<p>"Today, Obama’s weighing of a bid for the White House has provoked questions about whether he has the experience to build a winning coalition of voters. But at Harvard Law Review he showed that — on a much smaller scale — he had the savvy to maneuver through turbulent political waters.</p>
<p>“The Harvard Law Review was a place of petty and vicious internal politics,” said Brad Berenson, an editorial board member with Obama and, more recently, an associate counsel to President Bush.</p>
<p>“Compared to Washington and the White House and the Supreme Court, the Harvard Law Review was much more politically vicious,” Berenson said. “The conservatives threw their support to Obama because he could bridge the gap between both camps and retain the trust and confidence of both.”</p>
<p>“The conservatives threw their support to Obama because he could bridge the gap between both camps and retain the trust and confidence of both.”</p>
<p>A true consensus builder would be a breath of fresh air in Washington where, increasingly, partisanship prevails above all else. A President who has the ability to bridge build—well, has there ever been such an animal in modern times? Almost sounds like too much to hope for. Almost as hopeless as the idea that America is ready to elect a Presidential candidate who happens to be black.</p>
<p>From that bastion of balanced reporting, the L A Times. ha</p>
<p>“Compared to Washington and the White House and the Supreme Court, the Harvard Law Review was much more politically vicious,” </p>
<p>Oh please. If that isn’t a Harvard sense of self-importance, I don’t know what is. Carl Rove is a veritable puppy dog compared to the Harvard Law Review? And that Dick Cheney, he’s so soft. Right?!</p>
<p>I knew a lot of people on the Harvard Law Review back in the day. The politics were pretty vicious. Part of the problem WAS the Harvard sense of self-importance. People on the HLR felt that the eyes of the world were on them, and that everything they did reverberated through the cosmos.</p>
<p>Becoming President of the Harvard Law Review was a real gantlet to run. The President was not always the smartest or most talented person, but had to have a pretty good combination of that plus political and leadership skill (and some luck). (I would say that the President in my year was something of a ■■■■■■, who had very little respect among his peers. But I only knew him several years later.)</p>
<p>“Carl Rove is a veritable puppy dog compared to the Harvard Law Review?”</p>
<p>It isn’t hard for me to believe this at all. The HLR elects its leaders by caged death match. I’m not kidding. The entire membership locks itself in a room for 8, 10, 14 hours…as long as it takes until a leader emerges. And it’s a zero-sum game; in order to win, you have to convince others who, yes, are very self-important and believe THEY deserve the highest honors to give up their own chance at glory in favor of you. It’s really an extraordinary feat to win the job.</p>
<p>Note: As someone who didn’t even do the write-on competition, I have no reason to exaggerate the importance of anything about the law review.</p>
<p>You’re kidding, really, aren’t you? The HLR is more cut throat than the office which holds the leader of the free world and the power attendant to that? Uhhh, sorry, not buying it. Do you know how absolutely silly that sounds? </p>
<p>“OK George. We really need to know where to go with this Iraq thing.”</p>
<p>“Hey, I have an idea. Maybe we should call the editor of the Harvard Law Review. I understand they’re more experienced and capable of compromise than the entire Executive Branch. Someone tell Condi to give them a call.”</p>
<p>The stakes aren’t higher. It’s the politicking that’s supposed to be just as vicious as what goes on in D.C. Let’s not confuse the two.</p>
<p>And remember, this quote comes from someone who was both on the HLR and connected to the White House (during the Harriet Miers hearing, perhaps?)</p>
<p>Henry Kissinger, a veteran of Harvard and of a previous White House once said something along the lines that academic politics were so vicious because the stakes were so small. HLR is just a variation on that theme.</p>
<p>I actually shared an apt. with Susan Estrich first female president of the Harvard Law Review one summer. I didn’t get to know her at all because she was never home!</p>
<p>I know Susan Estrich, who of course has been involved in conventional politics (she managed the Dukakis Presidential campaign) as well as HLR politics. You would not want to meet her in a street fight if she were not on your side.</p>
<p>Part of what makes HLR politics vicious is that most of the people are so young and have no real experience of “what goes around comes around”. Part of it is what Hanna says – the structure is quite the cage match. And part of it is that stuff that at my law review stayed among the students, at Harvard has a tendency to show up in the New York Times.</p>
<p>“Henry Kissinger, a veteran of Harvard and of a previous White House once said something along the lines that academic politics were so vicious because the stakes were so small. HLR is just a variation on that theme.”</p>
<p>Trained him for his future career as a war criminal.</p>
<p>Do they check it at the door…in my observation, the viciousness goes away when the prizes are no longer zero-sum. There are enough Supreme Court clerkships for most of the top leaders, not just the president; the most chichi firms and public interest organizations and the DOJ would hire all of them if they could. Plus, all of those prizes are awarded by others, not by the competitors themselves. So yeah, they check it at the door, but that’s because of the nature of the fight, not because they aren’t prepared to rip each other’s throats out. (Also, out in the public arena, their classmates’ success reflects very positively on them. When their former enemies are appointed to the federal bench, get tenure at Yale, etc., it just brightens the glow on their own credential.)</p>
<p>I have to say…Obama was in the almost unheard of position of picking the justice of his choice had he wanted a Supreme Court clerkship. The combination of law review presidency and Professor Tribe’s highest endorsement is a killer. I can’t think of any way to overstate how highly lawyers think of that job. To walk away from that shows a passion for his work in Chicago that’s so rare as to be almost bizarre…but admirable.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>By and large, Hanna’s right, but I know from personal observation that it doesn’t all get checked at the door. At least not right away.</p></li>
<li><p>I had a friend in law school who was in exactly Obama’s position with respect to Supreme Court clerkships. He was without doubt the top African-American law student in the country in our year (based on a rough matrix of class rank, school prestige, and credentials like Law Review position), plus he was a very deliberate, careful, judicious person – lawyerly and nonpolitical. One Justice met him when we were 2Ls, and after talking with him for a while said, “You know, I would love to hire you as a clerk after you clerk for someone on the Court of Appeals. I could wait a year to tell you that, but it would be artificial. Ordinarily, when a Supreme Court Justice offers you a clerkship, protocol is that you accept on the spot, but I’m not going to let you do that. I think that any of us would hire you in a second; I just happened to meet you first. I want you to take a week, do some research, talk to your professors, and decide whether you want to clerk for me or for someone else. Then give me a call and tell me what you’ve decided.” (Of course, my friend didn’t walk away from it. He did all the research, talked to professors and friends, and then accepted the clerkship – to begin 2-1/2 years later – with that Justice.)</p></li>
</ol>