So here’s the wrapup on contrasting Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in their quest for the Democratic nomination.

Part one was about health care. Part two was about immigration. This part is about leadership, and everything that entails.

What is the Presidency really about? What are we picking one of these people to actually do?

Obama said, when he announced his campaign, “This campaign has to be about reclaiming the meaning of citizenship, restoring our sense of common purpose, and realizing that few obstacles can withstand the power of millions of voices calling for change.” And all along the campaign trail, he’s asking people to jump right in with him.

Clinton said, “I’m not just starting a campaign, though, I’m beginning a conversation.” She stayed with that message through New Hampshire, when she said, “I found my own voice.” In debates and other statements, she has said, “I will solve your problems.” But her actions and her rhetoric on the campaign trail tell a different story. She’s making appearances of listening to people, while calibrating her behavior by poll numbers.

These two approaches show a fundamental difference. Obama sees the Presidency as an opportunity to bring people together to make this country what it ought to be, to give the government back to the people, to create solutions with the input of the people they will effect most. Clinton sees the Presidency as a stack of problems waiting to be solved by the right person.

Obama wants you to take some responsibility for the direction of the country. Clinton wants to do it all for you. Obama wants to ask you to roll up your sleeves right alongside him. Clinton wants you to trust the experts, namely, her, to make things happen.

Look at the way they’ve raised money in the last year. A full 75% of contributions for Clinton were from donors giving $1000 or more, and 50% of her donors have given the full $2300 allowed by law for the primaries. Only 14% of her contributions have been under $200. By contrast, Obama’s contributions over $1000 make up 54% of his total, and only 33% of his donors are maxed out. Contributions under $200 make up 32% of the total.

Near the end of 2007, the 500,000th person donated to the Obama campaign. In January, more than 250,000 additional people donated.

That’s the kind of leadership that I think this country needs after these seven long years. The kind of leadership that brings people in to a common cause, a common good, to go out and do rather than sit back and wait. The people have a stake.

More evidence of this contrast can be found in looking at the format of both campaign websites. Obama has a tab titled “People,” where people in different identity groups can network and find information related to their specific concerns. Clinton has “Take Action,” where you have to register in order to get any information at all.

For me, this comes down to trust: Obama trusts people to make their own decisions. Clinton does not; she wants to track every last detail and crunch all the numbers and go from there.

Then there’s the question of admitting when you screwed up. I don’t want a leader who is perfect in any way, and I especially don’t want one who thinks they are. Clinton refuses to say that her vote to authorize the war in Iraq was a mistake. This is a mixture, I think, of being afraid of having it come back to her in the general election — “She was wrong then, how can she be right now?” — but also just plain hubris.

On the other hand, Obama is willing to say, “that was boneheaded,” and move on. And, he wants people in his cabinet who will argue with him, who will say “no” to him, and challenge his ideas. This is a very collaborative style, which is much more suited to getting things done than an authoritarian style.

And lastly, there’s Bill. For me, this is a minor point, but one worth making. The pattern in the campaign has been that when things start to look shaky, out comes the former President. What does this say about how a second Clinton administration would function?

To sum up. I would much rather a President who trusts the people to be involved in their government. I would much rather a President who inspires an entire nation to come together, rallying around the things that bind us together rather than those that divide us. I would much rather a President who sees possibilities and says, “Yes, WE can.”

Part four, on transparency, can be found here.