<p>He certainly understands the constitution better than the guy who is in office now
[TheDartmouth.com</a> | Obama mentor promotes candidate](<a href=“http://thedartmouth.com/2007/11/14/news/tribe/]TheDartmouth.com”>http://thedartmouth.com/2007/11/14/news/tribe/)</p>
<p>[Boston.com</a> - Special reports - News](<a href=“http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/]Boston.com”>http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/)</p>
<p>razorsharp,
Would you consider someone who taught constitutional law at University of Chicago a scholar?</p>
<p>From: [Professor</a> Obama was a listener, students say :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Barack Obama](<a href=“http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/253391,CST-NWS-prof12.stng]Professor”>http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/253391,CST-NWS-prof12.stng)
Erika Walsh, an '02 grad practicing family law in Chicago, called him “an extraordinary scholar on the law.”</p>
<p>“I can’t imagine there is somebody out there smarter than he is,” she said. “Many of our professors are so brilliant they are eccentric. But Barack Obama has an ability to reach across differences and communicate with people effectively.”</p>
<p>Added Janis, “Some professors are just kind of going through the motions with you. He actually seemed to take everyone’s point of view seriously. If he could bring that to bear in the international level with foreign dignitaries and heads of state, I think that would put us in good standing with the rest of the world.”</p>
<p>
Absolutely No!</p>
<p>You are using a term for which you have no understanding of its significance. If Obama is a Constitutional Scholar because he was an adjunct teacher who taught Constitutional law to a bunch of students, then so is every adjuct professor. Law schools love adjunct professors because they are part time and want to teach for free or next to nothing. Law schools don’t have to hire full time faculty when they can hire jobbers. In fact, if law school profesors had a union, they would probably argue Obama was a scab or an outsource.</p>
<p>A Constitutional Scholar is one who devotes his or her life to the study and understanding of the Constitution, Supreme Court and Constitutional law. Senator, I served with Constitutional Scholars: I knew Constitutional Scholars; Constitutional Scholars have been freinds of mine. Senator, you’re no Constitutional Scholar.</p>
<p>“Senator, I served with Constitutional Scholars: I knew Constitutional Scholars; Constitutional Scholars have been freinds of mine. Senator, you’re no Constitutional Scholar.”
from #23</p>
<p>To what senator are you referring?</p>
<p>What is your citation of the definition of a Constitutional Scholar? Does the WHOLE WORLD agree with you? Isn’t that why we have Senate Confirmations of Supreme Court Justices?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>His or her whole life? What is the cut off? 10 years… 40 years? </p>
<p>BTW, I’m more impressed with Obama’s community organizing of some of Chicago’s poorest neighborhoods than I am with his UChicago teaching. Though I may be somehow misinterpreting the term “community organizer,” too, since he did not devote his whole life to it.</p>
<p>Have we ever elected a Constitutional Scholar?
Is there another current candidate that has more knowledge on this topic?</p>
<p>Obamas partial CV
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I was doing an interpretation of the VP debate when Dan Quayle compared himself to Jack Kennedy. I guess it went over your head. </p>
<p>
Where is your citation? You are the one saying he is a Constitutional Scholar. Oh, an an opinion of someone sucking up to Obama is not a credible source.</p>
<p>
Only the truly informed in the world agree with me.</p>
<p>
Good example. Obama would not come close to the quality of the typical judical appointee who truly understands the Constitution and the thousands of cases of legal precedent.</p>
<p>If you want examples of Constitutional Scholars then look to full time law professors who focus on teaching Constitutional law and writing law review articles and books about Constitutional law. Also focus on Federal judges who have drafted significant opinions interpreting the Constitution.</p>
<p>Merely being a lawyer like Obama does not make one a constitutional scholar. Most practicing attorneys do not encounter significant constitutional issues on a daily or weekly basis. It really requires a career lifetime of devotion and study to be a Constitutional Scholar. If Obama had made his career studying and applying the Constitution, then possibly you would have an argument that he is a Constitutional Scholar. Those who say Obama is a Constitutional Scholar are just making good public relations to enhance his image. Sort of like Gore saying he initiated the invention of the internet.</p>
<p>I think Obama is an excellent speaker/motivator, but he does not have the experience in the political arena. He actually has only 2 yrs experience in the Senate since for the last 6-9 mos. he has been traveling for his presidential bid.</p>
<p>I am still the small number who thinks Richardson is a better fit for President, especially for global issues.</p>
<p>Looking over his resume he seems to do something for a while and then moves on. How is he allowed to still be a senior lecturer for UC and Senator and Presidential Candidate…He already is missing important votes for him to be on the campaign, how is representing his constituents. I give Hillary credit she at least goes back for votes, thus still being a senator for NY. Biden, McCain and Paul also all make it back for important votes (Defense budget, AMT)</p>
<p>According to washingtonpost.com</p>
<p>Barack Obama has missed 166 votes (37.6%) during the current Congress. See a list of his missed votes since 1991 or see a full list of vote missers.</p>
<p>From Wikipedia:
</p>
<p>In 11 years of teaching, surely, he has earned the label of Constitutional scholar?</p>
<p>He is one year younger than Lisa Randall, the Harvard prof who is described in Wikipedia as “leading expert on particle physics and cosmology.” She earned her Ph.D. in 1987 three years after earning her B.A.; he earned his J.D. in 1991, after a detour as a community organizer. If we don’t cavil at the description of Randall as leading expert, I don’t see why one should cavil as the description of Obama as Constitutional scholar. In 11 years, the University of Chicago Law School had plenty of time to decide whether its decision to hire him as an adjunct professor was correct or not.</p>
<p>By the way, most profs at Harvard Medical School are adjuncts. It does not make them less experts in their fields. On the contrary.</p>
<p>Obama was also Val of his Harvard Law Class.</p>
<p>Let’s agree to disagree. In the end are we saying that is his number 1 reason to be pres.?</p>
<p>I openly admit that I am voting on platforms, not the candidate…convince me why I should vote for him over McCain? Show me his RECORD! Show me in his darkest hour he stilled had integrity. Show me how he can unite America.</p>
<p>I am willing to listen (read), but prove it to me.</p>
<p>Who cares about valedictorian, seriously this is the country’s future, should we vote for him because he was a val…what does that have to do with leading our nation?</p>
<p>I agree that the fact that he was a val or Constitutional scholar is not a reason to elect him. I was reacting to the statement that he does not qualify to be labeled a Constitutional scholar. It is nitpicking at its worst. </p>
<p>Can this thread then move on to more substantive issues?</p>
<p>^^^^Go MARITE!</p>
<p>I am still wanting someone to prove to me that Obama is the best for the nation…what does he have to offer that makes him better than Richardson, why did dem voters support him and not Biden? Just give me your views based on substance (facts…not rhetoric…show me that he followed through with his promises) Last night Hillary nailed him on IRAQ, saying he would not vote for anything supporting IRAQ but yet he did. With Tim Russert he said he would not run for 08, but here he is, at least HIllary kept that promise</p>
<p>Ive heard Obama speak a few times, once at my Ds high school & recently at a fundraiser- it is more of a gut reaction, but he has a lot of charisma & Ive noticed that parts of society who have felt discouraged by the political climate are obviously inspired and excited by what they see as hope for a new direction.</p>
<p>I understand your feeling. I also get inspired by the way Obama speaks. He painted a petty picture of hope and courage in his words after the Iowa caucus. I just haven’t seen the plan behind the words. Inspirational, yes. Pragmatic and sound, it just hasn’t been shown to me, so my personal jury is still out on that one.</p>
<p>I leave with this final thought. In the 2000 election, Bush defeated Gore (please, let’s not get into THAT debate at this point) mostly because of the American public’s “gut feelings” on the candidates. Bush was the “down-to-earth guy that people could share a beer with as he led from his heart”. Gore was the man with ideas, the pragmatist who was viewed as “the college professor we liked, but talked above our heads”. We voted with our gut feelings, and look where that has led us 8 years later. Just my 2 cents…</p>
<p>bulletandpima: Yep. You nailed it. ^</p>
<p>bulletandpima:</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>So did I, but my gut feelings took me in a different direction!:)</p>
<p>for the record, I have never been inspired by Gore or Kerry. The one time I heard Gore speak in person, he put me to sleep. The one time I met Kerry, I thought he was too self-regarding.</p>
<p>As for Obama voting “for” Iraq, once your troops are engaged in combat, it’s a different proposition than voting to send them into combat. I would not want to deny our soldiers the resources they need to stay alive, even though I opposed the war from the beginning (and CC archives will attest to that!)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have not seen that claim before. Can you provide a source for that?</p>
<p>OK, I admit it. I went with my “gut feeing” in 2000, and voted for Bush (6 times in Florida alone! 
). I vowed to do more than that this time. Sell me on what he will do, not how I should feel on him. </p>
<p>It actually is a liberating approach for me, but all I have succeeded in doing so far is eliminate prospective candidates for what I believe are foolish policies and promises rather than come to a definitive belief in one particular candidate. </p>
<p>My last resort: I’m going to start a petition to get Dave Barry to run again (for the 6th time I think). At least his bumper stickers make me laugh.</p>
<p>bulletandpima,
You said you are willing to read. Have you read his two books? Dreams From My Father, written prior to him entering public office, might convince you that Obama has integrity in some very dark hours. He has faced tough times in his personal and professional life, prior to entering public service. You can get it on Amazon for 9 bucks:</p>
<p>[Amazon.com:</a> Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance: Books: Barack Obama](<a href=“http://www.amazon.com/Dreams-My-Father-Story-Inheritance/dp/1400082773/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199662148&sr=8-2]Amazon.com:”>http://www.amazon.com/Dreams-My-Father-Story-Inheritance/dp/1400082773/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199662148&sr=8-2)</p>
<p>His second book The Audacity of Hope will show you what he believes on major policy issues and is a guide to what he would hope to accomplish through bipartisanship here at home and diplomacy in the world.
Also $9 bucks: [Amazon.com:</a> The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream: Books: Barack Obama](<a href=“http://www.amazon.com/Audacity-Hope-Thoughts-Reclaiming-American/dp/0307237702/ref=bxgy_cc_b_img_b]Amazon.com:”>http://www.amazon.com/Audacity-Hope-Thoughts-Reclaiming-American/dp/0307237702/ref=bxgy_cc_b_img_b)</p>
<p>Additionally, his website breaks down the issues and shows solutions.
[Barack</a> Obama | Change We Can Believe In | Issues](<a href=“http://www.barackobama.com/issues/]Barack”>http://www.barackobama.com/issues/)</p>
<p>I really think there is no excuse for anyone to say that Obama is all rhetoric or painting a pretty picture, and there is no reason for voters to have to go with their gut on this guy. Sure, he can talk well and moves crowds and galvanizes disenfranchised people and communicates a vision that seems altogether more appealing than our fractured political reality, but he also is incredibly smart, a fine listener, intellectually curious, worldly, and his solutions are complex. Yes, he is more difficult to understand because he doesn’t offer a black/white vision of the world, but perhaps this is a good thing after the last 7 years of failed cowboy tropes?</p>