>>However, when I look at his role in that, it was passive and distant.
>>He never really showed leadership.
>
>
>This is where his background and his reputation were good predictors for his performance as President.
>
>When he taught, his students found that after his first semester, he was disinterested and increasingly indifferent to the responsibilities.
>
>His voting/attendance record in the Senate were bad, to the point where even Harry Reid chastised him.
>
>When he worked at a law firm, there were rumors that some of his associates grumbled that he often sat in his office with a laptop, writing content for his book.
>
>As editor/president for Harvard Law Review, he never penned a piece on his own for the journal. As someone who has been a columnist in a magazine for 13 years and has studied the workings of magazines and newspapers for a long time, that's quite unusual.
>
>When I've raised these issues before with others, I received the, "Oh, you just don't like him, why don't you admit it, you didn't want him for racial reasons".
>
>As intelligent and charismatic as he was, he COULD have been a good president. But a lack of experience in key areas and a lack of work ethic (he himself said he was lazy) hurt him.

I agree with most of that. However, as I said before, I'm glad I campaigned for him and would do it again.
He changed history by being nominated and elected.
Also, he was blessed with opponents who were even more incompetent.