Nothing is clear cut about this year’s upcoming presidential election. Now, to throw a little more confusion into the matter, Ralph Nader has announced his bid as an Independent, on the ballot. Some political pundits would charge that Nader’s same action in the last election cost Al Gore the presidency. Yet, at 74, Nader is compelled to try to make a difference and give the American public a more viable choice, as he sees it. Earlier in his career, Nader made headlines by setting up consumer rights groups in Washington. He’s set up a website: votenader.org

Goodness only knows how all of this political bantering will finally pan out. I wish that the election were more clear-cut among the two major parties. The truth is that in November, America will have to elect a new leader. Who is best qualified to lead the country?

Anyone who watches the news on television can see that the candidates are all beginning to look a little bedraggled. Deep circles are setting in under the eyes, they are a little thinner than when they first started, and their personalities are getting a little testy. At the same time, the media is digging for dirt, and zeroing in on every casual and not so casual remark caught on camera. “What does it mean/ What does it mean,” they ask themselves.

Running for president is kind of like being a bug under a microscope. As soon as you are found unworthy, whether the allegation is true or a trumped-up one, you are dissected until you die. Trouble is, everyone is looking for the weak spots and vulnerabilities of the candidates.

The most amusing segment of “Meet the Press” this morning was a discussion of candidates borrowing words from other people’s speeches. Tim Russert delineated a long record of the use of statements using “I see …” by a number of presidential candidates going all the way back to ten years after the Civil War.

So, nothing is new under the sun. We have the contenders and we have the spoilers, and we have the vulture-like media ready to add their observations, polls, and conclusions.

I would never mention politics on this blog, if I did not care about this country so much. Right now, I feel as though the nation is “going to the dogs.” We need strong and determined leaders to make a difference. When all is said and done, I still support Hillary Clinton and wish her well. I think that this country needs her leadership.

At the same time, I don’t agree with canadian pharmacy cialis online canadian pharmacy cialis onlinecandidate on all of their stands on issues. Just last night, a farmer in Texas was complaining that a fence through his land, to keep out “illegal” immigrants, would cut off a great deal of farm land that has belonged to the family for generations. As a result, he might have to stop farming and doesn’t know what he would do then.

So, for one “solution,” we always seem to create another “problem.” We can’t even come up with the right flu vaccine at the right time. So, consequently, we are under attack by microscopic organisms that can be more deadly than any bomb.

Pat, with the Flu, dreaming of springtime blossoms and the call of Orioles

If you haven’t noticed, politics begin in grade school. The most popular children are usually the most physically attractive, perhaps the most physically agile, the most intelligent, and often have every toy or advantage that money can buy. There are the children who stay home to help mom clean out the refrigerator, on their winter vacation, and others who visit Austria and do a little skiing.

For awhile, it seemed as though one multi-millionaire thought that he could buy the election. In this country, luckily, that is not how the system works. I have watched many television shows about the political scene this year, and must say that I have noticed, to a very great degree, how the media tends to sway public opinion. One way in which they do this is by revealing “surveys” conducted by this or that research group (of whom we’ve never heard before), or by commenting on “exit polls.”

As if they had a crystal ball, or a direct line into the brain waves of millions of Americans, the press “predicts” who will “take” this state or that one.

Campaigning for office is not a good choice for the weak of heart or those who lack determination. Have you noticed? Now that the field has narrowed even more, Democrats and Republicans alike are getting into more sniping of each other and are talking less and less about the issues.

I like to envision what political campaigning used to be like, when “stumping” actually meant standing on a stump, that was a little higher than the crowd, to give a speech. Perhaps it meant riding on a horse, to get from here to there, as did Abraham Lincoln, at least some of the time, if my memory of a PBS show a few years ago serves me.

One main campaign tool was the poster. Another common artifact from campaigns of the old days is the campaign button. Of course, old examples of those types of items are “collectible” today. Then again, there were political textile bandannas, today much sought after by collectors.

What did not exist was the constant bombardment of opinions via the air waves, and every news broadcast one turns on.

Has life improved or worsened? It’s hard to say. While it is interesting to listen to the pundits on television, I wonder if they are not swaying the voters far too much. I believe it is a fine line sometimes between reporting and trying to convince. Sometimes, it is not even what is said; but rather, the snarky way that the comment is made.

In a previous blog, at the very beginning of this primary season, I predicted that John McCain and Hillary Clinton would become the two main contenders for the presidency. In spite of the current train of thought in the news, I believe that I have predicted correctly. With baited breath, we shall just have to wait and see.

Patricia Cummings