Presidential Choices: A Soldier/Legislator vs A Charismatic Statesman

History is replete with examples of military heroes who have become leaders of their nation: DeGaule in France, Washington in the US, Castro in Cuba, Eisenhower in the US, Napoleon in France, Chavez in Venezuela, Hitler in Germany, Grant in the US and Musharraf in Pakistan. Even this small sample reveals that the results of that kind of national choice are not uniform across time or place. The wisdom of choosing a former soldier depends on the nations circumstances at the time.

In the US, the Constitution stipulates that the President is the "Commander in Chief" of the entire military, which would seem to encourage a military selection for the position of President, yet the articles to the constitution grants to Congress the power to raise and support armies, to declare wars and to make the rules for governing the military. The division, not the consolidation of war powers was clearly the intent of our forefathers. This intent has not always played out in practice. In our most recent stretch of history going back to Nixon (police actions instead of declarations of war), the Executive Branch of government has found ways to prevail over Congress. The dangers resulting from this trend were fore ordained By Dwight Eisenhower who alerted us to and warned us about an emerging "Military Industrial Complex". 

That is where we find ourselves today. In the aftermath of 9/11 these shifts in the balance of power have only intensified. We have strayed far from the original intent of our forefathers. Have we gone too far?

So today we find ourselves with the choice for our next President seemingly narrowing down to an heroic Soldier-Legislator and a Charismatic candidate who shows much promise of becoming a true  Statesman with an encompassing breadth of vision.  

Who better suits the times and the full range of challenges we face?