The Proof is In The Answers

No, what we ought to be focusing on is the judgment of the individual who seeks to lead the country and to be entrusted with the power to embroil us in hostilities. What question could be more pertinent and more informative than whether, in the stark glare of hindsight, the war in Iraq was wise? Answering no does not dishonor the sacrifice of soldiers; it recognizes the gravity of the decision about whether to take a nation to war.

Running for president can fairly be described as an exercise in hypothesis: If you were president, how would you handle X, Y or Z? If you don't want to hypothesize, don't run.

By Thursday -- Thursday! -- Bush finally got it right: "Knowing what we know now, I would have not engaged. I would not have gone into Iraq."

Why was that so hard? What does it say about Bush that it took so long to correct course? Nothing good.

Next up, Huckabee. On CBS' "Face the Nation" last weekend, host Bob Schieffer asked the former Arkansas governor about hawking a dubious diabetes cure.

Huckabee: "You know, I don't have to defend everything I have ever done. I am not doing those infomercials, obviously, now as a candidate for president."

Actually, running for president means precisely having to defend everything you have ever done. If you don't like it, don't run.

Finally, there is She Who Does Not Deign to Answer Questions. Certainly not questions from pesky reporters.

From the candidate's perspective -- see Bush and Huckabee -- you can see why this is desirable. From the public's point of view, not so much.

According to National Public Radio, Clinton has held zero news conferences, granted zero interviews, and answered -- judging generously -- 13 media questions since announcing. The Clinton campaign cautions that she is still ramping up -- engaging with everyday Americans, just not everyday reporters.

Question time, they soothe, will come. Meanwhile, why step on her message -- criminal justice, immigration -- by taking questions?

Um, because that's part of the process. You can't tweet your way to the presidency. Because reporters have different -- sometimes better and more pointed -- questions than voters. Because there are growing areas of legitimate inquiry -- her position on trade, for one -- that merit answers. (The New York Times' Amy Chozick offered an excellent example on immigration: "How could you stretch the law further than the president ... says it can go?")

Because how you behave on the trail augurs what you'll do in office, including how accessible you'll be. I have forebodings of future columns lamenting President Clinton's umpty-umpth day without a news conference.

If you don't want to deal with reporters, don't run for president.

========

Ruth Marcus' email address is ruthmarcus@washpost.com.