You gave some interesting suggestions for the intending voters. My comments are as follows:

• Ignore word games that are being used to trap all three candidates. (Instead try to see if there is any truth behind any accusations and whether they are relevant to the proper functioning of the President)
• Accept the fact that all three have supporters who may say and do crazy things. (Unacceptable if the candidate has a history of doing so since even the smallest of errors can have a multiplier effect, especially when one is the head of the nation)
• Assume that all three are decent, intelligent people who want to do what is right for our country. (Never assume anything especially in politics; people enter this field in their quest for power and money, not for any patriotic or altruistic motive)
• Analyze the most significant challenges that will face our country over the next four years [Very important; check whether any of these candidates have any clue about them and if so, what their (and not their speechwriters') positions are on those issues]
• Listen to each candidates plan to meet these challenges.(Ensure there is consistency in their positions on various issues important to YOU; they should not be changing their positions according to their audience)
• Choose the candidate that you believe will do the best job. (Rather check to see who will Do the job; one who can do and will do)
• Don’t feel a need to crucify the other candidates to prove that yours is superior (Quite right; each candidate should be judged on their own merits alone)

And, if in the end none of them are able to meet all expectations, choose the one with the least demerits. Abstaining from voting is not the way to serve the country as a citizen.

I wish I could also add that if all of the candidates are pretty disappointing, why not try outsourcing ? Such an option is not presently available, however, if a constitutional change in the future allows foreign-born US citizens to run for the president’s office, that might be a better alternative for US voters.

Raj Bose
Faculty - University of Phoenix

Marshall, you say:

"Our 24/7 press coverage has created an environment where a new story is needed every day. If a substantive story is not available, a trivial story is used to fill up the space. The amount of time spent and the emotional tone of reporters is almost always the same – regardless of the degree of importance of what is being said."

This sums up the problem with today's media beautifully in a nutshell. The issues applies equally in Australia where I live.

Do you have any suggestions on how we can control the impact of the media in today's world? We still need journalists to attend events and report useful information, but the ability to editorialize to millions of people every evening seems too powerful when there is no accountability to control what the media do or say.

Raj - Thanks for all of your ideas. I am very comfortable with a foreign born citizen running for President, but this would require a Constitutional amendment - therefore, it will probably never happen. I think that all of the candidates are very reasonable choices. They are just made to look foolish in the media.
Stephen - Thank you for your reflection. I don't see any positive trends in the media. In fact, I think that it will just get worse. This makes it more important for citizens to think independently.

Well put Marshall. You are correct in that we are setting our expectations of a potential leaders way to high for one single person to meet (companies do this too). Thus, I would also like to add one more thing to consider as a voter...will this person put smart, trustworthy, capable people around them who will offer contrary opinions and ideas that this person will consider in all the decisions he or she makes.

On a personal note as a voter, I want someone who can collaborate and unify effectively.

Carol - Great point! Thank you!

Marshall, you have added one very relevant point in your note, and that is no one is perfect, especially if you are probed and scrutinized under the microscope all the time. Assuming best of intents of these three candidates is necessary, but more essential is really what they will do and can do with integrity and humanity. Though their influence expand far beyond the U.S, I think if I am a voter, I will firstly evaluate the candidate's commitment to take care of domestic problems as a start. If you haven't cleaned up your house, you haven't got much credibility to discuss or influence global issues.

I have spoken to Journalism students who have stated that their purpose of going into that field of study has sometimes included sentiments like "I want to make the world a better place." I am not sure that that should be the stated objective of any journalist that is going to be reporting the news. We could use a lot more emphasis on "the facts" and leave opinion to the op-ed pages and those that are paid for their opinions.

How many of us would stand up under the level of scrutiny that presidential candidates have to endure? We absolutely should seek to know every relevant thing we can about those who would be president. Unfortunately, we seem to have gotten to a place where the objective is destroy one's opponent personally if necessary, and not on the basis of ideas, philosophy and deeply held principles. It also seems sometimes that the media seeks every opportunity to make political candidates look foolish almost as sport. I guess that any person that would be president should get used to the idea that every word, inflection and facial expression are going to be put under a microscope. But they should be allowed to be human too and not constantly be the target in a game of "gotcha."

We might do well to elect people to public office that have truly built something in their private lives and not so many career politicians. The Founding Fathers envisioned people serving in Congress out of a sense of civic duty and not or the pursuit of power as and end in itself. It would be a sacrifice to serve. They would serve and then go back home to pick up where they left off. I am reminded of a story I read about George McGovern. When he retired from the senate, he bought a business on Cape Cod. I believe it was a hotel although I might be mistaken but in any event it was a going concern. When he went out of business he said something to the effect, and I'll paraphrase, "I had no idea what people had to go through to successfully run a business. I wish I had had this experience before I held public office." He aspired to be president. I'm sure the same could be said of so many politicians. It is one thing to make a career essentially spending other people's money (taxes) and it is quite another spending and risking your own to build something successful.

I agree with you Marshall because I do not think that outsourcing for foreign-born candidates would ever happen because of the required Constitutional amendment I do not think it would be a good idea because I would want someone that was home-grown in order to have a better understanding and insight into American life and culture. It would raise a lot of issues such as how many years would one have to live here in order to qualify etc. Besides, it is a shame to think that in a nation of 300 million people we cannot produce capable candidates with proven leadership qualities, vision and strongly-held principles.

Michael Coyne

I believe that all three a capable of doing a reasonable job in the Whitehouse.Hoewever to me, sincerety matter most. The problem is that sincerety is not ' visible', so how do we make a desicion?

Lena - Thank you! We should all apply your good logic to our own lives.
Michael - Thank you for your insights. It might be good if we had more 'citizen' politicians and fewer 'career' politicians. Unfortunately, the press has created a world where even 'normal' people don't want to go through the pain of running for office.
Abdul - I guess that all we can do is listen to their words, look into their eyes and do what 'in our heat' we beleive is the best we can do.

Also, don't get so caught up in labels "liberal" and "conservative", or the slice and dice demographics, such as "working class", "wine drinkers" etc..when deciding which candidate to support.

Look at the policies, what type of leader they would be and if they represent the vision of the country you would like to see.

Robyn - Thank you for this excellent suggestion. I know wonderful people in all of the 'categories' that you mentioned!