As 2000 and 2004 showed, elections are won state by state...neither of these gentlemen has eclipsed 50% of voters in a meaningful way.  There is something to be desired in both men.  I do not believe they are as pathetic a pair as Bush/Gore or Bush/Kerry.  These are intelligent men, but very, very different on their views of our nation, where it really is today and where they'd like to lead it.

There was a time when America was a beacon of hope, a standard of civility, a bastion of opportunity, and a wonderful laboratory melding components from around the world and generally having unparalleled success.  I seriously doubt any nation with the ethnic and political diversity of the United States would last 200+ days, let alone two centuries and counting, without imploding due to internal strife and a persistent unwillingness to empathize and soberly debate differences to arrive at a productive and executable decision.

McCain, Obama and Biden are in an elite 100 member club and generally know how the Washington machine works.  Obama and Biden believe that machine is essential to keep America in good standing across the globe, to keep underprivileged or 'unprivileged' Americans from falling into destitution or worse, and for forwarding an agenda where the government is the largest part of each person's day and life.  McCain is a part of that machinery as well, and is known as a 'maverick' because he doesn't always play well with that machine or its operators.  He knows how it works, and uses it to further his agenda, but also understands, due to decades of service to this country, that the machine more often than not alienates the people it is intended to serve.  Obama preaches Change and Hope.  McCain now preaches Change and Fight.  I think both candidates realize America can no longer 'coast' and must find new outlets and platforms and paths to prosperity.

While government is essential in figuratively keeping the grounds and calling a fair game when it comes to the economy, it is NOT a positive economic value.  It is, and always will be, a negative economic value.  The consumer, on the other hand, and let's just say the consumer IS the voting citizen, well, he or she knows her expenditures or lack thereof, are powerful forces that drive the economy backwards or forwards.  That is an undeniable economic value.  And let's face it, much as some of us want to believe it's not all about money, it is in many respects.

I would, were I one of these candidates, stop the dilution of facts and strategy and just tell the American people why they believe their presidency would propel the nation to a new plateau of achievement and success.  That means spelling out what the $1000 check to each taxpayer would do to the economy and the federal deficit.  That means spelling out exactly what the 100 years in Iraq would look like (let's face it, McCain is simply stating that US presence in the nation will not be completely eliminated for a long, long time....it is no longer a war we are fighting, but a police action in given pockets where psychotically imbalanced individuals view mass murder as a means of attaining purpose and direction in their lives);  the US has been in Japan for 63 years, and Korea for slightly less than 60.  Iraq needs US presence to enable it to recompose itself into a modern state that engages in a modern economy.  That takes security and technical knowledge, both of which the US provides in abundance.

To insist that US presence in Iraq or the Middle East is not in every American's interest is to simply ignore the truth of what this nation is built upon.  To get food and clothes to the home, to get to work, or any other place, to write an email or balance a checkbook or call a friend or loved one, all in some small or great measure requires OIL.  The candidate that can either assure a greater availability of OIL at a lower cost or a feasible and aggressive plan to move the economy off of 'the oil standard' (not a feat that can be accomplished over even two terms in the White House), will find a willing public that is ready for a return to affordable energy.  So far, neither candidate has spoken to the public in detail about what they propose, where it may fail and how it won't.  My guess is, the US economy, fixed firmly in an oil consumption mode, will remain oil dependent for another generation.  During that time, a transition of magnificent proportions must occur.  This requires a brilliant financial and scientific mind who understands public policy and the path from oil to alternatives.  Neither party and neither candidate can tap such a person at the moment.  Rather than slinging arrows at sacrificial cows (the Oil Industry), the candidates should take a sober look at that industry and engage it in the march toward a more diverse (not completely opposite) sourcing of commercial energy, one that is PROFITABLE and satisfies the national call to move to another energy standard or basket of standards.

The past two weeks have shown a fanatical display of partisanship, venom, hollow and often cheesy attacks and enough divisional politics to stamp the 21st century as the beginning of the end for the world-renowned 'American'.  Neither man, alone, can mend the wounds and the diametrically opposed political stances of the voting public.  The middle has left the USA, both economically and politically speaking.  The middle made this country, and without the middle, the nation does not stand a chance of making it through the century without a significant civil schism.

I hope each man further delineates their game plan for the public to assess and comment.  I hope each side realizes the presidency is not a prize to be pursued, an apex to be scaled, a bully pulpit from which to rain down personal opinion and tendencies as POLICY.  The American cannot disappear from this election, and by that I mean, the center.  The left will badger teenage mothers and special needs children and a false claim of '4 more years of the same' (something so far from the truth, it makes the speaker of these words sound politically void of reason or a discerning mind).  The right will claim a vote for the opposing candidate is not based on ability, experience or intelligence, but a comfort zone found with someone who does not echo the last 40+ presidents in terms of race and gender, an emotional vote, a CHANGE vote.

I often express to those who seek political discussion with me, that CHANGE is something you do with your underwear, not the most critical position during the most pivotal time in our history.  This is a time where a steady, knowledgable and capable hand must man the rudder.  This is a time when the youthful, exuberant and sometimes belligerent demographic who is yearning for CHANGE can't afford to fix a gaze on a young senator with an assuring smile and a (let's face it) checkered political past.  They progressive, energetic Young American must forge their own path on their own terms and voice not only support for the candidate closest to their own political views, (but not quite in consonance), but a self-initiated, self-committed act to move that desired change from somewhere beyond election day, to CHANGE here, now, in their own lives and in their own perspectives and engagements with society.

I am not happy with the viciousness, both verbal and physical, that have pockmarked the two conventions we just witnessed.  Adults, especially those charged with writing law or enforcing it for the benefit of an entire nation, should carry themselves with a measure of dignity and confidence, and a healthy dose of humility and deference.  Right now, ideaologies are not paramount, right now energy, focus and determination will be the touchstones of a successful presidency, one that will reassure the public that our nation is in the hands of someone who views his job as the most difficult, oppressive, thankless yet satisfying and essential service that candidate can offer.

Reason, compassion, will, all lead to the most intelligent and sound decision one can make, almost regardless of the question at hand.  I sincerely hope the American voter vets each candidate thoroughly, in order to be informed beyond the news clip and beyond any partisan mouthpieces who are paid to advertise for the party and its candidate.  See what each candidate did in a time of grave danger or crisis.  What is the mettle we are assessing when looking at either man?  What is the best and worst than can happen by selecting one or the other? A thorough examination of the voter's favorite candidate is called for prior to election day. If we are to ride the next president into office on the shoulders of cheering, fanatical crowds while exercising minimal inspection or assessment on relevant skills and experience, then we've reduced the office to a popularity contest, and have shown the world what myopic and thoughtless people we truly are.

America's prestige and power, which resonate throughout the world, begin in the hearts of its citizens, who love their country despite the flaws, and arise each day to improve upon the last.  That ethic, that culture, that mindset of Americans which kept the nation together during even more precarious situations, must congregate, must vocalize, must lead and manage the debate and the direction of the next presidency.  It is not sufficient to use the office of the president as a career capstone or a personal trophy to be attained and paraded at all costs.  There must be a willingness and an urge to give back to the nation what it so willingly and eagerly provided to the our leadership in a time of great crisis.

I know the next two months will find more classless diatribes and exchanges, but I can hold out hope that the real American will step to the forefront and introduce themselves as a mediator and solution-oriented leader among disparate and warring factions.  The next president must be the glue that holds the fractured state together.  Failure to do so will be historically consequential and indelibly disruptive and fatal.  I hope we never see that day, but I know hope is not a strategy, nor a solution.  This year, America simply requires more.