On Political Leadership in the Most General Terms

Mayor Ray "Chocolate City" Nagin (I think I will start calling him
"Mayor Milk Dud") was reelected in New Orleans. Ray is blunt, often
letting his mouth utter words that have seen the business-trained side
of his mind but not the politically savvy side.

His opponent, Mitch Landreau, is from an old political family.
Mitch's dad; Moon, for whom the city's "Moon Walk" is named; was
Mayor of New Orleans; his sister, Mary, spends other people's money
as a member of Congress. Mitch is polished. He can spin the truth
like a roulette wheel, and with similar, who-knows-what's-coming-up
results.

I was unable to vote, my ballot was absconded by a party I shall
not name, but I think I'd have voted for Ray. Somehow, a painfully
blunt official allows me a better night's sleep than one whose words
must be constantly parsed. Yes, in a contest between Mayor Milk Dud
and Machine Mitch, one candidate promised us an eye-rolling and head
shaking four years. With the other, Crescent City citizens would
surely have seen a return to double entandre political poppycock.
When choice leaves us stuck between bald-headed comedy and bald-faced
federal indictments, give me the funny guy. I think I tend to vote
for the one who will do the least.

Was that a typo? Did I really mean "least harm"? Can I apply my standard
to all leadership? Would I, say, vote this conscience for the President
of the SBC, or the North American Mission Board?; the latter of which
individuals I have no voice with which to judge; i.e., no vote anyway.
I meant to write the one who--in my limited estimation--will do the
LEAST HARM. Now, I can vote for myself to lead something :)