I consider Hillary to be the foremost cunning candidate, and it turns me off (I prefer Obama, who appears more earnest, but perhaps is simply the finer actor). But others would tag her as savvy, spinning her artful dodges with a positive connotation.

This causes me to wonder whether, in politics, that while we may find the candidate of uncompromising ideals appealing, it is the politician who views everything as a calculated compromise who is most successful and, ultimately, best serves our interests.

Thoughts?

- E.L.B.

certainly was showing last night in the debate.

Cynics for Clinton is a piece I've toyed with writing which is a version of what you're talking about. The other element are those who think that you need all of those skills of calculation and cunning to beat the opposition in an election.