Nader's resume shows he is most qualified candidate

Editor,

In her letter to the editor, Lisa Ruby discourteously painted a picture of a person who does not do anything in the community in other ways to supplement a vote. Her letter offered a slew of extraneous suggestions of which I currently take into consideration in my daily activities. I, along with Lauri Castro, who also responded to Ruby on Sept. 17, appreciate Ruby's response.

However, I wanted to make a couple intellectual suggestions to Ruby, Castro, college students and Daily Lobo readers. Why don't we treat this election like a job interview, because essentially that's what it is. When you interview for a job, the hiring manager looks over your resume, asks you questions regarding your character, your past and your hopes and goals for the future. Your responsibility is to be honest. If you're qualified, you get hired because you have experience to handle the responsibilities. You don't get a job by making empty promises of how you hope to handle the job.

All candidates in this election are essentially being interviewed by Americans for the job as president based on the candidates' political campaigns, rhetoric and backgrounds, which serve as their resumes. Consequently, the next president is hired on Election Day. Ralph Nader is someone whose resume convinced me and all his supporters that he's qualified for the job. He earned his votes over many years of hard work. Unfortunately, most Americans base their vote on the flawed mentality of voting for whomever makes promises on how he hopes to handle the job, while at the same time having a good chance at winning.

Barack Obama and John McCain are basing their campaigns on making the other candidate look bad because they both don't have the glowing records to prove their qualifications for the job, or else they would boast those instead, and it would outshine the other. This election is sadly based on which team can smear the other team more. American people love it and eat it up, while not fully independently educating themselves on all presidential candidates and their backgrounds. This isn't supposed to be a superficial media-endorsed popularity contest. To be honest, I originally supported Obama. However, after turning off the news and doing a little independent research on all candidates, I made an educated decision.

Ralph Nader has earned his seat in the White House based on his extensive political resume and his plans for the future based on the policy adjustment that this great nation so desperately needs. If you believe that Nader's past accomplishments are worthy of praise, as Castro proclaims, why not believe what he will do in the future? As a former college student, I don't understand why Ralph Nader isn't more appealing to you, other students and hard workers alike. Nader supports the living wage, which is at least $10 an hour for all workers, a post-secondary education given at no cost to students and health care at no cost, among many other things. This is already being done overseas. If America is so great, ask yourself, why is it not happening here? I would rather exercise my right to vote for someone whom I believe will bring about real change based on his political past than vote for the lesser of two evils. Regardless of what people may say, a vote cast is never a vote wasted.

Lila Sanchez

UNM alumna