Too 'smart' for his own good?
In his 2007 biography of Barack Obama, “Obama: From Promise to Power,” Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendell described the exchange he had with then-Illinois state Sen. Barack Obama just minutes before he delivered the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston:
“After Obama and I slipped through a security checkpoint and he momentarily broke free from the entourage, I sidled up to him and told him that he seemed to be impressing many people of influence in this rarefied atmosphere. Obama, his gaze fixed directly ahead, never broke his stride. ‘I'm LeBron, baby,' he replied, referring to LeBron James, the phenomenally talented teenager who at the time was shooting the lights out in the National Basketball Association. ‘I can play on this level. I got some game.'”
Obama was right. He had some game, delivering a breakthrough speech that, in an analysis by David Bernstein, senior editor at Chicago magazine, “captured the nation's attention and opened the way for a run at the presidency.”
Prior to that speech, “the idea of Obama running for president would have been laughable; he was a lowly state senator from Chicago's Hyde Park,” wrote Bernstein. “After the speech, observers from across the political world hailed the address as an instant classic, and Obama was drawing comparisons (deservedly or not) to Martin Luther King Jr. and John F. Kennedy.”
Valerie Jarrett, longtime Obama friend and currently a senior adviser to the president, said of Obama's 2004 convention speech: “It changed his life.”
David Remnick, editor of The New Yorker, quotes Jarrett in his biography of Obama, “The Bridge: The Life and Rise of Barack Obama,” published in 2010:
“‘I think Barack knew that he had God-given talents that were extraordinary. He knows exactly how smart he is. … He knows how perceptive he is. He knows what a good reader of people he is. And he knows that he has the ability — the extraordinary, uncanny ability — to take a thousand different perspectives, digest them and make sense out of them, and I think that he has never been challenged intellectually. … He's been bored to death his whole life. He's just too talented to do what ordinary people do.'”
What's the meaning of Jarrett's analysis, aside from providing insight into how adoration may be linked to attaining employment?
Obama claimed he didn't know about the bugging of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, or about the National Security Agency snooping on other allied leaders and tens of millions of foreign citizens, or about the Fast and Furious gun-running debacle, or about the facts surrounding the attack on the American outpost in Benghazi, or about the flaws with the ObamaCare website, or about the IRS holding up tax-exempt applications of tea party groups prior to the 2012 election.
Perhaps Obama — perennially “bored to death” and with talents so “extraordinary” that he has “never been challenged intellectually”— finds all of the above issues cerebrally unchallenging and intrinsically boring.
Said Obama, regarding the IRS' targeting of tea party groups, “I first learned about it from the same news reports that I think most people learned about this.”
The German periodical Bild am Sonntag, citing U.S. intelligence sources, reported that the NSA chief, Army Gen. Keith Alexander, briefed Obama on the Merkel wiretaps in 2010. Obama can't recall the briefing. Perhaps he was “bored to death” and inadequately “challenged intellectually” by Alexander's briefing.
Ralph R. Reiland is an associate professor of economics at Robert Morris University and a local restaurateur (firstname.lastname@example.org).
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- An independent Scotland? Think again
- Drilling laws: Your rights
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- U.N. Watch: The aid ingrates
- A misdialed number suggests a criminal conspiracy in the IRS scandal
- Saturday essay: Saving Catalpa
- The Box
- Greensburg Laurels & Lances
- Ban felon-lobbyists? A better idea