What makes a good leader?  What qualities should we look for when choosing our next President?  Most of us know what we don't want -- any characteristics of the current administration.  But it's important for us as responsible citizens to learn from the past choose someone who will lead our country to a brighter future.  In his latest book, Where Have All the Leaders Gone?, Lee Iacocca discussed leadership -- how our current President lacks it, and how to know for the future who has it.  At Huffington Post, Mike Lyon determined what we already knew -- Governor Richardson has it:

I found [Iacocca's] "nine C's of leadership" to be, particularly interesting as a useful template for conducting due diligence. I tested Mr. Iacocca's formula by scoring each candidate on a scale from one to five in the categories listed below.

I was surprised with my results. Out of a possible 50 points, Bill Richardson scored 40, 10 points ahead of his closest opponent. I have always thought of the governor as well-qualified but was pretty amazed to see him out pace the others in such a way...

[the "nine C's of leadership"]

1) Curiosity
Listen to people outside the "Yes, Sir" crowd. Read voraciously.

2) Creative
Go out on a limb. Leadership is all about managing change.

3) Communicate
A simple one. You should be talking to everybody, even your enemies.

4) Character
Having the guts to do the right thing. If you don't make it on character, the rest won't amount to much.

5) Courage
Courage in the 21st century doesn't mean posturing and bravado. Courage is a commitment to sit down at the negotiation table and talk.

6) Conviction
Fire in your belly. You've got to really want to get something done.

7) Charisma
The ability to inspire. People follow a leader because they trust him/her.

8) Competent
Surround yourself with people who know what they are doing. Be a problem solver.

9) Common Sense
Your ability to reason.

Bonus:
The biggest C is "crisis." Leadership is forged in times of crisis. It's easy to sit there with your feet up on the desk and talk theory or send someone else's kids off to war when you have never seen a battlefield yourself.

There's more...

I must admit that I was a little skeptical about this forum.  Quite obviously, there is no candidate who thinks cancer is a good thing.  Everybody agrees that cancer is an awful disease and that our government should do more for prevention, treatment, research, etc.  So, when everybody agrees on the basics, I tend to keep my ears perked for excessive pandering to the audience.  It is not too hard for a Democratic candidate for President to look good when speaking about cancer issues to a group of people with a great degree of interest in defeating this disease.  

The Livestrong Forum exceeded my expectations.  There were over 1000 people in attendance at the U.S. Cellular Center in Cedar Rapids.  Both the Clinton and Edwards campaigns were clearly represented by a large number of the 1000 crowd members.  Candidates received three minutes for opening remarks followed by questions and answers around a table with Lance Armstrong and Chris Matthews.  

In speaking first, Senator Clinton pledged to double the budgets for the National Institute of Health (NIH) and National Cancer Institute (NCI), end insurance discrimination against individuals with pre-existing conditions, mandate that insurers pay for cancer screening, pay for programs to help smokers kick their habit, and commit the United States to a "war on cancer." With regard to the NIH and NCI, Senator Clinton essentially said that President Bill Clinton increased their budgets a great deal, and President George W. Bush has frozen or cut their budgets.  This refrain of "we need to spend more money on research" was used by all the candidates.  However, it was not really a crowd favorite.  It is not particularly creative, nor bold.  By the time Richardson, as the third speaker, said "we need to increase the NIH budget by 206%," he received only polite applause.  

There's more...