Retort to a political editorial

Your recent editorial referring to two candidates for the office of US president begs some points. The reference to Hillary Clinton's international experience suggests that exposure is equal to knowledge and ability. Based on that premise, Brett Favre's wife should be named football quarterback because she attended his games, knows the lingo and lived with him for many years. The reality of the situation is that Hillary is well know for two characteristics, changing positions based on public opinion and throwing the hatchet based her actions with the White House travel bureau. Obama carries the baggage of being a neophyte international amateur and having an imaginary program based on nebulous changes. McCain"s primary baggage is that he has been around a long while and that isn't going to help him, although his candor is refreshing. The remainder of the "candidates" are featherweights in an environment that begs for capabilities that aren't demonstrated, none having the breath of distinguishable ability that the of Presidency requires.
Let's face the real issue, the current political season has not raised a real leader to surface of the political scene. Regardless of political affiliations, the current crop of candidates is pretty meager and lacking in necessary presidential attributes, save one; Egos. It becomes patently obvious that no one person can span the breadth of talent needed to be a modern president. If there was one thing that I learned in my career as a technical manager, it was that the quality of the product was directly proportional to the quality of the team. The operational word being; TEAM.
What is totally missing from the political banter, called debate, is any suggestion as to the composition of the cabinets planning to take office. As we well know from the current administration's shortcomings, the cabinet members are as important as the leader of the team. What we, as the involved public, should demand of the candidates is insight into who they will using in which position on their presidential teams. The current technique is to pay off the political supporters with government positions, the more you contribute to the winner's election, the higher position you get to fill. This won't fly in the current world environment. Between international affairs, world commerce and trade, world finance, environmental changes, energy, health, immigration, infrastructure maintenance, military matters, scientific research, manufacturing capabilities, and a raft of other subjects; just who are the people who will manage these issues? Don't we, as the electorate, have an immediate and pressing need to know?
It would appear to me that when a candidate clearly identifies their team and objectives they will define who has thought about the tasks of a president as opposed to thinking about the position of president.