I must say the Democrats behaved themselves rather well, particularly in comparison to the Republicans, who only seemed interested in jabbing each other because they had nothing substantive to say about the issues. Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats didn't punch each other very hard, didn't talk over each other, and didn't keep blabbing long after the moderator called "time." In fact, most of the Dems gave shorter answers and concluded well within the allowed time limits.

I don't know if this is some kind of portent, a harbinger of things to come in the primaries, a pattern that will persist into the general election, or an indicator of how a Democrat might act as president compared to a Republican. I doubt it. Even so, the Democrats look golden right now. They're much more focused on the issues, much less concerned about appealing to fears and insecurities, and much more hopeful and inspirational than the Republicans.

Of course, the difference may be due to what the Democrats have to do to appeal to Democratic caucusers, versus what the Republicans have to do to appeal to Republican caucusers. If so, we'll probably return to business as usual after Iowa, with negative ads, personal attacks, windy speeches, and so on. If not, and if the Democrats can stay on the path they're walking in Iowa, they will shred the Republicans. People are very, very tired of listening to the same old "Fear him! Mistrust him! Vote for me!" crap we're fed every election cycle. Americans are primed to vote for hope over fear. All we have to do is convince the candidates and their handlers to believe it.

The Democrats already have a clue, but will probably lose it right after Iowa. The Republicans have yet to get a clue.

I agree there's a lot more infighting within the Republican campaign than in the Democrats', but that's because there are real differences between the Republican candidates on numerous issues, whereas it is nearly impossible to discern any meaningful differences amongst the Democrats. That is not a criticism of either side, it simply points to a split between Republicans across America in general and a fight for the soul of conservatism after 8 years of Bush.

Certainly Hillary has already tried recently on a couple of occasions to poke her finger in Obama's eye, but it blew up in her face and that's the only reason she's not still jabbing Obama.

There is no doubt that if Obama wins in Iowa and/or New Hampshire, or gets really close to Hillary, the knives are going to come out. If you think the Republicans fight dirty, you must forget how the Clinton machine works. I already sympathize with Obama, who will be raped by the Clintons if he threatens her coronation.

I personally like Obama a lot but think he does not seem close to being prepared for the presidency. I can not stand Hillary Clinton and would simply hate to have her as my president for four years. Cynical, stand for nothing triangulating, etc. No. No more Clintons.

I personally believe that of all the candidates in both parties running Biden is by far the most serious and prepared president. I wish he got more traction. On the Republican side I think McCain is the most prepared, though I don't think he seems like a good manager. Romney seems freaky but from everything I read about him he sounds hyper-competent, which would be a nice change.

Yes, in the general election, if the Republican nominee looks like the sweaty, shifty, slimy, fear mongerer, they're going to lose and they should. I think, as a Republican, we would do very well with 8 years in the wilderness and we certainly deserve it.

The big difference among the Republicans seems to be theology with Baptist preacher Huckabee attacking the Mormon's loony beliefs on behalf of the evangelical nutjobs.

The big issue of the day is Iraq but it is impossible to discern any meaningful difference between the Republicans, in which I am not including that Libertarian fruitcake, Ron Paul.

On immigration there are differences between the GOPsters, ranging from Tancredo's "throw the bums out" to McCain's "comprehensive" reform, whatever that means. Lost in the arguments on this issue is that none of their prescriptions will actually work.

EB, I agree with you about Edwards. I think Biden is similar. And I have not forgotten the murderous passion and energy of the Clintonistas. They are a big reason I hope Hillary is not the Democratic nominee. I like Obama because of the "vision thing" and I like Edwards because of his populism, which seems genuine and not just opportunistic. I used to like McCain, back before they whipped him into line. Now he's acting like a puppy, rolling on his back so his party can rub his tummy. What happened to straight talk?

Yeah, pretty sad what happened to the old, fiery McCain. My dad, who is 75, made the good point that he thinks McCain could be too old. He pointed out that he'd be older than Reagan was when he entered the presidency. I didn't know that.

Funny though, I think McCain's age isn't coming up because the Baby Boomers are getting older and don't want to admit it. And because each generations seems a little younger than the previous one.

"I personally like Obama a lot but think he does not seem close to being prepared for the presidency. " - EarlyBird

Early, I completely agree that preparation is important. And at the same time, Richard Nixon had 8 years of preparation as vice president. But did all that preparation make him a good president?

George Bush is wrapping up 8 years as president, the best preparation a person could have. Would he be a good choice for the next 8 years?

and it appears Obama may have prepared his preparation carefully.

EarlyBird:

Yeah, pretty sad what happened to the old, fiery McCain. My dad, who is 75, made the good point that he thinks McCain could be too old. He pointed out that he'd be older than Reagan was when he entered the presidency. I didn't know that.

Funny though, I think McCain's age isn't coming up because the Baby Boomers are getting older and don't want to admit it. And because each generations seems a little younger than the previous one.

This has been an interesting conversation. I agree with many of the points made here by everyone. I disagree with you regarding McCain. He lost his support from independents when he chose to glom onto President Bush after the way the Bush campaign treated him in SC. He was clearly putting political expediency over his own best judgment. It might have worked for him if the President had been anyone but George W. Bush.

In my wildest dreams it would be Biden/Dodd vs. McCain/Hagel.

I would like to be able to judge based on the best qualifications vs. the kind of crap that has been dumped on us for the last few years.

I was trying to remember the last election that we could be proud of and I'm thinking it would have to be 1960. Elections since then have been pretty nasty affairs and the voter turnout reflects that I'm not the only one thinking along those lines.

You mean you actually listen to those idiots?

Why do you dislike Hillary? Don't you know that she is the only one who can save social security! If she is elected, half the country will kill themselves.

Very good point View. And we must remember that Abe Lincoln only had one year in the senate (or congress?) before becoming president.

Harvard recently did a study of leadership, and they determined that among a number of qualities like experience and so forth, judgement ranked as the most important piece of leadership.

Obama seems to be wise compared to a lot of the people running on both sides.

It is silly to eliminate candidates based on age. If someone over seventy is healthy, why should age matter? Look at Bush, is he mentally sound!

Nixon was one of our strongest presidents, I know, I lived through that era.

He was a very competent president and shrewd when it came to foreign affairs. Unfortunately his personal character was his undoing.

Early, thanks for the note on Lincoln's 1 term in congress, I had wondered about that. It was the House of Reps, according to an on-line bio. Thanks also for the leadership study result.