Agreed! So far the only comments to come out of any are, "I'm better than the other person because the other person is [pick one or more) too far left, too far right, too old, too young, etc.]. They are all in sound-bite world and betting that the American voter has a very short attention span and doesn't want to be bothered with details.

Many people laughed at Ross Perot's use of flip charts and graphs to systematically describe cause-and-effect followed by engineered solutions versus emotional ones. He still was the only one who thought the American voter actually cared about the substance of an issue and had the intellectual capacity to follow a thought, and found out that population was in the minority.

American politics is almost like professional wrestling - you need a hero and a villain, lots of lights and music, an announcer who can whip up the crowd, a little blood, reactive TV coverage, and next week you do it again (always reversing who's the hero and villain). That act has worked for decades in professional wrestling, week-after-week with no change in this superhyped morality play. Since the Kennedy-Nixon campaign, it's been the norm in the Presidential election as well.

All of the candidates say they have plans, but I have yet to see one handed out. Why should they, when sound bites and accusations work well. Oh well, - - - are you ready to rumble???