Hannity: Obama Won't Release "His College Transcripts, His Writings," Because He "Probably Expressed His Radical Views"
January 18, 2012 10:21 pm ET
From the January 18 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
~
I mean, the man essentially said if there were judges or entire circuits who made judgements he didn't agree with, he'd just get rid of them.
And he was cheered.
FOXPAC, they never learn
ââ¬ÅThough the colored man is no longer subject to barter and sale, he is surrounded by an adverse settlement which fetters all his movements. In his downward course he meets with no resistance, but his course upward is resented and resisted at every step of his progress. IF HE COMES IN IGNORANCE, RAGS AND WRETCHEDNESS HE CONFORMS TO THE POPULAR BELIEF OF HIS CHARACTER, AND IN THAT CHARACTER HE IS WELCOME; BUT IF HE SHALL COME AS A GENTLEMAN, A SCHOLAR AND A STATESMAN, he is hailed as a contradiction to the national faith concerning his race, and his coming is resented as impudence.In one case he may provoke contempt and derision, but in the other he is an affront to pride and provokes malice.
ââ¬ÂFrederick Douglass September 25, 1883
So, who cares what his grades are? This shouldn't even be an issue for the anti-intellectual types who watch Hannity's show anyhow.
Are you a Wonketter? Love your use of "blah!"
Keep on whining and crying Hannity. You don't deserve a flaming bag of the presidents poo, much less access to his transcripts to feed your incessant demonization machine.
That would be the "real" Obama. They don't consider President Obama President. If they use the title President, it's usually surrounded by quotes.
Remember Lani Guinier? She was torpedoed as Clinton's Assistant Attorney General because she'd written articles suggesting the use of proportional representation in some elections. This was taken way out of context and she was painted as being anti-democratic. In the firestorm, Clinton was forced to withdraw her nomination.
The rightwingers would love to find some out-of-context nugget to put into TV ads in every purple state from August to November.
And the radical witch hunt again? Give it up Sean. You delude yourself and your listeners everyday by proclaiming with a theatrically weary voice about how the media gave Obama a "pass" on his past, and that he has a raft of personal issues which get ignored.
I'd point out again that those "issues" have been investigated over and over and over and over. There was nothing. There is nothing. But what's the point?
Facts don't matter when you've got your gut. It's the whole basis of truthiness.
He is a wizard, I tell ye.
Could it be that Hannity is just 100 percent wrong?
What's next? An investigation into whether Obama finished that art project required for advancement into the sixth grade? Oh the scandal!
A)he's black
B)blacks are dumber then whites(otherwise why would they insist on staying black?)
C)all those nasty libs at Harvard made him the editor of the Law Review only because they pitied him for being black
D)so seeing all the above they just KNOW he is really dumb and they want to make jokes about it like libs did when Bushie opened his mouth.
I suppose many college programs are invested in producing "bots" with sharply defined career paths.
Still I like the idea of college as a place to get into all kinds of interesting things. Some of which do turn out to be dead ends.
As if that were a bad thing. I think utopia would be great â dystopia, on the other hand...
You don't have to hold on to those radical ideas when you leave, but to avoid experiencing them- bleh. You just know that Hannity went to college with an intensely narrow-minded world view and devoted his years there to avoiding and denouncing anyone who disagreed with it.
I guess if he should release his records because people demand for them to be released, then we can do the same for any of the GOP candidates today and they would HAVE to release it.
for the most uninformed people on the planet.
For example, my first job I got, sure, they wanted to take a look at my grades from school. No problem. I had some bad ones in there (first semester, learning how to study and actually, you know, do work and all). But I haven't been asked for a copy of my transcript since that first job. It wouldn't make sense at all.
Besides, Obama graduated from Harvard, WITH honors, which means, he did pretty good. He was also editor of the law review, which also means, he was a pretty good student.
Getting into Harvard doesn't mean you are a genius.
Graduating from Harvard doesn't mean you are a genius.
Being editor of the Harvard Law Review doesn't mean you are an expert on the law, or that you are a good student. It means you are popular in your class. (One of my coworkers is a graduate of Harvard Law, who gave up the promise of a lucrative career as an attorney in order to teach English at our high school. He laughs whenever someone swoons at the sound of the word "Harvard"- and he's a big Obama supporter.)
Ever read the Harvard Law Review? I'm assuming the answer is "no." So why are you so impressed by that title? Because you've been conditioned to be by the media?
Learn to think for yourself, and stop being so impressed by big, old schools and titles. Bush got a Master's in Business- did that make him a good businessman? No more than graduating from Harvard makes Obama brilliant, or an expert on the Constitution. Give the hollow worship a rest, PLEASE.
"...The Harvard Law Review, generally considered the most prestigious in the country, elected the first black president in its 104-year history today. The job is considered the highest student position at Harvard Law School.
The new president of the Review is Barack Obama, a 28-year-old graduate of Columbia University who spent four years heading a community development program for poor blacks on Chicago's South Side before enrolling in law school. His late father, Barack Obama, was a finance minister in Kenya and his mother, Ann Dunham, is an American anthropologist now doing fieldwork in Indonesia. Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii.
and this is what the Review does:
What a Law Review Does
Law reviews, which are edited by students, play a double role at law schools, providing a chance for students to improve their legal research and writing, and at the same time offering judges and scholars a forum for new legal arguments. The Harvard Law Review is generally considered the most widely cited of the student law reviews.
On his goals in his new post, Mr. Obama said: ''I personally am interested in pushing a strong minority perspective. I'm fairly opinionated about this. But as president of the law review, I have a limited role as only first among equals.''
Therefore, Mr. Obama said, he would concentrate on making the review a ''forum for debate,'' bringing in new writers and pushing for livelier, more accessible writing.
Your text to link here...
"Learn to think for yourself, and stop being so impressed by big, old schools and titles. Bush got a Master's in Business- did that make him a good businessman? No more than graduating from Harvard makes Obama brilliant, or an expert on the Constitution. Give the hollow worship a rest, PLEASE." jj
You make a lot of assumptions not born out by the facts!
Therefore, Mr. Obama said, he would concentrate on making the review a ''forum for debate,'' bringing in new writers and pushing for livelier, more accessible writing.
I find your inclusion of this nugget absolutely hysterical. Did you even read it?
Even at the age of 28, Obama was smothering his own opinions and leaving others to doing the debating and talking.
Anyway, your defensiveness clouds your judgement and lead you to a rant against what you saw as an attack on the President. It was nothing of the kind. What I object to is the constant references to Harvard as some palace of knowledge open only to the brilliant and gifted, and the Harvard Law Review (which you've never read, just admit it already) as some Bible of the Law. What is admirable about the President is what he did with all of these credentials- he could easily be sitting in some corporate office, making millions while doing absolutely nothing to make the world a better place. Instead he went into public service, and I applaud him for that. The constant references to his Harvard "record" is ridiculous- Harvard is famous for it's grade inflation and it's equally inflated reputation. To be in awe of the institution and to assume that anyone who went there and did well must be brilliant is just sad.
"Even at the age of 28, Obama was smothering his own opinions and leaving others to doing the debating and talking."---jj
So you saw that in this:
" Mr. Obama said: ''I personally am interested in pushing a strong minority perspective. I'm fairly opinionated about this. But as president of the law review, I have a limited role as only first among equals.''
Therefore, Mr. Obama said, he would concentrate on making the review a ''forum for debate,'' bringing in new writers and pushing for livelier, more accessible writing."
I don't know what is clouding your judgement but while never attending Harvard I know it is a prestigious school and hard to get into and while not having read the Harvard Law Review I do know it is a prestigious paper and the post as head is important.
"...According to the 2008 Journal Citation Reports, the Review is the most cited law review and has the second-highest impact factor in the category "law" after the Columbia Law Review. It is published monthly from November through June, with the November issue dedicated to covering the previous year's Supreme Court Term. The Review is also published online. In addition, it publishes the online-only Harvard Law Review Forum, a rolling journal of scholarly responses to the main journal's content...
Alumni
Prominent alumni of the Harvard Law Review include:
[edit] United States Presidents
Barack Obama, served as President of Volume 104[4] - He was the law review's first black president.[5]
[edit] Supreme Court Justices
Stephen Breyer, served as Articles Editor of Volume 77[6]
Felix Frankfurter[7] (1882â1965)
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, served as editor for one year before transferring to Columbia Law School[8]
Elena Kagan, served as Supervisory Editor of Volume 114[9]
John G. Roberts, Jr., served as Managing Editor for Volume 92[10]
Antonin Scalia, served as Notes Editor for Volume 73[11]
Edward Sanford (1865â1930)
Other jurists
Michael Boudin, judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, served as President of Volume 77[12]
Henry Friendly, late judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, served as President[13]
Merrick Garland, judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit[citation needed]
Pierre Leval, judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, served as Notes Editor[14]
Debra Ann Livingston, judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit[14]
James L. Oakes, late judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit[14]
Learned Hand, late judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, served as an editor but later resigned.
Richard Posner, judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, served as President of Volume 75[15]
[edit] Cabinet secretaries
Dean Acheson, Secretary of State[16]
Michael Chertoff, Secretary of Homeland Security and former judge on United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit[17]
William Coleman, Jr., Secretary of Transportation, Brown v. Board of Education attorney, and first African-American Supreme Court clerk[18]
Elliot Richardson, Attorney General, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Commerce, served as Law Review President (1947)[19]
[edit] Other U.S. government officials
Paul Clement, former U.S. Solicitor General, served as Supreme Court Editor[20]
Archibald Cox, late U.S. Solicitor General[21]
Christopher Cox, former Chairman of U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission[22]
Viet Dinh, former Assistant Attorney General, served as Bluebook editor[23]
Michael Froman, deputy assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for international economic affairs in the Obama Administration[24]
Julius Genachowski, chairman of the Federal Communications Commissions[25]
Erwin N. Griswold, a dean of the Harvard Law School and Solicitor General under presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard M. Nixon[26]
Alger Hiss, former U.S. State Department Official and spy[27]
Michael Leiter, current Director of the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center,[28] President of Volume 113[29]
Barry B. White, United States Ambassador to Norway[30]
[edit] Other government officials
Preeta D. Bansal, former New York State Solicitor General, served as Supervising Editor[31]
Allan Gotlieb, former Canadian Ambassador to the United States[32]
Eliot Spitzer, former New York Governor[33]
[edit] Academics
Stephen Barnett (1935â2009), legal scholar at University of California, Berkeley School of Law who opposed the Newspaper Preservation Act of 1970[34]
Derek Bok, former Harvard University President[35]
Kingman Brewster, late Yale University President, served as Law Review Treasurer[36]
Charles Hamilton Houston, former Dean of Howard University Law School and NAACP Litigation Director[37]
Harold Koh, former Dean of Yale Law School[38]
David Leebron, President of Rice University, served as Law Review President[39]
William C. Powers, President of University of Texas, served as Managing editor[40]
Jamie Raskin, Constitutional Law Professor at Washington College of Law at American University and Maryland State Senator
John Sexton, President of New York University[41]
John H. Garvey, President of Catholic University of America[42]
[edit] Writers and journalists
Archibald MacLeish, Pulitzer Prize-winning poet[43]
Jeffrey Toobin, print and broadcast journalist[44]
[edit] Other alumni/ae
Nadine Strossen, former American Civil Liberties Union President[45]
Andrew Schlafly, founder of Conservapedia.[46]
Your text to link here...
No one is it calling the law review some bible of law that is your BS, but to deny it's importance or prestige doesn't make sense. I am not blindly defending Obama I am replying to your attempt to belittle his accomplishments. You are not presenting the whole pictu
Harvard Graduate= Best Qualified? BS. It's a terrific example however of the power of advertising and mass hypnosis that the suggestion that perhaps going to Harvard does not mean one is brilliant evokes such a harsh reaction here. Congratulations to Harvard, looks like your stranglehold on the institution of law is as strong as ever.
You can take your arguments about monopoly up with someone else;that wasn't what I was arguing. You called an Harvard education and the position as head of the HLR overblown and it most certainly is not!
Actually, it doesn't. Because I'm pretty sure none on that list went straight from Harvard into those positions. They had to graduate, and then work for many years. And it seems that through those years, plenty of Harvard graduates have done quite well in the legal profession.
You have to be pretty top notch as a student to get into Harvard. Period.
As for the Harvard Law Review, President Obama was actually the first black President/Editor-In-Chief of the Harvard Law Review. The first one.
Say what you will about Harvard, but don't belittle the achievements of a remarkable man just to try and make yourself an outsider around here.
It works for people who don't spend a lot of time actually looking beneath the surface.---jj
Now that is some funny and more condescending BS. No one is saying Harvard is the end all of schools but to deny it's prestige and the value of an education from there is is nonsense and hilarious. So oh great one you've looked beneath the surface? Show your work!
That's all.
If that gives you an inferiority complex, that's your problem.
I'm sure that's what you think when you are yelling at a radio.
So if you are just so awesome at this arguing points, care to elaborate how "NO ONE can accurately measure" the quality of a harvard education (or any education for that matter) yet here you are dismissing the quality of the education people receive at harvard?
Or,
perhaps it was the performance of its' alumni that cultivated and maintained its' reputation . . .
All schools, even community colleges, spend money to cultivate and maintain their reputation; I doubt the Crimson is any different in that regard, other than the AMOUNT they spend, of course . . .
I would ask, however, that you consider how it would sound for someone to belittle the achievements of Jackie Robinson because baseball was just a silly game that children play.
I think Barack Obama would have been a star at any college he chose to attend. There are a lot of amazing, challenging colleges out there turning out wonderful attorneys, doctors, teachers, artists, etc.
Somehow, the achievements get artificially inflated because the college he chose to attend was Harvard. I think this detracts from Obama's achievements and puts the focus where it doesn't belong, on the college itself. Harvard doesn't accept only geniuses, and doesn't turn people into geniuses. It's just that the word "Harvard" on one's diploma opens more doors than "State University" does. A LOT more doors. And that is based on nothing but an undeserved, but self-perpetuating, reputation among the employers and the public at large.
I personally would like to see this President pick the next SC Justice out of a small law school- believe it or not, Harvard does not have a monopoly on great minds. We just like to pretend that it does.
OR
Once AGAIN,
It COULD be based on the performance of it's alumni . . .
The President has to choose between two nominees for the next SCJ.
Both are EQUALLY qualifed: approximately the same age, both started as DA's in large metro areas, worked their way up thru municipal, state, and federal district benches.
The ONLY difference: one went to Harvard, the other a "small law school" of your choice.
You, jj, say that you "personally" would like President Obama to pick the one from the "small law school".
May I ask why?
As stated above, the two are equally qualified . . . if you can provide no other reason for choosing the nominee from the small law school other than proving that "Harvard has no monopoly on great minds", then it sounds as though you're exhibiting as much bias AGAINST Harvard as you claim there's a bias FOR Harvard . . .
No. It doesn't mean you're a genius, but it does mean that you're probably one of the top students in the country because their entrace requirements are fairly strict and tight. You might not be a genius, but chances are good, you're pretty darn smart, and were either at the top end of your high school graduating class, or at the top end of your undergraduate class wherever you went to college/university.
Correct, graduating doesn't mean you're a genius either, but let's go back to HOW one gets into Harvard in the first place. Sure, people flunk out of Harvard, just like anywhere else. It's called letting the cream rise to the top. Not many people graduate Harvard with honors, like Obama did, which means, you had to obtain a gretty good GPA to do so (I think it is above 3.5 or 3.7 out of the old 4.0 scale). If you made it through Harvard, you've probably received a pretty good education, in whatever field it is you've graduated in, and will be looked upon more highly because of that Harvard degree. Doesn't mean it's right, or that you're smarter than anyone else, but let's not pretend that graduating from a prestigious University such as Harvard doesn't mean anything. It does.
It's funny that you say this, because you say he gave up the promise of a lucrative career as an attorney, which is his choice of course, but do you think he would have been in that position if he received his law degree from say, City College of NY? Yeah, probably not.
Yeah, actually I have read it. Many different times, and find their work to be of a high level, and also, find their work to be scholarly. As someone else said, you don't get to be one of the most, if not THE MOST respected law journal in the world just because it comes from Harvard. It takes a certain amount of work, reputation, and years of doing hard work to get to the place that the Harvard Law Review occupies.
That's kind of funny, because I did learn to think for myself. A long time ago. And everything that I've ever heard, or read, about Harvard for instance, indicates that it's been a pretty good school for a pretty long time.
Sorry, strawman. Nobody ever said getting "x" degree from Harvard makes you a good "whatever you got your degree in". What I was specifically talking about in my post was that, first, I don't care to see anyone's grades from college. I'm judging folks on what they've done in their careers after college, just like I expect companies whom I've worked for in the past have done for me (except for my 1st "real" job out of college). I also said that it's ridiculous to ask for Obama's grades, because, he graduated with honors, which means he made pretty good grades, and that they don't just give out good grades at Harvard, as can be seen by the graduation rate of people who matriculate with honors every year. Here's a little tid bit for you. Not a lot of people graduate Harvard with honors.
Strawman again. I never said that it did, but, let's face it. Harvard must have done a pretty good job preparing him because he was teaching Constitutional Law at another fairly prestigious school in the form of Northwestern.
Strawman. Again. Go back, read my post again. Where did I give Harvard "hollow worship" again? Oh, correct. I didn't do that at all. I basically, and factually stated that Obama graduated from Harvard WITH Honors, which means, he made good grades. It wasn't a commentary on how good, or how bad I think Harvard is. Not sure where you read that from my posting, or came up with your little tirade about Harvard from a throw away line in a 3 paragraph posting that I made earlier talking about how Obama undoubtedly mae good grades.
Did someone from Harvard steal your lunch money? Seems like you think they're a joke school or something like that, and really, they're not. Again, they are (whether you believe it or not) one of the most prestigious institutions of higher learning in the world. Sorry that facts go against your perceived bias that they're somehow not a good school. Sure you didn't say that in your posting, but it seems to be what you're getting at. Isn't it?
And for lastly, again, I never said if Harvard was a good school or not, or that I worship them. You created that little line out of thin air.
I don't believe we have had one segment devoted to making fun of Al Gore and climate change yet this year. Not one.
Gee, I wonder why.
There must have been a big snowstorm somewhere.
Then he continues to flog the supine equine of Bill Ayers, radical associations, Rev. Wright, no college transcripts, blah, blah, blah (as Rick Santorum would say).
Which is it?
As for writings, how many people actually have their writings from college, even just two years after graduating, even if they didn't move? How about people having them one semester later, unless they are part of a portfolio being developed?
âThough the colored man is no longer subject to barter and sale, he is surrounded by an adverse settlement which fetters all his movements. In his downward course he meets with no resistance, but his course upward is resented and resisted at every step of his progress. IF HE COMES IN IGNORANCE, RAGS AND WRETCHEDNESS HE CONFORMS TO THE POPULAR BELIEF OF HIS CHARACTER, AND IN THAT CHARACTER HE IS WELCOME; BUT IF HE SHALL COME AS A GENTLEMAN, A SCHOLAR AND A STATESMAN, he is hailed as a contradiction to the national faith concerning his race, and his coming is resented as impudence.In one case he may provoke contempt and derision, but in the other he is an affront to pride and provokes malice.
âFrederick Douglass September 25, 1883
Who is this radical person you keep talking about?
Because I've seen a very disappointing, moderate, Right-Center President. (After I was led to believe I was voting for a Liberal.)
---------------------------------------
IMHO
UTOPIA
You'd think that by now the fact-free "radical" narrative would have petered out, if only for lack of fuel. But Hannity and Fox are so dedicated to that smear they're willing to sacrifice even more credibility to keep it going.
. . . Columbia and Harvard are -- wait for it -- PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS.
As such, they are under NO obligation to release anyone's transcripts.
Seems funny how the right wing yells loudly about privacy rights -- but don't think in apply in certain situations, i.e., what goes on in certain bedrooms, a Democratic President's transcripts, etc. . .