It is again the season for evaluating candidates for public office. In this regard the politically-oriented criteria is generally accepted: Where a person stands on issues, how well thought out are his positions, the consistency of policy statements over time. Also considered, are character issues: the integrity of the individual, ties to special interests, etc. Yet often overlooked in this process is open-mindness.

It is not particularly important to me that every idea of a candidate be excellent, but that he/she would be willing to defer to a better idea -- even if it comes from another candidate, or political party. It should be considered a poor attribute to be unwilling to modify a weak idea, just to save face.

It seems that in this day we expect our politicians to have well formulated ideas on everything. I think that expects too much. More important is how wisely a person chooses his advisors and how well he can see the value in opposing points of view.

I concluded watching one Democratic debate feeling that there was little ideological difference between the candidates; that most of them had a good grasp of the issues. But I was left wondering, and hoping that they might understand how much they need to draw on each other's strengths; how important it was for them to actually work together, if they are going to accomplish their goals.

The time has passed in this country for a president who is strong in every area. Government is too complex. What we need are leaders who may have certain areas of strength, yet their primary virtue is the ability to hear other viewpoints, and wisely delegate authority.

Perhaps if the present candidates looked around them, they would see future cabinet members, or a vice president who could be a partner, not a figurehead. Wouldn't it be something for a Democrat to acknowledge President Bush's talent for international diplomacy, and promise to use that talent in the next administration?

Which candidate passes the humility test?