<p>Why</a> Wont Obama Talk About Columbia? by Andrew C. McCarthy on National Review Online</p>
<p>Obviously NR is a conservative pub, but this is worth reading since it's been discussed on here -- and is widely known -- that we know little about his time at Columbia.</p>
<p>He says absolutely nothing new about Obama's Columbia years in that article - though he manages to be sneeringly derisive about it the entire time.</p>
<p>All we learn is that Obama took at least one class from Edward Said, who at the time of course was the world's foremost expert on the Arab world.</p>
<p>It's definitely more than just taking a class with Said:</p>
<p>Interesting that his official WH bio makes no mention of Columbia:</p>
<p>[President</a> Barack Obama | The White House](<a href=“http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/president-obama]President”>Barack Obama | The White House)</p>
<p>If you noticed, HLS is mentioned only in passing, by way of the law review and his historic achievement of heading it. My guess is that he doesn’t want his elite academic pedigree getting in the way of his “message”.</p>
<p>Or, that Harvard is sufficient for the masses who are reading that biographical profile.</p>
<p>well if you think he doesn’t like columbia - he has nominated a columbian to the AG office, to be the FCC head commissioner, 2 columbians to be ambassadors, 1 other columbian for sec of commerce before he backed down.</p>
<p>i don’t think you can say his time at columbia is without consequence. but not everyone plays up their college life. sarah palin went to 3 colleges, you don’t hear her all over talking about that time of her life.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think anyone is suggesting that the President has an axe to grind due to his somewhat unknown (and perhaps less than positive) experiences at Columbia and would irrationally preclude Columbians from receiving high appointments. There are, what, 15 cabinet positions and 150 ambassadorships? These people are appointed based on overall record, political connections, wealth, etc. That the President has appointed a cabinet official and a couple ambassadors from a particular Ivy League school says very little about his like or dislike of that school. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The media sure talks about Sarah’s 5 (not 3) colleges. I don’t think we know whether the President’s time at Columbia is without consequence or whether it is with consequence and there’s something he doesn’t want us to know about.</p>
<p>I always get a kick out of the right-wing’s academia-paranoia. What is it, exactly, that they think goes on here? LOL. </p>
<p>I mean, if the really want to know, here’s the truth. There’s a whole secret college in Columbia full of terrorists, degenerates, and all sorts of political radicals. It has a secret registration process and everything. If you show promise, like say, a young B. Obama did, you’ll be invited to take classes with these people. But even if you don’t make the cut, remember: this is an elite institution. It is filled with arrogant, elitist, leftist students. Thus, all freshmen are required to take “Destroying Traditional American Values 101” and “Why the Bible is the Worst Book Ever and Muslims Got it Right 1012.” If you aren’t an atheist by the end of first semester, you are forced to join a firing squad that executes kidnapped Christians every Sunday. You’ll then be made to fill envelopes with anthrax to send over to Israel (to even the playing field, of course). </p>
<p>Oh, also, every morning we salute Stalin and Mao, and chant “Death to America!” to the tune of John Lennon’s “Imagine.” (Imagine there’s no America, it’s easy if you try.)</p>
<p>He only to Columbia for two years, he transferred from Occidental.</p>
<p>Calling that article “conservative” is an incredible understatement. It implies, nay, explicitly states that Obama is a radical leftist bent on subverting the institutions of the United States to bring about the destruction of the country. It refuses to acknowledge that Ayers is not the same person he was in 1970; while he does dislike modern American culture, he no longer supports bombing businesses and government buildings to prove his point. It plays on ultra-Zionist fears of terrorism to tar Khalidi and Said, two of Columbia’s most famous (if controversial) 20th century professors. And it seems to imply that speaking Spanish and being in close proximity to Hugo Chavez make one anti-American. And as Aristororty says, it implies that Obama is “bad” and “un-American” because he attended liberal Ivy League schools and took classes with liberal professors. In short, it’s full of the conservative scare tactics I’d expect from self-hating Columbia alumnus David Horowitz, and it presents a distorted, biased view of our fine university.</p>
<p>Let me clarify: There ae legitimate conservative arguments to be made regarding United States culture and foreign policy, and the Israeli predicament in the Middle East, just as there ar eliberal ones to be made. One can neither claim that Israel is blameless or responsible for all problems in the Middle East. What disgusts me is not conservatism, but stupid unintelligent BSing in the service of conservative ideals. Edward Said is the father of the modern discipline of postcolonialism; you can’t simply dismiss him out of hand by yelling “Arafat lover!”</p>
