Steve's point about value of education (or worldly experience) as it pertains to the ability to participate in government (elected or otherwise) is a salient one.  I don't happen to think that in order to hold elected office one needs to be a Rhodes scholar or to have gone to an Ivy League institution and hold multiple degrees.  I do think, however, questions of practical experience are fair and being well travelled or well educated should count for something.  Whether it should be a determinative factor in selecting a candidate is up to the individual voter, but I don't think it should be discounted out of hand (and I don't think Steve was saying that it should, I am just riffing here).  Ultimately its the one who the voter believes can best do the job, regardless of qualifications, that matters. 

How this ties into the earlier posts pertaining to lawyer jokes or the derisive term "ambulance chaser" is that such jokes and terminology evidence the other side of this particular coin.  There is a disturbing trend in American Politics (and I'd ask our Canadian friends if this has taken root in Canada as well) to minimize or dismiss intellectualism or learned professions.  The way people dismiss things or groups is to use derisive terms or jokes.  It is an intentional act meant to minimize the person or group, to disrepect them.  Its why jokes about lawyers tend to be about their ethics or earnings, when in truth attorneys have stringent codes of professional ethics and are required to report each other if they believe that there have been intentional misrepresentations of truth to the court.  To be a lawyer (generally speaking) one must graduate from an accredited college and then attend and graduate an accredited law school and then take a bar exam to practice.  Once in practice to maintain his or her license most states require continuing education.  Being a lawyer, including a personal injury lawyer, is a learned profession. 

I do think sometimes dismissal of intellectualism is deserved as some intellectuals can be condescending and dismissive of the working class and I believe you  reap what you sow --- but a great deal of the trend against intellectualism is an excericed use of the politics of distraction.  Use someone's academic accomplishments to make them seem elite and, by extension, out of touch with "regular people."*   The idea, for example, that George W. Bush is "like" a working class guy is patently absurd.  He is scion of political Royalty.  His grandfather was a United States Senator from Connecticut.  He is related to Franklin Pierce through his mother.  He was provided every advantage, attended the finest schools in the nation, and has never wondered how he'd pay for anything (as evidenced by his presidency).  Yet he was sold as "regular guy" and people bought it!  I am still stunned by that. 

Before losing to Senator Obama, Senator Clinton had people believeing she was a regular working class girl!  And people bought it, believing she knew more about middle class (and poorer) concerns than Senator Obama.  All of this is, in reality, is a distraction to make these elected officials more relateable.  But its all a snowjob.

Taking this out of the political realm though, what happens to us as a nation when we devalue or dismiss being well educated?  Are we teaching our children to strive?  Are we teaching our children that they can do anything, be anything or accomplish anything or are we teaching them that such accomplishments are for other people?  Shouldn't a working class person tell their children to look to Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, Senator Obama, Senator Biden and, yes, Governor Palin and recognize that these people all reached the heights of american poltical life through hard work and education?  I know most working class people want those things for their kids, they want their kids to succeed, but what message are we sending to those kids when our politicians and media send the message that being well educated, being erudite, striving to be among the elite in your profession makes one "out of touch" with regular people?  At best its a mixed message, at worst its message intended to crush such dreams for political expediency.

So I quite agree with Steve that not having attended University or having been a wrold traveller should act as a impediement to public service.  But neither should being well educated.

*From what Steve wrote his parents are far from regular people.  They are exceptional people. 

There is a disturbing trend in American Politics to minimize or dismiss intellectualism or learned professions.

I highly recommend Susan Jacoby's "The Age of American Unreason" -- one of the best books I've read lately about exactly this point.  Not just in politics, but how America in general shun intellectuals. 

Don't worry -- it's easy for "regular folks" to read, too!

My question wasn't that one teacher was better at teaching and one was more educated. My question was , you had two equal in quality, except for education. One had more, which would you pick?

My sister is a teacher and I was an art education major until my senior year when I found out I had cancer. So I have nothing but respect for GREAT teachers.

Geoff and Robin expressed what I was getting at, in a far better way, well done both of you.

Edited to add

Scott answered: That's easy.  The one with the bigger breasts.

Okay.  Old joke.

That was funny Scott

Scott also wrote:

Based on all the rumors that Biden will have a "health crisis" right after the VP debates and step down so Clinton can fill the void and miss the VP debate, it wouldn't be a surprise at all

I think Hillary would be chomping at the bit to debate Palin. If they are going to bring her in , and that is a big "I don't think will happen" if, it would be before the debate.

Tom that book look really good , I just ordered it, thanks for the heads up.

Scott I feel the same, I think Biden has a tough job ahead of him. The type of debate they have agreed too will help Palin.

I am sad there will be no Hillary/Palin debate, thinking about it I just keep seeing a blow up pool of jello in there somewhere. With  Hillary's cankles covered in jello, just not a pretty thought. LOL .

It really depends on the moderator and the forum of the debate. These dates there are no true DEBATES. They are more organized press conferences with talking heads asking questions of the candidates... and them just saying MORE of what we have heard them say before. Frankly, these so called debates leave more room for Biden to reel it in. He could blow it only by going all Al Gore, and rolling eyes, sighing impatiently, etc...

I would prefer to see true debates. With the candidates going at each other, and the moderator...moderating.

No two modern day politicians will ever agree to that. OR I would like a DEATH MATCH!!!

Howard