Speaking first, Obama projected a starkly different approach to leading than McCain's. He revealed less a specific, substantive vision, and more a style and process of leading--one that appears distinctly more collaborative and participatory than McCain's, involving broader consultation in decision making. He highlighted his empathy for others and his capacity to bring together people of differing views to find "common sense," non-ideological solutions to problems. Obama came across as more cerebral than intuitive in his judgment, even-tempered, comfortable with nuance, and a committed bridge-builder.

Together with all the other judgments voters will be making this fall, they will need to decide what kind of leader is the right fit to meet the challenges of the times. As president, would McCain's certitude and passion provide precisely the strength and clear direction we need in troubled times--or would he be rigid and incapable of adapting? Would Obama's openness to diverse views and pragmatic approach to problem solving prove just what's needed in a fast-changing, complex global environment--or would he find himself rudderless?

Voters should be able to draw on more than Saturday evening's Saddleback discussions. In covering four broad domains, Pastor Warren had time to pose only four or five questions in the roughly twelve minutes allocated to leadership. This was time enough to demonstrate just how fertile this terrain can be in assessing how the candidates might lead if elected--but it also whets the appetite for more.

Unfortunately, it's unlikely that the three scheduled presidential debates this fall will do the trick, given the range of policy issues they will have to cover in three 90-minute sessions. While the debates' focus on policy is understandable, they run the risk of leaving viewers with the impression that leadership excellence can simply be taken for granted. In any event, the debate format--answers limited to two minutes, little follow-up questioning for deeper probing--constrains what voters can learn about the candidates' capacity to lead the nation effectively.

Few would question that leadership competence is an essential ingredient in a successful presidency. Candidates know this, routinely trumpeting their leadership prowess in commercials and bumper stickers. But campaigns rarely provide voters with the depth and quality of information about the candidates that they need to assess how much "there" there is beneath the self-serving slogans, and to judge--between two capable leaders--which candidate's leadership would better fit the challenges of the day and those still unknown that will emerge.

Voters need a clear sense of the candidates' inner core, and how they have dealt with and learned from their personal and professional challenges. Voters should also better understand the candidates' visions of where they want to lead the nation, and how they will do the actual work of leading--inspiring, communicating, building high-performing teams, forming coalitions, making decisions, getting difficult things done against predictable resistance--if elected.

Yes, many voters will vote more for party than for leader, and others will vote based on candidates' positions on policy issues. For these voters, the candidates' leadership qualities, detached from substantive agenda, is very secondary. And our presidential campaigns as presently conducted do a pretty good job of giving voters clear choice on party and policy agenda.

But it's not too much to ask that voters also be given a clear choice between leaders; and in that respect our presidential campaigns can be much improved. Playing out over more than a year, costing many hundreds of millions, these campaigns have ample time and money to give the public what any responsible board of directors would insist on before hiring a new corporate CEO.

At a minimum, an hour-long, leadership-focused interview should become part of the standard process for vetting each of our final choices for the nation's next leader. The American people deserve this, and candidates aspiring to lead a great nation should be more than happy to oblige.