There has been much talk of whether Bush or Kerry will make a better president. This conversation often resolves to something along the lines of "Kerry/Bush is no good" and then some memo or person from 30 years ago is disputed. There is a place for this, in evaluating the general character and trustworthiness of someone, but there is more.
Modern presidents are examples of teamwork. The president gets to choose who will work with him, and appoints quite a few people into positions of power - the head of the Justice Department, the EPA, the DoD, the FCC, etc. The team then works to fulfill the president's goals and head off potential problems.
I've noticed that there have been few discussions of that a Bush or Kerry administration will mean to the country.
Conservative Republican Pat Buchanan said that he thought the neo-cons would be tossed and there were no true conservatives in the Republican party leadership. There has been mention of Powell and Rice stepping down. There is typically a change if a president is starting a second term. Will Bush swing toward the middle? Will he go further right? Will his religiousness guide him? Not much has been said, leaving us to wonder what a Bush administration might want to do with another four years.
With Kerry, we can assume that some of those campiagning with him will be rewarded with positions. Might we see Carol Mosely-Braun or Howard Dean in the cabinet? (Would Vermont be better served by an administration with a former governor in it?) It could be that we see the return of former Democrats. My own guess is that the new Democrats - Spitzer, Obarak - will have to wait their turn and pay some more dues before this crowd lets them in.
Beyond the question of people comes that of policy. Bush has a track record to be judged by, president-wise. Kerry does not. There has been much discussion, for example, of "does Kerry have a plan for Iraq?", but very few can articulate what the Bush plan is either. Perhaps the debates will shine some light on the candidates plans for the policies of their respective administrations.
The president, by design, is replaceable. The argument that we shouldn't change quarterbacks mid-game was dealt with by our founding fathers in their creation of regular elections and the position of vice-president. They, smartly, saw that it would be bad for our country if everything depended on a single person for success, and made arrangements for contigencies that allow us the freedom to continue our government regardless of the person named as president. If we give Bush four more years, that doesn't mean he'll last four years - but if something happens to him Cheney will be able to take over.
Again, the administration is there to carry on as well. And again, we have to ask ourselves which group of people will work in our best interest.
(I have a rule of thumb with candidates - if I had to miss an important meeting, whom could I trust to go on my behalf and do what I would like done? Can I trust them to argue my points?)
So, which looks more sensible, given what we can guess? A Bush team of people like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Wolfowitz, etc., or a Kerry team of people like Edwards, Dean, Braun, Gephardt, Clark, etc?
I think both sides could benefit from discussing administrations and policies, helping to talk about specifics rather than the personalities of the two candidates. Someone may dislike Bush but be in favor of pre-emptive wars and Rumsfeld. Someone may despise Kerry but like the idea of spending to get health care for more people. You see how this goes.
My final question to you is what recommedations for cabinet positions and other appointments would you make for either candidate? Who should stay and go with Bush? Who should Kerry consider?