My take:

William of Ockham, a 14th century English monk, is credited with "Occam's razor," the theory that in any search for truth, you should tend to favor the simplest theory which adequately explains all of the available data. In the case of Obama, the simplest theory that adequately explains all of the available data is that he's a man of above average intelligence but no particular distinction of intellect, a leftist who bears racial grievances and was inculcated in radical politics but, with the active collaboration of a sympathetic media, didn't let them define him publicly, who benefited at school from affirmative action policies, and, on his climb through the political ranks, benefited from his race and the media bias while avoiding as many hard decisions as he could, a man who is utterly unsuited by temperament and intellect and experience for the office in which he now finds himself, and whose lack of experience shows itself constantly in his inability to manage the office successfully. Think of him as the ultimate expression of the Peter Principle.

The alternate theory, of course, is Milbank's - he's too smart for the job, and so every time he does something that seems stupid (porkulus, "just buy a new car," Eric Holder, obamacare, Janet Napolitano, cash-for-clunkers, Libya, Joe Biden, "bitter clingers," etc.), it's because he's so thoughtful that he's making a brilliant decision and the world gets it wrong.

Intellectually, Obama = Fast boat, no rudder

What actual evidence exists to confirm Obama's supposed intelligence? His rote acceptance of left-liberal conventional wisdom on all subjects? His scholarly output of "nil" while serving as an untenured lecturer? His unreleased transcripts?

Such high comedy by Mr. Milbank. And this coming from a simple minded person like myself.

Lyford-- has it right. Obama is a hardcore Alinsky leftist, but he is organizationally incompetent and has no leadership skills. He is a media creation. Hence his "Administration" is a debacle of the highest order; I've seen better organized riots. This garbage from liberals like Milbank -- who are smart enough to know that the Obamapalooza is about to come crashing down-- are grasping for some excuse for their own stupidity for going all in on Obama the Messiah meme. Back in 1991 the NY Times and New York Magazine came up with NYC is ungovernable to excuse David Dinkins' incompetence. This is an old liberal routine. Goodbye Dana, thanks for playing.

Another +1 for Lyford. President Obama is a very bright man, and able to achieve a superficial mastery of a subject when he puts his mind to it. A good example was his handling of the Congressional leadership at the Obamacare summit a year or so ago. He had command of the subject matter and command of the room. That was not chopped liver. But he obviously suffers from a long-standing habit of laziness. He'll hit the books during finals week, but the first 14 weeks of the semester he's goofing off, putting off the reading assignments, skipping class. Old habits die hard. This is the man we see in the Oval Office: the very bright student who turns it on only when he has to.

There's another perfectly good explanation. Obama is too far left of America, knows it, and is having a hard time breaking the bad news to the country. Polls show that more people are conservatives than liberals in this country. Time and time again, people reject an increased role for government as Obama has in mind (although they're happy to take entitlements once offered -- everyone supported "cutting spending" in the abstract, but now no one wants their kids to go without Medicare).

Hence the mixture of moods and tones, the half-truths and sometimes contradictions, and the undeniable moments when you feel the president isn't speaking his mind. In contrast, I don't think Bush ever really had to (or did) censor himself, because his views were more in line with the general public's.

180 Out, I believe you posted the same yesterday, and you could be right, but I've truly not seen enough evidence to show that laziness masks the intelligence of "a very bright man, . . . able to achieve a superficial mastery of a subject when he puts his mind to it." Your single example is something, but I'd have to see more to conclude that Obama is "very bright." I'm not saying he's stupid, by any means. Oddly enough, my best guess is that he's almost as bright (in terms of IQ) as Bush, a reasonably intelligent man.

Possibly I'm overcompensating for the risible exaggerations out there.