<p>I’d probably put money on Obama’s scores being higher. And his IQ. Definitely his personality and integrity.</p>
<p>Hillary is a VERY smart person. So smart, she could vote for war and an aggressive, hostile occupation without even reading the classified intelligence briefing in her possession, and then three years later, go to Baghdad (in 2005!) and effusively praise the “progress” of same.</p>
<p>Oh, Hillary’s no dummy. But speaking as someone who’s been immersed in both Harvard Law and Yale Law, I think she’s run-of-the-mill in those populations. Barack is the kind of brainiac who earns the highest respect and admiration from his classmates at those schools. That’s saying something, in my book.</p>
<p>I agree that brains are an imperfect predictor of presidential leadership. But I – like a lot of other people – am starving for thoughtful leadership right now. I’m so thirsty for science, for critical listening, for comprehension to play a role in my government. There are lots of factors involved in my support of Obama, but it matters a lot to me that he represents a drastic shift away from W and toward the philosophy that understanding all sides of an issue is a required first step before you take action.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I would include John Kennedy on that list. And the word “intellect” doesn’t really fit with his bluff and “bully” personality, but Teddy Roosevelt came up with some pretty good ideas in his day.</p>
<p>Teddy Roosevelt was an intellectual of a scope that is almost unheard of today, in terms of his wide interests, his reading (in multiple languages), and his writing.</p>
<p>As long as we’re comparing presidents and near-presidents, let’s be honest and admit we don’t know the IQ’s of most of these presidents, but I think IQ, so long as it’s in an acceptable range, is not the dividing line between the failed presidents and the effective presidents. </p>
<p>The qualities that, in my view, lead to Bush’s failure have been his complete and utter confidence in his own opinion. He simply does not question anything enough. And once he makes up his mind, it seems that reality becomes set for him like concrete. It has lead him to be stubborn, inflexible, and wrong. His internal principles have too often biased his views and limited his ability to take in facts.</p>
<p>Like Hanna, I crave someone who listens, who holds out to us the hope that he might listen, and by listening, make judgments that come from external facts molded by internal principle. A white Jed Bartlett, as it were.</p>
<p>^^^</p>
<p>I had a boss rather like Bush. He, like Bush, was promoted beyond his abilities – in this case, to CEO when another CEO was pushed out.</p>
<p>He was actually kinda dumb and he knew it, but his persona was tough and smart. So he’d choose “tough” positions (usually of someone around him who pandered and who sounded tough) and then he’s stick to them no matter what data or arguments were put before him. It wasn’t a strength of principle that guided him, but somewhere very hidden actually a fear of being caught up lacking in the brains and toughness department. This is Bush to a t, so far as I can tell. I think Bush has overconfidence in his convictions, but this doesn’t necessarily come from a place of strong conviction so much as an unwillingness to seem weak or dumb or to have been proven wrong.</p>
<p>I like several people here and much of America would really, really like a president who can listen, discern, reflect, ask probing questions, weigh options and opposing arguments, and come to decisions based on that sort of process. Bush clearly can’t and this lack has cost this country in epic terms. </p>
<p>Clinton had this ability. Nixon had this ability (according to Paul O’Neill who served in both the Bush and Nixon Adminstrations). Kennedy did, I think. I suspect strongly that someone like Bush Sr. probably had it, given the fact that he’s a pretty intelligent man, if not very intelligent. I don’t know who of the other presidents did or did not have it. </p>
<p>Among the candidates, I am sure Obama has it. McCain may, though I doubt his depth and abilities on domestic issues. And I think Hillary has the intelligence, but I worry she may only hold a narrow range of counsel with others; she seems perhaps prone to making up her own mind and less to listening and reflection (but this is an impression).</p>
<p>
That is the ideal. I think you are incorrect in say that’s what America wants though. That’s like 4th on the list after the issues, their track record, their physical appearance…</p>
<p>Getting someone like that to the point of actually making a run to President is very tough, because it depends on the other three…</p>
<p>Mr. Payne, I think you are wrong. After 8 years of a president who doesn’t read the newspapers or exhibit the least bit of intellectual curiosity, trust us when we say we are STARVING for a president who prefers to think. It is number one on my list and number one on the lists of many of my colleagues and family. Why? Because a person who is curious and who prefers to think and who has a proven track record of being able to do so will certainly surround him or herself with the brightest minds and – keeping in mind that all three candidates love this country and have dedicated their lives to serving it, so I’m not saying this as only an Obama support – this leader will likely make wise choices.</p>
<p>It’s people like Bush, pigheaded, out of touch and offended or threatened by dissenters, who lead us down the road to ruin. I’m afraid McCain is cut from some of the same cloth as Bush, and that H. Clinton is a little too certain she knows what she’s doing. Obama’s intellectual vitality is way more important to me than his physical appearance, his track record, his speeches or the issues… though each of these plays a part in the total package.</p>
<p>I think McCain is a cut above Bush in this regard, because he is at least willing to deviate from the established positions of his own party, even when it’s not in his political interests to do so (i.e., on global warming and campaign finance reform).</p>
<p>Hunt, I agree with you on that. He’s at least taking phone calls from the reality-based community. That’s an improvement.</p>
<p>“I also can’t believe all the smart people I know who don’t.”</p>
<p>because we dumb people are gullible.</p>