a reasonable president?

One final piece from this weekend's WSJ-- an essay by Peggy Noonan on her desire for "reasonable" candidates to emerge from the primary process, starting with Iowa...

This is my 2008 slogan: Reasonable Person for President. That is my hope, what I ask Iowa to produce, and I claim here to speak for thousands, millions. We are grown-ups, we know our country needs greatness, but we do not expect it and will settle at the moment for good. We just want a reasonable person. We would like a candidate who does not appear to be obviously insane. We'd like knowledge, judgment, a prudent understanding of the world and of the ways and histories of the men and women in it.

From there, she begins to list and detail her "reasonables". She starts with Biden & Dodd, Romney, McCain, and Obama. But then, there's Hillary...

Hillary Clinton? No, not reasonable. I concede her sturdy mind, deep sophistication, and seriousness of intent. I see her as a triangulator like her husband, not a radical but a maneuverer in the direction of a vague, half-forgotten but always remembered, leftism. It is also true that she has a command-and-control mentality, an urgent, insistent and grating sense of destiny, and she appears to believe that any act that benefits Clintons is a virtuous act, because Clintons are good and deserve to be benefited.

But this is not, actually, my central problem with her candidacy. My central problem is that the next American president will very likely face another big bad thing, a terrible day, or days, and in that time it will be crucial -- crucial -- that our nation be led by a man or woman who can be, at least for the moment and at least in general, trusted. Mrs. Clinton is the most dramatically polarizing, the most instinctively distrusted, political figure of my lifetime. Yes, I include Nixon. Would she be able to speak the nation through the trauma? I do not think so. And if I am right, that simple fact would do as much damage to America as the terrible thing itself.

Ouch! OK, back to "reasonable" candidates, including Duncan Hunter, Fred Thompson, and Bill Richardson.

Ron Paul is eminently reasonable, but by not mentioning him-- and listing Duncan Hunter-- many of his followers will not be so reasonable as they try to get in contact with Ms. Noonan! I continue to be surprised and disappointed by the many who have tried to marginalize Paul-- even if they disagree with him. Amazing...but maybe it's just more fuel for his followers' fire?

But maybe Paul is better off for being omitted-- given the treatment she gives to Huckabee (and then, Edwards).

Mike Huckabee gets enough demerits to fall into my not-reasonable column. John Edwards is not reasonable. All the Democrats would raise taxes as president, but Mr. Edwards's populism is the worst of both worlds, both intemperate and insincere. Also we can't have a president who spent two minutes on YouTube staring in a mirror and poofing his hair. Really, we just can't.

And then she concludes her run through the list of candidates with this cryptic remark about Giuliani:

I forgot Rudy Giuliani. That must say something. He is reasonable but not desirable. If he wins somewhere, I'll explain.

From there, she closes with two paragraphs of observation and advice for the Democrats who happen to win and lose-- given that "much of the drama is on the Democratic side".

If Mrs. Clinton wins, modesty is in order, with a graceful nod to Mr. Obama. If she loses -- well, the Clintons haven't lost an election since 1980. For a quarter century she's known only victory at the polls. Does she know how to lose? However she acts, whatever face she shows, it will be revealing. Humility would be a good strategy....

For Mr. Obama [interestingly, she implicitly assumes he will win]: a lot of America will be looking at him for the first time, and under the most favorable circumstances: as the winner of something. This is an opportunity to assert freshly what his victory means, and will mean, for America....But what is it besides a break from? What is it a step toward, an embrace of?