I've giving an example of someone who was really really active in her college time. The problem with the Obama praise is it tends to miss the mark and over-glorify. Being the first black editor is meaningless in terms of personal accomplishment. Being editor-in-chief has value in terms of actually doing a good job, not really the selection process (it's still a student-selected position and selects a new editor-in-chief every year (unlike a magazine editorship that opens up when someone is fired or moves on) (earlier I thought every 2 years). The HLR didn't select their first female editor-in-chief until 1977, so that would have left Hillary out as well - but it wouldn't have made her anything special if she had gone to Harvard and been selected.

Using a competitive process that takes into account first-year grades, an editing exercise, and a written commentary on a court decision, The Harvard Law Review selects between 41 and 43 editors annually from the second-year Law School class, which numbers 560.

Two editors from each of first-year class's seven sections (fourteen in all) are selected half by their first year grades and half by their scores on the writing competition. Another twenty are selected solely on their scores on the writing competition. The other seven to nine are selected by a discretionary committee, either to fulfill the review's race-based affirmative action program, to select students who just missed the cut by either of the other two processes, or by some other criteria as the committee sees fit.

So 8% of each class is selected for the HLR, not that exclusive of a category. Someone 5 years ago wrote, "In my experience, the Law Review competition was fairly precise in measuring the skills that one would need as a Law Review editor, namely, writing and editing other people's writing." Considering Obama didn't publish himself, the writing skills were obviously not as important.

An aspect discussed by Volokh was whether Obama ran a tight enough ship - as seen in part by a reaction by the following year's HLR to try to tighten up standards. I say this because I think one of the problems with Bill Clinton's administration (which I think Hillary would improve on) is too little attention to the details that make a nice finished product. I suspect Obama would have a similar impatience for these boring details as well. (Oddly enough, since McCain is already quite boring, he might do better than all at that part, but don't expect any fresh ideas despite his moniker.)

Anyway, I've already entered bitter land, so better desist, though one nice blog I landed on in the process is The Buck Stops Here.

Perfect, you guys are getting good.

Ah, if you have proof he can make an *EXCELLENT* PB&J, I'll gladly stand down - I have appreciation for the finer things in life.

[Better damn well be crunchy]

hey Tankard!

I said he did a competent job. Just like a good percentage of the millions in similar academic positions. Good things? Listens well, gives some fair time to conservatives, sounds like giving a slot to the Maryland scholar worked well. I'll even counter one of the Volokh complaints that his issue #104 was cited the least of any HLR journal before and after and say it might be because he did push a unique view through that might be more peripheral to the average law paper. His lack of publishing diminishes his academic achievements significantly, but editing itself and running an editorial board well is a fine thing. However, one of the Kos quoting a judge makes it understood that typically student editors have a problem with trying to make submissions they aren't - a pitfall Obama didn't step into. Good for him - though the quote gives you the idea that these journals are not the pinnacle of publishing excellence. Yet the article then says that that judge was so impressed he recommended Obama for U of Chicago. Well, that causality isn't likely the whole story - U of C was doing very poorly in staffing black faculty, and latching onto a high profile black Harvard law student would certainly be a feather in U of C's figurative cap. The Kos article founders in several ways trying to make Obama something more than he is, including "colorblind". While I don't have proof, I'd hazard that there's much more content tied to racial, discrimination and economic power issues in this series than most others. Good for him, but why does he always have to be both colorblind yet insightfully focused on race? It doesn't make sense, and makes me think people who like him just can't figure out the contradictions in how they look at him.

By the way, one of the entries on the Buck blog I referenced notes the need to get law schools to focus more on teaching law as practiced, not the dilettante's academic approach to arcane issues. As such, it might be better if Obama weren't such an academic publishing type - if only someone argued that instead of "both academic *AND* practical in ONE!" Of course he didn't argue cases in court either, which diminishes his practical experience in that category as well.

I didn't say "mere" - it's the gold standard of student's magazines.

here we got with that significant win crap again. she was polling WAY ahead in those places from the very beginnings of the campaign. why is it significant if she won them again?

but more importantly, why do you feel the need to bring up clinton and contrast her (or your particular interpretation of her) intelligence and accomplishments on a thread that was about obama? why are you still beating a dead horse and still picking at old wounds from the primary that the candidate you supported lost? are you trying to have a dem win this fall or would you only care to see YOUR dem win?

"But despite all the hooplah, it was a student's magazine in the end."

The Harvard Law Review is hardly "a student's magazine".

Why do those who don't support Obama indulge in nothing but personal attack and insult? Classless jealousy? Racism? Republican't-but-lie?

You mock yourself with your hyperbole ranting.