Glad We Have Our Priorities Straight

I was reading over an article on the New York Times online about the results of the New Hampshire caucus, and some of the things that it talks about are truly amazing. 

First, let's look at why a candidate thinks you should vote for them, and why they think they are the best candidate.  Here is a bit that address why Mrs. Clinton thinks you should vote for her. (emphasis mine)

Mr. Obama, who trailed in most state and national polls until his surprisingly broad victory in the Iowa caucuses last week, was seen by New Hampshire Democrats and independents as the Democratic candidate most likely to defeat the Republican nominee in November, a marked turnaround from earlier surveys. Mrs. Clinton has cited her strength and electability against Republicans as the strongest argument for her candidacy.

Ah, so that's why we need to vote for Hillary: she can win in a vote against the Republicans.  See, I was under the impression that maybe we should vote for her because we agree with her views on Iraq, or healthcare or something.  I didn't realize that we were supposed to be voting for who had the best chance at winning instead of who we want to see elected.  Maybe this is a problem that is only on the Democrat side, though.  Maybe those Republican voters won't be so bad.  Let's take a look. (emphasis mine)

As they had in Iowa, Democrats cited a desire for change in making their votes. Republicans said leadership and personal qualities were more important to them than positions on the issues.

Oh, well that's refreshing to see.  The Republicans aren't all concerned with who might win the election, they just look at what type of person the candidate is.  I don't really know if that's all that much better or not.  Apparently, for Republicans, they don't really care whether or not the candidate agrees with them on economic policy, or tax reform.  No, they just want to make sure that he's a good Christian that loves his family.

So, really, are either of these things all that bad?  Shouldn't we be interested in electing someone that has a chance at winning so we don't just hand the race over to the other guy?  Shouldn't we also be interested in making sure that the person is a decent human being so that we can assume they won't think genocide is a good idea?  Yes, to both of these.  However, to make them your primary focus is a horrible idea.  The concept of looking at non-issues when determining who deserves your vote is why we're in the current situation.  And no, that's not directly solely at Bush, I mean politics in general.  By taking away the issues (and I really should clarify that I mean all issues, not just the issues that get mentioned on CNN), we reduce the race to a contest of not who would do a better job, but who we like more.  We're not voting for homecoming queen here, we're voting for the person that will be the figurehead of our country.  You shouldn't hire someone that knows nothing about tax law to do your taxes just because he's a good guy, and you shouldn't hire someone to be your president just because they have better poll numbers. 

This is exactly why we shouldn't leave it up to the idiots to pick a president.