Steve Clemons observes that "the fact that the leading Democrat contenders had nothing to say about the Annapolis Summit raises legitimate questions about whether they have the commitment and wherewithal to tackle the complexity of America's defining challenge in this era." I think that's true. At the same time, the political calculus that led the leading candidates to completely ignore the summit is pretty straightforward. And I wouldn't really want to have a nominee (or, for that matter, a president) who couldn't do basic politics. In other words, you actually want a certain level of craveness from your political leaders. But you don't want too much. You want the person who'll take risks at the right time not the one who never takes risks or the one who shoots from the hip all the time.