A few points:
--As you say, there is very little objective evidence to date for Obama's vaunted intelligence.
--Intelligence, as Bowser says, is a tool. Morality, principles and values are critical. Albert Einstein was intelligent. So were the scientists who did experiments on prisoners in German death camps.
--If you polled the number of people who voted for Obama primarily because he was the most intelligent candidate, I suspect the percentage would be lost in the noise. The closest most formal polls even come to that question is "experience," which doesn't really have anything to do with intelligence either.
As a lot of others did, you're projecting your own hopes on Obama.
Obama won the election because the economy crapped out just in time, and he was a rock star who would "change things."
I linked to the CNN exit poll in a post below, and the poll is worth going over, question by question. The results on many questions make it obvious that partisanism drives many opinions--that the respondent didn't actually have a thought-out answer, but responded that way because that was how a Democrat or a Republican was supposed to think about a particular issue.
I've read enough of your stuff here to know that this is not true for you, but it's a mistake to assume most voters are like you.
Current Events » in reply to Head of State
re: Head of State
The whole thread (50 posts)
- Head of State
- least dispensable person
- re: Head of State
- Intelligence as a tool.
- "As a lot of others did, you're projecting your own hopes on Obama."
- Okay, I understand your point better, and it's a valid one. Thanks!
- Jerry's right.
- re: Jerry's right.
- re: Jerry's right.
- You know, that "moi?" bit is getting old.
- re: Jerry's right.
- re: Jerry's right.
- Jerry's right.
- " I suspect the percentage would be lost in the noise. "
- Okay, I understand your point better, and it's a valid one. Thanks!
- re: Head of State
- "Obama is able to apply his intelligence without suggesting anyone else is stupid or the lesser. "
