Those were some really weak arguments.

Obama's foreign policy isn't very substantively different from Bush's or what McCain's would likely have been like. Yes, hes more diplomatic in terms of his rhetoric. That's a positive development but I don't think its enough in a time of intensifying tensions. Nor am I convinced that McCain would have simply been a "third Bush term" in this regard. Keep in mind that McCain was one of the most out-spoken critics of US torture (for obviously personal reasons) ... while Obama is still fighting to withhold some of the evidence of what the US did.

As you point out, the economy wasn't McCain's strong suit (to say the least). It isn't Obama's either, though. Lets face it, the financial structure in our country is so complex that no major politician is going to have the adequate knowledge to deal with it. We have what is essentially an army of finance-industry technocrats managing the recession under Obama and I think the same would have been true under McCain and ultimately their responses wouldn't have been very different at all. You correctly point out that some of the hypothetical economic-recovery scenarios are simply suppositions on your part.

You also neglected to mention another important issue: immigration reform. I think that issue might have gotten more focus under a McCain presidency and he would probably have had more political capital (being a Republican from AZ) to get it done than Obama does.

I can't really point to any major socially liberal advances that Obama has made. I highly doubt someone like Souter, who AFAIK does not have any pressing medical concerns, would have retired under a McCain term.

Anyway, I voted for Obama and didn't even consider voting for McCain. If things don't get better over the next 3 years I definitely will consider a third-party candidate or some kind of alternative, whatever the case may be.

Also, some of you are really un-realistic. McCain (or Palin) launching wars against North Korea, Iran, Russia, etc? First off, the US President isn't some kind of all-powerful autocrat. Secondly, as powerful as it may be, the US military does have physical limitations to its strength. There was significant opposition to the Iraq war all the way up to the Cabinet-level and intelligence communities 2002/03. Even if a Palin were to come to power and if she were actually so maniacally insane to want to launch those wars (which I more than doubt), the idea that such a proposal would gain any kind of traction whatsoever in the Federal govt. and among the military brass considering the present economic/military situation the US is mired in is pretty crazy in itself.

Count me as one of the "crazy" people who thinks that the two parties are very similar and increasingly so lately, and who is pretty tired of it and ready to consider an alternative.

"But as other Times readers have chimed in, poor and middle-class students at Ivys or professional schools can expect to walk away with $60,000, $110,000 or $160,00 in loans."

Actually, some of the more elite universities are becoming the cheapest to attend. At Harvard, if you come from a household that makes less than $60,000 a year then you don't pay anything. That means that over 60% of the households in the US qualify for completely free tuition. In response most of the Ivies and some of the near-Ivies have replaced loans with grants and work-study opportunities and I suspect that soon they will move further towards adopting Harvard's tuition structure. Considering how generous Ivy-league schools are with financial aid, I find it hard to believe that any poor or middle-class student would have to take out $60,000 in loans, let alone the more outrageous amounts. I suspect this may have something to do regional variations in income? I guess if you live in New York City and make $100,000 then you might consider yourself "middle-class" and you would probably have to either pay a decent amount or take out loans to attend such a school. However, that household is in the top 15% nationally in terms of household income and would be considered relatively wealthy in most parts of the country. I guess the educational system can't accommodate these extremes.

I agree that college isn't for everyone and receives an undue focus in our society. I particularly applaud the individual helping to open kids' eyes to the opportunities present in the trades. However, some of you give education a short-shrift as well. True, a humanities scholar will probably never use his particular informational knowledge in his future career, but various important skills are to be learned (research and analytical analysis for example) and being able to see your occupation or life in a greater context always has value. Ultimately, you'll get out of it what you put in. If you mess around and waste time, its nothing more than an extended and expensive vacation. If you work hard and take advantage of the

amazing resources, it'll change your life (for the better). In terms of being surrounded by bright and ambitious people and having access to unrivaled databases of knowledge, all in centralized facilities, there are few opportunities to live in such resource-rich environments in life. Its all what you make of it.

The article states that the average graduating debt is between 20,000 - 25,000$. In context, that's not a lot. That's less than what many cars on the road cost. An important part of this is what you do after college. How much debt did the author of this article find herself in and how little does Salon.com pay her? Is the journalism world really *that* bad that they're paying her peanuts?

mm1senior@gmail.com,

I can't tell if your post is a really bad and unfunny attempt at parodying liberals or if you are just really, really deluded...

You might as well say McCain rapes and murders children to round out your argument. I can only imagine what your opinion of Obama is?