The Internet provides access to a glut of news, opinion and political analysis. Voting records are available at the click of a mouse, and the blogosphere paints a truer portrait of voter opinion than any poll.

However, while a "Just the facts Jack" approach is one way to judge a potential president, current technology allows voters to intimately examine the candidates, their character flaws and personal idiosyncrasies and to review every single verbal gaffe. Thus, we have two arenas from which to form our opinions about future leaders: what they do at work and what they do at play. The question is: Is one arena more important than the other and how do we reconcile the two?

Scandal has long been a factor in American politics, and many historically great leaders had checkered pasts or engaged in unscrupulous behavior while in office. However, despite their character flaws, the value of their public service is generally not disputed. These leaders were defined by their clear sense of direction, their ability to influence others, communicate clearly and hold fast to American ideals under duress. They had the gift of inspiration and an ability to garner trust and confidence. However, what did the voters of their time really know about what went on behind closed doors?

John F. Kennedy won the presidency by a very narrow margin. If his sexual proclivities had been plastered all over YouTube, would he have been elected? Ronald Reagan's special relationship with astrology could have lumped him in the Kucinich category, and insinuations that Eleanor Roosevelt was a lesbian while Franklin was a womanizer would surely have made headline news that would have jeopardized his election. With the days of stumping from the back of a train long gone and with them, the ability to escape the voracious eyes of the American voters, political aspirants of the future will need to conduct themselves from day one as though they lived behind glass walls.

Polls indicate that voters find the current crop of candidates lacking and consequently, despite the three tickets out of Iowa, a clear leader has not emerged. Perhaps this is due not only to the lack of an incumbent, but also because voters are feeling queasy about the "truthiness" and tenor of the candidates. Rock-solid conservatives ought to be jumping on Fred Thompson's bandwagon despite the bags under his eyes and the tart on his arm, and Hillary Clinton's cleavage, cackle and the pink panties on Bill's arm (it's the patch, he's trying to quit) ought not to overshadow her political prowess.

While it may seem that the ability to know more about the candidates would enhance the decision-making process of voters in the 2008 election, it may actually obscure or dilute their true leadership value. We can monitor every aspect of a political candidate's life, including marital woes, recreational habits and whether they prefer to wear boxers, briefs or, as is the case with Rudy Giuliani, the occasional dress. However, unless the majority of voters delve deep into voting records, they will be unable to form a balanced perspective and their political opinions will be unduly influenced by rhetoric, campaign spin and ear size.

Advances in technology, from the Internet, cell phone photography and the revamping of debate protocol using sites like YouTube, have irrevocably set a new standard that future candidates will have to rise to. This high level of muckraking will no doubt overshadow the next few elections by skewing the opinions of lazier voters, but it will serve a greater purpose in the future. The fact that candidates' lives are now an open book may actually be the driving force that creates great leaders of the future.

Those of the MySpace generation who have political aspirations already know now that what they say, do and inhale will be exposed and that they will have to answer for it. The end result will be that we'll have future candidates who not only have political adeptness but also arrive at the podium with less baggage and an exceptional commitment to public service and perhaps the ability to unite America.