In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

19 WHO WILL LEAD? Anyone reading this book could easily conclude that great men and women are di‹cult to find. Contrary to their often glamorized media depictions, those holding and seeking high political o‹ce often having glaring weaknesses , just like the rest of us.Those I have respected most—those who put public interests above self, and who could inspire and elevate those around them—have not always been winners. Readers of this book will not be surprised to find that I would not exchange one Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern,Ted Kennedy,Walter Mondale, Mike Dukakis, or Paul Tsongas for two Jimmy Carters or Bill Clintons, although the latter two served three presidential terms between them. Carter and Clinton were driven principally by personal ambition; the others, though presidential-campaign losers , were animated principally by agendas larger than themselves. Looking ahead to the presidential election of 2008 we have candidates in both parties who might be characterized as either agenda- or ambition-driven.No one seeking the presidency, of course, is a shrinking flower.The role requires an enormous ego and type A personality.But candidates can be characterized generally as falling into one camp or another. On the Democratic side, senators Barack Obama and Chris Dodd and New Mexico governor Bill Richardson are identifiable as agenda-driven. I have known and observed Dodd and Richardson over many years.Dodd,the son of former Connecticut SenatorThomas Dodd,has a long career of effective senate service and was a former chair of the Democratic National Committee .He is hard-working,articulate,and not self-obsessed.The same could be said of Richardson,a former congressional aide,chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus,Energy Secretary,and U.N.ambassador.Neither Dodd nor Richardson speaks without thinking. Each knows his own mind and is not susceptible to manipulation by pollsters, campaign consultants, or handlers. In debate over the past four years concerning Iraq, the war on terror, and related issues, both Dodd and Richardson have been critical of administration policy but have stopped short of making the accusations of bad faith and 276 lying that have characterized more fevered critiques of Bush policy. In short, they are mature people interested in moving beyond partisanship to arrive at constructive solutions serving the national interest. Obama—mistakenly identified as Osama bin Laden in a National Press Club speech by his colleague,SenatorTed Kennedy—also clearly falls within this category. His law school classmates, who mainly went for big money, report that Obama was special and apart even in his student days. He was universally respected for returning to Chicago, after receiving his degree, to be in low-paying community service. His relatively short state and national legislative experience cannot match in years that of several other candidates seeking their parties’nominations.Yet those who have served with him praise his integrity, intelligence, and diligence. Circumstances have thrust him into a presidential candidacy earlier than he might have wished. But he has not been overmatched in the role.His foreign and domestic policy views are evolving , but his instincts clearly are superb. He has a quality shared by few politicians : Those who see and hear him instinctively trust him. He has shocked, in particular, New York senator Hillary Clinton—the candidate with the longest and closest ties to party organizers and donors—by matching her fundraising totals. He has raised as much as Clinton but from many more donors, indicating that his base of support is broader and bottom-up. He is the only post-boomer-generation candidate in the race and also has an appeal that cuts across racial, ethnic, gender, and partisan lines. Senator Clinton and former Senator John Edwards are also strong Democratic candidates. But you would be hard-pressed to say that they are motivated by agenda rather than ambition. Edwards, a rich former trial lawyer, is generally given low marks by his former North Carolina constituents as an absentee senator who did little for his constituents while pursuing his national ambitions. He deserves sympathy for the loss of his teenage son, in an accident, and his wife’s gallant battle against cancer. These experiences can only have deepened him.Yet,as during his 2004 campaign as John Kerry’s running mate, his presentation of himself seems programmed and limited. You have the feeling that,somewhere in the background,pollsters and advisers told him that a protectionist economic message would attract disaffected labor-union and middle-American voters...

Share