This is worth pondering. I find myself straining to attain the necessary patience when political debate among fellow regular folks seems based on the assumption that one corporate figurehead is somehow a real alternative to another. One reason that it's so necessary for me to attain patience is that for a very long time I accepted that fallacy as fact myself. Until corporate money and influence can be disentangled from the political process then the only crumbs of representation left for us will be those inadvertently left by big money who determines what's to appear on the bill of fare known as the election ballot. Until that point we will just be pawns whose needs will be plied for maximum crisis value to be exploited for political purposes. The competition to be an ingredient in the oligarchical poison that is congress is real- every one of them wants a piece of the big money being used to ensure that concerns other than ours are being met. To me, the November sales pitches are a tell as to how stupid we're generally seen and sadly, election after election we confirm their suspicions. The GWB administration seemed to be particularly heinous to be sure but it's doubtful to me that US policy would have been substantially different under the "leadership" of any other figurehead... whose function seems in the grand retrospect of politics to be drawing popular attention away from those who are really pulling the strings and whose positions of absolute power are not imperiled by any election ballot.