I’m a believer in political dialogue and debate. There comes a time, however, when too much of a good thing must end, such as the over abundance of Democratic candidates. Sharpton and Kucinich have had their say but are going nowhere. As much as I admire Braun’s magnificent reason and balance, there is little hope for her, though surely if one of the candidates should become president, there will be a place for her. Lieberman with his hawkish posture and tendency to swivel at the slightest hint of the tide, is also finished. Kerry is gasping for breath, and relied too heavily on his war record. Edwards, of course, has only the southern vote to count on and that’s not going to happen, anyway.

Future dialogue and debate should be among the stronger candidates so that citizens can read them in depth. The continual volatile crossfire does not lend to intelligent voting. Time is of the essence for the media to hammer away at the position papers of the remaining candidates in order to test their integrity and grit.

For instance, Gephardt must explain what did not work for Hillary is suddenly going to work for him in the area of universal health care, particularly when a relatively simple process of prescription drugs for seniors is controversial, not to mention the shame of not caring for our veterans. Of course, we all know that it is coming but why now?

Dean and Clark have shamelessly run on the fact that they escaped the burden of voting on the resolution to go to war—would they in truth, had they been in congress, actually had the courage of a Kucinich to vote it down? And “everyone under the age of eighteen has health care in Vermont” translate nationwide, and how is that going to help the uninsured? Will Clark, like Eisenhower’s trip to Korea, go to Iraq as President-elect and solve the crisis, and if so how?

These are matters that cannot be covered in a crossfire; those without realistic hope should drop out of the race in order to put the leaders on the stand for cross-examination.