The candidates qualifications - one area

[jack scribe]

With America facing historic debt, multiple war fronts, stumbling health care, a weakened dollar, all-time high prison population, skyrocketing Federal spending, mortgage crises, bank foreclosures, etc. etc., this is an unusually critical election year.

Let's look at the educational background of the candidates and see what they bring to the job:

Obama

Occidental College - Two years.

Columbia University - B.A. political science with a specialization in international relations.

Harvard - Juris Doctor (J.D.) Magna Cum Laude

Biden

University of Delaware - B.A. in history and B.A. in political science.

Syracuse University College of Law - Juris Doctor (J.D.)

vs.

McCain

United States Naval Academy - Class rank 894 out of 899

Palin

Hawaii Pacific University - 1 semester

North Idaho College - 2 semesters - general study

University of Idaho - 2 semesters - journalism

Matanuska-Susitna College - 1 semester

University of Idaho - 3 semesters - B.A. in journalism

Now, which team are you going to hire to lead the most influential nation in the world?

[The Pecman]

Abraham Lincoln only had 16 months of formal schooling and never attended college. He wound up being one of the best presidents we ever had.

That having been said: from everything I've read and observed, McCain is a temperamental jerk, and Palin is hopelessly out of her league. I don't pretend Obama is perfect, but he's a damnsight better than these idiots.

Call this choice "a mild headache vs. a severe upset stomach." I pray to god the country feels the same way in November.

BTW, most of the gay political groups put Obama way, way ahead of McCain -- not that this should be the #1 most important reason for us to vote for Obama, but it is one more reason.

I still want to vote for Michael Palin of Monty Python, BTW:

http://www.michaelpalinforpresident.com/

That's the right Palin to vote for, IMHO.

[Trab]

Everyone (most) will vote for the easy pick, the one who will make decisions, and not the ones that might actually require thought. Canada is in the middle of an election campaign too, and it's not better here. Thoughtless knee jerk reactionism wins the day every time.

[rick]

Sad, but all too true.

Rick

[rick]

Another sad, but entirely too true point is that in any election year, there are probably close to 40% of the electorate who will vote a straight party ticket, probably divided roughly evenly between republicans and democrats. These are the sheep who give elections to bad politicians.

I'll say it again: go out and vote, but for the love of God, PLEASE, make it an informed choice. Another four years of the same is not what we need.

Rick

[Graeme]

To be fair, the comparison that was posted isn't relevant.

The experiences that I've had since I left university have had a lot more impact on who I am and what I'm capable of doing than the education itself.

Given how long ago McCain (picking the extreme example) finished his education, he's had a lot of time to pick up skills and abilities that are not taught in college. Things like how things run on Capitol Hill, and what is it really like for a member of the armed forces to be under fire. These are things you learn in the real world outside of college.

That doesn't mean that education isn't important, but when it was decades ago, it becomes largely irrelevant. Hey, I'm a software engineer and practically none of what I learnt back in the 80s is still relevant to what I do today.

[colinian]

I found this online:

After WWII the national debt changed as follows:

? Truman: 90% to 72% of GDP

? Ike: 72% to 56%

? Kennedy-Johnson: 56% to 40%

? Nixon: 40% to 35%

? Carter: 35% to 33%

? Reagan, Bush I: 33% to 66%

? Clinton: 66% to 57%

? Bush II: 57% to 65%

It's not what you say it's what you do that counts.

Colin

[Cole Parker]

To be fair, the comparison that was posted isn't relevant.

The experiences that I've had since I left university have had a lot more impact on who I am and what I'm capable of doing than the education itself.

Given how long ago McCain (picking the extreme example) finished his education, he's had a lot of time to pick up skills and abilities that are not taught in college. Things like how things run on Capitol Hill, and what is it really like for a member of the armed forces to be under fire. These are things you learn in the real world outside of college.

That doesn't mean that education isn't important, but when it was decades ago, it becomes largely irrelevant. Hey, I'm a software engineer and practically none of what I learnt back in the 80s is still relevant to what I do today.

There's a lot of truth in this. What I learned in college had very little bearing on my professional life. Whatever job you take, you tend to learn what you need by doing it. I suppose it's different in some professions, like medicine or astrophysics, but in most, you learn as you go, and keep updating that knowledge as you move through your professional career.

However, I think what you do in your college years does show something about you. If you end up at the bottom of your class, or take several years and several colleges to obtain a bachelor's degree, it suggests you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer, or the most motivated individual to come down the pike. Or, if you go on to get a doctorate, it shows a great deal of both intelligence and fortitude.

I guess, if that's the only thing you knew about the people running for office, that one finished at the bottom of his class in the Naval Academy, and the other went on to get a doctorate in law from Harvard, it would be expected that one would get the preponderance of the votes.

No, those aren't the only qualifications for the presidency, but, all else being equal, I think I'd choose the smartest, hardest working and most successful candidate, based on his college performance, rather than the other.

C

[DesDownunder]

The Theosophical Society has long since proclaimed the idea that we should study today is if we are going to live forever, and live today as if we will die tomorrow. Such is the balance of learning and experience in life. One must always moderate the other.

Life experience and learning are both very important, but the will to explore, to question, to examine the path of pragmatic alternatives, rather than follow the well trodden path of learned righteousness seems to favour the Obama team.

In all this I think we need to be concerned with balance. If the Obama team does not win election then the administration of the chief executive of the United States is in danger of becoming unbalanced due to one party with a record of reactionism, being represented for too long in the Oval Office.

A change is needed and Obama's ticket appears to offer a chance for change as well as balance.

Just my thoughts.

[The Pecman]

In all this I think we need to be concerned with balance. If the Obama team does not win election then the administration of the chief executive of the United States is in danger of becoming unbalanced due to one party with a record of reactionism, being represented for too long in the Oval Office.

I wasn't a fan of Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, but I do remember his 1980 political speeches, where he said, "if you're happy with the way things have been for the last four years, vote for the current President. If you think it's time for a change, vote for me."

That to me is what Obama should be saying more often. I don't know of a single American who thinks they're better off today than they were four or even eight years ago. Everything is worse, across the board, and I see no sign that it's going to get better.

What's peculiar to me is how McCain is distancing himself from Bush. I think Bush at this point is the lamest-duck President in history.

Me personally, I wish I could vote for Bill Clinton again...