Barrel Strength

In a WaPo article “Obama’s happiness deficit” Fred Hiatt attempts to slice and dice the reason why Obama is not happy.  He states the following.

I started thinking about this a few weeks ago when Obama confidant David Axelrod, noting that the president always makes time for his daughters’ recitals and soccer games, told the New York Times, “I think that’s part of how he sustains himself through all this.”

Really? Is the presidency something to sustain yourself through?

He did ask for this job; we didn’t make him take it. And so it seems fair to ask: What part of it does he enjoy? Formulating rational solutions to complex problems, for sure.

But schmoozing with foreign leaders, like President George H.W. Bush? In a column last week, Jackson Diehl pointed out that Obama’s relations with just about every counterpart are prickly.

How about horse-trading or arm-twisting, like President Lyndon Johnson? George Will last week cited a recent Obama statement on the health-care bill (”Unfortunately, what we end up having to do is to do a lot of negotiations with a lot of different people”) to point out that Obama views such politics with a certain disdain.

Hiatt enumerates several activities and opines if Obama enjoys them or not.

1. Time for family – Yes, with link to a NYT article supporting that contention.

2. Schmoozing with foreign leaders – No, with link to WaPo article supporting that contention.

3. Political horse trading – No, with link to a WaPo article supporting that contention.

4. Formulating rational solution to complex problems – Absolutely!  When it comes to this activity the only evidence he provides is his own statement, “for sure”.   That is it?!  We have always heard how brilliant Obama is but what evidence is there to support that contention?  What legal papers has he published?  What has he accomplished that can be classified as brilliant?

There is substantial evidence contrary to this commonly held viewpoint, e.g. he wasn’t a professor as is often attributed to him with some even calling him a constitution law scholar.  For somebody who lovingly wrote two books about himself, although some contend that he didn’t write Dreams From My Father, it is very surprising that the only article he wrote in Harvard Law Review was “an unsigned — and previously unattributed” article of little significance.  He also didn’t distinguish himself, and didn’t publish anything, when he taught at University of Chicago.

For somebody who is suppose to be a great orator, why did he never exercise those skills in the court?  Chicago Sun-Times notes this.

The oratorical skills White House hopeful Barack Obama has shown on the stump — and in his “There’s not a black America and white America … there’s the United States of America” speech — would seem to make him a natural for wowing juries.

So why did Obama never make impassioned speeches in court when he returned to Chicago from Harvard Law School in the early ’90s to, as his Web site says, “practice as a civil rights lawyer”?

A review of the cases Obama worked on during his brief legal career shows he played the “strong, silent type” in court, introducing himself and his client, then stepping aside to let other lawyers do the talking.

What proof is there of his brilliance?