Posted on 10/27/2008 6:03:18 PM PDT by chet_in_ny
As the presidential race heats up and Democratic nominee Barack Obama is forced to respond to increasingly tough attacks from the Palin-energized GOP ticket, his campaign style is coming under growing scrutiny. Some feel the candidate has too often been more head than heart, more intellectual than passionate, less a leader than a lecturer. Will his style survive the rough-and-tumble of a modern media-saturated presidential campaign?
Yet balancing the two personae — professor and politician — has been key to Obama's success. Much of his style can be traced back to his dozen years as an academic, at the University of Chicago Law School. A look at those teaching days reveals just how he has managed to be at once popular and intellectually exacting.
By most accounts, Obama's time at the law school was a huge success. He arrived in 1992, fresh out of Harvard Law School, to juggle teaching courses in constitutional law and race theory. Within a few years, he had become a rock-star professor with hordes of devoted students, written a popular book and launched a political career as an Illinois state senator.
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
The hell you say.
Self Administered Ping
I have little doubt that liberally sprinkling one’s answer with buzzwords like “social justice,” “economic justice,” “redistributive change” and “dispossessed peoples” and making points like “the Constitution is fundamentally flawed” would ensure a high grade from Law Instructor Obama.
Sorry - I couldn’t get past the first couple of paragraphs. Mary & Joseph living in Bethlehem? What a total scumbag! If I say any more, I’ll be permanently banned from FR.
Look at this sentence:
"The statute further prohibits the use of any hospital, clinic or health care facility, whether public or private, from providing such services to any unmarried person within the State of Wazoo."
While I think I know what he is trying to say, the syntax is garbled to say the least. Perhaps it is proper legalese?
It is standard fare for a Con Law exam at such a university, as I have taken two undergraduate classes in the subject. However, this looks to be a law school or a graduate level political science course.
If I had my Con Law materials, I could effectively blow Obama’s exam out of the water using right winged materials.
What I meant to say is that most case law would go AGAINST Obama’s ideas. That’s how I would blow it out of the water. And, if Obama would downgrade me for bringing it up, I would file a grievance with the department (as Obama is only a lecturer).
Good point.
But, Obama specifically states that you can only use cases HE has presented in the course. Cases he has not brought up will not be considered, regardless of their validity or precedence.
"You may use any materials or notes used on our class. You may not refer to cases, articles, etc., that were not used in class."
If the student can only cite a articles that Obama has provided to argue his case, and Obama has not provided any cases opposing his viewpoint, then the student's conclusions are foregone. This is just another restatement of the Red Queen's assertion that words mean only what she says they mean. Obama only wants to hear what he has said. Nothing more... and certainly nothing that might impact his pre-conceived conclusions.
Please ignore the typographical errata "a" in that phrase... blush.
I would have to see Obama’s course syllabus for the course to see what cases were required reading/discussion.
I read the exam. What was the question?
Socrates said that fundamentally there are only two questions:
Who teaches the children and what do they teach them
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.