No, 'inarticulate' is the word

Who are you going to believe, Meghan Daum or your own lying ears?

Admittedly, the president is given to a lot of pauses, "uhs" and sputtering starts to his sentences. As polished as he often is before large crowds (where the adjective "soaring" is often applied to his speeches), his impromptu speaking frequently calls to mind a doctoral candidate delivering a wobbly dissertation defense. ...

Of course, the president enables that stigma by stammering his way through town hall meetings and other public dialogues as though they were philosophy lectures. Irritating? Sure. But inarticulate? Sorry, folks, but you'll have to find another adjective.

It's always amusing to see how far liberals will go to deny the obvious. The reason President Obama is 'soaring' in front of large crowds is because he is reading the soaring words from a teleprompter. When he does not have to think, and when all the choices have been made for him, he performs quite well.  But put the man in a position where he has to think and speak at the same time, then he stammers along.  He is, in many unscripted situations, inarticulate - unable to speak distinctly or express himself clearly. That's what the word means. Denying its fitness in this situation because of its negative connotations is simply dishonest.

But the really funny part is the reason why President Obama is inarticulate:

It's not that Obama can't speak clearly. It's that he employs the intellectual stammer. Not to be confused with a stutter, which the president decidedly does not have, the intellectual stammer signals a brain that is moving so fast that the mouth can't keep up.

Yeah, that's the ticket.  The President is so smart that he can't communicate with us lesser beings.

But even the Intellectual Stammer Defense, lame as it is, makes no sense.  If the mouth could not keep up with a fast-moving brain, that would necessitate that the President be speaking quickly - the brain is fast, the mouth not quite as fast, no? We've all seen this with people who are not used to speaking publicly - they trip over their words because they are trying to say too much too fast.

But that is not what Obama does. He moves smoothly down one idea, but as soon as transition to the next one is demanded, he crashes and burns - he mumbles and bumbles and stumbles along and says almost nothing but trite phrases. He certainly says nothing in those situations that would signal a deep and nuanced grasp of the subject matter*, nor the ability to connect divergent parts of a larger whole. That's not a brain that is moving fast, that's a steam engine on bad rails.

Look, a lot of people aren't very smart**.  That's not a problem. In fact, I prefer my Presidents a little on the dumb side - so long as they know and respect their limitations - because I don't want them thinking they can run the whole country. There is a respectable modesty about a man who is average and accepts that. The danger arises when people who are not very smart*** are told that they are, and believe that they are, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.

* 57 states anyone?
** even 50% of doctors graduate in the bottom half of their classes, and 1 in 4 graduates in the lowest quarter.
*** Actually, I think Obama is smarter than the average Progressive, which is one reason they look up to him as much as they do. But he is not a lot smarter, or they would think him insane (Vox's First Law). He is certainly not as smart as he needs to be to do what Progressives think he ought to do, which is everything.