The Brilliant Brain Trust

You condescendingly refer to recent predecessors (plural), then blithely refer to former Clinton appointees. Can you just not stand it that President Clinton was a success, that President-elect Obama is largely turning to Clinton veterans to staff his government, that in many real ways, his own success will depend first on going back to the future?

You condescendingly refer to recent predecessors (plural), then blithely refer to former Clinton appointees. Can you just not stand it that President Clinton was a success, that President-elect Obama is largely turning to Clinton veterans to staff his government, that in many real ways, his own success will depend first on going back to the future?

You condescendingly refer to recent predecessors (plural), then blithely refer to former Clinton appointees. Can you just not stand it that President Clinton was a success, that President-elect Obama is largely turning to Clinton veterans to staff his government, that in many real ways, his own success will depend first on going back to the future?

Decent enough article. It is too bad that Newsweek is part of the "In the Tank for Obama" Media.

One simply cannot believe anything written by Newsweek.

Doesn't Weisberg even read anything anymore outside of the Slate echo chamber? Global warming theory is on the verge of a full-scale, mad retreat. What with October's global warming numbers being stolen -- by Gore's trusted Dr. James Hansen, no less -- from September, to a host of new evidence the globe is cooling, I'd say recommending Gore for climate czar is akin to recommending Bill Ayers to Education sec.

???I???d rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.??? Wm. F. Buckley. Mr. Weisberg does a nice job a validating Mr. Buckley's astute assessment of "intellectuals".

gterauds: Ah the mistrust of brains rises once more in the commentary. Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it wrong or even suspect. Brain power over charisma, or commen sense is (pardon the expresion) a no brainer. Learn to respect your intellectually superiors, rather than your wealthy CEO, or charismatic preachers.

With such diverging intellectuals in the same room, discussing these pressing and diverse issues, its easy for them to get off-topic. I would recommend a 'sargeant-at-arms' post of a Logic intellectual to clearly remind them to get back to the task at hand, rather make Type 4 errors to resolve issues or stray off in synthetic bandaids for their egos.

It is apparent that Barack Obama has already surronded himself with intelligent people and yes absolutely he should continue to do just that. We will need the most brillant minds along with their expertise in their collective fields to figure a way out of the messes that we are currently in. I also agree with techie22 we have all seen where the lack of intelligence gets ya.....

"[Summers] sometimes does a poor job hiding his contempt for lesser intellects...but these are the defects of a superior mind and a small price to pay...Holbrooke has some personal defects, too. He is legendary for his ambition and self-promotion. To say he rubs some people the wrong way puts it mildly???he's a handful... But as with Summers, Holbrooke's flaws hardly rate..."

Sorry to disagree, but it is not a small price to pay, and the flaws do rate. Condescension, arrogance and self-promotion are not minor defects, and being briiliant doesn't excuse poor behavior, nor should it.

This is the same argument that has allowed any number of bright but flawed men a pass - Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, John Edwards, even John Kennedy. All were capable of persuasion and impassioned rhetoric, all good at putting forth grand ideas, all tireless workers for their party, and all undisciplined and morally bankrupt men who ultimately weakened their party's chances for success.

While Summers and Holbrooke don't necessarily have the same excesses of sexual acting out as these four, their inability to work and play well with others because of their arrogance is not needed in any administration, no matter how brilliant intellectually they may be.

There are enough other brilliant people around for Obama to choose from - there is no need to reward bad behavior. Emotional intelligence is just as important as intellectual intelligence, and arrogance has caused enough damage to the democratic party.

Move on.

Mr. Weisberg:

I would strongly agree that President-Elect Obama should surround himself with the most intelligent people he can. It is clear to me that one of his great strengths is that he is able to profit from their input while making his own not inconsiderable contribution to the product. Another strength is that he has the perspective to process that input, take advantage of it to make sound decisions, then sell the product in ways that are palatable even to those who's suggested path is not the one chosen.

But I would submit that intelligence does not always translate into effectiveness. As a consequence those chosen to implement his policies need to be able to both articulate those policies effectively, but also defend them to others who may have competing agendas. These people need to be intelligent enough to contribute to formulation of policy, but may not have the brilliance that other less pragmatic contributors bring to the process, but will easily carry their weight throughout the process of transforming raw ideas into effectively implemented policy.

My favorite quote from this article is, "develop a tough-minded liberal vision of America's role in the world." - LOL, talk about an oxymoron!

Newsweak just gets more bizarre with time.