SecretMethod70

Sort of. I don't want a president who favors one group of people so much that they are against another group of people, but I do want a president who recognizes that increased power brings increased responsibility, and that those who are significantly wealthy due to the benefits provided by our society owe something back to that society. What would be particularly useful is if the top 1% of earners had a few graduated tax brackets within the group. Someone earning $1 billion a year should not be taxed the same as someone earning $1 million a year, and we could increase the benefit such earnings provide to society quite a bit by recognizing this. But now we're getting into a specific policy and not just a general quality, so I'll stop there.

No way. Our gas prices are not blasphemous: they are beginning to more closely reflect the costs of our consumption, both politically and environmentally. Not to mention, complaining about our gas prices is pretty ridiculous in the global context, where Londoners pay well over $6 a gallon. Now, a president who will do something about the cost of energy is something I can get behind. We need to invest in cleaner and more politically responsible energy (note: this distinctively excludes bio-fuel, which is neither politically nor economically responsible).

Responsibly, and with respect for the tumult we have thrown the Iraqi people into.

Amen to that. I've mentioned before, one of the main reasons I support Obama over Clinton and McCain is his relative dedication to a more open and transparent federal government. We have the tools, it's time to use them.

And just so I'm not only responding to what others have said, I'll add that it's important to me that a president be intellectually curious and willing to listen to others, even if s/he ultimately chooses to disagree with them. I'd like a president who respects (and, many times, defers to) the opinions of distinguished people in various fields - particularly scientific fields - but I think that may be a little too much to ask this election. After all, none of the major candidates so far would agree to a science debate. So, I'll settle for intellectual curiosity: anything is better than the bull-headedness of this administration.

When it comes to things like this, I look at honesty as an overall quality, not a specific quality. In my opinion, it is very possible to be an overall honest man yet still succumb to the necessary half-truths and white lies of the election. I'm not going to hold it against a generally honest person when they are put in a position where they need to be specifically dishonest. We're only going to move toward a more honest, open, and transparent government in small steps, and so that means supporting the candidates who will push us in that direction, even if their level of honesty isn't ideal. Because, like you said, where we stand right now the ideal level of honesty is unelectable, and honest people know this. Some decide that it's more important to stay specifically honest than to try and change the system. Others decide that it's more important to work toward changing the system from within than to avoid telling occasional half-truths. I side with the latter. So long as they're honest and don't mislead the public about important things (the idea of a gas tax vacation is a good example, where it would be either irrelevent or even harmful to the people, but is being treated as something which would be beneficial), then I'm ok with it.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling