How can a magna *** laude Harvard Law School graduate be called a poor debater?

Because Obama actually takes a minute, assesses the question and speaks to the issue. This might involve some stammering.

The trend pols seem to have been taking recently is to memorize stock talking points and recite them regardless of the fact that they might not fully apply to the question at hand. Bush perfected this. During his campaign and debates he was praised as being "on message" which means he memorized what he had to say, and said it.

People can say what they want, what can you do? This hunting for every detail is totally ridiculous and, fortunately, only an American phenomenon. I mean, for example, where else in the world would a company that wants to be taken seriously censor the academic term "C-U-M Laude" because it resembles the scum-speech? It shows that they accept the dominance of said scum as a natural state and conform to such scum. So it is with the voters, too - they conform with the lowest common denominator, ever dimmer, ever sillier, ever more genocidal and of course ever more scared of the new - just look at this cow before me and her idea of "wit" - "If you want change, cash a dollar." (CASH a dollar? I guess it means something if you're an illiterate incubator.) Trivialize and humiliate any trace of reason. There goes all the answer you need.

Education cannot predict how well you will be able to speak publically, nor does intelligence. I am highly educated and have an IQ level which qualifies me for MENSA (although I never bothered to join). I also have a thing about spelling and grammar (comes with my field of study). However, I stutter quite a bit. Teleprompters don't help this (this is why I don't do karaoke either, lol). Slamming Obama for this may be funny for some folks, but I don't believe his public speaking faux pas has anything to do with his ability to be the leader of this country. His proposed policies, however, might. We need to stick with the issues and quit worrying about his supposed speech impediments.

I do not think he did graduate magna *** laude. Would you mind showing me where it says he did?

All I can find is: Columbia University in New York, graduating in 1983 with a degree in political science.

Unbelievable! Even with magna and Laude, the yahoo censor catches C U M thinking you meant the one that is pronounced like Come That is too funny. Except when you consider the fact that the average obama Voter has NO idea what the Latin version of "With great praise" means

Obama doesn't know the basic material well enough to expostulate and this is why he cannnot do w/o an earpiece and a teleprompter. Being a magna *** laude grad doesn't relate to common sense!

I've seen them both debate and Obama is better than McCain but niether candidate is really that good. I watched Obama quite a few times against hillary, and i thought he did well. McCain I have seen 3 times, and none of them impressed me - and in one Ron Paul made him look stupid. In McCain's defense, Ron Paul is probably the best debater on either side, but certainly Obama is better than Mccain

You question is a good one.

As we all know, there are many on YA and in America who don't have a clue about who these candidates are, and what they have achieved in life. Many simply turn on the tv, get the sound bites and 30 second coverage of an issue, and feel they know enough to try to speak like experts.

It does not seem like Obamas education is ever brought up, just his "lack of experience".

Because Obama has shown that he is a blithering idiot without a teleprompter. He must be an "affirmative action" honors graduate. He is an empty suit.

You confuse "education" with wisdom and whit and debate skills.

Listen up, McCain will beat him, just like Edwards and Clinton did.

He mumbles, he gets nervious, he needs a smoke and a woman to settle him down...

But since you are not an average American voter, you don't listen anyway, sooooo...