And Sarah Palin is simply clueless

Even more clueless than John McCain when it comes to the economy.

Comments

[Craig]

Unfortunately, the fact that Sarah Palin appears to be clueless only means that the average American voter can identify with her.

According to 2006 polls, only 40 percent of Americans know we have three branches of government and can name them and 60 percent of young people (aged 18 to 24) cannot find Iraq on a map. And even after the 9/11 Commission reported that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, half of all American still insisted he did.

Unfortunately, to win, Obama needs to dumb down, not smart up.

[Harry Kershner]

Craig: The problem with America is not that 60% of young adults can't find Iraq on a map. It's that those with elite educations have driven us off a cliff. Policy would be better if we made it democratically, including by those ignorant youth.

[trueblue]

Right on Harry. What is the deal with the endless supply of Ivy League "leaders." Good god, do the American people really think we need to be governed by the Ivy League aristocracy? The democrat party is worse than the republican party on this.

[Craig]

Historians and social critics have long noted that a recurring theme in American politics is anti-intellectualism. Harry, trueblue, thanks for reminding us.

By the way, Harry, the U.S. form of government is not direct democracy; rather, it is "representative democracy." That means that most policy decisions are not made by popular referendum; it means we elect people to make policy, like it or not.

As for the Ivy-league bashing, trueblue (I'm not a product, so I'm not being defensive), would you tar with the same brush Bush I, Bush II, Gerald Ford, JFK and Clinton? All were Ivy League graduates.

[trueblue]

You've misread my post Craig. I wasn't tarring with any brush. I am asking the valid question why people buy into the Ivy League aristocracy such that a disproportionate number are presidents and presidential candidates. And, as a democrat, I commented that democrats, ironically, play into this eltism even more than the republicans. When you equate Ivy League schools to "anti-intellectualism" you play into this elitism. I don't view my comment as at all anti-intellectual insofar as I know that Ivy League schools have no monopoly on intellectualism--for good or ill. As to Bushes I and II, their records have tarred their feathers, not their alma maters or certainly anything I could say about them. In sum, it seems you have misinterpreted my comment.