From my perspective, the argument was never that Obama was dumb. Rather, he is a foreign policy dilettante, as Joe Biden opined (and was later forced to retract in response to pressure from the DNC). While I don’t agree with Biden’s politics, he is one of the more capable operators on the Hill, and is something of an elder statesman when it comes to foreign relations.
I could care less about Obama’s gaffes; pols are forced to do dozens of speeches while on the stump and mistakes will happen.
I would also not question his academic record; to me it is somewhat irrelevant. Bill Clinton was admirably suited to the role of President, and I was extremely impressed with his status as a Rhodes Scholar. It did not, however, translate into a meaningful foreign policy capability and Clinton was widely admired as a policy wonk.
As to Obama’s record: It is curious to mention this, when there really isn’t anything to look at. He is a fairly junior member of the Senate, and his voting record (such as it is) is noticeably sparse; not because he doesn’t vote, but because he hasn’t been there long enough to really establish any sort of reputation. His record shows a politician who votes along party lines, and adheres to a left-leaning philosophy. This is not partisan, by the way, it is simply an observation.
He has shown less depth when it comes to history, and having an academic background in the law and international relations does not a historian make. I brought this up with gandalf following the Zakaria article: Zakaria was attempting to ascribe certain positions and policies to Obama in clear contradiction to the facts. The facts being that Obama did not have the voting record to support Zakaria’s assertions, nor did he have the foreign policy record to underpin Zakaria’s claims.
If Obama does embrace a policy of “American Realism” (which I am taking to mean a more pragmatic approach): I am all for it.
However, someone on this blog pointed out that, in all likelihood, the problems confronting him domestically will prove exceptionally daunting and, wrong-headed though it is, he will be blamed for continued lackluster economic performance. Much akin to the comment about LBJ’s Great Society dying in the fields of Vietnam.
