The most effective leaders are those who can bring together camps of people who may distrust one another and be a bridge for communication. It helps to have information, but it is a much more valuable skill to be able to get people to open up, talk with one another, and share their information. That way you can get information which resides in the heads of many people.

Managers who act as if they already know it all and are going to tell everyone what to do are the worst. They tend to go on and on, spouting often irrelevant facts, and proposing often impractical solutions because they are unable to take criticism and participate equally in group conversations. This seems to be to protect their egos, but little gets done and what does get done often fails to achieve the desired goal.

This seems to be Hillary's style. That is evidenced by how she formulated her failed health plan in the 1990's. In sum, it takes a degree of humility and good will to lead well. It also takes the ability to inspire. I'm quite sure that Hillary is lacking in humility, and she certainly hasn't inspired any Republican I know to vote for her. Obama has inspired several of my Repulican friends. He is also a master of bringing people together and inspiring them to work together for a common goal.

In sum, real leaders lead by consensus, not by directive. Because if a good leader does have a directive he or she first sits down with all the stakeholders and gets their feedback and buy in FIRST. I think this is what we need in government now. That's why I support Barak Obama.

I am going to go with substance, not style.  Honestly, I don't know how someone who has had to be "mentored" by Sen. Kennedy as a freshman Senator now all of a sudden can lead the free world and be commander in chief.  Seems a bit of a leap to me!  HRC's experience and knowledge are inspiring to me.  

Wes Clark, I presume?  :)

had tremendous knowledge and expertise ("substance"), particularly on military and national security matters.  Howard Dean did not, yet many progressives supported him simply because they connected with him ("style").  

You don't think Senator Clinton was mentored in 2001 when she was a freshman Senator?

HRC is indeed qualified, intelligent, competent, and, yes, experienced. But if those are your main qualifications, then I suppose you'd actually be more swayed by John McCain, right?

It comes down to vision, ability to garner support and establish a coalition, ability to marshall resources, and ability to think and plan.

The most important quality we seek in a President is the ability to think and see clearly, to cast aside cant and see the world as it is, and to do the right thing, not the expedient thing. In my opinion, Hillary proved in the run up to this war that she is what she appears to be -- an establishment foreign policy thinker that is happy to go along with conservative thinking.

If we as Democrats want to keep losing elections, we'll keep nominating people that helped start this god-forsaken war.

We'll prove this is an accountability-free country by continuing to elect and re-elect the politicians that brought us this mess.

walking encylopedia, no question, but Obama's no slouch either!  I mean, the guy's a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, for heaven's sake...obviously he's no dummy (to the contrary, he's brilliant).    

I continue to be baffled by how much he and his campaign get criticized by many of the "big names" in the lefty-sphere. I mean, you almost could not invent a better background story and set of jobs and experiences than his in a Democratic politician, and yet somehow all he is to many of these folks is some nebulous chant of "Change"? It makes no sense. The theme has meaning because of who he is and what he's done -- it has credibility because of what and where he's been.

More to the point, he has shown an amazing ability to learn quickly -- his debating gets better every time. His policy positions are beyond sound. And his instincts and heart are in the right place.

I think Hillary would clearly have been the best choice has Barack not run, but it's not close between the two of them in my eyes with him in the race. She's the legacy, safe, establishment choice, and the establishment needs a slap in the face.

As attractive and inspiring as Obama is, Hillary's experience as the right hand "woman" in various Clinton administrations from Arkansas to DC, make her the clear choice.  Obama is the future and the future looks bright, but Hillary is now and she is what we need now.  Obama would do well as a cabinet member or perhaps a VP in a Clinton administration.

Republicans will vote for Obama.

And we can't win an election on Dems alone, no matter how unpopular Bush is.  McCain will score high amongst Independents.  We need somebody who can compete with him there.  Hillary cannot.

Considering Bill's past and recent behavior you need to ask yourself if you really want a loose cannon living in the Whitehouse who doesn't know when to but out?

than anything Republican at this time.

Ha, well this clinches it, from the former communications director off the RPV, Shaun Kenney:

Bottom line is, on the right, we want Clinton as the Dem nominee. Give us a good, clean, polarizing fight on Hillarycare and the Clinton-era vs. John McCain... nothing will re-energize our base more (and that's not hyperbole - we really do want Clinton).

Remember, back in 2006 Shaun was rooting against Jim Webb because he knew Webb would be the strongest candidate against George Allen.  And you know what?  Shaun was right.

I mean, she didn't have enough information, right? "If I knew then what I know now..."

How come I knew then that it was a bad idea? How come Obama knew then?

For all her virtues, and they are many, Iraq is the stumbling block Hillary cannot surmount. She wriggled like a fish Thursday night, and still couldn't get off the hook.

It's not just style, it's judgement, too.

Since she accepts all the suppositions and rationales that got us into this mess, she will be left arguing points of tactics with John McCain.

Now who's going to win that argument?

Obama has flip-flopped on: i) legalization of marijuana -- used to be for it, then changed his position once he started running for President; ii) normalization of relations with Cuba -- used to be for it, then he changed his position once he started running for President (that won't help us in Florida). These are just two of the issues he's going to get skewered on from the right. BTW, he also was one of the few Dems to actually advocate getting involved in the Terri Schiavi case -- weird. Still gets to me that he voted present all those times on abortion issues when he was from a very safe district -- he didn't have to, but choose to anyway. Also, FYI, one of the reasons the far-right hates McCain is that he's on record (I heard the replay on the radio) as saying that Hillary Clinton would make a good president (he also said that about Kerry). That'll make a good talking point in the general election!  

You're making things up. Show me a link or proof that Barack actually advocated for getting involved, versus just allowing the bill to pass.

Barack is one of the few politicians that owned up for that atrocious bill -- he said in a debate in 2007 that he should have not allowed that bill to pass as it did (under unanimous consent, via voice vote, in the dead of night) and should have fought against its passage.

Barack was a new Senator at the time, in the minority, and trying not to make waves. Note that the more senior HRC also chose not to get involved.

You are not helping your cause by stretching the truth and being dishonest.

Wielded like a weapon against those that possess it...

Much like the right wing uses the word "Liberal"

The point is, Barack Obama has a great deal of experience, just different than Hillary's.  But Obama also INSPIRES people in a way that Hillary doesn't do.  Well, at least Obama inspires people like me in a way that Hillary doesn't do, which is a huge part of the reason why I endorsed him!

Alot of serious damage has been done by the current cabal over the last 8 years. Being President is more than being correct on issues and being eloquent. The President needs to know how to manipulate the levers of power within a system in which every entity is looking out for its own interests. It takes a long time to acquire a familiarity with how Congress interacts with the bureaucracy, how the President interacts with the bureaucracy, how lobbyists and outside organizations manipulate their way into policy, and where to go and how to deal with  those that know how to interact with each of these power centers

Obama is often compare to JFK...with little memory among most of what a very very bad first two years JFK had. His inexperience allowed him to be bullied into the Bay of Pigs...it took him nearly two years to gain his footing. And this is following a President (Eisenhower) who was a conscientious steward of his office, unlike the current occupant. And JFK had more experience than Obama

The next President cannot afford a two year on the job training course. Republicans and entrenched power centers will  pounce like hungry lions on a newborn wildabeast if Obama is elected.

We have an opportunity to elect someone who is not only correct on the issues, but understands how to navigate the byzantine structures that are the federal government. Knows and has worked with people for many years who know how to manipulate the levers of power to get things done...quickly.

I am more inspired by someone who has been in the game working her ass off, getting things done, than by someone who is an admirable orator, but simply does not have the experience or record to back up his promises...

Hillary is the wise choice this year...

note: this is not the first time experience in a candidate has been mocked as a liability in a Democratic candidate. I invite you to look back to the debate here during the Galligan-Barker race...

While I disagree with much of this, these are bona fide arguments that deserve well-reasoned counter-arguments.

Alot of serious damage has been done by the current cabal over the last 8 years. Being President is more than being correct on issues and being eloquent. The President needs to know how to manipulate the levers of power within a system in which every entity is looking out for its own interests. It takes a long time to acquire a familiarity with how Congress interacts with the bureaucracy, how the President interacts with the bureaucracy, how lobbyists and outside organizations manipulate their way into policy, and where to go and how to deal with  those that know how to interact with each of these power centers

I think we're all agreed that the country is in seriously bad shape -- the question is, who has the best qualities and can assemble the best coalition to begin to address these problems? Barack has the intelligence and ability to quickly get up to speed, and has been in Washington long enough to understand much of the game (whereas the Clintons were complete Washington outsiders in 1993). Furthermore, he'll be entering as the undisputed leader of a movement, and may come in with a substantial mandate -- which is significantly different than Bill Clinton, who only entered office having garnered 43% of the vote.

Obama is often compare to JFK...with little memory among most of what a very very bad first two years JFK had. His inexperience allowed him to be bullied into the Bay of Pigs...it took him nearly two years to gain his footing. And this is following a President (Eisenhower) who was a conscientious steward of his office, unlike the current occupant. And JFK had more experience than Obama

The next President cannot afford a two year on the job training course. Republicans and entrenched power centers will  pounce like hungry lions on a newborn wildabeast if Obama is elected.

Every Presidency is different. Reagan was new to Washington, and had relatively smooth sailing as a Washington neophyte. It all depends on the person and the team he/she has assembled, and the type of Congress he/she has to work with. By your formulation, the person that has been in Washington longer is always the de facto better choice. I strongly disagree. I think Obama is more than capable of learning quickly -- surely much quicker than his incompetent predecessor.

As to your last point -- I think there will be many, many fewer Republicans to "pounce" on him if he is our nominee. They may not even have a Filibustering 40 to do their worst.

We have an opportunity to elect someone who is not only correct on the issues, but understands how to navigate the byzantine structures that are the federal government. Knows and has worked with people for many years who know how to manipulate the levers of power to get things done...quickly.

HRC may be correct on some issues -- and, indeed, both Hillary and Barack have similar stances on many domestic issues -- but she is far from correct on all issues. She is a conventional foreign policy establishment conservative -- look at the foreign policy team she has assembled, and you will see the same constabulary of Democrats that were beating the drums for war in Iraq in 2002 and 2003. The Clintons were also at the vanguard of Democrats in terms of advocating for free trade without constraint, for free trade agreements written by and for many types of large industries. We have seen the results of these types of policies, and they are very mixed. I have seen no indication that she has moderated her views on either of these issues.

And what, frankly, has she gotten done quickly? Seriously. I think she is a competent and capable Senator, but what legislation has SHE marshalled through the Congress?

I am more inspired by someone who has been in the game working her ass off, getting things done, than by someone who is an admirable orator, but simply does not have the experience or record to back up his promises...

Hillary is the wise choice this year...

She may have worked her ass off, but that does not entitle her to be President. And that's what a lot of people, including me, see -- a political team that feels entitled to this office. I respect their public service, but they have also engaged in many a shady dealing as a team, and cynicism and opportunism checker their past. And, again, please list her numerous accomplishments. I know she has been around, but I don't see much that she herself has accomplished.

The Senator from Illinois is more than an admirable orator. Ask the people of Illinois if he helped improve things in his short time serving in the legislature there. Moreover, he has demonstrated that he can galvanize those that are not currently part of the process. Most importantly, on the most crucial judgment calls, he has shown that he has a much clearer eye than Hillary or, indeed, most of the Democrats in Washington.

You see a wise choice, I see the safe choice, the establishment choice -- the choice that says, no, we're not to blame for all the mistakes of the past 8 years, George W. Bush is 100% responsible, and the rest of us get off scot-free. There needs to be some accountability for those that got us into this god-damned mess, and her fingerprints are on those policies, as well.

Respectfully submitted.

SaveElmer is once again profoundly wrong. Barrack Obama has every requisite quality to LEAD and be very successful as President of the United States. Barrack Obama is a serious student and professor of the Constitution. He has had an accomplished career of noted public service. He has shown wisdom when his rival did NOT. The run up to the Iraq war is a useful and critical tool by which to gauge potential leadership. Obama got it right on the war and Hillary has been repeatedly wrong through her own "Triangulation Strategy".

Hillary was not alone. Most Democrats in the Senate - UNFORTUNATELY voted to allow use of force in IRAQ - essentially voted for war, period.  Very few spoke out against the war. Jim Webb and Anthony Zinni spoke out against the war and I followed their leadership on this issue closely. I knew something of those men and was alarmed by their expressed concern and opposition to the war.

And with NO POLITICAL gain to be had - OBAMA spoke out against the war. For most calculating politicians (ala Hillary) speaking out against the war was a losing political proposition.

For all of Clinton's political wonkery she has failed to show leadership beyond her own political calculations to become President. As a voter I for one reject her for being a careerist politician. This country doesn't need another one of those at the helm.

Instead as usual, respond with the boilerplate diatribe so typical of Obama supporters...

Incorrect on virtually every point...showing a lack of depth or of research, typically mocking what I believe was a very serious and respectful response to Lowell...

All in all a typical Obama supporter...not a compliment.