These guys are just as flawed as we are, but it is the highest office in the world. I think we should try to keep the bar decently high.

This is a tough one! My views and my concept of integerity, may not be the same as others. I believe integrity to be, stand behind what you say ~ no matter the outcome.

They should possess both, but who really knows the candidates on a personal basis? All we hear and see are what the news media hounds give us to feed on. Which doesn't say much.

To a point, though I really vote platforms over individuals.

This review has nothing to do with the upcoming Presidential election, but the item description is a perfect fit, not just because of the events involved here, but because it happened right here in my neck of the woods at Division II Central Washington University, home of the Wildcats.

Well, the 'Cats were playing arch rival Western Oregon Wolves. Oh, yah..this is lady's softball. But something must have occured in the past, because CWU fans took the time to "BOOO" the enemy when they stepped up to the plate.

Early in the game, 5' 2" Wolf outfielder, Tara Tucholsky parked one over the center field wall...her first home run as a college player, with two runners on base. Rounding first, she missed the base and while turning back to touch it, she threw her knee out and collapsed in pain. Now, the rules are that her team cannot interfere...period. So, in this little Pleasantville of a town, Wildcat firstbasewoman, Mallory Holtman, team leader and holder of many CWU records, including 'most home runs', asked the umps if the OTHER team could 'interfere'. After several minutes in a huddle, the umps couldn't find any rules against it, so Holtman and shortstop Liz Wallace picked Tucholsky up and carried her around the bases, stopping at each base to make sure Tucholsky touched them. The three of them burst out in laughter at each 'touch' and made it safely home for her first career homer. The once-booing crowd, at first in disbelief, roared in approval as the three did the loop.

"I've coached for 40 years in all different sports and by far, nothing can outdo this." (CWU Head Coach Gary Frederick)

Final score? Western Oregon 4, Central Washington University 2.

That's character...but I can't help but imagine a bunch of DC pols sitting around and talking about this extraordinary event. They're probably uttering "Loser" as they toss the paper in the can.

And that's it from your man on the street Ridge Harwell. And now...back to your regularly scheduled bantering...

That leaves Hillary out!

Politics in general doesn't attract people of good moral fiber. In fact, the majority are mediocrities. Guess why scandal is a part of political life? Yes, here and there you find a truly devoted public servant, but the majority are either glory hogs or incompetents. Sometimes they are a combination of both. With political position comes power, and that's something that not everyone can handle properly or ethically. Reality is, when you have to pick from a field of duds, the odds that you'll get one is pretty high. And this has always been the case. How many of our presidents can you legitimately say have been great leaders? Some like Truman and even Lincoln overperformed after prior low expectations, but you'll find, outside of the founders, that great leaders only come along once in a while. Examples include the Roosevelts, Lincoln, and even to an extent Eisenhower and Reagan. These are people who make history; they arent merely a part of it. Not only that, but these are people who are acutely aware of their own role in history.

Given the current field of candidates, I don't anticipate that any of them have the will or gumption to do a good job. The challenges are great, but where are the leaders who can make things happen? When Hillary is seen as the giant of this race, we know that there is a dearth of leadership here.

Leadership is inclusive of many things: vision, organizational competence, and a willingness to compromise when need be. Which candidates in the field have demonstrated these qualities when need be? Some are better than others, but the top contenders, including Giuliani and Hillary have polarizing leadership styles. Some of our greatest leaders have elisited great emotion on either side, but they have one thing that the current crop of leaders don't have, and it's a willingness to compromise and re-examine their own views when need be. Such a situation has led to political stalemate in recent years between the parties. With domestic and foreign challenges on deck, that's not a place we need to be. Hillary and the Republican candidates represent as such politics as usual.

More irrelevant due to its subjectivity and definition. . .I didn't give a rat's ass about the character or integrity of my surgeon. . .as for my investment firm, I rely on regulations and laws of business more than character and integrity. . .it is a scale that is sometimes applied and sometimes left alone. . .it's a choice. . .whoops! "Choice"- there's that word again!

As voters, we have been conditioned to demand an impossible perfection from politicians. A combination of tabloid style media coverage, and relentless attack campaigning is geared to observe and amplify the slightest flaw in a candidates character.

As a result, trivial character flaws, that we would overlook or smile at in a friend, a co-worker, a family member, a boss or a business partner become deal-killers.

Personally, I think most of the so called flaws of presidents and presidential candidates in the last five decades are utterly irrelevant to their ability to perform their job.

Be it Kennedy's philandering, Johnson's crudity, Muskie's tear's, Nixon's drinking, Ford's clumsiness, Carter's lust in his heart, Reagan's age, Quayle's mis-speaking, Hart's chasing, Clinton's view of an intern's duties, Dean's angst, Kerry's pot smoking, Bush's early struggles with substance problems, to me those are all irrelevant to their ability to perform.

What is relevant is how they deal with the demands of the office, and the demands of whatever offices they have held. What is also relevant is how they deal with their flaws, although that is a trickier position given that in today's environment, having any kind of flaw is a no win situation.

Somewhere, we have lost sight of the very real concept that democratic politics is the art of the possible. That accomplishments are a matter of compromises, of settling sometimes for the half-loaf. As an electorate, we are conditioned to view compromise as weakness, reexamination and change of position as hypocrisy or lying, when in fact they are the very strengths of the democratic system.

If you don't like how politicians behave, and you don't like the way things work, take a long hard look at your own values and ethics first.

If they had either they wouldn't be a contender.

Great review by irishgit. While I agree with most of what you said, there is an important flip-side to this coin. If a person cannot be trusted by their own family, it is reasonable to ask how they are supposed to be trusted by an entire nation. Bush has shown an incredible lack of integrity and character on several fronts- most recently his commutation of Libby's prison sentence, while allowing Border Agents Ramos and Campean to rot in isolated cells.

No one realistically expects any elected official, even a President, to be "the second coming"; but yes, character and integrity do and should matter.

This is important for me. I won't find a candidate who agrees with me on all issues, so I would atleast like to see a person elected who I feel can be trusted by the American people.