I Didn't Go to Yale, Either

I fully understand the rhetorical reasons for this kind of thing, but I tire of it nonetheless: Clark Contrasts Humble Roots With Rivals.

Why does the fact that Kerry, Dean and Lieberman went to Yale somehow mean that they are less qualified to be President than Clark? (and it ain't like West Point takes all applicants). I know the idea that one has humble beginnings is appealling to many voters, but it strikes me as irrelevant versus the broader issue of who one is now and what policies one supports.

And the reason that the following is true is because he's never run for office before, let alone held one:

"I'm an outsider. I'm not part of the problem in Washington. I've never taken money from a lobbyist. I've never cut a deal for votes," he said.

And I am not sure this is really a stellar endorsement:

"The Europeans know who I am and respect me,"