OK, enough mirth and ribaldry.

Canellos nevertheless has a serious point here--a president brings a certain problem-solving culture to the office and frankly that is almost always his greatest contribution or deficiency while in office. Bush is routinely criticized for the sin of loyalty and "stubbornness"--terrible, awful personal attributes I grant you. Much better to have a lack of committment, a lack of focus and utter unaccountability. The reality of course is that a president's personal qualities and approach may be absolutely correct in one circumstance and a disaster in another.

Most people like to think they are leaders of men, but the reality is that the vast majority of us are ill-equipped for such a role, which in my experience is more about temperament than intelligence and even experience. Bill Clinton is acknowledged to be highly intelligence, but his temperament left his presidency in shambles. Richard Nixon is an even better example of this--highly skilled, intelligence and experienced, his demons unwound his presidency.

George W. Bush is not generally lauded for his intelligence (largely due to his awkward communication skills), experience or other resume items, but he does have solid character--something sorely missing in Congress among both Democrats and Republicans. If he manages to eke out progress in Iraq the way he has in the war on terror generally, he will be well-treated by historians. Should that occur, it will be due almost solely to his "stubbornness" or more realistically, to the element of his character that holds commitment higher than the good opinion of eastern elites.

Canellos examines Romney in these terms

This venture capitalist's ability to size up a situation and take all necessary measures has defined both his message and his campaign. The implicit message is that Romney will be a far shrewder master of the Iraq war than Bush -- making clear-headed judgments and achieving maximum results.

But Romney, in preparing for his presidential campaign, made moves as governor that often appeared bloodless and cynical -- vetoing spending programs while knowing his successor will restore them; ordering police to round up illegal immigrants at just the moment that immigration becomes a big national issue; denying protection to a visiting Iranian politician to demonstrate toughness on Iran.

These moves may get him closer to the Republican nomination, but whether they reflect deep principles or merely a venture capitalist's professional sense of what's required to achieve his goal is already the defining question of the Romney campaign.

Odd to see a seasoned journalist complain about political symbolism while espousing Clinton in a messanic role. Such symbolism may be distasteful, but its often a necessity. I'm reading Doris Kearns Goodwin's biography of Abraham Lincoln which details his masterful use of political symbolism in a polarized political environment.

There is political symbolism and then there is political symbolism. Lincoln used it extensively to mollify competing constituencies in the interim between his election and his taking office. Lincoln sent out Sen. William Seward to sound conciliatory, even as his words directly contradicted Lincoln's famous "House Divided" speech. In spite of this, there was no ambiguity in Lincoln's stated principles and goals. He was clear as to the objective even as he did what was necessary to accomplish it.

Romney's success as a businessman comes out of a similar skill set--he quickly understands the real problems and is committed to applying the correct solutions. Sometimes, as Canello notes, he has to be cold-blooded about it. I say thank God he can be. Someone who understands the problem and the solution but doesn't do what is necessary to resolve the situation is called a politician, and that's what Bill Clinton was--his polls were more important than the national interest and in the end he served neither the national interest or his own.

Those who will do the hard things, regardless of the hit to their poll numbers are called statesmen.

Romney has demonstrated that he has the statesman quality, while still possessing a significant political acumen--an excellent combination found in all great presidents, particularly in time of war and change.