Would you rather have as President....

[JRP1994]

Interesting to see how this turns out.

[Donerail]

"Would you vote for Hillary Clinton over Ben Carson?"

Yes.

[JRP1994]

"Would you vote for Hillary Clinton over Ben Carson?"

Yes.

Ha! I'm thinking in much more general terms than that. Trying to get at the fundamental question of whether character (or, to be fair, perception of character) matters more or less than a candidate's actual stated positions.

[TarHeelDem]

Whether with integrity or duplicity, leaders will act on their beliefs. I want someone leading who shares mine.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Both. Depends on the candidates.

[useful idiot]

In most cases, I feel like the disagreeing about nearly everything influences one's view of a candidates' character. For the person of the left, a gay marriage opponent is rarely seen as a good person. For someone who is pro-life, it's often hard to see someone who supports late-term abortion as anything less than morally bankrupt. Gun rights' activists don't care about dead kids, gun control advocates don't think women should be able to defend themselves against rapists. People against Obamacare want poor people to die in the streets, supporters want death panels.

 I'd also add that given the way the media and politics now works, it's nearly impossible to know how credible allegations of dishonesty or corruption are. Legitimate and phony scandals result in nearly the same amount of outrage and media coverage. Half of the country thinks it's a big deal, the other side doesn't.

I vote for people I disagree with on most things most of the time, because one issue overrides nearly all others for me, and I don't see it as morally neutral. If that issue were off the table, however, I'd generally prefer the person of high character to the dishonest or corrupt one.

[pho]

Option 2. "High character" is very subjective; one doesn't have to be dirty to have poor character relative to another's values.

[Crumpets]

Well I'm a Hillary Clinton supporter so...

But that being said, I don't honestly think Hillary has low moral fiber. I recognize she is "surrounded by suspicion," but I think it's almost entirely unwarranted.

[dudeabides]

Well I'm a Hillary Clinton supporter so...

But that being said, I don't honestly think Hillary has low moral fiber. I recognize she is "surrounded by suspicion," but I think it's almost entirely unwarranted.

Forgetting the scandals for a minute, I think it is completely immoral to vote to send our kids off to war but then vote against funding them when the political winds change. That alone tells me everything I need to know about her. Joe Biden was a huge critic of the Bush administration, but he voted to fund our troops at war because he knew that regardless of polls and if he regretted his initial vote, he had voted to send them into harm's way. Hillary betrayed our country, our troops, and their families with that vote. In our system of government, we have to have votes to fund things, but I still see it as immoral to vote against our troops.

[Kingpoleon]

Well I'm a Hillary Clinton supporter so...

But that being said, I don't honestly think Hillary has low moral fiber. I recognize she is "surrounded by suspicion," but I think it's almost entirely unwarranted.

Forgetting the scandals for a minute, I think it is completely immoral to vote to send our kids off to war but then vote against funding them when the political winds change. That alone tells me everything I need to know about her. Joe Biden was a huge critic of the Bush administration, but he voted to fund our troops at war because he knew that regardless of polls and if he regretted his initial vote, he had voted to send them into harm's way. Hillary betrayed our country, our troops, and their families with that vote. In our system of government, we have to have votes to fund things, but I still see it as immoral to vote against our troops.

Jeb Bush is now against the Iraq War. Not for the honorable, "I am generally opposed to authorize deaths on both sides by my right hand." but the "information we have now."

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

Two. Most of the ills our society suffers from were inflicted by high-minded people of decent character.

[ag]

Let us Godwin it.

Hitler´s personal integrity was not much in doubt in 1932. Definitely, looked spectacular compared to most alternatives.

Alas, the question cannot be resolved in the abstract.

[Kingpoleon]

Yes, I'd rather have Sanders over Clinton.

[DavidB.]

Option two. I don't have to chill with the candidate I vote for. He or she doesn't have to be my friend. I vote for someone who represents my view on what the world should be like, and on what the government should do. That's it.

And for many countries, it's good not to have "a nice guy" as leader.

[/]

Second option; Hillary

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

It's a loaded question.  Personally, I tend to believe that there is enough unsavory facts about most of the candidates running to where character wouldn't be an issue.

If we were talking about a Representative or Senator, I'd choose option 2, in that I prefer a correct vote to an honest vote for the Koch Brothers, a new war in Iraq, etc.  As a President, however, I think that there is a danger of putting into the White House a man of questionable character.  If you were a Republican in 1973, would it have been OK if Spiro Agnew had succeeded Nixon had he died suddenly of a heart attack, or would you be more OK with Carl Albert succeeding to the office before the 25th Amendment could kick in?