There are many things wrongs with using a single category as a decisional tool for a job so complicated as the presidency. Surely one’s experience, character, judgment displayed in the past, leadership qualities, legislative accomplishment, patriotism, etc., should be considered.

Paper accomplishment has its limits. After all, Ted Kaczynski attended Harvard and earned a Ph.D. in mathematics from Michigan – but he was a destructive individual. Bill Gates, famous as an innovator and now a humanitarian, was in college only briefly. And many of us have had college professors who we would not entrust with picking up our newspaper from the driveway while we were away on vacation.

But let’s look anyway at the single variable of educational pedigree as a predictor of presidential performance. (Aside: McCain’s defenders may point out that McCain’s father and grandfather made four star admiral, though they were very poor Naval Academy students.)

Who were the great presidents and who were the failures? Numerous polls of historians show a fair consensus, with some large deviations for recent presidents, as might be expected. I chose the most recent polls listed at Wikipedia’s Historical Rankings of U.S. Presidents, which have the advantage of the most coverage, but I looked at other listed polls when recent polls showed wide variation. I am not making a statistical comparison; changing standards of education over time make that a questionable task (as education has become more formalized over time). And to keep this at readable length, I have omitted many qualifications on my analysis. So here goes –

Among the top ten presidents, Lincoln’s formal education consisted of about 18 months of schooling; he was largely self-educated. Washington may have attended a school near his home for the first few years. He was not taught Latin or Greek, as was common among the “educated” of the time, and never learned a foreign language. Nor did he attend college (Harvard, WM. & Mary, Yale and Princeton were available). His formal education ended around the age of 15.

Getting to the modern era, where paper degrees supposedly are a surrogate for intelligence, Truman (whose standing has risen to #7 in the polls) did not earn a college degree. Reagan (whose ranking, controversially, varies from 6 to 16) graduated from an institution of little note — Eureka College.

Eisenhower, now consistently ranked in the top ten, finished in the upper half of his class at the Military Academy, but was routinely criticized during the 1950’s as being not intellectual or well read.

On the other hand, the two Roosevelts, members of the highest echelons of America’s upper class, were very well educated. Wilson was perhaps the best educated president, and often ranks in the top ten, but his star is diminishing as historians place his imperialist foreign policy, his racism (he reinstituted segregation into the federal government) and sexism (he tried to have a leading suffragette committed to an insane asylum, and countenanced the brutal beating and prison torture of suffragette demonstrators), and his odious personal beliefs (e.g., he was a eugenicist) into modern perspective. Grover Cleveland, whose rankings vary from 8th to 20th, did not attend college.

Middling presidents (those ranking in the 20’s) include Hayes, who was first in his class at Kenyon College and who completed Harvard Law in two years. He is right now our only Harvard Law School graduate.

Bill Clinton (underrated in the polls, IMHO) went to Georgetown’s elite Foreign Service School, where he was Phi Beta Kappa. He studied at Oxford under a Rhodes Scholarship, and graduated from Yale Law School.

Taft (20th) graduated second from his Yale class, then got a law degree from Cincinnati. John Q. Adams (25th) went to Harvard. So, the middle of the pack has a number of well educated persons. (The famously well-read and educated John Kennedy with time has seen his rankings drop, to between 14 and 18.)

Now the fun part — the bottom of the rankings, and bowing to current popular opinion, let us start off by noting that though a mediocre student, George W. Bush attended Phillips Academy, Yale University, and has an MBA from Harvard. A perennial in the loser category, James Buchanan (ranked 40th), graduated from Dickinson College with honors, then studied law. Franklin Pierce (38th) finished third in his class at Bowdoin, then attended an unnamed law school.

Andrew Johnson (37th) was self-taught, a point for the degree=excellence school, but John Tyler (35th) graduated from the prestigious Wm. & Mary, then read for the law.

Jimmy Carter (34th) attended Georgia Tech before receiving an appointment to the United States Naval Academy where he received a physics degree in 1946. Carter finished a high 59th out of his Academy class of 820. Richard Nixon (32nd) was a Duke Law School graduate.

Hoover (31st) had a geology degree from Stanford, later becoming a mining engineer. Gerald Ford (28th) had a University of Michigan degree in political science and economics; at Yale Law he graduated in the top 25 percent of his class.

Again, this is a simplified analysis, but the proposition that academic achievement equates with expected presidential performance is so demonstrably false that a more rigorous analysis is unnecessary.

As Mark Twain said – “Never let formal education get in the way of your learning.”

Obama’s Speechwriter: A Baby Faced, 26-Year-Old White Guy 

So, Obama is really, really successful at reading a teleprompter, and delivering someone else’s words. A puppet, you might say. 

Then we learned that Obama was regurgitating words originally given by his friend Patrick Deval. Not once, but many times. 

And we not only learned about *borrowed* speeches but also borrowed phrases. 

“Sí Se Puede” or “yes we can” is from the United Farm Workers. 

 “Together we can” was the campaign slogan of Deval Patrick in 2006

“Fired Up! Ready to Go!” is from the NAACP in South Carolina, used by Jondelle Harris Johnson in the Civil Rights marches. 

“We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.” is a Hopi Indian saying, used by Alice Walker as the title of her book.

But now we learn that not only is Obama a puppet when it comes to giving speeches, but his foreign policy isn’t his either. I knew he had very little foreign policy experience, if any, but doesn’t he have to do anything?? A cast of 300 prepare him daily? Who are these people that are affecting our foreign policy? Shouldn’t they be running for office, or at least vetted, since they are doing all the work? 

A Cast of 300 Advises Obama on Foreign PolicyEvery day around 8 a.m., foreign policy aides at Senator Barack Obama’s Chicago campaign headquarters send him two e-mails: a briefing on major world developments over the previous 24 hours and a set of questions, accompanied by suggested answers, that the candidate is likely to be asked about international relations during the day.One recent Q. & A. asked, for example, whether Mr. Obama supported the decision by Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, to include a timetable for American troop withdrawal in any new security agreements with the United States. The answer, provided to Mr. Obama with bullet points, was yes — or “a genuine opportunity,” as he put it in a speech on Iraq this week. Behind the e-mail messages is a tight-knit group of aides supported by a huge 300-person foreign policy campaign bureaucracy, organized like a mini State Department, to assist a candidate whose limited national security experience remains a concern to many voters.   

I do take some comfort in knowing that many are from the Clinton White House and from Hillary’s staff. (funny how Obama always wanted to distance himself from the politics of the past, and from the Clinton’s, but he always surrounds himself with people from the Clintons years.) 

I know all candidates, and all Presidents have advisors. I know they all have speech writers. But, if you take away Obama’s great speeches, and you take away his foreign policy advisors, what is left? Seriously. He has not accomplished anything. Nada. Zilch. And the LITTLE that he does do, now, (give speeches or comment on foreign policy) is totally scripted and provided by someone else. And when he speaks to groups like African Americans about taking responsibility, he is threatened with castration. And when he has taken a firm stance on an issue, he completely FLIPS and FLOPS on them - FISA, NAFTA, the surge in Iraq, campaign finance, guns, abortion… 

Well, I think we have a pretty good idea of what happens when Obama is left to his own devices. Here are some new ones: 

“Great” Moments in Presidential Speeches: Obama

Another Barack Obama Gaffe: A Civilian Army? (what is that all about??)

The Real Barack Obama, The Flip Flop Kid

The Obama Iraq Documentary: Whatever the Politics Demand

Barack Obama “Uh” Count 

And of course, the classics:

Obama VS. Robert Gibbs on the surge

Obama on Iran

 The Game of Expedience

Obama Just words - just speeches - just think

Obama on Lobbiest bill

Obama on the Race Card

Obama Claims He’s Visited 57 States

Obama on his dad and the flag?

Barack Obama Sees Dead People

Obama’s Memorial Day Gaffe

Obama in Sunrise 

Obama rally in Sioux Falls

Obama on Rezko

Obama Gets Afghanistan Language Wrong 

So, again I ask, is he just a puppet? A flip flopping, do nothing, know nothing, present voting, change jobs every two years, never having accomplished anything, hangs out with bigots, racists, and terrorists, gaffe machine, judgment lacking, slumlord buddy, vain, pandering puppet. 

What does he stand for, really? We thought he was very left. But now he is moving further and further to the right. We can’t look at his voting history, because it is very un-telling (130 present votes on tough issues- intentional, me thinks) We can’t look at his resume because it is very, very short - he has spent more time campaigning then serving in the Senate (146 days). And his state senate job was part time, meeting 55 days a year.  

Hell, we can’t even look at his birth certificate to know if he is who he says he is! We can’t even look to his books for information, because they are full of mistruths, and fictitious characters and situations.

I can’t figure out if he is super calculating and dangerous, or a puppet.  

But, who is controlling his strings? 

Published at American PUMA in Italy. 

Senator Barack Obama stirred his legions of supporters, and raised our hopes, promising to change the old order of things. He spoke with passion about breaking out of the partisan mold of bickering and catering to special pleaders, promised to end President Bush’s abuses of power and subverting of the Constitution and disowned the big-money power brokers who have corrupted Washington politics.

Now there seems to be a new Barack Obama on the hustings. First, he broke his promise to try to keep both major parties within public-financing limits for the general election. His team explained that, saying he had a grass-roots-based model and that while he was forgoing public money, he also was eschewing gold-plated fund-raisers. These days he’s on a high-roller hunt.

The privileged Penny Pritzker threw grassroots donors under the bus:

Even his own chief money collector, Penny Pritzker, suggests that the magic of $20 donations from the Web was less a matter of principle than of scheduling. “We have not been able to have much of the senator’s time during the primaries, so we have had to rely more on the Internet,” she explained as she and her team busily scheduled more than a dozen big-ticket events over the next few weeks at which the target price for quality time with the candidate is more than $30,000 per person.

The editors naively think that this is a “new” Barack Obama? Uh, no. That’s the real Barack Obama.

If only the New York Times and other MSM had paid any attention to Tom Buffenbarger, president of the machinists’ union, when he described the REAL Barack Obama:

Read all about what Tom Buffenbarger saw in how the REAL Barack Obama operates (includes stories from Chicago newspapers).

Here are more broken promises that today’s Times editorial lists:

• “The new Barack Obama has abandoned his vow to filibuster an electronic wiretapping bill if it includes an immunity clause for telecommunications companies that amounts to a sanctioned cover-up of Mr. Bush’s unlawful eavesdropping after 9/11. …” [...]
• “The Barack Obama of the primary season used to brag that he would stand before interest groups and tell them tough truths. The new Mr. Obama tells evangelical Christians that he wants to expand President Bush’s policy of funneling public money for social spending to religious-based organizations — a policy that violates the separation of church and state and turns a government function into a charitable donation. …”
• “On top of these perplexing shifts in position, we find ourselves disagreeing powerfully with Mr. Obama on two other issues: the death penalty and gun control.”

The editorial closes with these two paragraphs:

We are not shocked when a candidate moves to the center for the general election. But Mr. Obama’s shifts are striking because he was the candidate who proposed to change the face of politics, the man of passionate convictions who did not play old political games.

There are still vital differences between Mr. Obama and Senator John McCain on issues like the war in Iraq, taxes, health care and Supreme Court nominations. We don’t want any “redefining” on these big questions. This country needs change it can believe in.

Look. The only “change” anyone can believe that Barack Obama will act on is any finger-to-the-wind “change” that helps him achieve his SOLE goal: Winning.

He is not abandoning his principles because he doesn’t have any that he holds dear.

He is not shifting his policies because he is not the policy wonk that Hillary Clinton is, and frankly doesn’t care that much about any policy.

Ambition is a vital trait in a political candidate. Ambition helps a candidate keep going when the going gets tough.

But ambition for the sake of ambition — for the sole objective of winning — is extremely dangerous. It suggests a personality that is wholly self-absorbed and only feigns caring and concern for others.

Hillary Clinton is ambitious. But she also cares deeply about enacting policies dear to her, and has a long track record of actually accomplishing great legislation and programs — particularly for children. Which is why, in my story yesterday morning, “Obama and the hoi aristoi,” I linked to the remarkable essays by Alegre and MarkJay:

“She Changes People’s Lives,” by Alegre

“Four Reasons, By a Father I’ve Come to Know,” by MarkJay

:::::::::::

On February 20, 2008, we posted this YouTube as a warning. If only more people had heeded our warnings — but there was too much of a cult-like adoration of Obama for people to use their common sense, and also do some “due diligence” on this politician:

There’s still time to make this right. Before it’s too late. And the Democrats nominate an ill-qualified, inexperienced shape-shifter as its candidate, and thereby enable the election of John McCain.

There’s still time to nominate Hillary Clinton, who has already WON the key swing states and has already WON the hearts and brains of voters — particularly blue-collar workers who see through charlatans and who KNOW that delivering on promises matters more than speeches.

Barack Obama has made recent claims indicating pay equity for women would be a top priority if he were elected President. Sounds great. In fact, it might compel some to seriously consider his candidacy.

Don’t be fooled. What we’ve seen of Mr. Obama is a candidacy based on opportunism. Whenever convenient, he will use his prose to proclaim lofty ideals, ideals that many want so badly to believe in, ideals so many want to become realities.

Mr. Obama is all talk. How do we really know if his lofty ideals will translate into actual policy? We certainly can not point to his legislative accomplishments. There are too few. He may have been present but what the hell does that mean - nothing in the context of policy.

Anyone can advocate anything. A true leader turns advocacy into bona-fide action. We’ve not seen this from Mr. Obama. We have seen, unfortunately, reversals and inconsistencies.

Actions

While Mr. Obama may be an advocate for pay equity, analysis of his Senate staff leaves one to wonder. We know the reports that show women on his staff earn roughly $6,000 less than males on staff. But, here is further information:

• Of five staffers that earned more than $100,000 only one was a women
• Of staffers earning more than $23,000/year, 33 were men while 31 were women and the pay difference between them was >$10,000

Comparatively speaking, Senator Hillary Clinton’s Senate staff is comprised more than 2 to 1 women to men. And, the pay is nearly equal. In fact, nearly 70% of Clinton’s staff are women.

Did You Know?

Senator John McCain’s Senate staff, comprised of 69 individuals as of October, 2007 which also includes interns, MORE than half were women. Excluding the 23 interns, the 30 women on his staff earned an average of $59,100 compared to the $56,600 earned by the 16 men.

Remember, talk is cheap. Look for action, past and present. I own my vote.

Strangely, Obama has decided to come clean (almost) on this ad. He removed the reference to passing a law to extend health care to wounded veterans. You know, that inartful statement LIE that he told on his first ad because Obama didn’t even vote for the legislation. Whoops!

Ironically the title of this new ad is Dignity. I suppose that Obama finally coming clean after blatantly lying in his first general election ad is considered being dignified by the Obama folk. I think it would have been more appropriately titled: Fessing Up.

So we get to the meat of this ad and lo and behold what do we learn? The troubling fact that of all of the legislative accomplishments he claims, not a single one of them has occurred since he became a US Senator. Get that? He hasn’t accomplished a single thing of note since becoming a US Senator.

Not. A. Single. Thing.

I suppose he has been too busy running for president to have actually accomplished something. Of course Obama probably considers all those speeches he is giving as legislative accomplishments. On the other hand, not accomplishing anything leaves one devoid of any record that can be criticized. It allows Obama to take every side of an issue. A politico du jour, so to speak. And he has definitely accomplished that.

So let’s see just how “dignified” Obama’s new ad is. Shall we?

The ad touts his leadership when he passed a law that moved people from welfare to work. It goes on to state that his leadership slashed the welfare rolls by 80 percent. Now here is where the trouble starts. Barky took credit for enforcing a federal law that he admitted he wouldn’t have supported to begin with. His exact words were:

Illinois Senate Transcript

I probably would not have supported the federal legislation, because I think it has some problems. But I’m a strong believer in making lemonade out of lemons.

But sour puss Obama has no problem taking credit for something he claims to oppose. Hell, his new ad makes it seem like it was his idea to begin with. So much for dignity.

Obama also claims to have passed tax cuts for workers. Only trouble is that Obama was one of 43 co-sponsors of the legislation. And the record for Illinois Public Act 91-0700 contains no references to his active participation in either crafting the bill or arguing for it’s passage in any other way than voting for it. But geez he sure was Dignified actually taking the time out from his busy schedule to vote.

And just when you had lost hope that Obama had no real legislative achievements his new ad actually provides proof that he did something of value. In Illinois. During the 8 years he spent in the Illinois Senate. When he actually had the time to accomplish something. Because he wasn’t running for president. Yes, a single accomplishment. Woo Hoo!

Obama claims that he passed health care for kids and wouldn’t ya know it, he really did. He was the sponsor of Public Act 93-0063 and it really passed and it really did help children gain health care. And I commend him for doing this. It’s dignified and the right thing to do.

So kudos to you Senator Obama. I knew that if people dug deep enough they might find a single thing you actually did that actually helped anyone. Hell, Richard Nixon “passed” the EPA so I knew there was some good in you down deep somewhere. It took a lot of digging though.

Now you can brief your surrogates what to say the next time they are asked about your legislative achievements. Is that sweet or what? Just make sure that they give brief interviews.

But this begs the question Senator Obama. With of all the “accomplishments” you claim to have and all the superior judgment you claim to possess just why is it that you haven’t accomplished a single thing of note since becoming a US Senator?

Could it be that you haven’t been a US Senator long enough to actually do something. It took eight years to accomplish something in Illinois so maybe you are a slow achiever?

I’ll tell ya what. How about you spend 8 years in the US Senate? And maybe by then you will have actually accomplished something that is dignified. Really dignified. No questions asked dignified.

After that maybe we can talk.

But Until Then: What have you done for me lately?