Sometimes the two can be confusing. Best candidate or best president? I would like to ask the XX Factor which they mean.

At this point, we are only voting on the candidate we think will make the best president. I'm not sure that you can look at this primary race in any other way, so for me there is no confusion. I have looked at their websites, looked at the debates and relied on my gut instinct to choose between the two remaining demorcatic candidates. If and when either demorcratic candidate is voted in as president, we can assess how good a president he/she really is.

I think electability has been an issue. I guess that is what I've been meaning.

It's funny, I first read your question as best at being a candidate (campaigning, holding rallies, etc) vs. best at being a president....

The primary isn't over for me yet. I'm voting for who I think will make the best president without regard to who is best against McCain because I just don't know. Can't predict the future. Remember Kerry vs Dean? Everyone just kept saying Kerry is electable, Kerry is electable. I remember thinking, what the hell are they talking about? Which is what I think when I hear all that now, with a little more detail. You can argue it both ways, both sides are well-reasoned. But in the end, we just don't know. So why not vote for who you think would make the best president?

Ah, but the questions are related, and to some extent this line of comments appears to be begging the question. I submit that you all don't want to think that you have to be good at both.

Who has shown the best executive skills in running a campaign and in managing funds? Who has chosen the most competent people who won't pander to him/her? Who has been willing to make a decision and stick with it, rather than trotting out a new message every week -- and a special one, preferably a smear, two days before each primary?

In case you can't think of the answer, I suggest that Obama has shown far superior executive skills. If your memory goes as far back as Carter, a president who masters the arcania of the issues is irrelevant if he can't also run the shop.

About running the shop,

I think that being a candidate and being a president are two different shops. Being good at one doesn't necessarily mean you're good at the other. I don't think that they are mutually exclusive either. Being a good candidate is only about public opinion, being a good president is about a lot more than that. The two are especially distinct when public opinion doesn't place a lot of importance on policy.

George W. Bush was the best candidate in the last election.

Running for office is not the same thing as being Chief-Commander. It's easy to run if you have an endless source of donations, the press on your side, and an overblown message that exploits the emotions of every person who has been disillusioned by the Bush Presidency. To say that a good campaign makes a good President is to say that you don't fully grasp what a President does (and it is a lot more than just giving flowerly State-of-the-Union addresses).

He would be amazing if his policies were amazing. But they are not. In fact, his policies say to me that he is a panderer. His foreign policy stance is ridiculously naive, his Iraq stance is ridiculously draconian, his domestic policies are fiscally bizarre (the only places they are correct, is where they mimic Clinton's), his ethos of "noble politician" is misleading, and his rhetoric is irresponsible.

He is very much the liberal-verson of Bush. He will either have to reverse upon himself in the same way that Bush did on his platform of "compassionate conservatism" or he will absolutely have to be correct in his idea that he can make the world make nice with each other (or that Iraq will be ready for complete independence in 16 months).

He is just not ready to be President. His policies imply to me that he does not know what he is getting into.

YAY!!

Mercadia, you've outed yourself: a Hillary supported who reads the anti-Obama screed very carefully, but hasn't bothered to look at Obama's own website.

Permit me to introduce myself: I am a lawyer, with expertise and personal experience in international relations, as well as, unfortunately, in warlike circumstances. So I am not reading Obama's -- or Hillary's -- positions from naivete.

And I assure you, neither of them has greater experience than the other. Hillary's "experience" consists of translated small talk with wives while on PR tours. This doesn't amount to much. Obama's, on the other hand, consists of seeing firsthand the reaction of folks who might mistrust the US. But as a child or young man. Actually, I think this amounts to a bit more.

Their policies are virtually identical. If you'd read the websites, you would have known that.

As I said, a campaign is a challenge for an executive. W had a competent executive -- it happened to be Cheney. It would appear that Hillary has none. As for everyone's whine about the difference in the two roles: of course there is a difference, but as FDR demonstrated, being good at one of them does not mean you're automatically incapable of performing the other.

I haven't outed myself: I'm openly a Clinton supporter because I HAVE looked at Obama's website. And I've heard him speak, and I've watched the debates. He did a nice job tonight though.

Thank you for introducing yourself as a lawyer. ...Can you be more specific about your legal expertise and what kind of "warlike situations" you are talking about? This post is laden with innaccuracies and logical fallacies, which is strange because a command of facts and logic are the skills that lawyers are supposed to have at their disposal.

For one, Bush's campaign strategist was Karl Rove, not Cheney. And Bush ran a great campaign, and was a terrible president. How are you discounting that with your evidence? And your representation of HRC as it is clearly not based on...anything...

I'm sorry...your logic is all off. IAnd your FDR comment makes no sense. t's true that if you're good at x, is does not mean you would be bad at y. Nor did I ever say that. But the inverse of that is *not* "because I am good at x, I will be good at y." Obama seems to be weak at y, because...when you look at y...it seems weak. I honestly have no idea what you're talking about...

To be precise, Rove was the strategist. In 2000 they had a cypher from Texas as the campaign manager, but since Cheney managed the transition, and we all know Bush doesn't do management, it's pretty clear who ran the campaign. You're not really suggesting that Bush ran his campaign?

As for credentials, I included them because this string has been laden with opinions, and in offering my own opinion, it seemed appropriate to explain my training.

It's clear you're not interested in that. I'm sorry, I'd hoped we could discuss facts, but your replies, and most of the other comments here, are remarkably devoid of them.

I'm sorry, are you speaking of Bush's general election campaign or his primary campaign? His initial campaign or his re-election campaign? Can you direct me to the place where you are getting this information from? Because it seems faulty logic to assume that, because Cheney was in charge of one transition (from who to who and when?), that it means he ran the entire campaign.

And why did you think it necessary to explain your training? Why would I be interested in that?

And I am perfect open to discussing facts (as long as they are facts).