>It's sad that you'll have to vote on the less disagreeable of just 2 men to decide the world's fate for the next 4 years. No-one seems to like either of them. At least with Carter, Reagan, Clinton and, of course, JFK, you had some quite affable guys (or they would be in normal life).
>

Carter is a confused person, he doesn't know what he wants from one minute to the next. He is probably the nicest guy we ever had as president, but that didn't get the job done. When Ronald Reagan took over, the whole country felt bad, he lifted us up with his always positive outlook. Clinton, hmm where is my wife, oh there she is and he's not around. Ok, now I can talk about him. . . .

>You know, watching the debates, from a British viewpoint, it all seemed very ill-mannered (not to mention the acrimony of the whole election). They kept referring to each other as "He" and "Him". In the British parliament MPs never even refer to each other by name. It's always "My honourable" friend or "My right honourable friend" (if a minister or scretary or something, I think), or "the member for *constituency name*".
>

I guess that's a cultural thing. I remember the first time I saw your parliment where they would yell, whistle, etc while someone was speaking. I thought, how rude, they are trying to drown the speaker out. Here we allow the speaker to make their point, then we give our counterpoint. In your parliment you also have to read the body language and catch the voice inflection when they are saying "my honourable . . . ", don't you? I'm not being critical of that process, it has served England well for a long time. I just thought it was different, at first, then as I watched more, it became entertaining!<g>