Arrogance. Narcissism. Recklessness.

Strength. Ambition. Willingness to take risks.

Which do you desire in your leaders? Column A or Column B? Neither?

A little from both?

On Monday, New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer became the latest addition to a long list of politicians and other high-profile leaders who have become embroiled in scandals of a sexual nature.

Bill Clinton. Mark Foley. Intelligent individuals whose political careers have been soiled by leaked tales of secret trysts. It’s not difficult to think of examples even here in local politics.

Both the New York Times and USA Today on Monday try to address that age-old query:

“Why do people in power do stupid things?”

Some say it may have only a little to do with stupidity, and more with vaulting ambition — and the nature of the job.

“I think biologists could tell you this has something to do with natural selection — the person who acquires power becomes the alpha male,” Tom Fiedler, who teaches press and politics at Harvard’s Kennedy School, says in the Times.

Politics can be a cutthroat and uncertain field, so it’s no surprise that it attracts competitive people who are willing to take risks.

Seems like there’s a contradiction here. Surely, we desire leaders who will be different and innovative, who will rise to meet challenges instead of cowering in a corner or sitting idly like bumps on a log.

Unfortunately, too much of certain leadership qualities can also cause individuals to eventually self-destruct. Can the line between “confidence” and “too much confidence” ever be drawn? Does ambition necessarily entail recklessness?

Or do we just have to accept a little from both columns?

When it comes to choosing our leaders, which matters more: character or issues?

I’ve heard people describe Barack Obama as “visionary” and “inspiring,” a leader of the younger generation.

But others have expressed concern on this blog that people, especially young people, are voting for Obama because of his leadership qualities and rock-star appeal — not because of the specific policies he has articulated.

As one commenter put it:

[M]uch like Obama’s campaign itself…I believe younger people are attracted to him for superficial reasons, not for substance. He has not articulated a clear, concise, cohesive plan with details on where he is going to take this country (and, by default, the rest of the world) in the next few years.

In fact, both Democratic and Republican voters may be placing character over issues. As Gerald Seib wrote in the Wall Street Journal on Feb. 5:

[T]he election of 2008, thus far, is less about ideology and ideas and more about governing style and leadership ability — intangible qualities on which voters are placing a higher priority than on issues. The tenor seems a reflection of the country’s mood: Many voters are in revolt against the partisan wars and bouts of gridlock that have gripped Washington in recent years, and are seeking effectiveness above all.

We all have our reasons for supporting certain candidates. On the local level in Hawaii elections, it may be as simple as recognizing the person who walked up and down your street discussing community issues with folks, or the guy you’ve known from way back, who was a loyal friend or faithful teammate. Perhaps you really liked their communication skills or their ability to be a team player, and you figured they’d make great leaders because of those qualities.

We aren’t ever asked to justify our votes when we make that decision in the voting booth. You could vote for a candidate because you thought she had a fantastic smile, and your vote would count just as much as the one cast by the person in the next booth who spent hours and hours analyzing the most pressing policy issues facing the United States today. One man, one vote. Regardless of the justification.

So, in this election, which is more important to you: personal qualities, like leadership skills, or what the candidate has said he or she will do if elected?

Does it matter what criteria we use to choose our leaders?

Should it matter?

With 68 percent of precincts reporting, Barack Obama appears to have won Hawaii by a landslide. Obama had 20,974 votes, or 76 percent, to Sen. Hillary Clinton’s 6,529 votes, or 24 percent, as of 11:39 p.m.

The turn-out was incredible — far more than maybe anyone had expected.

“I don’t think we could have prepared for this,” one of the caucus organizers at Jefferson Elementary told me mid-way through the evening.

I’m sure there will be much debate in the days to come about the process. With the overwhelming number of people, many sites ran out of materials or even took good faith pledges from people that they would register as Democrats afterwards if they were allowed to cast ballots tonight.

The site I was at ran out of both printed ballots (they had to handwrite them) and name cards (which they used to write down the precinct in which each person was voting). One person compared it to “choosing your high school prom king and queen.” That was less than an hour into the voting.

As soon as I finished talking with people in line at Jefferson Elementary, I grabbed a seat at a table where ballots for one of the smaller precincts were being collected and watched the action from there.

It was chaos. The only organized elements appeared to be the tables, arranged by precinct, and the line. There were hundreds of people crammed in the cafeteria and thousands outside. People stood on tables. Every 10 minutes, someone would go to the microphone and assure people that Everything was fine, No, the rules had not been changed, we’ve just run out of ballots.

Some people who arrived around 7 p.m. saw the line, which was at that point wrapped around several school buildings, and turned away. Others probably just couldn’t find parking in cramped Waikiki and gave up. I parked at the Waikiki Shell and walk over to the school.

But the mood among those who stuck around were surprisingly upbeat. Les Among, a member of the Waikiki Neighborhood Board, likened it to “neighbors who haven’t seen each other in a while.”

It was this great, big crazy mass of people who knew they were taking part in something big, even though they may not have known exactly what to do, how the caucus worked or even if they were registered Democrats.

It will be interesting to see if this momentum holds up till the general election.

Just walking onto the site and catching sight of that never-ending line was a personal thrill. I realized tonight that I’ve never actually gone to a polling place to vote in an election, since I left Hawaii at 18 for school and so have since been an absentee voter by default. Checking the little box and sending the ballot in the mail is definitely not the same thing. Here were people who had taken the time to come to the site, and waited in line for probably over an hour just to make a little mark on a piece of paper that was then shoved unceremoniously into a manila envelope.

They say democracy is messy, and tonight most certainly proved it.