Who is best qualified? Bear in mind their campaigns are the largest (money, people, nationwide scope) project that either of them has been personally responsible for.  Consider the evidence supplied by the two campaigns:

Clinton's Foreign Experience. This is actually because I would like to know.

I don’t know how the "conversation" is going to go through November about what makes anyone qualified to be Commander-in-Chief. Some emphasize military experience. Maybe if George W. Bush had had combat experience, he would have sided with his generals more than the civilians who were sold on their fantasy of easily "liberating" Iraq. Then again there are lessons from before this decade that judgment is even more important than experience.

Ok, the new false meme out there, put out by Clinton supporters or Obama detractors, is that people voting for Obama are doing so with their heart and not their head, or that they are emotional, or that they are 'cultists'.

It's absurd on the face of it and an insult to 90% of us who are  voting for him for very calculated, thoughtful and rational reasons (and yes, he inspires too).

So, lets change the frame.

With the not surprising revelation that members of Congress do not know the difference between Shia and Sunni Muslims - How many years into the mess we call Iraq, nevermind our involvement in Afghanistan dating back to the Soviet "intervention" and OUR involvement in Iran eg the Shah..... - perhaps we should require that those elected to National Office need to pass a minimal "test."

Is it too much to ask that officials running for important offices have some knowledge of current events, a reasonable knowledge of history and some awareness of business and (horrors) science.  

Instead we seem to elect a preponderance of lawyers - who are good at arguing and twisting language but little else.

more.........