On the panel with Swift were Lance Morrow, an essayist for Time magazine for three decades and the author of The Best Year of Their Lives: Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon in 1948; Bruce Miroff, a professor of political science at the University at Albany and the author of several books on American politics; and Rex Smith, editor and vice president of the Albany Times Union and the host of “The Media Project” on WAMC, Northeast Public Radio.

Morrow opened the discussion with the assertion that you can’t figure out what someone will do as president based on what is said in a political campaign. He cited as evidence the campaign promises and assurances about keeping the country out of war made by Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson—the presidents who, respectively, were in office when the U.S. entered World War I, World War II, and the War in Vietnam. Morrow suggested that, instead taking of campaign promises seriously, we might do better betting that the opposite will occur and quoted in support of his position the 19th-century French philosopher Proudhon: “The fecundity of the unexpected far exceeds the statesman’s prudence.”

Miroff balanced Morrow’s skepticism about campaign promises by pointing out that presidents did attempt to keep major domestic commitments that were of central importance to the coalition that put them in office. Picking up on this, Morrow recalled that George W. Bush in his campaign had talked about being humble and not engaging in nation building. On domestic issues, however, there was less of a disconnect. He talked about improving education, and he delivered No Child Left Behind.

Pursuing the topic of campaign promises, Smith observed that there is a precision in the pledges being made in the current campaign which has been absent from campaigns in the past, making the point that precision is a campaign strategist’s enemy. Political strategists, said Smith, attach a great deal of value to the ability to say nothing.

On the theme of experience, which has been prominent in the current campaign, Smith pointed out that the most credentialed and experienced presidents in recent decades have been George H. W. Bush, Richard Nixon, and Lyndon Johnson. He made the point that experience needs to be weighed against judgment. James Buchanan, he said, who is remembered as the worst president, had enormous experience but lacked moral fiber.

Miroff agreed that often those presidents who have the most impressive resumes turn out to be flops. He cautioned that it is important to distinguish between accomplishment and success as president. LBJ, he noted, accomplished a great deal as president but is not considered a particularly successful president.

Morrow stressed the importance of communication and the need to communicate with the public at large, noting that George W. Bush has made astonishing little effort to communicate, perhaps because he assumed that he didn’t have to. Smith made the point that when a president is in office there is as much need for “sound bites” as there is on the campaign trail—to convey ideas to the American public in succinct ways.

Swift stressed the ability to lead and inspire the country as an important quality of leadership, citing JFK, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, and FDR as presidents who possessed this quality. He also made the point that temperament was important, recalling that it has been said of FDR that he possessed a second-class intellect but a first-class temperament.

Returning to the qualities that make a good president, Swift cited openness—openness to new experience, openness to different points of view, and openness to learning from your mistakes. Miroff suggested that the need for openness depends on the president’s relationship with the people who put him in office. “If you have 51 percent, you can steamroll the others,” pointing out that George W. Bush didn’t feel the need to be open.

Toward the end of the discussion, the conversation became specifically about the current presidential campaign. Smith suggested that the Republican Party was in disarray because they had nominated a candidate who didn’t really speak for the base. Miroff made the point that McCain has no coherent argument—anything he can say is not a very popular argument and his remedies are standard old Reagan remedies. Morrow observed that McCain is putting a great deal of emphasis on his personal appeal and his ability as a leader.

Swift drew a comparison between the two candidates and their approaches to the campaign: McCain is tactical; Obama is strategic, looking past the election. Morrow agreed, making the point that there has been the constant temptation in the campaign for Obama to hit back, but he avoids it because it is not in his long-range interest to get into a tussle. Smith saw this refusal to engage as evidence of the openness that Swift had defined earlier.

Returning to the theme of presidential character, Miroff mentioned aloofness—not having buddies—a quality shared by FDR and Abraham Lincoln. Swift mentioned self control, and Smith suggested dogged tenacity. Morrow reminded the panel that presidential reputations are constantly being adjusted, citing Ulysses S. Grant as an example of a president who, from the perspective of history, turns out to be a much better president than he was remembered to be by his contemporaries. Morrow made the point that if sticking to principles alone is the measure of greatness, which is the theme of Profiles in Courage, an argument could be made for the greatness of George W. Bush.

Talking about why Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama fought so hard over the Democratic nomination, Miroff made the point that the 2008 election is a golden moment—a moment of great political opportunity. It is auspicious for a president to come into office when the other party is crumbling. The history of American presidents offers evidence that great successes are often preceded by great failures.