The Presidency of the United States is broken. Our government has virtually been taken over by Big Business and the Military-Industrial Complex (war profiteers). The country, because of this, is divided. Many people understand that what is happening is destructive and that it has long-term consequences for us. Whether the issue involved is the economic future of the country, the increasing power Corporations have over the day-to-day operations of our country, the weakening of our civil rights, or the weakening of our country’s military capabilities as we stretch our resources to fight wars for the President’s cronies’ companies, we’re headed for bleak times.

Gasoline prices of $2/gallon are now the norm — no surprise in a country where both the President and the Vice-President have a stake in how much gas companies can charge.

As bad as all that is, though, the Democrats have offered a non-solution: John Kerry.

[A]fter absorbing the full brunt of Bush’s most concentrated attack for eight weeks, the race is essentially tied. And that is before Kerry has really started to return his fire.

This quote appears in a story explaining the Kerry strategy for winning the White House.

But to quote from Peggy Lee: “Is that all there is?”

Why couldn’t the Democrats give us a real candidate? Someone who could actually run for office based on his record, vision and goals, instead of based on the deep-seated hatred Bush has worked hard to develop among those who oppose him? As nearly as I can tell, there’s no one — including me — who has found any reason to vote for Kerry other than the fact that he’s not Bush. That may be enough. But wouldn’t it be nice to have a candidate we could vote for instead of one we’re voting against?

It’s time for the Democrats to pull their heads out of their asses and start vetting candidates who have at least the perception of integrity, even if they don’t actually have integrity. George Bush appears to me to be about the closest thing our country has had to evil in decades. If I were a Christian, I have no doubt I’d consider him the number one candidate for the position of Apocalyptic Anti-Christ. But even an Anti-Christ is smart enough to recognize that — smirks and pouty faces aside — they must project the appearance of integrity while robbing the nation blind.

Bill Clinton only screwed interns; George Bush is screwing the country. Bill Clinton’s personal foibles were socially unacceptable; Bush’s corporate-sponsored foibles are socially destructive. But one thing Bush knows that Clinton didn’t was what the meaning of ‘is’ is. And for all his malaproprisms, Bush still recognizes this. It’s hard to imagine him saying that he voted for the War in Iraq before he voted against it.

To be fair to Kerry, Bush has had his share of flip-flops. The problem for Kerry is that Bush’s changes are easily understood. When he changes position on one of his public stances — for example, when he reversed himself regarding Condoleeze Rice — he’s always changing from an unpopular position to a popular position. Well, almost always. There was that little bit about promising “to use his political influence and ‘jawbone OPEC’ to keep the oil prices in check” giving way to rising oil prices, although these are expected to come under control and perhaps even drop shortly before the election. Regardless, Bush doesn’t make it a habit to accentuate his flip-flops by reducing them to sound bites. To see Bush flip-flop, you have to watch him over time; Kerry sums his up in single sentences like “I voted for the war before I voted against it.”

If the Democrats — and America — have any real hope that the next four years will be better than the last four, if we have any hope that the oil companies will be thrown out of office and we get someone in who is a uniter, and not a divider, then John Kerry had better learn a lesson from Clinton about what not to do.

Because what we, the American people, need to know is just what the meaning of Kerry’s campaign is.