If by "the candidates" you're referring to Clinton and Obama, the answer to your question is "never." The unspoken reality here, which everybody knows but no one dares mention, is that the Republicans, the corporations and the DLC are praying that Clinton wins the nomination. Their second choice--Obama. Should either lose the election in November (legitimately or otherwise), it could then be explained away by the MSM--Hillary was too "divisive." Obama lost because Americans are still racist. And if one of them wins? No problem! It will be, as they say, Business as Usual! The Iraq War will drag on for years. Forget about universal healthcare. Or an equitable tax system. Or any meaningful action to combat global warming.

Neither Clinton nor Obama possesses the integrity or independence to speak frankly about (let alone do) what it would take to rescue our nation. This also explains how John Edwards, who finally found his voice and began exposing the stranglehold that corporations have on our political system, was suddenly declared no longer "viable" as a candidate. And, of course, it explains why Dennis Kucinich--the only candidate who's been right on every issue from the beginning, the only candidate with the courage to not only talk the talk but to actually walk the walk--has been marginalized, mocked and ignored. The fix is in, folks. If the Democrats nominate Clinton or Obama, then the Republicans will have won.

Ken Tucker

Tucson, AZ

Thank you for a well thought-out editorial about the condition this country is in. The Nevada primary is now over and Edwards received just 4 percent. I fear the message from the progressive left is all but a dead letter, save some primary challenges as in Maryland.

Looking back, I feel the most important reform needed now is Publicly Financed Elections. All else springs from the ability of progressive candidates to get the party's' nomination and then get elected. The special interests' ownership of media, the vast financial resources and influence of the parties can only be mitigated with public financing done in a major way. Anything less only perpetuates this corrupt political system.

Michael McKinlay

Hercules, CA

The war and the economy are important and we do want to hear what the candidates propose, but equally important is climate change. Climate change has the very real potential to have a tremendous impact on economies all around the world, and to provide an excuse for governments to resort to armed conflict as a way to boost their economies in the short run. This will, of course, only benefit the already very wealthy and serve to move more and more people all around the world into poverty. What is not clear is if any of the candidates have the nerve to actually lead and take the US (and by extension the world) into a new era in which oil, security and weapons are not the prime ingredientss of the economy.

Mark Hazell

Duncan, BC, Canada

All very noble, I know, and I agree. But the candidates are not totally the agents here. In New Hampshire, the pollsters took the blame that belonged to the press, which had been more interested in spreading the perception that Hillary had been the obvious winner but that after Iowa voted, her campaign was "toast." They went with their narrative, even when actual reporting would have made them more cautious. Then the day after, many pundits and assorted psychos (Hi, Chris Matthews) went from demonizing the female candidate to claiming her supporters were racist. A lot of complete guesswork appeared, from such usually neutral sources like Andy Kohut. Do they really think the only reason not to vote for Obama is racism?

The point is, the punditry failed in New Hampshire. Any experienced poll-reader would have pointed out the fact that these polls are very fluid. In 2000, none of them predicted McCain's win, either. And candidates have to swim in this water polluted by a corrupt and stupid commentariat, where any remark by any candidate can be dissected and spun, and the candidate has to answer that charge, fair or not.

But you're asking that the focus be on the candidate's positions on the issues, and not trivial matters. I agree, absolutely. That's why I'm voting, so far, for Hillary. Consistently, her positions on the issues compel me to support her, not the cosmetics. Obama will always best her rhetorically. But when you take a look at the position papers, Hello, President Hillary.

Jim Hassinger

Glendale, CA