Underlying most reporting and discussion of the current and past Presidential campaigns seems to be an assumption that campaigning is different from governing. During the campaign—the horse race—you gotta be tough and remember that politics ain't beanbag and that character assassination works. While campaigning, repetitive and bald-faced lies, ad hominem attacks, dirty money, secret commitments to special interests, expedient flip-flops, evasion of responsibility for what you and your staff have done, dirty tricks, etc. seem to be regarded as situation-appropriate ethics.

I don't understand why anybody would believe that once the campaign is over the winner will stop all that nasty stuff and play by Marquis of Queensbury rules while governing. First, campaigns are never over; it's now accepted that there are "permanent campaigns" while in office. Second, Richard Nixon and George W. Bush were the two nastiest campaigners since WWII, and neither of them reformed a bit in office. Indeed, they were our lyingest, cheatingest, concealingest, law-defyingest, and most partisan Presidents of the era. Third, because candidates are subject to much more media scrutiny and accountability than are Presidents, a President can much more easily get away with the nasty stuff than can a candidate. If his conscience lets a candidate do something in the campaign, there is no restraint on going at least that deeply into the dark side when in power.

How he campaigns is the "character issue" I would like to see discussed more in the mainstream media, but I guess that's just me.