i've always thought it a fantastic absurdity that the basic intelligence or moral fiber of our president might be so easily scrutinized. when dubba bush is lambasted for a lack of basic grammar i wince, not simply because he is our president but because our democratic system allows for the endowment of such power on such outrageously questionable individuals. i think ultimately i find this so strange because our president should presumably represent the best our civil society has to offer - his or her acumen should not even be in question on this level, one would think. that i can think of literally dozens individuals in my personal life who seem more intelligent that our current president seems ludicrous. likewise, in our most recent election, when voters complained that neither kerry nor bush represented a desireable candidate, i thought it absurd that of all our nation's people the two chosen to compete for the presidency could be so lackluster. ideally shouldn't voters be choosing between two or more amazingly brilliant candidates? the better of two goods and not the lesser of two evils? i suppose that the fact of politicians' various ineptitudes is made possible by the fact that the political process does not represent an egalitarian competitive system (ie, politicians likely owe their success as much to their wealth and inherited stature as to their ability). is there any conceivable solution to this dilemma, or is the democratic process necessarily inhibited by socio-economic barriers? - ace connors