For Bush, the critical moment came last week when he flunked a pop quiz from a Boston television reporter by failing to name the leaders of countries like India and Pakistan. Bush argued in defense that the names are less relevant than his policies toward them. But the quiz was as much a test of his political radar as of his foreign-policy smarts: ever since he confused Slovenia and Slovakia and called the Greeks Grecians, he should have known it was only a matter of time before someone administered a midterm exam. And at other moments during the week, when he veered off text, the words just sort of floated out there, untied to any actual ideas. The implicit charge is less that he's stupid than that he's incurious, proudly anti-intellectual. Yet he is applying for a new and very demanding jobÐand it was hard for Bush to attack this as a media ambush when his education philosophy hinges on testing what students know before allowing them to advance to the next grade.

When Bush is challenged about his mastery of the material, his response goes straight to his vision of presidential leadership, the argument that too much knowledge can clutter a vision. His experts can sort through the details, he says; it is more important for a President to have strong convictions about where he wants to take the country. The spirit he invokes is that of Ronald Reagan, who, as Ted Kennedy once noted, could forget your name but always remembered his goals. But 1999 is not 1979, Bush's critics reply: the nation is not shuddering through a cold war or a crisis of confidence that demands a grand vision and buoyant spirit. The job, with the times, has changed, so that on any given morning, a President may have to wrestle with Mexico, Medicaid and Microsoft. Reagan could afford to be more full of principle than policy detail because his whole view of government was that it should do as little as possible; a candidate like Bush, with an activist agenda, is bidding for a job that comes with much more homework.

In the end, both men were swatting away charges about their brains and their tempers with the other great weapon in this race, the sword of authenticity. "The only thing I know to do is be myself," Bush told TIME, when asked if it bothered him to be tarred as a lightweight. "And, ya know, if people like it, fine; if they don't like it, that's the way it is." As for McCain, he argued to TIME that his imperfections only improved him. "By realizing that you are a person with some weaknesses, it gives you a better appreciation that others may not be perfect," he said. It was as if he could wear his flaws like another one of his medals.

Questions

1. What contrasts does the writer note between Bush and McCain? According to the writer, what are each candidate's strengths and weaknesses?
2. In your view, was it fair for a reporter to spring a "pop quiz" on George W. Bush? How did Bush respond to the quiz?