freeman3 wrote:Hillary going to Yale and GW going to Yale are not comparable, George.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5814680

to be fair, there would have to be submission of Mrs. Clinton's grades and acceptance scores to make this an issue of non-comparison. I did not see those in the article Freeman. Did I miss it, or will you put them into evidence, barrister?

freeman3 wrote:Hillary going to Yale and GW going to Yale are not comparable, George.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5814680

OK, how about, "Oh please, so did hundreds of thousands of other people, most of whom you would not want as your president." Where a person was schooled when they were in their 20s should have absolutely zero impact on what you think of them when they are in their 60s.

Thanks for the softball question, Brad. Hillary was a National Merit finalist; she had to have at least a 3.3 gpa at Wellesley because an award she received required that. She gave the commencement speech at Wellesley. I have not read anywhere that she was the beneficiary of legacy admittance; it seems extremely unlikely. Therefore, she got into Yale Law School on her own merits which would have required a high gpa and test scores.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politi ... story.html

The last paragraph of the story is interesting...

Hillary was a stellar student. GW Bush had every advantage and was a mediocre student. His SAT scores were well below the typical Yale student and he had a C average at Yale.

Of course, certainly some people who do well academically do not translate that into real-life success. But Hillary's academic record indicates that she is very smart. The same could not be said with regard to GWB.

I am sorry I do not agree with the statement that Hillary going to Yale is not relevant. She had the intelligence and drive to make it into one of the nation's top schools. Obviously, what she has done since then is more relevant. But frankly it is difficult to assess how good she was as a senator or how well she did her job as a Secretary of State. The academic record is pretty-clear and indicates that she is very smart. That ain't everything but it's something. In our current political system we seemingly cannot weed out candidates who are not fit for the presidency like Trump or GWB. Neither one has (or had) the academic background or knowledge or the right experience to be president. Hillary Clinton has those things. Bernie Sanders is qualified. I am quite sure there are many Repiblicans and Democrats out there who are qualified to be president but in Trump we have been given an option of voting for a person who is not qualified. And, no, I am not voting for a libertarian.

So you have transcripts?

ok so I guess you're saying she was the beneficiary of affirmative action? We don't know but even if that were true her academic success prior to Yale was pretty darn good. Clearly, she did not receive any preference for Wellesley and being a National Merit finalist speaks for itself.

Out of interest Freeman, what's your definition of 'qualified' here ? Are you just talking about academic background or are you also saying that there should be relevant experience qualifications ? It's a little puzzling to me I must say. Why should the university you attended 30 or 40 years ago make you qualified for the highest office in the land ?It's a good job that qualification was not in force in the 19th Century or poor old self-taught Abraham Lincoln wouldn't have gotten a look-in. And as for experience, what makes Bernie Sanders' experience as a Senator more of a qualification than Bush's experience as a state governor ? And if it is then would you also say that Bill Clinton was unqualified ?

This is an important question and not a easy one to answer otherwise people like Trump and GWB would not have made it through.

Here would be my suggested list of attributes that a candidate would have some combination of;

(1) Knowledge. I just do not see how you can deal adequately with the problems of today unless you have adequate knowledge of world history since Ancient Greece. Especially need to have thorough knowledge of what has happened in the past 100 years. Of course, one should be thoroughly conversant with the major events/turning points in US history. Some basic knowledge of economics.

(2) Demonstrated mastery in a significant profession/field. Business, law, medicine...something. A candidate should demonstrate that they have done something that takes intelligence, diligence, organizational skills, something indicating they have high-level skills translatable to being president.

(3) organizational skills.

(4) People skills/social intelligence

(5)charisma

(6) Political experience: governor, senator, etc.

(7) Oratory

(8) Problem-solving skills/analytical skills/high intelligence

(9) Temperament


This is kind of a mish-mash, I guess. But I want to see cues that some base-line skills are reflected in what a person has done with their life. I think high-level academic performance could give some sign that a person has the intelligence and knowledge base. I think a person's ability to make powerful, persuasive speeches is a good indicator of ability.

Bill Clinton hits most of the above requirements. For one thing, just making that climb from nothing to president indicates a massive amount of ability. Hillary has had a road much more paved. Lincoln lived in a different time but his intelligence stood out. In today's world he would have gone to the Ivy League. Also, his knowledge base in foreign policy was very thin--he relied on Seward--but it was also a lot simpler world.

Hillary definitely poor in some areas and a question mark in others. But I think she at least meets the minimum requirements (knowledge, intelligence, political experience). GW and Trump have charisma but I don't think in looking at the above suggested requirements that they were/are qualified (in the sense of the minimum we should demand from candidates) to be president.

Integrity?
Patriotism?

I don't have any doubt whatsoever as to whether Hillary and Trump are patriotic in the sense they want what's in the best interests of the US. Maybe you mean something else? As for integrity ("a man of honesty and moral uprightness")...think you are going to have go back to Abraham Lincoln to find a presidential example who really fits that description.

There's no compelling evidence that Hillary has the requisite historical knowledge. The mere fact that she has a law degree from a top university is not evidence of any broader understanding. Neither is there any evidence that she has organisational skills. Yes, she was SoS for 4 years, but she didn't exactly excel at the job and she got it based on who she was not her previous track record. Whether she has people skills is open to question too. She is reportedly very warm in private and well-liked by her staff, but we have no way of knowing how true that is and if so her people skills certainly don't extend into the public domain. So that's three of your nine criteria which are questionable.

Several of them can be outright dismissed in her case. She doesn't have charisma or impressive oratory or a demonstrated mastery of any profession. I don't think you could dispute that.

This leaves political experience, intelligence and temperament. I'm willing to grant her the latter given the many years of having to cope with enormous pressure. I'm also willing to accept that she's probably very intelligent, although there have plenty of other intelligent people who made crap politicians. She does also have experience I guess, but this is a double edged sword given that she has essentially no accomplishments to her name to show for it.

On balance, based on your own criteria, I don't think Hillary is any more qualified than Bush.

I believe she has a political science degree from Wellesley, a well-regarded women's liberal arts college. That is not conclusive evidence that she has the requisite historical knowledge but I would bet on it.

I don't really have a quibble with most of your points but I don't agree with the conclusion--that Hillary is no more qualified than Bush. GW could hardly speak. I am confident that Hillary would be able to have an intelligent conversation with you regarding the causes of WWI or on Middle Eastern history. I really doubt that GW or Trump could have such a conversation. Why America keeps getting drawn towards supporting rich, spoiled self-assured candidates with little substance is beyond me. We do seem to like our aristocrats, even though we don't call them that. There is a self-assured cockiness that comes from being born to privilege that is attractive to people for some reason.

It's quite interesting to apply this test to others. Let's take Obama.

Breadth of knowledge: No evidence for that. He may have it but he certainly hadn't demonstrated it when he was elected.

Mastery of a profession: Not unless you count 'community organising'.

Organisational skills: Again, no evidence for that.

People skills: Probably. There again his Presidency has been marked by something of a tin ear for social niceties and to some extent he does come over as a cold fish. Jury's out on this one.

Charisma: Certainly.

Political experience: Nothing much to speak of. A Senator with only two years experience and precious little before that.

Oratory: Of course.

Intelligence: Very well educated so we have to give him this one.

Temperament: In hindsight he's been fairly cool under pressure, but at the time he was elected we knew nothing about his temperament.

In other words, eight years ago the only criteria that Obama clearly demonstrated were charisma and oratory, with intelligence sort of inferred from his educational background. Would you say he was qualified to be President based on that ?

I don't disagree with any of the above analysis of Obama--it seems pretty much right on target to me. And I think lack of experience has hurt him at times. But we're never going to get a perfect candidate. Obama mostly rose to prominence based on his oratory and he did have the academic pedigree.

Two things I would add. First, I feel that then when you are talking about someone who rises from nothing like Obama there is almost a Darwinian selection process going on--it's hard to get that far in politics without having real ability. Secondly, I think oratorical ability is a sign of political talent. The ability to look at the world, analyze it, and interpret it in a manner that moves people requires a great deal of intelligence to be an effective political orator.You need to understood the culture, the concerns of people, history and then use words, sentence structure,and gestures, voice pitch, etc to tap into people's emotions. To me it is how similar to how really good comedians (who tend to be quite intelligent, I think) can analyze the world and find the humor in it. It's not an easy thing to do.

By the way, I think there is at least a little significance that Hillary's classmates thought she might be president one day. Of course that could just be retroactive bs, but if they believed that at the time then that would mean something, I think. For someone to stand out in college such that others would think they were presidential material says something.

Secondly, I think oratorical ability is a sign of political talent. The ability to look at the world, analyze it, and interpret it in a manner that moves people requires a great deal of intelligence to be an effective political orator.You need to understood the culture, the concerns of people, history and then use words, sentence structure,and gestures, voice pitch, etc to tap into people's emotions. To me it is how similar to how really good comedians (who tend to be quite intelligent, I think) can analyze the world and find the humor in it. It's not an easy thing to do.

He doesn't write his own speeches, you get that right ? No senior politician writes their own speeches, that's what specialist staff are for. Yes, Obama has an easy manner which translates well to set-piece speechmaking, but let's not make more of it than it is.

Oratory has its place, but personally I'm suspicious of it. Tony Blair was a fantastic speaker, Winston Churchill was a poor one (most of the witticisms you'll have seen attributed to Churchill were urban myths). Which of the two would you rather have as your leader ?

By the way, I think there is at least a little significance that Hillary's classmates thought she might be president one day. Of course that could just be retroactive bs, but if they believed that at the time then that would mean something, I think. For someone to stand out in college such that others would think they were presidential material says something.

When I was at school I was voted most likely to be Prime Minister one day. The reason was quite simple, I was pretty much the only person among my classmates with an interest in politics.