I think what is interesting about the election is the way that it provides tantalizing glimpses in the candidates’ personalities. The problem is determining which of those personality traits will be a factor shaping the future adminstration. Or, just as pertinent which candidate’s personality traits are going to shape our country’s history. Oh yeah, put that way, it’s a pretty scary thought. But consider these little gems: Gennifer Flowers led to Monica Lewinsky. The phrase compassionate conservatism carried just about meaning as the declaration that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. I can go further back too: remember, “Read my lips. No new taxes?” Oh yeah, thought you did.

One of the blogs I read regularly is Judith Warner’s “Domestic Disturbances.” I’m not particularly domestic, do not have children, but I am probably disturbed, so I generally feel right at home with her angst. She has interesting opinions. I don’t always agree, but she’s always thought-provoking, which is what really matters. Case in point being this week’s post, “Emotion Without Thought In New Hampshire,” about Hillary’s teary moment on the campaign trail. Apparently this gush of emotion produced positive feedback from other similary exhausted and harried women. In short, Warner was disappointed in Hillary for not managing to hold it all together on national television, but more disillusioned with the women who could find solidarity in the female candidate until she showed a crack in her armor. Of course Warner’s logic is spot on, but thinking along those lines lost the Democrats the past two elections, so if Hillary or Obama don’t want to make the same mistakes as their predecessors they’ll listen closely to the-rest-of-us America, not just Ivy League-educated America.

I wasn’t the only one interested. Warner’s post garnered four hundred plus responses and rather than ask you to scroll through them to look for my comment, I’ve posted it below.

It is what it is. In a perfect world every single voter would be focused on the issues and positions championed by the candidate, but apparently that’s not meant to be. Besides, the job of being President of the U.S. is a lot more nuanced than simply having an agenda. The way a candidate carries herself on during her campaign provides a window into how she will handle herself on the job. If the voters want to see that a candidate is human, then so be it. A smart candidate will use those desires as a vehicle for what really matters–her agenda.

Check out Warner’s post and let me know what you think.