***What about the undecided?!?! (Political topic)***

ibc--thanks but not sure about "fiscal conservative" or "common sense."

Best quote on the debate, from Tom Shales of the Washington Post:

The debate had the aura of an almost meaningless ritual being conducted in a soundproof room while outside, panic and calamity were spreading like giant cracks in the earth.

Corvair and Pinto.  Hahahahahahaha.  I had a Pinto, too.  Soulmates.

I STILL say we are in trouble IF Obama is elected President of the U.S.!! 

The 2nd debates didn't go very well...  I think that Tom Brokaw picked the questions, so we never got any questions of substance...

It was interesting to me that several times, B.O.  AVOIDED the question, and went off on a tangent...  I know that at least once, McCain said... . "I'll answer the question!"   too funny! 

Not trying to argue, because no ones' mind is going to be changed. (mine included). Think about Sexy Sarah as president. She's even more clueless than W. McCain picked her to appease the female voters that were angry about Hillary, but to paraphase, Sarah is no Hillary. Hillary was intelligent, articulate and knowledgable. For these people to even try to compare the two is clueless. I hope that these same people that are giving McCain the benefit of the doubt that he was not part of that Pennsylvania Ave crew rethink themselves. We can't go through another eight years of this. I truly don't think this would benefit this country. Also, this campaign has just gotten dirtier with the lies and half truths. We don't know what the candidates are thinking because they're not discussing the issues. Thank you Virginia 

That blog is hysterical! I bookmarked it and sent it to everyone in my address book...

Grace--as I've mentioned before, Abraham Lincoln and Harry Truman, neither of whom had undergraduate or graduate degrees, with almost 100 hundred years between them, are viewed by historians as two of our better presidents (I personally disagree about Truman because of his propensity to drop bombs, a propensity that our two current candidates also have: McCain, on Iraq and Obama, on Pakistan).  Now to counter the possible response that Lincoln was the norm in his day for candidates, he wasn't.  Almost all our earliest, and most famous presidents, did, in fact, attend  university, and in most cases very prestigious universities.  Lincoln, not the norm, was as you know pretty much self taught.   I should add that of Lincoln's three opponents, two were university graduates, one from Princeton (would you have cast your vote for him?) and one, Stephen Douglas, graduated from a teacher's academy.  In those days, a four year academy education was equal to a university education in these days.  

We don't know Obama's grades as he refuses to release his transcripts. It should be easy enough to find out, though, if he graduated Magna or Summa. Anyone? Biden graduated quite low in his class: ranked 506th of 688, from the University of Delaware--I'm sure a fine university but hardly the equal of Annapolis in academic rigor.   Biden also underperformed in law school and was called up for plagiarism.  He was quite lucky he wasn't expelled like Teddy Kennedy from Harvard.  As a reminder, Bush graduated from all the right schools:  Andover, Yale, Harvard MBA.  And look what he's wrought. Also, which courses are you advocating for qualification:  lawyers only? Would we allow doctors to run? What about those of us with liberal arts degrees?  Should we exclude the philosophers?  Would you exclude the pundits, all those talking heads with their degrees in Journalism?  Are business degrees allowed? Your proposal does sound a bit elitist to me, but remember I'm the iconoclast on this board.  

I like the Constitution as written; feels more democratic to me.

Anneshirley

Further to this question of education (as you can see I've been thinking about it), if we think that certain educational qualifications are needed to be president, why wouldn't it follow that certain educational qualifications are needed to select the president.  Why should we let those without even a high-school education decide which of the candidates are qualified to be president?  Have they read the candidates' proposals?  Do they understand them?  If not, what are they voting on: party label, religion, age, race, gender, style.  This argument follows your argument, I think, to its logical conclusion.  I'm quite sure in your school, which you use as an example, that it's not the students (in my analogy, the voters) who bring in new faculty but faculty committees or university boards: the educated elites.  And to take it to the ridiculous extreme. Why trust paper credentials at all?  We know how easy it is to get through some schools of higher learning--ironically, it's easier to get through Harvard with good grades once you get in then some state schools.  Why not give tests to both candidates and voters?  Who puts the tests together and how do we insure they don't discriminate culturally or racially?

If you gave a test today to all potential voters asking them to identify the salient features in Obama's and McCain's health care plans, how many would pass, yet many say they're voting based on health care.  I have all the educational credentials you could want and I didn't understand McCain's plan and almost led some astray, mainly because I believed the Democrats description of his plan instead of doing my own research.  

Also, since you're focussing on education and not on experience, why not lower the age for president.  In that way, all the people who come out of school with doctorates can run for the office.  Perhaps we should honor those with multiple degrees, the ones who stay in school and get two and three masters.  Have you never worked with those who have multiple degrees yet can't make a simple decision about a simple problem?  I have.  What's more I had a friend in graduate school who took the law boards after he got his doctoral degree.  LSAT perfect score; also perfect scores on his SAT and GRE.  Couldn't hold a job as an adjunct professor.  Even worse with all that brain power, his papers were inferior in original thought to any of the papers of his fellow graduates.       

Grace--it's a very dangerous road you're going down in my less than humble opinion. 

Marilyn,

I had decided to vote for Obama this weekend and you go and post that!  If a Buckley is voting for Obama, it appears I was right.  Obama is a Republican!  And no doubt like all the  Buckley's a snooty one.  Maybe I should rethink my decision and go back to Nader.  

I've already moved on to the next phase. The Democrats will win solid majorities in both houses and Obama will win the White House.  But what the Democrats inherit is so damaged that I fear there is nothing they can do to rectify our problems in four years.  Americans find it difficult to wait for gratification so they'll expect to see all the country's problems resolved in four years, and they'll hold Obama to all the promises he's made, including cutting the deficit, cutting taxes, cutting energy costs, changing the health care system, improving education, and so forth.  They voted in a Republican even when Bill Clinton left the economy in great shape, so for sure they'll vote in a Republican in four years when the economy hasn't improved to any great extent.  I predict Romney will run again in four years and probably this time he'll be the nominee.  (Please God, let Sarah Palin go back to Alaska.)  The one solid achievement I hope Obama makes is at least two appointments to the Supreme Court--both activist judges.  I love activist judges, and if I read the code correctly last night in the debate, that's what Obama is promising. 

I must comment on something I read on another thread. Senators don't answer to presidents. (It's often the other way round as just one holdout in the president's party can often block the president's agenda.)  Each of the  branches are separate with none of them answering to the other.  There's a reason our government was designed this way, to keep power out of the hands of one, or a few individuals. Until Dick Cheney came along, it seems to have worked fairly well. Let's hope the Democrats, with a constitutional lawyer as president, will once again honor the intentions of the Constitution. 

Wow, Anneshirley, where do I begin? My comments really sent your brain into "overdrive," (and I mean that in a positive way!

I'm not sure what I was thinking regarding the education bit. I certainly would never want it to go as far as you have pushed it out in your answer. Perhaps I am a bit out of sorts with Palin as McCain's VP. But it seems we may not have to worry about that one, and I agree with you, let's hope she goes back to Alaska--and stays there!

In many ways I agree with you, education is not a sure thing. I have worked with many people with elitist attitudes who come with multiple degrees and no common sense. I think looking at the past presidents in this country, I would have to say that Lincoln was one in a million, and this country was very, very smart to have elected him. And in some ways grades attached to a degree can mean nothing. I attended a university that gave out NO grades, only written commentary on the quality of my work and how I accomplished that work. In fact, many students who wished to move on to law school were accepted at very prestigious schools because there was the written assessment rather than just a grade. It gives the person looking at your curriculum vitae a window into who you are as a person.

I guess part of what I am trying to say is how messed up this country is in some ways--where education matters or doesn't matter, where experience is important or isn't important. What we pay our teachers (K-12) is extraordinarily low when compared with the "influence" they have on these young learners. And then the celebrities and sports stars who make sooooo much money for doing one thing well. And even at my community college, I saw over and over again, the athletes were given courses that would give them a "passing" grade so they could continue to play a sport and "win" for the college. These students would spend 2 years at our school and transfer to a 4 year college, and then return to us because they couldn't pass a course--many could not read, or had learning disabilities, or never got the tutoring help they needed to get the education they needed to survive in the world.

So, getting back to politics, I don't really know the answer about education, but I do think it is important. Palin has not been properly "educated" (whether it's experience or actual classroom) to be the VP of this country. Should her degree be in something other than journalism? I don't know. What about her experience? Most of her experience has been in governing a town of less than 6,000 people or as governor (for 2 years, right) in Alaska. Does that qualify her to be the VP, and possibly the President? Don't think so. The answers to the questions she is asked lead me to believe that. Am I "educated" enough to cast my vote? Do I know enough about what each candidate is saying to be able to cast an intelligent vote? I certainly believe that I do.

I certainly don't believe that anyone "has to" be educated enough to vote in an election. There are all kinds of people who vote down the party line and don't pay any attention to the issues. Is that okay? For me it is. And I agree with you, I like the Constitution, and I think those men did a fairly good job--we have made it even better with the amendments that have passed.

I am left leaning enough that I too want Obama to select the Supreme Court judges in the next four years. I hope it will be two of them.

Obama reminds me of Lincoln, so I see him as someone whom I hope will draw from all sides of the political arena in selecting his cabinet. And I hope he has both Clintons there to advise him. I see him as a President who will hear all sides and weigh the issues, making the best decision for this country. I may not agree with everything he accomplishes, but I believe he is the only person running who can begin to repair the extensive damage done to this country for the past 8 years--and I agree with you--he might not be elected for a second term because he will be blamed for all the promises he's made and cannot possibly accomplish in 4 years. As far as his grades, the only information I have heard about him, is that he was the editor of the Law Review at his university, and from what I know, you have to be in at least the top 5% (maybe less) to be considered for that "position."

I don't know if there should be a change in the selection of a VP nominee. And if there is what would that look like. To insist that the runner-up be the VP nominee based on the votes in the primary seems like a whole can of worms to me. What if the two candidates dislike each other? I can't imagine Romney as second banana to McCain, nor can I imagine Clinton would be very happy as second to Obama. Perhaps I'm wrong. I just hope, like you do, that the VP position will return to the "job description" as set down in our Constitution.

I don't believe we could ever add educational qualifications to the Position of Pres. & VP, as that would mean we had solved the equity problem in this country. We don't have equitable educational, criminal justice, and economic systems in this country. Until that happens (probably not in our lifetime) we should not put any requirements in place that prevent any other "lincolns" from leading this country. I just wondered what others' thought about how these VP candidates are selected.

Your nieces are just adorable. They are lucky to have you as an Aunt. I with you a healthy long life, so you can pass on to them your admirable qualities and left leaning perspectives!!

As for the writing sample to get on Law Review--I would assume that with most candidates having mostly As, and a few Bs--his writing sample must have been excellent. I don't think it's easy to get through Harvard if you can't write!

As far as the VP position goes, I really find it amazing that more people aren't alarmed at what has happened with the job expansion. Cheney really overstepped his bounds, and obviously there were no checks and balances in place to remind him that he and Bush had gone too far. I guess I still believe what I believed 8 years ago, and that is Bush was a pawn for some of the leaders advising him. I'm taking it to the extreme here. I just don't think Bush has the smarts, so I think he was "led" to water! I guess the conservatives were very happy to have warmongering advisors to the President.

I hope that if Obama becomes President that he would accomplish one thing in 4 years, and that is peace in the middle east. And let these countries have whatever government they want. Their histories are different from ours, and maybe our democracy (or what we call democracy) is not what is best for  their country. The damage Bush and his advisors has done will be with us for many years if not forever. this is one time in history I wish we didn't have to keep--it embarrasses me (even more so than when Iran-Contra was going on with Reagan in the White House--while I was traveling in Australia) to the point that if I were traveling abroad as I did previously, and was asked if I was Irish or Canadian or English--I would say yes to any one of those, and hope the person didn't need to see my passport. These are years I am not very proud of what our country has done. Even Vietnam era can't out do these past 8 years!

We left leaning socialists are in the minority, I believe! And I've been called other names too--Communist, Revolutionist (both by my father, the died in the wool Republican. Seemed to think Socialist means Communist. Oh, and rabelrouser onc--working in a business school library--the asst director accused me of "inciting chaos and subordination--because I was leaving and when my "goodbye lunch" was planned, everyone but the director and asst director wanted to attend--oh it was a delightful time--I still laugh about it. I didn't know I had so much "power." First time I saw this man so flustered and angry he could barely speak. I invited him to join us (I didn't plan the lunch--others did) but he declined. I should have written the director a thank you letter. I had applied for a step up positon (from mailwoman to book binder) and she had the nerve to tell me that just because I worked in the entry level position, I would not be moving up ever, as long as she had her say. Gave two weeks notice the next day. Left and started my own business doing contract sewing for decorators. She really did me a favor (although I might not have thought so at the time).

I looked up Obama's record with the Harvard Law Review, particularly an article in Politico.  My reading confirmed what I had read earlier that he had not written any articles for the review--at least this is what he and his campaign advisers have spread about. (He does a lot of hiding of his past.)  However, it appears he did write a case review on the right of a fetus to sue its mother for negligence during pregnancy.  His position, the fetus does not have this right--based on case law, of course.

Interesting paragraph at the end of the article, as follows:

In the end, though, Obama's time on the Review mirrored other aspects of his life. Even in the staunchly liberal milieus in which he has spent his entire adult life, Obama has managed to lead without leaving a clear ideological stamp, and to respect — and even, at times, to embrace — opposing views. To his critics, that's a sign of a lack of core beliefs. To his admirers, it's the root of his appeal.

I thought the above a fair comment on my view of Obama--obviously one of his critics.  I hate it that he can never be pinned down to anything.  I want passion and commitment from those I respect, and the courage to go against the crowd when it's the right thing to do.  I don't find that in Obama but I hope he finds it in himself when he is president.  I almost posted yesterday in response to something I read on a post that he reminded me of the character that Peter Seller plays in "Being There."  He seems to be a mirror to his supporters.  They assign to him the virtues they themselves expect in a president.  But mirrors don't have virtues, they just reflect.  

Anyway, article is worth reading.  Enter  Barack Obama Harvard Law Review to find it.