Looking back: a portrait of Obama in law school
This article appeared at HuffPo in 2008. It was written by Jackie Fuchs, a woman who went to law school with Obama, and is one of those pieces that are enriched by hindsight.
The following excerpt from the portrait of Obama should seem very recognizable to anyone who’s been around for the past six years. But back in 2008 most people probably found it way too critical. My only surprise is that HuffPo published it back then:
When I met Barack Obama, in our first year of law school, he had already put on his big-time politician act. He just didn’t quite have it polished, and he hadn’t figured out that he needed charm and humor to round out the confidence and intelligence. One of our classmates once famously noted that you could judge just how pretentious someone’s remarks in class were by how high they ranked on the “Obamanometer,” a term that lasted far longer than our time at law school. Obama didn’t just share in class – he pontificated. He knew better than everyone else in the room, including the teachers…
The Barack with whom I went to school wasn’t the Barack that debuted on the national stage at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, but the president suit was already on, even if it was still too big for him. In law school the only thing I would have voted for Obama to do would have been to shut up. When he made that speech almost exactly four years ago, I wanted to vote for him. For something, for anything. Now, as his vision of himself becomes a real possibility, though, I find that he may have filled out that suit all too well. It’s hard to see the humanity underneath. Even the humor feels calculated now.
Interesting that Fuchs thought Obama obnoxiously arrogant and full of himself in law school, but by the time she heard his 2004 speech she was completely taken in. He had mastered a way to mask the narcissism and cast a spell among even those who knew better.
Fuchs doesn’t seem to have written anything political since 2009, at least nothing I can find online. I wonder what she thinks of Obama now? She can get to say “I told you so” if she cares to, but she doesn’t seem to care to.
What I find interesting is how few of the people who were presumably his classmates in college and at law school remember Obama, and of the small number who say they remember him, how few have written about him.
My guess is that they have not much good to say about him, and are wary of saying it for fear of retribution.
Or, alternatively, that Obama never actually attended many of the classes he was supposed to have attended.
It appears that she was decidedly ambivalent, even in 2008. While she says she would have voted for him, and throws in the rather ambiguous phrase that he appears to have grown into the “presidential suit”, she finishes with the thought; ” It’s hard to see the humanity underneath. Even the humor feels calculated now.”
Back to the “presidential suit” notion. It does not speak well for Harvard Law grads if she thought that Obama’s accomplishments and experience in any way qualified him. That is why I consider it an ambiguous statement.
Funny, choosing to refer back to Baraka’s law school years with first hand account of a peer. In large part to reflect on his character. HIs arrogance.
It’s a good thing you chose not to refer back to his affiliation with Reverend Wright’s church, Obama’s participation within it for 22 years. Those years were a virtual kaleidoscope of colorful relationships, behaviors, details. Reverend Wright—-no better example of just how dangerous and radical (demented?), than to his April 13, 2003 quote:
“The government lied about the Tuskegee experiment. They purposely infected African American men with syphilis. Governments lie…The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color.”
Not a shred of truth to any part of the above. Is it any wonder that Obama entered the white house with race-baiting as part of his tactic?
Is it any wonder that he accused Cambridge Police Department as “acting stupidly” in an otherwise routine response to a citizen’s 911 call for help?
Or his decision to get involved with the death of Trayvon Martin?
Or his decision to inject his office in Ferguson, MO?
And he has the temerity to opine that race relations are better now than when he arrived on the scene. HA!
Baraka chose to attend Rev. Wright’s church to understand his identity as a black man. Wright helped fashion that understanding. Fed him with lies. With fabricated reference points. A complete sham. Armed with anger ammunition. Resentment Rifles. Bile bullets. Bitterness bombs. Grievance grenades.
Yes, just the kind of thing a “community organizer” chooses to use as motivators for action. Tools for tumult.
3 years of Law school?
That was nothing compared to what one learned of this man through his 22 years with Reverend Wright.
Admittedly, there was no Jackie Fuchs to write about the years spent with Baraka while under Rev. Wright’s tutelage. There was someone even better; Oprah Winfrey. But no one pushed her in effort to ask specifically why she quit after spending time from 1984 into the mid-1990’s immersed in Wright’s fiery sermons and logic-starved lampooning of America.
Shame on the media for not pursuing this icon to publicly profess her, about face, on Reverend Wright.
But then, most people already know why. And the answer isn’t pretty.
…and allowing a flaming fomenter of racial division, Al Sharpton, to visit the white house 85 times——EIGHTY FIVE, whilst counseling the potus on, race-baiting, race-hustling, race-rancor, etc.
It boggles the rational mind…
Jackie Fuchs has a fun bio.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackie_Fox)
(See also YouTube)
Sounds like knowing Obama was comparatively uninteresting. Little wonder he wasn’t worth a follow-up. On the other hand, she’s written quite a bit about cats. Not that I particularly like cats, but they’re a happier topic than Obama.
C’mon, Clarityseeker — Barry never listened to a word Rev. Wright said in all those years (even the ones when the Rev. became “the greatest spiritual influence in my life”)! He said so — can you not believe the words of the One who will bring world peace, end poverty, and halt the rise of the oceans?
It’s an interesting portrayal, Neo. It looks to me like someone of shallow interests, whose primary burning desire is to look like someone people would elect President. There seems to be no interest in actually acquiring the skills, knowledge, or experience necessary to be President; the implication seems to be that, as an undergraduate, he felt he had all that already.
(Many undergraduates think they know everything; hence the term “sophomore” and the cliche about how a little learning is a dangerous thing. Most of us grow out of it, though, long before running for President.)
I’m reminded of the old wisecrack that wars start because politicians lie to newspapers, and then believe what they read. Similarly, one might claim that Obama thought he’d be a good President because he lied to newspapers, and then believed what they wrote about him.
I remain amazed that so many people did not see through the hope and change facade, and that a sizeable minority still gaze on dear leader with adoring eyes. Too many suckers born every minute.
It is an astounding phenomenon how intimidated people are by Barack Obama. How much of it originates from Obama (his character, intellect, presentation) and how much of it originates from wish fulfillment of the people who surround him, who just accept that this is their personal Jesus and interpret everything in that light? I’m betting it’s more the latter than the former, by a long shot. There was a loud progressive knowitall in my first year section in law school. Totally annoyed even the progressive law profs and ended up well down in the bottom half of the class.
I am guessing Fuchs got a call from the IRS, oh, about January 21st, 2009.
The amazing thing to me is that one didn’t have to go to law school with him to see exactly what Fuchs describes. Even the 2004 speech was a pontificating monstrosity. I don’t think I have ever seen a mediocrity risen to such a level in my life, and I hope I never see it again.
“I remain amazed that so many people did not see through the hope and change facade, and that a sizeable minority still gaze on dear leader with adoring eyes.” parker
“Still, a man hears what he wants to hear. And disregards the rest.” Lyric from ‘The Boxer’, Simon & Garfunkel
Y’know, after reading the whole article she wrote, a few things stand out.
First, she seems to have had some actual affection for Joan Jett,
More than she seems to have for Obama.
Second, she seems to think that Obama was (and is) a fake.
Third, though she pegs Obama as a fake, she never clearly articulates why she will vote for him. Or why anybody else should.
Wanting to vote for something, for anything are not reasons to vote for anybody. They’re not even reasons. Just perhaps a case of ideological and media induced Bush Derangement Syndrome so intense that she would vote for something, or anything.
What about after the revelations about Rev. Wright? What about the total lack of experience, what about the fact that she had already pegged him as a phony?
In the face of the rampant criminality of this administration, in the dissolution of our borders, in our floundering foreign policy, in the deliberate attempts to divide the citizenry and deliberately pander to racism, envy, division, and hatred, in bankrupting our country, I only hope she realizes that perhaps one should take their vote seriously because there are consequences.
I find it very scary that people like her vote. What a bimboid.
I don’t think “fake” has the same meaning for Fuchs as it does for the rest of us. Maybe to her it’s more like rags-to-riches, or grabbing the American dream — it’s got a positive ring.
That’s how I read that piece she wrote in 2008. She thinks it’s admirable that folks like Joan Jett and Obama set their sights on something and then build whatever persona is necessary to realize it — as shown in that bit of encomium to Jett:
And the only worries she seemed to have about Obama becoming president is how it might affect him, not the country:
I knew a couple of guys from Columbia Law School who were “supposedly” classmates of Obama.
I say “supposedly” because while they remember being there, none of their classmates or they themselves remember Obama being there.
Clarity…Dont’cha just love it?! His Infantile Majesty sucks Rev. Wright’s Marxian teet for 20+years and tosses him under the bus for an Unquestioning MSM to ignore and once in residence(though rarely literally)at the White House, trades Rev. Liberation Theologian for the Rev’rund Tax Dodging-Tawana Brawley-Snake Oiling-Race Hustling Sharpton!!
And still the Brian Williams’ lip-lock to anal pore of The Boy King chorus of slathering lapdogs love, Love, LOVE him.
Other than that, I have No Opinion on the matter.
2009: Richard Epstein Discusses Barack Obama
Richard Epstein is a Professor of Law and was a colleague of Barack Obama at the U. Chicago Law School.
=== ===
Epstein [edited]: The fundamental mistake of Obama’s entire world view is that he treats contracts as devices for exploitation and not as devices for mutual gain, and he assumes that redistribution can take place without any negative impact upon production.
If you live in that kind of a fairy land, which I think he does, every one of his major social and economic initiatives are going to misfire. And, if they succeed, God forbid, in getting through, they are going to intensify the downturn that we have already experienced. He is the wrong guy for the job based on his intellectual format. The question is whether you can force him back
=== ===
(sarcasm)
Private agreements and businesses rely on contracts, so they are evil. They must make a profit to provide goods and services, so they are forced into evil acts and desires.
Only the government can organize production without profit and contracts. Rational, thoughtful, unified direction from the top will be, must be, so much more productive than the scattered, haphazard actions of a “free market”. That is just obvious. A no brainer.
(/sarcasm)
I wonder how Epstein liked his audit.
@Ed
At least for part of the time, he lived off campus while at Columbia – and on the East Side to boot (meaning on the other side of Central Park). Not surprising your friends wouldn’t remember a “commuter”.
Ed – Obama went to Harvard Law, Columbia undergrad (after transferring from Occidental College). I’ve heard the thing about Columbia undergrads who were there at the same time as Obama and following the same major who never saw him.
“Obama College Classmate”: “If anyone should have questions about Obama’s record at Columbia University, it’s me. We both graduated (according to Obama) Columbia University, Class of ’83. We were both (according to Obama) Pre-Law and Political Science majors. And I thought I knew most everyone at Columbia. I certainly thought I’d heard of all of my fellow Political Science majors. But not Obama (or as he was known then- Barry Soetoro). I never met him. Never saw him. Never even heard of him. And none of the classmates that I knew at Columbia have ever met him, saw him, or heard of him.
But don’t take my word for it. “The Wall Street Journal reported in 2008” that Fox News randomly called 400 of our Columbia classmates and never found one who had ever met Obama.”
One can visualize law student Travis Bickle, er, I mean, Barack Obama, standing before a mirror, practicing his rhetorical likeability skills. “You want to listen to me?” “You want to listen TO ME?” “YOU WANT to listen to me!”
1. I read that article at the time it was published and thought it remarkable that he was considered a blowhard at Harvard Law. More arrogant than the most arrogant in America.
2. I’ve always wondered why the MSM never talked to more of his HLS classmates.
3. President of the Law Review was by election. That’s not how it is at most law schools. That was his first campaign.
4. Jazz Shaw at Hot Air reported that not only did the Sony CEO raise big money for Obama, but he has to the White House a number of times and that they have been on vacations together. Vacations!
Why didn’t Barack call his friend why the hacking crisis hit? Major, major character flaw.
Sigh. Since I first became aware of Obama, sometime in the 2008 campaign season, I’ve also wondered at how very few of the great and the good among the professional commentariat chose to see him honestly – and if they did, to write about it. He was a transparently empty suit, with no record of any substantial accomplishment at all. He was one of those affirmative-action fast-burners, rocketing up the ladder, a sweet-talking, smooth-moving guy, who was always gone to the next level before his lack of accomplishment became plain. I could see that, from where I sat, as a politically-unconnected milblogger in San Antonio. I hadn’t seen him ever before, but I had seen his like.
And the establishment commentariat and press organs were all for him, rushing to kiss the hem of his immaculately creased pants. They must have known, they must have at least suspected … but no, apparently. This betrayal of the so-called Fourth Estate, the established press is at least to me as galling as the betrayal by the Establishment Repubs of Tea Partyists.
And no – I haven’t forgotten. Not a bit of it.
“This betrayal of the so-called Fourth Estate, the established press is at least to me as galling as the betrayal by the Establishment Repubs of Tea Partyists.”
Yes though it started long before Obama, at least since Cronkite’s ‘reportage’ of Vietnam’s Tet offensive. Along with academia’s indoctrination in the schools, it is a major subversive weapon by the left, as they work at destroying America.
Jackie Fuchs is exhibit A in the demonstration that just because someone excels in the LSAT does not mean they have common sense. The theory that there are a number of different types of intelligence which may be very divergent in the same individual just went up several notches in my opinion.
I’m a great believer in common sense, my father in my formative years having drilled it into my feeble brain. But I do not think it especially connected to any particular form or degree of IQ. I’ve known “forest gump” types with loads of it and geniuses who are entirely unfamiliar with it.
The great libertarian and SciFi ‘grandmaster’ Robert Heinlein, once again got to the heart of the matter; “One can judge from experiment, or one can blindly accept authority. To the scientific mind (common sense being a necessary quality to discovery), experimental proof is all important and theory is merely a convenience in description, to be junked when it no longer fits… To the academic mind, authority is everything and facts are junked when they do not fit theory laid down by authority.”
It’s important to note that when Heinlein referred to the “scientific mind” he had a particular definition in mind; i.e. “Most “scientists” are bottle washers and button sorters.” 🙂 Climate change ‘scientists’ have proven just how astute was Heinlein’s understanding.
Clarityseeker –
Armed with anger ammunition. Resentment Rifles. Bile bullets. Bitterness bombs. Grievance grenades…Tools for tumult.
Sufferin Succotash, we’ve found Spiro Agnew’s long lost speech writer!
The telling part of how little he knew about the job is the number of czars that he appointed. He needed those people to explain the issues to him, since he was not grounded in the real world. And yet, the synchophants in the media never questioned the Unprecidented appointments.
When I consider the elections of Mr. Obama, I find that for the first time in my adult life, I am ashamed for my country.
Chuck,
That cut deep, very deep…
I, too, was taken in with his first speech, and I’m a professional skeptic of some polish. But then, he just kept talking…..and talking….. he was his own worst enemy. Proud to say I never voted for the guy. Yeesh.
The closest analog to Obama is Adolph Hitler. Different personality; different culture; different opportunities and plans; same soul.
The Dems who voted for him are identical to the Germans who cheered at Nuremberg.
The ones who still support him are the Germans who believed in Hitler up to the last days.
The difference between Obama and Hitler is that Obama has not lost a World War and so been historically disgraced.
The Germans who supported Hitler would not look or sound one but different from the many many people we all walked by today who voted for Obama. Not a shred of difference. Their souls are just as dark and crooked. They only look like cheery Americans because Americans generally look and sound like cheery Americans.
But some of them tried to shoot or run down cops today. And the rest of them supported the ones who did that.
Leftists aren’t bad people.
They are the worst people it is possible to be. The soul gets no darker. It is manifest in different ways in different cultures – there is a Nazi in one, and an ISIS fighter in another, and in ours there are Liberal Democrats.
Stop It Already — He’s Not So Smart
Geoffrey Britain Says:
December 29th, 2014 at 9:16 pm
Geoffrey, as I’m sure you’ve seen before, there are two types of intelligence involved —
IQ is the capacity to learn from books.
“Common Sense” (aka Wisdom) is the capacity to learn from experience.
Just as there are wise idiots, so, too, can there be foolish geniuses. Forrest Gump being the former, Noam Chompsky is the poster child for the latter.
As you also no doubt will recall, I point out that the primary identifying quality of self-titled liberals is most commonly a lack of wisdom, not a lack of intellect.
They are almost uniformly fools, unable to learn from experience. This is the explanation for their endless support for communism, socialism, and collectivism of all sorts. Along with Gun Control.
If someone drafted a WQ test to match the IQ test, then liberals would heavily populate the lowest third of the appropriate bell curve resulting.
“Fools say they learn from experience. I prefer to profit from others’ experience.”
– Bismarck
… and I will simply point people to my earlier writing on the Liberal Midnight Reset Button, which is a tongue-in-cheek explanation for the inability of liberals to learn anything from experience. But make no mistake, though tongue-in-cheek, it’s a real thing. I’ve seen it work on them, or at least, the results.
Ms. Fuchs probably doesn’t dare write anything critical about Obama. Who knows what happened to her after that piece came out. IRS auditing or worse perhaps?
“Fools say they learn from experience. I prefer to profit from others’ experience.”
— Bismarck
Reminds me of my version. The ignorant must learn from their mistakes, while the wise learn from the mistakes of others.
The silence of the Ivy-club speaks loudly of their cowardice, groupthink, and awareness that the great machine will destroy any traitors.
I always disliked him, even though I could get taken up in one of his speeches, like many – but I also saw it as a kind of trick. It meant he was manipulating my emotions well and so – it did not mean I would vote for him. But by then, I was (barely) over 50 and was beginning the most intense part of my political change. He was part of it. The reaction he got was so strong, and I knew it was a ruse. He had “movement” politics and by then, I had learned to distrust those. He also struck me as narcissistic and full of himself and as rigid and cold. Again, I saw how others might not see these qualities, they were fooled by the shine and charisma, but I saw beneath and thought he was someone not to be trusted and someone who had politics that could be ruinous. He did not strike me as being a nice man, in the true sense of the word – “nice”. I guess you could say I didn’t like him. The things you have observed about him Neo have always seemed spot on. I could even say there is something wrong with him, but I don’t know him personally, and that doesn’t affect me, but his politics do affect me and so I can see the narcissism and the vanity and the rigidity. And, yes the guy never had a sense of humor.
He would have been someone I disliked if I had been in that law school. The grandstanding and arrogance… But people are fooled, they really are! He knows how to work people!