You need a scorecard to keep up with President Barack Obama’s plethora of priorities. On the domestic policy side, he has vowed to make sweeping changes in health care, energy and education.

An important subset of education—workforce training—tends to fly under the radar in Washington, but it will require more presidential and congressional leadership than it has received in a long time.

Obama appears set to provide guidance. On May 8, he announced that the Departments of Labor and Education would work with states and educational institutions to allow recently laid off workers to receive unemployment payments while they are enrolled in training programs and to have easier access to educational grants.

“The idea here is to fundamentally change our approach to unemployment in this country, so that it’s no longer just a time to look for a new job, but is also a time to prepare yourself for a better job,” Obama said.

Now Obama will have to follow through in an area that has languished from neglect in Washington.

The federal law that undergirds training programs, the Workforce Investment Act, has been up for renewal for nearly six years but has been stymied by a variety of policy and political issues. Congress is under way with another attempt.

Most experts and users of the system agree that it needs to be more flexible to respond to local labor market needs. Too many programs are run in silos and fail to communicate with one another.

Determining what kind of training is offered for what kind of jobs is a huge question that can elicit many different answers. The Obama administration wants to focus on so-called “green jobs.” The $787 billion stimulus package included $500 million for training in that area.

Republicans caution that federal training should be improved for all kinds of occupations and worry about artificial demand being created by government fiat.

Democrats also question whether job training priorities have been set correctly. Rep. David Obey, D-Wisconsin and chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, expressed concern at a May 12 hearing on the Department of Labor budget.

He noted that the stimulus bill included $250 million for training for health care industry jobs. But the administration’s budget request for the agency didn’t contain similar funding.

“If we’re serious about significant health care reform, we need to build the capacity of the system, and we’re falling short in this area,” Obey told Labor Secretary Hilda Solis.

The thousands of jobs that Dollar General Corp. will have to fill over the next couple years aren’t necessarily “green.” But they could offer a path out of the recession for thousands of workers—if they are qualified.

As Dollar General Stores become more automated in tracking and managing inventory, employees have to be more fluent with technology, according to David Bere, president and chief strategy officer.

They don’t have to have bachelor’s degrees, but they should have training beyond high school. “You need a higher skill set in our stores and distribution centers,” Bere said in an interview after a recent House hearing on the Workforce Investment Act.

Dollar General has long been an advocate of federal training programs. Bere urges other companies to join in the effort to reshape the system. 

“The business community has to step up,” Bere said. “Only by partnership is this going to get done.”

When it comes to job training, many constituencies want to see improvement. But it will take firm leadership from Obama and Congress to make sure that they work together to set priorities that make sense for workers and the economy.

One of the most disheartening aspects of politics today is the way that many officeholders (or aspirants for office) in both parties have demonized immigration—and by extension globalization.

There’s a strong bipartisan trend toward “securing the borders first.” The problem is that the conversation is not getting too far beyond that notion.

Yes, the United States is a nation based on the rule of law. We have to uphold our statutes, especially as they apply to citizenship. But rhetoric on Capitol Hill and the campaign trail makes it sound as if immigrants enervate our country rather than strengthen it.

During the past two weeks, the Olympics have shown why we should take deep pride in our country’s history of welcoming people from all over the world and making them part of the American fabric.

Like many of you, I have been captivated by the performances of Shawn Johnson and Nastia Liukin in women’s gymnastics. But the indelible Olympic moment for me was not one of Johnson’s powerful moves on the balance beam or her winsome good sportsmanship as she interacted with her opponents.

What stood out was the interview she conducted with Bob Costas on NBC after she captured the gold medal in the balance beam competition. She mentioned that she had to fight off an upset stomach and headache before the beam event, which was her last chance to grab the gold. She was exhausted from pushing herself to the limit up to that point.

Johnson credited her coach, Liang Chow, for helping her through the ordeal and inspiring her to give a championship effort. Liang was sitting next to Johnson on the couch in the TV studio. But at the moment, he was literally right at home. He grew up in Beijing.

Liang and Johnson met in West Des Moines, Iowa, when Johnson walked into his gymnastics club as a 6-year-old. Liang nurtured her talent and has helped Johnson become one of the best gymnasts in the world.

But one of the few places in the world where such an encounter could occur is in the United States. We are the country that uniquely welcomes people to come here and excel in their chosen field.

The U.S. gymnastics workforce has benefited greatly from our country’s open arms. Seated at the end of the couch during Johnson’s interview was Bela Karolyi, the former U.S. coach who guided Mary Lou Retton to her outstanding Olympic achievements in 1984.

Before coming to America and taking Retton to the top of the Olympic world, Karolyi coached the first “rock star” of women’s gymnastics—Nadia Comaneci, a gold medalist in 1976. Karolyi and Comaneci are both Romanian.

Karolyi defected to the United States in 1981. Now his wife, Martha, is the coordinator of USA Gymnastics. There was something deeply moving about Karolyi, in his thick Eastern European accent, extolling the virtues of U.S. gymnastics during the NBC interview.

It was a striking tableau—the humble Midwestern girl with the radiant smile, her low-key Chinese coach, and the boisterous Karolyi, who sounded like a Cold War throwback but was voicing strongly pro-American sentiments.

Later in the week, we were treated to another form of globalization, this time more subtle from the U.S. standpoint. In men’s track and field, several runners from foreign countries were attending college in the United States. After the Olympics, they would return to campus to run for their schools.

Even though they won gold, silver and bronze for their home countries, they have strong American ties thanks to studying here. Wherever they go next, they will take a little bit of the United States with them.

This is how the United States maintains its competitiveness. It adopts the best practices of the rest of the world and learns what others have to teach us. We also export the best of ourselves to the rest of the world, strengthening our influence.

In the end, we are stronger because of our global engagement. When it comes to the Olympics—and to business—it often means we defeat the rest of the world.

Speculation about vice presidential candidates for each party is reaching a fever pitch in Washington. Many observers think that one or both candidates will make a move before the Olympics begin Friday and suck the oxygen out of media coverage for the next two weeks.

I’m no political genius. I’m not even a political strategist, although that moniker is used so much around town that its value has diminished substantially.

So, the advice I’m about to offer Sen. John McCain about his running mate is not likely to be original. He has already thought of it, or his advisors have. But it is worth noting.

If McCain is going to choose a woman as vice president, he should definitely go with Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin instead of former Hewlett-Packard chief executive Carly Fiorina. The reason is simple: Palin is a politician.

Often, hotshot CEOs are celebrated as hard-charging, tough-minded leaders who know how to implement a vision and deliver sterling results for shareholders. Hosannas for Jack Welch are ringing in my ears now.

All of that is well and good. You would think many CEOs would have what it takes to whip government into shape and run the country efficiently, making decisions that improve the economy.

Perhaps they could bring those abilities to office. But they lack something critical in their background.

They have never run for office. They don’t know what it’s like to make themselves vulnerable to the whims of the electorate. They don’t know how to compromise with foes to accomplish goals—a common occurrence in political battles.

CEOs exist in a world where they call all the shots. Often, they select compliant boards that won’t stand up to the CEO unless some billionaire threatens to take over the company. Yes, shareholders can exact a steep price for failure. But CEOs don’t have to deal with them as individuals.

There are vast differences between the command-and-control corporate environment and the hurly-burly of politics, where the “board” (voters) determines your fate every two, four or six years.

Believe it or not, most politicians have to have humility as one of their character traits. Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of arrogant pols running around Washington. Humility may be buried under layers and layers of hubris.

But if you’re going to succeed here, you also need to be willing to prostrate yourself and raise money. A politician running for most offices has to spend countless hours at fundraisers (or on the phone) pitching himself or herself as a leader who can be trusted.

Then, when they’re in office, they have to deal with the public. Washington and state capitals are not hermetically sealed universes. Politicians must stay in tune with public sentiment and adjust to it. They also must have the ability to compromise when they see their original position is a loser.

These are skills that aren’t necessarily developed in a corner office. True, many businesspeople have succeeded in politics. But they have started somewhere lower in the food chain than on a national ticket—perhaps as a mayor or governor.

Leaving aside the individual merits and drawbacks of Palin and Fiorina, which could consume an entire blog posting, Palin is clearly the one who is best qualified to be vice president.

If you’ve never sought a vote from a fellow citizen, you have no business being a heartbeat away from the Oval Office.

Last fall, I had the privilege of visiting Ukraine when the country was holding its parliamentary elections. The colorful campaigns—and a general lack of faith among the middle-class Ukrainians I met that the process would improve their lives—offered special insight into the country.

My electoral timing is good again on my current trip to India. Karnataka, the state in which Bangalore is located, will hold elections May 10. The emphasis that India puts on education as a key to growth is evident from the campaign manifesto released by the Bharatiya Janata Party.

In that document, the party pledges to establish cyber-cafes in every village. The goal is to take the IT energy evident in Bangalore to the countryside. Based on the number of billboards in rural areas advertising computer and business classes, it is clear that plugging poor—often destitute—people into IT prosperity is a priority.

The national government also is getting in on the act. Over the weekend, Indian Finance Minister P. Chidambaram said that if the country puts as much effort into human capital development as it does into attracting investment and increasing productivity, it could add 1 percent to 2 percent to the country’s already rapid annual growth rate.

One program under way is the National Skill Development Mission, which is designed to help prepare Indian students for the job abilities they’ll need beyond what they get through classroom instruction. Chidambaram also said the country must increase the number of primary school students entering college from the current 11.6 percent to the world average of 23.2 percent, or the developed-country average of 54 percent.

In addition to this activity, the Indian Human Resource Development Ministry announced on April 20 that all central educational institutions should offer reservations for positions in upcoming courses to members of “Other Backward Classes.” This mandate is the result of an Indian Supreme Court order to increase educational opportunities for poor Indians.

Now, apply simple math to these moves and you see the talent potential in India. After visiting the country for even a day, you notice that there is no one-child policy here, as there is in China. Kids are ubiquitous. The Indian population is estimated to hit 1.2 billion by 2011.

In a country this huge, there already are big and growing middle and upper classes. From those strata, India is producing some of the world’s top engineers and scientists, many of whom graduate from U.S. colleges and universities. When lower-income Indians are given a better chance to join their ranks, there will be even more young professionals in Bangalore eager to take advantage of the country’s proliferating IT opportunities.

Almost every 20- or 30-something Indian I met during my weeklong visit to Bangalore had some kind of IT job—and so do some of the American expats I encountered. U.S. companies will continue expanding operations here. In a visit to Bangalore on April 24, Accenture CEO William Green said the company intends to increase employment in its Indian operations to 50,000 from 37,000 within a year.

These developments present an opportunity for the United States. For Accenture, IBM, Microsoft, Dell and dozens of other U.S. companies, India is source of innovation and a growing market. The products and profits they generate here are good for the United States.

But the U.S. must also meet the challenge posed by India’s strong talent pool. U.S. students must be prepared not only to work harder in school but also learn how to be more creative in science, engineering and all other disciplines. It’s the best way for America to maintain its edge in global competition.

Of course, the U.S. also is in the midst of an election season. It would be refreshing to hear our candidates, from the presidential to congressional and state levels, engage in an intelligent dialogue about how the country could improve its educational and workforce development systems to help all Americans participate—and prosper—in the global economy.

Instead, we’re subject to their efforts to score political points by trashing trade liberalization and touting tax cuts. A challenge—and opportunity—of the magnitude represented by India requires a thoughtful political debate. There’s still plenty of time to have one.

Presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama created a political firestorm when he waxed philosophical at a San Francisco fundraiser about the plight of the working class—a group of Americans under constant threat of job loss.

“It’s not surprising that they get a little bitter; they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment,” he was quoted as saying.

Leaving aside the potential offense the remarks could give to people whose faith or firearms are genuinely important to them, Obama may be on to something when he says that many American workers are bitter.

But it’s unlikely their economic fears are assuaged by what they hear from presidential candidates, including Obama, or from elected officials. Helping those who have been left behind by global economic competition and technological advancement requires a complex policy approach based on management, labor and government cooperation.

It will take the combined efforts of those three entities—along with presidential leadership—to modernize U.S. workforce training programs, streamline health care and wage assistance for displaced workers, and develop a portable benefits system so workers don’t lose their safety net when they lose their jobs.

These issues deserve a prominent place in political discourse. They’re not getting it. True, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi halted the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, a top priority for President Bush, in order to “put the leverage back into the hands of America’s working families” and force Bush to consider Democratic economic proposals.

Chief among them is an expansion of Trade Adjustment Assistance for workers who are adversely affected by trade. Another is a second economic stimulus package that focuses on an extension of unemployment benefits.

But when Pelosi and Bush tangle, they usually fight over Bush’s insistence on making his 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent. Democrats say they are a sop for the wealthy.

Bush only brings up Trade Adjustment Assistance when he is looking for support for trade agreements. The administration has shown little interest in it otherwise. But Democrats tend to talk more about cushioning the hurt of unemployment than they do about how to help all workers—including those who already have jobs—improve their skills and their standard of living.

On the campaign trail, Obama has devoted at least one speech to workforce training. But the rest of the time, he stokes worker anger about tough economic times rather than outline ways to help them move their career arc higher. He’s consistently pitting workers against management.

“What we can’t do is sign trade deals that put the interests of multinational corporations ahead of the interests of our workers or our environment,” Obama said in an April 15 speech before building trade unions.

In reality, international companies depend on a strong workforce. The firms’ success is inextricably linked to their employees’ success—and for that matter, unions’ success. Despite his rhetoric about uniting management and labor, Obama rarely explores how to leverage that relationship for the good of the economy and individuals.

Sen. John McCain is not necessarily providing much hope for struggling workers either. In a major speech on economic policy April 15, he concentrated on tax breaks—an issue that won’t bring immediate comfort to those whose factory is moving to Mexico or China.

He did outline worker retraining and unemployment insurance reforms. But those policies came up in paragraphs 33 through 35 of a 43-paragraph speech. People who are worried about how to improve their skills to get a better job had to wait a while for McCain to get around to them.

Bush, Pelosi, Obama and McCain could do a better job of addressing workers’ fears.