Obama kept Law Review balanced
While Politico usually offers a reasonably unbiased examination of the Great Messiah, Ben Smith and Jeffrey Ressner work overtime as cheerleaders on this piece.
For example:
In recent months, Obama's stewardship of the Review has generated a small dustup in the blogosphere, with some critics insisting that "Obama's Vol. 104 is the least-cited volume of the Harvard Law Review in the last 20 years." The claim has methodological problems, however, including the fact that Obama oversaw only the first four issues of that volume. Review veterans said he would have an increasing influence — as well as a final read — over the latter half of Volume 103, then a diminishing influence over the second half of Volume 104, produced after he left the presidency.
"Review veterans"? Names, please. Or perhaps a check back with the author of the original "least-cited" claim?
Eleanor Kerlow, the author of "Poisoned Ivy: How Egos, Ideology and Power Politics Almost Ruined Harvard Law School," depicted Obama's tenure as a calm before the storm. “I never heard anything negative about him” while researching her book, Kerlow told Politico.
If they went to the trouble of interviewing Kerlow, and since they clearly had checked the blogosphere on Obama HLR commentary, why wouldn't they ask her about page 11 of her book?
Obama was friendly and outgoing, but the class succeeding him wanted a tougher editor to lead them. [The new editor] was seen as someone who would be a more rigorous blue-penciler."
One would expect them to at least ask her to put this remark in context, if not actually explain how Obama's reputation as a gladhanding lackadaisical nice guy wasn't even a tiny bit negative.
Note how Susan Estrich (Clinton supporter) gets in a little jab:
One thing Obama did not do while with the review was publish any of his own work. Campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt said Obama didn't write any articles for the Review, though his two semesters at the helm did produce a wide range of edited case analyses and unsigned “notes” from Harvard students.Estrich believes that Obama must have had something published that year, even if his campaign says otherwise. “They probably don’t want [to] have you [reporters] going back” to examine the Review.
But again, the authors don't follow up on this. If Obama genuinely didn't write anything, was that normal for a HLR president? If not, what does this say about Obama? The campaign's attempt to hide Michelle Obama's Princeton paper demonstrates that they'd just as soon hide bad news if they can get away with it.
Finally, noted conservative jurist Michael McConnell speaks highly of Obama, and is apparently the patron who got Obama his lecturer position at University of Chicago. Given the history of Obama's patronage, though, one might be forgiven for wondering what was in it for McConnell.
Jun 23, 08 06:39 AM