The American System of Coke and Pepsi Politics.

This is from a Canadian paper. It hits the nail on the head. This is Coke and Pepsi politics. Tweedledum vs. Tweedledee. Two Yale, Skull and Bones members in "competition."

This lack of significant differences between the candidates is the result of a system that protects the existence of two major parties, but systematically blocks out new parties and ideas. People blame Nader for running because it might hurt Kerry, but as you will see below, Kerry can't get out of his own way because he's trying to out-Bush, Bush.

Can Pepsi be more Coke-like than Coke?

Why is it bad for someone like Nader to try to get people thinking? Why are new ideas bad? Why are we so sold on the idea that competition and free markets are good, but we don't believe in a free market of ideas in politics? It's contradictory because its intention is to block competition and protect the status quo, not to help make America stronger, but to protect those with power.

Some say this brings political stability. I say, it is at the cost of progress.

We need Something Better.

Eliminate the Electoral College with a constitutional amendment. Give the People a vote that counts. (Remember that in 2000, the Supreme Court said that the American people have no constitutional right to elect a president, only the Electoral College does.) Turn to Instant Runoff Voting as a way of allowing multiple views and parties to have an impact on the ideas we think about. Encourage a free market of ideas and politics, instead of supporting a system that blocks new ideas, and supports the status quo.

Universal

The Toronto Star: Editorial: Kerry Fails the Iraq Test

What do Americans need in their president, post-9/11? Strong leadership, of course. Clear vision. Common sense. And in a dangerous, fast-changing world, the capacity to learn from past mistakes would be helpful.

Senator John Kerry, the Democrat who hopes to elbow President George Bush from office on Nov. 2, promises all of the above and more. But there was little of it on display Monday, when Kerry responded to Bush's challenge to spell out where he stands on the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Rising to Bush's bait, Kerry said he would have cast the same Yes vote in Congress that he did on Oct. 11, 2002, to authorize the president to launch a pre-emptive war that began March 19, 2003, even if Kerry had known that Saddam Hussein had no ties with Al Qaeda terrorists, no weapons of mass destruction and posed no real threat to the world.

"I believe it's the right authority for a president to have," Kerry now says. Only he would have used that power more "effectively."

This amounts to a sweeping claim by Kerry that America has carte blanche to make war on even bogus grounds, and in defiance of the United Nations and world opinion, so long as the war is waged effectively.

It's depressing from a candidate who has attacked Bush for "misleading" the nation, who promises a better direction and who claims to want to re-engage with the world.

Kerry's vote in 2002, while misguided, was defensible. Bush had exaggerated Saddam's threat, and had won over 7 in 10 Americans to the view that the Iraq war was justified.

But since then, the U.N. has been vindicated. Saddam was contained; there were no ties to the 9/11 terrorists; and Iraq had no nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.

That leaves most Americans feeling misled, or duped. They can see the damage to U.S. prestige internationally. The loss of more than 1,000 American and allied lives, and 16,000 Iraqi lives . A $200-billion cost.

And they see no easy exit.

All this is baggage Bush should carry to the polls, alone. But Kerry has just re-endorsed his misguided policy, if not its clumsy delivery.

No wonder Kerry is struggling to pull ahead in a race with a president who has not delivered promised jobs and who is seen as a friend of the rich and powerful.

Practical politics undoubtedly prompted Kerry's reply. He is loath to admit he cast a foolish vote in 2002. He does not want to alienate voters who were similarly duped, and who are not keen to be reminded of it. And he must not be seen as "soft" on Saddam.

But Kerry comes off looking like "Bush lite" on Iraq, rather than as a candidate with better values and a sounder program. He seems weak. Muddled. Has he learned nothing from a slew of American investigations that have exposed the sloppiness of U.S. intelligence and the shabbiness of the rationale for war?

This is a letdown for American voters who yearn for a real alternative, and a healthier direction. It is not good news for the world, either.