what an effing joke. she is going to force me to pay the profits of immoral health insurance companies? that’s about as fabulous as my tax dollars funding this war. eff you hillary. Kucinich 08, yeah, he’s on your ballot. Shh Tim doesn’t want you to know!

Joe-
In some ways I agree with what you are saying. Congress proposes, the President disposes, etc. On the other hand, the Executive Branch has a tremendous amount of influence outside of drafting legislation. Recently, involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan; newly appointed Supreme Court Justices; and the Bush administration’s refusal to implement the (nonbinding)agreements set forth in Kyoto are all examples how the Executive Branch can exert its influence in ways that reflect an individual’s thinking on specific issues, policies, philosophies, etc. The willingness to go on the record voicing support for specific policies demonstrates a candidates willingness to fight certain battles. Certainly, compromise is also a big part, and bills will reach the President’s desk that include provisions that have nothing to do with the hot-button issues we hear about during elections, but there are some issues and values that should not be compromised. Concerning a candidate’s sense of judgement, I agree - particularly because it is this sense of judgement which allows candidates to choose when to compromise and when to fight. At the same time, leadership and character are difficult to discern in my opinion from 2minute snippets of YouTube footage or even within a 2hour debate. These events are so rehearsed and contrived and all of the candidates answers so pithy that any understanding that we can hope to gain by paying attention to these forums comes at the cost of a great deal of sifting. In the end, we might end up with a few voicings of support for a specific policy, but leadership and character can only be demonstrated through that candidate’s ability and long-term willingness to bring that policy into action.

The truth is, the core responsibility of the President is not to be a legislator. Though by the looks of it you’d think they’re each going to flood Congress with their own initiatives. And, in turn, things would be done just as they want them to. Not really.

Second, even if they were to put their bills before Congress as is, they would be changed significantly. Why pretend that any one candidate’s policy initiative is that important? It simply provides a direction. And the Democrats are headed basically in the same direction.

The important feature to be fully scrutized is leaderhsip, which is inseparable from character. Despite what anyone says about “personal attacks,” personality plays a large role. Just as it does when you go to a job interview. Any interview, including a job for flipping burgers.

And last night, Clinton was bellicose. If she was auditioning to become a cheerleader, for instance, she wouldn’t need a megaphone.

Another quirky trait of hers is to quickly rush from the cackle to a predatory attack. And it’s not about being a woman. It’s about being an unstable personality. It’s manic in nature. She can’t control her anger.

On that note alone - forget the phony differences drwan about experience and she’s got more foreign policy understanding - she should never be President. And if she gets the nomination, she’ll surely lose to the Republican candidate because she’s a complete turnoff to everyone seeing things objectively.