I have to continually remind myself of why I started posting to the Fray, particularly to War Stories. Political discussions here seem to be crap throwing fits which I hope to avoid. Here I find a means to explore war and our nations use of it, hopefully in an aggressive and progressive way, which isn't always an accessible topic to those who wear the uniform, at least in public. Generally, I've been disappointed by the discussion here, and seem to reside myself to giving insight
or correcting people who try to judge the book from the cover.

For instance, academic performance accounts for around half of a midshipmen class standing. I've already described how I feel about the correlation between class rank and qualities desirable in a combat commander, or President.

Anyway, I completely disagree on your interpretation of McCain's class rank. Why?The Mission of the United States Naval Academy (McCains and my alma-mater) is to develop midshipmen morally, mentally, and physically and to imbue them highest ideals of duty, honor, and loyalty in order to provide graduates who are dedicated to career of naval service, and have potential, in mind and character, to assume the highest responsibilities of command, citizenship, and government. We even had a lecture on this mission statement given by our school's Dean (a retired one-star), in which he claimed (and correctly so) that the three most important words are "to provide graduates." McCain graduated (but wait, there's more) and went on to have a career, reach 0-6, and then continued in public service.

Allowing McCain into and to graduate from Annapolis turned out to be a resounding fulfillment of USNA's mission. He was not a poor choice by any means.

Furthermore, I don't see how you could claim that someone who barely graduates isn't qualified. Graduating is the validation of qualification, regardless of the class rank.