David Brooks said it best:
David needs to get off his high horse. He's bright, but he's no genius. His love affair with then-Sen. Obama was based off his ability to discuss Edmund Burke. Big whoop. A lot of people have read "Reflections of the Revolution In France". He started off left of center and it appears he's returning to his roots. He certainly doesn't speak for many on the right. He doesn't appear to even believe in free market economics anymore. Yet because he's the "conservative" columnist for the New York Times, we're supposed to take what he says seriously?
As a liberal, am I afraid of her? Yes. Why? Because strange things happen in politics all the time. Obama seems like he'd absolutely cream her if she somehow made it as the Republican candidate in the next go around. But a few years ago it was common wisdom that Hillary would've creamed Obama last year.
You should be afraid of her. Frankly, I'm a little afraid of her. She touches something in the hearts and minds of the folks in flyover country. I don't get it, but to deny it is insanity.
I'm not afraid of Palin because of her "rogue" personality, whatever that means. I'm afraid because she's a freaking moron, and being the President of the United States requires a minimum amount of intellect that she simply doesn't have. I can't think of another mainstream candidate, Democrat or Republican, I'd less like to see in such an important position. If there's even a 1% chance that she could ever be president, it's too much of a chance.
I fundamentally disagree with your position that "she's a freaking moron". There are two kinds of smarts: Book smarts (which she doesn't have); and common sense (which she has in boat loads). If you're concerned about Sarah Palin's intelligence, why aren't you concerned about Joe Biden's? Talk about an idiot. The difference is he thinks he's a genius.
I have to say that I once turned my nose down on plain common sense. Probably because I don't have much of it. I can take a complex idea and break it down as well as anyone, but common sense isn't something that comes easily to me. The deeper I got into academia, however, the less respect I had for the activity. Concomitantly, the respect I had for people who simply found a way to make something work grew by leaps and bounds.
Being President doesn't mean you have to be an intellectual. It's a management and leadership position. You certainly have to be smart. However, what it does require is a clear vision and the ability to distinguish black from white and right from wrong. The problem with intellectuals is they focus so much on the shades of grey they lose all bearings. Being a good President means being able to point the compass, lead the way, articulate your vision and be decisive in making decisions.
I think we can all agree that Jimmy Carter was certainly more intellectual than Ronald Reagan, yet who was the better president? What made Bill Clinton such a good president is he was the rare mind that could operate easily in both worlds. He could be a policy wonk one minute and be a cornpone from Arkansas the next. I'd like to find someone like that on either side, but I'm not sure they currently exist.
I don't really think John McCain would have been a particularly good President, but he would have been a damn sight better than the President we have. President Obama is the very model of an over-intellectual President, one we haven't seen since Woodrow Wilson.
What we need is someone with some common sense. It's a shame President Obama never left the ivory tower. He could use a little bit of what Sarah Palin has.
