I’m beginning to think that with this particular election year it would be prudent if both the job descriptions and requisite experience were broadly posted for the positions of President and Vice-President of the United States of America. Now due to America and its freedoms of democracy, freedom of speech and freedom of choice, the Presidential candidate may choose who he believes is the best candidate as his or her running mate for Vice President. This candidate should be chosen based on his or her qualifications, track record, experience and naturally compatibility to the Presidential candidate.
Several days ago Governor Sarah Palin was asked what was the job of the Vice President. This question, which originally came from a third grade elementary student, was posed to her by a reporter. Her response was captured on national television and in turn rebroadcast for the world to see.
She advised the job was to support the President and oversee his interests. That’s good. I give her a gold star there. However her further statement is a little bit misleading and raises a doubt on her understanding not only of the position as Vice President of the United States but also of the U.S. Constitution. She advised that she would additionally be in-charge of the Senate and have responsibility for assuring new legislation in the interests of the people would be passed. Now the last time I checked, according to the U.S. Constitution “The Vice President shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.” Therefore the Vice President may act as a tie-breaker but is not whom one would call “in charge of the Senate.” I’m sure many Senators have taken umbrage by her casually bandied statement. I doubt that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton would have made such a faux pas.
There is no reason any individual whether an American citizen or not, whether running in a Presidential election or not, should not know the U.S. Constitution. It can be viewed in full at: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
So what can such a statement have really meant? It simply reinforces to me that Governor Palin is an ambitious and power hungry individual. While she is settling for the role of Vice President her ultimate goal is the inner sanctum of the Oval Office as the first female President of the United States. I’m not against a woman holding such a position as long as she is qualified to do so. However I continue to see multiple reasons why Governor Palin is not a qualified candidate which in turn make me question the judgment of Senator John McCain as well.
I will conclude this post with some basic facts that have been circulating which compare the differences in experience and background between an Obama/Biden ticket and a McCain/Palin ticket. I have faith in the American people that they can distinguish which team is the better choice to next lead the United States of America in 2009 and best prepared to face and take on the global economic crisis, the U.S. financial crisis and housing markets, health care reform, foreign affairs, international terrorisim, U.S. in Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Palestine, Israel….and the list goes on. With these critical issues in mind try to keep an open mind as you read the questions posed below and answer honestly either to yourself or share through your comments whom you believe is the most qualified team and why:
Obama/Biden vs McCain/Palin
What if the roles were reversed? Think about it.
Would the country’s collective point of view be different?
Could racism be the culprit?
Ponder the following:
What if the Obamas had paraded five children across the stage,
including a three month old infant and an unwed, pregnant teenage
daughter?
What if John McCain was a former president of the Harvard Law Review?
What if Barack Obama finished fifth from the bottom of his graduating
class?
What if McCain had only married once, and Obama was a divorcee?
What if Obama was the candidate who left his first wife after a severe
disfiguring car accident, when she no longer measured up to his
standards?
What if Obama had met his second wife in a bar and had a long affair
while he was still married?
What if Michelle Obama was the wife who not only became addicted to pain
killers but also acquired them illegally through her charitable
organization?
What if Cindy McCain graduated from Harvard?
What if Obama had been a member of the Keating Five?(The Keating Five
were five United States Senators accused of corruption in 1989, igniting
a major political scandal as part of the larger Savings and Loan crisis
of the late 1980s and early 1990s.)
What if McCain was a charismatic, eloquent speaker?
What if Obama couldn’t read from a teleprompter?
What if Obama was the one who had military experience that included
discipline problems and a record of crashing seven planes?
What if Obama was the one who was known to display publicly, on many
occasions, a serious anger management problem?
What if Michelle Obama’s family had made their money from beer
distribution?
What if the Obamas had adopted a white child?
You could easily add to this list. If these questions reflected reality,
do you really believe the election numbers would be as close as they
are?
This is what racism does. It covers up, rationalizes and minimizes
positive qualities in one candidate and emphasizes negative qualities in
another when there is a color difference.
Educational Background:
Barack Obama: Columbia University – B.A. Political Science with a
Specialization in International Relations.
Harvard – Juris Doctor (J.D.) Magna Cum Laude
Joseph Biden: University of Delaware – B.A. in History and B.A. in
Political Science.
Syracuse University College of Law – Juris Doctor (J.D.)
vs.
John McCain: United States Naval Academy – Class rank: 894 of 899
Sarah 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
Education isn’t everything, but this is about the two highest offices in
the land as well as our standing in the world.
You make the call.
Filed under: America, Economy, gender, politics, relationships, Saudi Arabia, terrorism, Uncategorized
That’s a lot of what if’s you have there… The one with Obama trotting about with five kids was my fave. :]
I vote more on the candidates’ stances on social issues than their education or eloquence.
That being said, I don’t like John McCain too much. He’s far too liberal.
Hi Mrs C – but wouldn’t you say education is also important for someone who is representing our country? I believe it has to be a combination of education, positions, experience. ability to lead, how he or she reacts under stress and to a crisis….too bad Donald Trump could not host a variant of the Apprentice which features Presidential candidates and how they have to face various challenges! (just dreaming on here)…
Carol,
That’s a nice post! I very much like this “what if” analysis… I haven’t seen it before. It says a lot!!
Of course, one could come up with a totally different what if’s… but I like this one
Thank you Nader! But as i mentioned, the what-if’s are a piece which have been circulating. I cannot take credit for writing the what if’s.
LOL Of course, I agree that education is important. It’s just not number one with me. I would like the candidate’s Christianity and understanding of the Consitution to be number one, but doesn’t look like that is happenin’ this election. And no, I don’t mean that I want a theocracy. That’s just what I look for in a candidate personally, someone who has good character and ascribes to Biblical principles. Mind you, there have been times I’ve been very disappointed in the “pickins” out there, and this is one of ‘em.
Oh, Donald Trump. I’m so glad he isn’t running. We’d run through about four first ladies during his term, each one younger than the last.
That was mean of me, but there it is.
Wow, Carol! I will adamantly argue that education credentials are not nearly what they’re supposedly worth. While I do find it commendable that Obama made editor of the Harvard Law Review, the mere ownership of a Harvard degree proves nothing.
It seems that Sen. Biden, for all his experience in the Senate, has a rather sketchy understanding of the VP’s constitutional role there, too.
I would expect that both candidates have a BA or a BS at least, preferably a Master’s or PhD. I think formal education is very important, if not for what a person learns, then for a person’s ability to go the distance academically, intellectually, emotionally, financially, and any other way that would challenge his/her determination to earn the degree. Completion of a college degree is proof of this ability.
As for your post, it is great! You’ve answered some questions I still pondered regarding the candidates– not that my decision was not already made!
I appreciate all the comments. In regards to the candidates and education, if you will allow me to be cheeky here, undoubtedly they all have a strong BS degree!
Regarding education, it should be noted that George Bush has an MBA from Harvard.
Did that make him qualified?
Bush has a Harvard degree
I’ve been accepted in Harvard linguistics program, but I didn’t like their program at all:). I wish I’ve accepted the offer — I might be the US president with it some day soon 
and 
(just kidding)
Honestly, I believe, as far as international affairs are concerned, non of the candidates will make big a change. I support Obama although I’m almost sure that he’ll not win the election. If he had only been white, he’ll win with a striking defeat to the republican. It’ll be something like 90% votes to Democrats & 10% to republicans.
I’m definitely with electing Obama although, I believe, the Saudi gov wants the republican — Republican will buy more oil
Back to class
[...] on Carol Fleming’s American Bedu on October 24, 2008. Fleming blogs from Saudi [...]
Let me ask readers this since our comments have focused on education….
What if one of the candidate’s for either the VP or Presidential slot did NOT have a college degree but a lot of practical experience instead? Would you still vote for such an individual? How important is the degree to the position?
In answer to your question I would vote for someone without a degree but who has lots of practical experience. But they would definitely have to display a grasp of foreign/domestic affairs as well as evidence that they had actually done a lot of self studying throughout their life.
Sarah Palin, for instance, has a degree. But I don’t think anyone would deny that she is a complete bimbo. Bush has rather prestigious degrees and so does McCain but both are fairly stupid and got where they are today because of their fathers. So degrees really aren’t everything
Someone like Karl Rove, on the other hand, has no degree and seems to be an unbelievably shrewd individual. So degrees aren’t everything. (not saying I would ever vote for someone like Rove, btw. Just using him as an example)
Tulip,
Thanks for your detailed answer which I appreciate. Like you, I’d have no hesitation in voting for someone without a degree if I believed they had the qualifications of leadership, responsibility and knowledge for the position.
What if one of the candidate’s for either the VP or Presidential slot did NOT have a college degree but a lot of practical experience instead?
Just compare Woodrow Wilson – President of Princeton before he was President of the U.S. – with Harry Truman, an Army artillery captain and so-so businessman but our last prez without a college degree.
Truman stroked a lot of people the wrong way but he was the man who ended WWII at the lowest conceivable price in American lives, shaped the Cold War that defeated the Soviet Union, and handled America’s post-WWII finances in such a way as to benefit the Mom-and-Pop holders of War Bonds who would otherwise have suffered from their fall in value.
Woodrow Wilson, on the other hand, appealed greatly to the eastern liberal and banking elites, went to war with Mexico, promised not to get involved in WWI then sold it as “the war to end all wars”, afterwards failing to craft an enduring peace in part because he alienated Congress by his high-handedness and the American people by shocking casualties. Wilson’s principles of war-by-international law stuck, replacing the Jacksonian principle of ruthless warfare in defense of America, with the result that Wilsonian Idealism has been responsible for some of the worst failures of American policymakers to acknowledge reality in front of their noses, even as American policymakers apply these principles to claim the “moral high ground”.
I would choose the country bumpkin over the sophisticated hypocrite as the superior president. Other people might beg to differ.
Thank you Solomon for with your comment you answered a question I had which was whether there have been any President’s who did not hold a degree.
some times a degree is nothing but a title or an extra paper given .. Experience and knowledge of worldly matter is defenitly more practical than a prestegious degree…
Thanks for sharing your view, Khalid!
Of course a college degree does not make a person qualified to become president. Of course experience and character count, but we are in 2008, not 1908. I suggest that a college degree is essential these days, and should be a prerequisite for entering the race at all.
Would I vote for someone without a degree? I don’t know.
Thanks for commenting Marahm. I think it is worth considering. Maybe I’m sightly biased from being here in KSA where so much emphasis is placed on having a degree but in many times there seems to be little substance behind those who are degree-educated…if that makes sense?!
sorry to not read the comments and skip to my own comments this time.
I wish Ron Paul made it, he makes so much sense to me.
they call obama and elitist …. but isnt that the person we/they want to take over? some one who has an education that raises the head ?
(sorry i had to say it)
I might not agree with both candidates available this time agian, just for the fact that none of them will be able to stop the neo-conservative movement in the united state government.
call me a conspiracy theorist.
Abdullah Hamed,
You are not the first to tell me that they’d vote for Ron Paul.
The questions you posed on this post are really thought provoking. Great job!
Thanks Susie although I cannot take credit for the questions. Those are circulating on the net and passed to me by several folks who thought I’d find them interesting.
Abdullah, I like Ron Paul, too! I voted for him in the primaries, you betcha.
Sorry, gang, but you would have had to support Ron Paul back in 1999 when he first alerted everyone to the developing derivatives crisis. He could have done something then; now, he’s pretty much stuck.
The POTUS and VPOTUS posts needs people who can lead, solve problems faced and rebuild the image, trust and respect it has lost over the past 8 years. Not get involved in more wars or short-sighted policies.
We don’t need people who claim they can bring change yet cannot even solve the most basic thing such as housing, quality education and affordable health care. Rebuild/repair the infrastructure that propelled the American Dream, give the kind of knowledge American workers need for the ever changing world, find ways to get Americans insured etc.
May America choose the right person for the post of POTUS and VPOTUS.
What I fear is that whichever team is elected they will likely only be in office for one term. The changes that need to take place are unlikely to happen so that results are seen, felt and measured within one term. As a result, in the next election voters may say that the changes did not occur and want to vote that team out.
FYI: Classicist Victor Davis Hanson’s assessment of the campaign and the candidates here.
I note that The Washington Post endorsed Obama on the grounds that McCain is running a “poor campaign” – that is, it didn’t appeal to the interests of the media as much as Obama does. One despairing journalist, ABC’s Michael Malone, accuses editors of “Sacrificing journalism for power and pensions because if Obama and the Dems win:
Hello,
I think that things are shaping well for the american people. Not that the environment of the economy is in some secret prosperous state, but we are taking on challenges that are intelligent and will contribute to self improvements. If you have an opportunity to get an education, be out of immediate debt and not have to lose your home, you are empowered to be happier and work harder. If you still luck out, then no one is likely to feel sorry or pity you. People will succeed will this administration. Thank you Obama. Good day.
Yemi Bedu
welcome Yemi Bedu and thank you for sharing your views!
The growing trend in recent times is increasingly becoming presidential double teaming for persuasion – in office or pre-office – which may substantively alter the meaning of President within the framework of the Constitution.
There is a huge difference between post-Presidential alliances and current or pre-presidential alliances.
In 1992, former President Clinton ran without outgoing presidential endorsements or political persuasion – and largely, without current Congressional endorsement. That rarity may be a key to an American democracy that works – and the difference in one that doesn’t.
Former President George W. Bush, and President Obama both ran with endorsements of former Presidents that has the effect of political double teaming that can work against candidates to provide the insight that Americans seek of Presidents and whether they can stand on their own two feet in office, not whether they are party-ready, and party-preferred.
If Presidential empowerment is the game, to elect Presidents capable of running the nation – on their own – should they not be able to speak for themselves while running for office?
Presidential double teaming may only be appropriate after office, not before, and not during office.