It really is too bad we can't seem to have a conversation about the qualities that make a good president (or vice president) without people getting into silly sidebars or diverting to the 'issues' that divide us. I really think qualifying for the office should be about more than just 'issues'.
I personally would like to see a President (as well as VP) who does their best to unite us rather than divide us. One who shows respect for the office and the people of the United States (yes, respect for people in general around the world, but, first for the country he/she is elected to 'lead').
I don't care where they were educated - that really doesn't matter .. and should NOT matter. I do care that they are literate (and honestly can do more than just read a teleprompter speech someone else most likely wrote). The President is not more important than the people - he/she is human too ... we have a level playing field there so a little humility would be nice from them from time to time.
I care that they come across as truly caring and sincere - and I should never detect insincerity when they speak or in their actions. Once bitten, twice shy - that's me - lie to me and I am not that likely to trust you the next time - and there is very rarely a situation in which a lie is absolutely essential. Keep the politics to the DC political arena - with us, be as honest and open as possible (but don't just give us stuff about 'transparency' when you can't and don't even mean it). Just tell us what you can and gain our trust that you will act properly if push comes to shove, even if you can't tell us about that till after the fact.
I care that someone running for these positions makes well-considered decisions, that they have strong convictions perhaps but are also able to turn on a dime if need be when things get out of hand - at home or abroad. I care very much who they surround themselves with - that tells me a lot about them too. Actually I don't think being a 'leader' is as important as displaying the qualities needed to lead or step into that role if need be. If you can't deliver - just tell us that and why not. Don't cover up. Don't avoid. Just admit it. Show us you gave it a darned good try and that whatever it is was important enough to the people to make it worth the time you spent on it.
We are electing a CEO here. Essentially that is the position - and we are the HR department in essence. And we pay the salary so we need to select candidates worthy of that remuneration.
I think discussing the issues ad infinitum just leads us astray - although of course what 'promises' are made by a candidate need to be vetted to see if they might even be possible to deliver on given all the variables and context in which that has to happen.
So being for or against the TPP for instance should come with a rationale as to why that is - not just a statement - and why that is good (or not) for the American people as a whole. And don't just promise 'jobs' - because government can only create an environment in which jobs are created (with the minor exception of adding even more government jobs, most of which, they better darned well justify because most don't seem either necessary or prudent) - they can't 'create jobs' unless it is 'pay for play' maybe! It's our buck - not the President's dollar, or Congress's either. If a candidate tells me that he/she will create jobs .. that the government will create jobs .. this lady will look for another candidate. But, if you tell me how you can create the environment in which Americans will create their own jobs, I will listen with interest - as you tell me how. I want candidates to read the public as well as act only politically according to some pat agenda. If you can do that, I don't give a hoot what 'party' you belong to - you are the right person for the job!
A candidate's promises should match their skills/ability to deliver as much as practically foreseeable. I want to see vision (and obvious understanding of issues) but I also want to see evidence they can relax things/tweak things in the moment as necessary. At times I want them to show innovation in their approach to problem solving.
I want to select for integrity, intelligence (again, that doesn't mean education) and the ability to inspire us all and unite us all. I want to know too that our leader can handle stress well, is self-confident (but not too narcissistic), and doesn't exhibit selfish behaviour (except as warranted .. such as .. darn it, I need a weekend off so I can be a good leader on Monday - yes, I can be interrupted but only if it is a major emergency and then you darned well better interrupt me!). It is a 24 hour a day job - many of us have worked those .. always on call if not at the office. It is tough, day in and day out for years at a time .. I expect to see them pace themselves (but, please .. find another hobby besides golf or bimbos .. boring!
)
So I am gathering that people seem to think that Kaine is level headed for the most part. He says he is boring .. neither here nor there to me (although it would be nice if he could speak inspiringly or empathetically or whatever is required for the occasion should he ever have to address the public on a very serious matter). He does need to be able to convey a clear message to the people and gain their trust if he has to handle some crucial problem. I gather too that many feel he did an ok job in VA. I guess he didn't get arrested or indicted so these days that is something I guess. A true spark or passion would be nice, but, I will take boring and pedantic over theatricality or lies any day. Personality shouldn't really be a factor in deciding if a person would make a good president (as the primary candidate or backup) - as long as they aren't too out there in any one direction. I don't think he is a micromanager - micromanagement is not good thing at that level I believe. I like that people think he is law-abiding, even if he doesn't particularly like any given law.
So far so good I guess. I suspect Pence has similar qualities - but am still digging into that.
(and yes, I already know that I am 'naive' if I think we could ever get back to where we should be, where the Founding Fathers intended us to be, when it comes to elections .. but one can hope small steps can be made.)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I can definitely now see what someone in this thread wrote earlier - that he is touted as a moderate but he is definitely a 'liberal' - because I have now seen where that shift happened. 
