I think we're all in agreement that he's a very intelligent person, in terms of natural intellect, the kind that one is born with. I think we also all agree that he's also quite smart, in that he made something of this natural intellect, demonstrated by his Harvard Law degree and Law Review presidency, being a constitutional professor, etc.

And while you may or may not agree, I also happen to believe that he's more than just smart, but extremely smart, certainly smarter than most members of congress and today's public "thinking class" as represented by the punditocracy and think tanks--he could easily wipe the floor with the likes of O'Hanlon and Gregory, let alone McCain, if he wanted or needed to.

What I don't see, though, which both of you appear to agree with, is genuine intellectual depth and sophistication, of the sort that requires years of patient study, discussion and thought. His appears to be more a superficial sort of brilliance, capable of understanding more substantive matters, with some effort, but more at home at the surface level. And it's not due to a lack of natural ability, I believe, but rather due to a lack of interest and perhaps discipline--he likes intellectual surfing, so to speak, as opposed to diving, which takes more time and effort.

Perhaps he's just intellectually lazy, as well as lacking in certain other qualities generally seen as essential for genuinely strong and good leadership, such as courage, real concern for the needs of everyday people, honesty (including with himself), judgement, maturity and character. All of these, to one extent or another, can be rectified. The real question is whether he's going to do that. I'm not at all sanguine about that. But hope springs eternal.

Point well taken about Obama's emotional and intuitive intelligence. Perhaps he really does have a serious blind side there. I've noticed it myself, this tendency of his to veer between inspirational vacuity and cerebral abstruseness--from Huey Long to Adlai Stevenson without any FDR in-between. While he's clearly intellectually gifted and erudite, there are certain ways in which he just doesn't seem to "get it", on a "gut" level. Specifically, in terms of understanding the real-world impact of his high concept policy justifications. He seems to intellectualize everything--that is, when he's not reducing things to a Tony Roberts infomercial.

Of course, as I previously wrote, this is likely just part of the problem, if it's a part of it at all. It may simply be that he just doesn't care, or believes that he's so good at fooling people that it doesn't matter that some of them see through the BS. Pajamas-wearing, Cheetos-eating bloggers who live in their mothers' basements never won anyone no stinkin' election, after all.

But intellectually stupid he is most certainly not.

In most of my more critical comments on Obama, I've made sure to state that in my opinion, cowardice is but one of several possible explanations for his actions and policies, that even if it applied, was not necessarily exclusive of other possible explanations. And while perhaps cowardice might be a bit too strong a word in his case, I find caution and pragmatism, the usual euphemisms applied to explain away his apparent inability and/or unwillingness to stand up to entrenched powers, to be too weak and generous. How about spineless, gutless or lacking in intestinal fortitude? Ok, same difference. So I guess that cowardice still applies, as I see it.

And yes, I do believe that he suffers from these, to some extent, even if this might entirely explain his behavior and policies. He might call it cautious and pragmatic, perhaps even strategic, and who knows, it may turn out to have been the best and smartest approach in hindsight. But right now, his inability and/or unwillingness to stand up to these entrenched powers, in the MIC, Wall St., PhRMA, intel community, media, GOP, etc., certainly strikes me as lacking spine, a necessary and fundamental element of true leadership and statesmanship.

He may well also be as foolish and naive as you suspect. Or, he may be the establishmentarian shill that many of us have feared that he is. Or we may all be the true fools and fail to see his surpassing brilliance. As I've made pains to admit, I ultimately don't know exactly why he does what he does. But my suspicion is that it's mostly some combination of foolishness, naivite, selling out (in a DLC sort of way), egotism, and, yes, cowardice, with perhaps some shrewdness thrown in. And it's not like he's been a total disaster from a progressive perspective. It's just that he's been far less progressive than he needs to and I believe can be thus far.

So it's only natural for people to wonder why. Necessity? Idiocy? Naivity? Cowardice? Brilliance? Abducted by aliens? Manchurian candidate? Kenyan plant? Sarah Palin's smarter twin? All, some or none of the above? I'm just speculating, which in the end is all that any of us can do. But it is perplexing. And anyone who says that it's obvious why he's doing what he's doing (myself of course included) is only deluding themselves. Only Obama knows. And even he might be confused at this point. (And he may ask himself, how did I get here...)

Almost reminds me of one of those stock sitcom plots where some hapless fool tries to date several people at once only to have it backfire. Except no one's laughing in this case.