[PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian (in Astoria, Oregon) and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as an Oregon state government manager and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing pubic policy – to what I write. If you are reading this, thanks for doing so and please don’t hesitate to respond so we can engage in a dialogue, rather than just my monologue.

Here we are still a few months away from the presidential primary and all we see are continuing horse-race stories about the contest on both sides – Democrat and Republican – or even a third side, Independent.

It’s possible that the result could boil down to a tough choice for voters between an alleged crook on one hand and a blowhard on the other. The alleged crook is Democrat Hillary Clinton, who is under continuing scrutiny for use of personal e-mail accounts to do the public’s business. The blowhard – not necessary to use the word “alleged” in this case – is Republican Donald Trump, who appears to believe he can say anything because any comment will buttress his already massive ego.

Clinton, for her part, is coming under increasing scrutiny for her use of a private e-mail account, including, allegedly, to handle classified material when she was Secretary of State. She also appeared to use that high office to create windfalls for the Clinton Foundation.

It is possible, as this is written, that Vice President Joe Biden will enter the D fray, an action which could be good news for Senator Bernie Sanders if Biden’s entry takes already eroding support away from Clinton.

But, for now, back to the Republicans.

With only media accounts on which to rely, it is difficult to sift and sort through all of the candidates, especially with so many — too many for one debate — in the race.

Wall Street Journal columnist Gerald Seib performed a service a couple weeks ago when he wrote a piece dividing the Republican candidates into two camps after the first debate – fighters and statesmen.

His piece asked the question: Do voters want a candidate who channels their anger, or one who acknowledges it yet moves beyond it? Seib added: It says something about the national mood of 2016 that it isn’t entirely clear which is the better place to land.

Seib put Donald Trump, Rand Paul, Chris Christie and Mike Huckagee in the fighter camp.

While those candidates, Seib wrote, were engaged in a kind of debate demolition derby, there was another group that seemed more interested in a calmer drive down the political parkway.

In this calmer camp, he put Jeb Bush, Marcio Rubio, Scott Walker and John Kasich. Seib added that three candidates relegated to the early debate on Fox – Carly Fiornia, Rick Perry and Bobby Jindal – might find a way to gain some traction heading toward Iowa.

What works best – fighting or statesmanship? There is no agreement this far in advance of the 2016 primaries.

From the Seib column: “The fight camp is about dividing folks, like Obama has done,” said Scott Reed, who managed Bob Dole’s 1996 presidential campaign and now directs political operations for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “Statesmen are more about growth–growing the party and being upbeat and optimistic about the future.”

Similarly, Kevin Madden, who worked on Mitt Romney’s 2012 campaign, says “these races ultimately always shift towards becoming a contest of who is the most presidential.”

Finally, Seib says there is a question about whether anyone can bridge the fighter and statesmen camps. So far, there has been no answer to that question and the answer probably won’t emerge until Donald Trump exits stage left, for he is, at best, an actor playing a part – and here’s hoping the departure occurs soon.