what is the basis for your statement?

Really?

Clinton's role on the Arkansas Education Association was to increase the upper-level math available, as well as science and participation.  Arkansas high-school students (9-12) have increased from 1992-Now;going from 36% to 50%, taking at least one upper-level math class.

9-12 graders have gone from 19%-28% in taking at least one science class.

8th graders have gone from 3% in '92 to 16% now, and along with many more increases, I don't see how you can say there has been no improvement.  Take a look, starting on pg. 5.

http://measuringup.highereducation.org/_ docs/2006/statereports/AR06.pdf

Of course there were...but at least he had EXPERIENCE as a Govenor....what has obama accomplished?

Everyone is buying into this complete mischaracterization of what Geraldine Ferraro said. Her words were taken completely out of context and distorted beyond belief for the express purpose of scoring some of the ugliest political points I have ever witnessed.

Geraldine Ferraro has been a fighter for everyone's civil rights throughout her long career of public service. From her long historical perspective she was making a profoundly positive point about Barack Obama's candidacy, saying it is historic, and has only been possible because of the culmination of the work, dreams, and sacrifice of the civil rights movement, the maturation of our society, and most importantly, a never before seen consolidation of support and mobilization of the black community. Her point was that is would not have been possible before, and is only possible now because of those history making efforts for social change, that make a presidential candidacy by a black man viable in a way that has never occurred before. She wasn't speaking at all to his qualifications, whether he "deserves" to be elected or not, her statements referred only to the fact of the new "readiness" of our society to consider and support a black candidate for the highest office in the land.

Her perspective is that the social movement toward the Obama candidacy is the important factor in making what would have been unfeasible not long ago a political reality. She was lauding the black community for the strong upsurge in activism and organization, which has never before been seen to happen on this scale. She was giving credit where it is due. It was a huge compliment from a civil rights and feminist icon, and she was stabbed in the back for it, for political purposes.

She is saying in essense that no matter how remarkable Obama is, or what his qualifications are, that nothing could have come of his campaign had these trends not been coming to fruition - the timing was right. Barack Obama stands on the shoulders of all those who have come before, fighting to end the racism and injustice. Ferraro was giving credit to those greater social forces at work, not attributing his rise to "affirmative action" or any other crap like that. That kind of racist BS had nothing to do with what she was discussing. Why anyone would want to distort and mischaracterize her remarks by taking them out of context and attributing racist connotations to them is unnervingly corrupt and politically ruthless.

I do think she is right, and additionally I do believe that if Obama were a woman of any color he would not be in the same position with his very short, limited experience as a public servant. That is MY belief, not what Geraldine Ferraro was saying, to be clear.

Young people may want to take complete credit for Obama's success and believe it is his uniqueness and gifts that make his candidacy possible, but we who have been around much longer know that Zeus did not jump fully formed from the forehead of Athena, his candidacy is a product of many people, included among them, Geraldine Ferraro. There have been countless profoundly gifted and brilliant black people who have come and gone and never come near to running for the presidency, no matter their unique talents. When you stand on people's shoulders, many of whom are long gone, having paid the supreme price for their activism, it would behoove you not to defecate in their faces.

Nothing against this diarist for the discussion of presidential candidacy qualifications, but that is a completely different discussion than what Geraldine Ferraro was talking about. I just want to set the record straight.

I'm only using recent history as a comparison....not all 200 + years.....in RECENT history he would be THE WEAKEST on EXPERIENCE....

But of course, lincoln actually did stuff that was significant before he became president. The same cannot be said of Obama. Lincoln argued cases in front of the state Supreme Court and won. He innovated defense manuevers, He helped create the Republican party. he took a public stand against slavery. Lincoln did stuff. He was important. He came from an underprivileged family and was self=made. And lastly, Lincoln kicked major ass in debates. Obama stutters, stammers and says virtually nothing. Without a written speech and a teleprompter, he looks way too much like the comedian on SNL.

Obama is the son of a Harvard graduate, a Harvard graduate in his own right who is married to a Harvard graduate - and he has done nothing with all that. he hasn't taken any risky stands. He hasn't argued any important cases in front of any courts and won, or written any papers that are among the most frequently cited.

He's a very privileged guy who went to work for a real estate law firm and worked part time in the Illinois state senate. That's it. The only thing that he has in common with Lincoln is that they've both lived in Illinois.

And Lincoln had military experience. Back then virtually nobody had college degrees either. And the lifespan was much shorter, etc.. But if Obama thinks it is wise to claim he is another Lincoln let him.

I guess you could compare Obama to Alexander the Great and King Tut. They commended great empires at a younger age. But that would be ridiculous.

But since Obama seems determined to start a civil war in the Democratic party I guess the comparison to Lincoln does have some merits.

If Obama fits the Lincoln mold, then he ought to accept HRC's invitation to join her at town hall forums, where they would directly engage the electorate, and compare/contrast their respective plans for the future of our country.

Lincoln and his opponent had seven of these town forum type debates.  

Why won't Obama follow Lincoln's example, and take Hillary up on her offer?  What is he afraid of?

While I disagree with most of what you say, strongly even, I still give you credit for denouncing and rejecting Ferraro's ill-informed words.

oh, and one more thing, Geraldine Ferraro was wrong.

Bottom line: Obama has more legislative experience than Hillary. And no, her years as first lady don't count. As one of the Texas papers said, proximity to power is not the same thing as experience.

The Illinois senate is a part time job. It's not comparable. And yes, Hillary's experience as a dominant policy force in the White House counts - just as it would if she was a guy who was on staff. Hillary was part of the administration by every account, both positive and negative. And we saw it first hand, of course.

I don't know where people get this delusion that Hillary wasn't up there heavily engaged and working for the administration. It's so weird. It involved forgetting everything we knew about Clinton.

But I think the message is that John Edwards lost. And John Edwards once again was a"right time, right place" candidate or in Ferraro's word's "lucky". If he was so great why didn't he get any traction this time around when his resume included former VP candidate?

And the list the poster compiled is what it takes to be a WINNER in American politics. We are nominating a candidate to WIN the presidency.

Personally I think either of our candidates has a uphill battle in the general election. I'm not a pessimist about it, but a realist. The balance is that the Republicans have put up a tough sell candidate as well.

Last election there was a formula circulating around that has accurately predicted the winner of every presidential election for the past hundred years and it accurately predicted Bush. In it a "first time" candidate in almost any category is a huge negative. CEO-level executive experience, like generals, governors, even university president (Wilson), is  a huge plus. Luckily McCain's executive experience is at junior officer level. I'll try to find that formula and see how it predicts this years candidates.

Woodrow Wilson:

1885: Publishes "Congressional Government: A Study in American Politics."

1886: Ph.D History & Political Science, Johns Hopkins University

1889: Publishes "The State: Elements of Historical and Practical Politics."

1893: Publishes a partial history of the United States, "Division and Reunion, 1829-1889."

1902: Publishes the five-volume "A History of the American People."

1890-1910: Professor at Princeton University. (Wilson "quickly became the most popular and highest-paid faculty member.")

1908: Publishes "Constitutional Government in the United States."

1902-1910: President of Princeton University. ("Wilson upgraded the university both financially and intellectually, and he attempted far-reaching reforms of both undergraduate and graduate education.")

1910-1913: Governor of New Jersey. (Wilson "won the governorship with a dynamic, progressive campaign. Once in office he put his earlier ideas about parliamentary practices to work in implementing a sweeping reform program that gave him a national reputation and made him a contender for the Democratic presidential nomination.")

Quotes are from "Woodrow Wilson." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2008. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 13 Mar. 2008

http://www.britannica.com/bps/topic/6447 66/Woodrow-Wilson

And for the sake of argument, let us say she was. Isnt she then violating the spirit of the two term policy by going for third and fourth terms for their copresidency?