Heck, look at the lineup before the final nomination this year - every candidate (and the final nomination) had serious issues and people voted for them anyway, so squeaky clean is not the problem - full disclosure is.

If more people came to see that perfectly capable people are often not squeaky clean in largely irrelevant matters we would all be better off.

Imagine a country where politicians don't live in fear that the public might learn they sometimes spark a bong, or once cheated on their spouse, or like people of the same gender as themselves from time to time.

Of course, it's just his taxes, and I feel like the only reasoning people are upset with Romney over this is that they are thinking "What's he hiding? If you have nothing to hide..." which most of us probably dismiss as bad thinking in the usual context. If the People want to make it a law for candidates to disclose their tax information, let it be done, right now he's just breaking a 40 year old precedent. (It seems McCain did the same thing and only released two years--was there an outcry about that? I don't remember, there were so many other juicier attacks. If "you're rich!" is the only thing they can attack you on you're doing alright.)

I have worked for a government entity in a policy making role, and one of my obligations was to annually file a detail of my investments, business dealings and other things in a manner that balances the public's need to be assured of my integrity with my need for privacy in my affairs.

Disclosure of medical data is an even more egregious ethical and privacy violation. Why should I as a political figure need to publicly disclose my use of narcotics to manage pain from a chronic medical condition? Why should I need disclose the use of drugs that imply a potentially embarrassing medical condition?

Medical diagnoses affect people's view of people. I don't want otherwise good people excluded from public service because they are HIV positive.

It's a job application - for the most powerful position in the USA, arguably the world. I want a decade of financial history, credit check, drug test, last five places you own/lived, etc.

Personal: how much do your impressions of a candidate's personal qualities (trustworthiness, courage, honor, etc.) determine your vote.

Political: how much do your political desires, i.e., policies the candidates have pledged to adopt that will influence our interpersonal (political) lives (taxes, social services, regulations, etc.) determine your vote.

Because of your the question, I'm guessing your vote is determined by the political.

The most cynical about politics (e.g., all politicians are corrupt) tend to be the most political.

And vice versa: the candidate will choose the right thing to do, because he is so intelligent, trustworthy, knowledgable, honorable, etc., etc. It may not be what I think is the right thing to do, but he is so intelligent, trustworthy, knowledgable, honorable, etc., etc., he will know better than me.

I feel like Hacker News is probably dominated by political voters. But not everyone feels the same as Hacker News habituants. And to play devil's advocate, if I were faced with the collapse of the financial system in 2008, and I were told "Decide." My response would be, "Err." I might not want to be so political in my thinking. I might just want to choose someone who seems great and say, "Deal with it."

And of course, as with so many determinations made by us wonderful beings called humans, it is almost never an either/or determination, and there is a rich interplay between the two that is hard to fathom let alone to model. If you fundamentally don't trust a person, it won't matter how much their political agenda matches your own. Also, "the personal is political."