George Bush, and as polls show, a significant portion of America's voters, openly doubt that Kerry has the consistency to lead America through the long War on Terrorism and the incomprehensible quagmire of Iraq. Polls also show that some of those potential voters have recently changed their minds about Kerry's inconsistency.

Once again Bush is shooting straight--at the wrong target. The polls demonstrate that the American Public is even shiftier and less consistent on the important issues than Kerry. American Opinion loved Iraq when it was all rolling columns of armor, toppling statues, and bunkers and schools erupting in incandescent explosions, but as soon as bringing peace, democracy, and Wal-Mart to Iraq encountered a little reality check, Public Opinion turned tail and ran--leaving the steadfast Bush to fight it out with reality alone. Bush is 100 percent committed to lead, straight to the bottom of the sea if need be, and he is asking why Kerry, and everybody else, were happy to play "let's pretend" when it was all fun and dress up, and now don't want to pretend anymore--just when pretending is more important than ever.

This swerving and sudden lane changing of Public Opinion might seem, on its face, like the harmless political rumination of a decadent and disinterested populace, but in the context of the "War on Terror" and the Bush Administration's threats that any sort of public questioning or wishy-washyism sends the "wrong signal" to the terrorists, it is potentially dangerous. What kind of signals are the terrorists getting from America's vacillation and half-hearted calls for "change" and "staying the course"? The shocking answer is--we don't know, because nobody is taking opinion polls among the terrorists. Without either reliable intelligence or opinion polls it's no wonder the Warriors on Terror have turned to torturing people who don't have any information to give them. What else are they supposed to do? Just stand around doing nothing and let the terrorists win? Maybe Cheney is right, maybe the terrorists really do prefer Kerry, or maybe they are using the debates to make up their minds.

While we don't know what the terrorists think, polls say that many undecided voters are holding out for, as they say, "something more" from Kerry. In American politics, "something more," is the polite way of saying "a vision." Unfortunately for latecomers, "something more" got nixed during the primaries in favor of "anybody but." The voters demanded "Anybody but Bush," and the Democrats complied with enthusiasm, presenting Kerry as the "most electable," anybody but available. Trust them, they're experts.

Kerry has so far wisely and firmly rejected calls to present a vision or even the undue appearance of a vision. At this point he would only frighten the media were he to suddenly come out with some outlandish goal like, "Peace in Our Time," or even, "Getting Corporate Corruption out of Politics." Howard Dean terrified the media simply by raising his voice, and Kerry is taller and several pounds heavier than Dean and so should probably continue to move slowly and lethargically whenever close to a TV camera.

Not all the candidates can afford to rest on their vagueness. Ralph Nader, for example, needs a boost. Given that a certain cynical realism is necessary in these dangerous times, Nader could probably improve his standing considerably if he made a statement conceding that, "sometimes it's OK and even necessary to bomb innocent people to further criminal and idiotic policy goals," or "a certain level of corrupt corporate influence in our government is normal and probably necessary for our continued prosperity," or maybe, "In the greater scheme of things, such as the threat from Al-Qaeda, a little air pollution isn't that big of a deal. And if I found it necessary to sacrifice a pristine watershed, or even a species of plover or grebe, to defeat terrorism I wouldn't lose any sleep over the decision." Nader still wouldn't win the election, but he could at least close the credibility gap and might finally get invited to the debates.

Those looking for a true alternative to the two-party (plus Nader's boorish efforts) lock on American electoral politics need go no further than the Green Party, as .005 percent of likely voters have already discovered.

Running a "safe states" strategy designed to keep the Greens safe from charges they helped Bush win the election again, the Green Candidate David Cobb says that "party building" is more important to his campaign than getting votes. Recognizing that Bush is a "clear and present danger" and not simply the "gathering threat" that the Naderite Zombies would have voters believe, Cobb doesn't want to challenge Kerry for votes in any state where Bush, or the Supreme Court, might benefit.

Cobb has been freed to run a vote-free party building campaign through an innovative process known to political scientists as "Instant Runoff Visualization," whereby "a vote for Kerry is a vote for Cobb." Through this process, also known as the "Cobb Effect," when voters in battleground states cast a ballot for Kerry but declare in their hearts that they are really voting for Cobb, those votes are transformed into party-building support for the Greens. The potential electoral boost could make the party a formidable, if imaginary, political force overnight. Green backers warn, however, that voting for Kerry while visualizing Nader will not build anything but Nader's ego, and just helps Bush in the end.