Part of what is wrong with ourcandidates is a result of what is wrong with our political system. It's what is wrong with this discussion of our system. Of necessity, because brevity is critical in our society today, we toss out blanket statements, take bits of information out of context, post inuendo as fact, refute without proof, etc. This is not how you actually go about solving problems or reaching a consensus. And consensus is essential to achieving anything under our method of government.

For example, on an issue like abortion, we oppose "right to life" with "a woman's right to chose", as if those are two ends of one spectrum. And we expect our candidates to stand at one end of that spectrum or another. No one running for office would dare say "let's have science determine the point where a fetus is viable and outlaw abortion after that point. Let's have real sex education that doesn't try to deny the sexual nature of the human being. Let's try to find an answer to this question on which we can all agree, rather than just throwing the word out there and expect a 'yea' or 'nay'". The average American would listen to no more than a word or two before slipping into a coma. The Catholic Church would re-state its iron clad rule against birth control. Pundits would parse every sentence looking for the juicy sound bites. And the opposition would try to ruin his character to undercut his position. The fight would rage on leaving the candidate in the dust.

Like them or not, our candidates are willing to stand up there and attempt to represent and reflect us. We villify the ones we disagree with, ridicule the ones who mis-speak/become tedious/are too glib/or have bigger than acceptable ears. We crucify them for compromising on a position that we consider sacred and castigate them for keeping company with some "devil" we have identified. God help them if they show us their humanity.

As much as I don't want George Bush for president, I would applaud him for running if I thought he really had a vision for how to help his country. Unfortunately, I think he's an opportunist who has bought the idea that he is electable.

I believe that Al Gore is a good man whose vision is that good old Democratic-liberal one that his father passed down to him and that has gotten so badly abused over the past few years. I'm not sure that it can work anymore without a great deal of fixing, but I still feel it works better than what the Republicans have to offer. I think the solution lies in between - in that consensus that I mentioned before. None of the candidates can get elected running on that, but regardless of who gets elected that's where we'll end up.

A though to the Nader fans. If Ralph does not win, who do you think is more likely to invite him to the White House for a chat? Who is more likely to listen when he speaks? And who is more likely to actually act on some of his ideas? You might be better off voting for that guy this time. Maybe four years from now you can get Ralph to replace him on the ticket.