Magna Cum Laude vs.Thank you Lawdy

A lot will be made this election cycle over McCain's years in public service versus Obama's. Hillary tried her best to breath life into the insinuation, "Look what putting inexperience in the White House has cost us the last 8 years."

Then today I get this e-mail:

"The academic records of the Presidential Candidates are clear:

Magna Cum Laude @ Harvard Univ Law School vs # 894 of 899 @ US Naval Academy.

Interesting facts, this is one of those situations where most right wing conservatives will ignore facts and just support McCain. If the shoe were on the other foot we all know they would be bashing Obama.

According to several sources (see link below) Senator John McCain graduated 894th out of 899 in his class at the U. S. Naval Academy in 1958, yet I've not seen this in ANY major media. I wonder if this would be the case if the roles were reversed and that unimpressive rank had been Senator Barack Obama's class ranking and Senator McCain had graduated MAGNA CUM LAUDE from Harvard Law School and been President of the Harvard Law Review--as did Senator Obama."

I think records are important and can't be ignored, but I wonder if we don't put too much emphasis on the past. Presidents have so many competent people around that, more often than not, it's not proven ability that matters as much as it is the direction and leadership. Bush has led us quite effectively (thanks to the competence of his camp) exactly where he wanted to. It's not where I want us to be, but he has no problems with it.

I would argue that the clearest indicators of Obama or McCain's future success in office is not their past, but their policy and vision of the present coupled with the nature and effectiveness of their current campaigns.