paying attention. England = Great Britain. Austrian = a language. The guy is cringe-worthy off of a teleprompter.
So, what did he publish at Harvard Law? He was the editor of the Law Review, right? What did he publish under his own name at Harvard? Bush went to Harvard and Yale. I'm not sure what your point is.
Considering most of the arguments I'm hearing comes down to "he says uh a lot," no, I'm trying not to pay attention. Like I said, so what? So was Bush, and half of the people on this board alone would take him back given the choice. Can we please go back to fighting about what he's saying instead of how he says it? Christ.
It was pointed out that President Obama went to Harvard. What were his grades? We knew Bush's undergrad grades. Kerry's as well. What did our President publish under his name in the Harvard Law Review? Simple question. Shouldn't you have an answer?
I'm not sure what YOUR point is? Why does it matter if he published something while in law school? Does that make him RETARDED if he didn't? I mean, shit, if I find out he didn't publish at least three academic articles to reputable journals, I'm going to call him up and ask for my vote back. I mean CHRIST
In other words, you can't find anything that President Obama published in the Harvard Law Review, and the dumbass President before him went to both Yale and Harvard. Out.
I wonder how he became the editor of the Law Review. Usually editors have published a few items. I'm just asking for a few opinions he gave in the Harvard Law Review under his name? http://www.harvardlawreview.org/
OK I googled it and look he published nothing! OH WAIT an unsigned article attributed to Obama that says that FETUSES CANNOT SUE THEIR MOTHERS!!!! /road to serfdom
can you just stop dancing around and say what you're going to say so I don't have to ask you what the hell you are trying to get at
What has he published, that is your silly question? Of course I don't know what he published in law school, who does who did not go there then? But I did go to law school and will say unequivocally that 1) you don't get to be the editor unless you are tops in your class, and 2) he published plenty. Hell, I wasn't even in law review and I published. But more importantly, have you heard of Dreams From My Father or The Audacity of Hope? And please, don't discount these best sellers with some silly side argument. So what can you say now - two NY Times bestellers. As I said, this really has become an inane argument.
I'm still confused about why it matters. I know plenty of intelligent people who've never published a thing in their lives.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1178/polarized-partisan-gap-in-obama-approval-historic Partisan Gap in Obama Job Approval Widest in Modern Era For all of his hopes about bipartisanship, Barack Obama has the most polarized early job approval ratings of any president in the past four decades. The 61-point partisan gap in opinions about Obama's job performance is the result of a combination of high Democratic ratings for the president -- 88% job approval among Democrats -- and relatively low approval ratings among Republicans (27%). By comparison, there was a somewhat smaller 51-point partisan gap in views of George W. Bush's job performance in April 2001, a few months into his first term. At that time, Republican enthusiasm for Bush was comparable to how Democrats feel about Obama today, but there was substantially less criticism from members of the opposition party. Among Democrats, 36% approved of Bush's job performance in April 2001; that compares with a 27% job approval rating for Obama among Republicans today. The partisan gap in Bill Clinton's early days was also substantially smaller than what Obama faces, largely because Democrats were less enthusiastic about Clinton. In early April 1993, 71% of Democrats approved of Clinton's job performance, which is 17 points lower than Obama's current job approval among Democrats. Republican ratings of Clinton at that point (26%) are comparable to their current ratings of Obama today (27%). The growing partisan divide in presidential approval ratings is part of a long-term trend. Going back in time, partisanship was far less evident in the early job approval ratings for both Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon. In fact, a majority of Republicans (56%) approved of Carter's job performance in late March 1977, and a majority of Democrats (55%) approved of Nixon's performance at a comparable point in his first term.
Knows about languages that don't even exist! [video=youtube;Tr7zhnctF4c]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr7zhnctF4c[/video]
Did you see the look on that reporter's face? It's like she was a reporter for Teen Beat who just asked Leif Garrett what kind of underwear he prefers.
