The role of inspiration -- and perspiration -- in Presidential politics

I haven't written too much about the Hillary v. Barack tussle recently because, to be blunt, I'm OK with either one getting the nomination. Yes, it's fascinating to watch how the Clintons have double teamed Barack; and it's too bad he doesn't have an open man to pass the ball to. And I'm in awe of the way that Bill has gotten inside Barack's head. Politics ain't beanbag (or basketball) and both Clintons know this in their bones. Barack, on the other hand, has got to figure this stuff out on the fly if he's going to win. And although winning isn't the only thing, it is the first thing that has to happen before he can do all the rest.

Now, from a philosophical point of view, I realize that Clinton and Obama represent very different choices. But regardless of how fundamentally different the two of them are, they both have qualities that would make either one of them a valuable addition to the ranks of "great Democratic presidents."

It was Edison who said that invention was "1% inspiration and 99% perspiration." And although I'm sure Obama would beg to differ on the relative proportions of these two elements, I'd say Edison had a pretty good eye for politics as well as applied science.

Hillary is the 99% perspiration candidate. She's the operating officer who will make change happen by knowing how to manipulate the user interface. She is the operating officer that Obama admits he is not. Obama, on the other hand, is the 1% inspiration candidate. He will rely on his ability to motivate the average American to force change from the bottom up.

The ideal president can do both, but there haven't been too many of those in our lifetime. My short list of nominees would include JFK, LBJ, Reagan and Clinton. Some would suggest that JFK and LBJ were part of the same transformative movement. You could also make the case that Reagan was transformative but in the wrong direction. Lastly, you could say that Clinton was not transformative at all -- his changes were too small bore. But all of that is for another discussion.

For now, let's just say that Hillary and Obama (as well as Edwards) represent two different -- but worthwhile aspects that are necessary for presidential success. I'm fine with any of them.