question
Sep 25th 2008 05:00:29 pm
I have been closely following the presidential campaigns, politics, and general news over the past few months – as many have – and among my many concerns and questions, one small detail has been really bothering me. Basically, why is Barack Obama’s law education (at Harvard, none the less) and his experience with constitutional law (teaching it at the Univ. of Chicago) not counted more strongly toward his general readiness to be president? I watched this short video by Lawrence Lessig today about Governor Palin’s level of experience compared to previous US vice presidents. It may have some flaws, but it is interesting to watch and learn about past candidates. Of course, people commenting on the video try to argue that Palin is more experienced that Obama. Perhaps some believe that is a valid argument, but why doesn’t anyone ever counter with Obama’s education and law experience? Is being an educated lawyer really that much of a liability? Is being extremely experienced and knowledgeable on the US constitution and law not something that could help a president? I actually find myself being very personally offended that graduate-level education (and teaching at a college level) is not valued by the American public. Am I missing something?
6 Comments » Categories: School, Thinking, politics







