Is it just me, or are we hearing more this presidential "election cycle" about how much MONEY the candidates are raising, rather than their views on the issues? It seems that the amount of money raised is used as an early poll about who's hot and who's not. But nothing about what these folks stand for, really. Lots of talk about Clinton and Obama, how much money they've raised. Not much or any talk about their actual voting records say, on the Iraq war? Has it come down to this that money is the sole indicator of "electability"?
I'm not sure of answers. We don't need another arrogant fool like Nader bringing us another Bush (an even more arrogant and dangerous fool). But who is real and who isn't? And can you be real (ie, a flawed human being) and run for "high office" anyway? Or is it just about the money? Or am I just becoming yet another bitter cynic? (well, I hope not!)