Dianavan, you said... "I actually think they are all capable." (Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Richardson...AND Kucinich)

Yes! They are. That's right. And it would be far better if they were working together as a united coalition for their party going into this election, rather than jockeying against one another in the usual programmed manner for the one top spot of presidential candidate.

But the system as it exists forces them to compete with...and inevitably to attack one another.   That's not such a good system.

Now here's a theory that's been percolating around in my head in the last few days...just as a matter of interest. I think the Founding Fathers of the USA made one key error when they designed their tripartite system of government, and based it on the Constitution. They selected something very similar to a king...a temporary one...to rule it at the top! Why did they do that? Well, simply because people at that time were so completely accustomed to being ruled by one monarch, one man, that they couldn't even imagine a system that did not have one supreme leader at its top! Accordingly, they created an executive office that imbued a single leader, the President, with powers that in my view are too great and too dominant...and they created a political system that is based on the cult of that one single personality. That's not such a good idea, because a single personality is usually in truth not adequate to effectivelty and wisely lead a country (with some rare exceptions here and there, and we've seen those now and then).

It is better for a number of well-informed heads to reach a final decision on vital matters of national policy than it is for one to do it. That's my opinion. A large number of professional people are more likely to reach a decision which is not flawed by their own personal foibles, weaknesses, etc....because they all act as a check on one another.

But a president, ultimately, decides alone. Bush: "I'm the decider."

Well, dictators ultimately decide alone too, don't they? No one can gainsay a dictator's final decision on policy.

Thus what I am suggesting is that the USA would have been wiser to form a dual system of government....Congress and the judicial branch...Congress with a prime minister, no doubt, or a central committe to lead it....rather than creating such a powerful executive office as they did in the President.

There were many in the first Congress at the inception of the USA's independence who wanted to crown George Washington the first King of the USA!!!!!!!! That's a historical fact. Washington did not want that, and he told them so, and that speaks well for him, but it shows the mindset at the time. People were used to having kings.

A US president has powers considerably greater than a parliamentary prime minister in countries like Canada, Great Britain, etc....he's basically in for 4 years almost no matter WHAT he does, and he exerts an enormous personal force on the agenda if he is inclined to....and that can be a disaster if he's out of touch with reality or on a destructive course, as some of them certainly have been. He ends up creating damage that a prime minister would never get away with, because a prime minister's government would lose its credibility and immediately have to call a new election....they would face, in effect, a plebiscite. The US President doesn't have to do that. He's practically like a god for the 4 years that he's in office. He's almost untouchable.

Not good. It lends itself to abuse of power by men who are inclined to abuse it...and many are.

I think the founders of the USA fell into this error precisely because they were so used to being ruled by kings. They thought they were being very progressive, and they were, but they could only see just so far out of the box they grew up in.

Our prime minister does not get voted for as an individual across the whole country, he runs in a single local riding somewhere (and his party will be careful to pick one where they're quite sure he won't lose....although he still might!). We vote for the party whose policies we like the best AND whose leader we like the best (hopefully) but we don't vote for the leader HIMSELF directly except in one local riding...and he does not have the tremendous executive powers once elected that an American president does to personally veto the acts of the parliament.

The American system is geared to leadership by one strong man, and that attracts...or creates absolutists, people who assume almost the mantle of a monarch once elected. It does not benefit democracy to do that, it endangers it.

Now all the Democratic candidates (and the Republican ones) are caught up in the usual dynamic...first they attack one another, to get the top spot...then they attack the other party...all so that one single person among them can become the new "god in the White House" for 4 years, and no one can do diddly about it if they go berserk once they're in there.

Not good at all.

I'd rather see a system where Clinton, Obama, Richardson, Edwards, and Kucinich could ALL run equally for their party, cooperatively with one another, running as candidates in their own regions, and present a united front on behalf OF their party to the public, and discuss and work out policy together with the rest of their party and the other party after being elected (assuming they were). I'd like to see the same for the Republicans.

I'd like to see an end to this personality-cult/single leader approach to politics. It produces people who can't handle the load, and it also produces, on occasion, tyrants.

The Founding Fathers did not go quite far enough in distancing themselves from the Absolute Monarchies of their day, in my opinion.

There. ;-) Now, it's just theory. I know it ain't gonna happen. But I am always interested in what could be as well as what is.