Not that it really matters at this point...but I think the appointment at Harvard Law Review was just an arranged resume-builder and nothing else. They actually have hired people (paid staff) who do the real management of the Review, and there are apparently some professors in the background to ensure things don’t get screwed up.
You can go back and ask anyone before the Law Review appointment....about any experience with any school newspaper (even in high school), and you get the impression that he never was involved with any paper forum.
From the prospective of management or executive or team-leader experience...from the past dozen presidents...I’d say the President is likely at the bottom of the list. I’d even give Jimmy Carter several plus points because of his Navy background and governor period. Bill Clinton has his period as governor of Arkansas as a plus point. I’d have to go back to Woodrow Wilson to find another guy with similar background to President Obama.
A stinking rat is a stinking rat. I rate them all at the sewer level.
Jimmy Carter? Anti-semite and economic disaster. Of course, yes — even the peanut farmer can look down on BO now. I’ll give you that.
Bill Clinton:
Another Pardon, Another Controversy
http://speakout.com/activism/news/5653-1.html
Hugh Rodham [Hillary’s brother] received a contingency fee in connection with a pardon ... a scheme to distribute 800 pounds of crack cocaine
I’d have to go back to Woodrow Wilson to find another guy with similar background to President Obama.
_________________________________________________________
Woodrow Wilson was the President (chief executive) of Princeton University for many years before being President of the US, and then was Governor of New Jersey.
Part of the problem is that some people who couldn’t get into Ivy League schools - libs, anyway - tend to glorify those institutions in their minds.
I realize things are different today and security is tighter but back in the early ‘70’s, a buddy and I spent a couple days in Boston sneaking into classes at Harvard by day to see what was so great about the place and drinking in Irish bars by night.
I was more impressed by the bar conversations, personally.
Exactly. Great post.
From what I understand, he only published one paper during his entire time at the Review, and while he was “the Editor”, he never wrote or published anything. No Editorials, no opinions, nothing.
Whether it was a figurehead position or another example of him attaining a high-status position and then just shamming his way through without any tangible performance, is open to conjecture.
The results are the same however - he got the job and then did nothing with it. Sounds familiar.
He's just an overrated, overreaching, underachieving “Title Collector”, padding his resume at the expense of others.
I read once that the rules were changed for the disadvantaged. Maybe even for him, I can’t remember. At any rate he is the EEOP President.