Intelligence is a tool, and while it is generally beneficial to those who have it, it may or may not be beneficial to others depending on how it used and to what ends. Reagan was less intelligent than most Presidents have been, and was pretty much the opposite of a policy wonk, yet his Presidency had a lot of strengths. Clinton, as noted, was extremely intelligent, yet also exhibited some remarkably poor judgement at times, that really stunted his possible achievements. Nixon and Kissinger were both highly intelligent, yet that didn't do very much good for anyone else, now did it? 
 
While being President of the U.S. is an extremely complicated job that having a high intelligence probably could help with, I think it is much more critical at this point that we elect people who are not morally challenged, and who care about the Constitution, the rights of the average person, and the principles this country was founded upon. And by "not morally challenged", I am not talking about either religion or sex; I am talking about not lying, stealing, abusing power, and that sort of thing. 
 
The only candidate that I can put any trust in to not abuse his power and to pay attention to the Constitution is Ron Paul. So I'm supporting him. I disagree with him on a number of issues. There are even a few I think he's a little "out there" on. But he's honest, he doesn't think the government should be an instrument of oppression, he respects humans' rights, and he abides by the Constitution (and has a solid 20-year record in Congress that actually shows that). 
 
As a further bonus, he is one of only two of the major party candidates that has clearly stated an oppostion to the war in Iraq, and an intent to end it ASAP. (The other is Kucinich, who in my mind has significant other drawbacks.) 
 
PhilB

What I have not seen is evidence that Watson necessarily said that some races had *more* or *less* intelligence than others; only that there were differences. In my experience, the term "intelligence" with no referent is almost meaningless. "Intelligent" at what? Some people are lousy at school, but brilliant in a workshop. Some are not so great at solid chains of logic, but great at creativity or at intuitiveness. And so on. There is a wide range of kinds of intelligence, and several known types of learning styles that are known to vary between individuals and between cultures. I certainly can see how different races (or other divisions or groups of people) in different environments could, would, and *should* develop different capacities for some kinds of intelligence, depending on what is most valuable for surviving and thriving in their particular environments. 
 
Perhaps (likely, in fact) the particular types of intelligence valued by Europeans, and tested in an IQ test developed by European-descended people, are more prevalent in Europeans (and, by chance, Asians), while blacks or some others have evolved to focus their brainpower on somewhat different skills or abilities. If so, obviously blacks would not do as well on such a test, but conversely if African scholars developed their own IQ test, it might then show the reverse. This would not in any way imply superiority or inferiority of any particular group, and would be a legitimate and valuable course of inquiry for solving some of our world's problems. If, for example, we are trying to force social models developed according to the intelligence patterns of Europeans upon people that have different intelligence patterns, it would be no surprise that it wouldn't work so well. And refusing to acknowledge that this question could even be legitimately asked isn't going to help anyone. It may be the case that, for instance, Africans will need to be allowed to develop their own social structures according to their own thought patterns and intelligence skills, rather than being expected to just culturally transform themselves into Europeans of a different skin color. 
 
Even if Watson did say, and does believe, that blacks are somehow "lesser", it still is important for the rest of us to look at the question raised and answer it rationally, with facts, rather than just shouting him down and punishing him for asking it.