[quote=“Screaming Jesus”]Just because he’s intelligent doesn’t mean he’s smart.
China jerked him around (“Three no’s”, Tibet) and he let them. Both Israel and Palestine jerked him around–peace was always “just around the corner”. He found himself in the unique position, for a commander-in-chief, of negotiating with the U.S. military over which of his orders they would be willing to follow (the gay issue). He sat back and watched his wife mess up the health care thing, for which they had a lot of support in the beginning. And knowing that there was a Republican conspiracy out to hang him, he handed them the perfect rope.[/quote]
I agree with comments about his natural intelligence and failure to act like he had any sometimes. I have often wondered where the disconnect is. Seems like he really struggled to act in accordance with his potential.
My theory is that he too was very impressed by his own Cinderella transformation and ended up with a severely inflated ego. I was annoyed with him during his campaign and during his first year in office for a symptom of this – he always had this grin on his face, like a cat hiding a mouse in its mouth. It gave me two impressions: He was amazed that he was at that political level, and he took many things as a joke. Like a little kid that gets to sit behind the wheel of a car and pretend to drive. May not be fact, but I got that impression from watching him. After the gravity of his job sunk in with him, the grin went away. But by that time, he was becoming distracted with Whitewater and then Lewinsky.
[quote=“Screaming Jesus”]Just because he’s intelligent doesn’t mean he’s smart.
China jerked him around (“Three no’s”, Tibet) and he let them. Both Israel and Palestine jerked him around–peace was always “just around the corner”. He found himself in the unique position, for a commander-in-chief, of negotiating with the U.S. military over which of his orders they would be willing to follow (the gay issue). He sat back and watched his wife mess up the health care thing, for which they had a lot of support in the beginning. And knowing that there was a Republican conspiracy out to hang him, he handed them the perfect rope.[/quote]
You forgot to mention North Korea’s continued development of nuclear weapons despite Clinton’s and Carter’s “agreed framework”.
I’m still curious why anyone believes Clinton possesses incandescent intelligence.
Is selection as a Rhodes Scholar pretty much slam dunk proof of superior intelligence or are there perhaps ways to game it?
I’m open, but everytime I think of the clumsy way he managed his personal life and its detritus I have a major problem accepting the ‘superior intelligence’ characterization. Something’s not meshing.
Well, let’s see. Many people involved with the Israeli / Palestinian negotiations noted that Clinton seemed to be familiar with every detail of every ancilliary issue. They couldn’t have just been being polite, or else somebody would have said the same thing about George W. (Provided they could stop themselves from bursting into laughter.)
When Clinton’s teleprompt went on the fritz during the most crucial speech of his life (the State of the Union address after Monica-gate), he ad-libbed…and did fine. For the sake of comparison, W. has to have somebody read him his speech into an earphone, because reading from the teleprompter makes him go all dislexic. (Something about having to move his eyes back and forth.) I consider the ability to think on one’s feet an indicator of one important aspect of intelligence.
I don’t think Clinton was nearly as smart, witty, articulate, wide-ranging or insightful as as the late Democratic Senator D.P. Moynihan, who generally adopted a neoconservative line in foreign policy.
To answer your question: I don’t think being a Rhodes Scholar necessarily makes you intelligent. I think intelligence can come in many shapes and forms and is not based on a piece of paper. Clinton was bright, but not overly intelligent. His grades at Yale reflected that and so did his behaviour during his second term. Intelligence needs to combine ethics, morals, and numerous other traits to be truly beneficial to one’s overall character. Clinton definitely did not have all of these
To truly be a leader you need to have all of these characteristics. Its what separates a
I agree, but those are all separate qualities of character. A person can be highly intelligent but an emotional and ethical mess. Why are the conservatives here so reluctant to admit Clinton’s obvious smarts? It doesn’t mean that you have to like him or think he was a good president. It’s no big deal for someone like me to admit that Richard Nixon was a sharp cookie - whether you like the man or not, it’s just a fact, he had a high IQ. Henry Kissinger may be a genius…one devoted to the cause of evil, for sure. Jimmy Carter seems like a very nice man, a deeply admirable human being who really cares…but he wasn’t an effective president, in my opinion. You can respect a person’s obvious strengths without actually like them overall as a president or human being.
And jeez, if a Rhodes Scholarship isn’t enough to convince you of someone’s intelligence (I mean…I’d like to see you try), how high are you setting the bar? What’s it going to take to convince you? A Nobel Prize in Physics?
[color=blue]Did one slip through the cracks? Anyway, it’s nice being labeled a conservative for a change. I was getting tired of being labeled a liberal so often.[/color]
Eligibility and Qualifications for Rhodes Scholarship:
Literary and scholastic attainment; [color=blue]truthfulness, courage, devotion to duty, sympathy for and protection of the weak, kindliness, unselfishness, and fellowship; exhibition of moral force of character and of instincts to lead and to take an interest in one’s contemporaries[/color], and physical vigour…"
The candidate should demonstrate wide-ranging academic excellence. This excellence should be reflected in his or her overall academic record and in other ways.
The candidate should show qualities of moral leadership and social purpose and should exhibit outstanding and attractive potential outside the classroom as well as within it.
[color=blue]A personal statement, not exceeding 1000 words, of general activities and intellectual interests and a proposed course of study at Oxford.[/color]
[color=blue]No fewer than five and no more than eight letters of reference.[/color] These letters should cover the applicant’s various strengths from various angles. Four must be academic (from course or research experience.)
Transcripts from all post-secondary institutions attended.
A factual list of principal activities and honors while in college.
Actually, I admire Clinton for rising so high despite his less than stellar roots and upbringing. His presidency validates that in America anyone can become president and I wish him every health and happiness. But as president, I really did not like his opportunistic, sweep the tough decision under the rug approach. He lacks integrity and conviction. We are still paying for this but at least he was not Carter. Now, if Carter were to have a heart problem. No I don’t want to think abou it much less say it. That evil man…
