Choosing between Al Gore and Bush, the Americans chose between two very different leader models. The good statistics in US show that the electoral competition for the White House this year is tougher than ever in the last 40 years. The two main candidates - Albert Arnold Gore Jr. and George W. Bush - were, in turn, leader of the polls, but neither managed to make the hit so that he could distance. The close competition made that, during the campaign, every detail became relevant. This is about biographic details, first of all. The "Lewinsky accident" in Clinton's biography determined the focusing of the public attention on the two candidates' past, so that any element that could lead to a certain future behavior be found out. Bush's and Gore's lives are like some shop windows for the Americans. Anyone in US can tell at least one story from the biography of the Republican or of the Democratic candidate. And, in order to already draw a conclusion, this characteristic of the campaign paradoxically translated into an advantage for Bush, though the latter had more details in his past that he should have been afraid of. Bush's sins (the drinking bouts in his youth, for instance) and the honesty with which he admitted them made him more "human" for the public opinion, comparing to Al Gore's "unnatural", recherché spatial behavior. The American electoral confrontation is more a confrontation between personalities than one between programs. The electorate wonders more how the candidates are than what politics they intend to apply. This happens not because the Americans are exceedingly interested in chat and in epic threads, but because they draw out of the candidates' behavior data about the way they would behave as leaders and their capacity to represent the American dream human models. Finding out the "leadership" style is one of the greatest stakes of the biographic explor