Have you noticed that one Presidential candidate responds at length and in detail to questioning about the array of serious issues threatening our country, while the opponent speaks in sound bites with little elaboration? If a four-year Vice Presidency is to serve as a training ground for potential accession, shouldn’t the public expect more breadth and depth of knowledge and opinion from a leadership incumbent? Shouldn’t learning and accomplishment in office weigh heavily in voter judgment? This is the area in which candidate performance in open debate becomes essential for an informed voter population. The citizenry must get beyond backroom handlers’ clever language, evasive responses, and barrage of mailings and media spots for “up close and personal” exposure of personalities, preparation, proposals and professionalism. We apparently need a convincing individual of stature to stand up to international dictators while inspiring voter confidence in addressing pressing domestic concerns – a tall order. This election should not be focused on party dogma or personality traits, but on the leader’s ability to assemble a qualified cabinet and supporting cast that can contribute to problem-solving needs far beyond the capability of any individual – and restore public confidence in government. Persons of both genders in both parties appear capable not only of meeting that challenge, but also of helping to unify a fractured country in a time of pressing need. Mutually destructive election battling is not conducive to attaining that worthy objective, and a World War III is a undesirable catalyst. “Let us reason together.” Phil Osifer