"On the surface, $1B sounds like a lot of money, and perhaps we're all being brainwashed into believing false ideology by those who can afford the ad campaigns. But is it a lot of money? I started wondering how much is spent on soft drink advertising. I suspect certainly more than $1B in a year. So what's more important, Coke, Pepsi, or a presidential election campaign?

"Based on that comparison, I believe we should be spending MUCH more. No wonder half the population doesn't vote, the election commercials are drowned out in a sea of all the other competing advertisements. Even if $1B were extreme, the money sways the result in a positive fashion.

"I suggest that the two parties should spend relatively evenly overall, and put the money in hotly contested races. It balances out. Under funded ideas may get buried in the noise, but eventually a good idea starts rising to the top and an astute politician will be the first to claim it. The money will follow.

"You know it's not the 'best' idea that succeeds. What wins is a 'good enough' idea with a hell of a marketing campaign. If we spent MORE money on marketing the ideas for the future of our democracy, maybe people would spend as much time picking their next president as they do picking out a soft drink!

"Although $1B is really not much, most of it is spent bashing the other guy instead of positively pushing your own message, which is a real shame. Although it seems kind of ridiculous to be having debates so far out from the election, it is interesting to see a broad spectrum of candidates in a little more detail, before the 'powers that be' make up their mind over who is going to get the nominations. But still we'll be getting 45 second sound bites instead of 30."

Bernard Quinn [bernardquinn_1@hotmail.com] has these comments about our discussion on female leadership:

"In a true democracy, I don't think the sex of the incumbent makes the slightest difference; they're either good, bad or about equal as far as leadership is concerned.

"Playing 'Devil's Advocate' for a moment, there's a saying that 'behind every successful man there's a good woman'. So, whilst I have no problem with the concept of women running countries (I thought Maggie Thatcher was great and I've been married for 30 years!), let's not forget to look at the man behind her as well. Some of those have not been too impressive and can impact her performance or reputation.

"As regards fighting, let's also not forget that some of the famous women in history have not hesitated to take up arms in defense of what they believe/want to believe is right - Joan of Arc, Boudicca, Maggie Thatcher, Elizabeth I, Catherine the Great, etc."

Harry Ebbeson [hlestringman@hotmail.com] discusses Al Gore and his recent book, "Assault on Reason":

"I followed your link and read the excerpt from Al Gore's book. It was interesting especially in the fact that he admitted to using the same media methods he was criticizing.

"The question I have is this? Why now? If he felt this way before, why did he not make it a lynch pin of his earlier candidacy? Instead he used the same media methods, did not win (qualify that how one wishes) and writes that we are all wrong. What methods would he use if he decided to run again - the same ones I'd bet.

"Politicians of all parties, tend to dismiss the 'vox-populi' as a necessary evil to be manipulated for their own needs - regardless of the party, Democrat, Republican, etc.

"I personally think the British have one thing right in their election process (other countries too)- a 6 week time for campaigning and limited advertising. Make that a really level field. But the people that would have to vote such a reform are the very ones who would 'suffer' by it. Which means it won't happen.

"I would give Mr. Gore more credence if he stays out of running for office and brings these issues to light. His vested interests are less in this case, allowing for a more reasoned approach. Start to run and it all become disingenuous and self serving rhetoric."