In so far as the usual suspects will doubtless try and cite yesterday's kicking as proof that Obama is just damn too smart for those stoopid Americans, it's worth having a look at this post over at the WSJ:

Yet Hartman's remark about Obama's "academic background" is revealing. Professors imagine Obama is one of them because he shares their attitudes: their politically correct opinions, their condescending view of ordinary Americans, their belief in their own authority as an intellectual elite. He is the ideal product of the homogeneous world of contemporary academia. In his importance, they see a reflection of their self-importance.

Kloppenberg's thesis reminds us of another elaborate attempt at explaining Obama: Dinesh D'Souza's "The Roots of Obama's Rage." D'Souza, like Kloppenberg, imputes to Obama a coherent philosophy, in D'Souza's case "anticolonialism." It is a needlessly elaborate explanation for an unremarkable set of facts.

Occam's razor suggests that Obama is a mere conformist--someone who absorbed every left-wing platitude he encountered in college and never seems to have seriously questioned any of them. Kloppenberg characterizes Obama as a skeptic, not a true believer. We're not sure he has an active enough mind to be either one.

All of which sounds strangely familiar.

The British MSM has slaughtered thousands of innocent trees to try and prove that our own Messiah is a Certified Super Genius, yet what does the term 'Cameronism' actually evoke? Endless triangulation, bleeding into outright capitulation, for sure. Epic narcissism plus entitlement? Of course. But actual ideas? Nada.