Is politics a team sport or a reflection of individual importance attached to specific issues of personal interest and consequence? Are we naive to believe that most Americans are able to think as comprehensively as their elected leaders are expected to govern - with what’s best for the nation as a whole foremost in mind? Is that asking too much of our current generation of self-important, publicity-seeking, control-focused and prestige-driven candidates? The voters’ presidential challenge is to distinguish between performance, platform, persuasiveness, persistence and personality. Domestic divisiveness and a threatening world situation call for a leader respected for intellect, energy, foresight, introspection, toughness, conviction and courage. We’re not electing someone you’d choose for a neighbor or dinner guest, but a person able to interact effectively with other leaders of similar stature holding conflicting views and policies. Perhaps more importantly, our leader must be able to convince a presently dysfunctional Congress of viable strategies for societal advancement in a context of two-dozen contentious and divisive policy issues. Neither side is right all the time. That challenge demands unprecedented voter attention to down-ballot offices where party fealty too often has overruled constituent common sense. It’s up to us to elect open-minded, communicative representatives willing to reflect our evolving majority views issue by issue, not the other way around. Phil Osifer