Many Presidents in our history have had equally unsavory backgrounds, but it's all about the packaging. GWB isn't the first one that shouldn't even have been seriously considered as a candidate, let alone for a major political party.

If there's an indication of the weak state of democracy in the US, I think it lies more in the family history. GWB was hardly a political star with a long and illustrious career of service, but his father was. And ultimately, most Republicans seemed to support GWB as much for his father's reputation and name recognition as they might have for his views. I suspect England felt the same sense of unreality when Edward II died and left a son who clearly was not equal to his father's ability.

Gore, too, is a hereditary politician, like many others in Washington. Breaking into the political inner circle without large sums of money and family ties is becoming harder each election. We may get to vote, but almost always the choices are only for the members of a selected oligarchy that most citizens have no control over or access to. Potentially brilliant leaders who don't have those connections are left out in the cold; the few that break through (like Clinton) are contantly reviled for their inferior background, and just because someone (like Clinton) might have the ability to climb the politcal ladder, doesn't mean those abilities are synonymous with the abilities needed in great leaders.

Can you imagine yourself, even if struck with political brilliance tomorrow, ever managing to successfully become President?