Why do political candidates think it necessary to resort to derogatory terminology in characterizing their opponents? Isn’t it sufficient to highlight decisions made or actions taken that proved to be problematic? The accuser may well risk more by castigating a rival’s conduct or character than by merely stating verifiable facts to make the desired point. Outright lying is a different matter that should be left to fact-checking journalists. Astonishing archives of taped events and statements offer a rich and accessible proving ground for establishing candidate credibility and media responsibility. The public now has a role in judging whether certain politicians’ “evolving positions” are evidence of reasoned character judgments or simply chameleonic tactical opportunism. Folks of all political persuasions already overdosing on election campaign promotion need to take two steps backward and a couple of deep breaths. As the finish line looms ahead, we should ponder which candidates offer the most promising ability and attitude for dealing with an extensive list of domestic and foreign challenges. Given the likely composition of Congress, constructive progress may well require some combination of benevolence and bullying. Phil Osifer